Badminton: The whip action and loosening up to speed up

 So I noticed that especially when I get frustrated in a game, I will tend to try to "push" shots with the more initial, "bigger" parts of my kinetic chain. People call this, "muscling the shot". Meaning, say in a backhand, I will try to push harder with my arm instead of letting go and letting my wrist take care of the rest. It's this insistence on "more muscle = more power" that is absolutely false in badminton. 

As a test, try the backhand lift. How this should feel is that upon the completion of the move, the arm wants to fly up due to the momentum despite the arm being completely relaxed. That's because energy transfer occurred efficiently: nearly all the energy from the arm transferred to the racket, and the racket now wants to pull the arm up. That's how pretty much ALL shots should be. 

Why? Well try muscling a backhand tap drive. You'll notice that the while accelerating, the wrist is not nearly able to generate that speed, effectively springing off of the forearm rotationally and absorbing that energy from the forearm. That's because it requires more force to complete a shot against that acceleration. It's like jumping off of an accelerating platform. 

It's better instead to apply just the right amount of forward force with your arm so that you wrist stays stationary and absorbs the maximal amount of energy while it is uncoiling. Why? I'm not completely sure. 

All I can say is that when it comes to the stretch-shortening cycle, it's better not to fuck with the forces. For example, don't try to force pronation to go faster by either directly attempting to add additional muscle to a pronation or adding forward acceleration to your arm and trying to press the whole thing forward, which would be accompanied by either: 1. attempted additional muscling of the pronation leading to a weaker shot or 2. slowing down of the pronation movement, leading to incomplete and bad shot. 

If you do 1, you're essentially composing motions. This defeats the purpose of the whip action: the cue is to break up your motion into independent segments. Example: When the body is done rotating, it only serves as a foundation for energy transfer into the arm. And when the arm is done accelerating, it too should stop and only hold enough force to pass its energy down to the forearm, then forearm to pronation, etc. This way a slow, large bank of energy gets transferred into a small, fast bank of energy. That's how you generate speed, and that's the idea of badminton shots (and trebuchets). The SSC is the same concept, but with elasticity: it's capable of converting a lot of potential energy into speed, but only under certain conditions. If you mess with it it doesn't work. 

This idea seems to work for basically any shot: the overhead forehand, backhand, drives, lifts. The shot I'm not completely sure about is the forehand drive, the one shot that seems like more muscle rather than the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). 

Learning: Memory as a component, and prep work in cooking

So I ran across this yesterday.

You know, a math professor I really respect liked to say that "Intelligence is just structured memory". And he's right. Memory is so important, just like prep work is an important part of cooking. 

At some point during high school though I started scoffing at the notion of memorizing things, and the attitude grew with me during college as well. I think it was when I started getting more into philosophy and mathematics that I prioritized the generating of thoughts and ideas, and processing/understanding them as way more important than memory. I rebelled hard against that Asian ideal of rote memorization, and sort of demonized it in my head.

Yes, learning is about understanding and not just about memory. But you need memory, some kind of memory, or else you'll never actually learn anything, you won't change. It's like saying that cooking is not prep work and dicing vegetables and glorifying all the master chef work, recipe research, with absolute disregard for anything that happens before.

But anyone who cooks knows that prep is extremely important, mise en place is extremely important. How you do it is important -- cutting vegetables and meat into even pieces, placing things so as to reduce cognitive load when doing the "cook" part. 

There is a direct relation to learning and thinking as well: you need to have stuff memorized, like really well-memorized, if you want to make sure you don't think in circles, waste time, miss things and misunderstand things and just learn very inefficiently in general. Memorizing provides the foundation for the processing later on, much like the processor works with bits in memory or the cook works with evenly cubed carrots for his curry. 

At some point I forgot this. Or perhaps it's better to say I never actually learned it. Either way, I got into the habit of learning like how I cook now: doing the memory part as an afterthought (most of the time less than an afterthought because I never consciously gave it any thought) only when I absolutely needed it at the time. Although I've gotten better at this, during cooking I often forget to prep and start getting the spices out, looking for stuff, chopping vegetables while something's already in the pan. There's basically no structure to that at all, no thought to optimization. Particularly because I discount the holistic important of memory and focus on the method that I feel is "right" because it appeals to my philosophy and sense of beauty. Prep work is gross, memorizing things is inglorious. Almost a Heidegger-esque revulsion to "manual" labor. 

But when I do have quick-access to things in memory, particularly the very ingrained, muscle-memory type, the processing goes a lot smoother since I don't have to shift my mental resources around trying to remember different things constantly. There's a lot less interrupts and my learning speed increases exponentially. In general, I think that although you shouldn't be stuck in the basics trying to perfect them forever, having a strong (or at least existent) foundation often exponentially increases your learning rate. 

Badminton: Learning with constraints and shortening the feedback cycle

I'm going to try constraining myself to "good form" and "solid footwork" first before allowing those "reach" shots. Honestly that's what 

This will serve the purpose of not only habitualizing proper footwork but also learning strategy and shot placement by making the consequences of poor shots more immediate, therefore shortening the feedback cycle. Also I'm pretty sure it also helps with lots of other things like racket position, general positioning, shot quality, etc. 

