Ann Appl Sport Sci
9(3): e1002, 2021.
http://www.aassjournal.com; e-ISSN: 2322–4479; p-ISSN: 2476–4981. 10.52547/aassjournal.1002
*. Corresponding Author:
Agus Rusdiana, Ph.D
E-mail: [email protected]
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
3D Kinematics Analysis of Overhead Backhand and Forehand
Smash Techniques in Badminton
Agus Rusdiana
*
Sports Science Study Program, Faculty of Sports and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,
West Java, Indonesia.
Submitted 04 April 2021; Accepted in final form 28 June 2021.
ABSTRACT
Background. This study aims to analyze the movement of backhand and forehand smash stroke techniques in
badminton in three dimensions using a kinematics approach. Objectives. The obtained results were analyzed using a
descriptive and quantitative approach. Methods. Furthermore, 24 male badminton players from the university student
activity unit with an average age of 19.4 ± 1.6 years, height of 1.73 ± 0.12 m, and weight of 62.8 ± 3.7 kg participated
in this study. The study was conducted using 3 Panasonic Handycams, a calibration set, 3D Frame DIAZ IV motion
analysis software, and a speed radar gun. Results. The data normalization from the kinematics values of the shoulder,
elbow, and wrist joint motion was calculated using the inverse dynamics method. In addition, a one-way ANOVA test
was used to identify differences in the kinematics of motion between two different groups. The obtained results showed
that the speed of the shuttlecock during the forehand smash was greater than that during the backhand smash. In the
maximal shoulder external rotation phase, two variables were identified to have the best results during the forehand
smash, i.e., the velocity of shoulder external rotation and wrist palmar flexion. Conclusion. The velocity of shoulder
internal rotation, elbow extension, and forearm supination in the maximum angular velocity phase was higher when
making a forehand smash.
KEYWORDS: Badminton, Overhead Smash, Biomechanics, Kinematics, Three Dimensions.
INTRODUCTION
According to Kuntze (1), stroke techniques are
categorized into three types depending on the
position of the racket. They include underarm,
sidearm, and overhead strokes. The most
frequently used attack technique is the overhead
smash stroke technique (2). Similarly, there are
two types of smash technique skills, i.e., forehand
and backhand smash. These are powerful attack
techniques, which are used to dominate the
opponents and get as many points as possible;
these techniques are used 39.8% of the time (3).
Furthermore, smash is a fast stroke, which relies
on the strength, velocity, and flexion of the wrist
with the shuttlecock swooping down towards the
opponent's field area (4).
The average number of smashes executed in
one match in the men's single category was 69
strokes, while for the women's singles category it
was 51 strokes in All England Championship
2015 (5). The world record for smash speed is
held by Fu Haifeng. This medalist paired with Cai
Yun, which achieved the shuttlecock speed of 332
km/h at the June 2005 Sudirman Cup
championship (6). Fu Haifeng and Cai Yun are
Chinese professional men's doubles badminton
players. They were men's doubles world
2 Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton
champions in 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The
shuttlecock speed exceeds that of other racket
sports and reaches 493 km/h. This speed was
achieved by a Chinese player Tan Boon Heong
while testing a new racket product (Yonex
ArcSaber Z-Slash) in 2017 (7). Meanwhile, the
fastest backhand smash was achieved by Taufik
Hidayat, an Indonesian player who won a gold
medal at the 2004 Athens Olympics; he achieved
the shuttlecock speed of 206 km/h (5).
Backhand smash is an overhead stroke which
uses the rear racket head. When performing this
stroke, the body is positioned with its back to the
net, and the wrist joint flexion motion is
prioritized and directed to swoop backward (8).
