User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 40
  1. #18
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,094
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foo.tw View Post
    Correct answer +1
    Also shorter contact time makes opponent harder to predict your shots.
    And high tension = higher max power.
    "low tension for power & high tension for control" rule only applies when you max power is low.
    With high power, you will need high tension to utilize you power better
    .
    yep... borrowing from an analogy in archery, if you're strong you can use either low or high tension bowstring...

    but you'll get more max power from the higher tension one

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Just out of curiosity, do you use panhandle grip all the time now?
    A little bit digression from Topic but here is quick answer.
    I don't use Basic grip at all as I think using "narrower parallel side (1)" of badminton racket octogone is not efficient way of energy transfer or control.
    I use Panhandle grip "using Wider parallel side (3)" of badminton racket octogone.
    I use "modified bevel grip (if i may call it)" but bringing in thump on lower wide parallet side for backhand overhead.
    the racket grip moves between (minor adjustments) this two grips based on my "feel while hitting shuttle"
    so I also changed grip but it's more in Panhandle grip base changed.
    now back to topic discussion. A-1 to A-6 is given any enlightment of this anamoly is welcome
    @#17 - Read A-1 to A-6 and previous post carefully. The so called "Max Power" person could afford to go for more heavier racket to get more power .. that is the point because u know what he has "more power to swing heavy heavy racket".
    1) It's like 4U Racket at 34 lb tension for matching with "Very HIGH Swing Speed"
    OR

    2) 3U Racket at 26 lb tension with "High Swing speed"

    Which one will generate more Power (assuming all other parameters are SAME .. ie same player / Same Skills / same body strength etc) ?

    SZ

  3. #20
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,829
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The player that doesn't use panhandle (and uses 3U with 34lbs)

    Seriously, it should be bio-mechanically impossible to reach your max swingspeed using panhandle (the basis of your "theory". There are countless studies on pronation maybe you should read a few first (I suggest javelin for example). Panhandle in tennis service is called a pancake serve



    Last edited by demolidor; 05-24-2013 at 06:46 PM.

  4. #21
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,829
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You lose "lever" #3 (wrist pivot) (indicated in the vid above) when you use panhandle


  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    879
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superzoom View Post
    Now let me add 2 from my side on high level

    A-5) The Racket weight is inversly responsible to Racket swing speed while keeping all parameters same (means same player, same skills/technique etc) - Agree ? ( I hope so)

    A-6) More racket weight to utilize given all other paramters are equal (except swing speed reduction parameter) will generate more Power - Agree ? (I hope so)

    The basic grip is not giving them the natural control in alignment with natural body mechnics .. which was invented 30-40 years back to handle "Heavy" rackets using Pronation / Supination.

    it means Basic grip is not 'fundamentally suitable for control' (suppoerted by beginners without instructions to opt for Panhandle grip)
    Thanks for responding to my post.

    I want to talk about the things I have left in the quote above.

    A-5) To clarify - holding a much heavier racket will decrease your swing speed (agree?) i.e. a tennis racket would be swung much slower than a badminton racket. However, if you are swinging a racket of a certain weight as fast as it is biomechanically possible (without breaking your joints), making the racket lighter will NOT increase your swing speed (as it is already maxed out). I difficult thing to prove that it is "maxed", but I hope you agree that there is a point past which players cannot swing faster. Also, I hope you agree that if you get a heavier racket moving at an initial velocity, it may move faster (because of increased momentum) than a lighter racket that starts at the same initial velocity. I hope that makes sense.

    A-6)
    I think I disagree, but I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. The way I read this is "more weight in the racket means more power even though it is slower swing speed". This is wrong. power comes from racket head speed (and a clean energy transfer). If the racket head speed remains the same, then heavier racket gives more power, but if the racket head speed dips, then the power may well dip as well. Racket head speed should be considered the most important thing for power generation, NOT the weight of the racket. Hence, I disagree with you. Which means your conclusion is false.

    You stated that the basic grip was invented 30-40 years ago to handle "heavy" rackets using pronation/supination. I believe you are wrong. The reason that the "basic grip" was developed is it the only way to take the shuttle at maximum possible height (something a panhandle cannot even come close to) whilst maintaining a very large range of motion, that allows the muscles to work together to create racket head speed. (Demolidor links to some videos that show you the differences in range of motion between grips.) The basic grip was NOT developed because it was the "only way" of using heavy rackets - it was the "only way" of producing good racket head speed whilst maintaining a maximum vertical reach (which is very important in badminton). So this seems to me to be another part of your argument that I am not convinced by. Any thoughts on this?

