And I would add that for the purposes of theoretical calculations of smash speed, the high speed video measurement is obviously more accurate and true to reality.
I'm actually a Mechanical Engineer, not a physicist. Whilst the entirety of an overhead swing is far from linear, contact only occurs over a small period (few ms?). During that short time, the racket head may well be accelerating in different directions (i.e. towards the center of rotation), but its velocity will be nigh-linear. I would therefore argue that the PCLM is a relevant approximation at the point of contact. The other point I'd make is with regard to the effective mass of the racket head. Whilst rackets are typically 80-90g, not all of this is located within the head. Indeed, the further from the contact that the mass is located, then less it would influence the impulse transferred to the shuttle. The other point is that the collision isn't elastic. Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision, replacing 'a' with 'r' (for racket), replacing 'b' with 's' (for shuttle) and setting u_s to 0, we get the following equation: v_s/u_r = (C + 1)*m_r/(m_r+m_s) Therefore, assuming a coefficient of restitution (C) of 0.8, shuttle mass of 4.9g and racket head mass of 30g, I get a ratio of 1.54. Therefore, a swing speed of 50mph would result in a shuttle speed of approx. 77mph. If this sounds 'high', remember that this is the instantaneous speed after contact. Even after a few feet, this speed will have come down due to the air resistance of the shuttle. As racket head mass rises, the speed ratio will rise, approaching (but not exceeding) (C+1). However, as the weight increases, it is a fair assumption that the player can't generate the same u_r. Therefore, I would maintain that there is some optimum weight between getting a good u_r and a good v_s/u_r.
Thank you! very well explained, really clear much appreciated! I had a look and I also see they assume a cor of .85 for all tennis rackets(regardless of tension or strings for purpose)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_restitution so 0.8 sounds good to me. Right now all I need is a really good camera calibrated with some lines on a wall, some software so i can slow down the pic, and a bunch of different weighted rackets. An hour to swing them all as fast as i can, then a bit of paper and this equation! Then i will have the perfect weighted racket for me.... for a smash at least
Thank you! very well explained, really clear much appreciated! I had a look and I also see they assume a cor of .85 for all tennis rackets(regardless of tension or strings for purpose)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_restitution so 0.8 sounds good to me. Right now all I need is a really good camera calibrated with some lines on a wall, some software so i can slow down the pic, and a bunch of different weighted rackets. An hour to swing them all as fast as i can, then a bit of paper and this equation! Then i will have the perfect weighted racket for me.... for a smash at least
Actually this discussion is meant for "High IQ Badminton Players" which are expected at Advanced level. Not meant for beginners where every phrase / sentance used in layman words (without using Math / Physics terminology ) which folks can correlate by experience drawn from playing experience. But here it ... a spoon feeding explanation 1) Striking "shuttle lower" is in the context of VERTICAL reach contact point from ground as they say Panhandle style gives lower contact point than basic grip. The "hitting earlier" allows you to locate & Make Contact with "shuttle trajectory point (upward or downward) earlier" which in simple terms Horizontal progress towords NET. Two different variables (each with advantage or dis-advantage based on grip & body movement you commited) and it's combined effect as result. I can understand the disagreement on this point (which Mseeley understood and dis-agreed in his post) but not understanding this concept is something indicative of low Badminton IQ which needs to be improved by understanding game fundamentals. Please read one more time the "Background section of Time Advantage where 60 inch NET and Trigonametry involved in it for Shuttle trajectory and possible angels it would create on other side". if possible pick up pencil and paper and draw diagrams on paper to look at it. [MENTION=57143]visor[/MENTION] - the above explaination hold true for "Hitting early as well as well as taking low related to return for smash as "intercepting the smash". In simple terms .. in normal grip at N second you would make contact at around waist area (approximately 24 inches below 60 inch net height .. essensially forcing the LIFT or play spin on shuttle towords NET as defense which would be back to opponent to decide further. As compare to that in panhandle grip at N -0.05 second (earlier) you can pretty much intercept shuttle arounf close to SHOULDER height (just 12 inches below 60 inch net) ** Notice 12 inch Vertical Height gain as hitting earlier. quite frankly in this "upper cut / drive" the grip related 1-2 inch disadvantage will not come into picture. Further with "CONTROL" rather than lift / spin .. you can punch (call it drive) shuttle in flatish trajectory the other side and force opponent to lift shuttle or React fast (or shuttle starts to go behind back risk for them). that way now it's your turn to go on offense. Now that is called aggressive style (turning defense into offense on return). oo by the way the flatish trajectory with control will go like 12 inch below net height ascending higher to 60 inch at net height while travelling and start dropping the shuttle again after net like 59 .. 58 .. 57. Yes with proper racket whip stroke .. you can execute such sling shot managing trajectory / net height and position on your opponent. of-course it requires "Excellent control" on racket and shuttle so yes it's pretty much possible with Human anotomy. it's just to understand this need High Badminton IQ irrespective of basic / panhandle grip players might use SZ
