squash vs badminton

[Tianjin]

It is a different game that deserves respect on its own. I have had freinds try and argue badminton vs. some other sport, and it is really hard to do. I studied Kinesiology for a while, and the "standard" agility tests will not pick up a significant difference between squash and badmiton athletes.

The only test that can be inferred to inorder to determine which atheltes are "better" athletes would be that of a cardiovasicular VO2 max test. I doubt you will find any significant differences between elite badminton and squash athletes.

If you give respect, you MAY get it back in return. If you dis-respect, you WILL get dis-respected in return. It is like compairing apples and oranges, they are both fruit, but they are different.

Good Luck,
Toddster

I heard the best performance on a cardiovasicular VO2 max test is held by a cross-country skier...

[cooler]

I heard the best performance on a cardiovasicular VO2 max test is held by a cross-country skier...

one should include mental challenges too. If not, shoveling wet snow is up there too in term of Vo2 demand.

[Neil Nicholls]

For what it's worth (my bold)

In sports where endurance is an important component in performance, such as cycling, rowing, cross-country skiing and running, world class athletes typically have high VO2 maximums. World class male athletes, cyclists and cross-country skiers typically exceed 80 ml/kg/min and a rare few may exceed 90 ml/kg/min for men and 70 ml/kg/min for women. Three times Tour de France winner Greg LeMond is reported to have had a VO2 max of 92.5 at his peak - one of the highest ever recorded, while fellow cyclist Miguel Indurain and cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie both measured at an astounding 96 ml/kg/min. It should also be noted that Daehlie's result was achieved out of season and that physiologist Erlend Hem who was responsible for the testing stated that he would not discount the possibility of the skier passing 100 ml/kg/min at his absolute peak. By comparison a competitive club athlete might achieve a VO2 max of around 70 ml/kg/min. World class rowers are physically very large endurance athletes and typically do not score as high on a per weight basis, but often score exceptionally high in absolute terms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

[stumblingfeet]

For what it's worth (my bold)

In sports where endurance is an important component in performance, such as cycling, rowing, cross-country skiing and running, world class athletes typically have high VO2 maximums. World class male athletes, cyclists and cross-country skiers typically exceed 80 ml/kg/min and a rare few may exceed 90 ml/kg/min for men and 70 ml/kg/min for women. Three times Tour de France winner Greg LeMond is reported to have had a VO2 max of 92.5 at his peak - one of the highest ever recorded, while fellow cyclist Miguel Indurain and cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie both measured at an astounding 96 ml/kg/min. It should also be noted that Daehlie's result was achieved out of season and that physiologist Erlend Hem who was responsible for the testing stated that he would not discount the possibility of the skier passing 100 ml/kg/min at his absolute peak. By comparison a competitive club athlete might achieve a VO2 max of around 70 ml/kg/min. World class rowers are physically very large endurance athletes and typically do not score as high on a per weight basis, but often score exceptionally high in absolute terms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

I thought that V02max was already normalized by comparing the oxygen use in milliliters to kilograms body mass?

The reason that you can't really compare V02max in athletes in different sports is because sports involving more muscle groups working aerobically will naturally use more oxygen. For example, a long distance runner or cyclist uses their arms at a much lower percentage of their local aerobic ability than a cross-country skier, while the legs in all of those athletes are taxed to the max aerobic ability - so the difference in V02max is obvious.

A lot of the info on V02max also happens to be based on continuous movement endurance sports. For stop and go sports like badminton and squash, it is much harder to quantify the energy systems needs because many movements are anaerobic, with the aerobic system acting as more of a supportive energy system.

Note that in the article by Omosegaard about PEHL's physical training tests, his V02max went down between 1988 and 1992. The reason? He previously spent too much time focusing on this ability and his overall playing ability was improved by redistributing his training to other areas.

[twobeer]

I thought that V02max was already normalized by comparing the oxygen use in milliliters to kilograms body mass?

The reason that you can't really compare V02max in athletes in different sports is because sports involving more muscle groups working aerobically will naturally use more oxygen. For example, a long distance runner or cyclist uses their arms at a much lower percentage of their local aerobic ability than a cross-country skier, while the legs in all of those athletes are taxed to the max aerobic ability - so the difference in V02max is obvious.

A lot of the info on V02max also happens to be based on continuous movement endurance sports. For stop and go sports like badminton and squash, it is much harder to quantify the energy systems needs because many movements are anaerobic, with the aerobic system acting as more of a supportive energy system.

Note that in the article by Omosegaard about PEHL's physical training tests, his V02max went down between 1988 and 1992. The reason? He previously spent too much time focusing on this ability and his overall playing ability was improved by redistributing his training to other areas.

My assumption is that badminton puts far more anaerobic demands, due to the explosive jumps, launches etc, on the player compared to squash (which possably put a greater aerobic demand, due to the longer rallies).

Hence my belief that its "harder" to excel in badminton as you have to optimize both for anaerobic and aerobic excercise, in squash I think you can focus more on the aerobic training, and less on the anaerobic parts.

/T

[cooler]

I regularly play both these sports at the intermediate level.

Yesterday I had a major argument with my friend who plays squash alone.

He claims that squash is much more demanding, faster and tiring as compared to badminton. I competely disagreed with him based on the following observations:

1. Badminton is quicker and more relexive. Shuttle comes on to you quicly as compared to squash where the opportunity to leave the ball and take it off the recochhete exists
2. Most of baddy shots are played overhead and hence more taxing
3. Quicker movements are required for badminton

Does anyone have any material comparing the two sports. Any comparison on speed reflexes etc. Pls post so I can dispel the myth once and for all. My personal experience is that baddy is quicker and more tiring than squash.

- kmodak

i dunno all the squash type shoes but if u want proof which sports are more demanding, look the 2 links in this thread. LOL
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...d=1#post489095

[nisse]

Very interesting discussion. One can play both sports at a very intense level and during the longest rallies you can reach your maximum heart rate. In general, squash rallies tend to last longer (as per studies done on racquet game rally lengths). Here some interesting information regarding different racquet games and about their intensity:
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat..._racquet_games

My personal observations come from using heart rate monitor for 4 years now while playing and excercising, also during competitive squash and badminton games. I play both squash and badminton pretty much at the same level when comparing my own skill level and those of my opponents (approx. national level B). Throughout the those years, with squash I tend to regularly go above 1000 calories burned over an hour whereas badminton burns ca. 800 calories. However, with very intensive game of badminton I have reached up +1k calories burned and hear rate peaking at maximum (202bpm, just if you are interested comparing the calories, my weight is between 82-84kg).

This is just to give some idea how my body reacts to these amazing and entertaining racquet games. In the end, what makes the one or the other "tougher" really boils down to your own skill level in the game. Badminton is easier to start with but once you develop your game, squash enables you to withhold longer rallies.

These are just my few pennies for the topic.

[Tadashi]

This table is from Liverpool John Moores University's scientist MacLaren (1998: p. 43):

Kilojoule per minute estimate


LO HI -- the racket sport
==================
29 46 -- badminton
29 42 -- table tennis
29 46 -- tennis
42 76 -- squash

[thumpsky]

what stops your squash opponent from hitting the ball and making it bounce directly back at them and not getting out of your way to retrieve it? seems like an easy thing to exploit.

[thunder.tw]

what stops your squash opponent from hitting the ball and making it bounce directly back at them and not getting out of your way to retrieve it? seems like an easy thing to exploit.

Even a superficial glance at the rules of squash will give you your answer.

[thumpsky]

Even a superficial glance at the rules of squash will give you your answer.

i know it says you cannot obstruct your opponent, but you can still exploit that loophole.

you could move slower, or just whip it really hard back yourself.

[thumpsky]

badminton > squash

[thunder.tw]

White is considered one of the hardest hitters on tour these days, though that's only around 275 km/h. ( I thought with the way he hits it would be around the 190 MPH range)

That puts is slightly below some of Lin Dan's/Chen Hong best smashes and well below the doubles guys.

It also completely neglects the difference in masses of the objects being struck as well as the energy losses due to the deformation of the ball. Speed by itself means little.

[thunder.tw]

i know it says you cannot obstruct your opponent, but you can still exploit that loophole.

you could move slower, or just whip it really hard back yourself.

In either case the point would be awarded to your opponent or at best a let would be given. '

Seriously, you think such an obvious exploit hasn't been considered??

[thumpsky]

In either case the point would be awarded to your opponent or at best a let would be given. '

Seriously, you think such an obvious exploit hasn't been considered??

in other words, you have to "cooperate" with your opponent to make the game work. this ruins the flow.

[rogerv2]

I used to love squash until it screwed up my knee, now I only play badminton mostly singles.

Squash is a game that I enjoyed playing but hate watching.
Badminton is a game that I enjoy playing and watching.

To me both sports were equally taxing especially since I was never into that boring straight strokes near the wall.

[thunder.tw]

in other words, you have to "cooperate" with your opponent to make the game work. this ruins the flow.

You've never even played squash so your comment is idiotic. In other words pretty much standard for your posts.