Results 18 to 34 of 38
10-09-2011, 05:56 PM #18
Tikok,U still fail to answer the question . But seriously, Has the game really changed tht much? Was the aluminium any less rigid, the traditional oval head any less strong than ISO? Or the contrary?Looking back at MD years ago( am not referring to the wooden racket era) they were as fast n as excited than any game played today.
10-09-2011, 06:07 PM #19
I don't see where I fail to answer the question.
It is one of my answers and the first one that come to my mind; simple.
Yes, the game has really changed with the new scoring system.
There are less and less MS competition games played with long serve, even at intermediate levels, strategically a lot of game approaches have changed.
Less and less rallies.
Whatch the videos and ask to guys like Gade who played enough of both "eras" if he doesn't agree with what I'm saying.
10-09-2011, 06:45 PM #20
The long serve issue has been discussed before, it's part of the evolution of badminton play, got nothing to do with the scoring system or new tech. No?So since this has absolutely nothing to do with any new 'tech' incorporated into racket production. I still don't get my answer, thts why I said to you tht u didn't answer my original question. allow me to repeat my secondary questions, is aluminium less rigid? Is oval head less stable? Is past game really tht slow? 20 odd years ago, every golfers wore their glove n only took it off when they were putting. Then a famous golfer called Jack took off his glove after every shot whilst playing a televised major event. The following week, golfers around the world followed suit n started taking their gloves off. U see in any sport, wht the top players do in their respective arena often get pass on to the fans without having to know the reason. Long serve is still very useful in amateur MS games just not at the very very top pro level. Please don't see as a personal attack, tiKok. P/s I have seen lots of vids, thts why I asked?P/s I don't have gade's personal number, so I can't call him up n ask.
10-09-2011, 08:52 PM #21
10-10-2011, 12:49 AM #22
I think the material strength is most important. It allows racket to be much slimmer. Slimmer mean more aerodynamic, less aerodynamic drag, thus more speed.
10-10-2011, 05:03 AM #23
I believe that more stability in frames, so more sure shots, has been more effective since the increasing utilization of Kevlar or Tungsten inserts instead of Titanium ones.
e.g. Voltric vs Armortec racquets: what makes, for me, the big difference between a VT80 and an AT900P is the frame stability of the first one, when you can feel parasite vibrations with the AT.
The slimmer shaft is an option too, we see also, as in tennis for the last 15 years, wider frames (oversized) coming in numbers.
Those two options will change first the beginner and intermediate players game, until maybe (?!) one day a future champion decides, pushed by his sponsor or not (!), to play with such racquet.
Forza went 2-3 years ago for a more dense stringing system with its SPS and nowadays 96 holes racquet; will it be a turning point or not, I don’t know yet ?
I’ve been playing doubles for the running season with a 96 holes very stiff Forza and I must say that it has improved my game significantly.
Rest the fact that I would like to compare with such frame amongst Yonex or Li-Ning, but I can’t for the moment, so I could tell where the difference lies…!
Apart this, I don’t know if Visor was talking to me in making his non-respectful comment earlier, however if it is the case I have to precise that my comments aren’t made from an observer perspective, nor a badminton fan, journalist, technician, coach…., whatever else but from a still active competitor who may play nowadays without sponsor so I may pick the best equipment ever and give my comments from a fair view.
Active competitors don’t see as accurate, and sometimes not as carried away (!), badminton matters the way the others are looking at them; they only see them from a more down to earth perspective: where the bloody hell I may improve my game and win more this season…!
For the rest if BC forum is an adept of the “unique thinking” sect then I am off it right now.
visor liked this post
10-10-2011, 05:19 AM #24
^^^ Eh? If my comment to you was interpreted as "non respectful", then I am truly sorry for the language barrier that seems to divide us. Even the smiley didn't help? ......... Anyways the comment was more directed at the OP as he had questioned my earlier post about my opinion that stronger frame materials allowing greater stability and more aerodynamic frame shape has helped the faster game play in te rally point system. He was essentially saying that I was just regurgitating Yonex propaganda. Apologies if I had unintentionally dragged you into it.
10-10-2011, 05:24 AM #25
Sorry visor, I didn't see this part yesterday; apologies back as I misunderstood your intentions
10-10-2011, 06:02 AM #26
i dun think its a combination of many improvement that makes the significant advancement in badminton.
playing rules (21 pts)
many other such as training and training aids such as more common use of video cam and also more scientific use of sport sciences and sport psychology in aiding sportmans to achieve a higher level of play.