Thanks for taking time and effort to write very detailed post. I think it's resonable to say that we all have reach "Saturation" point where important fundamental points from both sides are discussed. So rather than going each point specifice let's just take logical break here. it seems while "based on observation" plus/minus of panhandle grip (or basic grip) is understood .. the magnitude or caliberation of it in real life is not able predict and quite frankly would be futile attempt to do it in words without any real life playing or video demos. unfortunately at this moment due to personal ID protection ... I am not interested to have Video Demo .. so that becomes end of any further tangible discussion. however few points 1) Many times we try to correlate based on our past experience and understanding new concept which is fundamentally so opposite takes time. 2) I do not expect current good+ player to change the grip (basic to panhandle). It 's just the awareness in case if someone is coaching ... teching others informally .. to make them understand .. that panhandle would be creditable alternative specially with lighters rackets (think about Craigandy & LL .. coming with equation where racket swing speed is making impact on power. so lighter racket in panhandle grip with fast swing speed (good power) could be good option as alternative. 3) Also some Variation could be played in doubles game even at internation level. may be singles players will have inertia to go for panhandle grip. But in doubles even at international level could be early adopter of Panhandle grip .. at least 1 player out of pair. think it this way .. doubler pair .. one is strong Smasher in basic grip ( to force opponents to lift / spin on net) and other is in panhandle style with "hitting early mode" to catch split second early to finish the point or put more pressure in further rally. ** You will see this trend in next 5-10 years in doubles ** 4) also just like with basic grip as "resting grip" and player change from basic grip based on strokes / situations ... Panhandle could be "resting grip" and changing to other grips. The fundamental difference is acceptance of as "main resting grip" as compare to every once a while. SZ
wow, you just make things up, don't you? Unashamedly right out of thin air. And then say other people have low IQ. Check out the cojones on this one lads!
Gill Clark explains one of the main problems with this type of grip in one of today's game, with an example of problem a couple of points later - here.
I find it rather insulting that you question others' intellect when you take the most basic stuff in badminton and manage to write essays about it when you're wrong in your very first step. Lets sum up your two threads (and by the way you could've found the answers to you questions in about 30 seconds had you searched a little bit) Conventional grip gives you more power, the arguing ends there. Pronation > your random wrist flick, which disables you from generating anything powerful and steep without eventually injuring yourself. Also, using a full on panhandle pretty much limits your shot options because it disables you from doing a lot of sliced drops/smashes. That's why most players using panhandle grips can only go so far and plateau because they can easily be anticipated by their opponents. Why do advanced player use higher tensions? There are two main reasons The first concept is similar as using a stiff vs flexible shaft (we see this a lot in golf too with hard hitters). Stiffer is harder to bend but gives more reward, so the stiffer you go, the more POTENTIAL for power you have, but you need to be able to unleash it. Then there's obviously the control aspect of it. I think its necessary to point out how dumb it is for you to make the assumption that if someone wants more control, it means the grip doesn't give enough control initially. You can never have enough; what you basically said is that you can't handle high tensions with your panhandle grip (great, you just literally admitted to having no advantage using it). What's really good about high tension is that it gives you margin of error. You can get away with hitting it harder when doing drops, lifts and clears since you know you won't really bend the strings and then not hit it out. Let's face it, you just make random stuff up and write it as fact and then be condescending.FYI I am almost done with my engineering studies and I just find it silly to talk about the physics in this thread mainly because to get to any kind of results, we need to ignore the most important components of the problem and it's way more complicated than just taking mass and speed in a collision equation. Finally, I kind of wish you kept on playing badminton instead of keeping on with your studies, that way you probably would have LITERALLY understood you can only go so far with a panhandle grip and you would be a LOT less pretentious (let's hope so). This thread should be closed as it's going nowhere and is filled with a lot of misinformation and only generates negativity (sadly I contributed to that...)
Wait a minute... I was nodding in agreement with all of your post, until this above. You really seriously think that @craigandy , @amleto , @Line & Length , @randomuser and me are wasting our time discussing silly physics so far? You really think there's no point in trying to find the answer to the relationship between racket head mass and shuttle speed? All because you're "almost done with your engineering studies"?
haha I love the general idea. I'm saying that it just can't be solved by taking one formula and putting up 2 speeds and 2 masses and that it also requires a new thread I ran out of time while typing my long post and I admit I didn't properly say what I thought.
