Smash return in doubles- backhand only?

I underlined the point were this debate is probably all about...
-If you're on time, and take the shuttle well in front of you (backhand or forehand) a thumb-grip feels best (to me) (upper part of the thumb on the 'flat' part of the grip)
I think that's best because you can fully utilise your fingerpower..

However, your not always on time, you can't always take the shuttle well in front of you (though we shoudl try). for allt he shots you cán't take in front of you a bevelgrip is 'better'..It allows more flexibility in your wrist and faster transistions from forehand to backhand (wich is nice when you're in trouble..)

 

Now that's more interesting.

Two elements, however, lessen the force of that argument for me:

1. Just because a grip is good for flat returns does not mean it works well for lifts. I believe the thumb grip is better suited for flat returns than lifts, and in particular for those returns where you have just slightly more time and can take the shuttle farther in front of you, making a small adjustment from the basic grip. Note that the basic grip is not that far in angle from the thumb grip, and one can also interpolate between them. Also, this kind of return is most effective when the smash angle is slightly less steep.
2. International player ¬= international coach. Obviously I'd still be very interested in his views, but first-hand experience of world class coaches take precedence over second-hand views from world class players.

Again, in case you haven't noticed, I want to point out that my previous condemnation of the thumb grip in smash defence was overdone. I still believe this teaching is often a source of long-term technical problems, but the thumb grip has a place in smash defence. A lot depends on how it's taught.

In my view, the basic grip has a bigger role, but it doesn't completely exclude the thumb grip. My statement was too strong.

Once again, I also want to remind you that my meaning of "basic grip" is not the same as the ordinary interpretation of "forehand grip". There is a slight but significant difference: the basic grip is shifted slightly toward a thumb grip and away from panhandle. This is very relevant here.

I know I'm using weird terminology ("basic grip", "bevel grip"), but bear in mind I'm anticipating the coaching syllabus in England in 2007. I do this partly because it makes more sense to be forward-looking with the grips guide, and partly because I think the nomenclature is far more logical and, if adopted by coaches, will lead to fewer confusions about grips.

 

The DEFINITIONS of the grips are really a great problem in the discussion...

Everyone should make a picture of the grip he describes and post it here...

So go and get your rackets and your digicams and post some nice bevel, neutral anh thumbgrips...

;-)

 

For lifted smash returns, what kind of grip do you use?
And what is your movement?

 

Even that doesn't solve the problem. Without very careful presentation, it can be hard to see the difference between a basic grip and a thumb grip. I have put a lot of thought into this difficulty!

I use the basic grip, which is like the forehand grip shown in the grips guide, except the point of the V shape rests over the corner of the diagonal bevel, not directly over the side of the handle.

Actually, I think I prefer a very slight farther shift towards thumb grip, so that the V rests more directly over the bevel and not just on the edge between the bevel and the side. This brings it closer towards a thumb grip. Many players (or coaches) might call this a thumb grip! I find that this slight shift from the old "forehand grip" improves both backhand and forehand defence (true forehands, not backhand-as-forehand).

I use a neutral posture, so that my body is facing the smasher. The right foot is only slightly ahead of the left (I'm right handed). I also stand slightly back from the centre, because it is better to take the shuttle in front of me, and if necessary step forward, rather than try to step back off a powerful smash.

If I have time, I make a short, quick step towards the shuttle, usually with my right foot (left foot for when the shuttle is wide to my backhand). Also, a well-timed split-drop (split step, preloading jump, split hop.....) is very helpful.

This is based on Lee Jae Bok's teaching. I thoroughly recommend his video on smash defence, from www.ibbs.tv

 

Hehe, hopefully everyone..

...who's reading is still not or (maybe is still) THUMBING and/or GRIPPING thru in reading this thread....Anyways, for all intents & purposes, until Lee Jae Bok, himself, comes and posts in BC/BF, i think it's better to let our BC/BF resident "coach", Gollum, do his explanation(s) to us..

 

In debating terms, this is known as an "appeal to authority". I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this type of argument, but I do find it interesting that you bring his name up. If I remember right, don't you disagree with the way he teaches the grip for smashing?

Wayne Young

 

I know full well the varied methods of reasoning, having made a four year study of them at Oxford Debating I care little for; it is the art of sophists.

An appeal to authority is a poor basis for a deductive argument, but not necessarily for an inductive argument. Induction is reasoning based on experience, and in badminton it should be clear that world class coaches have more relevant experience than ordinary players. If I did not defer at all to the world's best coaches, thinking rather to demonstrate the truth of my views through pure reason, I would be arrogant indeed.

