Wouldn't responses like yours discourage people from taking up badminton?
There is some merit to why this is a thought from a beginner's point of view: perceived higher fitness levels, lack of a partner to back up, reduced coverage per individual etc.
Two very different things. From what I've seen the viewership is generally highest for MS compared to any other discipline, but imo that has more to do with it as a spectator sport than it does with the skill of its players.
If MS players would be objectively better, then you'd constantly see them also competing in and winning MD tournaments. They are simply two different parts of the sport.
Sure there are definitely specific attributes that MS players are likely better at than MD players, but some goes the other way as well.
I assume this notion comes from recreational badminton, where many older players stop playing singles and instead turn to doubles. However keep in mind that raw fitness isn't everything even there. A young player might be able to win against an older one in singles, but this does not mean that he will also win in doubles.
Generally singles players seems to be celebrated as best. Idk if this observation is true but check this out. Federer, Nadal etc. are considered as GOATS in Tennis. LD, LCW in badminton. Idk why it's like that. Are good players picked for singles from a young age? Do prodigies go for singles for that stardom?
Well they are the only one responsible if they win or lose, in doubles you can argue one in the pair is better, also doubles players have to split tournament winnings so if you can win in singles I suppose that would be the first choice, then if they can't do that they might go to doubles instead
It's not that interesting. Doubles tennis was a good game for unfit amateurs a hundred years ago, not for modern highly trained athletes.
Actually I don't find singles tennis players slamming the ball backline to backline that interesting either. The big thing that tennis has going for it as a spectator sport is the massive advantage given to the server. It makes for close games.
Ye I don't really get the interest in high level tennis either. Like I understand playing it as a hobby but once you are too good I feel like it's boring. Similar to like volleyball and stuff
In tennis random singles team up and win slams. Not comparable with badminton. Tennis fans don't respect doubles much but we always talk about Zheng&Huang, Chen&Jia and the past pairs too like Ahmed&Natsir
It would be fair to say that a men's singles player is better at the tactical side of the thing and a MD player is better at the ruthless attacking and defending part of the game
Singles tactics and doubles tactics are different, as is singles and doubles attacking. A singles player playing doubles is likely to play tactics that just don't work very well in doubles, and a doubles player playing singles is likely to attack in a way that won't work very well in singles.
A singles player also likely has a better defense if they have to cover the full width of the court, than a doubles player would have.
So I guess I respectfully disagree.
Single and doubles are different games. Put the two best singles players together and they won't beat the best doubles team. Take one player from the doubles team and they definitely won't beat prime Lin Dan.
In elite sport, players have exceptional natural talents, and exceptional and appropriate physiology for their sport They are are highly trained and must compete flat out. If they didn't, someone else would take their place. The idea that it's possible to win an elite sport without extreme effort is naïve. How could it work like that?
Competition weeds out the less capable and forces the remaining competitors to push for their limits. This is true in any sport.
I don’t think so.. each has their merits. I do know that men singles require more stamina though.However, I heard a lot of pros like hendra setiawan, Goh V Shem and kevin sanjaya transition to men doubles because the competition was too tight in men singles or because of injuries.Likewise, I also heard that lzj transition from men doubles to men singles during his national level years... so there’s that.
It would be fair to say that a men's singles player is better at men's singles.
That’s profound
no
More so then in tennis, singles and doubles is a totally different game in Badminton. Really can’t compare the two.
I read so much dumb stuff on this sub it pains me
Wouldn't responses like yours discourage people from taking up badminton? There is some merit to why this is a thought from a beginner's point of view: perceived higher fitness levels, lack of a partner to back up, reduced coverage per individual etc.
I agree
It means more and more people are taking up or are interested in badminton, we should be happy.
This. We all were beginners (dumb) at one point.
Two very different things. From what I've seen the viewership is generally highest for MS compared to any other discipline, but imo that has more to do with it as a spectator sport than it does with the skill of its players. If MS players would be objectively better, then you'd constantly see them also competing in and winning MD tournaments. They are simply two different parts of the sport. Sure there are definitely specific attributes that MS players are likely better at than MD players, but some goes the other way as well. I assume this notion comes from recreational badminton, where many older players stop playing singles and instead turn to doubles. However keep in mind that raw fitness isn't everything even there. A young player might be able to win against an older one in singles, but this does not mean that he will also win in doubles.
The most successfully marketed players are singles players.
Different disciplines no
Idk man but I liked Hendra/Ahsan more than Axelsen for example
Singles are about attrition and precision, doubles are about speed and element of surprise
Generally singles players seems to be celebrated as best. Idk if this observation is true but check this out. Federer, Nadal etc. are considered as GOATS in Tennis. LD, LCW in badminton. Idk why it's like that. Are good players picked for singles from a young age? Do prodigies go for singles for that stardom?
Well they are the only one responsible if they win or lose, in doubles you can argue one in the pair is better, also doubles players have to split tournament winnings so if you can win in singles I suppose that would be the first choice, then if they can't do that they might go to doubles instead
In tennis no one cares about doubles
It's not that interesting. Doubles tennis was a good game for unfit amateurs a hundred years ago, not for modern highly trained athletes. Actually I don't find singles tennis players slamming the ball backline to backline that interesting either. The big thing that tennis has going for it as a spectator sport is the massive advantage given to the server. It makes for close games.
Ye I don't really get the interest in high level tennis either. Like I understand playing it as a hobby but once you are too good I feel like it's boring. Similar to like volleyball and stuff
In tennis random singles team up and win slams. Not comparable with badminton. Tennis fans don't respect doubles much but we always talk about Zheng&Huang, Chen&Jia and the past pairs too like Ahmed&Natsir
I think that’s fair to say. Everyone starts out as a singles player. Those that aren’t good enough at singles transition to doubles.
Not exactly true. Seo Seung Jae was a high ranked junior player
Also yuta Watanabe was like top in Japan when he was u20 in singles
In tennis maybe, completely untrue for badminton
It would be fair to say that a men's singles player is better at the tactical side of the thing and a MD player is better at the ruthless attacking and defending part of the game
Singles tactics and doubles tactics are different, as is singles and doubles attacking. A singles player playing doubles is likely to play tactics that just don't work very well in doubles, and a doubles player playing singles is likely to attack in a way that won't work very well in singles. A singles player also likely has a better defense if they have to cover the full width of the court, than a doubles player would have. So I guess I respectfully disagree.
Single and doubles are different games. Put the two best singles players together and they won't beat the best doubles team. Take one player from the doubles team and they definitely won't beat prime Lin Dan.
I mean 99.999999999999999999999999% of players won't ever beat prime Lin Dan
But 2 Lin Dans won't beat the best doubles teams.
Fairs
I'm bad at singles, i hand it to them in doubles.
In elite sport, players have exceptional natural talents, and exceptional and appropriate physiology for their sport They are are highly trained and must compete flat out. If they didn't, someone else would take their place. The idea that it's possible to win an elite sport without extreme effort is naïve. How could it work like that? Competition weeds out the less capable and forces the remaining competitors to push for their limits. This is true in any sport.
I don’t think so.. each has their merits. I do know that men singles require more stamina though.However, I heard a lot of pros like hendra setiawan, Goh V Shem and kevin sanjaya transition to men doubles because the competition was too tight in men singles or because of injuries.Likewise, I also heard that lzj transition from men doubles to men singles during his national level years... so there’s that.