7 ms·

In China, the goal is not to win gold medal for you, but for the country. The other girl has the higher win rate against the opponent at the final, so Ye was or

In China, the goal is not to win gold medal for you, but for the country. The other girl has the higher win rate against the opponent at the final, so Ye was ordered to bunt.

ausbah 4y ago
I don't think most other countries are different. most countries have national training programs just for the olympics
noobermin 4y ago
I don't get it though, if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better and can make it into the final on her own merits, no? If Gong Zhichao couldn't win a match against Ye Zhaoying, then they might not even win against Camilla Martin.
- pedrosorio 4y ago
  Rock, paper, scissors
  - oconnor663 4y ago
    That plus your chosen player doesn't get as tired. (The article mentions both reasons.)
  - noobermin 4y ago
    If it is due to chance then how is the final match not equally due to chance?
    - pedrosorio 4y ago
      Plenty of people have already explained my point. The analogy with rock-paper-scissors is not that it's "due to chance". A player being "better" than another one is not a transitive property. In many games, due to different play styles you can have A>B, B>C and C>A, just like in rock-paper-scissors.
      - noobermin 4y ago
        I didn't understand your point but now I do, because "rock-paper-scissors" as a reply isn't clear enough as a statement to communicate what you wanted, which is just an example of something that isn't transitive.
    - inopinatus 4y ago
      I believe the relevant point of comparison is not one of chance, but rather that the relationships involved are not transitive.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You're responding to someone giving a reason that isn't based on chance. Chance is a completely separate topic, but also has a simple answer. Chance doesn't mean that everyone has the same chance. If one player has 40% odds and the other has 60% odds, you want the 60% player to compete.
- danso 4y ago
  I assume badminton is a sport like tennis where skill isn’t measured along a single simple axis, e.g. some combinations of play styles and skills can be more effective against certain players and situations. The article does quote the Danish player who faced off against China in the finals: "I saw how the Chinese were playing rather strangely in many matches and for many years, so the new information doesn't shock me. Already back then we were upset. But if you ignore the deeply unethical way of doing things, China was actually acting rather wisely. I could never beat Gong Zhichao, and I much preferred playing against Ye Zhaoying. There's no doubt that the Chinese knew this, and that they had a much better chance of winning gold by getting Gong Zhichao into the final."
  - noobermin 4y ago
    If people's skills can vary so much for a given sport such that it's hard or impossible to rank players by skill, then it seems like a tournament bracket is the wrong fit for such a sport. A bracket specifically means there is "one path" to victory and it is specifically structured for producing one winner and it works based on the assumption of the underlying distribution of skill being one where it can be strictly ordered. A fairer system that would match such a distribution of skill would be something like just matches between all players (or many matches at least) and the person with the most wins would get gold, second most silver, and so on. Online video games do this already, tourneys only work in some situations, but player rankings are better for, well ranking because you don't have a situation where the mere structure of a competition causes the winner to not actually be the best player.
    - glenngillen 4y ago
      This dynamic already exists in almost every competitive sport. Certainly the ones where you go head-to-head with an opponent in a match format vs a race. Which is why most sports have a variety of formats or phases to address that. The most typical being a regulation season where there is a winner at the culmination. Sometimes those then feed into the more bracket-like format. The idea that any one of these methods is the path objectively measures the one true best player/team is a fallacy. That any particular award within the same sport is deemed more prestigious than another is largely down to marketing.