    So, finally you claim that the basic grip is not "fundamentally suited for control", and that this is in some way supported by beginners adopting the panhandle technique. This claim regarding beginners promoting the best possible "natural" technique, as you claim, is what I particularly want to talk about:
    If we should judge the technique of beginners to be "perfect technique" as you suggest, that means that all players should move by running backwards and forwards, off balance, barely able to reach the shuttle. It also means that the "correct grip" is the "fist grip" or "pointing the index finger directly up the grip" grip. These are the most common grips for beginners first picking up a racket, doing what is "natural", and they usually use a panhandle orientation. Presumably this is the way you play, maybe with the fist grip? After all, this is the "most natural" way to play. Also, the backhand technique used by beginners is also valid I presume? the huge "danish swipe" where they swing as hard as possible at waist level with any old grip?

    These are the "natural" things that most beginners do. These are not correct, clearly (to me at least). So perhaps you mean a lower intermediate player? I.e. one who has played quite a bit and can control some of his shots, probably still panhandling? Probably still using a "danish swipe"? But now they have probably changed their movement to be more like everyone else, and switched to a more traditional panhandle grip. Surely this must be wrong? It can't be "natural" because they only started doing it after they started playing with everyone else and seeing how they do it. Or maybe, because they have been playing longer, they know more than a beginner? Maybe the incorrect techniques used by beginners are not correct?

    So lets extend this. As this player moves from intermediate to higher intermediate or lower advanced, they virtually all start using the basic grip for overhead strokes, and panhandle is kept for the midcourt and the net (as appropriate). Are we saying that this player has now learnt "too much" and should have stuck with the things they were doing when they were less experienced?

    As far as I can tell, either more experience leads to better technique (as I believe) or worse technique (as you believe - because they stop doing the "natural" things they did when they first stepped onto court). I don't buy it. I do not believe the crap techniques beginners use should be the basis of "proof" for how good technique should be.

    What do you think? As far as I can tell, all your talk about "natural alignments" and which grips are "fundamentally suitable for control", is based on the assumption that beginners have somehow picked up the "best" technique as soon as they walk on court and pick up the racket for the first time, and the assumption that the heaviness of a racket is the only important thing for power generation.

    I do not believe the first assumption could EVER be true. I do not believe that ANY person could start doing ANY sport and be perfect at it from their very first attempt, as you have suggested. This must be universally true across all sports, if it is true in badminton. Unless, of course, perfect technique is something that is not necessarily intuitive to everybody. Some people have to learn it.

    As to your second assumption (A-6) I believe you are mistaken. I believe that racket head speed is the important part of power generation, not "more weight". More weight with same racket head speed - yes this has more power. More weight but less racket head speed, I do not believe this is more powerful (obviously depends on how much extra weight and how little a change in speed).

    Look forward to your answers

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demolidor View Post
    The player that doesn't use panhandle (and uses 3U with 34lbs)

    Seriously, it should be bio-mechanically impossible to reach your max swingspeed using panhandle (the basis of your "theory". There are countless studies on pronation maybe you should read a few first (I suggest javelin for example). Panhandle in tennis service is called a pancake serve




    Thanks for posting #20 & #21 posts.

    But that's EXACTLY is my point how "convensional wisdom" got mistakenly used in BADMINTON sport for basic grip as well as Panhandle grip for that matter .. the 2 threads I have been accused of opening for lack of convensional understanding


    Key points

    1) The base study link (you tube) you gave refer to 3 sports (Tennis & NFL) in #20 and Baseball in #21.

    2) using "Heavy Tennis Rackets (250 gms to 350 gms .. Avg weight 300 gms) which is "4 times" more heavier than Avg Badminton racket. Hence Basic grip & pronation more required for "human body" to handle "Heavy weight" which is not the case for BADMINTON.

    3) using "app. 400 grams' of NFL football is same as #2 above. much more weight than Badminton racket. This throwing action is QB specific .. who probably will not throw more than 50 times in one game (passing style .. long ball). NOT applicable for BADMINTON.

