backhand clear technique?

Your argument is invalid. That's not an insult; I mean it in the technical sense: your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Premise: F = PA
Conclusion: an increase in A implies an increase in F
​

The premise is true, but it does not entail the conclusion: there are three variables, and you are assuming that one (P) is constant. In fact, the force should be constant: an increase in A corresponds to a decrease in P, not an increase in F.

This time you are starting with a false premise: as I said before, the racket movement should not be in a plane. The grip surface will be rotating, and won't be perpendicular to anything (except for the briefest instant).

The argument might be valid, but it's irrelevant: you can't prove anything starting with a false assumption.

(Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious/patronising you, but most people have not done "logic 101" )

This is the best part of your argument.

Though I'm loathe to disagree with Zhao, I think that in that video he is being charitable towards the player's technique. I think he is trying to avoid saying "you're wrong", and so he gives slightly distorted advice about the thumb grip.

In any case, if you watch the video of him hitting the shuttle, you can clearly see that he does not use a thumb grip (or your in between grip) when the shuttle is level with him. He uses the bevel grip, albeit shifted slightly towards pandhandle since the shuttle is slightly behind him.

The grip that he demonstrates to the player is not the bevel grip: it is the panhandle grip. This is a more extreme adaption for when the shuttle has actually gone past your body.

Again:

• Shuttle in front: thumb grip (thumb on widest surface)
• Shuttle level with body: bevel grip (thumb on diagonal bevel)
• Shuttle behind: panhandle grip (thumb on side surface)

 

Yep, I agree with all that

 

This is the best advice I've heard on how to explain to someone which grip to use on an overhead backhand...

Have them face away from the net. Then hold the racquet in various positions ranging from in front of them (ie towards the back of the court) to beside them, always with the racquet face square to the net. Next, just ask them to grab the racquet. Whatever grip they're using is the one they should use when taking a shuttle from that position. What they will find interesting is that at no point will they be taking the racquet with the thumb fully on the flat of the grip (ie "classical" backhand grip).

I like this as it illustrates how the grip that should be used lies along a continuum, rather than saying "the thumb should be here, here or here"

Wayne Young

 

You might also consider:

• Look at some sources of authority, such as your national coaching body. What do they recommend?
• Get a coach, and try his advice
• Experiment and see what you find effective.

This discussion is not the alpha and omega of backhand technique

 

That's a shame

Different coaches have different methods; I believe that the so-called "difficult" or "advanced" strokes such as backhand clears become much easier if you introduce them relatively early.

The biggest reason that most players have a weak backhand is simple: they have not practised it enough (unlike the forehand, which gets lots of practice)!

 

Hi, Gollum, please don't be afraid to insult, patronize me or whatever, if that is the truth based on valid facts and logic, then I would accept it as gladly as possible.
Okay, let's get back to the issues.

Yes, I did assume that P is constant, and I realize that I was wrong. You are right that the constant variable should F (which is the force exerted by your thumb). I stand corrected on this matter.

This time u've misunderstood my argument. I totally agree that the grip surface would be rotating, but in order to analyze the force acting on it, we have to stop and freeze the grip movement, then zoom it into the briefest instant. It's in that instant (u've somehow understood this) then we could see that the grip surface would always be perpendicular to its trajectory (its moving path that looks like a curve in the big picture).

In that very same briefest instant, the force acting on the grip (using my backhand grip) would be parallel to the trajectory, and thus perpendicular to the grip surface. This is not the case for your backhand grip (multipurpose grip), which would result in less power generation. In the more extreme case of Zhao Jian Hua's panhandle grip, the angle of the force would be completely parallel to the grip surface (zero angle). This means that the force acting on the grip is F = F sin 0 = 0. Zhao's grip is even weaker than your "multipurpose" grips because it only relies on static friction between your thumb and the grip.

In this matter, the supporting fact at hand is not clear. You think that he's trying to avoid saying "you're wrong". Well, I think he knows that the trainee's backhand grip is the "ideal" grip for hitting the shuttle before it passes your body, but he doesn't do it for himself because of he's somehow reluctant to change his grip. His reluctant to use the "ideal" grip might be because: 1. his hard to change old habit (which is completely understandable), 2. he could already hit a proper backhand clear even without using the "ideal" grip.

I do agree that your grip (multipurpose grip) is sufficient in terms of power in order to do a proper backhand clear in its most general form. However, mybackhand grips would just provide more power that would allow players not only do backhand clears, but also backhand cross court clears, fast drives, even smashes, and again, in their most general forms.

 

Ssuly,

Your argument about "perpendicular forces" still makes no sense. You're trying to analyse a motion that is essentially rotational using purely translational concepts.

Try reversing your logic: if the thumb is "perpendicular", then it can't generate any rotation (it needs to be off to one side to create rotation).

