Been wanting to write something on this for a while... One common question encountered on this forum is whether racquet X provides better control over racquet Y, or whether one can pay a finite amount of $$$ for a racquet that offers both infinite power and infinite control We have a sense of what the 'power' of a racquet is, but what the heck is control? Loosely speaking, it is the ability to send a shuttle along a desired direction to a desired distance. This would be trivial if we load up the shuttle into a shuttle launcher, point it along the desired direction, adjust the elevation of the launcher, and the gas pressure, and squeeze the trigger. But unfortunately, the combination of our lower body-torso-arm-racquet does not work like a shuttle launcher. In some sense, the requirement to send the shuttle a desired distance conflicts with the requirement to send the shuttle along a desired direction. To achieve the former, the muscle groups in the arm have to fire in a massive, coordinated fashion to accelerate the racquet head to the necessary velocity. In contrast, to achieve the latter, the muscle groups need to fire in small bursts, more or less independently of each other, to attain fine control of the angle with which the racquet head strikes the shuttle, thereby determining which direction the shuttle will fly off. More importantly, directional precision can only be achieved when most of the muscle groups are not doing anything, and only those which are required to change the direction of the swing, and the angle of the racquet head, are firing in short bursts intermittently. An analogy that can help us visualize this conflict would be to imagine a rocket used to send satellites into orbit. To work against the Earth's gravity, the rocket uses very powerful engines to lift the satellite (and itself) off the Earth's surface. But this alone is not enough to put the satellite into orbit, because the powerful rocket engines offer no fine control over the trajectory of its payload. Smaller boosters kick in, firing in short bursts intermittently to perform trajectory corrections, after the main engine dies, to sail the satellite into the correct orbit. What we would surely understand is, because the boosters are so weak, they should never be fired when the main engine is still burning, because whatever tiny effect they have would be washed out by the larger effects of the main engine. The same thing happens in a badminton stroke: the muscle groups fire in a massive coordinated fashion in an initial acceleration phase to bring the racquet head up to speed, after which the muscle groups quiet down, and allow individual muscle groups to fire in short bursts for directional correction, in the guiding phase of the stroke. From what we understand about muscle action, not only is it undesirable for muscle groups to perform directional correction during the acceleration phase of the stroke, it is also impossible, because muscle cells needs to rest for a short duration (its refractory period) before they can fire again. Accepting this simple caricature of a badminton stroke to be basically correct, we can then explain a few things. First of all, beginning players frequently lack both power and control. The lack of power simple stems from the fact that they have yet to learn how to coordinate the muscle groups in their racquet arm (and to unknown extents, muscle groups in the lower back for torso rotation as well) for a massive acceleration phase. The lack of control may be due to: (i) little or no guiding phase: a player weak in power may be tempted to accelerate the racquet all the way from the start of the swing till the shuttle is struck, or beyond, and dispense with a guiding phase altogether. (ii) overlap of acceleration and guiding phases, resulting in poor control, and probably affecting the acceleration phase as well. If a player does (i), then the symptom is that all shots will be inconsistent. If a players does (ii), then with sufficient training of his/her muscle groups, sufficient control may be attained, so that it looks like there is no problem with his/her strokes. But when put under pressure to execute the same strokes within marginally shorter durations, will produce wildly inconsistent strokes. Implications for coaches? It may be beneficial to explain to a beginner that both the acceleration and guiding phases are crucial to proper stroke production. Sometimes beginner gets frustrated with themselves that their acceleration phase is not delivering enough power, that they start over-accelerating, at the expense of the guiding phase. With intensive training, professional players have a very short acceleration phase, because they have learned how to coordinate the massive firing of the muscles group required in the most efficient manner possible, and also have a very short guiding phase, because they have learned how to shorten the correctional bursts, and keep the number of such bursts down to a minimum. Beginners may benefit from being told that they will need long acceleration and guiding phases, because they do not know how to do these effectively yet. They should then practice to shorten the time required for these two phases simultaneously (or start by shortening the acceleration phase, since this may be easier for some than for others), and be aware that they should never beef up one (usually the acceleration phase) at the expense of the other (usually the guiding phase). Implications for choice of racquets? Depending on the swing weight distribution of a racquet, a player may find it easier or harder to bring the racquet head up to speed. If it is easier for the player to reach his/her desired racquet head velocity with a particular racquet, he/she might decrease the duration of the acceleration phase, and devote more time on the swing to the guiding phase. The result is that the player will feel that the racquet provides better control over another racquet, which he/she expends more time on the swing in the acceleration phase, thereby shortening the time allocated for the guiding phase. What players should realize is this: if playing with racquet X, you devote 40% of the swing time to acceleration, and 10% of the swing time to guiding (assuming the shuttle is struck at the middle of the swing), then there is very little leeway for improving on power or control, because increasing one will always have to be at the expense of the other. Being able to cut the acceleration time to 30% of the swing time then feels like a big thing, because 10% of the swing get freed up, and can be used in the guiding phase. On the other hand, a more experienced player may devote 10% of the swing time to acceleration, and 5% of the swing time to guiding with racquet X, and then with racquet Y, he might devote +/- 2% more to acceleration, and +/- 1% to guiding. He/she would hardly feel the difference the racquet makes to his/her game.
