I was writing a badminton exam the other day, and some of the questions in it prompted some good discussion with the other people writing it. I thought I'd share some of the questions with the forum while they're still fresh in my mind. The wording of the questions may not be exactly as they were in the exam. "In junior golf, there is a trend which emphasizes the development of power first, with accuracy and consistency coming later. Would this model of development be appropriate for badminton? Why or why not?" My answer began by making the distinction between physical power, a quality dependent on muscular size and intramuscular efficiency, and technical power, a quality dependent on biomechanics and intermuscular coordination. I reasoned that the development of physical power is a low priority for developing players, up until the advanced level. However, my opinion was that technical power is a quality of extremely high importance, probably much more so than precise/finesse strokes. Particularly in doubles, the smash is arguably the most fundamental stroke as most basic strategies involve setting up the player to hit it. Against a soundly positioned defensive player, the smasher can try to place the smash at various body parts or change things up with a drop, but without any heat it would be difficult for the defensive player to be put under significant pressure. Meanwhile, a stronger smasher could force weak returns by reducing the defending player's reaction time, regardless of where the shuttle is aimed. Against the weak smasher, the defenders could conceivably set up an unconventional defensive strategy which emphasizes counterattacking the weak attacks. Another argument that someone else mentioned was that in the teaching of the backhand, anyone could place a shot tight to the net with any kind of garbage technique. However, getting that player to hit a backhand clear would require that player to use good technique to accomplish the goal of getting the bird across to the back of the other end of the court. So in this case, we would progress from the teaching the power stroke first, followed by the finesse variation (drop shot).
Good point. I haven't thought about it this way before. If you develop power/speed first, your power means your technique is about right, and you can work on fine-tune and practice accuracy later, whether it's clear, smash, or drive. Drop and net shots are effective only if you can do power shots or are very deceptive.
development of power yields a short term result. technique fulfills a more long term role, a longer lasting gain....
I think getting the biomechanics/technique down properly first is the better way to learn -- even a 'weak' person, with efficient stroke-work, will be able to generate enough power for shots up until the advanced level. I think I went by the power/speed way of learning strokes, and I must say, it's quite difficult to remove old, incorrect habits.
I think this leads to the following question - suppose you have a player that you're training from an intermediate level up to the advanced level. If their power development at this stage of development is poor, that could mean a lot of changes may be necessary to their fundamental stroking techniques - not an easy task. If their power is just fine, they just need to refine their touch by doing accuracy/concentration drills. Therefore, the player from this second scenario is "closer" to the advanced level than the first player.
If your stroke is inefficient for power production, that means breaking the movement down and looking at movement sequencing, timing and joint angles to figure out how to fix it. A consequence of these changes is that if your accuracy was good before, after these technique changes they may not be anymore. Meanwhile, a player with good power but poor accuracy is mostly looking at refining the contact angle, without making gross changes to their basic stroke technique.
How come there is such thing as a Badminton Examination ? Is that for aspiring badminton coaches? Who is the Examination Board ?
I thought being powerful in the technical sense would mean the stroke is correct and efficient for power production -- it's just that the person does not have the physical power to move the shuttle as quickly as he/she would want. Am I addressing your points?
