Last checked: August 2026 · Written by the player-led team at Badminton House
Quick answer
One study found different upper-limb patterns for smash, clear, and drop, while another found more trunk rotation, shoulder-rotation range, and elbow and wrist flexion-extension range in skilled smashers. Neither establishes one correct backswing size, a recovery-time trade-off, or a self-test.
Start with Smash, clear, and drop do not share one upper-limb pattern
Do not look for one ideal backswing size. The cited studies distinguish smash, clear, and drop upper-limb patterns and find more trunk rotation, shoulder-rotation range, and elbow and wrist flexion-extension range in skilled smashers; they do not establish that a given preparation size is too big, too small, or best for every player.
- Film one chosen shot from the side and identify its preparation without mixing it with clear or drop footage.
- Treat the clip as a local observation format, not a study protocol, angle target, or universal correction.
- Compare a later attempt only with the same shot and cue.
- Use coaching feedback if a change is needed; do not turn impact-phase findings or skilled-smash group differences into a self-test for backswing size.
Related reading: Badminton Shot Types Explained: A Complete Guide — for the separate shot-purpose question before comparing movement patterns.
Smash, clear, and drop do not share one upper-limb pattern
In a motion-analysis study of seven elite male players, smash, clear, and drop showed different upper-limb patterns, including lower dominant-arm shoulder abduction at drop impact than at clear or smash impact. The study reports statistically significant stroke-specific upper-limb differences. overhead-motion study
Smash, clear, and drop should not be forced into one upper-limb pattern. The cited research reports differences among the shots, so a player’s first step is to choose one shot to observe rather than trying to judge all preparation with a single ‘big versus small’ rule.
Skilled smashers showed more trunk rotation and specific joint-motion differences
In a forehand-smash study of 24 players, skilled participants used more trunk rotation, greater shoulder-rotation range of motion, and greater elbow and wrist flexion-extension range of motion than novices; the authors describe a proximal-to-distal kinematic chain. forehand-smash study
The skilled-smash study reports more trunk rotation, shoulder-rotation range, and elbow and wrist flexion-extension range in its skilled group. That is not direct proof about backswing size, and the other study’s upper-limb findings are not a personalised recovery-time or technique prescription.
Do not turn measurement findings into one backswing-size rule
These studies do not establish one optimal backswing size for every stroke, player, time-pressure situation, or recovery context. Their samples and shot scopes are narrower than that general claim, so a visible preparation shape is not a personal prescription. overhead-motion study and forehand-smash study
A personal video observation can still be useful when it stays descriptive: name the shot, view, preparation shape, and recovery. Mark a changed task as a new observation and seek coaching feedback; do not infer a preparation-size adjustment from these studies.
Use a same-shot, same-view clip sheet
This is a local observation format, not a study protocol. It gives a player and coach a shared record without claiming that the cited group findings produce a personal correction.
- Choose one shot before filming: clear, drop, or smash. Record the same camera view, starting feed, and intended shot for each clip.
- Describe only what can be seen: preparation shape, balance, reach, recovery, or one agreed cue. Do not turn a compact or larger-looking silhouette into a universal rating.
- Keep the three shot types on separate sheets. A feature observed before a smash is not automatically an instruction for a clear or drop.
- If the task changes, mark that as a new observation and seek coaching feedback; do not infer a preparation-size adjustment from these studies.
Show the reviewer the original clip and the written task rather than only a frozen pose. The shared view supports a specific coaching conversation without asking one still image to establish a universal ideal.
Separate the study finding from the coaching question
The first study compares upper-limb patterns across three overhead shots. The second compares skilled and novice players in a forehand smash. Those are useful boundaries for a conversation, but neither study supplies a personal backswing-size prescription.
| Study boundary | Local coaching question |
|---|---|
| Smash, clear, and drop are distinct shot contexts | Which one shot is being observed in this clip? |
| Skilled and novice forehand-smash groups differed | What visible preparation question needs coaching feedback? |
| No study supplies a universal size rule | What can be recorded without turning it into a verdict? |
That distinction keeps the evidence in its actual scope. A clip can start a useful individual conversation, but it does not turn a group comparison or an impact-phase finding into an angle target, recovery promise, or rule for every player.
For example, a note can identify a forehand smash from the side, record that the same feed was used, and ask a coach whether the chosen preparation cue remains visible. It should not turn a frame into a numerical target or infer that a larger or smaller backswing will produce the same result for every player. The review stays descriptive when a player asks for a change.
Questions the cited sources do not settle
- A universal backswing-size table, exact joint angles, or self-test.
- A promise about injury prevention, recovery speed, or deception from backswing size alone.
Leave a comment
This site is protected by hCaptcha and the hCaptcha Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.