quisitor, i am confused. you have made suggestions to change the height of the net, first you said you want it higher, but from your posts i don't see that you actually understand what the consequences of such a change would have, except to blindly suggests that it "modernizes" the sports without any further explanations. and then later on you come around and said it should be lowered, and then you failed to show that you actually understand the game of badminton as you don't even know what a fast and slow drops are. i therefore question if one is qualified to suggest a change in the sport of badminton when one doesn't even understands the basics. it seems to be that perhaps you should gain more undestanding of the game, watch some badminton videos, go down to the gym and play some serious badminton before you contemplate and suggest making any more changes to badminton.
Increasing the height of net is not at all good and it has nothing to do with modernissation.Almost all participants hgave disagreed to this suggestion.BUT I rally fear that such a foolish modernisation step may be implemented like the 21 point scoring system.They may have hundred reasons like the changes in service rules etc.. to support this impemenation. Finally, we all hate and are against the rise of net height because we used to play at the present net height and we are accustomed to that.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe badminton is the 2nd most popular sport (behind soccer) in the world. It has it's popularity for a reason and have solid proof behind it. Anything significantly or completely change the game itself is non-sense. It's like, will you cut your feet to fit into a pair of shoes???
the height should not be increased. see that last punctuation mark, it's a period lazy buddy made a good put, the sports shouldn't "accomdate people" people should train to accomdate the sport mugsy bogues was a short player in the NBA (by nba standards) but he managed fine, and he's a tremendous athlete the regulation nets weren't lowered to accomdate for his height in golf all the fields are played the same no matter how strong, tall, etc etc you are the main thing i'm trying to point out is, you shouldn't go changing a sport (and the height of the net is a drastic change) because it would attract more people to play it if they have no interest to play the sport or at least work a bit at teh sport, it doesn't matter how high/low the net is, they still won't be interested all in all, athletes should accomdate themselves to the sport, not the other way around
why don't all of us play speedminton, huh? better now? tennis and badminton combined and with maria sharapova promoting it...
haha, this thread is pretty funny. Some of you guys need to relax a bit - obviously quisitor is just trying to generate some discussion by throwing out a provocative suggestion. good job quisitor!
Idea 1c: Increasing the height of the net to 230 cm. When we speak of accommodation, do we mean it to be the case that an individual may knock the bird around in an "outdoor BBQ" fashion or do we mean it to be that the rules governing the sport allow one a fair opportunity to compete with the upper decile of atheletes in that sport if one should have the dedication and will? Is it reasonable to suggest 10 year olds can compete against the top decile of players with the net at its current height? Would they stand a fairer chance if the height of the net were lowered to 3 feet? Even adults who lack height might struggle against the present ominous net height. Why, if the outrage of many at a suggested 4 cm net height increase is any indication, it is not a stretch to suggest that many already feel limited by their height and insecure in their ability to compete with taller players. The one-stroke-serve type of game that's been suggested may occur with a decrease in the height of the net-- is this not desirable? Many had commented previously about the effect of increasing the height of the net on the smash and how this would diminish the most dynamic, exciting aspect of the game. A lot of words are being casually thrown out here, which is somewhat disturbing. Words like "perfect" and "cannot be any more of a superior sport" are rather bold assertions to be making. What is meant by such terms? Is it to mean that you are of such an opinion, in which case the very words are diminished and rendered useless since you have converted their use from value in objectivity to valuelessness in subjectivity? Or is it to mean that when objectively viewed, the only logical conclusion derivable is such? If the latter be the case then if recollection of scientific theory serves, your assertion can never be proved to be true and may (if one should be so bold) be assumed to be true until the first violation of your assertion is observed. Sparing you the agony of a misled life, I shall eliminate this belief at this present time by simply stating I do not think the rules of the game are such that the sport "cannot be any more of a superior sport". Hence any suggestion that your statements are made in objectivity are rendered insubstantiated. It's been suggested that confusion may exist in the minds of at least one forum member. This is not necessarily a bad thing as we must often be in a state of perplexity before advancements in thought can be made. The word modernize is one that is rather open to interpretation and may lead to confusion. In time this word may begin to make sense but in the mean time I proffer this: If a game is "perfect" (since this is a popular word) but the game changes, is it still perfect? I also offer this from dictionary.com: mod·ern·ize Audio pronunciation of "modernize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdr-nz) v. mo·dern·ized, mo·dern·iz·ing, mo·dern·iz·es v. tr. To make modern in appearance, style, or character; update. As for my confusion over such shots as "slow drop" and "fast drop", come now. Let us not be snide in addressing the questions of a forum member. If one should desire to not answer such questions then one need not but one should not discourage or preclude such an individual from asking for such information as one of the stated goals of "BF" is: "BF is an online community dedicated to the exchange of information" It's been suggested by a forum member that an increase in the height of the net of 4 cm would have no effect on the usage of smashes but would have a large effect on the use of "slow drops" and "fast drops". I merely desire proof on such an assertion. Clearly my understanding of such shots is limited so then-- what are the trajectories of the "slow drop", "fast drop" and smash? At the point where they cross the net, what is the expected distance (or clearance) between the top of the net and the shuttle? Still no one has the courage to answer this question! Wisdom. Truer words were never spoken. We are accustomed to the present height of the net and have tailored our game around this height. Self-entitlement exists but is not an unnatural human emotion for the things we love. Fear not-- if ever such an implementation were made, the fears we harbour would not come to pass as the expected effects listed by posters here are missing the boat. You may wish to consider what would happen if the height of the net were increased to 230 cm.