First, beginners do not lack power or control, they lack technique. Second, the shaft flex is important in selecting the racket. The more flex, the more whip action, the less control, for the same swing. I've played with different rackets, and I can truly feel the difference between the rackets, and need to arrange my stroke accordingly. For example, drop shots from the back of the court often results in hitting the net due to my change of racket from powerful to control. When you're accustomed to a racket, you play the game according to that racket specification. Just my 2 cents
the flex give control cause it correct the little variation from one shot to an other. and again the factor that influence the most is the string tension. No trampoline effect = direct to the objective
I think also that the difference between X and Y racket in terms of control is going to be tied in with the 'stability' of a racket against general vibration and lateral torsion. Net shots, since they're a 'slower' stroke in general, I suppose the difference between racket X and Y would be very small. But on faster shots, such as faster drops, smashes, shots from awkward angles, etc, one likes to know that if they do a certain stroke with how many percent of deviation from optimal, will the racket not further magnify this deviation or will it give that direct energy transfer nonetheless. I mean, suppose I'm in a bad situation, running for a shot at a bad angle. But i've been in this situation before, and I know what shot I want to do, and I know where I want to put it. Suppose the difference is that rather than hitting the bird with my racket at the center of my sweetspot, at a certain point, i'm off a few centimeters in any direction by accident... does my shot still go where I wanted it to? If i had X racket that had "great control", what i'd expect is that my shot would go more or less the way i wanted it to and i might have a high chance of pulling it off. If i had Y racket with "terrible control", the exact same stroke mechanincs might be affected by my racket head twisting due to off center, vibrating, whatever... It's not a big deal, but i think that racket stability really affects control. I also feel that some rackets are easier to initially control than others... some rackets have a hollow feeling, or don't give enough feedback from impact, and though this doesn't affect control, it affects your ability to perceive your control in action-- it makes it harder to 'learn' and synchronize with your racket's behavior, which is what control really is i suppose. But i agree a great deal with you that a lot of the mentality of 'control rackets' lies simply in the fact that some rackets are more maneuverable for us to get into that "comfort velocity", if i understood you correctly.
Control to me is when I serve, lift, retrieve, drive, drop, clear, smash, handle net shots, and any other shots, they go exactly where, when, and in what manner I want them to. It is a tall order. Different racquets, strings, tensions, and a player's style are factors affecting control.
i think its all about the user's technique...i mean...u cant just pick up the best control racket there is and just do a net shot from a point and it'll be perfect each time...the person have to be used to the racket first since they know how much energy is needed for the shot at that distance..
A player's technique does impact on control. The parameters of control are found in racquets, strings, string tensions, and a player's style (this includes technique). Give an Amortec 800OF to a player with good technique and ask him to play singles, and I think he will not want to brag about his control.
WITH THE POWER INVESTED IN ME I DEFINE CONTROL AS...! getting used to the racket's repulsion power ! ! !
It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced. Your theory is plausible, but contentious. I'm not sold on the theory yet. Even if your theory IS correct, only the most cognitive-based learners would benefit from this style of teaching. The rest would just look at you like you're from Mars.
Sounds like a rocket scientist. Good theory. For me , besides the skills that we have. The racket should be able to give us the feel of control and may be able to make the shots that we want without much effort. And that also means Power at the same time. Without Power , there are no control.
From my experience, I found that cheongsa’s theory of control is true.. I’ve encountered this ‘power vs control/technique’ dilemma 2 years back when I was a newbie and had to learn the hard way.. Before I took up badminton, I used to play tennis for about 13 years.. initially it’s hard for me to adapt to badminton strokes as my wrist, fingers & forearm are stiff as a board.. I have no training, no time to practice and the only place and time I can improve my strokes is when I play 1-2 hours once, sometimes twice a week with friends.. some of my friends are good players and a few newbies like me.. my problem is that I use my shoulder a lot for my strokes, and my strokes are therefore very weak.. I tried to rectify this problem but it’s kinda hard to do this while u r playing a game, I always end up miss-hitting the birdie and always get smashed at when my return is weak.. my only strength is my net play cause I can focus on control & technique rather than 99% on power for any other shots… my racket being a 3U head light balance racket doesn’t help either.. I always get a shoulder pain after one game cause trying to hit the birdie as hard as I can with the wrong technique.. at that point I was frustrated & thinking about quitting badminton once and for all.. But then I decided to give badminton a second chance and bought a heavier racket with a very head heavy balance.. It’s like a breath of fresh air, with the racket I could do good clears with less effort.. instead of blindly and relentlessly smacking the birdie, now I found there’s enough time 4 me to correct my technique and thus bring in control into my game.. With that being told, I think what happened to me was, with the help of that new racket, I’ve devote less % of power and devote more % of control into my every shots.. not sure for the same reason or not, I still find it easier to play at the net with my old head light racket though.. Now that the 2 years has passed, my technique is better, and like cheongsa said, still feels the difference between rackets in my game, but not that BIG of a difference anymore..