This occurs because the transfer of body weight
to the pedestal is the same as the position of the
hand while holding the racket. The upper
extremity rapidly rotates when the shuttlecock
moves to the front of the player. Sequentially, it
continues with the rotation of the hip, shoulder,
and elbow joints (9). The same is performed with
a forehand smash; the shuttlecock needs to be hit
at the highest possible position. Furthermore, a
flexible and strong wrist flexion motion is
essential for producing a hard and targeted stroke
(10). The application of motion mechanics
principles is essential for producing a smash that
provides maximum strength, speed, and accuracy
to stop the opponent's movements and generate
points (11).
Owing to the lack of backhand smashes,
different studies tried to analyze almost the same
motion patterns to add broader insights on tennis
sports such as serve, smash, backhand, and
forehand drive techniques. According to Abian-
Vicen (12), a one-handed backhand drive is
supported not only by the velocity of trunk
rotation. It is determined by the amount of
momentum and force movement generated from
the shoulder and wrist joints. This drive involves
the motion of body segments such as the legs,
hips, trunk, upper arms, forearms, and hands (13).
The velocity of maximal shoulder external
rotation and the backswing of the upper arm are
the main factors in generating a greater force
when making a backhand drive (14).
Genevois (15) have reported that in the
advanced player group, the maximum speed of
the racket is obtained from the strength of the
upper arm force. Meanwhile, in the novice
group, the maximum speed is obtained from the
motion of the wrist and elbow. During the one-
handed backhand drive, the velocity of hip
rotation significantly contributes to that of the
other upper limb joints (16). Meanwhile,
forehand smash requires harmonious
coordination of body motions from the strength
generated by the trunk, shoulders, arms, and
wrists (17). To produce an effective smash, the
biomechanics principles should be implemented
in the phase of motion sequences. These include
the preparation phase, backswing, forward
swing, racket impact with the shuttlecock, and
follow-through motion phase (18). Nesbit (19)
indicated the importance of wrist flexion,
forearm pronation, and upper arm rotation. In
addition, the "kinetic chain movement" principle
will produce an effective and efficient smash.
The study by (20) reported that these joints and
segments affected one another during the
movement. When one is in motion, it creates a
chain of events that affects the movement of
neighboring joints and segments. Furthermore,
the optimal performance in conducting a
forehand smash depends on the motion of body
segments that work in a harmonious motion
chain sequence (12).
Based on the above mentioned background
explanation, this study aims to analyze the
movement of backhand and forehand smash
techniques in badminton in three dimensions
using the motion kinematics approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Method and Design. The method used is a
descriptive and quantitative approach. The
descriptive method aims to systematically and
accurately describe facts about certain parameters
that are the center of attention.
Participants. The sample used in this study
included 24 male badminton players with
excellent skills who joined the university student
activity unit; their average age was 19.4 ± 1.6
years, height of 1.73 ± 0.12 m, and weight of 62.8
± 3.7 kg. Furthermore, purposive sampling was
used; all participants provided their written
consent on a form that was previously given to
them; in addition, the participants confirmed that
they were not injured. Before the test, they
received technical explanations related to the
implementation of procedures in a comprehensive
manner. The data collection test was conducted in
the badminton field sports hall building, Faculty
of Sports and Health Education, Indonesia
University of Education.
Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton 3
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Setup Used to Collect the Data
Instruments. The instruments used were three
video cameras (Panasonic Handycam HC-V100
Full HD, Japan), a three-dimensional calibration,
a 3D motion analysis software (Frame DIAZ IV,
Japan), one set of manual markers, a shuttlecock
shooting machine (Plypower 143, Indonesia), and
a radar speed gun (Bushnell Speed gun 101911,
Italy).
Procedures. Before the test, the participants
warmed up for approximately 15 min. To be more
comfortable and quickly adapt, the warm-up was
followed by performing overhead backhand and
forehand smashes using their racket.
Subsequently, all participants were asked to
execute 8 forehand and 8 backhand smash strokes
to determine the mean velocity value in km/h.
