User Tag List

Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 375 to 391 of 449
  1. #375
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    2,784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Break it up guys. Time to get back to the important issue rather than the tangents created which have little or no relevance to the initial topic.

  2. #376
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheongsa
    If you are suggesting that I have to rely on prior knowledge to get my work done, then yes, I do have to rely on prior knowledge.

    However, when trying to synthesize new understanding, I do not question all prior knowledge. Only philosophers do that!

    Like Chai said, the basics are important. But we keep revisiting them not because we want to make things simple and keep ourselves sane, or stay proficient in basic stroke production.

    If, while revisiting the basic premise of a stroke, we also question the validity of the premise, and explore various possibilities, the old understanding is not lost, but enriched.

    I have a friend who is a mathematician. He once told me that a good mathematician always have many different proofs to the same standard theorem: there is the simple one that is taught to undergraduates, a few slightly more difficult ones that are taught to graduate students, and then a few really difficult ones that can be understood only among experts in the field. The reason why mathematicians keep revisiting simple theorems to find more and more difficult proofs is to enrich our understanding of these simple theorems.
    A very good reference to mathematic. I believe Viver is attempting to find out if we are looking at the same theorem before we are trying different proofs.

    It is very easy to have doubt when the term like attacking serve is mentioned, are we all not wanting to have an attacking serve if we could have that stroke or produce that shot?

    Let me try another proof on drive serve; As you have mentioned the receiver has many options, and the server is restricted to hit upward, but he could vary the speed, height, length and angle of his upward shot. The main attributes of drive serve are its speed and angle. It could fly past at the receiver's shoulder height. It is shown by many that this kind of shot could catch the receiver but once the receiver is awared then it is a suicidal serve; technically it is the receiver's fault to get caught.

    You could argue if you are playing against a tall and very slow,clumsy receiver, and will your coach tell you to "attack" him using flick or drive serve? Sure he will do that and mentally you will be ready and positive to attack him too. Will it make the drive serve being classified as an attacking serve? The argument here it is not an attacking serve, and I agree to that. Please note that I truely believe the coach is saying the right thing as I do that often myself!

  3. #377
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    513
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FEND.
    Break it up guys. Time to get back to the important issue rather than the tangents created which have little or no relevance to the initial topic.
    Amen to that. Let's return to the original topic, or forget about it.

  4. #378
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,757
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To my understanding, I did not see any proofs of attacking serve yet...


    Quote Originally Posted by cheongsa
    If you are suggesting that I have to rely on prior knowledge to get my work done, then yes, I do have to rely on prior knowledge.

    However, when trying to synthesize new understanding, I do not question all prior knowledge. Only philosophers do that!

    Like Chai said, the basics are important. But we keep revisiting them not because we want to make things simple and keep ourselves sane, or stay proficient in basic stroke production.

    If, while revisiting the basic premise of a stroke, we also question the validity of the premise, and explore various possibilities, the old understanding is not lost, but enriched.

    I have a friend who is a mathematician. He once told me that a good mathematician always have many different proofs to the same standard theorem: there is the simple one that is taught to undergraduates, a few slightly more difficult ones that are taught to graduate students, and then a few really difficult ones that can be understood only among experts in the field. The reason why mathematicians keep revisiting simple theorems to find more and more difficult proofs is to enrich our understanding of these simple theorems.

  5. #379
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    To my understanding, I did not see any proofs of attacking serve yet...
    The shooting serve-it was then known by this name-, now called the drive serve is an attacking serve. You can see references to this serve as an attacking serve from the days of Wong Peng Soon.

  6. #380
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    The shooting serve-it was then known by this name-, now called the drive serve is an attacking serve. You can see references to this serve as an attacking serve from the days of Wong Peng Soon.
    Could we compromise and class it as a building shot? (that will satisfy many of players and coaches who have been following with Jake Downey's teaching), I do love to see where it has been quoted as an attacking serve though.

    By the way drive serve was used even before Wong Peng Soon, if you read the account of Mrs Uber by Eddy Choong.

    Wong Peng Soon is one of the all time greats, however it is not fair to say he invented drive serve. I believe his peers always in awe with his footwork and his backhand strokes.

    P.S Jake Downey a former Director of Coaching, Badminton Association of England.

  7. #381
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    Could we compromise and class it as a building shot? (that will satisfy many of players and coaches who have been following with Jake Downey's teaching), I do love to see where it has been quoted as an attacking serve though.

    By the way drive serve was used even before Wong Peng Soon, if you read the account of Mrs Uber by Eddy Choong.

    Wong Peng Soon is one of the all time greats, however it is not fair to say he invented drive serve. I believe his peers always in awe with his footwork and his backhand strokes.

    P.S Jake Downey a former Director of Coaching, Badminton Association of England.
    As you are a friend of Han Jian, you should have a copy of his book 'Basic Skills of Badminton'. There is a chapter devoted to all the badminton strokes, and there are a few sections on serves. On page 32 of his book there is a section on "Low Service" and on the last para summary of the low serve he says "Use the low service when you want to attack. Use the low............." On page 35 there is a section on "Drive Service" in which he says"There are.......The drive service is one of them. This is an attacking service that can be used in singles and doubles.............. To achieve its objective, the drive service has to be executed accurately or you might end up the loser"
    "Better Badminton for All" and "Badminton for Schools" were by Jack Downey, a PE lecturer deprived of international colours only by a serious car crash. Jack produced detailed academic studies of the game (based on war strategy) and its concomitant fitness as found in his books. A better English book on badminton was the "badminton Complete" by Pat Davies, a former National Coach of the BAE.

  8. #382
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    As you are a friend of Han Jian, you should have a copy of his book 'Basic Skills of Badminton'. There is a chapter devoted to all the badminton strokes, and there are a few sections on serves. On page 32 of his book there is a section on "Low Service" and on the last para summary of the low serve he says "Use the low service when you want to attack. Use the low............." On page 35 there is a section on "Drive Service" in which he says"There are.......The drive service is one of them. This is an attacking service that can be used in singles and doubles.............. To achieve its objective, the drive service has to be executed accurately or you might end up the loser"
    "Better Badminton for All" and "Badminton for Schools" were by Jack Downey, a PE lecturer deprived of international colours only by a serious car crash. Jack produced detailed academic studies of the game (based on war strategy) and its concomitant fitness as found in his books. A better English book on badminton was the "badminton Complete" by Pat Davies, a former National Coach of the BAE.
    "Use the low serve when you want to attack, use the low service when your opponent's attack is strong and your defence is weak. Double players use this service to force their opponents to lift the shuttle". You could interpret in many ways but is it an attacking serve/stroke that could producing an attacking shot?

    "This is an attacking service....This service can be used to win points outright (especially when your opponent's overhead position is left unguarded)...the drive service has to be executed accurately or you might end up the loser". It is again how you want to interpret it.

    Now
    1. What if Han Jian has written "Use the low serve when you want to deny your opponent's effective smash from the baseline, use the low serve when you could force your opponent to lift the shuttle for you to attack" ?

    2. What if Han Jian has written "Use the drive serve to win points outright when your opponent's overhead position is left unguarded...."

    Will the argument over "there is no attacking serve" is over? May be I should pass these comments to Han Jian.

  9. #383
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In Pat Davis's "Badminton Complete" book he has devoted 19 pages to service and the return of service. It is by far the most comprehensive book on service and return of service you can get. In one section "ATTACK WITH YOUR SERVE" he mentioned that the weapon for this attack is the accurate low serve and a deceptive flick serve combination, which you can and must turn this into an attacking stroke. "After all, it is you who have the shuttle in hand to hit where and when you like, not your opponent. It is you who are the master, you who dictate the opening trend of the game", Pat concludes.

  10. #384
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    In Pat Davis's "Badminton Complete" book he has devoted 19 pages to service and the return of service. It is by far the most comprehensive book on service and return of service you can get. In one section "ATTACK WITH YOUR SERVE" he mentioned that the weapon for this attack is the accurate low serve and a deceptive flick serve combination, which you can and must turn this into an attacking stroke. "After all, it is you who have the shuttle in hand to hit where and when you like, not your opponent. It is you who are the master, you who dictate the opening trend of the game", Pat concludes.
    Another good book from the past! Who has said that we cant learn from the past?

    I have not read Pat's book yet, however if he said "which you can and must turn this into an attacking stroke" - do we still have to argue if the inherent nature of the serve is an attacking stroke or defensive stroke?

    His description of the server's "chu tong" state is precise and good, I wonder if he explained how the receiver could turn around from "pei-tong" position to "chu-tong" position? I hope he had a page for "Receiving of serve" and give a very comprehensive account of how to attack the server!

    I cant stop thinking you are arguing along the line of how we could use a defensive stroke(any strokes infact) to make it offensive tactically. If that is the case, do we have to debate on that?

  11. #385
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    His description of the server's "chu tong" state is precise and good, I wonder if he explained how the receiver could turn around from "pei-tong" position to "chu-tong" position? I hope he had a page for "Receiving of serve" and give a very comprehensive account of how to attack the server!

    I cant stop thinking you are arguing along the line of how we could use a defensive stroke(any strokes infact) to make it offensive tactically. If that is the case, do we have to debate on that?
    Yes, his book has many pages on the return of serve for MS, MD, MX, WS, WD. He also identifies the main target areas to attack a serve and how to return all the different types of serves. All types of serve can be attacked except the low serve that is too good.
    In practice making low serve returns is one of the most difficult thing to do. Han Jian even mentioned this in his book (page 89) : "Over the years, I have seen so many players at all levels struggling to make low service returns until they don't know what to do." He even alluded to a wrong return of his low serve to Lim Swie King that won him and China the 1982 Thomas Cup.
    In the NSS, I think the low backhand /flick serve combo will be further tuned especially in singles. Players who are fast both to the front and back, and who have a good backhand, might want to serve more up front, where their short low serve will be shorter and their flick more deadly. We could see more "rubber" man in singles. In doubles the low/flick serve combo will be honed to perfection, more deception and precision, and a lower error rate.

