I have found many useful threads on grips here at BC but I still have a question unanswered concerning grips. Reading this forum I have come to understand that the power for clears comes from a whole lot of aspects, the key one (or an important one) being forearm pronation. When I try pronating and supinating my hand with the racket (out of play, you can try it too now just at home) with the forehand grip I notice that my pronating/supinating range is much smaller than with a panhandle grip. To make things clear: First try supinating and pronating your hand with the racket with the forehand grip. Then try supinating and pronating with the panhandle grip. With me it feels much much more comfortable to pronate supinate when holding with a panhandle grip (larger range of rotation, racket feels more secure in hand). Also on one of the threads regarding forearm pronation, loppy posted a few pics to demonstrate pronation. In those pics he held the racket with a panhandle grip... I guess I would still use the proper forehand grip as it seems the only proper choice. Also here at BC many articles/discussions tell you to avoid panhandle grip. Yet I still have my question: Why is forehand grip superior to the panhandle grip, despite the fact that panhandle grip allows more pronation?
The panhandle grip does not allow more pronation of the arm. Quite the opposite: it prevents effective arm rotation during a stroke, leading to a weak "throwing a dart" action rather than the correct "throwing a ball" action. This is absolutely fundamental. If you get this wrong, your badminton will be severely limited. With the single (ridiculous) exception of Detlef Poste, I have never seen any international coach teach a panhandle forehand overhead. You will never see a world class player use panhandle for forehand overheads.
because pronation is not were the "power" solely comes from. The 'forehand grip' is a complete package. You can't hit properly with a forehand grip if you don't rotate your body, advance your footwork and follow through. Now, from were I think your problem lies: when you panhandle, you hit with your shoulders facing the net, and both feet facing the net as well. You pronate your wrist and 'push' your arm against the shuttle. Now, when you try and do this with a 'forehand grip' you must ackwardly cock your wrist, the whole stroke feels weird and impossible... The same would apply to hitting a "good shot" with good technique with a panhandle grip.
Yes, you can; and in many situations you must. Correct basic hitting technique allows you to play powerful strokes -- at least a full length clear -- from unfavourable situations, such as when the shuttle is behind you or you have no time for a full body movement. I don't think so. This is similar to many smashes taken off to one side, where you jump into the path of the shuttle with a "square-on" body posture. These also require the "forehand" grip. My guess is that merkki hits the shuttle from too low, which necessitates a panhandle grip.
I'm not sure what you mean by pronation having a greater range of motion with any particular grip. You can rotate your forearm the same amount using either grip. However, with the forehand grip, your racquet face plane is always perpendicular to the plane of rotation. With the panhandle grip, it is always parallel. What this means is that stroke consisting purely of pronation with the panhandle will be 100% slice, while with the forehand it will be 100% clean hit. Of course, strokes usually don't consist of pronation only, but the general principle is the same.
Yes,thanks for the replys. Just to make things clear, I use and have used forehand grip as the normal grip I use for hitting overhead clears. I don't actually have a problem with my overhead clears, and if I do it is because I don't relax my hand enough. Still, when I rotate my racket with panhandle using just my forearm pronation I can make a sound of higher pitch than when holding the normal forehand grip. But now I realize that, as you say, the contact angle with the shuttle would not be correct (when hitting with your feet behind one another). However, would the panhandle grip be a better choice when hitting clears from behind your head (when you arrive late at the rear court)? In this situation I never have time to get into proper position (side on). Thus, because I'm under pressure, I end up facing the net square and then the angle I contact the shuttle would then be corrrect if panhandle grip is used. Another option is to chassee to the rear court as to be in the proper side on hitting position. But at least for me, chasseing is much slower than running backwards.... What I was asking: should panhandle grip be used rather than forehand grip when hitting the shuttle behind my head?
That would be correct for backhand clears (with the shuttle behind you). You would hit with the opposite side of the racket than for a forehand. For forehand clears, you should move towards a thumb grip ("backhand" grip) when the shuttle is behind you. Again, you hit with the opposite side of the racket than for a backhand.
He does NOT teach it, he prefers the same grip like Lee Jae Bok, slightly towards panhandle, but NOT panhandle grip... He also teaches that you have to grip the racket very "loose" and tighten the grip on inpact... You should read his book, but it's only in german and so it will be difficult for you... He also says, that this slight rotation is an alternative grip for clears and drops and you also CAN play smashes with that grip, just like Lee Jae Bok says... In his book he also explains, why/that even german national players have more power with that grip. OK, that's really bad explained, but my english is not good enough to do it better and I also have no time... The problem is that it look really strange when he is doing some demonstrations... *lol* Did you buy his DVD? You really call the german national coach ridiculous? I really have to read the thread again, where you got really angry when I said that Tracy Hallams backhand technique is not perfect... http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43933 Wow, you told me I'm arrogant... But what should I call you, if you call the german NATIONAL COACH ridiculous?!?
