User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 69
  1. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    have the both of you even tried the other grip? instead of clinging onto your own views?

    tryign both grips, I can't possibly hit a crosscourt shot with ssuly's grip. I'd need to stretch every muscle to it's limit to twist my racket..or hit it in front of my body...

    as for sheer power...Swinging my racket I feel like I can do a whip-like snap with my wrist if I do the gollum-grip. I can thrust my elbow forward with my body/pecks/arm and the wrist flows naturally and whips...

    using the sussly grip, or any backhand grip with the thumb pressing on the handle, I have to rely on my wrist/elbow strength purely...nothing natural. Just good old press-hard-to-hit-hard lumberjack technique

    Posting out of my own practical trying out...

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The angle formed between racquet and forearm is also as important as grip. For if you have the correct grip for the situation but the wrong angle you will not have good power or timing. You need to look for an angle of around 90 degrees, small angles move faster through to a big angle.

    In preparation keep the racquet head up, with your arm across your body to the b/h side, elbow low. In order to do this with the correct grip you will find that your wrist is slightly cocked, creases on the back.

    Hit with a rebound tapping action.

    Its all in the angles!!!

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    us
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby
    have the both of you even tried the other grip? instead of clinging onto your own views?

    tryign both grips, I can't possibly hit a crosscourt shot with ssuly's grip. I'd need to stretch every muscle to it's limit to twist my racket..or hit it in front of my body...
    If you correctly interpret the picture of my grip, it should not strectch your wrist at all when u hit a backhand clear before the shuttle pass your body. It might stretch your wrist a little when u try to hit crosscourt backhand clears, as little as it's not worth mentioning. It should provide the same natural whip-like motion as Gollum-grip, but with greater power explosion.

    What I think you should do to understand my grip better:
    1. Hold your racket using my grip (try to imitate it from the picture as close as possible). you must notice that the thumb position in mybackhand grip lies on the widest surface area of the grip.
    2. Try to strech your wrist as far as u can as long as it's still comfortable enough. If you still tend to slice the shuttle when u hit a backhand clear from the side of your body, turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle while maintaining the thumb position on that same widest surface of the grip.

  4. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't feel my swing being faster than a gollum grip...but my backhand swing is really a swing, not a thumbpress...

    to add an "authority" argument: Karina de Wit. Ex-proffesional player (ranked as high as #30 WS. played ubercup) concurs with my backhand stroke (as she taught it to me ) to quote here "the thumb-grip teaching is wrong, if you ask me" (not exagerating, she really said it like that...in dutch offcourse)

    Now for driveshots, netshots and generally shots where you can't swing/rotate a thumb-grip is ideal....

    just a question (not to attack you, not to insult) but who taught you this grip? a friend, a coach, a national coach, yourself?

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssuly
    What I think you should do to understand my grip better:
    1. Hold your racket using my grip (try to imitate it from the picture as close as possible). you must notice that the thumb position in mybackhand grip lies on the widest surface area of the grip.
    2. Try to strech your wrist as far as u can as long as it's still comfortable enough. If you still tend to slice the shuttle when u hit a backhand clear from the side of your body, turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle while maintaining the thumb position on that same widest surface of the grip.
    Two questions:

    1) "thumb position on widest surface area of the grip"? (By "grip", I am sure you mean the racket handle.) In other words that is just the standard backhand grip right?

    2) "turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle..." Then what do you think one should do next? Further supinate the wrist and forearm?

    I have seen the pictures you took of your holding the racket using thumb grip and your version of the grip. Frankly, I do not see any difference. You have taken the pictures in which the racket head appear at different angles. In order to make the differences -- if any, I am still doubtful -- apparent, you should take pictures in which the racket head appears at the same angle (e.g., always perpendicular to the plane of the floor). In other words, keep the rackethead angle constant so we can see *only* the variation in the fingering of the grips.
    Last edited by tkteo; 03-14-2007 at 11:54 AM.