I don't like getting into these kinds of pseudo-physics arguments about badminton techniques, because:

• Almost without exception, people underestimate the complexity of the mechanics involved, and use grossly simplistic models.
• I don't want to attempt a detailed mathematical model of the hitting action, because it would get horrendously complex very quickly. This would be doctorate thesis work, not a quick bit of algebra. I'm quite content with my BA, thanks

I find your suggestion of Zhao having a less-than-ideal grip unlikely. He's only one of the greatest players ever

I'm not saying it's impossible; I just think Zhao's backhand is unlikely to have any technical flaws.

As far as I can tell, your arguments for your grip are:

• You like it
• Some very dodgy pseudo-physics
• An interpretation of Zhao's coaching, which appears to be contradicted by his actual playing technique

My argument is rather simpler: the bevel grip is taught by Badminton England. It's also taught by some top players/coaches, such as Lee Jae Bok and Xiong Guo Bao. I consider these sources of authority; there are many others, but these are the ones which have been available to me (in one form or another).

I think that listening to experts is a reliable way to learn good technique. Trying to deduce technique from physical principles is an unreliable way of learning it. Also, "what works for you" is an unreliable guide to good technique (unless you happen to be a top player).

 

why dont u guys change this already?

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/content/view/81/35/1/3/

confusing a looooot of peopleeee

 

I think u've failed to grasp that rotational movement is no other than instantanious changes of direction in translational movement.

I just wanted to use my knowledge of physics to support my argument, but then, instead of proving why my theory is wrong, you attack my credibility by assuming that the mechanics involved is too complex that only Phd can do.

In this matter, you simply act by not trusting my theory instead of arguing why my theory is wrong. This marks the end of the argument as we clearly don't have the qualified third person figure.

He might be the greatest player ever, but he's not well known for his backhand relative to other top players. Moreover, we should also stop arguing in this particular matter, because it's more like kids' fight, u can say yes and i can say no with our own reasonings in the absence of sufficient information.

It's not that simple, you believed in your bevel grip because you've gained information from those top players/coaches, etc. However, I could also doubt your credibility in interpreting their teachings. Interpreting someone's teachings could be very subjective, as we already have different interpretation on Zhao Jian Hua's videos.

Conclusion:

My claim: My backhand grip is more powerful than yours (multipurpose grip).
My Strength: I provide the mechanical theory supporting it.
My Weakness: My credibility.

Your claim: My backhand grip is not superior or even weaker than yours.
Your strength: You pointed some authoritative figures to support it.
Your weakness: Your credibility still.

We'll never be able to find the slightest hope to compromise in this matter unless we meet up in person to clarify the arguments (words alone could be very confusing) and show it objectively which one is more powerful on court.

I hope our readers would find something useful from this arguments.

 

have the both of you even tried the other grip? instead of clinging onto your own views?

tryign both grips, I can't possibly hit a crosscourt shot with ssuly's grip. I'd need to stretch every muscle to it's limit to twist my racket..or hit it in front of my body...

as for sheer power...Swinging my racket I feel like I can do a whip-like snap with my wrist if I do the gollum-grip. I can thrust my elbow forward with my body/pecks/arm and the wrist flows naturally and whips...

using the sussly grip, or any backhand grip with the thumb pressing on the handle, I have to rely on my wrist/elbow strength purely...nothing natural. Just good old press-hard-to-hit-hard lumberjack technique

Posting out of my own practical trying out...

 

The angle formed between racquet and forearm is also as important as grip. For if you have the correct grip for the situation but the wrong angle you will not have good power or timing. You need to look for an angle of around 90 degrees, small angles move faster through to a big angle.

In preparation keep the racquet head up, with your arm across your body to the b/h side, elbow low. In order to do this with the correct grip you will find that your wrist is slightly cocked, creases on the back.

Hit with a rebound tapping action.

Its all in the angles!!!

 

If you correctly interpret the picture of my grip, it should not strectch your wrist at all when u hit a backhand clear before the shuttle pass your body. It might stretch your wrist a little when u try to hit crosscourt backhand clears, as little as it's not worth mentioning. It should provide the same natural whip-like motion as Gollum-grip, but with greater power explosion.

What I think you should do to understand my grip better:
1. Hold your racket using my grip (try to imitate it from the picture as close as possible). you must notice that the thumb position in mybackhand grip lies on the widest surface area of the grip.
2. Try to strech your wrist as far as u can as long as it's still comfortable enough. If you still tend to slice the shuttle when u hit a backhand clear from the side of your body, turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle while maintaining the thumb position on that same widest surface of the grip.

 

I don't feel my swing being faster than a gollum grip...but my backhand swing is really a swing, not a thumbpress...

to add an "authority" argument: Karina de Wit. Ex-proffesional player (ranked as high as #30 WS. played ubercup) concurs with my backhand stroke (as she taught it to me ) to quote here "the thumb-grip teaching is wrong, if you ask me" (not exagerating, she really said it like that...in dutch offcourse)

Now for driveshots, netshots and generally shots where you can't swing/rotate a thumb-grip is ideal....

just a question (not to attack you, not to insult) but who taught you this grip? a friend, a coach, a national coach, yourself?