Well, why not try it out? The best way to find out is to try it out for a few games with a variety of players. First try the 4cm net height increase, then try the 3' net. Let us know how it goes.
Thank you quisitor for going through my comments and analysing the same.It is the human nature to oppose changes to things which they have been doing/experiencing for a long period.If the original height of net was 5'5"and you suggested a reduction to 5'1"majority of the players would have opposed it.Really I am dead against increase of net height but I am confident that I can execute heavy weight smashes and winner drops even if the height is increased by 4".Sorry for beating my own trumpet.
I can see how we are so protective of the badminton game we love. As Stumblingfeet said...some of us went on high allert as soon as we heard the word "change", "modernizing", "improving". I guess some of us still shocks and hold grudges to the most recent change. the new scoring system. if it is raised, short guys like me will have a lot of difficulty. Majority of ppl are not that tall anyway...so I think we ought to keep it as it is
you want proof? you ahven't even given an argumenty yourself...just a mild theorectival phrasing that a higehr net will somehow mordenize the game.. Proof however for the fast/slow drops is rather mathemetical. you can't give much extra angle with a higher net! 1) a smash is expected to land midcourt, mayeb a bit further. it's a powershot played to go too fast for the opponent to receive. (generalisation) 2) a slow drop is meant to drop dead right after the net. creating a maximum distance for the opponent to travel. 3) a fast drops is hit faster than the slow drop pduh) but because of it's apce the shuttle travels further and lands about 10inches behind the front service line. so with a higher net a smash will just get a little flatter, but still keeps it's power. but the slow and fats drops will lose out, because you can't generate the same angles..
ok, here we go. the top one ahs a normal net, below a higher net (by my scale respectively 2,5 and 3 cm) In the top one the player can smash (blue) as hard as he can an get it at that angle. The fast drop (green) has enough pace (and if done correctly deception) to go to the floor fast, and fall short. making your oppent reach and lift. (the downside is msot opponent just ahve to take one step) the slow drop (yellow) falls so short the opponent has to take an extra step to reach it (the downside is a fast opponent can netkill the slow drop) now look at the raised net. smash still go hard, and in the court (be it with difficulty) so there's not much change in shot pace. The fast drop however makes a considerably higher arc to get to the same spot. this means that a player either has to play it softer (negating the effect of a fast paced shot) or hit it deeper into the court (making it easier to retreive) The slow drop is just bonker to play now. the arc it has to make is just very high (and therefor slow) prone to being netkilled even by fat uncle joe (let alone at top level) so a player can choose to play it faster (and thus deeper in the court) and negate the effect of the opponent having to travel an extra length or play it so slow and give the opponent enough time to take it at net hight...
i have to agree... even after all those posts of yours, i find it too illogical to even argue rather than net height increase by 4cm, my IQ had just dropped 4 from reading your post...
On the contrary, this thread is the perfect chance for a brave soul to practice her/his one-against-the-world debating skill. So, come on, who'll step up to the plate and take a stand?
Hey jerby, great pictures! Just wondering, why does your little buddy there have a shorter back leg? That must make it hard for him/her to play. Perhaps we should lower one side of the net as a way to accomodate people with uneven limb lengths?