  6. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    us
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby
    just a question (not to attack you, not to insult) but who taught you this grip? a friend, a coach, a national coach, yourself?
    I honestly learnt my backhand grip naturally because I can't remember how I get it. Then, I realized that my backhand is considered to be the strongest in my badminton community (I could do backhand clear easily (when I say easy, I really mean it, in a humble way), cross court clear, fast backhand drives, or even 3/4 of court backhand smashes).

    My motivation is simple: My backhand works wonder for me and I want to share it with you.

    I really do understand Gollum's grip and I could also use his grip to make excellent backhand strokes. However, my grip is simply more powerful and that difference in power is real. As showing it to you on court is not possible, I tried to back up my claim with my theory.

    I admit that my backhand grip should be a little bit harder to be mastered than Gollum's grip, but I would argue that once you've mastered it, you'd have a stronger backhand than other people who've also mastered Gollum's grip.

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, playing at a big club I wouldn't dare saying my backhand is the best
    but a backhand clear from in front of my body is easy, indeed effortless.
    I daren't comment on backhand smashes...because I don't use it and don't train for it...

    now a backhand clear béhind your body..that's the real art. Getting fooled at the net, running back and clearing it over somebody (from a lunging position)...I can't do it fully, but heck I'm trying

    I believe you when you say your grip works wonders for you (heck, why wouldn't I? How could I not?) but the "gollum-grip" is much more multi-purpose. And more suited to my playing style/ my coaches idea of badminton.

    EDIT: to elaborate. I try my very best néver to take a shot, for which I'm on time, with my backhand..If I can do backhand shot in front of me, I could just as well do a around-the-head...

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    us
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkteo
    Two questions:

    1) "thumb position on widest surface area of the grip"? (By "grip", I am sure you mean the racket handle.) In other words that is just the standard backhand grip right?
    yes, what i meant is the racket handle (sorry, bad english). what do u mean by "standard"? If what u mean by standard is the "full" thumb grip, then no, it's not. It's between "full" thumb grip and Gollum's grip (multipurpose grip).

    Quote Originally Posted by tkteo
    2) "turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle..." Then what do you think one should do next? Further supinate the wrist and forearm?
    What I meant by that is: turn the racket head to face the shuttle without bending your wrist more. This means you have to grip the racket more to Gollum's grip while maintaining the position of your thumb on the widest area of the grip.
    Quote Originally Posted by tkteo
    I have seen the pictures you took of your holding the racket using thumb grip and your version of the grip. Frankly, I do not see any difference. You have taken the pictures in which the racket head appear at different angles. In order to make the differences -- if any, I am still doubtful -- apparent, you should take pictures in which the racket head appears at the same angle (e.g., always perpendicular to the plane of the floor). In other words, keep the rackethead angle constant so we can see *only* the variation in the fingering of the grips.
    There are two ways to illustrate differences in grips:
    1. Illustrate the differences in racket head's orientation, which is my way. This method would change the orientation of the racket heads according to the associated grips.
    2. Illustrate the differences purely at how u position the fingers relative to the grip, which is your suggestion. This means that the orientation of the racket head should be the same for every grip change.

    I just thought that using method one would be easier to comprehend, as you would just need the match the orientation of the racket and rearrange your fingers naturally. Using method 2 would lead to matching your fingers with my fingers one by one, which is more prone to misguiding.

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,980
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm pretty much done here. Readers may judge and experiment for themselves, and of course I recommend seeking the advice of a coach rather than just reading forums.

    I would, however, like to clear up some points:

    The discussion seems to have become a question of credibility (at least, that's the way ssuly has directed it). Allow me to defend my credibility:
    • In badminton: I am a qualified and active BE coach (level 2), teaching children from 9 up to adult club players. My teaching is not just personal opinion, it is based on the England coaching syllabus. I regularly update and supplement my understanding by attending national and regional coaching conferences and workshops.
    • In mechanics: I have a (good) degree in mathematics and philosophy from Oxford. I know what makes a valid argument, and I can tell when a mathematico-physical "theory" is substantial and when it's just someone throwing a few symbols around (FsinTheta doesn't impress, I'm afraid).
    you simply act by not trusting my theory instead of arguing why my theory is wrong.
    You don't have a theory. All you have is some vague pseudo-physical ramblings. The only way I can possibly respond is in the same language.