I mention Lee for two reasons. First, he is an inspirational world class coach for whom I have enormous respect. Second, he presents convincing reasons for his beliefs about smash defence. One could say, therefore, that he presents both inductive and deductive justifications.

Yet I do not believe that Lee, or anyone else, is infallible. I am not a mindless Lee Jae Bok acolyte, and so I sometimes disagree with his views (for example, his video teaching on receiving drive serves is ridiculous -- although I suspect he was simplifying for the audience).

With regard to the smash grip, I should mention that I think Lee is right about the technique, but that teaching this grip is normally a bad idea, because it is very likely to cause excessive panhandling. I have come to this view after an extensive discussion with a Badminton England coaching representative, and also from a general principle: where a large group of experts contradicts a single expert, I prefer to believe the large group (in this case, elite coaches from numerous top badminton nations, whose ideas helped form the new coaching syllabus).

I am sorry to have offended you over this issue. Please remember that you are neither obliged to agree with me, nor to prove me wrong in order to justify your own views (a satisfactory proof either way seems most unlikely).

Also, think on this: it's a lot easier to take pot shots at someone who has made a definite assertion ("I believe this is the right way") than to demonstrate the value of your own ideas. Those who merely say, "whatever works best for you, man" are not really saying anything.

This kind of discussion reminds me that, for the badminton bible , I want to be much more precise about my sources and about the different natures of each item of my technical knowledge. In these forums, the looseness of my writing has the payoff of speed and volume of suggestions; in a more rigorous work, that is not appropriate.

 

Interesting. I lived and worked (and played) in Oxford for 3 years between 2002 and 2005. Maybe we've met?

No need to apologize. I have not been offended in any way, shape or form. I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I don't care in the slightest what you think. You made a statement about something. I, in turn, made one stating that I disagreed with yours. Simple as that.

I don't understand. Is this directed at me? I thought I did give reasons why I do things a certain way? The difference is that I never said your method of teaching the grip was wrong. Actually, I think that in certain contexts, it's a good way to do things (context is everything, after all).

I was merely pointing out your premise that "quick grip changes are not possible" when dealing with hard smashes is false. Because the premise is false, it is not supportive of your conclusion.

Wayne Young

 

It's entirely possible.

I don't know you by name. If you possessed some striking characteristic, I might be able to remember. I met a lot of badminton players in Oxford.

You say the premise is false; I don't agree.

To be more precise: yes, you have time to make small, effective grip changes. No, you don't have time to change the angle of your grip dramatically and adjust the positions of the fingers (especially the thumb) so that it is effective. Specifically, going from a full thumb grip to a basic "forehand grip" is not possible in such a short time. The other way around, from basic to thumb, is much easier, because the thumb has not been committed to pressing from behind and can interact effectively with the index finger to turn the handle.

You say that you can do this. Perhaps it seems unreasonable that I disbelieve you, but players frequently don't use the same technique that they think they do. In this case, I strongly suspect that you do not use what I call a thumb grip, but rather a basic grip or a grip in between the two. As I said before, the difference, though significant, is not obvious. A basic grip can look almost exactly like a thumb grip, because you can change the angle of your wrist.

Unless you know exactly what signs to look for, it would be almost impossible to tell them apart in a photograph. Even then, it's very difficult. This is an issue that is bothering me in the grips guide.

Of course, this is based on my interpretation of "thumb grip". Your interpretation of "thumb grip" might be what I call the basic grip. That would not be productive for coaching, but it may not hamper your playing (the naming of parts is not important for a player, so long as he can play the strokes well).

Or I might be completely wrong, and you, unlike every player I know, have this ability. I might be that far out of touch with what good players can really do (and Lee Jae Bok would be out of touch too). But to me it seems more likely that we are talking at cross purposes.

 

By the way, since I know many of you are interested in Lee's views, here is his response to a question I asked on IBBS about this very topic:

Question
Dear Lee,

When I return a smash, what grip should I use, and how should my grip change?

In this situation, is the forehand grip different to the backhand grip?

How should I hold the racket when I am waiting for my opponent's smash? How should I hold the racket when I am hitting the shuttle?

I will be very interested to hear your ideas about this.

Thank you.

Lee's response
Dear Gollum

I would like to thank you very much for your kind advise about the price of DVD. I do very much appriciate your interest in IBBS. Thank you.

1. You should use nutural grip(not forhand or not backhand grip).
2. You do not have enough time to change your grip when you defence smash.
3. Nutural grip is the grip which you can use both sides.
4. You should not have forhand nor backhand grip. If you do then you can not defence the other side.
5. The thum and the second finger are playing most important role in this defencing smash.
6. I dis agree with the idea which player should take backhand 70%.

