People, athletes, badminton players have evolved.

We are taller, stronger, more explosive, and in general, athletic phenomena.

Much of the skill, thought and heart to the game have been eroded.

The men's singles game is characterized by short rallies, down-the-line smashes, crosscourt smashes, net drop winners and a high number of unforced errors.

Technology has also played a role with rackets becoming increasingly powerful.

In many sports, measures have been taken to accommodate the evolution of the athlete and technology. The hope is to restore a balance to the sport such that all factors involved in the outcome of the game have at least some significance and form an optimal equilibrium. Golf, for example, has lengthened its courses in recognition of the modern hitter striking the ball further.

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?

with all due respect, this has to be one of the worst ideas for badminton, ever

People, athletes, badminton players have evolved.

We are taller, stronger, more explosive, and in general, athletic phenomena.

Much of the skill, thought and heart to the game have been eroded.

The men's singles game is characterized by short rallies, down-the-line smashes, crosscourt smashes, net drop winners and a high number of unforced errors.

Technology has also played a role with rackets becoming increasingly powerful.

In many sports, measures have been taken to accommodate the evolution of the athlete and technology. The hope is to restore a balance to the sport such that all factors involved in the outcome of the game have at least some significance and form an optimal equilibrium. Golf, for example, has lengthened its courses in recognition of the modern hitter striking the ball further.

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?

1. Racket is more powerful (lighter), but both sides have it. You give me a AT700, I don't think I can use it as Taufik. I give u a AT800, I don't think u can smash like Fu Haifeng.

2. Golf lengthen it's course, but not smallern it's hole. Driving ength in golf is a fairly less important factor, when compare to game as a whole. Otherwise, golf does not need the holes, just see who drive it the furthest.

Badminton is not all about how tall u r, or how much power u have. It's a combo of strength, agility and more important strategy. Just being tall or powerful, can't produce a good player. Otherwise, why Asian dominates the badmtinon world?

I think this suggestion is not good, due to lack of scientific proof (why 4cm, not 0.5 cm, or even lower it by 4cm?)

i don't know where your statistics come from. but since when is men's singles characterized by short rallies?

the men's singles game to me is characterized by lightning court coverage and clever shuttle placement. players try to maneuver their opponent in order to force a bad quality return, and then when that comes, they perform their final "kill" to win the rally. the main part of the rally is not the kill, but the placment of the shuttle.

like ever before, it is very difficult to produce a winning smash from a good quality lift that lands near the baseline.

i dont think theyve changed anything about tennis even with all this new technology... so i dont think change is really needed, or atleast the change you suggested isn't really a great idea.

raising the net by 4cm will make it a whole lot harder than it already is for some people that arent tall, dont get me wrong though, i know people who can play very well and is short. but im speaking in general for people who play it casually

I tried to think of logical arguments but the initial argument was so illogical, I couldn't think of the right words :D :crying: LOL

Totally and wholeheartedly second this opinion:p!

with all due respect, this has to be one of the worst ideas for badminton, ever

People, athletes, badminton players have evolved.

We are taller, stronger, more explosive, and in general, athletic phenomena.

Much of the skill, thought and heart to the game have been eroded.

The men's singles game is characterized by short rallies, down-the-line smashes, crosscourt smashes, net drop winners and a high number of unforced errors.

Technology has also played a role with rackets becoming increasingly powerful.

In many sports, measures have been taken to accommodate the evolution of the athlete and technology. The hope is to restore a balance to the sport such that all factors involved in the outcome of the game have at least some significance and form an optimal equilibrium. Golf, for example, has lengthened its courses in recognition of the modern hitter striking the ball further.

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?

bad bad idea. yes, racket and player are better and more powerful these days but do u know ANY badminton players select a lower speed shuttle than his usual game because he gained extra strength, better string and racket? The shuttle more or less would land the same distance whether u use cab 8 (over 20 years old racket) or ns8000. That is what so good about badminton, the game pace and tactic remain intact in all these years since it was founded.

The nets are fine as they are, I don't see how increasing the height would "modernize" badminton. Not everyone is tall you know... some people who play badminton are relatively short and raising the height of the net would make it more difficult for them.


But making the height of the net as high as a volleyball net would be pretty funny.

If players are 'modernizing' and becoming more 'powerful' and 'athletic'.. shouldn't we be lowering the net to pick up the pace of the game? :confused:

I'd rather see a rally end in a down the line smash than a smash into the net.


Kwun's right, singles is all about setting up the one killer smash. Players now are so good at defense that you can never really overpower someone without forcing him out of position first.

Instead of net height. I would rather have the shuttle faster or even have the court extend to few cms. Basically it is not a good idea to have the net go higher.

Instead of net height. I would rather have the shuttle faster or even have the court extend to few cms. Basically it is not a good idea to have the net go higher.Fast shuttles are no fun, but it does test your reflexes. I had a shuttle that was deformed and it was realy slow, now that was a challenge. To play with a slow birdie, you have to use so much more power. Maybe the birdies need to be slower. :p

crikey, talk about backlash.

with all due respect, this has to be one of the worst ideas for badminton, ever
worse than the IBF ideas?

i dont think theyve changed anything about tennis even with all this new technology...
I think they did something to the balls to try to limit the dominance of the serve. Made them heavier and lower pressure or something

And golf put limits on golf ball technology to reduce distance.

Formula 1 puts limits on cars to slow them down

Javelin and Discus were made heavier or less aerodynamic to reduce distance thrown.

To play with a slow birdie, you have to use so much more power. Maybe the birdies need to be slower.
So the pros just string their racquets at a lower tension to get more power.



The game has got faster over the years.
If the game needed to be slowed down, I think this idea would go some way to achieving that without all the disruption that other proposed changes might have.

I don't think the game needs to be slowed down though.
WD might never end :p

With due respect, not the height of the net, but revive the old age debate on the scoring system. In table tennis, they changed the scoring system from 21 to 11. In volleyball, the non-serving team can now score and changed the scoring system from 15 to 25. In our place, most tournaments here adopt a single game race to 21 scoring system, due to time constraints. A single game race to 21 scoring system will give the organizers and players a definiate playing time. Under the regular rules (e.g. 1 to 15, best of 3), the schedule will be disrupted if there is a deciding set and the players are evely matched. Sometimes, it takes ages for the score to move. Personally, I find single's play very slow and overdrawn. :o

Come to think of it, they should increase the tennis net height since it is so much lower than that of badminton.

But, on the other hand, despite tennis' lower net, even regular pro players can double-fault on service? And there are so many times that badminton players hit into the net as well and even at the net, they just couldn't get the bird to cross over!

Oh no, badminton can be so delicate and so precise! Increase the net height??? What will become of it??? :crying:

Your logic is interesting but there is no need whatsoever for a changes.

Professional badminton players have spent their entire life practising strokes and skills.And giving them a new net height will be like asking them to play a different game[coz at the highest level players are very very accurate].

But why do u say 4cms..how come the exact figure?

Professional badminton players have spent their entire life practising strokes and skills.And giving them a new net height will be like asking them to play a different game[coz at the highest level players are very very accurate].
And during their entire life (from junior to adult) they have grown taller, got heavier or lighter, faster or slower, used heavy racquets, used light racquets...etc

but they adapted to all these different conditions.
I think they could easily get used to a higher net.

why you so funny?

IBF's considering shortening the game of badminton and here you are, suggesting an increment in height of net, resulting in longer rallies and boredom! AHH. fan xing fan xing yi xia bah.

I think no reason or basis to raise the net 4 cm.

