Because top prizes for top badminton players are miniscule as compared to top players receive from basketball, baseball, tennis, golf, racing driver, jockeys, etc, I believe the current crop of top badminton players do not reflect the best possible athletes available. Maybe this is why badminton is dominated by asian because the money and fame are relatively high over there as compared to their national standard of living. In the western societies, top athletes don't even have badminton in their career plan. If badminton in north america and some european countries can one day achieve the profile as basketball, golf, etc, i think badminton will be even more spectacular sport. Imagine, a badminton player with the power, height and jumping ability as micheal jordan. I think the current shuttle speed record of 305 km/hr can be easily broken too.

Cooler, I agree with almost everything you're saying, except the implication that a faster, more powerful game (in terms of the speed of the shots - faster moving players of course could make even more amazing shots and rallies would be even longer) would promote the sport.

We all agree that increased television coverage is perhaps the most important key to making badminton more popular and successful. Many others in past posts have indicated that badminton does not present well on tv because of several issues - lighting, camera angle and perspective, and excessive speed of shots. Now I have only seen 30 seconds of top-level badminton since taking up the sport again in January 2000, plus probably half an hour of memories of badminton on tv when I lived in England in 1981-83, but I also thought that a few of the smashes and drives were hard to follow, especially on a poorer quality tv or one with less than perfect reception.

My solution to improving the viewability of badminton on TV would be to make the shuttle a bit larger and change its color, perhaps to optic yellow. This would make the shuttle easier to see for both tv and live viewers, and slow the shuttle down a bit, which would have two effects: it would make the shuttle easier to see, plus it would slow down shots and make smash returns a bit easier, thereby placing more emphasis on making control shots, which tend to make the match more exciting than a repetition of short clear-smash-end of point rallies.

There is certainly precedent in sports for making these changes. A year or two ago, Wimbledon finally switched from white to optic yellow balls for a greater contrast and easier visibility. The USGA and the PGA have, for many years, placed distance restrictions on golf balls to keep the game from getting overpowered by long hitters (currently there is much discussion that these limits are presently not sufficient, though) and the way this has been accomplished is to impose a minimum size restriction of 1.68 in. (smaller diameter = faster, longer shots), as well as a maximum weight (same reason). NFL footballs are larger and slower than college footballs, also.

What do you and others think of this idea to change the shuttle? Obviously you guys have a lot more experience viewing internationally competitive games than I have, so I would like to hear your thoughts.

Finally, imagine if someone with superb, uncanny concentration and accuracy such as Tiger Woods had been trained in badminton since age three. Cooler, as fellow golfers we know how hard it can be just to hit the green consistently, let alone be able to hit shots closer than 3m to the pin - Tiger's ability to nail shots so close to the hole indicates the kind of control that, in badminton, would make him unstoppable. He could probably hit a 10mm square anywhere on the court 95% of the time if he had devoted his life to badminton instead of golf.

I'm okay w/changing the colour of the shuttle .. but not its size .. thats dumb

.. and as far as people making changes to the sport for the sake of tv audiences i say.. if you don't like it, don't watch it .

as far as not being able to see the shuttle, i can see it just fine. And i dont really watch badminton to watch teh shuttle i watch it to see how the players play the game ..


in hockey coverage on espn and other American tv channels they made a glowwing red trail after the puck so you could see it better.... it was the stupidest thing i've ever seen .. everyone in Canada laughed at it. It lasted about 2 seasons untill the guys down there realized (i'm guessing) how stupid it actually is.

i hope they never have the idea to do this in Badminton

i have used shuttle speed as one sample feat than can be exceeded by a more capable athlete. As single game is not able smashing, even higher caliber athletes (if we havent seen them yet) can make the single game even more amazing to watch. They would jump higher, run faster, stretch farther, basically better in all physical feats the badminton can demand.

on tiger wood, did u see his new commerical where he use one iron to hit the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor windows on demand.

i think there would be lots of resistance to changing the shuttle size. Look at the outcry from the 5x7 scoring system. I can live with changing the color of the shuttle. As a novelty, i think a fluorescent shuttle would nice. Imagine playing in a totally dark court with a glowing shuttle. It would make playing/practicing badminton more difficult, which suits me fine.

