Chun, you might have gotten it all wrong, it is the same grip and normal forehand grip, just the fingering is different. i dont' see how it is similar to the panhandle at all.....
hmmm i do this, but only if I can't reach over my head w/ my "normal" forehand (left). What is the pan handle grip? Just curious.
I think the link between pinky-finger and pan-handle comes from a strong willingness to achieve a great extra whip-effect while doing the pinky finger. I find doing the pronation combined with the whip (whip due to loose grip) the most difficult part of the pinky-finger grip. While holding the racket with pan-handle-grip (panhandle : like your're holding a pan while doing a pancake flip) achieving this whip is easy, as you don't have to do pronation. Hmm, but since panhandle sucks, this is not an option Btw, i have this trange habit of holding my pans with badminton grip instead of panhandle grip while cooking..
Your last statement I'd have to disagree with. That would show the player does not have good basics! Panhandle is good for only certain shots. Not the overhead stroke that Kwun was referring to. I have only seen one International player use a panhandle grip. That was an Australian and in that doubles match, I could see problems with efficiency and power generation. Also switching to a backhand grip for backahnd driving/lift is slower after playing an overhead stroke with a panhandle grip. BTW, although that particular pair did get to about no.11 in the world, when they played in Europe, they got destroyed in the first rounds. Remember, although you might think a particular technique works well for you at that time and therefore you don't need to change, your POTENTIAL for improvement will be set a lower level. (that is unless you are learning from a person who has a sound understanding and teaching of the basics)
Cheung, The fundamentals when beginning to learn the game is indeed important but not the issue here. Once beyond the basics, if one finds certain techniques or strategies effective (key word here), then why should it be discarded for other "acceptable" methodologies? There are plenty of examples in professional sports at its highest level where the player(s) have been outstanding with unorthodox skills. Abdul-jabar's sky hook (hard to be accurate, leaves the center unable to rebound), Jan Michael-Gambill & Monica Seles' two-handed forehand and backhand (limits range), 6 foot 8 inch point guard in Magic Johnson (traditionally a small forward position for the height), Andre agassi's half court volley ground stroke at the baseline, and there are many, many baseball players that have unorthodox batting swings & throwing motions that the coaches don't attempt to fix cause they're effective. They all go against the traditional roles/styles/strategies in their respective sports, yet are very effective nonetheless. They've overcome the traditional weaknesses associated with their respective styles and have taken advantage of the gains that those styles bring to their game. You mention that there was professional badminton player that used the pan-handle grip and have reached no.11 in the world. Maybe those player(s) were not able to overcome the weakness of using such a grip, but that naturally invokes a question that if the player using a pan-handle grip can overcome the weakness and become no.1 in the world, would it then be acceptable to use such a grip? Sorry if any of this seem antagonizing & I understand your argument that fundamentals are important. But in any sport, all traditional training and styles are merely guides at teaching what seems to be the most effective method of playing the games as a general rule. If everyone were to strictly adhere to them, there wouldn't be such developments as slam dunks in basketball, mid-air volleys at the net in tennis, sidearm delivery of randy johnson in baseball, etc., for these things were practically unheard of 20, 30 years ago. Btw, Kwan, Maybe I'm not using the grip correctly as you suggested but the similarity that I see between pan-handle and the pinky grip is the pivot point of the racquet rotation. Pinky grip moves the pivot point from thumb&index (upper part of the grip) to the bottom end of the racquet grip, just like pan-handle. As such, it provides more whip, but it's difficult to hit the backhand during quick rallies, at least to me. Maybe I'm using it wrong.
Chun, if you are an International player using the panhandle grip for overhead clears and smashes, your arguments are fine. That particular Aussie pair's names were Blackford/Bamford. They got to no.11 on the old ranking system by playing in minor tournaments. When they got to the Swedish Open(a 1 star tournament) as No.1 seeds (perhaps 3 years ago) they were out in the 1st round. I think they also went out in the 1st round of the AE the same year. I cannot remember which one exactly had the panhandle grip. 1) The problem with using pandhandle grip is finger pronation to generate power is less effective (because racquet already in the pronated position). Thus, a higher proportion of the power is generated from the arm swing. 2) In doubles, after smashing from the rear of the court the panhandle grip, it is quite possible that the opponents drive the shuttle very quickly to your backhand side. In order to play the CORRECT backhand stroke with the shuttle in front of you, the grip on the handle has to move a larger range. This means more time needed and then you take the shuttle later which is a disadvantage. This you have discovered. I do understand your point on individualism of technique. I actually have made a reference to it much earlier. Afterall, Michael Johnson could never have been so successful at running (actually, how do we know? He could have been even more successful if his technique changed) But here, we are talking about technique for the majority of people. i.e. what works for most NORMAL people. Not what works for people with huge amounts of talent.
