The biggest tournament in tennis (Wimbledon) happens every year, yet is still VERY prestigious. Personally, I don't think having it every year is a bad thing. I doubt the top players actually figure on slacking off and relying on the next year to win. Maybe if the tournament was drawn out longer (over two weeks) it could be more exciting as each match would have more attention (fewer matches happening at the same time). For me, the fact that it was over before it started (it seemed like) made it seem less amazing. I didn't have time to think about the matches (who won and who lost) since the results kept on rolling in. After two days of not checking, the semis were already decided, at later that night were over. I wish some network in Canada would broad cast them! Oh well... maybe someday.
Once every two years seems to be more appropriate, otherwise it is just another tournament and lose its prestige.
But starting in 2007, they will a 'Super Series' which is all 6*. So All England, Malaysian Open and Japan Open will be 6*
For discussions on tournaments' rankings etc., if anyone's interested.. ..there's another similar thread which discusses this topic : http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36329
yeah, i agree that once every 2 or 4 years would be better. perhaps spaced in between olympic years, cause the only thing then is the commonwealth games which really doesn't count for anything.
I agree the World Championships should be one every two years.. it makes it more 'special'. and this change is unfair to older generation players. it used to be a great acheivement to win even one WC and 2+ was rare. now it becomes every year, wining more than 1 WC title like XXF would not be such an acheivement anymore... but wining the WC should be every players aim. even the title sounds more prestigous... eventhough it doesnt have prize money compared to the rest..
I think it should be every 2 years as well but they've changed it so we can do anything! it makes WC less prestigous
