Technique & Tactics

Badminton Backswing Size: What the Studies Do—and Do Not Show

A same-shot video review records preparation without treating a visible backswing as a universal ideal.

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.

  1. Film one chosen shot from the side and identify its preparation without mixing it with clear or drop footage.
  2. Treat the clip as a local observation format, not a study protocol, angle target, or universal correction.
  3. Compare a later attempt only with the same shot and cue.
  4. 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

The cited study compares three overhead shot contexts rather than prescribing one preparation shape for all of them.
The cited study compares three overhead shot contexts rather than prescribing one preparation shape for all of them.

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

A local clip sheet keeps the shot, view and preparation question consistent without turning group findings into personal angle targets.
A local clip sheet keeps the shot, view and preparation question consistent without turning group findings into personal angle targets.

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

The studies do not identify one optimal backswing size for every player, stroke or time-pressure situation.
The studies do not identify one optimal backswing size for every player, stroke or time-pressure situation.

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.

  1. Choose one shot before filming: clear, drop, or smash. Record the same camera view, starting feed, and intended shot for each clip.
  2. 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.
  3. Keep the three shot types on separate sheets. A feature observed before a smash is not automatically an instruction for a clear or drop.
  4. 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?

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.

Reading next

A local two-versus-one setup gives one solo player and a pair distinct roles within an agreed practice area.
Players change ends between the specified match stages while keeping the score and service questions separate.

Leave a comment

This site is protected by hCaptcha and the hCaptcha Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.