Thread: Ideal Height?
04-25-2009, 09:15 PM #35
As I said before, in doubles at least one of the players needs to be tall enough; but need not be positioned in the back; look at Kido and JJS but they need tall partners to block the returns from their smashes.
But in singles, height doesn't matter to be top, they can cover with great footworks; see taufic, LCW, etc. Nevertheless, height matters somewhat to be in the highest places of the rank.
04-26-2009, 01:15 PM #36
As an adult with ordinary skill, I can beat even the best 9 year old kid, simply by my height advantage.
XXF, Wang Yihan, Wang Lin, Zhang Ning are very tall amongst the Chinese women population. Easily within the top 5% percentile. I am certain there are natural talents from the petite category, but not given the opportunity to develop further as world class players. Therefore, being tall gives you that advantage of being selected for further grooming.
On another front, if you look at Usain Bolt, 6ft5in, 100m World Record holder and Olympic Champion, his physical advantage is so obvious.
There is no ideal height. The taller the better (except gymnastics) when everything else is the same.
04-26-2009, 10:17 PM #37
IMO, being tall is quite advantageous.
Coupled with good footwork in singles, you get more reach.
In doubles, you are much more intimidating at the net.
04-27-2009, 02:19 AM #38
Please check what I exactly said. To be the top-most rankers, you don't need to be tall. But tall height is advantageous only to be top-10 or 20 ranked.
One more thing to note is that tall guys are much more likely to be offended by the short and quick shots from relatively shorter guys - that's happening with LCW and Taufic who uses their height ironically tactically.
In the sense above, taller guys like BCL are more vulnerable to be attacked and hard to keep sharp control with their long arms and legs; check the videos of BCL to know this technically.
Furthermore, taller guys are more likely to be injured and once they are it would be more severe than shorter guys. Do you know BCL's on-going injury on his knee? He will soon get surgery on that. Check also the injuriy of Tine Rasmussen who is one of the tallest women in singles. If you like, check who gets the knee protection more.
In sum, it's not true especially in Badminton that the taller the better. There are always pros and cons. Practically, it's all up to each individual player's talent. But, as I said, in doubles, at least one of them needs to be tall.
Last edited by narnia; 04-27-2009 at 02:21 AM.
04-27-2009, 10:49 AM #39
In my last sentence I wrote. "The taller the better when everything else is the same".
Imagine you are only 4 feet tall and I am a six footer. You got to have the skills of Lin Dan to beat me. Whether it is a 2 foot or 2 inch difference, the advantage is still there when everything else is the same.
04-27-2009, 11:27 PM #40
04-28-2009, 08:50 AM #41
Firstly. the area of sweep from cocked and uncocked wrist is the same for tall and short players. It is dependent on the length of the racket (std. 68 cm). Theoretically, no difference in area coverage. Secondly, it is well known that the best body smash is to aim at the hip of the opponent. However, if your opponent is very tall, his racket is short relative to his height and limbs. Meaning to say his racket face is relatively closer to his wrist compared to a short player. Also, he does not have to lift his arm so high to cover his hip with the racket face. Less time taken, better defence.
You will notice that in table tennis where most of the shots are coming at your hip level, yet most people can defend well, just manipulating their wrist using the short bat. Remember I said everything else the same.
04-28-2009, 12:09 PM #42
The defense coverage might be not different for the short and tall guys. But it looks a study for the case of static conditions. Badminton is a very dynamic sports with all kinds of movements even with jerk, deceptions, etc. When I said of the vulnerability of taller players, I thought the practical situations happening in play or rally. Although it all depends on each player's talents, in general, much taller guys would experience more difficulties in controlling his or her body components and rackets in the fast-moving fast-changing situations. That's the weak points of taller players even with other advantages. (Men's games would be more appropriate for my discussion. But usually women's games are much slower so taller womens would be more advantageous on this matter of subject.)
AFAIK, in badminton, the usual target is known as the direction toward the shoulder holding the racket not hip like in ping-pong.
04-30-2009, 10:17 PM #43
When everything else is equal(e.g. skills, mental strength, stamina, speed, etc), the taller player will have the advantage.
I hope this will be help to explain my point of view. An interesting comment from
PaulChow post#38, Does height matters?
one or two ppl mentioned earlier that being tall can be a disadvantage for the reasons that one is slower and not given as many opportunities to jump smash if they are tall. I don't understand why. Here's the way i see it...
Note: for the duration of this post, using the term, "taller" will mean proportionally taller (ie. If the 5'10 subject has a shoulder width of 20 inches, the 6'0 subject will have a shoulder width of about 20.56 inches, because a 2 inch increase in height is about a 2.8% differance in height. Also consider the subjects' weight to increase proportionally with height.) and to be in comparision to shorter person. Differential is in your discretion.