    If you want a proper critique, you must present it in the right language: mathematics. Your model is completely unformalised and therefore does not even qualify as a mathematical model.

    Until you formalise your theory, it's just so much hot air. If I showed that "theory" to a real, working physicist (and yes, I know quite a few), he would just laugh.

    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.
    That would demonstrate absolutely nothing. Your good use of the inferior technique could surpass my poor use of the superior technique.

    have the both of you even tried the other grip? instead of clinging onto your own views?
    Yes, I've tried the full gamut of grips between thumb and panhandle.

    why dont u guys change this already?

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...iew/81/35/1/3/

    confusing a looooot of peopleeee
    Because:
    • It's my article, so no-one's going to be changing it except me. You may, of course, write your own article from scratch.
    • I am working on a complete rewrite, but other things in life occupy my attention too (you know, girls, writing a novel, working as a coach, preparing for a caving expedition).
    • I could do a quick, crude update, but that's just not my style. I want to make something excellent: there are plenty of mediocre resources already.

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    652
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Youngunz_77
    why dont u guys change this already?

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...iew/81/35/1/3/

    confusing a looooot of peopleeee
    I agree, this is misleading.

  11. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    us
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    You don't have a theory. All you have is some vague pseudo-physical ramblings. The only way I can possibly respond is in the same language

    If you want a proper critique, you must present it in the right language: mathematics. Your model is completely unformalised and therefore does not even qualify as a mathematical model.

    Until you formalise your theory, it's just so much hot air. If I showed that "theory" to a real, working physicist (and yes, I know quite a few), he would just laugh.
    We are in informal forum based conversation in the first place, when I call my theory what I meant is an informal "theory". You tend to formalize everything to attack my credibility, and that's the best u can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    That would demonstrate absolutely nothing. Your good use of the inferior technique could surpass my poor use of the superior technique.
    I agree on this, that's why I said the slightest hope of compromise. Please read more carefully.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    Because:
    • It's my article, so no-one's going to be changing it except me. You may, of course, write your own article from scratch.
    • I am working on a complete rewrite, but other things in life occupy my attention too (you know, girls, writing a novel, working as a coach, preparing for a caving expedition).
    • I could do a quick, crude update, but that's just not my style. I want to make something excellent: there are plenty of mediocre resources already.
    I see no reason why you don't just delete it, or put an error sign on it, instead of keep misleading people.

    Hopefully, one last word for you Gollum, I'm wondering what you had done until you decided to put up the current grossly backhand grip guide. How come people like you whom yourself implied to be very objective (based your argument on logic and authoritative credibility), made such a mistake.

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,980
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssuly
    We are in informal forum based conversation in the first place, when I call my theory what I meant is an informal "theory". You tend to formalize everything to attack my credibility, and that's the best u can do.
    You can't have it both ways. If you want to use mechanics to back up your ideas, it had better be proper mechanics (which is hard work, you know. You have to use real maths, and real maths is scary. You think you can fight a lion because you once wrestled a kitten?).

    I've tried to explain that your "model" is far, far too simplistic, and consequently cannot be used as the basis for an argument.

    If you wanted to make a good argument from mechanical principles, you would need to model the interacting movements of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints, together with the fingers. You would need a strong understanding of anatomy, as well as extensive experience in constructing mathematical models for physical systems.

    It's a complex physical system that you cannot reduce so blithely to "perpendicular force".

    I agree on this, that's why I said the slightest hope of compromise. Please read more carefully.
    Slightest hope? No hope at all. You have so far given me no reason to value your ideas other than "I've got a strong backhand". Well, good for you; I bet Zhao's is a lot stronger.