Yes, I saw that commercial. Wow. Compared to Tiger, I have to wonder how I can even keep the ball on the tee without it falling off. :)

Judging from the scoring system outcry and the resistance in golf to the slower ball idea, I'm sure that a lot of badminton players out there would opposed to the size change. However, I think that everyone has to admit that outside of Asia and a few European countries, what the IBF and badminton players in general have been doing to promote the sport hasn't been effective in the rest of the world - there needs to be some change to the status quo if things are going to improve.

Hey cooler, there are already flouresent shuttles on the market. HiQua.com sells them. I've thought about buying them....maybe I should when I get money. Oh yeah..I've dreamt about playing badminton in a totally dark gym with a glow in the dark shuttle. I would LOVE to play like that..because there are no distractions....all you have to do is concentrate on the shuttle. How do they make glow in the dark stuff anyways?

A few of my fellow varsity badminton players demonstrated how to play badminton in our PE class. One of the things I've noticed is that when my friend smashes at me and I couldn't return it, they were like "ooohhh...damn that was fast..". They were pretty amazed...it totally changed their perpective of badminton...but there are some that still talk @!#$ about the sport and it gave me a good opportunity to smash at them..especially them basketball players..hey..I have respect for basketball..but if they don't have it for badminton, I'll just have to smash at them...one basketball player came up to me and said to calm down at the smashes...I told him that he talked @!#$..and no he'll have to face the reality of REAL BADMINTON. I like it..

some of it is radioactive, the first paints were anyway.

i only partially agree with you, i argue that, in terms of natural talents, there are as many talented players in China or Indonesia (world's #1 and #4 most populated countries) than in the USA. it is true that the body structure of Caucasians are different than SE Asian, i do think that merely being big and strong isn't neccessarily an advantage. many sports popular in the US, such as hockey/bball/A.football, body size is one of the most important factor, if you are taller and bigger, you have a natural advantage, coz physical bumping and pushing is a fundamental to those sports.

in badminton, on the other hand, the racket skill is more of a dominant factor than mere size. as an example, the current top men's double players from INA aren't very tall, i believe Sigit/Candra are both around 5'9", when they come face to face with the larger Danish and Swedish players, their skills and agility give them an advantage.

one example that i can think of is to compare say, Ricky/Rexy vs. Axlesson and Jonson (from Sweden, and apologies to Mag), R/R smaller but their skills are much better than A/J, even though A/J are both towering at 6'3"+ with very sharp smashes. it is noticable that A/J has poorer control skills.

what i think is much more important to make badminton better is more development at the grassroot level, train the kids so they have the proper skills, and then filter out the most talented ones.

however, none of these would happen if the coaches are not good. there are only a handful of really good coaches here in the US, and i am sure in China and Indonesia, there are many many more.

Brett, i agree with changing the color of the shuttle, but definitely not the size/speed.

changing the color of the shuttle should be quite simple, as the feathers are bleached to white anyway, they can mix in any color they want.

changing the size/speed is definitely not good. the current standard speed is very delicately choosen, in which a comfortable strength is needed to hit the shuttle from baseline to baseline, and this is a very important metric. even club players like us can detect very minute speed different of around 6" of travel. it will be worse for pros.

and also, much of the attraction with watching badminton is not just the speed, but mostly the skills and control. when you get to find some of the pro videos, take the top China women's doubles pairs, and analyse a few of the rallies, and i bet you, even the most simple shots are not that "simple".

and unfortunately, this is the part that will be very difficult to teach people to understand. and that may be why badminton may not become a very successful spectator sport.

and IMHO, IBF is tackling the problem from the wrong angle. they are avoiding the difficult solution, which is to teach the public about the sport. instead, they chose to change the sport itself. as a result, i think it will make the sport less attractive to the fans, but will not make it any more popular to others. the only people they may please may be the network executives. who are pretty much useless anyway.

for plastic shuttles, that can be easily done. They just have to add some of those glowing 'phospate based stuff' in with the plastic resin. I remember i used to have keychain that glows in the dark, and those old clock with glowing digits. First you have to shine some light on to it to energize the glowing pigments.
Playing in the dark would be a great training exercise.

thanks for your comment. My original intent wasnt hoping to see more bigger and taller players into badminton. I was just hoping that with bigger monetary reward, more people from the grassroot level would enter the sport of badminton and therefore would lead to getting better and dedicated athlete from countries like north and south america. I'm sure we are close to seeing the best of SE asian players but i dont think we are close to seeing the best of capability from americas and part of european.

