Why should I play one over the other? I'm primarily a singles player and play only full smashes, so what disadvantages do I have resulting from the follow through?
Full smashes are flatter and so easier to pick up by the defender. Full smashes don't make the opponent bend down as much. Less tiring for the defender. Full smashes need a bigger stroke so the element of quick change of pace is not available. If you are the full stroke smasher with a long follow through, when you go into the net for the follow up kill, you haven't got your racquet head up in time.
I can't see why a full smash is flatter, since the contact point is pretty much identical. I agree with the faster change in pace, since it does have an greater element of surprise. I honestly don't see why the follow up is any slower though, in singles you would have to travel all the way forwards from the back anyways. Maybe I'm just not seeing the differences in angle because generating angle is pretty effortless being fairly tall with a good jump. The other real problem with stick smashing in singles is that you're usually still moving when hitting the smash to gain the element of surprise. Against a good defensive player who can place the return well, it is a bit too risky in my opinion.
Just watch the latest LCW vs VA final at Japan Open and you'll understand why and when full vs stick smash (or even cut smash and fast drop). Ultimately it's about variation and angles and keeping the bird going downwards as much as possible.
Mostly recreational, decent club level. I don't compete personally but many of my fellow club mates compete in regional/provincial level tournaments. I watched it recently. What I'm trying to point out is that VA can play those smashes because of his amazing retrieval ability. I on the other hand... am no Viktor Axelsen
It's very obvious that Lee Chong WeiZ's smashes are slightly flatter. What's your evidence that everybody hits the full smash at the same contact point as a stick smash? The contact point is nearly the same.
It's also obvious that Axelsen is about 20 cm taller than LCW, so the angle comes naturally. What I meant by nearly the same is that if one plugs the numbers and calculates the difference in smash angle using trigonometric ratios, a few inches really isn't enough to change things noticeably. Plugging the numbers, a standing smash gives a theoretical angle of 11.4 degrees and adding say, 3 inches for the stick smash results in 12.0 degrees. I might be missing something here but 0.6 degrees isn't going to scare my opponents much. On the other hand, a jump smash yields about 17 degrees. Now that is a difference!
You don't have any disadvantages just from following through on all your smashes. However, if you are only playing smashes with a full action, it implies you are only playing smashes when you are behind the shuttle with enough time to play them. Thus, crucially, you are missing out on smash opportunities when the shuttle may not be in the optimal position for smashing e.g. jumping round the head to intercept a flat lift and play a winner: you didn't have time to play a full smash - you must play it with an abbreviated action. Of course, you could go with other options too (drops, clears, not jumping out etc) but these may not be as effective. Also bear in mind, that a stick smash isn't just "not following through", it also has less wind up - you simply reach up and tap the shuttle, rather than using a full swing - this means you contact the shuttle more quickly, but obviously with much less power. So if you never play a stick smash, you are missing out on the opportunity to put high pressure on your opponent by smashing: 1. quicker than they expected because you didn't have the full wind up 2. from positions where they don't think you should be able to smash e.g. taken late from behind the body in the deep round the head corner - being able to play a cross court stick smash Stick smashes also leave you in better balance, as you don't throw your bodyweight into the shot. Of course, this means its less powerful. I understand your point about movement: you must be able to move well and quickly if you are going to fire down stick smashes from awkward situations. Indeed, if you are winning points with the stick smashes, it is a good tactic. If you are losing points because you can't follow it up with the movement, it is a losing tactic. But against opponents of your own level, it may work really well. Against an opponent that moves better, it may not. I agree with @Cheung that stick smashes are generally steeper than full smashes - the contact point is not often the same: a stick smash is often reaching more vertically than forwards. So what is the trade off: Full smash: must be in position, can be played with good power and accuracy, may leave you off balance Stick smash: can be played from suboptimal positoins, can be clipped down fast and accurate, may leave you out of position for the next shot Hope that helps! Stick smashes are great if you can back it up with good movement, and often work as a surprise element AND add lots of uncertainty and pressure to your opponent who now has to cover more shots. But if you are always easily in position for big full smashes, then you probably don't need them (yet!).
The difference is much more than three inches. There are numerous differences why the angle is different because the height is often much higher (I would say about 1 foot higher in my case): 1. reach is more vertical than forwards 2. shuttle can be taken without having to be behind the shuttle 3. because of 2, shuttle can be taken from further forwards in the court, because you don't require a big high lift to get behind the shuttle, meaning I can intercept fast lifts or low clears. In theory, if you had time to jump up and strike the shuttle however you want, I agree there won't be much difference in the smashes (I can still get a stick smash steeper though). In practice, the difference is huge. If you played against someone who could do it well, you would understand the differences in application. The angle isn't all about the mechanics of the shot, but also about the completely different situations you can play it from!