    4) using "140 gms minimum" Baseball weight (much heavier than even 2U rackets). I will not even address the point how even the "World class strater pitchers" are restricted to typically max 150 pitch count and 3-4 days typical rest in that action as that is highly abnormal action for human body. NOT applicable for BADMINTON

    it justs tells us that even the experts and knowledgable folks get in the trap of looking at other sports related study and trying to apply / baseline in Badminton where are the BADMINTON sport in terms of Racket weight (85 gms) has become totally different (as if it's not different in the past) and need new acceptance of understanding when it comes to Basic grip or other alternative grips (panhandle is one creditable option).

    SZ

  7. #24
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,829
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superzoom View Post
    Thanks for posting #20 & #21 posts.

    But that's EXACTLY is my point how "convensional wisdom" got mistakenly used in BADMINTON sport for basic grip as well as Panhandle grip for that matter .. the 2 threads I have been accused of opening for lack of convensional understanding


    Key points

    1) The base study link (you tube) you gave refer to 3 sports (Tennis & NFL) in #20 and Baseball in #21.

    2) using "Heavy Tennis Rackets (250 gms to 350 gms .. Avg weight 300 gms) which is "4 times" more heavier than Avg Badminton racket. Hence Basic grip & pronation more required for "human body" to handle "Heavy weight" which is not the case for BADMINTON.

    3) using "app. 400 grams' of NFL football is same as #2 above. much more weight than Badminton racket. This throwing action is QB specific .. who probably will not throw more than 50 times in one game (passing style .. long ball). NOT applicable for BADMINTON.

    4) using "140 gms minimum" Baseball weight (much heavier than even 2U rackets). I will not even address the point how even the "World class strater pitchers" are restricted to typically max 150 pitch count and 3-4 days typical rest in that action as that is highly abnormal action for human body. NOT applicable for BADMINTON

    it justs tells us that even the experts and knowledgable folks get in the trap of looking at other sports related study and trying to apply / baseline in Badminton where are the BADMINTON sport in terms of Racket weight (85 gms) has become totally different (as if it's not different in the past) and need new acceptance of understanding when it comes to Basic grip or other alternative grips (panhandle is one creditable option).

    SZ
    My god, this has "nothing" to with weight. Lower weight rackets have advantage in reaction shots, not maximum power ... take of your blindfold and accept this is the optimum biomechanical motion. Do you smash with 90-100% power 100-150 times in a match? "NOT applicable to BADMINTON"

    It is even illegal to use pronation in cricket apparently where the fastest bowlers in the world have faced accusations of "throwing" ... some reading material http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php...t&view=article
    Last edited by demolidor; 05-26-2013 at 11:27 AM.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSeeley View Post
    Thanks for responding to my post.

    I want to talk about the things I have left in the quote above.

    A-5) To clarify - holding a much heavier racket will decrease your swing speed (agree?) i.e. a tennis racket would be swung much slower than a badminton racket. However, if you are swinging a racket of a certain weight as fast as it is biomechanically possible (without breaking your joints), making the racket lighter will NOT increase your swing speed (as it is already maxed out).

    comment --- * I was referring to Heavy Racket (of Head heavy weight adjustment and slowing speed .. so we are good **

    A-6)
    I think I disagree, but I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. The way I read this is "more weight in the racket means more power even though it is slower swing speed". This is wrong. power comes from racket head speed (and a clean energy transfer). If the racket head speed remains the same, then heavier racket gives more power, but if the racket head speed dips, then the power may well dip as well. Racket head speed should be considered the most important thing for power generation,


    ** Commet -- Yes Head weight adjustment **

    You stated that the basic grip was invented 30-40 years ago to handle "heavy" rackets using pronation/supination. I believe you are wrong. The reason that the "basic grip" was developed is it the only way to take the shuttle at maximum possible height

    ** Comment - only on overhead 1 inch difference for same player .. same skills ... same vertical (on ground or in air style) (




    What do you think? As far as I can tell, all your talk about "natural alignments" and which grips are "fundamentally suitable for control", is based on the assumption that beginners have somehow picked up the "best" technique as soon as they walk on court and pick up the racket for the first time, and the assumption that the heaviness of a racket is the only important thing for power generation.

    ** Comment - Don't underestimate the Human Intelligence a la Human Genetics about making decisions when undertaking new tasks/activities to maximize body usage **


    Look forward to your answers


    Question open for all

    option -1) 4U Racket at 34 lb tension for matching with "Very HIGH Swing Speed"

    OR

    optiona-2) (Head Heavy equivalent) 3U weight Racket at 26 lb tension with "High Swing speed"

    Which one will generate more Power (assuming all other parameters are SAME .. ie same player / Same Skills / same body strength etc) ?

