Results 52 to 68 of 150
07-31-2006, 11:53 PM #52
Revisited: Increasing the Height of the Net
The introduction of an idea revisited.
Individuals quick to condemn gain opportunity for increased depth of thought and wisdom through the passage of the sands.
A new scoring system initially crucified by the masses shows light of acceptance.
Xenophobia, complacency and self-entitlement reflect poorly on us not only as citizens but as sporting figures and as society.
Long persecuted for its popularity and authenticity as a real sport, shall its players ignominously refuse to open up its ways to inspection and scrutiny?
Are masqueraders who would cover up poor defence with offencive lobs unaware how transparently they are seen through?
Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern athlete by increasing the height of its net by 4cm?
08-01-2006, 12:14 AM #53
The height of the net was not determined based on some calculation involving the mean height of the players involved. It was pretty much arbitrarily chosen. For example, why are volleyball nets so high? Tennis nets so low? Soccer nets so large yet hockey nets so small? No reason, they were just chosen to be like that. Perhaps it was easier to manufacture them in those dimensions.
The thing is, these nets have all already been manufactured. To change the dimensions now would be pretty costly if we had to replace or modify all existing nets with new ones. A cost that will be too high considering the lack of truly useful benefits. At least the new scoring system doesn't cost anything in terms of equipment replacement.
Perhaps what you should do is create an offshoot sport like speedminton. I've got an idea: maybe you can attach the net to trees instead of posts, and call the game treeminton. As time passes, the trees will grow, and so will the height of the net. You'll even have seasonal variations - such falling leaves in the fall for extra challenge. Watch out, I'm sure it'll be the next big thing!
08-01-2006, 06:02 AM #54
What would 4cm change? smashes will just go flatter, but still just as hard....
a delciate shot, like a deceptive drop, will be much slower...
also, I ahven't really seen an argument why it woudl help...what does it change?
also, to comment on your starting post. I think your take on (professinal) singles is wrought and wrong.,..
You look at them playign and you onyl see smashes? look better..
08-01-2006, 10:18 AM #55Originally Posted by quisitor
Not everybody has grown taller and certainly not everybody is tall.
08-01-2006, 11:06 AM #56
Are you suggesting that taller people have more of an advantage in Badminton? I hadn't noticed taller people win more games.
Buy a shoe 4cm higher negate your 4cm higher net? Why stop at 4 cm? Why not as high as volleyball net?
08-01-2006, 03:36 PM #57
Leveraging new technologies to improve line judging...YES
Increasing the height of the net...BIG NO NO....or just dun call it badminton anymore.
We use new technologies to make badminton a better and easier sport to play, not to make it harder. Besides, there is still plenty of areas that can be improved such as plastic shuttlecock, lighting design, ...etc
08-01-2006, 03:53 PM #58Originally Posted by HappyPlato
08-01-2006, 03:58 PM #59Originally Posted by EastDevil
08-01-2006, 04:01 PM #60Originally Posted by pedro22
08-01-2006, 04:04 PM #61
off course you should also be able to jump-serve from the backline. tossing up the birdy.
and then 'set up' players for a netkill.
cover the rackets in PU to prevent players getting impaled on each others rackets?
08-01-2006, 05:09 PM #62
Instead of changing the sport to suit your circumstances, why don't you try adopting new tactics to beating your opponents? It's more challenging that way. There are many ways to get around 'the wall', you just need to get more creative.
08-01-2006, 05:42 PM #63
height change does not equate to modernization.
08-01-2006, 06:36 PM #64Originally Posted by cooler
08-02-2006, 12:00 AM #65
Idea 1a: The number 4
Some good humour here.
That's all I'm able to conclude from many of the forum users here unless logic skills have become more of a premium than crude oil.
But also some advancements in thought here.
I completely agree 4 cm is arbitrary, may not be of significant enough difference to warrant discussion and is not important.
So why would anyone loudly decree for a specific adjustment to the height of the net down to the very centimetre?
An act of madness perhaps?
(On a side note: To those suggesting players would simply wear shoes 4 cm higher to negate the intended effect-- whisper that quietly lest you have the badminton shoe police all over you declaring you an infidel and commenting on ankle injuries -- also not all of us want to wear pumps to the nines while we're playing-- tsk tsk Plato's probably rolling around in his grave at this idea)
08-02-2006, 06:02 AM #66Originally Posted by quisitor
08-02-2006, 02:55 PM #67Originally Posted by Chai
Since the whole point of switching to the NSS is to shorten the match duration, increasing the net height would be counter-'productive'.
08-02-2006, 11:47 PM #68
Idea 1b: The number 3
Shortening match duration sounds like an excellent idea!
Upon feedback from many in this thread-- increasing the height of the net is not a good idea.
So I think it's about time badminton changed the height of the net to 90 cm at the centre of the court and approximately 91.4 cm at the doubles sidelines. 3 feet 0 inches sounds about right to me and should allow a more diverse group of people to smash the bird and enjoy the game! It will also have the effect of keeping the matches shorter!
Never let it be said that quisitor does not look out for his fellow man.
Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the diversity of athletes by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?
By rryz3365 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 1: 04-13-2010, 03:51 PM
By logicalguy in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 3: 09-24-2009, 05:14 AM
By Mini Me in forum General ForumReplies: 18: 05-15-2009, 01:48 PM
By hjuvane in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 4: 02-24-2005, 04:00 AM
By Hail2Fire in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 21: 11-22-2004, 05:01 PM