Thanks for the detailed answer! I guess I'll work on the shot to increase my number of options. I tend to play neutrally/defensively in singles until I feel like I have a chance at winning the point. Therefore, I usually have lots of time to play the smash, which is often an outright winner. Maybe my playing style doesn't really fit the purpose of the stick smash, but I'll try to work it in slowly. I prioritize court coverage and consistency over riskier shots, so it's an entirely different mentality really.
I've seen the shot played often in doubles, but the usual singles style I run across doesn't give too many opportunities to intercept. I don't really understand how you could stick smash 1 foot higher though, because there isn't going to be much power when the arm is fully extended straight upwards. I probably haven't figured out the situations in which it's particularly useful, but I tend to play it safe so that might be the reason why.
I am no means an exemplary example, but I can generate a good level of power with a fully straight arm and an abbreviated hitting action - I could easily clear the shuttle end to end. It wouldn't cause much threat off a proper length lift, but most of the time the interception is high in the midcourt or around the back doubles line, and its the speed of movement with the speed of shot that makes it effective. My full smash obviously has a lot more power, though not as much as I wish
My style is probably the opposite to yours - it tends to increase the pressure and tempo of a rally until someone caves and either loses a point outright, plays a short lift, or neutralises the rally with a good lift. The first thing i'd say is I almost never get to play a full smash in singles! The only opportunity is putting away a short lift or as a first stroke after someone resets the rally. If I'm putting away a short lift and can use a full action, then I will. No point using a stick smash when I can get more power from a full action. If I'm hitting a deep lift, again it's full action. An abbreviated action is only going to help with deception, and in the far rearcourt, slice is much more useful that a short action. Full action also gives variations like punch clear, where the slow racquet action suddenly speeds up. The stick smash shines when I cannot get fully behind the shuttle, or I'm jumping backwards enough that trying to rotate my body whilst midair is going to lose me control of the stroke. By taking it early, you get: a) less time for opponent to react b) steep angle (taking it early means it's higher in the air because it's further forward in the court) I personally don't think you would play a stick smash if you have a full action available. If you don't have a full action available, for a smash, then your alternative is to go for the stick smash/abbreviated action strokes, or play more defensively e.g. step out and full action from further back/lower contact point. The trade-off is clear: the former adds pressure to both players i.e. perfect if you are ahead in a rally and the latter is more neutral i.e. less risky, especially if you are behind in a rally, but potentially allows an opponent to get back ahead if you have a tempo advantage.
also when talking about smash speed, sometimes a full power smash isn’t advantageous. Less to do with stick vs full smash but more about varyiying smash speeds. Full power smashes reach your opponent quicker, which means they can return the shuttle quicker if they have sufficient defense. In a neutral position if you smash slower, it gives you more time to recover after a smash and return his defensive shot. Main thing, if your opponent is returning all your full power smashes and putting you out of position every time, take some power out of your smash and try the stick smash and varying the placement. That would be the reason for one type of smash versus the others
I know you've kind of accepted the benefits of the stick smash in your later posts below but just to clarify the point about the steeper angle with the stick smash. The steeper angle is not generated by the contact point as such which as you state can be similar to a full smash. It is generated by the reduced forward component of the technique. In a full smash you are rotating your body forward during the stroke and your shoulder also moves forward causing your stroke to become more forward biased. In a stick smash, there is much less forward movement, and so your stroke primarily centres on your arm movement. To simplify this, if you imagine looking at yourself playing the smash from a side view and tracing the path of the racquet head as you play the shot, you will see a more circular path with the stick smash, whereas the full smash will be more elongated horizontally. This is what gives the steeper angle.
The thing that really makes a stick-smash steeper is that you hit it less hard. The same angle can be achieved with a really good half-smash. However, the technique of a stick/clip smash does make it easier to get the angle/accuracy, and allows you to do so in a wider variety of situations (especially when you can't get behind the shuttle).
it is very impressive to see hard hitting smashes but personally, i prefer accuracy and variations than just hitting it hard. making your opponent guessing where you are hitting or. even dropping will snap their energy more. I also enjoy being in contol then to simply trying to kill off a rally. chances of winning increase when you have full control even if you lose a point.
Stick smashes are great for variation and to induce pace into a rally. I tend to play them a lot vs. less mobile players as they force the opponent to move further to reach the shuttle, whereas a normal smash can usually be retrieved only using side-to-side movement. A lot of the less mobile players are great at controlling the shuttle and retrieved quick and hard smashes, however when they have to coordinate forwards + sideways movement, maybe even a lunge and the retrieval they struggle a lot more