Results 273 to 289 of 449
06-29-2006, 03:57 AM #273Originally Posted by Loh
If I am a 800m runner and have to win a running race with a 100m runner; what shall I do to make him run 2000m race instead of I have to run 200m race against him? May be I could run 10 of 200m races with him no rest in between; the winner is the one who won the last race of 200m?
06-29-2006, 10:09 AM #274
lots of data Loh but what r u trying to say?
06-29-2006, 10:22 AM #275
I'm confused... Loh's giving all these declathon results ... and ? what does it have to do with 21points in badminton and attacking better for it ?
06-29-2006, 02:47 PM #276
Decathlon = 10 different eventsOriginally Posted by LohHello Everyone,
Decathlon = 10 different events.Badminton = 10 different strokes(approximately ???).
To me, the Decathlon pushes athletes to their limits of Skill, Stamina and Speed(the three “S”).
I think Loh is bringing/calling to mind by logic or association for consideration that Badminton pushes players to their limits of the three “S”.
And each player has different strengths and weaknesses in the three “S”.
I remember Kwun saying, some 2 years ago, that there are three most fundamental characters that a badminton player should posses. Kwun's three “S” are Strokes, Stamina, and Strategy.
Now, with Loh's injection of this idea into our discussion, he is making us think outside the box.
For me, I have always said that it is “The Art of Playing Badminton”.
We cannot look at Badminton as narrow as many Sports Scientists think.
06-29-2006, 02:56 PM #277
It's been intersting to read about NSS vs OSS though this thread.
I have agree with Viver on mnay points and I have been taught both by Chinese and more Eurpoean based coaches. ( all my bad habits are self taught )
(Keep in mind I'm talking more about singles)
I see three serve variations: High, short and flick. The flick serve might be seen as a typeof an attacking serve, but on the most part I see the serve as a defensive shot.
Forget the Pros - from my standpoint I like the NSS. Why?
I'm an offense-minded player and I thrive on short bursts of explosive power. I can move pretty quick for a dude my size, but the problem is that I burn a LOT of energy doing so.
With the NSS system I'm looking at a limited number of rallies to complete a game. Between 21 - 40 rallies (give or take the "win by two rule") - that's it!
So if I'm up against a level opponent I can now afford to push it harder for that shorter timeframe...
So from my standpoint, the NSS favours my attacking style ( and tendancy to start fast out of the gate)
I still have not played NSS doubles yet.
06-29-2006, 07:32 PM #278Originally Posted by ViningWolff
In the Taipei Open, LCW mentioned that he was tired and I have not seen the match but wasn't it because he expend a fair amount of effort and energy to win the second game and didn't have enough juice left in the third to sustain the same level?
06-29-2006, 08:42 PM #279Originally Posted by Chai
There is a world of difference between a low serve that is an attacking stroke and one that is used for attack. For example, a tennis serve is an outright attacking stroke whereas a low serve in badminton doubles is a necessary opening gambit to mounting an attack.
06-30-2006, 01:00 AM #280
Well, I guess we were also mistaken about the irretrievable and perfect serve that dips immediately ...
Originally Posted by taneepak
06-30-2006, 01:06 AM #281Originally Posted by ViningWolff
Like you said, shorter games allows you to keep your pace more consistent through it.
06-30-2006, 01:09 AM #282Originally Posted by taneepak
WIll you agree that the "good" receiver is always prepared mentally and in position to attack the server's serve?
Will you agree that the server is at disadvantage in term of who has better opportunity to attack first?
06-30-2006, 01:09 AM #283Originally Posted by viver
06-30-2006, 01:20 AM #284
My apologies for misreading your reply. Maybe I was associating it with the example too much.
Still, I wouldn't classify an underarm stroke as an attacking shot even if it causes the opponent difficulty to return (outcome of the shot?). A good defence shot should not only return the shuttle to the other side of net, but also allows the defender to balance the rally.
PG return shot, in my opinion was an excellent piece of defensive work. Not only the shot placement was superb but also caused the opponent trouble to return it. Excellent material to learn from.
Originally Posted by Loh
06-30-2006, 01:34 AM #285Originally Posted by taneepak
Well, I don't have much time and not interested in arguing with you on this. You should know better than anybody else about your own opinions.
Honestly, I come here to learn from other people experiences about this game I like. Luckily, I believe I know a bit about this game to separate the good stuff from what should be ignored.
Last edited by viver; 06-30-2006 at 01:36 AM.
06-30-2006, 01:41 AM #286
I can see that I am not the only one with such views on service. There are more people here with same opinion about it.
Like you said, let the readers decide.
We can go back to the tactical issues regarding the 21x3.
Originally Posted by Chai
06-30-2006, 03:42 AM #287Originally Posted by viver
So, instead of using the very 'sensitive' word "attack", a term like "offensive" might be more acceptable.
06-30-2006, 07:31 AM #288Originally Posted by Chai
No, it is unlikely a good receiver can ever attack a quality low serve. It is technically not possible because there is such a thing as reaction or response time of the receiver. I don't know the exact average reaction time in badminton, but in automobile emergency braking the human response or reaction time is between 1.6 seconds to 4 seconds. The serve would have passed the tape with this time, and if you add the time for your arm to move to meet the shuttle from a quality low serve it would be at least 4 inches below the tape, that is assuming you are almost toeing the front service line. If you stand even 6" behind the front service line you would have no alternative but to return the serve with an underarm stroke. And if your quality low serve is backed by a killer flick-serve the receiver's reaction time will be even longer due to the "respect" factor of your flick-serve. All these assume that you the receiver do not cheat by rushing the net before the shuttle was delivered.
The server serving low in both singles and doubles are better placed to attack than the receiver. The receiver merely reacts and is entirely dependent on the type and quality of the serve of the opponent. This is why all attacking singles players today almost always use the low serve. Defensive singles players like Roslin Hashim prefers the high serve. In doubles the low serve is also the opening move to an attacking game.
06-30-2006, 07:40 AM #289Originally Posted by taneepak
Do Hong Kong drivers keep their eyes shut until they hear the sound of something hitting the front of their car?
Most humans can react within 0.25 seconds and about 10% within 5/100 of a second.
By wisdomcivet in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 12: 03-07-2011, 07:15 PM
By Break-My-String in forum Coaching ForumReplies: 0: 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 21: 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 50: 04-26-2006, 04:40 PM
By MoS in forum General ForumReplies: 11: 01-05-2003, 01:55 PM