  12. #386
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,757
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, in other words, is the low serve the perfect serve?


    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Yes, his book has many pages on the return of serve for MS, MD, MX, WS, WD. He also identifies the main target areas to attack a serve and how to return all the different types of serves. All types of serve can be attacked except the low serve that is too good.
    In practice making low serve returns is one of the most difficult thing to do. Han Jian even mentioned this in his book (page 89) : "Over the years, I have seen so many players at all levels struggling to make low service returns until they don't know what to do." He even alluded to a wrong return of his low serve to Lim Swie King that won him and China the 1982 Thomas Cup.
    In the NSS, I think the low backhand /flick serve combo will be further tuned especially in singles. Players who are fast both to the front and back, and who have a good backhand, might want to serve more up front, where their short low serve will be shorter and their flick more deadly. We could see more "rubber" man in singles. In doubles the low/flick serve combo will be honed to perfection, more deception and precision, and a lower error rate.

  13. #387
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    In the NSS, I think the low backhand /flick serve combo will be further tuned especially in singles. Players who are fast both to the front and back, and who have a good backhand, might want to serve more up front, where their short low serve will be shorter and their flick more deadly. We could see more "rubber" man in singles. In doubles the low/flick serve combo will be honed to perfection, more deception and precision, and a lower error rate.
    Lets get back to the main thrust of my last post (see above). Although it is still too early to predict what new game plan or tactics/strategies will eventually take root to fully exploit the NSS, do you think a short term trend like the above is likely?

  14. #388
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viver
    So, in other words, is the low serve the perfect serve?
    I believe we should now regard Taneepak's argument is all about how the low serve could be use "tactically" to deny the receiver's attack and giving the server the opportunity to continue to dictate the game - From what he has quoted in Han Jian's,Jake Downey's and Pat Davis's.

    I do hope the books have implicated to him that the inherent nature of the serve, i.e technically it is a defensive stroke, however it could be used tactically to produce a building shot, i.e an opportunity to attack, or an attempted to win shot!

    Serve is an odd stroke, as it is not the return strokes like all the other strokes. The server is restricted by the rule that is in favour to the receiver , at the same time he has "chu-tong"'s advantage.

    Regarding the training practice of serve, in another thread, one should design the practice in two parts. Technique of serve and tactical use of serve; the objective of training practice has to be clear.

  15. #389
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,757
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a good thing that Taneepak start looking at some books for references.

    If one start with the concept that the low serve cannot be attacked or killed, isn't it logical that after a low serve the server is in total command of the rally?

    The low serve can 'tactically' deny the receiver's attack, but isn't it true that the low serve in singles puts a greater pressure on the server's retrieving and court coverage abilities? It's not by accident when training the 3rd stroke, it usually involves a lot of shuttle retrieving drills in various situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chai
    I believe we should now regard Taneepak's argument is all about how the low serve could be use "tactically" to deny the receiver's attack and giving the server the opportunity to continue to dictate the game - From what he has quoted in Han Jian's,Jake Downey's and Pat Davis's.

    I do hope the books have implicated to him that the inherent nature of the serve, i.e technically it is a defensive stroke, however it could be used tactically to produce a building shot, i.e an opportunity to attack, or an attempted to win shot!

    Serve is an odd stroke, as it is not the return strokes like all the other strokes. The server is restricted by the rule that is in favour to the receiver , at the same time he has "chu-tong"'s advantage.

    Regarding the training practice of serve, in another thread, one should design the practice in two parts. Technique of serve and tactical use of serve; the objective of training practice has to be clear.

  16. #390
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,910
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lin Dan Vs Lee Chong Wei: Macau Open 2006 MS Final

    Hello Everyone,

    Again, LD and LCW played in a Mens Singles Final (Macau Open 2006), and they toiled for more than ONE hour.


    So, we have more consistent info now... under the NSS, the Singles Match is not as short a match as most of us think it is.

    Is there anyone at the venue watching the match live who could inform us more about the match?

    Cheers... chris@ccc


  17. #391
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default "I Just...play a fast attacking game..."

    After defeating two Malaysians in the preliminary rounds of the Thailand Open, Thai star Boonsak Ponsana was asked by a reporter of The Nation yesterday of his impending meeting with South Korea's champion, Lee Hyun Il.

    Boonsak had lost in their two previous meetings this year in Singapore and Indonesia but is hoping to turn things around on home court. Boonsak felt good and his reply is as follows:

    "Now my body is stronger than before. I just have to play a fast attacking game and make him lose balance as he doesn't run much,'' he said.

    Interesting to note that he chose an attacking strategy!

Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2x21 rally, 12 rally scoring system in 3rd game to increase the excitement of game.
    By wisdomcivet in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 12
    : 03-07-2011, 07:15 PM
  2. 21 Rally Point Scoring System
    By Break-My-String in forum Coaching Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
  3. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
  4. Mixed responses to 21-point rally scoring system
    By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 50
    : 04-26-2006, 04:40 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    : 01-05-2003, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •