## User Tag List

1. I think there are generally 3 types of backhand grip, each to suit the 3 positions where the shuttle is being hit. In front of you it is the thumb on the biggest bevel. On your side it is across the diagonal bevel towards the big bevel. Behind you it is on the small side bevel. Something like horses for courses, because one "size" doesn't fit all. Sounds too simple. But is that all?

2. ## this is what

Originally Posted by killersmash
im really confused with who to believe... this is exactly what my face looks like ! ()
i will try both though ty for ur replies
this is what rahman sidek told me about taking shots with your back hand he asked me to get a squash racquet and pretend that your taking the shot like around 50 times and slowly increase the amont of times and you hv to do this everyday and he told me after 6 months to a year when you take a shuttle with your back hand it will feel like nothing and it will be like a lob with your forehand.

3. Originally Posted by Gollum
You mention that your grip has this advantage: "the direction of the force done by the thumb would be perpendicular to the plane". That's not relevant. The racket should not be moving in a plane, it should be rotating.

You also mention that "That larger area of thumb contact would yield in greater power generation." I do not see why this should be true. Indeed, a reductio ad absurdum would show that, by the same principle, you ought to have all of your thumb in contact with the handle (a very tight grip!).

What matters is that your thumb can control a sudden, violent rotation of the racket head as part of the grip tightening. The bevel grip does this better, when the shuttle is roughly level with the body. This rotation is what generates racket head speed.

Why does rotation get more racket head speed? It's just the way we're built (biomechanics).
I agree that the rotation would generate the power for the backhand shot. However, if that is the power generation theory, I would argue that my backhand grip would provide even more rotation than yours, thus, resulting in faster racket head swing.

As I said before, this is due to the larger area of thumb contact and the direction of the force relative to the grip. however, it seems that u haven't understood my theory. I would explain them in more detail.

The larger area of Thumb Contact.
As what I've or u might learn in physics, Force in this case is equal to Pressure times the area. F = P.A . Therefore, as the contact area gets larger, the force acting on that body (in this case, the racket grip) would be greater. This greater force would yield a faster rotation and thus, faster racket head speed. Faster racket head speed that comes in contact perpendicularly with the shuttle would transfer the momentum to the shuttle effectively, and thus, faster shuttle acceleration and final velocity.

However, in your case, the area of the thumb contact with the grip is smaller because it rests on the bevel side of the grip.

The direction of the force relative to the grip.
The greater force transfered by the larger area contact would be not effective if the direction of the force is not parallel to the direction of trajectory (the path of movement).
If we assume that there would be a plane (in this case the grip surface) that is perpendicular to the trajectory, travelling along the path, then the force acting on that plane has to be perpendicular to the plane in order to maintain its parallel orientation with the trajectory.
This direction of force that is parallel to the trajectory or perpendicular to the plane (racket grip in this case), would yield in the most effective transfer of force to the racket grip.

The mathematical perspective would be:
1. Force perpendicular to the plane: FR = F sin 90. Sin 90 = 1.
That means FR = F. FR (the force transfered) is equal to F (the initial force generated from your thumb).

2. Force not perpendicular to the plane: FR = F sin (0 < angle < 90), sin ( 0< angle < 90) is less than one. That means FR would be less that F.
As we can see that number one would yield greater resulting force than number two.

However, in your case (which is number 2 because the thumb lies on the slope of the bevel) the direction of the force is not paralell to the trajectory and therefore it's not perpendicular to the moving plane (the surface of the racket grip). Thus, it would yield less effective transfer of force.

As far as streching your wrist more (which is a bad way to put it) is actually just a slight discomfort when beginners adjust to my backhand grip. Once, they've practiced with it enough, that slight feeling of streching would be gone, and thus, they would benefit from its greater power generation based on my theory above.

Gollum, try to watch the video u posted again (1:20 - 2:28). During that time Zhao Jian Hua agrees that the trainee's bachand grip (which is similar to mine) is best used for making the shots when the shuttle has not passed your body. He suggested using your backhand grip when the shuttle has passed your body.

In conclusion, I would argue that my backhand grip is the most general backhand grip because most of the time, not only u hit the shuttle before it passed your body, YOU MUST HIT THE SHUTTLE BEFORE IT PASS YOUR BODY, as your whole body would help to generate more power and your opponents would have less recovery time.

