the physics in golf and badminton is similar only to a certain extend. you gotta know where the similarity ends. people sometimes are unware that they have gone beyond that limit. that is all my earlier post about. the game of golf is one thing, the physics of golf is quite another. it reminds me someone said in another post that "Newton didn't play badminton" (so he didn't know the physics of badminton). now i don't play golf, so i can't be correct on the physics of golf? haha that's funny!
ive heard and read that alot. however how would i know if i have a fast enough swing speed? i think when i look at myself it seems pretty fast. but of course i have no way of knowing if this is considered a "fast" swing. does fast swing have to be comparable to very high leveled players? or do intermediate players can have a fast swing? ive been playing for two years in highschool. varsity 3
In general, that is not true. when people climb a hill, they say the farther they go, the higher they are. that is only true uphill. after you reach the peak, the farther you go, the lower you are. same thing here. there is uphill and there is downhill. and there is peak. bell shape. people just don't buy it. shame.
hmmm...so profound. may i ask what your profession is? you seem to know a lot about physics & other sciences...
pardon me, im getting lost w/ all the scientific mumbo-jumbo conclusions here. doesnt it all boil down to why the pros use stiff to extra-stiff rackets? coz stiff rackets offer better control & accuracy w/c is what they need...coz they are already supreme athletes & already are very strong & fast. they dont need the so called extra snap that flexible rackets offer to increase power. that extra snap, flex, torque, twist, or whatever the experts call it cannot be controlled by any player because these forces are unpredictable, dont you think? every shot that the player executes creates/produces different amounts of force, direction, etc. w/c will produce different reactions from the flexible shaft. the stiff shaft will resist the forces that the players' swing creates & stay true to form & follow the direction & amount of force applied to the shot thus making it accurate to the players input. this concludes that flexible rackets are inaccurate compared to stiff rackets. i think this also applies to string tensions. these are just based on the thoughts of a simple person who used his common sense & logic. so can we please go on now to a more light-hearted, less stressful & more enjoyable conversation like what new racket to buy? peace...
i would've thought that pros could control their shots as they have practised for hours on end, and would need more power.
control is just a state of mind. there is no such thing as definite control. thats why there are errors, mishits (oh yes, even the pros). you can practice 24 hrs a day & have the best equipment but still have problems w/ controlling your shots. but strenght is different. pros can get as strong as their training & in-born physical attributes can make them. physical strenght is not an issue w/ pro athletes coz they are required to condition themselves so that they could optimize their skills. power is only useful up to a certain extent. we all know that there are a lot of factors involved in badminton. there is speed, power, accuracy, endurance, & most important of all, the mental game. its like playing a chess match during a very rigorous activity. thats why i think pro badminton players are very special athletes coz they are not only physically gifted but they are also smart. dont you think so?
exactly like what you said, it only needs common sense & logic with a little bit physics. and you have good common sense & logic. i'm not a physician. so if any physician sees any flaws in my post, do point them out. nothing will make me happier than that.
I apologize if this doesn't come out right, not trying to flame anyone, but franxon, you're the one who went out and gave people that lengthy comparison. And now you agree you only need common sense and logic? My previous point regarding power degarding after swing speed is too fast is an example of the bell curve you have described. Yfever: If you don't want to read or participate in this stressful topic, then you shouldn't have wasted your time posting your own lengthy reply. Especially when THIS thread is dedicated to the topic we're discussing which is clearly stated in the TOPIC. Again, not trying to flame, I sound even worst in person.
my apologies ictus for bothering your scientific discussion w/ franxon. my only intention was to clarify things w/ us "laymen" who do not understand such things as the "bell" theory. regarding the suggestion that we should just talk about somehting else, it was just that...a suggestion, to make things lighter. if a very simple & well meaning suggestion like that is offensive to you...my apologies again. since you are aready agitated, one more suggestion...if you get agitated w/ these kind of posts, maybe you should be the one who should stop reading these threads. im cool, seems like everybody here is cool, are you? please continue your scientific disccussions. i promise i wont bother you anymore. by the way, if you sound worse in person, im sorry for you. peace...
I understanding your intention to "Clarify" things for others by introducing more variables into a simple question. And I don't think I introduce the term "bell". I think all my posts were pretty short with words that everyone understands. I wasn't agitate before, but now I am with your particular comment. Telling me I'm the one who doesn't like this kind of post and to stop reading them. I do believe you were the one who wanted to "go on" with topics like which racquet to buy. And yes, you should be sorry.
hi ictus. may i ask, (1) what's wrong with a lengthy post? (2) and what's wrong to use only common sense and logic? In fact, i did say with a little bit physics. but nevertheless, what's wrong with common sense and logic? tell you what, you can't have some good grasp of science without good common sense and logic. my previous lengthy post was mainly meant to share some of my thoughts with Loopy as we have exchanged some of my premitive wrong ideas in PM but this one is too long for a PM so I put it here. but anyone is welcome to tell me "you're wrong". so, if you wish, quote what is wrong in my post, and tell me why it is wrong, and even better, what is right, i'm gonna respond. i will be glad to admit my entire post is rubbish if anyone proves so. don't simply say "be careful as u know little about golf" and "you only used common sense and logic?". they don't make any sense. after i said "i know little about golf", you said "you know little about golf"; after i said "it only needs common sense and logic with a little bit physics", you said "you only need common sense and logic". hmmm am i replying post to a wall that only knows how to echo my words with a twist?
There is nothing wrong with a lengthy post. I just found it funny how you have an lengthy post describing flex, power, accuracy and then come around agreeing that anyone with common sense and logic should understand the concept. I never said common sense and logic is not good. But I can assure you more than half the people in this world who has common sense and good logic does not understand the concept we're talking about. Just because you and I know about one thing, don't assume everyone in the right mind does. I have been quoting what you said all along. I never said your post is rubbish, just not in answering the question being asked. Which is the effects of Flex on Accuracy. You went on describing the difference of golf clubs and then telling us you only knew a little about golf. Doesn't inspire confidence in what you are trying to teach, no? At the same time, you were kind of misleading others with the whipping effect logic you impose. I just didn't want others to get confuse with the matter. Because that tiny percentage of whip from A-B which you think shouldn't be consider in racquet design can make a whole lot of difference in any racquet sport. Just do a search and see what others have said in the past. I play *ALL* racquet sports, and the rules that applies to all of them is to make sure the racquet is "accelerating" as you strike the "thru" ball/shuttle. Flex is very important in racquet sports, wheather it exist in the racquet or the projectile. It is how you store/transfer the energy from one body to the next. Without flex, it is like throwing a stone against a brick wall, how far do you think the stone is going to bounce back?
If the brick wall was travelling at a good speed, the stone would be bounced quite far assuming the stone doesn't disintegrate upon impact. That's just simple common sense.
hahaha... newton's law right? equal and opposite force... =P but u can say a shuttle hitting 30 lbs of solid force won't cuz it to go far because the impact from such a significantly smaller force might be absorbed by the bigger force. may the force be with you.
I'm not going to argue with you,I have seen your posts. I bow before your knowledge. But I said stone at a brick wall, not the other way around.
hm. i understand the the curve and the word for the "peak" point. i think that is called. the optimum point. but you guys still havnt answered. how would one know if he has a fast enough swing to use a stiffer racquet?
shouldn't the swing speed be the same for any racquet? the stiffness only comes into play on contact with the shuttle, doesn't it?
Assuming you are not using a momentum reduced racket such as NS8k, the swing speed is quite easy to determine. There's a direct correlation between swing speed and smash kills when you are playing against people of similar skills. So if all your smashes kill, your swing speed is very high. If none of your smashes kill, then your swing speed is very low. You can use this formula: Number of kills / Total number of smashes * 100 = X% If X is 100%, you are at maximum swing speed. When your swing speed is 80% or over, it would be time for you to go for a stiffer racket.
i told you my early post was my thoughts on Loppy's golf shaft analogy and whipping effect. it was put here because it was too long for a PM. perhaps you can read his sticky post titled "shaft stiffness/flexibility explained" to know more about what my lengthy post is all about. i did mentioned Loppy's sticky post in my very first post of this thread (and I explained to you the same thing in my next post, and now i'm repeating myself again). did you read that? perhaps when you read more carefully my post won't appear misleading and confusing to you. there are many posts in this forum that are real misleading. you might want to spend more time on them. you assure me half people in the world who have good common sense and logic don't understand what i'm talking about? well i can't prove you wrong. 'cuz your statement is not falsifiable. if you know what i'm talking about. perhaps when it is not so common, though it should be common, i shant call it common sense. lol. apart from the shaft flex, there is still the string bed which bounces, and don't forget the shuttlecock head (base) is elastic. have you ever realised those factors? btw, throwing a stone against a wall and throwing a wall against a stone are basically the same thing. as long as you don't throw anything close to light speed. lol.
