Haha, I think if a moderator had desired this discussion to be over, and found it inappropriate, it would've been closed er... 3 pages ago. Anyway, yes, it has indeed become a moot discourse. There is little debate that feathers are more satisfying to play with, but there is a very prominent issue with favoritism and a lack of concession. Shuttles are not like programs or hardware. As feather shuttles were produced and used pervasively before anyone even had the idea to manufacture synthetic alternatives, and as these alternatives are attempting to mimic the flight pattern of these "real" shuttles, I wouldn't assume it could be possible to make them better than something that's already the "best". You can't exactly add more features to them. And, as people have said, the lack of real incentive for manufacturers to greatly improve on them with different materials and construction means that it will likely be a while before they can even match the flight pattern. I have yet to understand why these synthetic shuttles must be made with such patterns, and why synthetic feathers can't be implanted in corks and work wonderfully.
The beautiful game of badminton is feathers-based, not nylon. Nylon would only turn the game from beautiful to ugly and crude. It is precisely for this reason that the future of the beautiful game of badminton must ensure that its foundation, new in-coming youngsters, be trained and raised on a 'diet' of feathers. If they are brought up on nylon, you can say goodbye to any of them making it to any super series level. Starting young kids on nylon is like 'concreting' them with crude strokes and skills. Just look at the quality and numbers of North American players that play at international tournaments now. They are falling down the ladder at an alarming rate and may even disappear soon. Even Vietnam has now overtaken them, and they do it with locals, not imports. Vietnamese are relatively very poor compared with North Americans, yet their youngsters are not fed plastics.
I think this is precisely the cause of the problem for the falling standard of badminton in North America. Starting them young with nylon restricts and 'concretes' the full range of strokes and skills that only feathers provide. We must prepare the present for the future, not to destroy it. I think North America is heading towards falling off the cliff.
Well, you can talk to the sponsors of high school/collegiate teams about that. Then, you could say, it's not technically the fault of anyone but the administration of the organizations and their deals with sponsors.
Either way, there is no real school for training for badminton, unless you are picked out to be olympic material, which are very few people. This is very much unlike other countries.., where there are designated institutions, and the students are bred to play.
In Asia you can find young kids who are not rich playing with old discarded feathers. Some of them may be 12 to 13 years old but they are pretty good. Also all coaches in Asia always use discarded and battered feathers, never plastics, to train and drill their students. In Asia we just don't see plastics in the courts, only on the beaches and public parks.
Deja Vu We have been through several shades of this argument before. We have also been unable to either reach an end or see an end in the near distance One reason is that everyone here is arguing from a user's perspective. This is getting to be much like an iPhone owner against a Blackberry owner. To each, his gadget is better than the other's... and reasoning be damned! Let me add my few cents by repeating what my profile says: "I abhor plastic/nylon shuttles" But this isn't because it's a proven fact that plastic is bad or unacceptable. It's more because I can't adapt to anything other than a feathered shuttle. Imagine two badminton players - one in Asia and the other in the US. Let's call the first 'FeatherPlayer' and the second 'PlasticPlayer'. FP started playing with feathers and has always played with feather. His skills are tuned to the tapered flight of the feathered shuttle. PP started playing with plastic and has always played with plastic. His skills are tuned to the purposeful flight of the plastic shuttle. A great many scenarios lie ahead: 1. FP tries plastic and instantly hates it. 2. FP tries plastic and loves its economy 3. FP tries plastic and believes he can adapt to it 4. PP tries feather and instantly hates it. 5. PP tries feather and finds he can afford it 6. PP tries feather and believes he can adapt to it What I'm attempting to say is: "The greater the skill level of a player in one domain (feather or plastic), the greater his opposition to the other domain." To someone whose entire game consists of amateur hit-and-run sequences, the choice of material wouldn't matter in the least if the debate centres on the quality of the game. (Of course, if we are debating the economics of recreational play, plastic easily wins over feather. Um, to take that further, paper balls win over plastic ) taneepak's argument that feather is better than plastic applies only to those using feather. Additional arguments based on a saunter in the park hardly hold merit. cooler's position that plastic triumphs because the majority uses it is like saying the Toyota Corolla is better than the Bugatti Veyron because 40 million is greater than 300. To each his own material. And therein lies the truth Indeed, if the BWF were to discard feather in favour of rubber corks, every pro in the making would use rubber corks. And, um, why not?