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't the point of jumpsmashing to gain the opportunity to hit a steeper angle, not to produce power? If one doesn't have to jump to produce the same angle as a short person, then: 1) If one does get a chance to jump they can produce superior angles (a proportionally taller person will also have a proportionally larger vertical leap) and 2) If they dont jump for a particular smash they still have the opportunity to hit with a decent angle. Also, supposing a taller person doesn't have as many opportunities to jump, they will be able to return to their base more quickly with no sacrifice in comparison to a much shorter person who needed to jump to produce the same angle as the taller person.
Why would being tall make one slow? For example, someone who is 1ft tall will not be able to move around the court effectively no matter how incredibly fit they are. Supposed this ultra fit person is suddenly 6'2 with the same proportions, they will now be incredibly fast at spanning the court. The same concept is true on a smaller scale when comparing someone who is 5'10 to being 6'. If the 6' person is a carbon copy of the 5'10 person except that the 6' person is proportionally taller, then the 6' person will have the advantage in both speed and power and will undoubtedly be the superior player of the two.
"But if you're taller, you have to hit the bird sooner of lifts/clears". How so? Consider this: For a short person, the angle of the lift/clear does not need to be as great to exceed the reach of their racket. Performing the kind of low clear that might put a lot of pressure on a shorter person would be suicide against a much taller person because it would be cut off early, defeating the purpose of the shot. The higher angle clear means the shuttle spends more time in the air; so although the tall person strikes the bird at a higher point, they generally have the same amount of time to get to the back.
Now taking the example of the 5'10 and the 6' person again, someone might say, "The taller person, although they have more muscle mass will not be able to hit the bird harder or clear more easily. That is almost solely dependant on technique.". While technique is the key, the 6' person posessing quality of technique equal to that of the 5'10 person will be able to apply more speed to the shuttle because the mass of the birdie and and the racket will be proportionally smaller to them. Therefore, the impulse required to produce the maximum shuttle speed the 5'10 person could muster will take less "effort" (in terms of what percent of the 6' tall person's capability they feel they are applying.). At maximum effort, the 6' person will be able to produce higher shuttle speed than the 5'10 person.
One more advantage, because the reach of a taller person is greater, they can receive shots to their sides more easily (granted they are not very low, discussed later on).
The disadvantages i see in being a proportionally taller person are:
1) Greater chance of being hit in the back of the head by your doubles partner.
2) Receiving body shots requires more awkward and therefore more time costly motions because the raquet face covers a proportionally smaller percentage of your body.
4) Striking the bird requires more coordination (the racket and shuttle are proportionally smaller to the taller person).
I'm not sure about this last one:
3) Receiving shots close to the ground is more difficult
Note: If you disagree with me on one or more of the preceeding points you won't hurt my feelings just give a good explaination why
It seems like having the advantage in height, principally speaking, is to have the advantage in badminton. "If so, then why aren't the best badminton players all very tall?" Your answer is as good as mine on that one.
05-02-2009, 05:12 AM #44
Does Height matter?
Yes, I don't mean to be a midget, I am talking about at least be at NET level or a little taller over the NET. And now add some speeds & skill = You're on the ways to the TOP. This is not basketball, volleyball or TENNIS: Unless badminton allow you to serve over-hand: then short guy need to do some hard-core jumping SERVE!!!!!
07-12-2009, 05:26 AM #45
Here is a good example of a small 10 yr old boy playing in my tournament. Wait till he reach his teen years......This kid got MAD skill. Remember his name Vinson Chiu-FUTURE USA STARS........
07-12-2009, 05:56 AM #46
Its a game of fitness n only fitness matters.Bao is winning because he is fit n not because he is tall.There r advantages n disadvantages but they eventually cancel each other out..only fitness matters.
07-12-2009, 10:34 PM #47
07-14-2009, 05:27 AM #48
where do u think attacking play will come from.
You cant just send in one killer smash to win a rally..U ve to be generally fit in order to move in the court, make an opening and then exploit it.
Its basically as much power one can pack in his muscles without much mass.thats wat is important
01-19-2010, 07:38 AM #49
hi, I'm 18 and I am only 5'2"
i haven't receive training, but i believe i am 4 out of 10 in terms of skill.
my reaction and recovery time is slow so i usually cannot reach for a cross-court drop.
what do you think? is it just training and experience i need? or my height and reach is doing a lot of damage?
01-19-2010, 12:54 PM #50
How long ...
I guess you've answered your question. Your reaction and recovery time is slow, that's why you can't reach for a cross-court drop. Since you are not considerably tall, you have to compensate it with speed and good athleticism. Don't blame your height too much.
01-19-2010, 04:08 PM #51
Check out this thread..
..and the video link inside, for more inspiration:
By dailybads in forum Places to play / Clubs / Local EventsReplies: 5: 10-27-2011, 09:26 AM
By logicalguy in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 3: 09-24-2009, 05:14 AM
By bigredlemon in forum General ForumReplies: 3: 04-05-2004, 02:24 AM
By wilfredlgf in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 1: 02-19-2004, 07:34 PM
By JChen99 in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 20: 12-04-2002, 10:17 PM