    I think option 2 .. hence power generation.

    SZ

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    879
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SZ:

    Find below responses to your comments.

    A-5 and A-6: not sure we are actually agreeing. Basically, maximum power comes from maximum racket head speed. When that maximum racket head speed has been found, increasing the racket weight (in grams, not balance) without sacrificing racket head speed will give maximum power. Changing the balance of a racket may increase racket head speed, but a head heavy balance (more weight towards the head) will give the best results. Note: using more weight towards the head with a heavier racket (in grams) but reducing swing speed may not increase power (it is most likely to lose power). What you seem to be stating is that the heaviness is more important than the speed. Which is wrong.

    Comment - only on overhead 1 inch difference for same player .. same skills ... same vertical (on ground or in air style)



    You keep trying to claim that there is virtually no difference in vertical reach between the two grips. Perhaps this is my fault for not explaining more explicitly WHY we want to reach up. We want to reach UP so we can hit shots DOWN. With this in mind, reaching to full height with a panhandle grip, it is not possible to hit the shuttle down because the wrist locks. At best, you can hit the shuttle flat. Which is a lift. In badminton, we generally want to ATTACK, not lift. In order to hit the shuttle DOWN with a panhandle grip, you need to have you hand positioned at roughly head height. Which is a LOT lower than a basic grip (more than a foot - not an inch). Thus, my explanation is correct - the basic grip was developed for players to reach as high as possible AND hit the shot downwards (sorry I left out the second part of the sentence before!).

    Comment - Don't underestimate the Human Intelligence a la Human Genetics about making decisions when undertaking new tasks/activities to maximize body usage



    I want everyone to read this carefully to see how ridiculous this is. What you have said, is that any player is at their "best" or "most natural" the first time they step on court. The have adopted the best grip, the best footwork, the best backhand etc... Are you joking? You mean we should all play with the pointed finger, locked wrist panhandle grip? And we should just try to run everywhere on court and not use proper footwork?

    A similar analogy, is that professional singers and musicians that play wind instruments should NOT learn circular breathing (being able to breathe in and still produce sound by exhaling) because it is not natural? Again, please let this be a joke. I cannot possibly agree with you, when you openly state: that someone is at their "best" the less they know of "proper" or "conventional" technique.

    As to your question, the honest answer is I don't know - for me - I would enjoy playing with the 34lb racket more, because I would enjoy the feel of the strings. The weight (3U or 4U) would not bother me, as long as the racket were head heavy (because I enjoy playing with a head heavy racket). Without getting on court and testing, I cannot tell you (and it is not possible to buy both types in the UK). Perhaps this is a test that needs to be performed. Can you ask some of your professional friends to test it?

    I can tell you for certain that if I played with 30lbs and 22lbs in the same racket I would get much more power from the 30lbs racket. And if I played with 30lbs in a head heavy racket, and 22lbs in a head light racket, I would get much more power from the head heavy racket, even though my swing speed is identical (head heavy and head light has no difference for me in terms of swing speed - my arm doesn't yet know how to move any faster than it does currently). However, this is missing the different racket weights as part of the equation.

  10. #27
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,902
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    A video to help, maybe....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiYgo6GD_DU

    The interesting part is from 0:30 to 1:34

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,092
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    clears, not lifts matt

  12. #29
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,846
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSeeley View Post
    SZ:

    Find below responses to your comments.

    A-5 and A-6: not sure we are actually agreeing. Basically, maximum power comes from maximum racket head speed. When that maximum racket head speed has been found, increasing the racket weight (in grams, not balance) without sacrificing racket head speed will give maximum power. Changing the balance of a racket may increase racket head speed, but a head heavy balance (more weight towards the head) will give the best results. Note: using more weight towards the head with a heavier racket (in grams) but reducing swing speed may not increase power (it is most likely to lose power). What you seem to be stating is that the heaviness is more important than the speed. Which is wrong.

