What do you think of this footwork for going from the front to the back in this kind of drill or a half court. See from 1:48-1:50 Having done a net shot and recovered, (at 1:48 he's recovered), he shuffles back(1,2), runs back with torso turned but feet pointing forwards(3,4), and turns at the end(5), And is running back the correct way to describe (3,4)? Is there a name for this type of footwork? I have heard that running back is slow and you should turn straight away.. Is that right? Like, is this a slower footwork you only do when you have time? And is there another footwork that gets back faster? I've heard of cross overs, and flying steps..Is this the former, or the latter.. and is any part in particular, the cross over steps? Thanks
I see some answers to some of this, looking at mason's 'help with stroke' thread, with some analysis from DH and clarifications from Chang, and a really useful video of LCW provided by Mason, similar to the above video but slightly different https://www.youtube(dot)com(slash)watch?v=NREZFU8TQoo And you see from that clip, there are 3 crossover steps and a chasse.. So that would be the "3 crossover footwork".. The one in my OP from "smashsecrets" was that but with a shuffle beforehand. It's not really running back 'cos they are turning while doing it, and it is slower,but can be done when time like if the shuttle is very high and fairly deep like feet straddled across the second from last back line. Maybe if it'd have been deeper he'd have added another chasse at the end, but there would be even more time if it were to receive such a shot. They may be (3) running steps rather than (3) cross-overs.. though some generalise as cross-over. Related- https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/steps-and-crossovers.58141/
Terminology-wise, crossover steps and running steps are the same, crossover steps also includes moving sideways, whereas you wouldn't ever use the term 'sideways running'. Most often when we talk about running steps, it is running forwards i.e. feet pointing the same direction as your torso. Typically running steps are used to describe a recovery, or movement towards the front, having just played a rearcourt stroke. The one exception to running steps going from front to back, is if you are extremely late to the rearcourt from the forecourt, and you run the diagonal play a late stroke - whole body (torso and feet) facing the backwards. In all other scenarios, it is far more beneficial to face your opponent, so any backwards movement, whether your torso is facing the side or facing forwards, 'crossover step' is used as the term (which technically covers 'backwards running' as well as 'sidewards crossover steps'). Your video at 1:48 shows crossover steps, but his feet are not fully sideways, nor forwards. It isn't quite backwards running or full sidesteps, but something in between (aside from a couple chasses thrown in), but they can be described as crossover steps, since his left foot crosses behind his right foot and so on.
Normally the backhand forecourt to backhand rearcourt 3 crossover step + backwards scissor jump smash. The backwards steps are more like a banana curve, but the idea is the player is actually backwards running. Wei Nan did it relatively often, LCW did it every now and then. It's for a distance that's just further than a pivot, flying step + backward scissor jump smash footwork, and just shorter than a 3 crossover step + jump smash footwork.
I agree, there's no question that the running diagonally back for a late backhand, would be running steps. And I find it interesting , and it makes sense, that you refer to the recovery after a shot, as running steps. I agree. (though I guess maybe might sometimes be one single step) But it seems to me that the term cross-over step, is used by you here for two very different movements.. A) side cross-over steps or B) what one could call, "turning with steps" (either back and side, in which case turning in an arc.. Or, going straight back) Huge difference because in one case the torso gradually turns.. in the other case the torso is kept to the net. Maybe some would refer to "B" as running steps. But I think it's fair to say it's not running steps, I could agree with you there. But I don't like the idea of calling it cross-over steps, as I associated that with what one could call side cross-over steps. It's far more like running steps, just with a turn involved in some way. So vastly different.. from cross-over by which I mean a side cross-over step.
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 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.
