Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread: low and high jump smash
03-16-2010, 10:16 PM #1
low and high jump smash
i not sure is it only me. i found that i can smash more powerful if i jump for abit around 10-20 cm from the ground than jumping up to the maximum and smash.maybe it is because im nt get used to smash up in teh air.
is there any advise ?are you having the same problem ?
03-17-2010, 05:47 AM #2
This is pretty common. Performing a true jump smash, where you jump upwards for height, poses some additional technical and physical challenges. Many players find that their smashes get worse when they try jumping for height, for two reasons:
- Coordinating the smash action together with a jump is more difficult
- The reduced body rotation takes away power
If you get it right, then a jump smash has the potential to be more powerful than a normal "just get your feet off the ground" smash. However, it's easy to get wrong.
03-18-2010, 02:07 AM #3
I find this is very true. I find more power from a small hop smash rather than a full jumpsmash for reasons Gollum outlined. Remedy? Just keep trying. I am progressively jumping higher and the flow from moving around with feet on ground to a jumpsmash gets smoother and no abrupt "stop and jump", if you know what I mean.
03-19-2010, 01:47 AM #4
I think what makes the jumpsmash hard is the footwork to get behind the shuttle early. Then you need to judge when to time the jump.
The less you are behind the shuttle the less threatening is the jumpsmash.
I find the WD's style of smashing is easier to do but can be replied by a fast drive by opponent. (curling your non-racquet leg and then rotate forward)
On the other hand, the jumpsmashes easily force a lift or block. It is harder to drive away a jumpsmash.
03-19-2010, 03:13 AM #5
Jumping for smash gives you two basic advantages.
1) Height, of course, which translates to a steeper smash.
2) Power, because you can put your whole body into the smash, which is impossible with a standing smash.
If you are only going for power, then you just need to jump enough for your whole body to rotate for the smash.
Edit: (My assumption) Somewhat like Candra Wijaya. Since he's not that tall, he's not gunning for steepness. Why tire yourself jumping to the max?
Last edited by hcyong; 03-19-2010 at 03:15 AM.
03-19-2010, 03:37 PM #6
If i'm not wrong the higher of the contact point the steeper the angle goes; in addition, the steeper angle the faster the bird goes, or maybe can consider the more power you can create.
Example: baseball, the pitcher is on the higher ground.
03-19-2010, 09:31 PM #7
I would say the steeper smash is better because
a)the distance to the floor from the contact point is shorter.
The smash during the last metre of flight slows down tremendously. If a steep smash can reduce the flight distance by 1m, it will reduce the flight time by 0.05 to 0.10 second. Too fast for the retriever to react.
b)the gravity component of the shuttle on flight is higher(i.e. physics) because the startiing angle of the smash is steeper i.e. closer to the gravitation pull. This will make the shuttle fractionally faster all the way.
c) the angle is steeper at the receiving end.
You cannot play the flat return, ending with a round of attack.
My opinion the distance factor is more significant but all these factors combined to give a deadly steep smash.
03-20-2010, 09:12 AM #8
@koaylt: I don't know if the physics you're saying is flawed or I just totally didn't get it. Are you saying that since jump smashes are steeper, the acceleration due to gravity is higher since they are in the same axis (y-axis)? If that's the case, then it's wrong because g is always constant no matter what.
However, there's also the chance that what you're trying to say involves component vectors. Let us assign the force from the jump smash as F. This F will be at an angle from the ground, and therefore has x and y components. Any projectile's length of trajectory is dependent on the x-component ALONE. If a smash is steep, then its x-component is lesser than a flatter smash, because most of the force is directed downwards. Therefore, it has a lesser distance to travel. Which corresponds with your point a. :P
03-20-2010, 03:23 PM #9
In Case 1, we consider a 250kph smash that is horizontal. The initial horizontal velocity is 250kph but the initial vertical velocity is zero. The shuttle will be decelerated until v(horizontal)=0 m/s and v(vertical)=squareroot(g.y)under gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. The vertical distance travelled by the horizontal smash is the same as a vertically dropped shuttle.
In case 2, the shuttle is smashed vertically(assuming the feather is not in the way). The initial vertical v=250kph decelerating due to air drag but accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. the shuttle is still faster in the downward direction than the horizontal smash.
Since our case is for a steeper smash, it is closer and approaching to Case 2, therefore the tangential velocity of the shuttle will be faster.
As for the projectile calcs, i have left it for too long to figure this out. However, having explained the vector mechanism and outlined the concepts of the shuttle flight , I hope some high school student can take it as a project to prove or disprove my point. Perhaps something interesting can be shared to all.
03-20-2010, 08:01 PM #10
03-20-2010, 08:39 PM #11
I forgot who said this but, every smash is a jump smash, if your doing it properly with body rotation. Obviously I know where talking about a real jump smash and i find if im going for a full jump that i have to make sure i start with my body facing the side, therefore i turn my whole body to the side and as i jump my whole body turns into the shuttle, this is probably what most people who have trouble with their full jump smash should try and be conscience of
03-21-2010, 05:48 AM #12
In short, jumpsmashes, if done correctly, is a dangerous threat for the opponent, if you still have lots of gas running.
hcyong: Yes, the small steps before the big jump
By Vijay875200 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 86: 12-08-2011, 01:16 PM
By staiger in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 13: 06-23-2011, 06:37 AM
By autolink in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 0: 03-16-2010, 10:15 PM
By LJ1000F in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 54: 02-09-2007, 04:38 PM
By Luka in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 22: 10-10-2001, 02:24 AM