Modernizing Badminton: Increasing the Height of the Net

[jerby]

give us at least 1 argument!

all I hear is "bla bla, new times, diversity of athletes, badminton should advance"

what would the height increase change? less smashing? (no). less powerplay? (no). less skillfull subtle drops? (yes)

by my logic (however not always perfect) a net height increase makes fast drops, or slow drops, a lot harder. smashes will just become a little more flat...

[stumblingfeet]

As I've mentioned before, the difficulty in changing the height of the net is due to the number of poles already set at the existing height, which would be prohibitively expensive to replace.

However, never fear! For I have yet another fantastic idea!

How about.... quicksandminton. Here, we place the posts into the a small patch of quicksand, and as the match progresses, the posts will slowly descend, lowering the height of the net to bring a quicker conclusion to the match!

[taneepak]

Increasing the height of the net by 4cm is not the same thing as modernizing the game. All it does is to shrink the "playable" area of the court. As a matter of fact I have on ocassions played with net heights that may be about 3cm higher. With this increase in net height your drives and smashes become less effective with your smashes going flat. The steep angles of jump smashes or of any high shots are all gone. After a few games, everyone asked that the net be lowered to the standard height.
But it could be useful as a practice drill for jump smashing. With an increase in net height your jump smash may be no steeper than a non-jump smash over a standard height net.

[Eurasian =--(O)]

Increasing the height of the net by 4cm is not the same thing as modernizing the game. All it does is to shrink the "playable" area of the court. As a matter of fact I have on ocassions played with net heights that may be about 3cm higher. With this increase in net height your drives and smashes become less effective with your smashes going flat. The steep angles of jump smashes or of any high shots are all gone. After a few games, everyone asked that the net be lowered to the standard height.
But it could be useful as a practice drill for jump smashing. With an increase in net height your jump smash may be no steeper than a non-jump smash over a standard height net.

That is a good idea. Make you have to jump higher or modify your swing for more angle.

[stumblingfeet]

That is a good idea. Make you have to jump higher or modify your swing for more angle.

Quite the opposite actually. If you approximate the trajectory of the smash as a straight line (since the flight time is so short, the effect of gravitational acceleration is small), the flight of the smash can be described by the speed of the birdie and the angle below horizontal.

What raising the net does is decrease the maximum achievable angle by providing a higher barrier for the bird to cross. So, if training with that, then the result would be flatter smashes with the jump. Considering that that Taiwanese study found that the biggest difference between advanced and elite players in terms of smashing was the angle of the jumpsmashes, you'll see that you'd be developing your skills in the wrong direction.

[taneepak]

The drops will also suffer as the higher net will mean the drops will drop a bit farther past the front service line and nearer the reach of the opponent. The court will "shrink", thus reducing the 4 corners of the court. "Smaller" court means an entirely different game, less spectacular, less demanding, no more jump smashes, and more ineffective floating drives and smashes that go out. Drops will lose their deception and effectiveness.

[Eurasian =--(O)]

Quite the opposite actually. If you approximate the trajectory of the smash as a straight line (since the flight time is so short, the effect of gravitational acceleration is small), the flight of the smash can be described by the speed of the birdie and the angle below horizontal.

What raising the net does is decrease the maximum achievable angle by providing a higher barrier for the bird to cross. So, if training with that, then the result would be flatter smashes with the jump. Considering that that Taiwanese study found that the biggest difference between advanced and elite players in terms of smashing was the angle of the jumpsmashes, you'll see that you'd be developing your skills in the wrong direction.

physically its more difficult, technically im not sure. Its easy to modify your swing though. Don't you feel you have to change timing and feel when you play in different climates or at different altitudes? When training in Calgary I swing (very very slightly) differently than when I play in Montreal. The way i see it (although this is debatably b/c has anyone actually raised the net to train) its like wearing a weight vest. When you take it off (lower the net) badminton suddenly feels easier and you can generate angle much easier.