4. Originally Posted by killersmash
to ssuly : you mean u barely stretch ur wrist?! after seeing the pictures i finally understand what is ur grip but do u using the thumb for more power?
to gollum : i understand why u keep insisting the " multi purpose " grip is best for back hand clear after watching the video.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall which one is better? i will see how this thread goes
yes, I don't even feel streching my wrist at all when hitting the shuttle before it pass my body, even when I hit a crosscourt backhand clear.

and yes, for making backhand shots in their most general form, your thumb is the indispensable tool that would transfer every piece of power generated from your wrist action.

5. Originally Posted by ssuly
yes, I don't even feel streching my wrist at all when hitting the shuttle before it pass my body, even when I hit a crosscourt backhand clear.

and yes, for making backhand shots in their most general form, your thumb is the indispensable tool that would transfer every piece of power generated from your wrist action.
i see and after reading over and over your explanation i think i get the idea u are trying to tell everyone

6. There is a world of difference between hitting the shuttle before it passes your body and one that has passed your body by a yard.

7. Force in this case is equal to Pressure times the area. F = P.A . Therefore, as the contact area gets larger, the force acting on that body (in this case, the racket grip) would be greater.
Your argument is invalid. That's not an insult; I mean it in the technical sense: your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Premise: F = PA
Conclusion: an increase in A implies an increase in F
The premise is true, but it does not entail the conclusion: there are three variables, and you are assuming that one (P) is constant. In fact, the force should be constant: an increase in A corresponds to a decrease in P, not an increase in F.

If we assume that there would be a plane (in this case the grip surface) that is perpendicular to the trajectory, travelling along the path....<snip>
This time you are starting with a false premise: as I said before, the racket movement should not be in a plane. The grip surface will be rotating, and won't be perpendicular to anything (except for the briefest instant).

The argument might be valid, but it's irrelevant: you can't prove anything starting with a false assumption.

(Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious/patronising you, but most people have not done "logic 101" )

Gollum, try to watch the video u posted again (1:20 - 2:28). During that time Zhao Jian Hua agrees that the trainee's bachand grip (which is similar to mine) is best used for making the shots when the shuttle has not passed your body. He suggested using your backhand grip when the shuttle has passed your body.
This is the best part of your argument.

Though I'm loathe to disagree with Zhao, I think that in that video he is being charitable towards the player's technique. I think he is trying to avoid saying "you're wrong", and so he gives slightly distorted advice about the thumb grip.

In any case, if you watch the video of him hitting the shuttle, you can clearly see that he does not use a thumb grip (or your in between grip) when the shuttle is level with him. He uses the bevel grip, albeit shifted slightly towards pandhandle since the shuttle is slightly behind him.

The grip that he demonstrates to the player is not the bevel grip: it is the panhandle grip. This is a more extreme adaption for when the shuttle has actually gone past your body.

Again:
• Shuttle in front: thumb grip (thumb on widest surface)
• Shuttle level with body: bevel grip (thumb on diagonal bevel)
• Shuttle behind: panhandle grip (thumb on side surface)

8. Originally Posted by taneepak
I think there are generally 3 types of backhand grip, each to suit the 3 positions where the shuttle is being hit. In front of you it is the thumb on the biggest bevel. On your side it is across the diagonal bevel towards the big bevel. Behind you it is on the small side bevel. Something like horses for courses, because one "size" doesn't fit all. Sounds too simple. But is that all?
Yep, I agree with all that

9. This is the best advice I've heard on how to explain to someone which grip to use on an overhead backhand...

Have them face away from the net. Then hold the racquet in various positions ranging from in front of them (ie towards the back of the court) to beside them, always with the racquet face square to the net. Next, just ask them to grab the racquet. Whatever grip they're using is the one they should use when taking a shuttle from that position. What they will find interesting is that at no point will they be taking the racquet with the thumb fully on the flat of the grip (ie "classical" backhand grip).