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of field
data collection. The ball speed was measured
using a radar speed gun with a shutter speed of
250 Hz. It was placed near the net at the distance
of 45 cm outside the field line. In addition, video
camera 1 was placed on the right side of the field
at the distance of 2.5 m perpendicular to the
position where the subject was standing. Video
camera 2 was positioned behind the field line
parallel to the subject area at the distance of 3 m
from the player's position. Video camera 3 was
placed above the position where the subject was
standing in a perpendicular position parallel to the
subject area. The three video cameras were set by
the users according to the needs of the study
characteristics. The camera settings used were as
follows: frame rate of 250 Hz, shuttle speed of
250 s, and exposure time of 1/1200 s. The
calibration and data processing analyzed in three
dimensions were conducted using the direct linear
transformation structure method developed by
Aziz Abdel (21).
Data Analysis. This study used the SPSS
version 22.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL),
where the average and standard deviation were
calculated as initial data for further calculations of
normality, homogeneity, and hypothesis tests. To
test the hypothesis, a one-way analysis of
variance approach was used. This analysis
allowed to calculate the level of difference
4 Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton
between backhand and forehand overhead
smashes with significant differences of 0.05. The
three-dimensional coordinate data of the signs
affixed to each part of the player's joints were
adjusted using the Butterworth low-pass filter
method approach. This procedure was performed
with a cut-off frequency of 15 Hz and used the
residual analysis technique (22).
Kinematics Parameters. To obtain the
kinematic parameters of an overhead smash
motion, a model was developed based on the
anatomical principles of the body (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Kinematic Parameters of the Upper Limb Joints (Source: Rusdiana, 2020)
Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton 5
Initially, the shoulder joint performs 3
movements, i.e., internal–external rotation (A),
abduction–adduction (B), and horizontal abduction–
adduction (C). The elbow joint performs 2
movements, i.e., flexion–extension (D) and forearm
pronation–supination (E). The wrist joint performs 2
movements, i.e., palmar–dorsiflexion (F) and radial–
ulnar flexion (G). The next movements are upper
torso rotation and pelvis rotation (H), trunk tilt
forward and trunk tilt backward (I), as well as trunk
tilt left and right sideways (J).
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the data on the difference in ball
speed and changes in the kinematics of motion
during backhand and forehand smashes.
Table 1. Kinematic Parameters of the Maximal Shoulder External Rotation
Kinematic Parameter Analysis
Backhand
Forehand
Means ± SD
Means ± SD
Shuttlecock velocity (km/h)
112 ± 5.7
158 ± 3.5
Shoulder external rotation (deg)
−122 ± 3.5
−169 ± 4.2
Shoulder abduction (deg)
101 ± 1.2
106 ± 1.4
Shoulder horizontal adduction (deg)
7 ± 0.83
9 ± 0.96
Elbow flexion (deg)
94 ± 1.1
102 ± 1.3
Radio–ulnar pronation (deg)
7 ± 1.1
12 ± 1.3
Wrist palmar flexion (deg)
−23 ± 2.1
−47 ± 2.4
Trunk tilt backward (deg)
21 ± 3.5
24 ± 3.1
Trunk tilt sideways left (deg)
19 ± 1.4
21 ± 1.6
*Significant differences at the 0.05 level
Table 2. Kinematic Analysis Parameters of the Maximum Angular Velocity
Kinematic Parameter Analysis
Backhand
Forehand
P-Value
Means ± SD
Means ± SD
Shoulder internal rotation (deg/s)
1623 ± 3.5
2111 ± 4.2
0.042*
Upper torso rotation (deg/s)
761 ± 1.2
782 ± 1.4
1.252
Pelvis rotation (deg/s)
421 ± 0.8
429 ± 0.9
1.566
Elbow extension (deg/s)
523 ± 1.1
995 ± 1.3
0.035*
Forearm Supination (deg/s)
642 ± 1.1
494 ± 1.3
0.024*
Wrist dorsi flexion (deg/s)
793 ± 2.1
855 ± 2.4
0.983
Trunk tilt forward (deg/s)
185 ± 3.5
199 ± 3.1
1.482
*Significant differences at the 0.05 level
Table 1 shows significant differences in three
variables of the nine kinematic parameters
analyzed in the maximal shoulder external
rotation phase. These include shuttlecock velocity
(P = 0.035), shoulder external rotation (P =
0.048), and wrist palmar flexion (P = 0.037).
