EPTOlympic Badminton - Page 4
| Forum Index > London Olympics |
|
Sabre
United Kingdom1086 Posts
| ||
|
AirbladeOrange
United States2574 Posts
On July 23 2012 06:40 amazingxkcd wrote: If you live around chicago, then Midwest Badminton Club is my home base until I go to college this fall I can't find one within like 4-5 hours of me. And I don't think I can get into a college club but I might try. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On July 20 2012 19:46 Ghostcom wrote: With regards to the low amount of doping going on: There isn't really a lot of money involved in Badminton. Furthermore actual strength is such a little part of badminton compared to technique which is also what makes it such a great sport. Technique is important and all, but Singles offer quite a considerable physical challenge. I don't think Badminton really differs much from Tennis or Football in how much the physical part of the game matters. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On July 23 2012 17:31 Maenander wrote: Technique is important and all, but Singles offer quite a considerable physical challenge. I don't think Badminton really differs much from Tennis or Football in how much the physical part of the game matters. Note how I spoke about actual strength and not physical challenge. In badminton you run twice the distance a tennisplayer does, in half the time, so obviously you are correct in saying that badminton is quite the physical challenge - my point was that actual strength, i.e. being able to bench a lot or doping via anabolic steroids are pretty useless and in fact detrimental for a badmintonplayer due to the useless extra weight. EDIT: Data for the Tennis vs Badminton. The figures are old (1985) but I haven't been able to find any more recent: http://www.badminton.bnl.gov/ten-bad.html | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
badminton is pretty special to me! i used to receive private coaching in canada and went to coach a bit myself. i always loved the allure for the technique involved & the constant need for that level of technique. but it was always hard for me to find the streams to watch! i did not respect the sport or the other players nearly enough by going to competition in jeans. now i really hope to see the sport as a spectator instead! | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
| ||
|
zylog
Canada943 Posts
On July 23 2012 19:38 Ghostcom wrote: Note how I spoke about actual strength and not physical challenge. In badminton you run twice the distance a tennisplayer does, in half the time, so obviously you are correct in saying that badminton is quite the physical challenge - my point was that actual strength, i.e. being able to bench a lot or doping via anabolic steroids are pretty useless and in fact detrimental for a badmintonplayer due to the useless extra weight. EDIT: Data for the Tennis vs Badminton. The figures are old (1985) but I haven't been able to find any more recent: http://www.badminton.bnl.gov/ten-bad.html There is more to drugs than simply strength gain. The greatest benefit comes from a reduced period between bouts of exercise. Looking at bodybuilders, juiced bodybuilders can train with 3-5 times more volume than an equivalent natural one. Now consider a badminton player that can train more frequently and develop physical conditioning more quickly - such a player should have more practiced technique and better fitness. As for some data, consider looking at the work of Bo Omosegaard. He has written about the transition from primarily aerobic + technical training that was predominant in the 1970-1980s to the incorporation of strength/power training in the 1990s . He worked with the Danish badminton team, in particular Poul-Erik Hoyer Larsen who won the gold medal in 1996. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On July 23 2012 20:34 zylog wrote: There is more to drugs than simply strength gain. The greatest benefit comes from a reduced period between bouts of exercise. Looking at bodybuilders, juiced bodybuilders can train with 3-5 times more volume than an equivalent natural one. Now consider a badminton player that can train more frequently and develop physical conditioning more quickly - such a player should have more practiced technique and better fitness. As for some data, consider looking at the work of Bo Omosegaard. He has written about the transition from primarily aerobic + technical training that was predominant in the 1970-1980s to the incorporation of strength/power training in the 1990s . He worked with the Danish badminton team, in particular Poul-Erik Hoyer Larsen who won the gold medal in 1996. It is correct that a better restitution is going to help, BUT your analogy to bodybuilders is flawed. Bodybuilding is about building up bigger muscles which means the training regimen itself requires a restitution period in which the body can rebuild. Badmintontraining doesn't do this is nearly the same way, because the goal isn't to become big, but rather fast, agile and precise. The restitutionperiod is therefore already pretty damn short and whilst I've no doubt you probably could shorten it with drugs, the question is if it is actually going to help all that much, i.e. could you maintain focus for the extra time you would be given? If you really want to talk about PED-useage you should much rather bring up bronchodilaters and how most of the top-athletes in (any sport really) badminton all seem to be asthmatic. EDIT: Actually I don't really know why we are having this discussion? Doping is rather close to a non-issue in badminton. The last person I remember getting caught was Zhou Mi (sp?) from Hong Kong in 2010 and then there was Sigit, but that is actually everyone I can recall. Furthermore, I know that the danish athletes are all tested on something close to a monthly basis - and seeing how they are able to compete at the top level it only really leaves 2 options: Either the cheaters are terrible at doping OR the field is actually clean. | ||
|
StarcraftMan
Canada507 Posts
On July 23 2012 19:38 Ghostcom wrote: Note how I spoke about actual strength and not physical challenge. In badminton you run twice the distance a tennisplayer does, in half the time, so obviously you are correct in saying that badminton is quite the physical challenge - my point was that actual strength, i.e. being able to bench a lot or doping via anabolic steroids are pretty useless and in fact detrimental for a badmintonplayer due to the useless extra weight. EDIT: Data for the Tennis vs Badminton. The figures are old (1985) but I haven't been able to find any more recent: http://www.badminton.bnl.gov/ten-bad.html Not true for doubles. Look at the top two men's doubles team in the world - Cai/Fu and Lee/Jung. They are extremely muscular and bulked up because they have to smash hard. I doubt that they would be the top two doubles team in the world if they were half as bulked as they are now. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On July 23 2012 22:12 StarcraftMan wrote: Not true for doubles. Look at the top two men's doubles team in the world - Cai/Fu and Lee/Jung. They are extremely muscular and bulked up because they have to smash hard. I doubt that they would be the top two doubles team in the world if they were half as bulked as they are now. Seriously, quote the context. That was a response to a guy talking about singles. EDIT: Besides, are you really arguing that Cai/Fu would be where they are if their technique wasn't as good as it is? I'm sorry, but even for doubles, technique and rotation are more important than raw strength, because raw strength won't do you any good without the technique. | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On July 23 2012 23:26 amazingxkcd wrote: I'll add the Women's singles participants later today. Does anyone have a list of doubles and mixed doubles teams? I don't want to have to look up teams T_T..... http://www.bwfbadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=64818 Sorted by group and all  | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 23 2012 23:51 Ghostcom wrote: http://www.bwfbadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=64818 Sorted by group and all You sir deserve 100 internets I was using the london 2012 page to do the player lists since I could link to their bio | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On July 24 2012 00:34 amazingxkcd wrote: You sir deserve 100 internets I was using the london 2012 page to do the player lists since I could link to their bio Just happy to be of help - mad props for making the thread! | ||
|
ieatfries
Canada44 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Participants List Updated!! Please check it to let me know of any errors and don't forget to enter in your Pick'em list before the Opening Ceremony! | ||
|
Antipathy
United States222 Posts
| ||
|
SoulSever
Canada779 Posts
On July 23 2012 22:12 StarcraftMan wrote: Not true for doubles. Look at the top two men's doubles team in the world - Cai/Fu and Lee/Jung. They are extremely muscular and bulked up because they have to smash hard. I doubt that they would be the top two doubles team in the world if they were half as bulked as they are now. Look at Koo KK and Tan BH, neither are that bulky but have amazing smashes (TBH has fastest unofficial @ 405km/hr :o) | ||
| ||
