We are in informal forum based conversation in the first place, when I call my theory what I meant is an informal "theory". You tend to formalize everything to attack my credibility, and that's the best u can do. I agree on this, that's why I said the slightest hope of compromise. Please read more carefully. I see no reason why you don't just delete it, or put an error sign on it, instead of keep misleading people. Hopefully, one last word for you Gollum, I'm wondering what you had done until you decided to put up the current grossly backhand grip guide. How come people like you whom yourself implied to be very objective (based your argument on logic and authoritative credibility), made such a mistake.
You can't have it both ways. If you want to use mechanics to back up your ideas, it had better be proper mechanics (which is hard work, you know. You have to use real maths, and real maths is scary. You think you can fight a lion because you once wrestled a kitten?). I've tried to explain that your "model" is far, far too simplistic, and consequently cannot be used as the basis for an argument. If you wanted to make a good argument from mechanical principles, you would need to model the interacting movements of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints, together with the fingers. You would need a strong understanding of anatomy, as well as extensive experience in constructing mathematical models for physical systems. It's a complex physical system that you cannot reduce so blithely to "perpendicular force". Slightest hope? No hope at all. You have so far given me no reason to value your ideas other than "I've got a strong backhand". Well, good for you; I bet Zhao's is a lot stronger. And you might try writing more carefully (you know, sentences that can be read easily, because they are properly constructed). I don't delete it because: It's the second most popular article on this subject (by Google rank). It may be flawed, but it's much better than most of the competition. I no longer have the right to delete it. If Kwun wants to delete it, that's his privilege. I have given him the right to publish the article, and I'm proud that he chose it for BC; any changes thereafter are purely at Kwun's discretion. Just putting an error sign on the article would only lead to further confusion. There's little point making a half-hearted correction. To correct the article properly, I need a whole new framework of grips. I am developing that framework under guidance from Badminton England. At the time I wrote that article, I was a newly-qualified coach, and those grips were what the coach part 1 syllabus taught. That part of coach education in England was poor. The new syllabuses are very different, following a comprehensive review of techniques, which was influenced by elite coaches from top badminton nations (such as Korea, Denmark, and China). I've also been exposed to many more top-class educators, including direct correspondence with Badminton England over the new grips guide, so my understanding has improved. A lot. I'm a fiercely independent thinker, but I am also humble enough to recognise superior expertise when I meet it. That's why I base my teaching on nationally accredited guidelines (the new ones are endorsed by UKCC). If you think my article is so misleading, why don't you write one yourself? No-one's stopping you. If you write a good enough article, Kwun might even agree to publish it here. But you won't, because it's much easier to criticise my work than to create something yourself. As a coach and a writer, I do my best to give sound, easily understood advice. I consider teaching a responsibility, so I try to base my teaching on sources of authority, not just my own whims. Countless players here at BC testify to the helpfulness of my grips article, and to my advice about grips and other techniques in the forums. I wonder if you will be as useful to them? Note: in case anyone starts to wonders whether I've lost my sanity, I haven't. I'm just really irritated, and I feel like venting. Deal with it. Finally, you'll be pleased to learn that you won't be seeing much of me around here any more. I have just returned after a few week's break from the forums, and those few weeks allowed me to see that, although I have a lot to offer BC, BC is largely a waste of my time: I can't stop myself getting involved in stupid arguments like this one, with stupid people who advance stupid "proofs" of their stupid ideas. Intellectually, it's like nails down a blackboard to me; I'd be a much happier person if I had never studied philosophy. Sorry if that sounded like an insult, but it was. I'm sure you don't really deserve it; the fault is mine: I am not serene enough to ignore what I perceive as idiocy. This is a problem for me, because I perceive an awful lot of idiocy (this happens depressingly often when you are very bright, and eventually have to depart the dreaming spires for the real world). Arrogant? Oh yes. But honest too. Don't get me wrong: I still think BC is a great resource and a fantastic online community -- one of the very best. But I no longer enjoy being an active part of it; the downsides for me greatly outweigh the benefits. Goodbye everyone. I'll be back when I have something useful for you to read (and I will check my PMs from time to time). And, for those who might actually miss me, take heart: what I'm writing will be good. Really good.
Sorry to hear that you aren't enjoying BC so much anymore (Gollum). I'd just like to say that I've learnt a lot from some of your posts, so don't think they're going unheard. Arrogant? I think anyone can come across as arrogant when they're in a bad mood.
Gollum, Please don't let another poster get to you. Your posts are among the highest in information density, and I want you to know that there are infrequent posters like me who appreciate it.
I would like to say that I'm sorry everyone, because it looks like I've made your hero (Gollum) very irritated. I just don't mean it. As I said before, my true motivation in writing in this thread is because my backhand works wonder for me and I want to share it with you. Then, I noticed that Gollum is teaching you guys a bevel grip which I claimed to be inferior than mine. As I'm also a thinker, I back up my claim with my mechanical "theory". Although, I'm still pursuing my BS in civil engineering, I could assure you that I've completely grasped the basic of mechanics. I admit that in order to explain the whole backhand whipping action, it would take a very complex mechanics. However, what I'm trying to explain in my "theory" is just the difference between those two similar complex motion (Gollum's grip and mygrip). I absolutely believe that the difference (whether u put your thumb on the bevel (Gollum's grip), or on the widest grip surface (my grip) ) could be explained with basic mechanical concept. Gollum clearly disagreed with my "theory", but he did not prove it wrong. He made many subjective assumptions in order to bring down my credibility. This is a very smart and yet unfair strategy of him (not sure if he realized it or not), he's doesn't want to argue with my "theory" and he exploited my biggest weakness, which is my credibility. As I'm just one of many you guys who does not choose to devote my life for badminton as much as Gollum does. I mean, he is not only a player, he's also a coach, and he also interacts with many authoritative badminton figures. However, using only his credibilities to bring down my argument is unfair, instead of proving my argument to be invalid, he's more likely to say that "I'm much more credible than you, and therefore your claim should be wrong". Later on, he regarded me as a stupid person that brought up stupid claim backed up with stupid "theory". He called my "theory" stupid without even arguing why it's stupid. However, I will not call him a fool for disagreeing with my "theory" or even insult me. Moreover, I truly believe that he's a bright person, a bright person with immature mentallity unfortunately. As he would defend himself from "losing" no matter what. Once again, I'm sorry to let you guys down by having a difference in opinion with Gollum and thus, upsetting him.
My thoughts Gollum, I enjoyed reading some of your explanations and they helped my understanding and playing. Your efforts on BC didn't entirely go to waste. Keep up the good work. I think a lot of arguments on BC about technique is due to the state of the domain: it is 'pre-paradigm' (Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolution), so there is no common framework to start from even for domain experts, not to mention amateurs can make discussions even more confusing. The study of physics progressed rapidly around the time of Newton (I could be wrong on the timing), when competing theories started to be judged by sound methodology. Also different domains within physics begin to cross-validate (e.g. EM and Newton mechanics applied together to study the movement of charged particles in EM field), eventually we may get to the Grand Unified Theory (aka a theory for everything physical). What needs to happen for the study of badminton technique to progress rapidly, I suppose, is to establish a paradigm for technique. How do we judge technique A is superior to technique B? Is it based on math/computer modeling of body mechanics and racket property? Or statistiscal model of coaching results? Or something else (in my mind, resorting to authority happens only in domains w/o objective paradigm)? I am not asserting you can claim technique A will be better for every player (such generalizations may be impossible), but rather the conditions under which technique A will be better can be studied/understood, and practical ways to measure if the condition is true for an individual. I don't know if badminton will ever be studied in such a scientific way, but if it does, I think a lot of players can benefit indirectly.
Ahh, going already? Ok then, good bye and farewell. I don't think I will miss you. Now, I will have noone here to tell me my posts are bollocks; goody, goody ! Since I am a big believer of diversity of thoughts, of ideas, of theories, of philosophies, of skills, of fitnesses, of techniques, and of people, it would not unduely annoy me if you were to come back soon to defend your patch of grass on BC, or to advance your sense of rigth and wrong, or to claim superiority of your perspective on the sport.