Rather player should take 50% and 50%. In this way player can have all the angles to hit. If a player take back hand shot on his forhand side then his shot is very limited.

If you have more question on this skill please feel free to ask again.

Ones again thank you Gollum.

Lee

​

As far as I can tell, Lee's "neutral grip" is the basic grip. Close inspection of the position of the V-shape of his fingers on the handle suggest this, anyway.

 

I played for the county. I was one of the strange ones that actually liked singles. I also played Div 1 for Gosford Hill Mens A, Mixed A and 5 Disciplines. We won a few of these, although I can't remember the years. I'm pretty sure we haven't met, though. The only university players I knew also played at the Radley club (more or less the informal "county" club).

If you go back and read my earlier posts, you'll see I didn't say anything about backhand to forehand changes.

I'm talking about changes in "backhand" grips. For a smash that strays onto the forehand side, I would also take that with a "backhand" grip (the bevel variety), even if it goes so far that I would have to use the "forehand" side of the racquet. No, I don't have any trouble with lifting to the back. However, this is not needed very often, due to the relative positioning of the two players (one covering the line, the other taking the rest etc, etc)

Nope, I'm pretty sure I use what you would describe as thumb grip. As you say, it's hard know for sure without pictures, or even better, video.

As for Lee's response, that's interesting. Particularly his view that the The "thum and the second finger are playing most important role in this defencing smash". This, I strongly agree with. However, even his view is now considered "outdated" as all the rage is to use the crouch defense, where just about everything is taken forehand. Does that make his approach wrong, or him, as someone put it, "a misguided coach"?

Wayne Young

 

I find the idea of crouch defence with a forehand defence of "just about everything" absurd.

I've seen some fantastic crouch defense in international matches (Kim Dong Moon, for example), but nothing that could become a standard method of defence. Frequently it is a sign of desperation.

Where did you get this idea from? By whom is "his view now considered outdated"? Who is setting this radical trend of which I am blissfully ignorant?

I'm actually quite interested in this, and I'm sure others are too, so please do elaborate.

I shall ignore your cheap (and smug) passing shot (a tool of debaters and sophists, no less); I have already retracted my earlier excesses.

 

For you (and me) the crouch defense is absurd. For some elite players, it's a deliberate tactic used to regain the attack from defense. Like I said earlier - context is everything

Have a good day.

Wayne Young

 

Oh. Is that all? I was hoping to be learn something here

If all you mean is that crouch defence can be used to return some of the flatter smashes (even pro smashes can be flat), in order to regain attack, that's nothing new.

Or is there another sense in which crouch defence is "all the rage"? Is there some emerging style of play which forsakes ordinary defence for the almost complete use of crouch defence instead? That would be exciting, and I'd like to know about it.

(Ack, I've been unable to sleep since 5 and now I'm wide awake. Grumble grumble moan moan.)

 

In a word, yes. Admittedly, this is far more prevalent in elite Mixed Doubles than level doubles, but even in level doubles, it's becoming more common. Of course, there's nothing magical about it, but it does require commitment. Once one is commited to the posture, it's not easy to pull out of it. The key change here is intent, rather than anything technical.

Martin Dew-Hattens has some interesting things to say about overcoming the crouch defense, in the context of how to beat the top Chinese pairs (if memory serves me right). Something along the lines of "it only works if you hit it to their racquets" or something like that.

Bummer. Get some sleep and we can continue sparring properly

Wayne Young

 

about the crouch defence being used in XD's...I'm not surprised:

in mixdoubles (in regualr doubles as well, but more in mixed) a situation sometimes occurs were the attacking party (front-back) gets trapped by the defending party, and have to do a lift (of course, since they're pro's: a fast lift)
at thus point the front player doesn't always hve to time to walk back to the center and do a regular smash defence.

Instead: their only hope it to stand where they are, keep your racket up, crouch down, and pray for a hit.

I'm not an inetrnational player, or coach, or sophist p)...But I am 6'5'' and have a steep smash..I have no doubt in my mind shorter pro's smahs just as steep(and steeper)...and to crouch-defend that you have to stand at the T-joint no way that's somebody's "regular defence"

 

Examples of "shorter pros"..

*Good discussions guys & a lively one as well. I don't know why there aren't more responses from other BC/BFers who i know are coaches/advanced players themselves. .anyways..

..speaking of "shorter pros", if anyone's interested, they can take a look at footages of Markis Kido(current INA MD pair), who's literally "net-level" height..Or if one wants to go back in time, one can try watching footages of Yap Kim Hock(current MAS coach). He, too, is abt "net-level" height..