These results show that the three variables for the
forehand smash have greater values than those for
the backhand smash.
Table 2 shows significant differences in three
variables of the seven kinematic parameters
analyzed in the maximum angular velocity phase
during the forehand smash. These include the
speed of the shoulder internal rotation (p = 0.042),
elbow extension (p = 0.035), and forearm
supination (p = 0.024). These results show that the
three variables for the forehand smash have
greater values than those for the backhand smash.
DISCUSSION
The obtained results showed a significant
difference in the maximum speed of the
shuttlecock produced during the forehand smash
compared to that during the backhand smash.
Other studies showed a positive contribution
between shuttlecock speed and wrist angular
velocity when making backhand and forehand
smashes. Meanwhile, the sequence pattern of
upper limb joint rotation at the beginning of the
backswing phase up to the moment of impact is
similar in the two smash techniques. The shoulder
joint rotation velocity was higher than that of the
elbow joint. The wrist flexion angular velocity
was smaller than the elbow angular velocity.
These results are consistent with those of
Creveaux (23), where the upper limb motion
sequence starts with the rotation of the shoulder,
elbow, and wrist joints during backhand drives in
tennis. According to Rota (24), the major
contribution to racket speed is obtained from the
forearm supination rotation motion. (25) have
stated that the combination of shoulder internal
rotation and forearm supination provides
approximately a 53% support for the shuttlecock
speed during an overhead forehand smash. This
result is related to the backhand smash technique.
6 Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton
This result shows that forearm supination and
upper arm lateral rotation provide the maximum
bearing capacity to the speed of the racket swing
before the impact occurs (26).
Figure 3. Contribution of Shoulder Maximal External Rotation When the Racket is Swinging Backward (Source: Gordon)
(27)
Figure 4. Elbow Flexion–Extension Movement (Source: Gordon) (27)
A series of motion patterns in overhead forehand
and backhand smashes require linear and circular
velocity as well as an acceleration of the body
movement, shuttlecock, and racket swing. There are
few studies on badminton that explain the
movements of forehand and backhand overhead
smash stroke techniques. However, the study by
Gordon (27) analyzed the contribution of upper
limb joint rotation velocity during the tennis serve.
It has been stated that the backward maximal
shoulder external rotation is the initial momentum,
which produces a larger forward shoulder internal
rotation force (28). This movement results in a
greater racket speed, as shown in Figure 3.
Furthermore, the joint velocity during elbow
extension is significantly higher, especially
during the forehand smash. This result is
consistent with the one in the study conducted by
Reid (29) on the tennis serve. It has been reported
that elbow joint provides positive support for
racket speed. During the elbow extension motion,
Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton 7
the faster the elbow rotates, the higher is the
produced force on the motion of the upper arm
and racket. This occurs before the impact on the
shuttlecock, as shown in Figure 4. Furthermore,
the elbow extension motion contributes
approximately 30% to the racket speed (6).
Another joint rotation that affects racket speed is
the arm velocity during the radio–ulnar pronation
motion (27). This movement pattern is especially
present in the group of players with high technical
skills. Meanwhile, novices usually do not perform
this motion. Therefore, it is not surprising that
professional players produce shuttlecock speeds
that are much greater than those of amateurs.
CONCLUSION
From the obtained results, it is concluded that
the shuttlecock speed during the forehand smash
is greater than that during the backhand smash.
During maximal shoulder external rotation, the
forehand smash has a significant difference in
three variables including shuttlecock velocity,
shoulder external rotation, and wrist palmar
flexion. Furthermore, shoulder internal rotation,
elbow extension, and forearm supination at
maximum angular velocity were higher when
performing a forehand smash. The shoulder
internal rotation and elbow joint velocity as well
as forearm supination significantly contribute to
the shuttlecock speed when performing the two-
stroke techniques.