Shuttle Trajectory understanding .. Which is considered as Fundamental understanding aka Badminton IQ. Please do some search for Shuttle trajectory in Badminton .. you will get good informations & articles with basic MATH formulas SZ
Thanks for your response. You seem to see why I think that all professionals switching to this grip is unreasonable - as it would become obsolete. I am glad you have taken the time to read my posts and understand what I was saying. I would like to answer these points you have raised. 1) Firstly - I have used panhandle grip and tried it for overhead strokes etc (once upon a time - quickly got bored). Yes, even now, I can clear effortlessly end to end with most grips, I can hit some reasonable smashes etc. However, nothing is AS easy as with the basic grip (more power/more relaxed etc) for me, and I can't hit the same steep angles on smashes and drops, which is to be expected from lower contact. 2) most players will not want to know that panhandle is a good alternative, if it means never hitting the same attacking shots as with a regular grip. People like smashing and hitting winners, and changing to a grip that makes this harder is not likely to be popular. Especially with kids, who struggle for power anyway! And they are the ones who will learn the game and learn the strokes and be the professionals - if they can't clear with maximum power gained from "correct" technique, they are unlikely to want to further change to a grip that limits them even more. And they are only small bless them, they need all the vertical reach they can get! 3 & 4) I can see where you are coming from. However, you seem to be under some allusion that you should have one back player with power grips and a weak player at the front with a "faster" grip. This already happens at the professional level, though not in the way that you seem to "want"! Allow me to explain: There are many professionals who, when waiting to intercept low shuttles at the front of the court (partner on the attack at the back), wait with a panhandle grip (exactly as you suggest). This does NOT make them panhandle only players, it means they have adopted a good (not the only possible) "ready" grip for the correct area of the court (although most professionals are so quick they have their rackets by their ankles with whatever grip they want). This already happens and is already taught (by some coaches and players). Their partner is waiting at the back with a more neutral grip (for reach and power, rather than speed). BOTH players will change their ready grips based on where they are in the court and what their preferences are. So, it may be that more players start to choose to wait with a panhandle grip at the front of the court. When the back player comes forwards after hitting powerfully from the back, they usually change to a shorter grip, some wait neutral, some panhandle, some thumb grip. When they stand and wait in defence, most normally wait with a thumb grip (of some sort) - why? Because it is the correct grip for the correct situation (as most shots should be taken with a thumbish grip when defending). Hopefully you see, that what you are suggesting is actually obsolete in many ways, because players are already doing something far more advanced - they are waiting "ready" with different grips at different times (attacking at front, attacking at rear, defending, and a whole spectrum of other crazy scenarios). With all of these grips, they are all able to take the shuttle as early as possible (which is the POINT of the correct grip). At the front, the neutral (regular/forehand) grip is in general the WRONG grip to take the shuttle early in front of you (but the correct one to take early above you) - you should probably use a thumb grip or a panhandle grip (based on shuttle position in front and preferences). However, WAITING with a neutral grip is irrelevant. If you asked most players here whether the played shots at the front of the court (or shots lower down) with a panhandle gip when it is on their forehand, a lot (including me) would agree that we do. That is because that situation requires a panhandle grip to take the shuttle early (whilst being comfortable). However, just because I can play good shots around the net with a panhandle grip, does not mean I should be using that grip in other areas of the court, where a different grip may be more appropriate or comfortable. I will finish with an example of when I was coached to play at the net: My coach was teaching me about intercepting shuttles at the net. She (who used to be one of the best net players in the world) showed me how she would wait with a panhandle grip, and she could take almost any shot (on forehand or backhand side) with a panhandle grip (assuming the shuttle is not too low). I tried it. I didn't like it. I got better at it. Now I can do it, but I still prefer to WAIT with a neutral grip, and take the shuttle with a panhandle on the forehand, and use a thumb grip on the backhand. There is no problem with me doing this because I am more effective with what feels comfortable, even though I was "taught" to do differently. But there she is, former professional, and she waits at the net with a panhandle grip (and changes to other grips as necessary). Cheers.
Can someone attach a photo of "panhandle grip"? Really would like to understand whats the "fuzz" all about.
http://www.badmintonbible.com/articles/grips-guide/grips/panhandle-grip.php It's like holding a frying pan handle... hence the name.
Hold it... Just realized last night when I cooked, I did not hold it with a pan handle grip. I used to do it with bevel grip instead, LOL
