this may sound really embarrasing for me, my wife and i played singles at our local court sunday evening, when a couple of "KIDS" asks us to play doubles with them, we accepted the challenge with confidence,so then we played with them.. we lost, 2 games.. im 6'1 ft, my wife is 5'6 ft, originally my sport is basketball so i dont have any trouble jumping for a good smash, and my legs are long enough to cover up the whole badminton court so as my wife. but still we lost...by two kids. .. well, does height really matter??
nope not really --> im 5'6(on a good day) and I still play ok just have to have good footwork. Height only helps on smashes (downward angles) but as long as you can jump your ok
Well....the Taller the better of course. Well Tall = More Angle on Smashes, and also, u can achieve more height in a lesser amount of time, which will make ur recovery faster, if they do a fast drop as a counter, u'll be on ur feet early which will give you more response time.
Height does matter if you use it . I like to think that if you play a "tall" game you'll have that edge if at no expense of the other parts of the game. Seems like a subjective statement there. I'm 6' and I find it that I don't really use my tallness as much (i'm working on it) as I use my agility. I think agility is primary in badminton when it comes to non-badminton related attributes. Often I've seen a tall person who is good but lacks doubles's agility to flourish. He's too tall so to speak. But then I've seen tall people use their tall game to dominate those that can't exploit the tall person's poor agility. To summarize, tall > normal agility > tall agility + tall = world champion /max
well i guess i stand at "tall > normal" basically because i do need more practice and experience on doubles. i am very poor in placements, and since i'm tall, im having a hard time digging (if thats what you call it) the shuttle near the floor. guess i have to lessen my love handles.
height matter somewhat. but height alone doesn't completely determine badminton ability. otherwise Michael Jordan can just pick up a racket and beat all the best badminton players in the world. it is time to go back and do more drills to refine your skills.
And don't forget that there have been many great players under six feet tall. Height therefore is not the defining factor in how good you can be.
That means I stink to the core in this game! My technique stinks and I am so short(only about 154 cm tall)!!!!!!!!!! This makes me so angry!
And there would be nothing to stop you from trying to be "smarter" than the opponent as well. Let's face it; you have lots of potential.
I doubt if this is true. The world power houses are 95% in asia, which surely has "disadvantage" in height when compare to America and Europe. I think for Asian, the average height for man is about 5'5-5'6, and for ladies is about 5'2-5'3 range. Or, maybe I am way under estimate it?
and why are the asians so good then? a combination of footwork and agility. As well they anticipate very well.
Asians are generally smaller in stature and as stated, about 5'6" - 5'7" in height, thus the best way to make use of this is by refining the strokes and train on agility. Badminton is by itself a game that relies on proper technique, thus, you see that skills almost always triumphs over power. The Americans or British are big sized people, so they already have the advantage of height and power (subjective, but you understand) and can develope on that aspect. Not saying that they are less skillful, but it comes from making the best of what you have. Compare Bao Chunlai and Lee Chong Wei, I think Lee is much faster and agile on the court than Bao who is more powerful(if skill level is normalize to equal).
It could be true that Asians are in general disadvantaged in the height department, but that doesn't mean all are disadvantaged. Actually, have a look at the Chinese Team lineup... they seem pretty tall themselves. For example, Bao Chunlai is really tall. Fu/Cai weren't exactly midgets themselves. So not all Asians are short statured. Truth of the matter is... what it takes to be a champ is not just the drive to be the best, genetics feature a sizable part in the equation as well. Average is not a quality one would find in the top powerhouses' teams (or any other countries' national teams) as only the best could play for their countries, so we can't really use general population to compare with the elite. No matter how you look at it, height is an advantage when all other qualities are equal. Coaches will make the appropriate selections when they have lots to choose from. Of course, sometime there can be too much of a good thing.
Competition brings out the best... pure evolution. At the international level, Asian teams are strong because their neighbours are strong. Compare them to European teams and then compare those teams with North American teams. Geographically, Asian teams and European teams can compete more amongst themselves. Evolution at the national level: the numbers favors the Asian teams as team selections tend to be better from bigger populations. Also, Asian teams have an edge because they're more involved with the sport than the Europeans. It's possible that the best badminton player could have been from Vancouver, Canada... but w/o the right 'nurturing' environment, s/he won't realise the potential.
How about a novel idea? I'm starting to believe that being taller is a disadvantage. I'm not talking extreme, i.e. 6'7" versus 4'6", but the standard 5'5" versus 6'2". In my experience (this is club level only- I don't see enough professional matches to opine on), because of the size of the court, quickness usually outweighs the advantages of a taller person's reach. Even if not as steep an angle, the shorter person can still generate a downward angle, and increase with a jump. Rarely do I see a taller person do an all out jump, mainly using their natural reach to generate the angle. So if the shorter person jumps, the angle might just be the same. For the taller person, body shots are harder to get to. Reaction around the body is more angular and a taller person needs to twist more. Sometimes drop shots are reached for (relying on reach rather than footwork) and this puts the body at a more unbalanced state. just some thoughts. oh btw, I'm asian and 6'0" so I'm not biased against tall guys.
Why would it be embrassing unless those kids are so below your and wife's skill level? Even so, based on your posting, it seems that you guys are more singles than doubles. Doubles and Singles strategies are totally different. If all things being equal (skill level, mentality, etc.) except for height, I still say that height does not matter as the game could go either way as being taller, more than likely you will be less skilled in getting shots directed at the body compared with a shorter person whereas your smashes are probably steeper than those of the shorter person.
In my opinion, both has advantages and disadvantages. Ex: smaller person are faster (generally) I mean that the fastest small person is faster than the fastest tall person on a badminton court Pros Small: fast fast to get to the net can defend the body more easily jump higher tall: cover the court better more angle can intercept cons: small cover the court (harder to retrieve smashes) less angles tall: slower, much more vulnerable to unexpected shots body defense thats about it... and remember that this is GENRERALLY true...