Badminton is like a chess game. You you setup shots to win the point. When did you see a racquet sport change the demision and objection of the sport. Player adopt to any change of the game. Yes, new tech. makes game faster and more challenging, but you should use it to your advantage, not cry about it. Since height is an issue, are you going to put in a rule whcih restrict player to max height of 200cm? What is done is done look forward to your next practice, not the game yesterday.

A lot of tennis pro legends suggest requiring the pro's to use wooden rackets to slow down the game. Maybe the badminton pro's can be required to use wooden racquets also. But probably Yonex will definitely object to it.

A lot of tennis pro legends suggest requiring the pro's to use wooden rackets to slow down the game. Maybe the badminton pro's can be required to use wooden racquets also. But probably Yonex will definitely object to it.
again, why? Is badminton rallies getting shorter like in tennis? are players hitting shuttles out alot? Are pros missing more on their smash return? Please don't do what the monkey do.

A big difference is that badminton is not tennis nor golf, duhhh.

batter is hitting harder and farther, have baseball change their bat or ball?
volleyball spikes are harder and faster now, has the ball changed?

I second what cooler says. Basketball player gets taller, they did not raise the height of basket. (they did consider that before) Valley ball player getting better at spiking the ball, the net did not get higher. Did you see how fast the table tennis can be? They still do not restrict the paddle tech. As long as both side are on even playing filed, there is no need to change the rule. If you feel you are too good for your oppenent, why not just spot him/her a few points. Increase the net height is not an improvement and don't fix the net unless it has a big hole in it.

by increasing the height of the net, you restrict the downward angles for people who aren't as tall as jens Eriksen, so less killer smash oppurtunities so probably lengthening the game?
:confused:
:(
:mad:
:rolleyes:
:o
;)
:eek:
:D
:p

and VOLIA.....you have modernised badminton :rolleyes:, exactly what they have done in tennis and golf, and thus we are "keeping pace" with other "modern" sports....

hey...were are you going??!


....stop following that herd of sheep....:p

Much of the skill, thought and heart to the game have been eroded.


I have to say I like to think that I am applying skill, thought and heart when I play, i don't know about you....and I would say that its these 3 attributes that have gotten most of the professionals players to where they are. How are they being eroded?

People are getting better fitness training, I believe this is one of the reasons that there is more pace in the modern game than before, yet they use the pace with equal servings of skill as before in my opinion.

I would say LS King and Peter Gade both put skill, thought and heart into their play on court.

A lot of tennis pro legends suggest requiring the pro's to use wooden rackets to slow down the game. Maybe the badminton pro's can be required to use wooden racquets also. But probably Yonex will definitely object to it.

i think the old tennis pros are just jealous of today's tennis athletes which more focus, more fit, just more better in every way.

Why would yonex object making wood racket? If it sell, they will make it.

i think it's a terrible idea!
why all the changes, heard that the counting would change to 21 also :confused:
i think the badminton rules are great how they are now

I would like to disagree with the argument for increasing the net height. If slowing down the game or reduce killer smash is what you are asking, you can just use slower shuttle during the game. By raising the net height, you are not going to see the drop shot as beautiful as before. It will change the game from placement to brute force. It also will give advantage to the taller player. Yes, it will give taller Western player advantage. But is this what you want? Also, tennis did not and does not raise net height to "modernize" the game.

I hope quisitor can take some critical comments....

The players are fitter. The equipment is better. Everything is more strenuous and rallys go much faster. This is what badminton has become. Isn't that sad?

No.

Everything changes for the sake of changing. Everywhere. All the time. We never need to, and things often change for the worse.

Leave things as they are and focus on enjoying the game instead of calculating the precise advantage one has over the defending side when he smashes from point X at Y height when the net is as high as it is.

Relax, play, and have fun.

How does raising the height "modernize" the sport?

I think faster birds and larger courts would modernizing the sport more than the height of the net. Unless there is a reason to it...

However I don't think using slow birds will "modernize" it... Since "modernizing" doesn't mean to make the sport harder right??:p

Actually that's one of the reasons why feather shuttlers seldom switch back to nylon birdies unless they really have no choice. A nylon shuttle deforms after a few rallies and actually increase speed, so basically turning the whole game into a power game match... which is kinda boring cuz smash is close to impossible to return.

If you play with a pro using a nylon shuttle, you won't even see the birdie when he smash:p. Feathers slows down and actually allows more opportunity for plays and lengthen the rallies. You would know that a player is truly good when you can't even see a feather shuttle smash coming from him;).

If that's modernizing, I don't want to have anything to do with it. Too much speed will take out the fun in the game. Ideally you want the game to be about the players, not the shuttle.

I think faster birds and larger courts would modernizing the sport more than the height of the net. Unless there is a reason to it...

However I don't think using slow birds will "modernize" it... Since "modernizing" doesn't mean to make the sport harder right??:p

I think faster birds and larger courts would modernizing the sport more than the height of the net. Unless there is a reason to it...

However I don't think using slow birds will "modernize" it... Since "modernizing" doesn't mean to make the sport harder right??:p

the speed of the shuttle cannot be changed for the simple reason that the speed of the shuttle and the court size are tailored for each other. when a intermediate player or a professional do a clear, the length of the clear somehow just end up around the length of the court. if you make it faster, then all pros will hit it out all the time. if you make it slower, then no intermediate players can clear properly.

i would also want to know what "modernize" means in the context of badminton. how would one define it?

I think faster birds and larger courts would modernizing the sport more than the height of the net. Unless there is a reason to it...

However I don't think using slow birds will "modernize" it... Since "modernizing" doesn't mean to make the sport harder right??:p

then u should try this 'modern' game instead :rolleyes:

http://www.properformancestore.com/speedminton/About.asp

then u should try this 'modern' game instead :rolleyes:

http://www.properformancestore.com/speedminton/About.asp

Hi Cooler,

Would Maria Sharapova play a game of speedminton with me? I dream of that every night...:cool:

Oh jeeze... speedminton... apparently you can hit the 'bird / projectile' at 190 MPH... i think im going to puke. It almost seems like badminton without nets using squash rackets.

People, athletes, badminton players have evolved.

We are taller, stronger, more explosive, and in general, athletic phenomena.

Much of the skill, thought and heart to the game have been eroded.

The men's singles game is characterized by short rallies, down-the-line smashes, crosscourt smashes, net drop winners and a high number of unforced errors.

Technology has also played a role with rackets becoming increasingly powerful.

In many sports, measures have been taken to accommodate the evolution of the athlete and technology. The hope is to restore a balance to the sport such that all factors involved in the outcome of the game have at least some significance and form an optimal equilibrium. Golf, for example, has lengthened its courses in recognition of the modern hitter striking the ball further.

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?


How about basketball, volleyball, etc... don't see the point..

Hi Cooler,

Would Maria Sharapova play a game of speedminton with me? I dream of that every night...:cool:

Yes she would, in your dreams :p :D

Yes she would, in your dreams :p :D

Guys.. anything that you want can happen in your dreams! Note: ANYTHING.. ANY-THING!!! ;)

...I think it's one of those 'sham' post designed to invoke strong emotions from the community. Given all the responses, I don't see the original poster, Quisitor, responding and/or clarifying his position.

:p

...I think it's one of those 'sham' post designed to invoke strong emotions from the community. Given all the responses, I don't see the original poster, Quisitor, responding and/or clarifying his position.

:p

hindsight is 20/20 ;)

I applaud guys like Quisitor who's willing to stick it out and post his thoughts, no matter how controversial they may be. It'll be better if he could reinforce his argument more rationally. I do suspect that he get this idea after a particularly punishing game and wanted to vent some frustration:p. Goodness knows we all have days like these:)!

Oh jeeze... speedminton... apparently you can hit the 'bird / projectile' at 190 MPH... i think im going to puke. It almost seems like badminton without nets using squash rackets.
yeah....it looks kinda pathetic if you ask me. it's pretty much tennis without the net and bounce cause it appears that all you can do is basically lob it back and forth. what really p!$$e$ me of is how they claim that it's a "new kind of high-octane badminton" like...they think so low of badminton already, but they expect to get somewhere with that...:confused:

with all due respect, this has to be one of the worst ideas for badminton, ever

i agree .. its dumb, really dumb

its already hard for kids to enjoy this game because they can only hit the shuttle up... and cannot smash.


thats one of the worst things about competitive basketball - your height is a prerequisit... which basically eliminates mass groups of people from even dreaming about being an elite player.

dont do this to badminton as well.

that speedminton is RETARDED! lol i wonder how far it will go...:cool:

Both sides improve, so what makes a difference? Also, I'm shorter than six feet :o. My point is that we still have the same resources; so it doesn't really make any difference.

badminton does not need any changes regarding the height or dimensions of the court, like mentioned before i think that lots of people would have some problems adapting to it. but just curious like so many others why 4cm? is there some reason or was it just the lucky number that got picked. oh and that speedminton wtf that promotional video with all the kids playing looks rather gay...getting back to badminton great things are best left unchanged.

LOL agree. badminton is a great sport alone and doesnt need to be mixed in with that crap

Time passes.

The introduction of an idea revisited.

Individuals quick to condemn gain opportunity for increased depth of thought and wisdom through the passage of the sands.

A new scoring system initially crucified by the masses shows light of acceptance.

Xenophobia, complacency and self-entitlement reflect poorly on us not only as citizens but as sporting figures and as society.

Long persecuted for its popularity and authenticity as a real sport, shall its players ignominously refuse to open up its ways to inspection and scrutiny?

Are masqueraders who would cover up poor defence with offencive lobs unaware how transparently they are seen through?

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?

The height of the net was not determined based on some calculation involving the mean height of the players involved. It was pretty much arbitrarily chosen. For example, why are volleyball nets so high? Tennis nets so low? Soccer nets so large yet hockey nets so small? No reason, they were just chosen to be like that. Perhaps it was easier to manufacture them in those dimensions.

The thing is, these nets have all already been manufactured. To change the dimensions now would be pretty costly if we had to replace or modify all existing nets with new ones. A cost that will be too high considering the lack of truly useful benefits. At least the new scoring system doesn't cost anything in terms of equipment replacement.

Perhaps what you should do is create an offshoot sport like speedminton. I've got an idea: maybe you can attach the net to trees instead of posts, and call the game treeminton. As time passes, the trees will grow, and so will the height of the net. You'll even have seasonal variations - such falling leaves in the fall for extra challenge. Watch out, I'm sure it'll be the next big thing!

What would 4cm change? smashes will just go flatter, but still just as hard....
a delciate shot, like a deceptive drop, will be much slower...

also, I ahven't really seen an argument why it woudl help...what does it change?

also, to comment on your starting post. I think your take on (professinal) singles is wrought and wrong.,..
You look at them playign and you onyl see smashes? look better..

Time passes.

The introduction of an idea revisited.

Individuals quick to condemn gain opportunity for increased depth of thought and wisdom through the passage of the sands.

A new scoring system initially crucified by the masses shows light of acceptance.

Xenophobia, complacency and self-entitlement reflect poorly on us not only as citizens but as sporting figures and as society.

Long persecuted for its popularity and authenticity as a real sport, shall its players ignominously refuse to open up its ways to inspection and scrutiny?

Are masqueraders who would cover up poor defence with offencive lobs unaware how transparently they are seen through?

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?

Completely and absolutely disagree with any form of height increase of the net. It is xenophobic, complacent and self-entitled for anybody to suggest this.

Not everybody has grown taller and certainly not everybody is tall.

Are you suggesting that taller people have more of an advantage in Badminton? I hadn't noticed taller people win more games.

Buy a shoe 4cm higher negate your 4cm higher net? Why stop at 4 cm? Why not as high as volleyball net?

Leveraging new technologies to improve line judging...YES
Increasing the height of the net...BIG NO NO....or just dun call it badminton anymore.

We use new technologies to make badminton a better and easier sport to play, not to make it harder. Besides, there is still plenty of areas that can be improved such as plastic shuttlecock, lighting design, ...etc

Are you suggesting that taller people have more of an advantage in Badminton? I hadn't noticed taller people win more games.

Buy a shoe 4cm higher negate your 4cm higher net? Why stop at 4 cm? Why not as high as volleyball net?

Cute idea. Got to try it at a volleyball net if I have a chance, it would be hilarious considering the size of the courts. :D :D :D

Cute idea. Got to try it at a volleyball net if I have a chance, it would be hilarious considering the size of the courts. :D :D :D

Also have six players on each side so that way more people can play at the same time.;)

Also have six players on each side so that way more people can play at the same time.;)

Not a good idea considering clashing of rackets. 2 maximum since not like to have smashes. :D

off course you should also be able to jump-serve from the backline. tossing up the birdy.
and then 'set up' players for a netkill.

cover the rackets in PU to prevent players getting impaled on each others rackets?

Quisitor,

Instead of changing the sport to suit your circumstances, why don't you try adopting new tactics to beating your opponents? It's more challenging that way. There are many ways to get around 'the wall', you just need to get more creative;).

height change does not equate to modernization.

height change does not equate to modernization.

new rackets, shoes, NSS (debateable), better training techniques and more durable birds = modernization :D . net change is not a good idea, would NBA raise the hoop? it would make dunks less spectacular and lower the score in games.

Some good humour here. :)
That's all I'm able to conclude from many of the forum users here unless logic skills have become more of a premium than crude oil.

But also some advancements in thought here.

I completely agree 4 cm is arbitrary, may not be of significant enough difference to warrant discussion and is not important. :)

So why would anyone loudly decree for a specific adjustment to the height of the net down to the very centimetre?

An act of madness perhaps?


(On a side note: To those suggesting players would simply wear shoes 4 cm higher to negate the intended effect-- whisper that quietly lest you have the badminton shoe police all over you declaring you an infidel and commenting on ankle injuries :cool:-- also not all of us want to wear pumps to the nines while we're playing-- tsk tsk Plato's probably rolling around in his grave at this idea)

Some good humour here. :)
That's all I'm able to conclude from many of the forum users here unless logic skills have become more of a premium than crude oil.

But also some advancements in thought here.

I completely agree 4 cm is arbitrary, may not be of significant enough difference to warrant discussion and is not important. :)

So why would anyone loudly decree for a specific adjustment to the height of the net down to the very centimetre?

An act of madness perhaps?


(On a side note: To those suggesting players would simply wear shoes 4 cm higher to negate the intended effect-- whisper that quietly lest you have the badminton shoe police all over you declaring you an infidel and commenting on ankle injuries :cool:-- also not all of us want to wear pumps to the nines while we're playing-- tsk tsk Plato's probably rolling around in his grave at this idea)

One of the main side effect of increasing the net height is the game will be slowed down. Is that the right direction for the badminton to take ?

One of the main side effect of increasing the net height is the game will be slowed down. Is that the right direction for the badminton to take ?

Which means that the game will become longer, even with the NSS.

Since the whole point of switching to the NSS is to shorten the match duration, increasing the net height would be counter-'productive'.

Shortening match duration sounds like an excellent idea!

Upon feedback from many in this thread-- increasing the height of the net is not a good idea.

So I think it's about time badminton changed the height of the net to 90 cm at the centre of the court and approximately 91.4 cm at the doubles sidelines. 3 feet 0 inches sounds about right to me and should allow a more diverse group of people to smash the bird and enjoy the game! It will also have the effect of keeping the matches shorter!

Never let it be said that quisitor does not look out for his fellow man. :)

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the diversity of athletes by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

give us at least 1 argument!

all I hear is "bla bla, new times, diversity of athletes, badminton should advance"

what would the height increase change? less smashing? (no). less powerplay? (no). less skillfull subtle drops? (yes)

by my logic (however not always perfect:p) a net height increase makes fast drops, or slow drops, a lot harder. smashes will just become a little more flat...

As I've mentioned before, the difficulty in changing the height of the net is due to the number of poles already set at the existing height, which would be prohibitively expensive to replace.

However, never fear! For I have yet another fantastic idea!

How about.... quicksandminton. Here, we place the posts into the a small patch of quicksand, and as the match progresses, the posts will slowly descend, lowering the height of the net to bring a quicker conclusion to the match!

Increasing the height of the net by 4cm is not the same thing as modernizing the game. All it does is to shrink the "playable" area of the court. As a matter of fact I have on ocassions played with net heights that may be about 3cm higher. With this increase in net height your drives and smashes become less effective with your smashes going flat. The steep angles of jump smashes or of any high shots are all gone. After a few games, everyone asked that the net be lowered to the standard height.
But it could be useful as a practice drill for jump smashing. With an increase in net height your jump smash may be no steeper than a non-jump smash over a standard height net.

Increasing the height of the net by 4cm is not the same thing as modernizing the game. All it does is to shrink the "playable" area of the court. As a matter of fact I have on ocassions played with net heights that may be about 3cm higher. With this increase in net height your drives and smashes become less effective with your smashes going flat. The steep angles of jump smashes or of any high shots are all gone. After a few games, everyone asked that the net be lowered to the standard height.
But it could be useful as a practice drill for jump smashing. With an increase in net height your jump smash may be no steeper than a non-jump smash over a standard height net.

That is a good idea. Make you have to jump higher or modify your swing for more angle.

That is a good idea. Make you have to jump higher or modify your swing for more angle.

Quite the opposite actually. If you approximate the trajectory of the smash as a straight line (since the flight time is so short, the effect of gravitational acceleration is small), the flight of the smash can be described by the speed of the birdie and the angle below horizontal.

What raising the net does is decrease the maximum achievable angle by providing a higher barrier for the bird to cross. So, if training with that, then the result would be flatter smashes with the jump. Considering that that Taiwanese study found that the biggest difference between advanced and elite players in terms of smashing was the angle of the jumpsmashes, you'll see that you'd be developing your skills in the wrong direction.

The drops will also suffer as the higher net will mean the drops will drop a bit farther past the front service line and nearer the reach of the opponent. The court will "shrink", thus reducing the 4 corners of the court. "Smaller" court means an entirely different game, less spectacular, less demanding, no more jump smashes, and more ineffective floating drives and smashes that go out. Drops will lose their deception and effectiveness.

Quite the opposite actually. If you approximate the trajectory of the smash as a straight line (since the flight time is so short, the effect of gravitational acceleration is small), the flight of the smash can be described by the speed of the birdie and the angle below horizontal.

What raising the net does is decrease the maximum achievable angle by providing a higher barrier for the bird to cross. So, if training with that, then the result would be flatter smashes with the jump. Considering that that Taiwanese study found that the biggest difference between advanced and elite players in terms of smashing was the angle of the jumpsmashes, you'll see that you'd be developing your skills in the wrong direction.

physically its more difficult, technically im not sure. Its easy to modify your swing though. Don't you feel you have to change timing and feel when you play in different climates or at different altitudes? When training in Calgary I swing (very very slightly) differently than when I play in Montreal. The way i see it (although this is debatably b/c has anyone actually raised the net to train) its like wearing a weight vest. When you take it off (lower the net) badminton suddenly feels easier and you can generate angle much easier.

Well now-- let us not beat a dead horse to death in the after-life.

I thought we'd all agreed that increasing the height of the net is without merit and has no positive attributes whatsoever.

I thought we'd also moved on and were considering whether a decrease in the height of the net might not be a good idea. It stands to reason that if net height increases are associated with all that is undesirable in the game then a net height decrease might serve to make the game that much more enjoyable.

It's been suggested that the cost of replacing the net poles makes any change in the height of the net infeasible. However being the intelligent species that we are, we must have faith in creative engineering spirit that may provide for a solution. Perhaps a different tying technique could be employed or rings could be secured at the desired height of the poles. If all else fails one could always fall back on duct tape. And if modification is not possible, there is always replacement. Yes, it may cost to replace poles but relative to the amount spent by badminton players on equipment, clothing, coaching, time and many other things, cost should not be a deterrent if the opportunity arises to behold a superior game.

Further, the cost of pole maintenance and replacement could be completely eliminated if badminton was played without nets! This would be revolutionary in allowing more people access to badminton courts.

The more and more I think of this, the more and more clear it becomes that decreasing the height of the net (or even eliminating it completely) is the best and only way to increase the popularity of the sport while making it more entertaining for players and viewers!

Imagine the incredible angles that will be achieved jump-smashing with a lower net! The four corners of the court would truly be achievable with any and every type of shot one so desires.

Clearly for viewers this is a winning situation. And for the players? Those looking for heaven on Earth may stop their search. Nothing compares to the feeling of killing a bird any time the opportunity arises.

One can also employ a variety of slow and fast drops with a lower net-- deception will increase!

[On a side note:

As inferred from the first post in this thread, I am not very familiar with these slow and fast drop type of shots that people here speak of. Would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trajectories of these two shots?

I must admit to being slightly confused. One forum member here has stated that power playing would not change even with an increase in the height of the net while another suggests that an increase as little as 3 cm results in a significant change.

Perhaps if someone can explain to me the trajectory of these two types of drop shots in relation to the trajectory of the smash, I might be able to make sense of the conflicting (to my unastute mind) views.
Perhaps including the expected clearance heights above the net for the three types of shot: smash, slow drop, fast drop might also allow me to understand things better.]

In any case the main issue at hand is that the height of the badminton net ought to be decreased. I have not yet heard any objections to this (aside from the prohibitive cost of pole replacement).

But a cost is only a cost insomuch as the benefit does not outweigh the cost. The IBF wishes to make badminton the #1 racquet sport in the world. To increase popularity and glamour, infusion of network coverage and advertising revenue is required. To obtain advertising revenue, the easiest way is to show advertisers that a large segment of their desired target audience is watching. Traditionally, marketers have targeted young males as a desirable group due to their disposable income and sufficient youth to establish brand loyalty. As times have changed, younger people (and also the female segment) have become a more important target group due to their increased purchasing power and brand equity needing to be established amongst individuals at an increasingly early age.

So what better way to promote the game of badminton then to encourage younger people to play? It must be discouraging for a 5-10 year old not to be able to smash. Likewise, a large segment of the older population also is in possession of high disposable income. These seniors grow shorter with age and it must be discouraging for them to not be able to kill that bird like they once did.

Once you have players of all ages enjoying the game and viewers of all backgrounds enjoying the excitement of the game, the marketing dollars, popularity and coverage of the game will rapidly follow.

Badminton's destiny lies not in simply being the #1 racquet sport but rather in being the only sport playable and enjoyable by members of the entire human race without discrimination toward age, gender, ethnicity and physical attributes.