10-10-2011, 08:26 AM #27
Visor, tikok. Guys I hope my earlier comments didn't sound condescending. If they did. Pls accept my apologies. Problem with posting comments online always always causes ill feeling due to misunderstanding, sometimes smilies can even be seen as insulting.... I much prefer to talk face to face but online forum has the one big advantage n thts to be able to each a wider audience in the quickest of time.Back to the original question, the bottom line is tht all the major manufacturers much prefer to keep us in the dark n confuse us with newer fancier names from time to time. So far no one independent study has tested on the alleged benefit of the so called new tech, if u look in their brochures, there are hardly any qualitative numbers to support their claims. Some proudly mentioned the new rackets are more aerodynamic, more stable and stronger but What are they comparing to? And how strong do you want your racket to be? Strong enough to withstand 50lbs tension? I guess it's like driving a Ferrari, u know it's capable of doing 200mph but u r just as happy cruising along in 40mph 99.99999% of the time, even if god permits us to own a Ferrari, we still will never be able to enjoy anywhere near 10% of its' potential capability. So, to answer my own question, the one thing that single handedly has changed the badminton world is the advent and incorporation of the material graphite which itself is a more than 20 yr old technology, it was inevitable when steel replaced the wooden rackets but the impact was nowhere near graphite. it is definitely none of the so call high modulus or nano/titanium stuffs.
10-10-2011, 08:35 AM #28
But I thought the game is about skill not stamina. Your reasoning may be valid amongst hobbyists and amateurs but does not hold water in top pro players.
10-10-2011, 10:00 AM #29
10-10-2011, 11:00 AM #30
@S.fusion: when it comes to marketing, I won’t buy nor listen a word of any gimmicks been used with pseudo scientific words just to make it credible…
So I can only agree with you.
When it comes to the usage of graphite, different type of fibers, their woven and sandwiched assemblies, being in those days a young winter ski competitor and tester in the early seventies I saw the kickstarting of their usage, then golf and tennis, and so on.
So I would say that it isn’t 20 years old technology but 40 years old technology.
It was quite fun in those days, we tried any combination, such as very very flexible tennis racquets or skis, with quite surprising tests sometimes…!
One thing though that is remaining, I have always noticed as I played continental competition level in a couple of sports, sports men & women are getting stronger, bigger and faster all the time, that would also explain why badminton is changing.
But there is a but: you will always find the exception that makes the rule with a short player that sometimes outplays 6 footers, like Shao Chieh Cheng during the last World Championships…
So I don’t think that you’ll find one explanation for your question, but a combination of many (how many ?) answers.
10-10-2011, 01:28 PM #31
The major leaps in racquet technology in my opinion are as follows (from a Yonex perspective).
1. Built in T-joint - this has got to be turning point in badminton racquet tech. Without it you will never get a racquet that is stable enough for today's competition level badminton (I’m sure someone will correct me and say that t-joint racquets are still used by some pros! lol)
2. Isometric Head - this was a significant improvement over the old oval shaped head. Anyone who has used an original Cab20 and a re-released Cab20 will feel that the original which has a slightly flatter, wider top part of the head (rounder, less oval) will have a larger sweetspot, so flattening the top = bigger sweetspot. It wasn’t very noticeable in the early days, I remember using the Isometric 800 Tour which had a slightly widebody/aero frame which didn’t compliment an isometric head in my opinion as it was not as stiff. But for me it wasn’t until the Swing-Power series, Slim 10 and of course the Ti-10 came out that the Isometric head shape really showed it’s true colours.
3. Long length shaft – Ti-10 was one of the first, if not the first to have the extra 10mm. Although this was a relatively simple revision, it was for me a major step. More versatile, longer reach and a bit more head swing speed. Now it’s the norm for most racquets but the change did make some difference.
4. Stiffer materials – All the advancements in carbon technology, adding titanium etc comes under one heading for me. It’s all about achieving a stiffer racquet material with less or the same weight. Having said that, nano-carbon technology was probably the biggest leap since adopting carbon in a one piece racquet.
The minor leaps /flops in racquet technology in my opinion are...
- Widebody frames – the Aerotus series was for me a major flop in design. Not only were they aerodynamically flawed, they has a less rigid shape than say a carbonex box-frame and so they tended to buckle more easily when stringing at higher tensions and had a reduced sweetspot – not to mention the reduced feel.
- Strings – again as someone said earlier, no major improvements in technology really. BG65, 66 is still used by many and although I still prefer the newer range, there isn’t a massive advancement in this area.
- Muscle Power – slight improvement, I can see the logic but not really noticeable.
- New grommet system – this was a good idea, but doesn’t improve your game.
- Yonex Sound Filter – has anyone noticed any difference?
10-10-2011, 02:13 PM #32
10-10-2011, 10:14 PM #33
link). A wooden raket need to be 2 cm but modern graphite material can achieved it with just 8 - 9 mm.
Slimmer (frame) with equal weight mean more speed potential than bulky frame (I think slimmer shaft is less significant here) . Swinging slim framed racket (let say YY TI10 or sotx woven 7) is different than swinging bulky framed racket (with the same swing weight & same balance point).
10-11-2011, 03:34 PM #34
If comparing the wooden against a graphite racket, in theory u r right but honestly, no one has ever done a comparison with a like for like racket ie one graphite racket with 2cm frame as u said and another one with 8-9mm. Both with the same weight, same shaft n grip. I am very doubtful tht the difference is 'statistically significant'.
By SORROWTULIP in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 19: 09-24-2008, 02:11 AM
By tommo in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 19: 09-10-2008, 01:30 PM
By silentheart in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 57: 06-24-2008, 12:07 PM
By najia in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 15: 10-07-2005, 12:38 PM
By Steve willis in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 1: 01-24-2002, 12:58 PM