Interesting behaviour: you frequently seek my help, yet wish to dig up old arguments and incite new conflict. You can forget about both those interactions. In fairness to Detlef Poste, I should explain: He's a national coach, so I would expect his badminton advice to be more reliable than mine (but that doesn't mean he's infallible). I have no information about him apart from one smash video that he made. The video was in German, so of course I didn't understand the nuances of his teaching. Nonetheless his demonstration of smash technique was dreadful. He was clearly promoting a tense, awkward-looking, heavily panhandle-biased technique with a low contact point. The smashes were flat, with many landing in the back tramlines. I deem this demonstration ridiculous: it is deserving of ridicule. I do not deem Detlef Poste ridiculous, nor his coaching in general; I have no information about these. I can only judge his teaching by what I see. His video demonstration was really, really bad (and any coach knows that a good demonstration is important). Still, it's good to hear (but not, unfortunately, from a reliable source) that this video was a poor representation of his teaching. I found it hard to believe that a national-level coach was promoting such terrible technique, despite the evidence of my eyes.
Why is my behavior so interesting? One the other site I respect you as a good coach, so I ask you what you think about some "problems", because sometime a "second opinion" can help a lot! But on the other site I sometime really wonder about your behavior about oher members or people, that have another opinion then you... You say he is not infallible... Sometime I think, that you think you are infallible... I really don't want to offend you, it's just my opinion. And THX for calling me an unreliable source, but I think I know what I'm talking about... I read his book, watched his 2 DVDs, I wrote him some emails where we discussed some technique issues and he said I really have good knowledge about techniques... I also had some workshops with two other german national coaches and former world class players, so I know what techniques are teached in germany... I will send you a pm soon, because this is off topic...
I did an extensive search and to my surprise I even found a discussion on panhandle, LJB and forehand grips! Seems like everything on badminton has already been discussed on this forum, I bet if I did a search I would even find an argument between gollum and xt that I could read instead of this one!!
why immediatly dive into the deep when a person ask you about panhandeling? If someone finds the forehandgrip ineffective, favors panhandeling, what good will come from immediatly mentioning all possisble ' unfavourable' positions... (You are right, offcourse you are, to say proper rotation doesn't always apply, but when teaching basics the "ideal starting point" is preferred isn't it?) Yes indeed, but then, that swing mechanic isn't really like the "throwing dart" action panhandeling swings. It's a rather specific technique you do when you hit shots behind your body, drives and indeed sticksmashes or halfsmashes. I advocate starting with the "complete package" stroke because it will be pointless to use a forehand grip but keep the throwing-dart hitting action. As you progress your swing will become better and you learn to adapt to situations..
What came first? The grip or the technique? If you don't understand how to use rotational mechanics (internal rotation of the shoulder, pronation) to generate power for your shots, then the panhandle grip is the "best" way of hitting your strokes cleanly. In such a case, the poor grip is a symptom of the underlying problem: poor technique. In this case, if you change the grip without fixing the technique, it'll gradually revert back to panhandle because it is indeed the most effective grip for that particular stroking method.
You still dont get it huh? I guess I need to quote myself then: So the more natural grip for me right now is the normal forehand grip. I was just wondering if I should convert to a panhandle or a little bit towards panhandle (LJB) when hitting clears in order to get more power. I already seem to have gotten the answer: no
I said it once already. Now here it is again: I have no intention of entering this argument. Find something better to do. He was asking for a reason that "forehand" is better than panhandle; and I felt that your suggestion could not satisfy that (good though your advice was). The reason for the "forehand" grip is given most accurately here by stumblingfeet. Body rotation is good, but it's unconnected to forehand vs. panhandle. Yes indeed.
Small grip adjustments are useful to maintain a forward-facing racket at impact (otherwise you will slice it slightly). In an ideal situation, you will hit the smash somewhat in front of you (farther in front than a typical clear or drop shot). For this reason, a slight adjustment to the basic "forehand" grip, in the direction of panhandle, is correct. This often comes instinctively, without the player realising he does it. It is important not to move too far: the adjustment is small. Also, this should not normally be used for clears and drop shots (where the impact point is not so much in front).
Actually Gollums answers were good and useful, I consider myself a lot higher than basic level. I am more into refining my technique than learning basics.
lol. I just held the racquet with panhandle grip. If you can pronate even more with this grip...your not even pronating correctly.
As stumblingfeet said, you can pronate exactly the same amount with both grips. The difference is that the "forehand" grip is useful pronation (generates power by turning the racket face), whereas the panhandle grip keeps the racket face in the same plane ("100% slice").
xt6666 has kindly translated several pages of a book by Detlef Poste. While I can't share them -- that would be mass copyright infringement -- they certainly count as reliable sources to me. In case anyone is interested, my conclusions are: Detlef Poste's smash video, in which he appears to advocate a bad-looking smash technique with heavy panhandle bias, does not accurately represent his teaching for smashes. For English speakers at least -- well, me anyway -- the video is misleading. I can quite clearly see his demonstration of conventional technique in the book. Detlef Poste's book is very, very technical. His style reminds me of Jake Downey. I'm glad to learn that his video was misleading, since it suggested an uncomfortable exception to the otherwise strong consistency in technical teaching at the top level. I can now rephrase my statement:I know of no international coaches who teach a panhandle grip for forehand overheads.