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

Badminton as it is accommodates players of all ages, sexes, skill and fitness levels. What other games can be as punishing as a titanic fight between Taufk and Lin Dan or between Lin Dan and LCW and at the same time can be played by players who are in their seventies? I used to be a soccer player, cricketer, field hockey player, and rugby player, but at my age these games are out of my reach now. But I can still play badminton.
Reducing the net to 3' will mean a one-stroke game-the serve will become a deadly smash at such short distances. It is game over.

Shortening match duration sounds like an excellent idea!

Upon feedback from many in this thread-- increasing the height of the net is not a good idea.

So I think it's about time badminton changed the height of the net to 90 cm at the centre of the court and approximately 91.4 cm at the doubles sidelines. 3 feet 0 inches sounds about right to me and should allow a more diverse group of people to smash the bird and enjoy the game! It will also have the effect of keeping the matches shorter!

Never let it be said that quisitor does not look out for his fellow man. :)

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the diversity of athletes by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

if that happaned, badminton would be a pointless game, it'd be all about dropshots and smashing, isn't it about time you realise the net height level is perfect as it is? c'mon 3 feet is ridiculous, the shuttle would drop way too fast to be received by anyone in a drop shot and have way to much angle in a smash to be received as well, clears, and drive shots would be non existant.

if you want the net any lower, you should go play tennis. the game of tennis is well tailored for a low net as the movement of the tennis ball has a very flat trajectory.

if you want the net any higher, you should go play volleyball. the game of volleyball is tailored to a high net, the multiple passes and spike still allow excitement despite the high net between sides..

to have a lower or higher net in badminton is purely non-sensical and to suggest such is like wanting to change for the sake of changing. the game of badminton is tailored to the current 5ft net height. high enough so outright kills are not possible, and short enough to allow a very fast game as well as a very complete variety of shots.

in addition, even if younger kids were able to smash, i think it'd be much smarter to play a dropshot, as it would become the most deadly shot at 3 feet. to be honest, i think badminton cannot be any more of a supperior sport then it is now. (Except for maybe the NSS). people say it isn't popular? i clearly remember a past post having statistics claiming it is the 2nd most played sport in the world (soccer #1). the problem is that is isn't popular in America, people still think its a backyard sport there and play with volleyball nets!! if shown a real game, with real 200mph smashes, i think their prespective of badminton being a "sissy" sport would change.

quisitor, i am confused. you have made suggestions to change the height of the net, first you said you want it higher, but from your posts i don't see that you actually understand what the consequences of such a change would have, except to blindly suggests that it "modernizes" the sports without any further explanations.

and then later on you come around and said it should be lowered, and then you failed to show that you actually understand the game of badminton as you don't even know what a fast and slow drops are.

i therefore question if one is qualified to suggest a change in the sport of badminton when one doesn't even understands the basics. it seems to be that perhaps you should gain more undestanding of the game, watch some badminton videos, go down to the gym and play some serious badminton before you contemplate and suggest making any more changes to badminton.

This thread is getting pointless and not worthy of the attention it once deserved.

Increasing the height of net is not at all good and it has nothing to do with modernissation.Almost all participants hgave disagreed to this suggestion.BUT I rally fear that such a foolish modernisation step may be implemented like the 21 point scoring system.They may have hundred reasons like the changes in service rules etc.. to support this impemenation.

Finally, we all hate and are against the rise of net height because we used to play at the present net height and we are accustomed to that.

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe badminton is the 2nd most popular sport (behind soccer) in the world. It has it's popularity for a reason and have solid proof behind it.

Anything significantly or completely change the game itself is non-sense. It's like, will you cut your feet to fit into a pair of shoes??? :cool:

the height should not be increased.
see that last punctuation mark, it's a period
lazy buddy made a good put, the sports shouldn't "accomdate people"
people should train to accomdate the sport
mugsy bogues was a short player in the NBA (by nba standards) but he managed fine, and he's a tremendous athlete
the regulation nets weren't lowered to accomdate for his height
in golf all the fields are played the same no matter how strong, tall, etc etc you are
the main thing i'm trying to point out is, you shouldn't go changing a sport (and the height of the net is a drastic change) because it would attract more people to play it
if they have no interest to play the sport or at least work a bit at teh sport, it doesn't matter how high/low the net is, they still won't be interested
all in all, athletes should accomdate themselves to the sport, not the other way around

why don't all of us play speedminton, huh? better now? tennis and badminton combined and with maria sharapova promoting it... :rolleyes:

haha, this thread is pretty funny.

Some of you guys need to relax a bit - obviously quisitor is just trying to generate some discussion by throwing out a provocative suggestion.

good job quisitor!

When we speak of accommodation, do we mean it to be the case that an individual may knock the bird around in an "outdoor BBQ" fashion or do we mean it to be that the rules governing the sport allow one a fair opportunity to compete with the upper decile of atheletes in that sport if one should have the dedication and will?

Is it reasonable to suggest 10 year olds can compete against the top decile of players with the net at its current height? Would they stand a fairer chance if the height of the net were lowered to 3 feet? Even adults who lack height might struggle against the present ominous net height. Why, if the outrage of many at a suggested 4 cm net height increase is any indication, it is not a stretch to suggest that many already feel limited by their height and insecure in their ability to compete with taller players.

The one-stroke-serve type of game that's been suggested may occur with a decrease in the height of the net-- is this not desirable? Many had commented previously about the effect of increasing the height of the net on the smash and how this would diminish the most dynamic, exciting aspect of the game.

A lot of words are being casually thrown out here, which is somewhat disturbing. Words like "perfect" and "cannot be any more of a superior sport" are rather bold assertions to be making. What is meant by such terms? Is it to mean that you are of such an opinion, in which case the very words are diminished and rendered useless since you have converted their use from value in objectivity to valuelessness in subjectivity? Or is it to mean that when objectively viewed, the only logical conclusion derivable is such? If the latter be the case then if recollection of scientific theory serves, your assertion can never be proved to be true and may (if one should be so bold) be assumed to be true until the first violation of your assertion is observed. Sparing you the agony of a misled life, I shall eliminate this belief at this present time by simply stating I do not think the rules of the game are such that the sport "cannot be any more of a superior sport". Hence any suggestion that your statements are made in objectivity are rendered insubstantiated.

It's been suggested that confusion may exist in the minds of at least one forum member. This is not necessarily a bad thing as we must often be in a state of perplexity before advancements in thought can be made. The word modernize is one that is rather open to interpretation and may lead to confusion. In time this word may begin to make sense but in the mean time I proffer this: If a game is "perfect" (since this is a popular word) but the game changes, is it still perfect? I also offer this from dictionary.com:

mod·ern·ize Audio pronunciation of "modernize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdr-nz)
v. mo·dern·ized, mo·dern·iz·ing, mo·dern·iz·es
v. tr.

To make modern in appearance, style, or character; update.

As for my confusion over such shots as "slow drop" and "fast drop", come now. Let us not be snide in addressing the questions of a forum member. If one should desire to not answer such questions then one need not but one should not discourage or preclude such an individual from asking for such information as one of the stated goals of "BF" is: "BF is an online community dedicated to the exchange of information"

It's been suggested by a forum member that an increase in the height of the net of 4 cm would have no effect on the usage of smashes but would have a large effect on the use of "slow drops" and "fast drops". I merely desire proof on such an assertion. Clearly my understanding of such shots is limited so then-- what are the trajectories of the "slow drop", "fast drop" and smash? At the point where they cross the net, what is the expected distance (or clearance) between the top of the net and the shuttle? Still no one has the courage to answer this question!

They may have hundred reasons like the changes in service rules etc.. to support this impemenation.

Finally, we all hate and are against the rise of net height because we used to play at the present net height and we are accustomed to that.
Wisdom. Truer words were never spoken. We are accustomed to the present height of the net and have tailored our game around this height. Self-entitlement exists but is not an unnatural human emotion for the things we love. Fear not-- if ever such an implementation were made, the fears we harbour would not come to pass as the expected effects listed by posters here are missing the boat. You may wish to consider what would happen if the height of the net were increased to 230 cm.

Well, why not try it out? The best way to find out is to try it out for a few games with a variety of players. First try the 4cm net height increase, then try the 3' net. Let us know how it goes.

Thank you quisitor for going through my comments and analysing the same.It is the human nature to oppose changes to things which they have been doing/experiencing for a long period.If the original height of net was 5'5"and you suggested a reduction to 5'1"majority of the players would have opposed it.Really I am dead against increase of net height but I am confident that I can execute heavy weight smashes and winner drops even if the height is increased by 4".Sorry for beating my own trumpet.

I can see how we are so protective of the badminton game we love. As Stumblingfeet said...some of us went on high allert as soon as we heard the word "change", "modernizing", "improving". I guess some of us still shocks and hold grudges to the most recent change. the new scoring system.

if it is raised, short guys like me will have a lot of difficulty. Majority of ppl are not that tall anyway...so I think we ought to keep it as it is

It's been suggested by a forum member that an increase in the height of the net of 4 cm would have no effect on the usage of smashes but would have a large effect on the use of "slow drops" and "fast drops". I merely desire proof on such an assertion. you want proof? you ahven't even given an argumenty yourself...just a mild theorectival phrasing that a higehr net will somehow mordenize the game..
Proof however for the fast/slow drops is rather mathemetical. you can't give much extra angle with a higher net!

Clearly my understanding of such shots is limited so then-- what are the trajectories of the "slow drop", "fast drop" and smash? At the point where they cross the net, what is the expected distance (or clearance) between the top of the net and the shuttle? Still no one has the courage to answer this question! 1) a smash is expected to land midcourt, mayeb a bit further. it's a powershot played to go too fast for the opponent to receive. (generalisation)
2) a slow drop is meant to drop dead right after the net. creating a maximum distance for the opponent to travel.
3) a fast drops is hit faster than the slow drop (:pduh) but because of it's apce the shuttle travels further and lands about 10inches behind the front service line.
so with a higher net a smash will just get a little flatter, but still keeps it's power. but the slow and fats drops will lose out, because you can't generate the same angles..

ok, here we go.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/1152/heightnetga9.th.png (http://img60.imageshack.us/my.php?image=heightnetga9.png)

the top one ahs a normal net, below a higher net (by my scale respectively 2,5 and 3 cm)

In the top one the player can smash (blue) as hard as he can an get it at that angle.
The fast drop (green) has enough pace (and if done correctly deception) to go to the floor fast, and fall short. making your oppent reach and lift. (the downside is msot opponent just ahve to take one step)
the slow drop (yellow) falls so short the opponent has to take an extra step to reach it (the downside is a fast opponent can netkill the slow drop)

now look at the raised net. smash still go hard, and in the court (be it with difficulty) so there's not much change in shot pace.

The fast drop however makes a considerably higher arc to get to the same spot. this means that a player either has to play it softer (negating the effect of a fast paced shot) or hit it deeper into the court (making it easier to retreive)

The slow drop is just bonker to play now. the arc it has to make is just very high (and therefor slow) prone to being netkilled even by fat uncle joe (let alone at top level) so a player can choose to play it faster (and thus deeper in the court) and negate the effect of the opponent having to travel an extra length or play it so slow and give the opponent enough time to take it at net hight...

i have to agree... even after all those posts of yours, i find it too illogical to even argue

rather than net height increase by 4cm, my IQ had just dropped 4 from reading your post...

who? me?:confused:

EDIT: oh wait...curse my english comprehension skills...

the thread starter...

this thread needs to be forgotten

On the contrary, this thread is the perfect chance for a brave soul to practice her/his one-against-the-world debating skill.

So, come on, who'll step up to the plate and take a stand?

:p :D

On the contrary, this thread is the perfect chance for a brave soul to practice her/his one-against-the-world debating skill.

So, come on, who'll step up to the plate and take a stand?

:p :D

hasn't everyone already?

Hey jerby, great pictures!

Just wondering, why does your little buddy there have a shorter back leg? That must make it hard for him/her to play. Perhaps we should lower one side of the net as a way to accomodate people with uneven limb lengths?

this thread needs to be forgotten

No.We can hear quisitor with patience and tolerance and make him convince that his suggestion has nothing to do with modernisation and improvement.At the same time we can accept if any good byproduct comes out during the discussion.

Hey jerby, great pictures!

Just wondering, why does your little buddy there have a shorter back leg? That must make it hard for him/her to play. Perhaps we should lower one side of the net as a way to accomodate people with uneven limb lengths?
dude, if you feel artistic, be my guest and change it...;)

haven't you noticed he smashes/drops with his bare hands?:D

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7131/heightnetvb6.th.png (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=heightnetvb6.png)

how 'bout that?

Haha, I was just kidding with you.

Actually, I like the originals better, they had more style.

Quisitor, from you post below, it appears your definintion of "modernize" is to allow lower level players a fair chance to win against higher level players. If this is what you want, then a handicapping system like in golf would probably be a better idea.


When we speak of accommodation, do we mean it to be the case that an individual may knock the bird around in an "outdoor BBQ" fashion or do we mean it to be that the rules governing the sport allow one a fair opportunity to compete with the upper decile of atheletes in that sport if one should have the dedication and will?

Is it reasonable to suggest 10 year olds can compete against the top decile of players with the net at its current height? Would they stand a fairer chance if the height of the net were lowered to 3 feet? Even adults who lack height might struggle against the present ominous net height. Why, if the outrage of many at a suggested 4 cm net height increase is any indication, it is not a stretch to suggest that many already feel limited by their height and insecure in their ability to compete with taller players.

in my apartmet the net is even higher than me.. n im 5 ft 9... no smash can go thru, except jump smash, it make the game boring. normal dive, wont go thru, smash wont go thru.. anything just boring..

If you think the rackets are too powerful
and smashes are too strong,

Make slower shuttlecocks

I rather play with faster shuttle, cause it can train your response..

all these discussions are healthy but avails to nothing...what badminton needs is to be "revolutionized" like holding a separate tournament wherein the "nylon" shuttlecock is used...this colorful "synthetic" feather is more receptive as it tends to bounce off the racquet quickly and speeds on to its intended mark on the court...it takes some level of skill to control these speedos....and that is what our sport is about, speed!!!!we need not increase or decrease the net height, nor should we improve more on the racquet technology since these matters doesnt have anything to do with our talent... but what should be the focus of attention is how we control the ball we use to score points...

I'm short enough. I don't need another hinderance to my height. >.<

Raising the net height would be un-fair as it would give shorter players a serious disadvantage in attacking shots


if you dont like badminton go make your own sport. seriously.

Yeah, let's use a volleyball net & court while we're at it. That will slow down those super-human suckas with their high-tech rackets.

Seriously, other less intrusive counter-measures might be more appropriate.

In tennis, the men's game became way too fast, characterized by very short rallies = boring, during the '90s. This was due to technology & fitter athletes. One solution was to increase the diameter of the tennis ball for increased air resistance, thus slowing down the ball considerably. While this change appears to have improved table tennis (esp ball control), it did not work out at all for court tennis. The larger diameter for tennis appear to cause more arm problems (shoulder & elbow) for various reasons.