    Comment - only on overhead 1 inch difference for same player .. same skills ... same vertical (on ground or in air style)



    You keep trying to claim that there is virtually no difference in vertical reach between the two grips. Perhaps this is my fault for not explaining more explicitly WHY we want to reach up. We want to reach UP so we can hit shots DOWN. With this in mind, reaching to full height with a panhandle grip, it is not possible to hit the shuttle down because the wrist locks. At best, you can hit the shuttle flat. Which is a lift. In badminton, we generally want to ATTACK, not lift. In order to hit the shuttle DOWN with a panhandle grip, you need to have you hand positioned at roughly head height. Which is a LOT lower than a basic grip (more than a foot - not an inch). Thus, my explanation is correct - the basic grip was developed for players to reach as high as possible AND hit the shot downwards (sorry I left out the second part of the sentence before!).

    Comment - Don't underestimate the Human Intelligence a la Human Genetics about making decisions when undertaking new tasks/activities to maximize body usage



    I want everyone to read this carefully to see how ridiculous this is. What you have said, is that any player is at their "best" or "most natural" the first time they step on court. The have adopted the best grip, the best footwork, the best backhand etc... Are you joking? You mean we should all play with the pointed finger, locked wrist panhandle grip? And we should just try to run everywhere on court and not use proper footwork?

    A similar analogy, is that professional singers and musicians that play wind instruments should NOT learn circular breathing (being able to breathe in and still produce sound by exhaling) because it is not natural? Again, please let this be a joke. I cannot possibly agree with you, when you openly state: that someone is at their "best" the less they know of "proper" or "conventional" technique.

    As to your question, the honest answer is I don't know - for me - I would enjoy playing with the 34lb racket more, because I would enjoy the feel of the strings. The weight (3U or 4U) would not bother me, as long as the racket were head heavy (because I enjoy playing with a head heavy racket). Without getting on court and testing, I cannot tell you (and it is not possible to buy both types in the UK). Perhaps this is a test that needs to be performed. Can you ask some of your professional friends to test it?

    I can tell you for certain that if I played with 30lbs and 22lbs in the same racket I would get much more power from the 30lbs racket. And if I played with 30lbs in a head heavy racket, and 22lbs in a head light racket, I would get much more power from the head heavy racket, even though my swing speed is identical (head heavy and head light has no difference for me in terms of swing speed - my arm doesn't yet know how to move any faster than it does currently). However, this is missing the different racket weights as part of the equation.
    Good post. Depending on how long you've been playing for, you might actually want to try out a lighter racket some time. I did (having started with the Li Ning N70 and N90, changing to the Victor Bravesword 09) and it certainly helped me improve - not only did I get faster defensively and around the net, the initial drop in power forced me to pay closer attention to how I hit my smashes and I'd like to think they improved quite a bit as a result.

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSeeley View Post
    SZ:


    As to your question, the honest answer is I don't know - for me - I would enjoy playing with the 34lb racket more, because I would enjoy the feel of the strings. The weight (3U or 4U) would not bother me, as long as the racket were head heavy (because I enjoy playing with a head heavy racket). Without getting on court and testing, I cannot tell you (and it is not possible to buy both types in the UK). Perhaps this is a test that needs to be performed. Can you ask some of your professional friends to test it?

    I can tell you for certain that if I played with 30lbs and 22lbs in the same racket I would get much more power from the 30lbs racket. And if I played with 30lbs in a head heavy racket, and 22lbs in a head light racket, I would get much more power from the head heavy racket, even though my swing speed is identical (head heavy and head light has no difference for me in terms of swing speed - my arm doesn't yet know how to move any faster than it does currently). However, this is missing the different racket weights as part of the equation.
    I think we reach saturation point on this topic (if not earlier with A-1 to A-6) so here is logical breakpoint of this discussion

    As you said ... you are not certain about answer to this question. if anybody wants to explore this anamoly further .. please feel free to do that. Probably my involvement would be very less assuming even if I am available. (polite way of saying I am almost done with this discussion )

    Hypothesis is "As despite Power trade-off is available per option 2 by sacrificing some swing power still player are opting for 34+ string tension means they value control more than power.

    (It means their current basic grip is not optimally tuned as human body for Power + Control optimal combination. The basic grip is legacy mind-set of heavy racket handling era)

    Question open on table

    option -1) 4U Racket at 34 lb tension for matching with "Very HIGH" Swing Speed

    OR

    option-2) (Head Heavy equivalent) 3U weight Racket at 26 lb tension with "High" Swing speed

    Basic Assumption by adding more weight the swingspeed will slow down and tuning string tension could be reduced BUT MORE POWER is generated with head heavyness)

    Which one will generate more Power (assuming all other parameters are SAME .. ie same player / Same Skills / same body strength etc) ?