- paxys 4y ago
  Matchup favorability is a thing. A > B & B > C does not have to mean A > C.
- qart 4y ago
  A Chinese defeating a foreigner (rather than another Chinese) might make for a better spectacle back home. I'm speculating. I don't know anything about Olympics or badminton tournaments.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better Do you think the better player always wins? What's your explanation for the world series being best of 7?
- rcoveson 4y ago
  > if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better and can make it into the final on her own merits, no? No. If the only bit of information you have is a single game, then yes, you'd be right to assume the victor was the better player. But in an iterated game, you can easily get into a state where regardless of the outcome of a single game you're still pretty confident that one player is better than the other. It would take many games to tip your estimate. But you don't have many games, you just have the one coming up. What you don't want to have happen is a minor fluke, causing the worse player (estimated win chance 25%) to move on to the finals where they're more likely to lose. There could also be factors that cause the odds to not follow a simple ordering rule. It could be that player A will likely beat C, B will likely lose to C, and yet B will likely beat A, due to playstyle or something. But the former thing is more likely what's going on. A beats C is 50% odds, B beats C is 30% odds, A beats B is 70% odds, you want A or B to win and they're playing next, followed by the winner playing against C. B winning can absolutely happen, but it sucks for you if it does.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  Say person A falls in love with B. B falls in love with C, yet C loves A. When people play sports, there is always a similar sort of matchup, where different people matchup differently with each other.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  No complex sport has a one dimensional level of skill. It's always multidimensional. This means it's possible that the relationship of a person beating another person consistently is not transitive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- irjustin 4y ago
  In any head-to-head competitive sport higher win rates (wr%) do not translate to specific wins, obviously why underdog or upsets happen. Play style matching matters. Separately, in video games definitely the concept of winrate stacking/smurfing. Definitely not at the olympic level, but wr% does not necessarily mean a specific win.
- Kabie 4y ago
  They are teammates, so they know how each other plays. And Ye is a more experienced player. But she is also famous, so players from other countries studied how she plays.
- ookblah 4y ago
  it's also not cut and dry skill across every player you meet. certain play styles might be one person's kryptonite and a non-factor for others. that's how you get into situations where player A can be beat player B who beats player C yet somehow C can beat A a lot.
- yarg 4y ago
  view-source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(graph_theory)#Paradoxical_tournaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(graph_theory)#Para...
- nl 4y ago
  In the article Camilla Martin says she could beat Ye Zhaoying but couldn't beat Gong Zhichao: > But if you ignore the deeply unethical way of doing things, China was actually acting rather wisely. I could never beat Gong Zhichao, and I much preferred playing against Ye Zhaoying. There's no doubt that the Chinese knew this, and that they had a much better chance of winning gold by getting Gong Zhichao into the final.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  No, because sports are not fully deterministic. There is randomness involved. You may be strictly worse than another player but still have a 20% chance of beating them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
osigurdson 4y ago
If this is allowed, why not just forfeit the match then instead of putting on such a shameful act?