[quisitor]

Well now-- let us not beat a dead horse to death in the after-life.

I thought we'd all agreed that increasing the height of the net is without merit and has no positive attributes whatsoever.

I thought we'd also moved on and were considering whether a decrease in the height of the net might not be a good idea. It stands to reason that if net height increases are associated with all that is undesirable in the game then a net height decrease might serve to make the game that much more enjoyable.

It's been suggested that the cost of replacing the net poles makes any change in the height of the net infeasible. However being the intelligent species that we are, we must have faith in creative engineering spirit that may provide for a solution. Perhaps a different tying technique could be employed or rings could be secured at the desired height of the poles. If all else fails one could always fall back on duct tape. And if modification is not possible, there is always replacement. Yes, it may cost to replace poles but relative to the amount spent by badminton players on equipment, clothing, coaching, time and many other things, cost should not be a deterrent if the opportunity arises to behold a superior game.

Further, the cost of pole maintenance and replacement could be completely eliminated if badminton was played without nets! This would be revolutionary in allowing more people access to badminton courts.

The more and more I think of this, the more and more clear it becomes that decreasing the height of the net (or even eliminating it completely) is the best and only way to increase the popularity of the sport while making it more entertaining for players and viewers!

Imagine the incredible angles that will be achieved jump-smashing with a lower net! The four corners of the court would truly be achievable with any and every type of shot one so desires.

Clearly for viewers this is a winning situation. And for the players? Those looking for heaven on Earth may stop their search. Nothing compares to the feeling of killing a bird any time the opportunity arises.

One can also employ a variety of slow and fast drops with a lower net-- deception will increase!

[On a side note:

As inferred from the first post in this thread, I am not very familiar with these slow and fast drop type of shots that people here speak of. Would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trajectories of these two shots?

I must admit to being slightly confused. One forum member here has stated that power playing would not change even with an increase in the height of the net while another suggests that an increase as little as 3 cm results in a significant change.

Perhaps if someone can explain to me the trajectory of these two types of drop shots in relation to the trajectory of the smash, I might be able to make sense of the conflicting (to my unastute mind) views.
Perhaps including the expected clearance heights above the net for the three types of shot: smash, slow drop, fast drop might also allow me to understand things better.]

In any case the main issue at hand is that the height of the badminton net ought to be decreased. I have not yet heard any objections to this (aside from the prohibitive cost of pole replacement).

But a cost is only a cost insomuch as the benefit does not outweigh the cost. The IBF wishes to make badminton the #1 racquet sport in the world. To increase popularity and glamour, infusion of network coverage and advertising revenue is required. To obtain advertising revenue, the easiest way is to show advertisers that a large segment of their desired target audience is watching. Traditionally, marketers have targeted young males as a desirable group due to their disposable income and sufficient youth to establish brand loyalty. As times have changed, younger people (and also the female segment) have become a more important target group due to their increased purchasing power and brand equity needing to be established amongst individuals at an increasingly early age.

So what better way to promote the game of badminton then to encourage younger people to play? It must be discouraging for a 5-10 year old not to be able to smash. Likewise, a large segment of the older population also is in possession of high disposable income. These seniors grow shorter with age and it must be discouraging for them to not be able to kill that bird like they once did.

Once you have players of all ages enjoying the game and viewers of all backgrounds enjoying the excitement of the game, the marketing dollars, popularity and coverage of the game will rapidly follow.

Badminton's destiny lies not in simply being the #1 racquet sport but rather in being the only sport playable and enjoyable by members of the entire human race without discrimination toward age, gender, ethnicity and physical attributes.

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

[taneepak]

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

Badminton as it is accommodates players of all ages, sexes, skill and fitness levels. What other games can be as punishing as a titanic fight between Taufk and Lin Dan or between Lin Dan and LCW and at the same time can be played by players who are in their seventies? I used to be a soccer player, cricketer, field hockey player, and rugby player, but at my age these games are out of my reach now. But I can still play badminton.
Reducing the net to 3' will mean a one-stroke game-the serve will become a deadly smash at such short distances. It is game over.

[__Lam]

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?

if that happaned, badminton would be a pointless game, it'd be all about dropshots and smashing, isn't it about time you realise the net height level is perfect as it is? c'mon 3 feet is ridiculous, the shuttle would drop way too fast to be received by anyone in a drop shot and have way to much angle in a smash to be received as well, clears, and drive shots would be non existant.

[kwun]

if you want the net any lower, you should go play tennis. the game of tennis is well tailored for a low net as the movement of the tennis ball has a very flat trajectory.

if you want the net any higher, you should go play volleyball. the game of volleyball is tailored to a high net, the multiple passes and spike still allow excitement despite the high net between sides..

to have a lower or higher net in badminton is purely non-sensical and to suggest such is like wanting to change for the sake of changing. the game of badminton is tailored to the current 5ft net height. high enough so outright kills are not possible, and short enough to allow a very fast game as well as a very complete variety of shots.

[__Lam]

in addition, even if younger kids were able to smash, i think it'd be much smarter to play a dropshot, as it would become the most deadly shot at 3 feet. to be honest, i think badminton cannot be any more of a supperior sport then it is now. (Except for maybe the NSS). people say it isn't popular? i clearly remember a past post having statistics claiming it is the 2nd most played sport in the world (soccer #1). the problem is that is isn't popular in America, people still think its a backyard sport there and play with volleyball nets!! if shown a real game, with real 200mph smashes, i think their prespective of badminton being a "sissy" sport would change.

[kwun]

quisitor, i am confused. you have made suggestions to change the height of the net, first you said you want it higher, but from your posts i don't see that you actually understand what the consequences of such a change would have, except to blindly suggests that it "modernizes" the sports without any further explanations.

and then later on you come around and said it should be lowered, and then you failed to show that you actually understand the game of badminton as you don't even know what a fast and slow drops are.

i therefore question if one is qualified to suggest a change in the sport of badminton when one doesn't even understands the basics. it seems to be that perhaps you should gain more undestanding of the game, watch some badminton videos, go down to the gym and play some serious badminton before you contemplate and suggest making any more changes to badminton.

[cappy75]

This thread is getting pointless and not worthy of the attention it once deserved.

[joonu]

Increasing the height of net is not at all good and it has nothing to do with modernissation.Almost all participants hgave disagreed to this suggestion.BUT I rally fear that such a foolish modernisation step may be implemented like the 21 point scoring system.They may have hundred reasons like the changes in service rules etc.. to support this impemenation.

Finally, we all hate and are against the rise of net height because we used to play at the present net height and we are accustomed to that.

[LazyBuddy]

So I must declare most emphatically:

Isn't it about time badminton accommodated the modern diversity of athletes and would-be lovers of the game by changing the height of the net to 3 feet?

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe badminton is the 2nd most popular sport (behind soccer) in the world. It has it's popularity for a reason and have solid proof behind it.

Anything significantly or completely change the game itself is non-sense. It's like, will you cut your feet to fit into a pair of shoes???

[b.leung]

the height should not be increased.
see that last punctuation mark, it's a period
lazy buddy made a good put, the sports shouldn't "accomdate people"
people should train to accomdate the sport
mugsy bogues was a short player in the NBA (by nba standards) but he managed fine, and he's a tremendous athlete
the regulation nets weren't lowered to accomdate for his height
in golf all the fields are played the same no matter how strong, tall, etc etc you are
the main thing i'm trying to point out is, you shouldn't go changing a sport (and the height of the net is a drastic change) because it would attract more people to play it
if they have no interest to play the sport or at least work a bit at teh sport, it doesn't matter how high/low the net is, they still won't be interested
all in all, athletes should accomdate themselves to the sport, not the other way around