Biomechanical Insights for Developing Evidence-Based Training Programs: Unveiling the Kinematic Secrets of the Overhead Forehand Smash in Badminton through Novice-Skilled Player Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Badminton, a dynamic racquet sport demanding agility and power, features the overhead forehand smash as a pivotal offensive shot. Utilizing 3D motion analysis, this research delves into the intricate biomechanical facets underpinning this pivotal shot, with a dual focus on both novice and proficient players. Through a comparative analysis of these two player cohorts, the investigation aims to elucidate the fundamental factors influencing the quality of the forehand smash. Our findings reveal that skilled players exhibit significant improvements in smash quality, including a 60.2% increase in shuttlecock speed, reduced clearance height, and flight angle at release. These enhancements are associated with specific determinants, such as consistent positioning, racket angle at impact, and range of motion (ROM) in various joints. More crucially, full-body tension-arc formation and a four-segment whip-like smash contribute to these improvements. Unique to the whip-like smash is the rapid trunk and shoulder rotations in early whip-like control inducing passive elbow flexion and wrist over-extension, enhancing the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) effect of muscles for a more powerful smash. Emphasizing this uniqueness and the determinants simplify smash learning, potentially boosting training effectiveness. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of badminton’s biomechanics and offers practical implications for coaches and players to enhance their forehand smashes, especially among 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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".