The contrast between a flexible racquet and a stiff racquet is shown in the schematic graphs below. A stiffer racquet's head velocity lags the applied acceleration less than a flexible racquet's head velocity. Assuming we start guiding the racquet after we are done applying acceleration, the shuttle must be struck later if we are using a flexible racquet, while the racquet head has reached its constant maximum velocity. As a corollary, the smaller time lag for a stiff racquet means that we can strike the shuttle earlier, but I think it probably does not feel different if we strike the shuttle later, since the racquet head velocity is still at its maximum. This means that someone used to playing with a flexible racquet should have little difficulty playing with a stiff racquet, but someone used to playing with a stiff racquet will need to do more adjustment for the different time lag playing with a flexible racquet.
Actually, my point is that a guiding phase is necessary in the swing, as is the preceding acceleration phase. I believe just being aware of this helps beginners learn more about stroke production. If the rocket analogy does not gel, then I believe the following one might: anyone who has swung an axe knows that you bring the axe head up to speed with a brief but concerted heave, after which the arms are relaxed slightly in order to guide the axe head down onto whatever you are cleaving. In fact, I believe the distinction between an acceleration phase and a guiding phase is a physiological necessity. May I ask people with training in taekwondo whether they realize the existence of these two phases in a kick?
Is this theory meant to apply to all strokes? For example, if I hit a lift from the net, or a net kill, then I don't have a guiding phase after an acceleration phase. If anything, it's the other way around: I take my racket to the shuttle, and then suddenly accelerate the racket head at the end of the stroke. The same could be said for drives. I consider the preparation for the shot the key "control phase", and the acceleration phase happens last. Overhead forehands are closer to your theory. Here, the direction of the shot is controlled as the racket head turns, with good opportunities for deception by altering the timing of your racket face rotation. This control period follows the acceleration period. Flick serves are another example where all the acceleration occurs at the last moment. Of course, you can argue that there is an element of directing the shot at the same time - for example, I can turn the shuttle outwards at the last moment, as I accelerate the racket head, so that the flick serve will be wide. My point here is that you do not seem to have established your claim - that there is a distinct and regular order of "power movements" followed by "control movements". It only works if you choose to ignore some of the strokes, and some of the actions taking place. Don't get me wrong - it's not a bad theory, and it's certainly interesting. If it was a bad theory, then I wouldn't bother challenging it. In so far as it relates to racket flexibility, I think it's an effective theory. Clearly the acceleration of a flexible racket will lag behind a stiff racket - the flexible racket will take longer to bend and then snap back into shape. This will affect timing. I just don't think you have established the more general claim that "control always follows power"
The theories in here is too complicated, the whole idea of control in badminton is how you grip the racket, different grip for different shot. The other point is where you grip your racket, for example if one grips the racket close to the front cap gives you control and when you grip the end of the racket provides power. The other important factor is how much you drop your racket i.e. from 0 degree to 180 swing will hit harder then just from 0 degree to 90. I believe the player must learn the importance of the grips, forehand grip, panhand grip, backhand grip each grip is for different shot. If one cannont master the grips and change when needed will never gain control when playing badminton.
Interesting theory. It makes sense to me. Say, we need to have the identical form for drop, clear and smash, etc. They have pretty much the same acceleration phase to generate the much needed racket speed, while the final guiding phase determines the characteristic of the stroke. I think that's a little example for the theory, although it's hard to analyze all the strokes we used to execute.
errr... when tumbling shuttle at the net, hardly any forward power required and yet this stroke required the most control of all the badminton stroke. Often the receiver has to control the uncontrolled tumbling of the shuttle and make it uncontrollable again, a process requiring very little amount of power but yet maximum control.
I can see how you are approaching this, but laterial power, precise power that is, is needed to get control of that bird. There is also a distinction between power of the racket stroke and power of the person using the racket, whereas the former deals with smashes/clears and the latter with drops, tumbles, slices. So in a way, I see it from ants point of view where power is needed to retain control since the delicate movements from a tumble require strength from the fingers and wrist.
I don't think the type of racquet (control, power etc.) makes a whole lot of difference for a beginner or even an intermediate player. As you become a better player and your stroke technique, footwork and understanding of the game is such that you can consistently (not 100% of the time but say 80%+ ) place the shuttle where you want, the type of racquet will make a difference. Otherwise, a beginner spending money on an expensive racquet is throwing money down the drain.
