I agree the movements are significantly different, but language is language, and very specific movements won't be covered by general english without lots of modifiers.
So we're stuck with either "gradual turn with backwards running steps" or "backwards crossover steps" or something to that effect. 99.9% of English users would not be able to isolate this specific movement against e.g. side crossovers/backwards running because this movement is a very specific movement for a niche audience, and neither do 99.9% of people care.
Same thing when you talk about fruit and vegetables...the scientific definition of fruit used by a niche audience means something more specific that than the general usage, and that is where you get the phrase, "knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad".
To deal in the next paragraph with your science analogy, but addressing the crux of your point from that analogy, and removing the analogy. (removing the analogy 'cos science terminology has its own issues and its quite a different bunch of issues, so putting your science analogy aside, but dealing with your point from your science analogy and applying it to badminton).
If two players already know the movement and know what each other means, and aren't talking about what the movement looks like, e.g. they're talking about something and mentioning the movement that they are already both familiar with and each know what the other means re the movement, then it might not matter so much what they call it.. (and eg their conversation might be about tactics not movement).. (or their conversation mentions a particular movement, for identification purposes, given an understanding each has of what movement they mean. So they just need kind of cues). But in a discussion where many people (including me a lot of the time), don't know a movement, and learning is important re movement, then good terminology is important.
There was a thread
https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/steps-and-crossovers.58141/ where all the contributors having the conversation about terminology understood this point, about the value of terminology and that the point was about being clear from the point of view of explanations..
The question is simply where blurring terms is beneficial when explaining it..
Two contributors thought not..(i.e. agreed with me). A third contributor thought that it's ok to blurr them 'cos there's no pedagogical advantage they can see to not blurring them..
I agree with the two contributors that terminology is important and it's better not to blurr them.
And I agree with the third contributor that it depends, at least partially, on whether there is a pedagogical benefit. But while he says he can't see a benefit, I can see a benefit and I can state it
DarkHiatus said:
No, I don't think we are stuck. People have tried different terminology.. I favour the terminology suggested by 2/3 of the people in
https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/steps-and-crossovers.58141/ and I agree in principle with all three of them in that thread in giving careful consideration to what terminology they use, i.e. very much not 'stuck'. So the third contributor there was open minded and might turn to agree with the other two when given a good reason why theirs is clearer and thus advantageous. And I think there is a very clear reason why that is indeed the case.