 

Two questions:

1) "thumb position on widest surface area of the grip"? (By "grip", I am sure you mean the racket handle.) In other words that is just the standard backhand grip right?

2) "turn the racket head to perpendicularly face the shuttle..." Then what do you think one should do next? Further supinate the wrist and forearm?

I have seen the pictures you took of your holding the racket using thumb grip and your version of the grip. Frankly, I do not see any difference. You have taken the pictures in which the racket head appear at different angles. In order to make the differences -- if any, I am still doubtful -- apparent, you should take pictures in which the racket head appears at the same angle (e.g., always perpendicular to the plane of the floor). In other words, keep the rackethead angle constant so we can see *only* the variation in the fingering of the grips.

 

I honestly learnt my backhand grip naturally because I can't remember how I get it. Then, I realized that my backhand is considered to be the strongest in my badminton community (I could do backhand clear easily (when I say easy, I really mean it, in a humble way), cross court clear, fast backhand drives, or even 3/4 of court backhand smashes).

My motivation is simple: My backhand works wonder for me and I want to share it with you.

I really do understand Gollum's grip and I could also use his grip to make excellent backhand strokes. However, my grip is simply more powerful and that difference in power is real. As showing it to you on court is not possible, I tried to back up my claim with my theory.

I admit that my backhand grip should be a little bit harder to be mastered than Gollum's grip, but I would argue that once you've mastered it, you'd have a stronger backhand than other people who've also mastered Gollum's grip.

 

well, playing at a big club I wouldn't dare saying my backhand is the best
but a backhand clear from in front of my body is easy, indeed effortless.
I daren't comment on backhand smashes...because I don't use it and don't train for it...

now a backhand clear béhind your body..that's the real art. Getting fooled at the net, running back and clearing it over somebody (from a lunging position)...I can't do it fully, but heck I'm trying

I believe you when you say your grip works wonders for you (heck, why wouldn't I? How could I not?) but the "gollum-grip" is much more multi-purpose. And more suited to my playing style/ my coaches idea of badminton.

EDIT: to elaborate. I try my very best néver to take a shot, for which I'm on time, with my backhand..If I can do backhand shot in front of me, I could just as well do a around-the-head...

 

yes, what i meant is the racket handle (sorry, bad english). what do u mean by "standard"? If what u mean by standard is the "full" thumb grip, then no, it's not. It's between "full" thumb grip and Gollum's grip (multipurpose grip).

What I meant by that is: turn the racket head to face the shuttle without bending your wrist more. This means you have to grip the racket more to Gollum's grip while maintaining the position of your thumb on the widest area of the grip.

There are two ways to illustrate differences in grips:
1. Illustrate the differences in racket head's orientation, which is my way. This method would change the orientation of the racket heads according to the associated grips.
2. Illustrate the differences purely at how u position the fingers relative to the grip, which is your suggestion. This means that the orientation of the racket head should be the same for every grip change.

I just thought that using method one would be easier to comprehend, as you would just need the match the orientation of the racket and rearrange your fingers naturally. Using method 2 would lead to matching your fingers with my fingers one by one, which is more prone to misguiding.

 

I'm pretty much done here. Readers may judge and experiment for themselves, and of course I recommend seeking the advice of a coach rather than just reading forums.

I would, however, like to clear up some points:

The discussion seems to have become a question of credibility (at least, that's the way ssuly has directed it). Allow me to defend my credibility:

• In badminton: I am a qualified and active BE coach (level 2), teaching children from 9 up to adult club players. My teaching is not just personal opinion, it is based on the England coaching syllabus. I regularly update and supplement my understanding by attending national and regional coaching conferences and workshops.
• In mechanics: I have a (good) degree in mathematics and philosophy from Oxford. I know what makes a valid argument, and I can tell when a mathematico-physical "theory" is substantial and when it's just someone throwing a few symbols around (FsinTheta doesn't impress, I'm afraid).

You don't have a theory. All you have is some vague pseudo-physical ramblings. The only way I can possibly respond is in the same language.

If you want a proper critique, you must present it in the right language: mathematics. Your model is completely unformalised and therefore does not even qualify as a mathematical model.

Until you formalise your theory, it's just so much hot air. If I showed that "theory" to a real, working physicist (and yes, I know quite a few), he would just laugh.

That would demonstrate absolutely nothing. Your good use of the inferior technique could surpass my poor use of the superior technique.

Yes, I've tried the full gamut of grips between thumb and panhandle.

Because:

• It's my article, so no-one's going to be changing it except me. You may, of course, write your own article from scratch.
• I am working on a complete rewrite, but other things in life occupy my attention too (you know, girls, writing a novel, working as a coach, preparing for a caving expedition).
• I could do a quick, crude update, but that's just not my style. I want to make something excellent: there are plenty of mediocre resources already.