increasing the court dimensions for doubles will be good. we shall see how doubles players cover their larger area of court.
disagree, court coverage isn't an issue in doubles, because the pace is so high. Players aren't focused on placing shuttles and makign the opponents move. Players focus on placement to gain an oppertunity to put the shuttle into the floor. increasing courtseize would just lower the pace (and excitement) of doubles.
SystemicAnomally, Your post #117 on the different reactions between feathered and nylon shuttles when struck on the stringbed proves interesting reading. I have not played nylon shuttles before but I wonder whether your observations or "speculatons" are based on some sort of scientific research or they are just based on your own experience with both types of shuttles.
It is good to see that you put forward well-reasoned arguments (based on evidence and avoiding speculation) and stick to your guns when challenged.
or, alternatively, keep it like it is! why does everything always have to change; update to be faster, longer, better, everything ending with -er ?
The problem is that the game IS changing as result of improvements in racket technology (& other factors). I'm sure that someone from the wood-racket era might not think the game, the way is played today, is badminton in its purest form. They might have said that badminton was already perfect back then. They may have welcomed some minor changes in racket design, but if they had see the radical changes incorporated in the past 40 yrs they may very well have a very different view. Some proposed changes are meant to offset the changes seen in badminton in the past few decades.
In my opinion, the best solution would be to simply slow down the shuttle, i.e. use slower feather shuttles for competitions, like in tennis when they use larger balls to slow the pace down. Anyway, remember that player's defensive capabilities will improve as well as offensive due to techology and improved coaching.
Tell me, is it the racket that makes the game, or is it the way the game's played? In truth the only thing that's changed about the game is the scoring system, everything else is the same. Players are still using rackets, they're not the same as in the past, but that's not what makes the game. If a player plays badminton using a squash or tennis racket, are they still not playing badminton? The way the players play the game is changing, but that's not what makes the game either, simply because everyone's different. Someone who played 40 years ago was still playing badminton, and someone who plays now is still playing badminton. If the game was different with each player then nobody would be playing badminton, but some variation of the sport. What is badminton in its purest form then? Just because the way the game's played is different doesn't mean that the game is any more or less 'pure'. After all, badminton has stayed the same throughout the years, it's the people playing that's changed. People playing today still follow the same rules as people 40 years ago, only the way the rules are followed has been changed. Get it? If you say modifications in equipment and styles make the game, then yonex owns badminton completely. So don't move the net, don't widen or shrink the court, people don't like it when something they love changes. And say the court was smaller, we've all played half court singles right? It's not exactly faster than full court is it? It'd be the same as however much you want to skew the court down. Smashes would be that much easier to return, ergo people won't smash as much. Inversely, if you widen the court, how the hell are people supposed to get the shuttle in time?! ...Rasing or lowering the net's been mentioned already, too high and you give the opponent too much time to receive, too low and there's not enough. So please don't do anything to the game, there's a reason it's lasted this long without having to have to change.
there's an idea, but you can buy different shuttle speeds already... yonex makes green, blue and red options for their mavis line, and feather shuttles are already slower than nylon, and every shuttle of every brand is different too
I labelled them as "speculations" for a reason. They are based on a combination of research and personal experience with various badminton shuttle types for more than 25 years. I've not really performed any scientific research of my own tho'. But I have done a considerable amount of research on the topics incorporated in these speculations. Also know my way around a physics textbook -- particularly on the topics of motion (linear & angular accelerations), acoustics (sound) & light, dynamics & electromagnetism (which duznt really apply here). Also somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics (includes aerodynamics) and some modern physics (relativity). Part of the reason that feather shuttles tend to turn around quicker (flying cork first) has to do with their weight distribution -- they are a bit cork heavy. Some nylon shuttles had a more even distribution which causes them to turn around a bit slower and to tumble more when sliced net drops are executed. Feather birds tend to right themselves a bit quicker due to their weight distribution & other construction parameters. The connection that I make between the sound of a hard-struck shuttle and its initial motion (milliseconds after) coming off the racket, the abrupt acceleration, is largely my own conjecture. I recall a rather lengthy forum discussion about this & related matters with cooler more than 5 years ago. With what I know about sound generation & acoustics, it all makes a lot of sense. It is possible that the sound generated can also be affected by the dwell -- how long the shuttle remains in contact with the stringbed. However for a given stringbed (at a given tension), I wouldnt think that there would be any significant difference in dwell for a feather shuttle vs nylon shuttle (assuming that its head is also cork). It was quite a lot of years ago that I first heard about the streamlining efect of a forcefully-struck feather shuttle. Since it seems to make perfect sense, I've never really questioned it. Since the skirt of a nylon shuttle is one molded piece (it duznt consist of independent "feathers") it's no strectch of the imagination to think that the synthetic shuttle might have less of a tendency to streamline. It was one of the old-time forum veterans, perhaps May or Mag, that mentioned that high-speed studies revealed that nylon skirts underwent an unusal distortion rather than becoming streamilined when accelerated at a high speed. I never really confirmed this for myself but I did accept it as a reasonably strong possibility. Perhpas I can say more about the fluid dynamics involved in another post.
actually, badminton has changed a lot since the 80s. faster speed shuttlecocks, higher tensioned rackets, more colourful shirts and shoes. maybe in another twenty years time, badminton will experience some changes again.
I think also if you raise the net, you'll have more clears, which will slow down the game and make it more boring both to play and watch
"we should slow down badminton because I can't keep up" "we should highten the ent because my smashdefence sucks" "we should lower the net because I keep on hitting the tape" ...I smell frustration... ...and unfounded statements
It's a reflection of the mass consumer market. Population increases generates the need to create more jobs. More new stuff means more places and workers to produce them and more people to buy them. Creativity is a wonderful thing. More importantly, the quality of recreational players improve due to more exposure to professional training (e.g. California and BC) makes the most difference. When quality of players improve, you get faster and longer rallies because players could get to the shot faster and more efficiently. The evolution of the racquets might have contributed to the speed of the game at one point in history but it's no longer a huge factor. People who smash hard to begin with doesn't smash harder because of the weight change from 2U to 4U. Their arms just adapt to whatever weight of the racquet once they play with it long enough. Sports should at least have some constant to be interesting (like, oh I don't know, say the height of the net).
