Basic grip Technique : Power Vs Control Trade off : High String Tension Anamoly

You lose "lever" #3 (wrist pivot) (indicated in the vid above) when you use panhandle

[video=youtube_share;yEpdoAZiHWQ]http://youtu.be/yEpdoAZiHWQ[/video]

 

Thanks for responding to my post.

I want to talk about the things I have left in the quote above.

A-5) To clarify - holding a much heavier racket will decrease your swing speed (agree?) i.e. a tennis racket would be swung much slower than a badminton racket. However, if you are swinging a racket of a certain weight as fast as it is biomechanically possible (without breaking your joints), making the racket lighter will NOT increase your swing speed (as it is already maxed out). I difficult thing to prove that it is "maxed", but I hope you agree that there is a point past which players cannot swing faster. Also, I hope you agree that if you get a heavier racket moving at an initial velocity, it may move faster (because of increased momentum) than a lighter racket that starts at the same initial velocity. I hope that makes sense.

A-6)
I think I disagree, but I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. The way I read this is "more weight in the racket means more power even though it is slower swing speed". This is wrong. power comes from racket head speed (and a clean energy transfer). If the racket head speed remains the same, then heavier racket gives more power, but if the racket head speed dips, then the power may well dip as well. Racket head speed should be considered the most important thing for power generation, NOT the weight of the racket. Hence, I disagree with you. Which means your conclusion is false.

You stated that the basic grip was invented 30-40 years ago to handle "heavy" rackets using pronation/supination. I believe you are wrong. The reason that the "basic grip" was developed is it the only way to take the shuttle at maximum possible height (something a panhandle cannot even come close to) whilst maintaining a very large range of motion, that allows the muscles to work together to create racket head speed. (Demolidor links to some videos that show you the differences in range of motion between grips.) The basic grip was NOT developed because it was the "only way" of using heavy rackets - it was the "only way" of producing good racket head speed whilst maintaining a maximum vertical reach (which is very important in badminton). So this seems to me to be another part of your argument that I am not convinced by. Any thoughts on this?

So, finally you claim that the basic grip is not "fundamentally suited for control", and that this is in some way supported by beginners adopting the panhandle technique. This claim regarding beginners promoting the best possible "natural" technique, as you claim, is what I particularly want to talk about:
If we should judge the technique of beginners to be "perfect technique" as you suggest, that means that all players should move by running backwards and forwards, off balance, barely able to reach the shuttle. It also means that the "correct grip" is the "fist grip" or "pointing the index finger directly up the grip" grip. These are the most common grips for beginners first picking up a racket, doing what is "natural", and they usually use a panhandle orientation. Presumably this is the way you play, maybe with the fist grip? After all, this is the "most natural" way to play. Also, the backhand technique used by beginners is also valid I presume? the huge "danish swipe" where they swing as hard as possible at waist level with any old grip?

These are the "natural" things that most beginners do. These are not correct, clearly (to me at least). So perhaps you mean a lower intermediate player? I.e. one who has played quite a bit and can control some of his shots, probably still panhandling? Probably still using a "danish swipe"? But now they have probably changed their movement to be more like everyone else, and switched to a more traditional panhandle grip. Surely this must be wrong? It can't be "natural" because they only started doing it after they started playing with everyone else and seeing how they do it. Or maybe, because they have been playing longer, they know more than a beginner? Maybe the incorrect techniques used by beginners are not correct?

So lets extend this. As this player moves from intermediate to higher intermediate or lower advanced, they virtually all start using the basic grip for overhead strokes, and panhandle is kept for the midcourt and the net (as appropriate). Are we saying that this player has now learnt "too much" and should have stuck with the things they were doing when they were less experienced?

As far as I can tell, either more experience leads to better technique (as I believe) or worse technique (as you believe - because they stop doing the "natural" things they did when they first stepped onto court). I don't buy it. I do not believe the crap techniques beginners use should be the basis of "proof" for how good technique should be.

What do you think? As far as I can tell, all your talk about "natural alignments" and which grips are "fundamentally suitable for control", is based on the assumption that beginners have somehow picked up the "best" technique as soon as they walk on court and pick up the racket for the first time, and the assumption that the heaviness of a racket is the only important thing for power generation.