    And you might try writing more carefully (you know, sentences that can be read easily, because they are properly constructed).

    I see no reason why you don't just delete it, or put an error sign on it, instead of keep misleading people.

    Hopefully, one last word for you Gollum, I'm wondering what you had done until you decided to put up the current grossly backhand grip guide. How come people like you whom yourself implied to be very objective (based your argument on logic and authoritative credibility), made such a mistake.
    I don't delete it because:
    • It's the second most popular article on this subject (by Google rank).
    • It may be flawed, but it's much better than most of the competition.
    • I no longer have the right to delete it. If Kwun wants to delete it, that's his privilege. I have given him the right to publish the article, and I'm proud that he chose it for BC; any changes thereafter are purely at Kwun's discretion.
    Just putting an error sign on the article would only lead to further confusion. There's little point making a half-hearted correction. To correct the article properly, I need a whole new framework of grips. I am developing that framework under guidance from Badminton England.

    At the time I wrote that article, I was a newly-qualified coach, and those grips were what the coach part 1 syllabus taught. That part of coach education in England was poor. The new syllabuses are very different, following a comprehensive review of techniques, which was influenced by elite coaches from top badminton nations (such as Korea, Denmark, and China). I've also been exposed to many more top-class educators, including direct correspondence with Badminton England over the new grips guide, so my understanding has improved. A lot.

    I'm a fiercely independent thinker, but I am also humble enough to recognise superior expertise when I meet it. That's why I base my teaching on nationally accredited guidelines (the new ones are endorsed by UKCC).

    If you think my article is so misleading, why don't you write one yourself? No-one's stopping you. If you write a good enough article, Kwun might even agree to publish it here. But you won't, because it's much easier to criticise my work than to create something yourself.

    As a coach and a writer, I do my best to give sound, easily understood advice. I consider teaching a responsibility, so I try to base my teaching on sources of authority, not just my own whims. Countless players here at BC testify to the helpfulness of my grips article, and to my advice about grips and other techniques in the forums. I wonder if you will be as useful to them?

    Note: in case anyone starts to wonders whether I've lost my sanity, I haven't. I'm just really irritated, and I feel like venting. Deal with it.

    Finally, you'll be pleased to learn that you won't be seeing much of me around here any more. I have just returned after a few week's break from the forums, and those few weeks allowed me to see that, although I have a lot to offer BC, BC is largely a waste of my time: I can't stop myself getting involved in stupid arguments like this one, with stupid people who advance stupid "proofs" of their stupid ideas. Intellectually, it's like nails down a blackboard to me; I'd be a much happier person if I had never studied philosophy.

    Sorry if that sounded like an insult, but it was. I'm sure you don't really deserve it; the fault is mine: I am not serene enough to ignore what I perceive as idiocy. This is a problem for me, because I perceive an awful lot of idiocy (this happens depressingly often when you are very bright, and eventually have to depart the dreaming spires for the real world).

    Arrogant? Oh yes. But honest too.

    Don't get me wrong: I still think BC is a great resource and a fantastic online community -- one of the very best. But I no longer enjoy being an active part of it; the downsides for me greatly outweigh the benefits.

    Goodbye everyone. I'll be back when I have something useful for you to read (and I will check my PMs from time to time). And, for those who might actually miss me, take heart: what I'm writing will be good. Really good.

  13. #64
    Regular Member phaarix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nelson, Aotearoa (NZ)
    Posts
    2,274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry to hear that you aren't enjoying BC so much anymore (Gollum). I'd just like to say that I've learnt a lot from some of your posts, so don't think they're going unheard.

    Arrogant? I think anyone can come across as arrogant when they're in a bad mood.

  14. #65
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    513
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gollum,

    Please don't let another poster get to you. Your posts are among the highest in information density, and I want you to know that there are infrequent posters like me who appreciate it.