    SZ

  14. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demolidor View Post
    It is even illegal to use pronation in cricket apparently where the fastest bowlers in the world have faced accusations of "throwing" ... some reading material http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php...t&view=article
    A little bit of parting wisdom for the time being

    it's not ban on pronation but old traditional rule of cricket (from 18th century onwards) that bowlers can NOT deviate (probably more more than 15 degress) from shoulder.

    If you can stay in that 15 degree limit and do pronation while delivering the ball .. you can do it.

    watch rashid malinga of sri lanka (and other bowlers) who is using that action. but rather than the POWER (Speed) it is primarily used by them for the ODD angles it creates for Batsman when the ball hit the ground comes on BAT. (Many Australian fast bowlers are traditional from shoulder bowlers).

    I know as I am pretty good unorthodox Leg spinner and right hand batsman. but than who is talking about cricket here.

    SZ

  15. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    vancouver,BC
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    shouldnt you have more options like:

    3U strung at 34lbs
    4U strung at 26lbs

    to test for power.

    Next all you need is ask Fu Hai Feng to do about 10-50 smashes with each racket and get some results. Get the distribution of your results and tell us how the data correlation is like. YAY!

  16. #33
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,846
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For someone claiming to have a "high badminton IQ" (the phrase itself speaks volumes about your real IQ, really), you certainly have trouble grasping the very basic concepts of the game.
    To copy your style of posting: I'll make it simple for your low IQ and spoon-feed you the explanation in simple words and small steps.

    A) To win a point nowadays, you have to attack.
    B) To attack, you first need to win the attack, i.e. get a (preferably) high lift or clear.
    C) To get a lift, you have to play a net shot that is accurate enough to force your opponent to take it below the tape. If the shot is not accurate enough they'll just kill it, play it back to the net, push it past you....
    D) As you should be able to see, control is in fact vital to get the attack in the first place. Power is not. Once you've won the attack, you can apply power.

    Also, even when on the attack, placement is actually more important than power as a badly placed shot will immediately get countered, however powerful it may be. Smashing at 270 won't help you if you lose control and smash it 10 inches above the tape and allow the opponent to play a flat drive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Superzoom View Post
    (It means their current basic grip is not optimally tuned as human body for Power + Control optimal combination. The basic grip is legacy mind-set of heavy racket handling era)
    This is just ridiculous, really. It actually undermines everyone's suspicion you're a beginner-level player that tries to somehow rationalize his use of inefficient amateur technique.
    That rackets have gotten lighter has changed nothing about the fact that on a smash, you strain your body to the maximum. Maybe the rackets are lighter than they were 20 years ago, but as a result, the swing speed has gone up. The momentum of the racket has in fact not changed at all (well, it has increased as pro players are way fitter these days, but they'd get the same momentum with an old 100+g racket as they do with their usual gear).
    As you strain your body to the max, it's absolutely vital that your technique is good enough to avoid injury. Using a panhandle grip on anything else than drives, net play or desperate can't-change-the-grip defense is just asking for trouble - your wrist just locks after the swing and if you actually put everything into a smash you have a really good chance of injuring yourself.

    All of this is not even taking into account that the panhandle grip limits your overhead power and angle severely as you don't get nearly the same swing speed and your point of contact is way lower. Another disadvantage is that to attack, you have to take the shuttle way in front of your body, which requires you to move more (a disadvantage, you really want to move as little as possible) or even makes it impossible to attack when you simply don't have the time to move behind the shuttle so far.


    It's also not true that this grip isn't given enough chances - I regularly see people use it. Some even use it despite them being coached. The only real constant: 99% of them suck. I only know one guy using a panhandle grip overhead who's actually not bad, but that is despite his grip, not because of it. In doubles, he's the guy everyone hits to as he lacks power and has to get ridiculously far behind the shuttle to attack. He has stayed with this grip for too long to get it out of his system, so for him it's probably actually better than trying to re-learn everything using a proper grip, but the people who get the same training and have similar fitness levels and use the proper grip are all better than him by a fair margin.

    FYI, stating that sanitary standards in India are below central European ones and that chances of getting food poisoning are high is not an "insensitive comment" but stating a proven fact.
    Last edited by j4ckie; 05-27-2013 at 07:17 AM.

  17. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    879
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    clears, not lifts matt
    Damnit. Now my post is meaningless...
    Last edited by MSeeley; 05-27-2013 at 09:06 AM. Reason: Added smile :D

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •