i would say rudy hartono still can still complete with current modern player (using aluminium racket and not wooden racket). in terms of stamina i think he is better than current player due to more challenging scoring system at that time. for professional player, racket only contribute, let's say, 1-3% (again aluminium vs carbon and not wooden).
I could be totally wrong, I would say Rudy Hartono may struggle against the modern players. I'd dare say of the players from those days, only the top Chinese players are able to face the current top players. If you search around, find the thread regarding Fang Kaixiang a former Chinese player and I believe now living in Indonesia, and read the interview. It may shed some light regarding the training methods.
depends on what scoring system is used. if current scoring system is used, i may agree that rh will struggle. but if the old scoring system is used, i believe current player will struggle against him.
The general technical and physical levels of the players evolved since the 1980's. The inclusion of the Chinese players in international badminton contributed positively to badminton. The Indonesian badminton did benefit with Tang Xinfu and Liang Qiuxia training methods. Other than Indonesia, other badminton powerhouses like Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, England, etc had the input of the Chinese coaches. This is my thinking and the reason Hartono would struggle playing the current players like Momota, Axelsen, etc who are technically excellent, very fit physically and ready to play longer matches. The 21 point rally scoring matches are taking longer, as the better players generally do play safer shots and consequently longer rallies and in a way, similar to the matches in the 60s and 70s. In the 15 points server scoring system, players could go out more aggressively to get the points and the rallies rarely go over 15 seconds.
Nah mate, carbon vs aluminium is a massive difference. 1-3% is something you'd get from choosing the correct weight and balance from the current lineup of carbon rackets, switching to alu would certainly decrease performance by quite a bit. No player using non-carbon rackets would ever crack the top 20. And stamina doesn't matter if you pick up the shuttle after 5-10 shots every rally because you can't win the net AND don't have a modern defence...
2 rackets on the left side are aluminum frame rackets that i use when still playing at tournament years before (and no, i wasn't a pro player). and 2 rackets on the right side are modern rackets i use now. they are definitely different but definitely not a massive different. say, lin dan is forced to play using my old racket, his performance will not decrease significantly.
Not his performance relative to us, but he wouldn't win a single match at the top level. There's no way he'd have the control/touch, deception and power necessary. While it's probably a bigger difference in double due to the speed of the game, I'm certain that no professional would be able to win against anyone in at least the R32 with an old aluminium frame. Imagine being forced to take a 50/50 chance at the net every time you return a short shot short as well, or being forced to lift every time your opponent plays it short....no one could win like that. Even someone going back to 2006 level equipment and tensions would put them at a disadvantage, yet a much less insurmountable one. As far as I'm aware, no aluminium racket went under 100g, but even if they did, the differences in stiffness, vibration and touch would be insurmountable at the very elite level.
AT700? Ask Lin Dan about that... and even back then, tensions were not all that low, even I (as a youth player) was experimenting with tensions between 11 and 14 kp. That's just mentioning one racket, Nanospeeds were available as well, .... MP99, MP100, .... and even strings were not all that different. It's just 15 years ago. I agree with the rest!
Yeah, I know. Tensions were roughly around 26-27lbs iirc, and the thinnest string I recall pros actually using was the BG80, LD was even on the BG65 I think. That will be a massive difference compared to the 31-35lbs MS pros are running now, on thinner strings to boot...accuracy was certainly lower back then. Rackets were softer in all dimensions as well, resulting in less control (ideally you only want them to flex in one plane). Yes, it was a similar standard in technology, but with the margins being as tiny as they are, I am guessing that's enough to make a difference. I am not absolutely confident in it as I am about the aluminium rackets though. Anything pre-AT I'm almost sure is not competitively viable at an elite level, just too soft. The MPs were notorious for caving even at 13kg(28.6lbs), even at semi-pro levels that some of my current team mates were playing back then they used to break double digits per year. AT was a huge step in durability and stiffness, but so was Voltric (and the first LN rackets as well).
I do not know what pro players at that time played, but if even I tried up to 14 kp (31 lbs), I regularly played with 13. I don't remember exactly when NBG98 was introduced, but it must have been around 2006 or 2007. 0.66 mm. I don't know what other brands did at that time. It was not totally different from today.
Nanogy was introduced in 2010 or later I think (95% sure on that, I already played at that time and remember it coming out). Not many higher-level players liked it because it was incredibly slippery, so you had to adjust all shots with even the tiniest bit of slice, and you couldn't get the same control around the net (your string actually grips the shuttle head a bit on most net shots). First .66 string was probably the BG66, absolutely horrible durability, not comparable to today's thin diameter strings at all. Snapped easily even at 12kg. Ultimax was a bit better, but not a whole lot. Watch the 2011 French Open to see Mogensen destroy something like 6 strings in one match Personally I think one of the main differences between 2006 and now is not only the added stability of the racket through higher stiffness (except for the one plane of motion you don't want too stiff), but also the much higher reliability of the material and thus the possibility of using higher tensions reliably. I'd guess MS string tensions went up around 4-5lbs in that time, with thinner (average) diameters to boot. Again, it's not as massive a difference as, say, 1992 to 2006, and I think many amateurs could still use AT rackets just fine without any significant disadvantage, but at the elite level a few percent of performance, a few points per match count, and as I said I don't really think any pro could win a major tournament with 2006 material, or even get into semis - assuming it's genuine 2006 material, while the BG80 existed back then I'm very certain it was updated and upgraded since then, durability certainly seems improved, or maybe we just all got a lot weaker
Certainly not. I tried at least one Nanogy String while I was still at school. I graduated 2007. NBG98 was introduced 2007 or earlier. 100% sure on that. So much assuming.... Only Babolat advertises that they're rackets flex more in one direction. The shaft is basically a carbon cylinder, why do you think other brands would go through that effort and not make a big deal of it? I'd be very surprised if any other brand actually did that. Reliability of rackets at high tensions is worst on more modern rackets. I have not come across an AS11 that was older than 1 year and didn't show sinking. Just ask Marc Zwiebeln if he ever cared about that - playing at 17 kp (if I remember correctly, but he was certainly at the top end). It's a non-issue for pro players. Additional stiffness? Yeah, that's possible now, but still not everyone wants that. So little has changed that Yonex markets it as a huge innovation to go back to shorter rackets. Again, an Assumption. It "seems" improved. Could also be that the clamps on stringing machines have improved. It might be that the production process leads to less flaws in the string because it's improved. But again, I'd be very surprised if Yonex changed anything about the production that was not done to safe costs. We will never know unless you convince Momota (him, because it seems like he changes rackets every 2 weeks) to play with 2006 equipment. I'm done here.
Ok, cool, didn't bother to check it so I'll definitely trust you on that one Must've gotten it mixed up with something else, or gotten a wrong impression at that time to start with. Yeah I might've been too optimistic on that one, while it's most certainly possible to integrate an internal structure that adds stiffness in one plane, probably most companies don't bother. But what really is improved (at least imop) is torque stiffness, which should result in more control of hard shots. Sadly, I am not aware of any data base of these kinds of measurements to put this into objective terms. Not my experience. AT frames were really soft compared to modern ones (had quite a few with sinking issues on my machine), and AS11 is fairly dated as well, not a great example of a modern racket. I'm not up to date on current Yonex models (and no one whose racket I string uses one), but I've never seen any of that issue on top-end Li Ning rackets (can't judge mid-range ones 'cause I've never touched any). Current rackets should be stiffer on average, especially in singles where control/quality is so important. Certainly the impression I have as a viewer, seeing what players use. Based off subjective feel an AT900T feels way softer than a Voltric ZF2, for example. I've strung with the same clamps for ages. That's definitely not the cause for my observation. Which would result in an improved string, as there'll be fewer breaks caused by those flaws. True. Which is why we're discussing it, and not simply looking at the result for a few seconds Alright I can certainly see why you think the way you do, but as you said, we'll never prove this one way or another. But at least we can agree that no one's going to win anything with a (old, not newly designed) non-carbon racket I'm also aware of and open to the possibility that the changes that I attribute to improvements of the material are in fact caused by different training, which has improved leaps and bounds since 2006.
"Should" Is the word... I'm really hoping you're right, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. That's what I'm saying, it's a possible explanation for your observation. There's probably no study on that and even if there was, there's so many variables that it's impossible to really find the reason. Without knowing better, I find it hard to assume that things there have actually improved without marketing taking advantage of that, though. I didn't use it as the example for a modern racket, but as an example that sinking/durability is a non-issue for pro players even at the higher end of tensions these days. I don't even think that you're definitely wrong. I just don't see how you could be so certain about it. I don't think the difference is as big as you make it out to be. Go back 20 instead of 15 years and it might be more clear, but I really didn't care about badminton equipment at that time, so I really cannot say anything about that.
The movement and technique is key. Give them a modern racket and training for a year and they would be challenging lower level pros. 4th league players don't have those sort of fundamentals and wouldn't stand a chance.
Well just speaking from personal experience, I started with steel, then moved to carbon, graphite, boron etc. When I went from 21lbs to 26-28lbs my technique was still the same. My consistency, accuracy, and speed changed considerably though. Its like putting modern shoes and track on a Jesse Owens. You are, or you are not. These pros brought here from that time would still be pros once you modernised them, and I don't think it would take that long.
Seeing how back then almost no one did real heavy weight training, it's possible it'd take more than a year. I wasn't talking about the talent of those people, obviously they'd do better if modern training was applied to them and they had modern equipment (and some time to get used to it).
These guys are genetic anomalies, they reached that that level for a reason. A lower level pro won't be World Champion and a league 4 player won't make pro however much weight/fitness training they do and whatever racket they have, for a reason - they haven't got it in them to do it. A player that can win the WC badminton 50/40/30 years ago is a different breed regardless of what environment they are in and for that reason I think they would adapt in a short period of time. I think they would still beat advanced players if you brought them forward to play as is, not necessarily pros. While fitness, stamina, and speed etc. have gone up the reading of the game has dramatically decreased.
Well, I don't know about your 4th league, and maybe that is indeed too far down the ladder, but around here I've seen some people who were pros or very close to it and didn't commit because it's a huge gamble (with few exceptions, even Olympic badminton players don't make a huge amount here, let alone enough to last them after retirement, and coaching isn't paid well whatsoever). Now, obviously I wasn't talking about people barely hanging on at that level, but rather those who still excel at it, and as I've said, maybe that's a bit too far down, but similar to stamina - if you simply can't reach the shuttle or produce a quality shot because it's just too quick, no amount of reading or talent is going to help you. But yeah, maybe 2nd or 3rd league is the threshold where you start finding players who'd beat a 1975 Hartono with 1975 equipment and 1975 training/conditioning Side note - what are you basing your comment on the reading of the game on? I haven't had that thought so far. A slight difference in reaction time to be expected with lighter rackets and thus, easier deceptions/more options, so I'm curious what exactly makes you say that.
Good to watch Hartono in a later match, you can see some evolution here, not just the fact it's in colour