Individual styles and innovation have been a part of sports from the beginning. That’s part of the reason performance statistics improve with time—athletes find better ways of doing things. In technique, there are certain mechanical basics that have to be adhered to. Beyond that, there is plenty of room for individuality and innovation. Sometimes, innovation comes about because of some distinctive physical characteristic, other times, it is discovered by accident, and in other cases, it is the result of careful and systematic experimentation. Someone’s unique way of doing things may even revolutionize the whole sport. In my mind, the prime example of all time is **** Fosbury. For those of you not old enough to remember, go back and look how the high jump was done before the 1968 Olympics. The “Fosbury Flop” was about as radical a departure from standard technique as you can get, and by the next Olympics, it had become the standard because it yielded such superior results. Other times, someone’s unique style works only for them or a few others--the golfer who wins in spite of the hitch in his swing; the baseball pitcher who takes his eyes off the catcher’s mitt during the wind-up, etc. Over the years, the athlete has practiced the technique to the point of mastering it and has become successful with it. Who would dare change it? There have been examples of athletes and coaches who have tried. In some cases, the changes improved the performance, in other cases, it ruined the athlete’s career. So I think that most coaches take the position that when an athlete has reached a certain age and experience level, they don’t try to change it, but rather try to help the athlete get the most out of it. Ultimately, the test of whether or not a particular technique or style is useful is determined by the athlete’s success with it, and if so, can it be duplicated. I guarantee you that if some top player had a new way to swing the racket, or some new type of footwork, and won big with it, everybody would be trying it. That’s why the “choke up” grip we discussed in another thread hasn’t caught on—it hasn’t proved to be a great universal advantage. The problem with the panhandle grip is that it has been known about and understood and tried for quite some time and no one has been highly successful with it. If someone were to be successful while using a panhandle, they would be considered successful in spite of the grip, not because of it. A small point, Chun; doesn't take anything away from your statement. If you watch the old films of the great Walter Johnson from the early 1900s, you would see he used the same sidearm delivery as Randy J. Also, I'm old enough to remember Don Drysdale from the LA Dodgers in the 60s. He had a whip-like sidearm delivery. So, it didn't start with Randy J.
Kwun, I started rallying with the wall a few days ago. I used the pinky grip, but instead of gripping the racket with the rest of the fingers lightly, i found our that i was holding it rather tightly. Is that all right or will it affect my play?
ummm you know..... I broke my dad's bedroom window learning and practicing this technique this morning.... I'll show you pictures tomorrow. Boy is this one powerful technique
I really am ROFL on this one, thanks for sharing this event with us. At least u r smart enough to try this technique in your dad's room and not your.
Hey I played these guys, and yes whilst they were never top 11 in the world (but hey who thinks Han/bach are, or Robertson/Emms are really number 2? ), however on his day David Bamford had one of the hardest smashes I've ever seen. Unfortunately because of his technique he can't play anymore due to elbow injuries. Anyway to quote the great Fred Astaire who was almost unarguably the best at what he did of his time: "The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style."
lol i was actually outside in the backyard when doing this. The wall i was hitting against was right next to my dad's bedroom window. I've hit the window before, but never broke it.... but hahah.... yeah picts today! promise!
Absolutely hilarious! I bet that's one thing the average american parent would never expect to come shattering through their home windows... a piece of cork with some goose feathers stuck in it. I can just see it now... Parent rushes into bedroom. See's all the broken window glass everywhere. Notices the shuttlecock lying admist the glass... curiously picks it up, and ponders it's delicate physical characteristics, shrugs and tosses it aside. Spends the next half hour looking for the baseball that must have broken the window.
hahahah timeless, too bad my parents are too chinese. they'll kill me if they find out i did that. since my dad doesn't open the blinds until the weekend he wont know. when he does find out, he'll ask me, but i'll just say it was a bird. hahaha... hopefully that works =] but... i present to you.... the pictures.
Hmmm unfortunately I only see little red X's (browser indicating image errors) instead of your pictures. Something somewhere isn't right.
Re: Grip Matt, choking up give you more control rather than power. The higher u choke up on the handle, the less mass is above your hand, when smashing, it's the tourque that is created that give you the power, when the mass is lowered, the torque is also lowered(by some ratio) So they higher you hold your racket, the better control you have(less distsnce between the 2 points[point of grip/point of shuttle contact] the better control you have, as apposed to the power in smashing) If you note the left picture, in the back he holds the racket all the way at the bottom of the grip, I anticipate that he's ready for a smash. Personally, I hold the racket all the way up to the cone, but I find the pinky method possible if you do do smash with your arm/wrist inline with your racket handle. I am no expert at this, but I think I shouldn't be too far off