In China, the goal is not to win gold medal for you, but for the country. The other girl has the higher win rate against the opponent at the final, so Ye was ordered to bunt.

ausbah 4y ago

I don't think most other countries are different. most countries have national training programs just for the olympics

noobermin 4y ago

I don't get it though, if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better and can make it into the final on her own merits, no? If Gong Zhichao couldn't win a match against Ye Zhaoying, then they might not even win against Camilla Martin.

pedrosorio 4y ago
Rock, paper, scissors
- oconnor663 4y ago
  That plus your chosen player doesn't get as tired. (The article mentions both reasons.)
- noobermin 4y ago
  If it is due to chance then how is the final match not equally due to chance?
  - pedrosorio 4y ago
    Plenty of people have already explained my point. The analogy with rock-paper-scissors is not that it's "due to chance". A player being "better" than another one is not a transitive property. In many games, due to different play styles you can have A>B, B>C and C>A, just like in rock-paper-scissors.
    - noobermin 4y ago
      I didn't understand your point but now I do, because "rock-paper-scissors" as a reply isn't clear enough as a statement to communicate what you wanted, which is just an example of something that isn't transitive.
  - inopinatus 4y ago
    I believe the relevant point of comparison is not one of chance, but rather that the relationships involved are not transitive.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You're responding to someone giving a reason that isn't based on chance. Chance is a completely separate topic, but also has a simple answer. Chance doesn't mean that everyone has the same chance. If one player has 40% odds and the other has 60% odds, you want the 60% player to compete.
danso 4y ago
I assume badminton is a sport like tennis where skill isn’t measured along a single simple axis, e.g. some combinations of play styles and skills can be more effective against certain players and situations. The article does quote the Danish player who faced off against China in the finals: "I saw how the Chinese were playing rather strangely in many matches and for many years, so the new information doesn't shock me. Already back then we were upset. But if you ignore the deeply unethical way of doing things, China was actually acting rather wisely. I could never beat Gong Zhichao, and I much preferred playing against Ye Zhaoying. There's no doubt that the Chinese knew this, and that they had a much better chance of winning gold by getting Gong Zhichao into the final."
- noobermin 4y ago
  If people's skills can vary so much for a given sport such that it's hard or impossible to rank players by skill, then it seems like a tournament bracket is the wrong fit for such a sport. A bracket specifically means there is "one path" to victory and it is specifically structured for producing one winner and it works based on the assumption of the underlying distribution of skill being one where it can be strictly ordered. A fairer system that would match such a distribution of skill would be something like just matches between all players (or many matches at least) and the person with the most wins would get gold, second most silver, and so on. Online video games do this already, tourneys only work in some situations, but player rankings are better for, well ranking because you don't have a situation where the mere structure of a competition causes the winner to not actually be the best player.
  - glenngillen 4y ago
    This dynamic already exists in almost every competitive sport. Certainly the ones where you go head-to-head with an opponent in a match format vs a race. Which is why most sports have a variety of formats or phases to address that. The most typical being a regulation season where there is a winner at the culmination. Sometimes those then feed into the more bracket-like format. The idea that any one of these methods is the path objectively measures the one true best player/team is a fallacy. That any particular award within the same sport is deemed more prestigious than another is largely down to marketing.
paxys 4y ago
Matchup favorability is a thing. A > B & B > C does not have to mean A > C.
qart 4y ago
A Chinese defeating a foreigner (rather than another Chinese) might make for a better spectacle back home. I'm speculating. I don't know anything about Olympics or badminton tournaments.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better Do you think the better player always wins? What's your explanation for the world series being best of 7?
rcoveson 4y ago
> if Ye Zhaoying won over the other person with a higher win rate, that means she's better and can make it into the final on her own merits, no? No. If the only bit of information you have is a single game, then yes, you'd be right to assume the victor was the better player. But in an iterated game, you can easily get into a state where regardless of the outcome of a single game you're still pretty confident that one player is better than the other. It would take many games to tip your estimate. But you don't have many games, you just have the one coming up. What you don't want to have happen is a minor fluke, causing the worse player (estimated win chance 25%) to move on to the finals where they're more likely to lose. There could also be factors that cause the odds to not follow a simple ordering rule. It could be that player A will likely beat C, B will likely lose to C, and yet B will likely beat A, due to playstyle or something. But the former thing is more likely what's going on. A beats C is 50% odds, B beats C is 30% odds, A beats B is 70% odds, you want A or B to win and they're playing next, followed by the winner playing against C. B winning can absolutely happen, but it sucks for you if it does.
IncRnd 4y ago
Say person A falls in love with B. B falls in love with C, yet C loves A. When people play sports, there is always a similar sort of matchup, where different people matchup differently with each other.
rowanG077 4y ago
No complex sport has a one dimensional level of skill. It's always multidimensional. This means it's possible that the relationship of a person beating another person consistently is not transitive.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
irjustin 4y ago
In any head-to-head competitive sport higher win rates (wr%) do not translate to specific wins, obviously why underdog or upsets happen. Play style matching matters. Separately, in video games definitely the concept of winrate stacking/smurfing. Definitely not at the olympic level, but wr% does not necessarily mean a specific win.
Kabie 4y ago
They are teammates, so they know how each other plays. And Ye is a more experienced player. But she is also famous, so players from other countries studied how she plays.
ookblah 4y ago
it's also not cut and dry skill across every player you meet. certain play styles might be one person's kryptonite and a non-factor for others. that's how you get into situations where player A can be beat player B who beats player C yet somehow C can beat A a lot.
yarg 4y ago
view-source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(graph_theory)#Paradoxical_tournaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(graph_theory)#Para...
nl 4y ago
In the article Camilla Martin says she could beat Ye Zhaoying but couldn't beat Gong Zhichao: > But if you ignore the deeply unethical way of doing things, China was actually acting rather wisely. I could never beat Gong Zhichao, and I much preferred playing against Ye Zhaoying. There's no doubt that the Chinese knew this, and that they had a much better chance of winning gold by getting Gong Zhichao into the final.
School-Cotton 4y ago
No, because sports are not fully deterministic. There is randomness involved. You may be strictly worse than another player but still have a 20% chance of beating them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

osigurdson 4y ago

If this is allowed, why not just forfeit the match then instead of putting on such a shameful act?