I do not believe the first assumption could EVER be true. I do not believe that ANY person could start doing ANY sport and be perfect at it from their very first attempt, as you have suggested. This must be universally true across all sports, if it is true in badminton. Unless, of course, perfect technique is something that is not necessarily intuitive to everybody. Some people have to learn it.

As to your second assumption (A-6) I believe you are mistaken. I believe that racket head speed is the important part of power generation, not "more weight". More weight with same racket head speed - yes this has more power. More weight but less racket head speed, I do not believe this is more powerful (obviously depends on how much extra weight and how little a change in speed).

Look forward to your answers

 

My god, this has "nothing" to with weight. Lower weight rackets have advantage in reaction shots, not maximum power ... take of your blindfold and accept this is the optimum biomechanical motion. Do you smash with 90-100% power 100-150 times in a match? "NOT applicable to BADMINTON"

It is even illegal to use pronation in cricket apparently where the fastest bowlers in the world have faced accusations of "throwing" ... some reading material http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.ph...owlinglegally&option=com_content&view=article

 

SZ:

Find below responses to your comments.

A-5 and A-6: not sure we are actually agreeing. Basically, maximum power comes from maximum racket head speed. When that maximum racket head speed has been found, increasing the racket weight (in grams, not balance) without sacrificing racket head speed will give maximum power. Changing the balance of a racket may increase racket head speed, but a head heavy balance (more weight towards the head) will give the best results. Note: using more weight towards the head with a heavier racket (in grams) but reducing swing speed may not increase power (it is most likely to lose power). What you seem to be stating is that the heaviness is more important than the speed. Which is wrong.

Comment - only on overhead 1 inch difference for same player .. same skills ... same vertical (on ground or in air style)



You keep trying to claim that there is virtually no difference in vertical reach between the two grips. Perhaps this is my fault for not explaining more explicitly WHY we want to reach up. We want to reach UP so we can hit shots DOWN. With this in mind, reaching to full height with a panhandle grip, it is not possible to hit the shuttle down because the wrist locks. At best, you can hit the shuttle flat. Which is a lift. In badminton, we generally want to ATTACK, not lift. In order to hit the shuttle DOWN with a panhandle grip, you need to have you hand positioned at roughly head height. Which is a LOT lower than a basic grip (more than a foot - not an inch). Thus, my explanation is correct - the basic grip was developed for players to reach as high as possible AND hit the shot downwards (sorry I left out the second part of the sentence before!).

Comment - Don't underestimate the Human Intelligence a la Human Genetics about making decisions when undertaking new tasks/activities to maximize body usage



I want everyone to read this carefully to see how ridiculous this is. What you have said, is that any player is at their "best" or "most natural" the first time they step on court. The have adopted the best grip, the best footwork, the best backhand etc... Are you joking? You mean we should all play with the pointed finger, locked wrist panhandle grip? And we should just try to run everywhere on court and not use proper footwork?

A similar analogy, is that professional singers and musicians that play wind instruments should NOT learn circular breathing (being able to breathe in and still produce sound by exhaling) because it is not natural? Again, please let this be a joke. I cannot possibly agree with you, when you openly state: that someone is at their "best" the less they know of "proper" or "conventional" technique.

As to your question, the honest answer is I don't know - for me - I would enjoy playing with the 34lb racket more, because I would enjoy the feel of the strings. The weight (3U or 4U) would not bother me, as long as the racket were head heavy (because I enjoy playing with a head heavy racket). Without getting on court and testing, I cannot tell you (and it is not possible to buy both types in the UK). Perhaps this is a test that needs to be performed. Can you ask some of your professional friends to test it?

I can tell you for certain that if I played with 30lbs and 22lbs in the same racket I would get much more power from the 30lbs racket. And if I played with 30lbs in a head heavy racket, and 22lbs in a head light racket, I would get much more power from the head heavy racket, even though my swing speed is identical (head heavy and head light has no difference for me in terms of swing speed - my arm doesn't yet know how to move any faster than it does currently). However, this is missing the different racket weights as part of the equation.

 

clears, not lifts matt

 

Good post. Depending on how long you've been playing for, you might actually want to try out a lighter racket some time. I did (having started with the Li Ning N70 and N90, changing to the Victor Bravesword 09) and it certainly helped me improve - not only did I get faster defensively and around the net, the initial drop in power forced me to pay closer attention to how I hit my smashes and I'd like to think they improved quite a bit as a result.