I like this as it illustrates how the grip that should be used lies along a continuum, rather than saying "the thumb should be here, here or here"

Wayne Young

10. the best thing i can do now is to train my wrist and arm strenght until this discussion is done

11. Originally Posted by killersmash
the best thing i can do now is to train my wrist and arm strenght until this discussion is done
You might also consider:
• Look at some sources of authority, such as your national coaching body. What do they recommend?
• Get a coach, and try his advice
• Experiment and see what you find effective.
This discussion is not the alpha and omega of backhand technique

12. about the 2nd point : when i ask my coach how to do the back hand clear he just say jokingly : " u too noob to do the back hand clear". den i say seriously he just ignore me... about the 3rd point i am going to experiment during training 2morrow... btW ty for ur replies.. i really helped... i will try to analyse lin dan back hand clear too

13. Originally Posted by killersmash
when i ask my coach how to do the back hand clear he just say jokingly : " u too noob to do the back hand clear". den i say seriously he just ignore me
That's a shame

Different coaches have different methods; I believe that the so-called "difficult" or "advanced" strokes such as backhand clears become much easier if you introduce them relatively early.

The biggest reason that most players have a weak backhand is simple: they have not practised it enough (unlike the forehand, which gets lots of practice)!

14. Hi, Gollum, please don't be afraid to insult, patronize me or whatever, if that is the truth based on valid facts and logic, then I would accept it as gladly as possible.
Okay, let's get back to the issues.

Originally Posted by Gollum
Your argument is invalid. That's not an insult; I mean it in the technical sense: your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Premise: F = PA
Conclusion: an increase in A implies an increase in F
The premise is true, but it does not entail the conclusion: there are three variables, and you are assuming that one (P) is constant. In fact, the force should be constant: an increase in A corresponds to a decrease in P, not an increase in F.
Yes, I did assume that P is constant, and I realize that I was wrong. You are right that the constant variable should F (which is the force exerted by your thumb). I stand corrected on this matter.

Originally Posted by Gollum
This time you are starting with a false premise: as I said before, the racket movement should not be in a plane. The grip surface will be rotating, and won't be perpendicular to anything (except for the briefest instant).

The argument might be valid, but it's irrelevant: you can't prove anything starting with a false assumption.

(Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious/patronising you, but most people have not done "logic 101" )
This time u've misunderstood my argument. I totally agree that the grip surface would be rotating, but in order to analyze the force acting on it, we have to stop and freeze the grip movement, then zoom it into the briefest instant. It's in that instant (u've somehow understood this) then we could see that the grip surface would always be perpendicular to its trajectory (its moving path that looks like a curve in the big picture).

In that very same briefest instant, the force acting on the grip (using my backhand grip) would be parallel to the trajectory, and thus perpendicular to the grip surface. This is not the case for your backhand grip (multipurpose grip), which would result in less power generation. In the more extreme case of Zhao Jian Hua's panhandle grip, the angle of the force would be completely parallel to the grip surface (zero angle). This means that the force acting on the grip is F = F sin 0 = 0. Zhao's grip is even weaker than your "multipurpose" grips because it only relies on static friction between your thumb and the grip.

Originally Posted by Gollum
This is the best part of your argument.

Though I'm loathe to disagree with Zhao, I think that in that video he is being charitable towards the player's technique. I think he is trying to avoid saying "you're wrong", and so he gives slightly distorted advice about the thumb grip.

In any case, if you watch the video of him hitting the shuttle, you can clearly see that he does not use a thumb grip (or your in between grip) when the shuttle is level with him. He uses the bevel grip, albeit shifted slightly towards pandhandle since the shuttle is slightly behind him.
In this matter, the supporting fact at hand is not clear. You think that he's trying to avoid saying "you're wrong". Well, I think he knows that the trainee's backhand grip is the "ideal" grip for hitting the shuttle before it passes your body, but he doesn't do it for himself because of he's somehow reluctant to change his grip. His reluctant to use the "ideal" grip might be because: 1. his hard to change old habit (which is completely understandable), 2. he could already hit a proper backhand clear even without using the "ideal" grip.

I do agree that your grip (multipurpose grip) is sufficient in terms of power in order to do a proper backhand clear in its most general form. However, mybackhand grips would just provide more power that would allow players not only do backhand clears, but also backhand cross court clears, fast drives, even smashes, and again, in their most general forms.

15. Ssuly,

Your argument about "perpendicular forces" still makes no sense. You're trying to analyse a motion that is essentially rotational using purely translational concepts.

Try reversing your logic: if the thumb is "perpendicular", then it can't generate any rotation (it needs to be off to one side to create rotation).

I don't like getting into these kinds of pseudo-physics arguments about badminton techniques, because:
• Almost without exception, people underestimate the complexity of the mechanics involved, and use grossly simplistic models.
• I don't want to attempt a detailed mathematical model of the hitting action, because it would get horrendously complex very quickly. This would be doctorate thesis work, not a quick bit of algebra. I'm quite content with my BA, thanks
I find your suggestion of Zhao having a less-than-ideal grip unlikely. He's only one of the greatest players ever

I'm not saying it's impossible; I just think Zhao's backhand is unlikely to have any technical flaws.

As far as I can tell, your arguments for your grip are:
• You like it
• Some very dodgy pseudo-physics
• An interpretation of Zhao's coaching, which appears to be contradicted by his actual playing technique
My argument is rather simpler: the bevel grip is taught by Badminton England. It's also taught by some top players/coaches, such as Lee Jae Bok and Xiong Guo Bao. I consider these sources of authority; there are many others, but these are the ones which have been available to me (in one form or another).

I think that listening to experts is a reliable way to learn good technique. Trying to deduce technique from physical principles is an unreliable way of learning it. Also, "what works for you" is an unreliable guide to good technique (unless you happen to be a top player).

16. why dont u guys change this already?

confusing a looooot of peopleeee

17. Originally Posted by Gollum
Ssuly,

Your argument about "perpendicular forces" still makes no sense. You're trying to analyse a motion that is essentially rotational using purely translational concepts.
I think u've failed to grasp that rotational movement is no other than instantanious changes of direction in translational movement.

Originally Posted by Gollum

I don't like getting into these kinds of pseudo-physics arguments about badminton techniques, because:
• Almost without exception, people underestimate the complexity of the mechanics involved, and use grossly simplistic models.
• I don't want to attempt a detailed mathematical model of the hitting action, because it would get horrendously complex very quickly. This would be doctorate thesis work, not a quick bit of algebra. I'm quite content with my BA, thanks
I just wanted to use my knowledge of physics to support my argument, but then, instead of proving why my theory is wrong, you attack my credibility by assuming that the mechanics involved is too complex that only Phd can do.

In this matter, you simply act by not trusting my theory instead of arguing why my theory is wrong. This marks the end of the argument as we clearly don't have the qualified third person figure.

Originally Posted by Gollum
I find your suggestion of Zhao having a less-than-ideal grip unlikely. He's only one of the greatest players ever

I'm not saying it's impossible; I just think Zhao's backhand is unlikely to have any technical flaws.
He might be the greatest player ever, but he's not well known for his backhand relative to other top players. Moreover, we should also stop arguing in this particular matter, because it's more like kids' fight, u can say yes and i can say no with our own reasonings in the absence of sufficient information.

Originally Posted by Gollum

As far as I can tell, your arguments for your grip are:
• You like it
• Some very dodgy pseudo-physics
• An interpretation of Zhao's coaching, which appears to be contradicted by his actual playing technique
My argument is rather simpler: the bevel grip is taught by Badminton England. It's also taught by some top players/coaches, such as Lee Jae Bok and Xiong Guo Bao. I consider these sources of authority; there are many others, but these are the ones which have been available to me (in one form or another).

I think that listening to experts is a reliable way to learn good technique. Trying to deduce technique from physical principles is an unreliable way of learning it. Also, "what works for you" is an unreliable guide to good technique (unless you happen to be a top player).
It's not that simple, you believed in your bevel grip because you've gained information from those top players/coaches, etc. However, I could also doubt your credibility in interpreting their teachings. Interpreting someone's teachings could be very subjective, as we already have different interpretation on Zhao Jian Hua's videos.

Conclusion:

My claim: My backhand grip is more powerful than yours (multipurpose grip).
My Strength: I provide the mechanical theory supporting it.
My Weakness: My credibility.

Your claim: My backhand grip is not superior or even weaker than yours.
Your strength: You pointed some authoritative figures to support it.

We'll never be able to find the slightest hope to compromise in this matter unless we meet up in person to clarify the arguments (words alone could be very confusing) and show it objectively which one is more powerful on court.

I hope our readers would find something useful from this arguments.

Page 3 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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