  15. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    us
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would like to say that I'm sorry everyone, because it looks like I've made your hero (Gollum) very irritated. I just don't mean it.

    As I said before, my true motivation in writing in this thread is because my backhand works wonder for me and I want to share it with you. Then, I noticed that Gollum is teaching you guys a bevel grip which I claimed to be inferior than mine. As I'm also a thinker, I back up my claim with my mechanical "theory". Although, I'm still pursuing my BS in civil engineering, I could assure you that I've completely grasped the basic of mechanics. I admit that in order to explain the whole backhand whipping action, it would take a very complex mechanics. However, what I'm trying to explain in my "theory" is just the difference between those two similar complex motion (Gollum's grip and mygrip). I absolutely believe that the difference (whether u put your thumb on the bevel (Gollum's grip), or on the widest grip surface (my grip) ) could be explained with basic mechanical concept.

    Gollum clearly disagreed with my "theory", but he did not prove it wrong. He made many subjective assumptions in order to bring down my credibility. This is a very smart and yet unfair strategy of him (not sure if he realized it or not), he's doesn't want to argue with my "theory" and he exploited my biggest weakness, which is my credibility. As I'm just one of many you guys who does not choose to devote my life for badminton as much as Gollum does. I mean, he is not only a player, he's also a coach, and he also interacts with many authoritative badminton figures. However, using only his credibilities to bring down my argument is unfair, instead of proving my argument to be invalid, he's more likely to say that "I'm much more credible than you, and therefore your claim should be wrong".

    Later on, he regarded me as a stupid person that brought up stupid claim backed up with stupid "theory". He called my "theory" stupid without even arguing why it's stupid. However, I will not call him a fool for disagreeing with my "theory" or even insult me. Moreover, I truly believe that he's a bright person, a bright person with immature mentallity unfortunately. As he would defend himself from "losing" no matter what.

    Once again, I'm sorry to let you guys down by having a difference in opinion with Gollum and thus, upsetting him.

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SF bay area
    Posts
    315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My thoughts

    Gollum,
    I enjoyed reading some of your explanations and they helped my understanding and playing. Your efforts on BC didn't entirely go to waste. Keep up the good work.

    I think a lot of arguments on BC about technique is due to the state of the domain: it is 'pre-paradigm' (Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolution), so there is no common framework to start from even for domain experts, not to mention amateurs can make discussions even more confusing.

    The study of physics progressed rapidly around the time of Newton (I could be wrong on the timing), when competing theories started to be judged by
    sound methodology. Also different domains within physics begin to cross-validate (e.g. EM and Newton mechanics applied together to study the movement of charged particles in EM field), eventually we may get to the Grand Unified Theory (aka a theory for everything physical).

    What needs to happen for the study of badminton technique to progress rapidly, I suppose, is to establish a paradigm for technique. How do we judge technique A is superior to technique B? Is it based on math/computer modeling of body mechanics and racket property? Or statistiscal model of coaching results? Or something else (in my mind, resorting to authority happens only in domains w/o objective paradigm)?

    I am not asserting you can claim technique A will be better for every player (such generalizations may be impossible), but rather the conditions under which technique A will be better can be studied/understood, and practical ways to measure if the condition is true for an individual.

    I don't know if badminton will ever be studied in such a scientific way, but if it does, I think a lot of players can benefit indirectly.

  17. #68
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    okay... i regret starting this thread... i guessed it pissed some people off

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Backhand Technique - How to backhand clear, smash, and drop
    By thejym in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 99
    : 02-25-2013, 06:34 PM
  2. Help me with Backhand clear!!
    By Jeeman in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 7
    : 04-13-2009, 01:42 AM
  3. backhand clear technique
    By Jono Frog in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 68
    : 08-13-2008, 09:26 AM
  4. Backhand clear
    By westsideweiming in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 20
    : 11-26-2005, 11:29 PM
  5. Backhand clear
    By jba in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 8
    : 07-28-2002, 04:49 AM

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
  •