I also think extreme tall players don't have an edge in doubles. In doubles, it is more on power and reaction speed than reach (yes, i agreed that taller player can have steeper smashes). Shorter players like candra, R&R can take advantage on drives shot and faster reaction. If one keep the shuttle low, (drives, net shots) it would take away the advantages of smashes from tall players (well, that's how i play double anyway). On drive shots, less taller players can hit shuttle like mini smashes and down angle, where as for taller players, the drive shots would come to their heart/abdomen level where they have to crouch or hit underhand drives which are not aggressive as a overhand drives that shorter players can easily do.

hope u understand my above logics.

cooler. yes, i do understand what you mean.

i guess this is raising a really interesting point, and that is, for badminton, there is no much advantage for being a certain physical build, it is all in the skills and in the mind. a "fair" game in that respect.

gosh, i love this sport.

I agree. Taller players usually are slower than shorter ones.
Maybe they can hit smashes better, since they don't need to do jump smash, etc.
But badminton is a sport that requires speed of movement of every part of body.
Not to mention power also.
And lastly, but most importantly, TACTICS !!!!!!!!!!! (brain)

Change shuttle colour? No problem.
Change shuttle speed? Big problem with feather shuttles. Maybe not so with plastic shuttles. Unlike football, tennis, table tennis, the projectile is not a sphere and the flight characteristics will change markedly, so much so, that professional players training would change.

Radioactive shuttles? WOW!! I like it ..we can train with lead suits on :0)

that is one aspect of the game that is rarely discussed, brains
Not to discriminates here but my observation of badminton players that i play with are that they r all reasonably smart people, i mean high marks students and guys with professional jobs and successful businessmen. The better the school marks, the better and faster they learn badminton. Hey, dont bash me, it's just my visual observation.

Tall danish players can beat R&R or candra & pals but they have to identify indonesian weakness and exploit them. Playing double with same tactics as indonesian wont do taller danish players any good.

It's like a chess game, which would you have? two bishops or two knights. It really come down to when and where to use the right tactics against its opponents.

hmmm.
one physical attribute or asset of the following sports is extremely helpful in:

football ---> thick neck, small pointy head
basketball ---> height
hockey ---> good fists and strong teeths
archery, target shooting ---> calm nerves
Equestrian, horse racing ---> a good horse
boxing ---> a thick skull (how else stallone can survive rocky I, II and III)
auto racing ---> a good deep pocketed sponsor
tennis ---> a wick serve (50% of the game)
soccer ---> a pair of good legs

Well, that covers about 90% of ESPN sports. To me, the above sports are one dimensional, basically watching one particular talent on display.

Can anyone here name one specific physical skill or asset that could help dominate the game of badminton?

Eudurance. You can be the best player ever..but if you have NO endurance..you won't last to BE the best player.

endurance wouldn't last long if the footwork is not efficient.
If you know about muscle composition, endurance players are not powerful.
If i know u r a endurance player, i will chance my tactics and exploit your other obvious weakness

I noticed that Carlton has introduced AG10 Hi-Vis feather shuttles, in optical yellow... maybe they're gearing up for new IBF demands? (Why else would they make a yellow variant of their top-grade shuttles?)

Hey Kwun, no offense taken, although I think the comparison is invalid. Axelsson/Jonsson, althogh being a good pair, were never in the same class as Ricky/Rexy. I doubt that had much to do with differences in physical build.

How abt players of the same class but with different physical build? Say, Kim Dong Moon-Ha Tae Kwon vs Candra Wijaya-Sigit Budiarto?