Several other solutions have proved to be very beneficial to the game of tennis. The first of these was actually implemented back in the '70s. The ball was changed from white to optic yellow (greenish-yellow) for improved visual contrast. Not sure why this has not also become the standard for badminton.

More recently, tennis courts have been made slower (ball loses more speed on the bounce). Even the very fast grass of Wimbledon has been changed to slow it down somewhat. The optic yellow ball has also become brighter in the past decade or two. This has improved the ability of players to return 130-150+ MPH serves more often.

Don't know if badminton players will consent to a slower shuttle but other changes could be implemented instead. Changing the shuttle color for improving visual perception of very fast shuttles would help quite a bit. Also improving lighting conditions and background colors would be very helpful in many gyms to offset increased shuttle speeds.

Think that it would also be very good for badminton to change the serving rules to discourage drive serves. That particular rule as it was written before rally scoring was implemented was much better than the vaguely-worded rule now in effect.

much has been said about these essential topics but one thing remains to be seen- will the badminton body governing us now accede to these suggestions to revolutionize our beloved game of badminton....i believe we still have a long way to go but its worth the try...we should start deliberations on them and maybe who knows, some kind-hearted and generous sponsors might take time and infuse resources all for the sake of improving our game. i am taking down these comments and suggestions and hope to come up with a summarized details of the things we should all look into...for the meantime, we will keep our options open and have fun participating in this forum...see ya guys and keep on writing...

all these discussions are healthy but avails to nothing...what badminton needs is to be "revolutionized" like holding a separate tournament wherein the "nylon" shuttlecock is used...this colorful "synthetic" feather is more receptive as it tends to bounce off the racquet quickly and speeds on to its intended mark on the court...it takes some level of skill to control these speedos....and that is what our sport is about, speed!!!!we need not increase or decrease the net height, nor should we improve more on the racquet technology since these matters doesnt have anything to do with our talent... but what should be the focus of attention is how we control the ball we use to score points...

Badminton is not all about speed.

Why not just play tennis using a badminton court instead? The nylon shuttles were introduced, not because the playability but more due to the durability. :cool:

Badminton is about power, stamina, finesse, tactics, speed, footwork, technique, reflex and fun :D

Badminton is not all about speed.

Why not just play tennis using a badminton court instead? The nylon shuttles were introduced, not because the playability but more due to the durability. :cool:

Youre right when u said badminton is not just about speed but u forgot one fact, its the speed of the game that thrills us all and is what made badminton what it is today... u see, in tennis, theres' grasscourt, claycourt, carpet, cement, etc...all of which requires a certain level of skill to master...in badminton, we should also have a competiton with nylon being used since this is another level in our never-ending quest in competitive skills....we need not change anything except the lighting and background colors used in badminton courts (there should be a standardfor this though...); the height of the net stays, the length and width of the court is still proportional as it is....in tennis, the surface is a determining factor while in badminton, its the "ball" we use that would determine the pace of the game...

all these discussions are healthy but avails to nothing...what badminton needs is to be "revolutionized" like holding a separate tournament wherein the "nylon" shuttlecock is used...this colorful "synthetic" feather is more receptive as it tends to bounce off the racquet quickly and speeds on to its intended mark on the court...
Not all synthetic shuttles have the same aerodynamics or react quite the same coming off the stringbed. Some are much better than others for playability. Don't think that we are at the point where nylon shuttles can replace feathers... I'm looking forward to it tho'. By the same, many cheaper feather shuttles are lacking. Altho' my pref is a decent feather shuttle, I'd much rather play with a good synthetic shuttle than an inferior feather bird.

The optic yellow nylon shuttle is also a blessing for some gyms (eps those with white/light backgrounds or poor lighting). However, in gyms with yelllow walls, ceiling, floor or yellowing lighting, the white shuttle might be the better choice.

Note that good nylons shuttles, when struck hard, tend to come off the racket a bit slower than feather shuttles. Many nylon shuttles appear to be faster that feather birds because they do not decelerate at the same rate. There are some nylon shuttles that I refer to as "constant velocity" shuttles becuz they do not slow down very much at all. These constant velocity nylons are often favored by advanced beginners & low intermediates cuz it makes their smashes "awesome".

Other (better) nylons have a bit more drag (due primarily to air resistance) but usually still do not slow down quite as much as a good feather. Nylons also react a bit differently with net drops -- they can often tumble more than a feather bird.

A solidy-struck feather shuttle acts differently in the first milliseconds after contact than does a nylon struck in the same manner. You can even hear this diff. A well-struck feather shuttle produces a loud, staccato "crack" upon impact. Nylon birds, even those with real cork bases, do not make that same sound. I believe that this happens for 2 or 3 reasons.

Speculation #1: Feather shuttles turn around quicker that nylon shuttles when they leave the stringbed. If the nylon shuttle takes longer to turn around, then it catches more air at the very begining of its flight. This factor cause the feather bird to have an initial acceleration & velocity (in the first few milliseconds?) that is greater than does the nylon shuttle.

Speculation #2: Feather shuttles become a bit more streamlined when accelerated to a high speed. This would make them faster at the begining of their flight. However as they travel thru the air, the feathers resume their original flare. This results in a braking action during the flight of the shuttle.

I recall some time back that someone made the claim that high-speed studies showed that skirt of nylon shuttles, when struck hard, become very distorted rather than more streamlined (like feather shuttles do). This skirt distortion tends to reduce the amount of initial acceleration & velocity.

Speculation #3: Because the skirt of a nylon shuttle differs from that of a feather shuttle (with its overlapping feathers), both the spin and the drag due air resistance will differ somewhat. These physical differences will result diffs in aerodynamics -- they way the shuttle flies thru the air & the rate of acceleration & deceleration.

I really wouldn't mind seeing high level tournaments played with colored synthetic shuttles if the physical characteristics of these shuttles were improved to more closely resemble the aerodynamics of a good feather shuttle. To my mind the Yonex 350 and 500 are the best synthetics that I've tried. (The yellow 350 is my favorite). Still don't feel that these are quite good enuff to replace feathers.

I've not seen the 370 in this area. Some ppl prefer the 300 but I find these shuttles don't decelerate quickly enuff (almost, but not quite, a "constant velocity" beginner shuttle).

replacing the shuttle will be alright. but it's definitely a no-no to increase the height of net. how to smash when the height of the net increases??

When I read the title for this thread i was LMAO, but when I read the whole thing, I was ROFLMAO!

much has been said about these essential topics but one thing remains to be seen- will the badminton body governing us now accede to these suggestions to revolutionize our beloved game of badminton....i believe we still have a long way to go but its worth the try...we should start deliberations on them and maybe who knows, some kind-hearted and generous sponsors might take time and infuse resources all for the sake of improving our game. i am taking down these comments and suggestions and hope to come up with a summarized details of the things we should all look into...

Good idea, melsenga. Keep us posted on that effort.

increasing the court dimensions for doubles will be good. we shall see how doubles players cover their larger area of court.

increasing the court dimensions for doubles will be good. we shall see how doubles players cover their larger area of court.
disagree,

court coverage isn't an issue in doubles, because the pace is so high. Players aren't focused on placing shuttles and makign the opponents move. Players focus on placement to gain an oppertunity to put the shuttle into the floor.

increasing courtseize would just lower the pace (and excitement) of doubles.

disagree,

court coverage isn't an issue in doubles, because the pace is so high. Players aren't focused on placing shuttles and makign the opponents move. Players focus on placement to gain an oppertunity to put the shuttle into the floor.

increasing courtseize would just lower the pace (and excitement) of doubles.

then, decrease the court size then.. faster pace too..

