Good summary. Again, I was very sceptical regarding the change of rules (I'm german... being sceptical is in our DNA) but I feel like BWF has chosen these 1,15 m wisely. Are there any guesses regarding how many % of pro doubles players fall into the 1,70-1,80 category? The effect on singles players will hardly be noticeable imo. The women still serve forehand to a high percentage and the men hardly attack the short backahand serves at all. Just look at the unbelievably sloppy serves of VA with which he gets away with regularly. They shouldn't get any worse in case he has to lower his serve by a couple of cm - so in fact he spoke a valid truth in his 1.15m joke-clip there.
I really cannot feel sorry for the taller player. As I said before, every player would prefer the option of hitting the shuttle from the highest position allowed, thus enabling the flattest trajectory. Hitherto, the highest position available to the shorter player was (or could be) 30 or 40 cm. lower than his taller opponent. How can this be fair? I don't remember much sympathy being directed to shorter players. I also can't see what is more difficult for a tall player to strike the shuttle at a lower height. I have seen, over a period of 50 years, 'fashions' in serving change. In the 1970s, backhand serves were relatively rare, now they are the norm. It is worth remembering that this thread was started by Viktor Axelson, and he is decidedly a SINGLES player (World No. 1, no less). I would suggest that he seldom, if ever, comes across an opponent less than 1.68 metres tall. I am aware that Lee Chong Wei is not a tall player but I would guess he is at least 1.75m. tall. Axelson himself, I would think, is about 1.93m. However, the effect of height when serving as a singles player is less of an issue. Receivers COULD elect to 'toe the line' to receive, but would be more prone to the 'flick' serve, and remember the full length of court is available to the server, so the flick would be more effective. As an observation, the question of height is far less of an issue in singles. On the other hand, in doubles, particularly Mixed, it is not that unusual for a lady to be only 1.53m. tall serving to a man, possibly 1.93m. tall (40cm. difference). Also in this case, the receiving man is very likely to be 'toeing the line' thereby intimidating the lady. How can it be right to be saying to the lady "you may only serve from a height (below the lowest rib) of less than 1 metre above the ground", whereas the rule would allow the man opponent to serve from a height above the ground of, say, 1.25 or 1.3m. above the ground. As an aside, I am happy to reveal that I would have (if I still played) a vested interest. I am only about 1.62m. high. That is small for a man. I have always found the serve to be a 'defensive' shot (unlike tennis, where the serve is decidedly attacking) and believe there is a case that a bit more assistance should be given to the server. I have heard the reply that this is to make the game closer, and thus more exciting. I don't follow this: does this imply that tennis does not have excitement? Many readers will not remember, in badminton, the Sidek serve. In the early 1980s, some players were using a service where the feathers were struck deliberately instead of the base of the shuttle. This caused the shuttle to behave in a peculiar way, almost 'corkscrewing' over the net. Suddenly, the server had the edge. However, the 'powers that be' were unhappy with this new balance of power and changed the rules to ban the Sidek serve. I hope everyone gives the new rule a fair chance. Whatever comes from it, the current system is simply unfair and wrong. There must be a better way. The old man
I’m 184cm and my legal serve limit is about 120cm, I never serve that high anyway. This change is gonna do nothing to my serve. I definitely think it’s gonna catch more faulted serves though, and that’s good for doubles.
Legs on the longer side (longer than yours, I'd say when trying to remember the video you've posted before), rib cage pretty short and shoes with a lot of cushioning will add another 3 cm. Overall, I agree that it probably doesn't change a lot for players between 180 and 185 cm. But while shorter players will have a lot less pressure to serve legally, the pressure for taller players will be increased significantly on one of the most important shots. It might be just in the head, but most will agree that this is equally important. I see the change to a fixed height mainly in a positive way, but I cannot agree that the height of 115 cm has been chosen wisely, because it divides the group of players to those who get an advantage of it and those who are pressured a lot more right at the start of the rally. There are (MD and XD) players a lot taller than 185 cm. Why not raise it if this won't change anything for shorter players? The pressure will still be on the taller guys (in this contexts, guys can be female). Like I said, for myself I don't care. But having played with a >205 cm guy for several years and with a 151 cm girl for some tournaments, I can say that for playing badminton, it's not generally an advantage to be tall.
Goes a bit OT, but I guess that could be interesting for some of us. The tennis guys are also heavily trying to make their game ready for the ADHD-generation: https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/rule-changes-innovation-for-next-gen-atp-finals-2017 And those are some truely radical ideas that will affect core topics of the game and that go at least one step further than the currently discussed changes in badminton. My dad is playing tennis for the past 35 years and he already gets the creeps just thinking about a no-let rule for serves.