 

shouldnt you have more options like:

3U strung at 34lbs
4U strung at 26lbs

to test for power.

Next all you need is ask Fu Hai Feng to do about 10-50 smashes with each racket and get some results. Get the distribution of your results and tell us how the data correlation is like. YAY!

 

For someone claiming to have a "high badminton IQ" (the phrase itself speaks volumes about your real IQ, really), you certainly have trouble grasping the very basic concepts of the game.
To copy your style of posting: I'll make it simple for your low IQ and spoon-feed you the explanation in simple words and small steps.

A) To win a point nowadays, you have to attack.
B) To attack, you first need to win the attack, i.e. get a (preferably) high lift or clear.
C) To get a lift, you have to play a net shot that is accurate enough to force your opponent to take it below the tape. If the shot is not accurate enough they'll just kill it, play it back to the net, push it past you....
D) As you should be able to see, control is in fact vital to get the attack in the first place. Power is not. Once you've won the attack, you can apply power.

Also, even when on the attack, placement is actually more important than power as a badly placed shot will immediately get countered, however powerful it may be. Smashing at 270 won't help you if you lose control and smash it 10 inches above the tape and allow the opponent to play a flat drive.

This is just ridiculous, really. It actually undermines everyone's suspicion you're a beginner-level player that tries to somehow rationalize his use of inefficient amateur technique.
That rackets have gotten lighter has changed nothing about the fact that on a smash, you strain your body to the maximum. Maybe the rackets are lighter than they were 20 years ago, but as a result, the swing speed has gone up. The momentum of the racket has in fact not changed at all (well, it has increased as pro players are way fitter these days, but they'd get the same momentum with an old 100+g racket as they do with their usual gear).
As you strain your body to the max, it's absolutely vital that your technique is good enough to avoid injury. Using a panhandle grip on anything else than drives, net play or desperate can't-change-the-grip defense is just asking for trouble - your wrist just locks after the swing and if you actually put everything into a smash you have a really good chance of injuring yourself.

All of this is not even taking into account that the panhandle grip limits your overhead power and angle severely as you don't get nearly the same swing speed and your point of contact is way lower. Another disadvantage is that to attack, you have to take the shuttle way in front of your body, which requires you to move more (a disadvantage, you really want to move as little as possible) or even makes it impossible to attack when you simply don't have the time to move behind the shuttle so far.


It's also not true that this grip isn't given enough chances - I regularly see people use it. Some even use it despite them being coached. The only real constant: 99% of them suck. I only know one guy using a panhandle grip overhead who's actually not bad, but that is despite his grip, not because of it. In doubles, he's the guy everyone hits to as he lacks power and has to get ridiculously far behind the shuttle to attack. He has stayed with this grip for too long to get it out of his system, so for him it's probably actually better than trying to re-learn everything using a proper grip, but the people who get the same training and have similar fitness levels and use the proper grip are all better than him by a fair margin.

FYI, stating that sanitary standards in India are below central European ones and that chances of getting food poisoning are high is not an "insensitive comment" but stating a proven fact.

 

Damnit. Now my post is meaningless...

 

Thanks for your advice. To be perfectly honest though, I think I am ok I do not struggle in defence, and I have more than enough power for my needs

 

Slightly disappointed that this topic is drawing to an end... It seems the hypothesis changed from "beginners have it correct by using panhandle because professionals are using outdated technique, and hence use high tension to 'compensate' for 'old' technique" (from the first post) and turned into "I wonder what the difference is between a low tension and high tension racket with different weights". Oh well.

 

Alright then
I was thinking the same about myself, but was surprised by how much better my defense could be (never actually perceived myself to be struggling before) and how much I needed to work on my smashing technique (had decent power before, but was kind of brute-forcing it which doesn't work with lighter rackets ). On the other hand that was like 1,5-2 years ago and I've improved dramatically since then - in pretty much all aspects. So maybe it wasn't just the racket change

 

Just come to Vancouver, play me a game of badminton, singles or doubles. Get owned and stop making stupid threads.

 

The meaning of Power of a shuttle , is it how far it goes or how fast it goes ? I think this is something that make this conversation so confusing. Also , at what range of speed you are comparing in the first place. I think you have to set a certain speed that you want to produce in the first place if you really want to compare the tension. Or maybe we should go and ask Lin Dan what tension he use...haha