The relevance of body positioning and its training effect on badminton smash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the dominant skills in badminton is the forehand overhead smash, which consists of 1/5 attacks during games. Empirical evidences show that one has to adjust the body position in relation to the coming shuttlecock to produce a powerful and accurate smash. Therefore, positioning is a fundamental aspect influencing smash quality. Unfortunately, a search of literature has shown that there is a dearth/lack of study on this fundamental aspect. The goals of this study were to determine the influence of positioning and training experience on smash quality in order to discover information that could help learn/acquire the skill. Using 3D motion capture and full-body biomechanical modelling, 14 skilled and 15 novice players were analysed. Results have revealed that the body positioning has direct influence on shuttlecock release angle and clearance height of the offensive player. The results also suggest that, for training the positioning of beginners, one could conduct a self-selected comfort position towards a statically hanged shuttlecock and then step one foot back - a practical reference marker for learning. As one gains experience through repetitive training, improved limbs' coordination would increase smash quality further. We hope our findings will benefit practitioners for developing effective training programmes for beginners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".