I disagree that the change will disadvantage tall players. It's just that the taller players will have less of an advantage than they have had for the last century or so. I mean, if rich people all had graphite racquets while poor people were forced to use steel and you created a rule that said everyone had to use steel, would you consider that a disadvantage to the erstwhile graphite users? You may be referring to the fact that taller players might have to make adjustments of a few centimetres and that could throw them off. Perhaps. As I have said, though, I'm pretty sure there was a time when this lowest rib thing wasn't the standard and players were required to hit the shuttle at belt height. Maybe that was just the interpretation of 'waist' for those of us in rural, pre-Internet isolation. Anyway, if I'm right, then it's not like what Axelsen and company are expected to do is unprecedented. It's not that hard to lower your arms a bit to serve. What's hard is what short people have been having to do: serve from a low absolute height with more vertical travel and still try to put enough pace on it to get it in but not so much that you end up eating the return.
Why would taller player be disadvantaged? They practice their serve in training. They know how high they can go so...there's really no reason for them to serve too high. Unless they didn't train or was misinformed. It's perhaps more awkward, but very easily trained. I don't see the advantage for any player, tall or short, in the long run.
Disadvantaged compared to the current state: Currently, they are allowed to serve from a higher position (of the shuttle). Fixed height serve rules would change that balance in favor of shorter players. I concur that it's very doubtful that this imbalances the game in favor of short players.
In other words, simply made to serve from the same height as their opponent. This simply redressed the current UNFAIRNESS.
Of course, it is obvious that smaller players are disadvantaged by their height (for instance they need to take more steps to cover the same distance and cannot smash so steeply down). I, for one (a short player), accept that is part of the game, and that is fine. What I object to in badminton is that the rules as currently framed FORCE the shorter player to serve from a lower height than their taller opponent DUE TO THE RULES specifying the height. I maintain that this is unfair and simply wrong.
it is disadvantages them compared to the short player who will never reach the mark of 1.15 (e.g. Okuhara). These are the players with height about lower than 1.70 as I mentioned here The short player for me is given the psychological advantage of almost never need to care about being fault and does not need to check his serve height at all while tall players will have to bear with it as they must serve low enough to care about the limit height and still do it in a more awkward position than the short players
This was all I could think of how they were disadvantaged. Only compared to current state. Tall players practice their serve in training adjusting for the 1.15m mark. They know how high they can go so there's really no reason for them to check their serve height since they already know where to serve from. Thus there's really no psychological advantage. In fact, if short players don't reach the 1.15m mark, it's a disadvantage to serve lower. I'd think short players will also train to adjust their serve to be as high as the 1.15m mark.
Whilst it is clearly true that the shorter player will have (and should have) the advantage (your word) of not having to worry about being called for foul serving, this only redresses the current iniquity of being frequently called for foul serving. One reason I raised this matter with BE, and thus BWF, was because I watched a short female player called for foul serving six times in one game, at the English Nationals whilst her male opponent, serving from a much greater height, was permitted by the rules to do so. At the end of the day, rules should be there to prevent a player from gaining an unfair advantage. However, the person gaining the advantage in this case was the taller player, certainly not the shorter player. As I said, EVERYONE strives to serve from as high a position as possible, in order to produce a 'lift' from the receiver, but the shorter person, up to now, has been denied this right. I am aware that all higher standard players have spent years, practising and honing their service to an extreme level and this change of rules will clearly affect taller players more: they will have to develop an entirely new service. This probably also occurred when the current service rules were introduced. I seem to remember the rules used to specify serving from waist height, and that the racket must be pointed downwards, and even that the highest point of the racket head should not be above any part of the hand. As I said, give it a fair trial.
I never said to not give it a fair trial. I even said: I am bringing this up because I'm putting my shoes in everyone's shoes and to try to think the fairness aspect of the new rule. As you acknowledged by yourself that it has some disadvantage to the taller players confirm this unfairness. The question is whether this is fairer than the current rule? A.k.a. has development to the current state been (or will be) achieved? You say yes, while I am not 100% sure with it. That was why I brought up this matter and wrote this one to understand each player's category perspective: In the end, I even said:
BWF will start enforcing the 1.15m rule in All England 2018!!! http://bwfbadminton.com/news-single/2017/11/29/experimental-service-law-from-march-2018/
I think people in the 1.70 to 1.90 bracket should be able to serve fine withg the new rule. If players shorter or taller want t serve from exactly 1.15 it could be a very uncomfortable position. A short player might be stretching so high it will be hard to serve consistantly and the very tall player will serve so low it might be tough to get the right movement from the arm. (Although to be fair, this tall problem pretty much only exists in Denmark and the Netherlands ) To be honest, though, I'm just in it for the laser grid at 1.15 during serving