Now let us look at the facts. This year todate, how many North American players participated and performed well in the Malaysian Open, Korean Open, German Open, AE Open, Swiss Open, and India Open? Why were they so conspiciously missing or why is their standard at an all time low? I don't have figures to support my claim, but I think I may be right to point out these countries also have the highest percentage of players using plastics compared with other countries. Perhaps North America should break away from the BWF and start its own PNABF (Plastic North America Badminton Federation). But in doing so they should refrain from calling a nylon a plastic shuttle, because no plastic can be a true shuttle. Only a high-drag bird qualifies to be called a shuttle. Perhaps 'racquet ball' will be more appropriate.
that is very contrary to my position. Feather users are the majority, i never doubted that. It was me who try to opposed taneepak's logic that chinese in china of all level uses feather and therefore feather is supreme. U r welcome to find a post or statement of mine that said plastic trumph feather because of its high usage. I was only defending the accusation that PP are less skilled. Pros use feather and therefore feather is great too is another falsed logic. As u (and I) have point out that to each of their domain. A truly skilled player should be able play proficiently and adapt quickly to ANY EQUIPS. If u look at racket threads, replies to newbies asking for best racket recommendation were all saying it is not the rackets, it is player's skill. Why can't this be said for shuttle? If both side of the court uses only one type of shuttle for competition, isn't the winner has the most skills, not on equips differences? We PP never bashes FP, unfortunately, some FP is too rigid to admit their narrow range of playability of shuttles.
what a silly comparison. It speaks of your ignorance of the whole topic of feather vs plastic. 1. 99% of north americans national does train and use feathers since becoming pros. A noob using mavis has no relationship of andrew debaka losing the andre at 09 racket rally. 2. We're also lousy in ping pong, is it because we are using different balls than the chinese in china? 3, chinese gymnasts are superior to the rest of the world from the last OG results. Is it because they wore natural cotton underwear and the rest of the world gymnasts wore nylon/polyester underwear? Keep bashing north american players, u will surely hasten popularity of badminton BWF is not dumb as u taneepak, if they do what u suggested, badminton will be out of OG and popularity drop faster than your loose shorts.
ok ok... I think you guys have made your points already. Time to take a break from the computer and go do some work/sleep Better yet, go breathe some fresh air.
please let me correct you. it will be much better heading to gym and play badminton. whether it is nylon or feather, enjoy badminton.
i know where to aim my shuttlecock it's point not points, coz i can only hit one ball at a time i'm good but not that good
This is such an irrelevant post. Have you not the concept that badminton is not that popular in North America? Such sports, and sports in general don't exactly receive federal/state funding. People play from their own pockets. I really don't think that players can live off tournament money, especially if they're not placing. They must have their day jobs. Unlike European and Asian countries, there is little support in this area. Thus, there is less training. Are international flights not costly? You can't expect such people with these low budgets to go flying around the world just to prove they have talent. It's preposterous to make such claims that it's because of people predominantly playing with plastics that affect their level. You have no real valid proof. You can't substantiate such claims with these different socio-economic conditions. They are not nearly similar in any aspect. Please do not pontificate.
Yeah when I train i use battered feathers but I know that i'd much rather use a brand new Mavis 500 than a crappy feather for a game. Although in tournaments or proper matches I'd much rather use a brand new feather than a brand new plastic.
I agree with all your points here. And IMO I think it was pretty unfair for taneepak to say that North Americans are not as good because they use plastics. It doesnt make sense. The elite in North America WILL use feathers all the time.