APPLICABLE REMARKS
• The smash is a shot hit with power and speed
down to your opponent's court. The average
number of smashes executed in one match in
the men's single category was 69 strokes,
while for the women's singles category it was
51 strokes in All England Championship 2015.
• The technique to perform the badminton
backhand and forehand smashes is very
different from tennis or squash. In badminton,
the backhand and forehand stroke can be used
to perform powerful shots such as a tennis
serve to get points.
• Before hitting the backhand smash, make sure
that your arm is close to your body so as to get
a better swing while hitting the shuttlecock.
Use your non-racket arm to help you balance.
• The follow-through phase is an important
movement. Complete the swing action all the
way through. Use your non-racket arm to
maintain balance as you may lose balance
while performing this stroke.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia, the Ministry of Research,
Technology, and Higher Education,
INDONESIA for their supports.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest
regarding the publication of this study.
REFRENCES
1. Kuntze G, Mansfield N, Sellers W. A biomechanical analysis of common lunge tasks in badminton. J
Sports Sci. 2010;28(2):183-191. doi: 10.1080/02640410903428533 pmid: 20391092
2. Chow JY, Seifert L, Herault R, Chia SJ, Lee MC. A dynamical system perspective to understanding
badminton singles game play. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;33:70-84. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2013.07.016 pmid:
24075690
3. Barreira J, Chiminazzo JGC, Fernandes PT. Analysis of point difference established by winners and
losers in games of badminton. Int J Performance Anal Sport. 2016;16(2):687-694. doi:
10.1080/24748668.2016.11868916
4. Lam WK, Wong DW, Lee WC. Biomechanics of lower limb in badminton lunge: a systematic scoping
review. PeerJ. 2020;8:e10300. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10300 pmid: 33194445
5. McErlain-Naylor SA, Towler H, Afzal IA, Felton PJ, Hiley MJ, King MA. Effect of racket-shuttlecock
impact location on shot outcome for badminton smashes by elite players. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(21):2471-
2478. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1792132 pmid: 32662349
6. Martin C, Sorel A, Touzard P, Bideau B, Gaborit R, DeGroot H, et al. Can the Open Stance Forehand
Increase the Risk of Hip Injuries in Tennis Players? Orthop J Sports Med.
2020;8(12):2325967120966297. doi: 10.1177/2325967120966297 pmid: 33354579
7. Rusdiana A, Subarjah H, Imanudin I, Kusdinar Y, M Syahid A, Kurniawan T. Effect of Fatigue on
Biomechanical Variable Changes in Overhead Badminton Jump Smash. Annal Appl Sport Sci.
2020;8(3):0-0. doi: 10.29252/aassjournal.895
8 Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton
8. Sakurai S, Ohtsuki T. Muscle activity and accuracy of performance of the smash stroke in badminton
with reference to skill and practice. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(11):901-914. doi:
10.1080/026404100750017832 pmid: 11144867
9. Li S, Zhang Z, Wan B, Wilde B, Shan G. The relevance of body positioning and its training effect on
badminton smash. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(4):310-316. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1164332 pmid:
27043765
10. Miller R, Felton PJ, Mcerlain-Naylor SA, Towler H, King MA. Optimum Performance in the Badminton
Jump Smash. 19702013.
