Guys, sorry for being off-topic but just to reply mr Taneepak... [This was along time ago when Denmark went to China to test out the mysterious Chinese players they called "The Thing" and gang. China was then banned by the then IBF....] You did not get my reply... I mentioned the Chinese players first visited Denmark back in 1966 and their 3rd player Chen Tianchang beat the great Erland Kops... so when the Danish players visited China later, they knew very well what level of players they were going to meet ... By the way, wristwork is not = wrist to my understanding.
For one thing, I am allowed to change my mind. Which is the greater folly: to deviate from your previously expressed views, thus implying inconsistency; or to be so concerned with the consistency of your dogma, that you refuse to consider new ideas? I shall not attempt to prove my absolute constancy, since that would only prove that my mind had turned to stone. Nevertheless, I'm not quite as fickle as you may imagine (although I may have mellowed in my invective ). I still believe that the term "wrist snap" can be very harmful. In particular: Coaches may emphasise "wrist snap" to such an extent that players acquire a grossly distorted concept of the role of the wrist. Coaches, enchanted by the "wrist snap" talisman, may fail to understand that power mainly comes from the arm/shoulder. In particular, it's essential that players are not encouraged, by the description of "wrist snap", to persist in panhandling. They need to start using their arm properly. When I say that the term "wrist snap" is quite good, I mean that it is good for the purpose of characterising the "wristy" component of technique. I mean that "wrist action" is not really any better than "wrist snap". I quite often find myself explaining (with a demonstration, of course) that the half-smash action often involves a snappy movement, a flick of the wrist. I am also at pains to explain that, although the wrist and fingers are involved in the movement, the power is coming mainly from the arm -- so they understand that they do need to use their arm too! (As an aside: note that this applies to "finger power" too. "Finger power" actually comes from the upper arm, so it can be just as misleading to say "the power for net kills comes from your fingers" as it is to say "the power for smashes comes from your wrist". ) "Wrist snap", "wrist action", and "wrist movement" are all perfectly acceptable terms when speaking of the wrist movement in badminton. The problem is not with the terms, but with misleading coaching that uses those terms. There's nothing wrong with teaching "wrist snap" as a part of technique. The problem occurs when you over-emphasise its role, with misleading statements such as "it's all in the wrist"; or "don't use arm power; use wrist power". A good demonstration goes a long way. And so does a deliberately bad demonstration (showing them how not to do it).
I am still not sure whether I have understand how you believe the movements should be, any videos? Why use a term that you know is easily misunderstood?
Because the potential for misunderstanding is inherent not in the term, but in the action itself. If you explain the action well, then the term will be suitable. If you explain it badly, then the term will be unsuitable. The term takes on the colours of your explanation.
If you want to see really devastating wrist snap smashing in action, I suggest you watch Lin Dan's Olympics matches against Ng Wei and Peter Gade. Todate, Lin Dan is the only player who uses this stroke, to deadly effect. The wrist snap smash was so fast, with almost no arm movement, I doubt Peter Gade or Ng Wei saw the shuttle at all before it landed.
Is this the stroke where he takes a short hop in the air, with his arm raised in the air, slams the shuttle down crosscourt with a quick forearm/wrist motion?
Off topic question; I am a badminton player. I have just recently registered myself to play recreational tennis.. Will it have any effect on my badminton strokes? Since in tennis arm power is used more than wrist..