SystemicAnomally,

Your post #117 on the different reactions between feathered and nylon shuttles when struck on the stringbed proves interesting reading. I have not played nylon shuttles before but I wonder whether your observations or "speculatons" are based on some sort of scientific research or they are just based on your own experience with both types of shuttles. ;)

then, decrease the court size then.. faster pace too..

It is good to see that you put forward well-reasoned arguments (based on evidence and avoiding speculation) and stick to your guns when challenged. :)

then, decrease the court size then.. faster pace too..
or, alternatively, keep it like it is!

why does everything always have to change; update to be faster, longer, better, everything ending with -er ?

I would love a tennis net hahaah

badminton is perfect the way it is, nuf said.

badminton is perfect the way it is, nuf said.

The problem is that the game IS changing as result of improvements in racket technology (& other factors). I'm sure that someone from the wood-racket era might not think the game, the way is played today, is badminton in its purest form. They might have said that badminton was already perfect back then. They may have welcomed some minor changes in racket design, but if they had see the radical changes incorporated in the past 40 yrs they may very well have a very different view.

Some proposed changes are meant to offset the changes seen in badminton in the past few decades.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to simply slow down the shuttle, i.e. use slower feather shuttles for competitions, like in tennis when they use larger balls to slow the pace down. Anyway, remember that player's defensive capabilities will improve as well as offensive due to techology and improved coaching.

The problem is that the game IS changing as result of improvements in racket technology (& other factors). I'm sure that someone from the wood-racket era might not think the game, the way is played today, is badminton in its purest form. They might have said that badminton was already perfect back then. They may have welcomed some minor changes in racket design, but if they had see the radical changes incorporated in the past 40 yrs they may very well have a very different view.

Some proposed changes are meant to offset the changes seen in badminton in the past few decades.

Tell me, is it the racket that makes the game, or is it the way the game's played?

In truth the only thing that's changed about the game is the scoring system, everything else is the same. Players are still using rackets, they're not the same as in the past, but that's not what makes the game. If a player plays badminton using a squash or tennis racket, are they still not playing badminton? The way the players play the game is changing, but that's not what makes the game either, simply because everyone's different. Someone who played 40 years ago was still playing badminton, and someone who plays now is still playing badminton. If the game was different with each player then nobody would be playing badminton, but some variation of the sport.

I'm sure that someone from the wood-racket era might not think the game, the way is played today, is badminton in its purest form. They might have said that badminton was already perfect back then

What is badminton in its purest form then? Just because the way the game's played is different doesn't mean that the game is any more or less 'pure'. After all, badminton has stayed the same throughout the years, it's the people playing that's changed. People playing today still follow the same rules as people 40 years ago, only the way the rules are followed has been changed. Get it?

If you say modifications in equipment and styles make the game, then yonex owns badminton completely.

So don't move the net, don't widen or shrink the court, people don't like it when something they love changes. And say the court was smaller, we've all played half court singles right? It's not exactly faster than full court is it? It'd be the same as however much you want to skew the court down. Smashes would be that much easier to return, ergo people won't smash as much. Inversely, if you widen the court, how the hell are people supposed to get the shuttle in time?! ...Rasing or lowering the net's been mentioned already, too high and you give the opponent too much time to receive, too low and there's not enough.

So please don't do anything to the game, there's a reason it's lasted this long without having to have to change.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to simply slow down the shuttle, i.e. use slower feather shuttles for competitions, like in tennis when they use larger balls to slow the pace down. Anyway, remember that player's defensive capabilities will improve as well as offensive due to techology and improved coaching.

there's an idea, but you can buy different shuttle speeds already... yonex makes green, blue and red options for their mavis line, and feather shuttles are already slower than nylon, and every shuttle of every brand is different too

SystemicAnomally,

Your post #117 on the different reactions between feathered and nylon shuttles when struck on the stringbed proves interesting reading. I have not played nylon shuttles before but I wonder whether your observations or "speculatons" are based on some sort of scientific research or they are just based on your own experience with both types of shuttles.

I labelled them as "speculations" for a reason. They are based on a combination of research and personal experience with various badminton shuttle types for more than 25 years. I've not really performed any scientific research of my own tho'. But I have done a considerable amount of research on the topics incorporated in these speculations. Also know my way around a physics textbook -- particularly on the topics of motion (linear & angular accelerations), acoustics (sound) & light, dynamics & electromagnetism (which duznt really apply here). Also somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics (includes aerodynamics) and some modern physics (relativity).

Part of the reason that feather shuttles tend to turn around quicker (flying cork first) has to do with their weight distribution -- they are a bit cork heavy. Some nylon shuttles had a more even distribution which causes them to turn around a bit slower and to tumble more when sliced net drops are executed. Feather birds tend to right themselves a bit quicker due to their weight distribution & other construction parameters.

The connection that I make between the sound of a hard-struck shuttle and its initial motion (milliseconds after) coming off the racket, the abrupt acceleration, is largely my own conjecture. I recall a rather lengthy forum discussion about this & related matters with cooler more than 5 years ago. With what I know about sound generation & acoustics, it all makes a lot of sense.

It is possible that the sound generated can also be affected by the dwell -- how long the shuttle remains in contact with the stringbed. However for a given stringbed (at a given tension), I wouldnt think that there would be any significant difference in dwell for a feather shuttle vs nylon shuttle (assuming that its head is also cork).

It was quite a lot of years ago that I first heard about the streamlining efect of a forcefully-struck feather shuttle. Since it seems to make perfect sense, I've never really questioned it. Since the skirt of a nylon shuttle is one molded piece (it duznt consist of independent "feathers") it's no strectch of the imagination to think that the synthetic shuttle might have less of a tendency to streamline.

It was one of the old-time forum veterans, perhaps May or Mag, that mentioned that high-speed studies revealed that nylon skirts underwent an unusal distortion rather than becoming streamilined when accelerated at a high speed. I never really confirmed this for myself but I did accept it as a reasonably strong possibility.

Perhpas I can say more about the fluid dynamics involved in another post.

actually, badminton has changed a lot since the 80s. faster speed shuttlecocks, higher tensioned rackets, more colourful shirts and shoes. maybe in another twenty years time, badminton will experience some changes again.

I tried to think of logical arguments but the initial argument was so illogical, I couldn't think of the right words :D :crying: LOL

hahahah....LOL was really thinking of the same thing too.

I think also if you raise the net, you'll have more clears, which will slow down the game and make it more boring both to play and watch

I think also if you raise the net, you'll have more clears, which will slow down the game and make it more boring both to play and watch
then, we should decrease the height of the net.. make it faster and easier for deep smashes.

"we should slow down badminton because I can't keep up"
"we should highten the ent because my smashdefence sucks"
"we should lower the net because I keep on hitting the tape"

...I smell frustration...:D

...and unfounded statements;):p

It's a reflection of the mass consumer market. Population increases generates the need to create more jobs. More new stuff means more places and workers to produce them and more people to buy them. Creativity is a wonderful thing.

More importantly, the quality of recreational players improve due to more exposure to professional training (e.g. California and BC) makes the most difference. When quality of players improve, you get faster and longer rallies because players could get to the shot faster and more efficiently.

The evolution of the racquets might have contributed to the speed of the game at one point in history but it's no longer a huge factor. People who smash hard to begin with doesn't smash harder because of the weight change from 2U to 4U. Their arms just adapt to whatever weight of the racquet once they play with it long enough.

Sports should at least have some constant to be interesting (like, oh I don't know, say the height of the net:rolleyes:).

actually, badminton has changed a lot since the 80s. faster speed shuttlecocks, higher tensioned rackets, more colourful shirts and shoes. maybe in another twenty years time, badminton will experience some changes again.