11. Ooi CH, Tan A, Ahmad A, Kwong KW, Sompong R, Ghazali KA, et al. Physiological characteristics of
elite and sub-elite badminton players. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(14):1591-1599. doi:
10.1080/02640410903352907 pmid: 19967588
12. Abian-Vicen J, Castanedo A, Abian P, Sampedro J. Temporal and notational comparison of badminton
matches between mens singles and womens singles. Int J Performance Anal Sport. 2013;13(2):310-320.
doi: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868650
13. Alexandros M, Christina K, Nikolaos G, Konstantinos M. Effectiveness of backhand with one and two
hands in teaching adult men beginners in tennis. J Physic Educat Sport. 2013;13(3):415-418. doi:
10.7752/jpes.2013.03066
14. Kolman NS, Kramer T, Elferink-Gemser MT, Huijgen BCH, Visscher C. Technical and tactical skills
related to performance levels in tennis: A systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(1):108-121. doi:
10.1080/02640414.2018.1483699 pmid: 29889615
15. Genevois C, Reid M, Rogowski I, Crespo M. Performance factors related to the different tennis backhand
groundstrokes: A review. J Sport Sci Med. 2014;14(1):194-202.
16. Wu SK, Gross MT, Prentice WE, Yu B. Comparison of ball-and-racquet impact force between two tennis
backhand stroke techniqes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001;31(5):247-254. doi:
10.2519/jospt.2001.31.5.247 pmid: 11352191
17. Mavvidis A, Metaxas T, Riganas C, Koronas K. Speed differences between forehand and backhand in
intermediate tennis players. Kinesiol. 2005;37:159-163.
18. Phomsoupha M, Laffaye G. Shuttlecock velocity during a smash stroke in badminton evolves linearly
with skill level. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014;17 Suppl 1:140-141. doi:
10.1080/10255842.2014.931550 pmid: 25074204
19. Nesbit SM, Elzinga M, Herchenroder C, Serrano M. The effects of racket inertia tensor on elbow
loadings and racket behavior for central and eccentric impacts. J Sport Sci Med. 2006;5(2):304-317.
20. Taha Z, Hassan MSS, Yap HJ, Yeo WK. Preliminary Investigation of an Innovative Digital Motion
Analysis Device for Badminton Athlete Performance Evaluation. Procedia Engin. 2016;147(461-5). doi:
10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.341
21. Hong Y, Wang SJ, Lam WK, Cheung JT. Kinetics of badminton lunges in four directions. J Appl
Biomech. 2014;30(1):113-118. doi: 10.1123/jab.2012-0151 pmid: 23878207
22. Iino Y, Kojima T. Kinetics of the upper limb during table tennis topspin forehands in advanced and
intermediate players. Sports Biomech. 2011;10(4):361-377. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2011.629304 pmid:
22303787
23. Creveaux T, Dumas R, Hautier C, Rogowski I. Joint kinetics to assess the influence of the racket on a
tennis player's shoulder. Journal of Sports Science and Med. 2013;12(2):259-266.
24. Rota S, Morel B, Saboul D, Rogowski I, Hautier C. Influence of fatigue on upper limb muscle activity
and performance in tennis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014;24(1):90-97. doi:
10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.10.007 pmid: 24239164
25. Rogowski I, Creveaux T, Cheze L, Mace P, Dumas R. Effects of the racket polar moment of inertia on
dominant upper limb joint moments during tennis serve. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104785. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0104785 pmid: 25117871
26. Fu L, Ren F, Baker JS. Comparison of Joint Loading in Badminton Lunging between Professional and
Amateur Badminton Players. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2017;2017:5397656. doi: 10.1155/2017/5397656
pmid: 28694684
27. Gordon BJ, Dapena J. Contributions of joint rotations to racquet speed in the tennis serve. J Sports Sci.
2006;24(1):31-49. doi: 10.1080/02640410400022045 pmid: 16368612
Kinematics Analysis of Techniques in Badminton 9
28. Maeda RS, Cluff T, Gribble PL, Pruszynski JA. Compensating for intersegmental dynamics across the
shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints during feedforward and feedback control. J Neurophysiol.
2017;118(4):1984-1997. doi: 10.1152/jn.00178.2017 pmid: 28701534
29. Reid M, Elliott B, Crespo M. Mechanics and learning practices Associated with the Tennis forehand: A
review. J Sport Sci Med. 2013;12(2):225-231.