The idea, of course, applies to everything, not just badminton. Sometimes generalizing and de-constraining helps particularly when there is some elegant expression in the non-constrained space (for example, see "Long-term motor learning: Effects of varied and specific practice" , but oftentimes holding one variable fixed is better for working memory and feedback, and thus better for learning.

Classical music

 There's so much deep theory, so much deep stuff in the study of classical music. And pop music, despite being somewhat inspired by and based on the same theory, seems to just throw all that stuff out the window and start over.

But it actually kind of works, because pop music surprises me sometimes. It does new things all the time, perhaps by virtue of discarding the old entirely. And pop music is kind of fun to listen to.

This pattern happens all the time, though. Movies, shows, video games, what have you. Even food. 

It's this dynamic where a field advances to an extent and develops this massive history, culture, and depth and explores all kinds of things. It gets to a point, I guess, where it just becomes so obtuse and dense that the general populace doesn't care anymore and the popular stuff becomes relatively more "basic". 

The "snobs" look down on these works because they're basically things "they've seen before" -- I mean, not literally, because nobody has lived through thousands of years of music, but things that the "theory" has taught them.

And often it's when the pop stuff encroaches on the domain of the more complex that it often gets really good. This can be explained in terms of the dynamics, too... as the audience starts to re-learn, basically, the theory that already exists classically because they start getting numb to the "quick fix" effects and tire of the same old thing (e.g. people start getting tired of the same old superhero movies and explosions no longer give them the happy feels), they start demanding something with more substance and flavor and complexity (e.g. people actually like the new Joker). And then the classically trained folk look down on this because duh, this has already been done and you're raving about something we've known about and we've gotten over years ago (e.g. critics criticize the Joker for just being a rehash of Taxi Driver). 

And this is not just about music at all, some examples I can list off the top of my head: the rise of foodies, 

I guess this all fits into the theory of expert-layman dynamics, except we're talking about art and entertainment here and in this case the laymen are just as involved (typically in science there's no real "popular culture" around science. I mean there's pop science but that's a little different). 

Contexts and Seas

https://www.quantamagazine.org/emily-riehl-conducts-the-mathematical-orchestra-from-the-middle-20200902/

I wonder if chaos theory, or mathematics in general, had anything to do with how the dinosaurs got out. Did Dr. Malcolm know what he was talking about? Was he showboating? Both?

But then again, when does "mathematics in general" not have anything to do with anything? I wonder if mathematicians who work in dynamical systems sort of see the world differently, and they can just "see" certain things which seem magical to us.

Must be. Sometimes, knowledge global structure and dynamics yields really valuable insight about local patterns. Even things that seem chaotic locally often seem to admit some global pattern, right?  History gives us perspective into law and modern-day politics, evolutionary theory yields insights for psychology, sociology. 

It's sort of a Grothendieck-esque thing, I feel. One of my favorite analogies by Grothendieck is the following: 

"If you think of a theorem to be proved as a nut to be opened, so as to reach “the nourishing flesh protected by the shell”, then the hammer and chisel principle is: “put the cutting edge of the chisel against the shell and strike hard. If needed, begin again at many different points until the shell cracks—and you are satisfied”. He says: I can illustrate the second approach with the same image of a nut to be opened. The first analogy that came to my mind is of immersing the nut in some softening liquid, and why not simply water? From time to time you rub so the liquid penetrates better, and otherwise you let time pass. The shell becomes more flexible through weeks and months—when the time is ripe, hand pressure is enough, the shell opens like a perfectly ripened avocado!"

He imagined that a problem could be "submerged and dissolved by some more or less vast theory, going well beyond the results originally to be established". I think this is particularly striking, because that's how I imagine it -- a structure made of something loose, porous, and then some sea comes along which basically surrounds, marinates, penetrates, and incorporates this structure so that it's not literally the same, but rather the same thing viewed in a lager context. Something that is more "filled in" but at the same time more general, global, reaching beyond your initial world (the porous structure). 

Or maybe it's like never seeing a car before, and looking at a particular portion of it, perhaps the gearbox. You study the thing to death and do some really cool things with it, and then you are shown the whole car, the whole damn thing and you realize why the components are arranged the way they are, and why they HAVE to be like that. But I imagine that cars are not the only thing that use gearboxes, so there are even more ways to expand your concept of gearboxes. 

So I imagine that there are actually multiple "seas" that might encapsulate the same "structure" in different ways. 

Lately I've been wondering exactly how much I know, and judging by my "learning velocity" I know basically nothing. There's so many mind-opening things to be known, so many seas to immerse my models into. 

Badminton post: Good kinetic chain form and the forehand drive

I watched a kid doing training today and observed the way he hit the shuttle when he was doing forehand drives or other non-full-power forehand shots.

Basically, the correct motion is to do a sort of a "push", your arm coming forward and your wrist flying back (relative to the elbow) and then coming forward. It might feel as if you're "slicing" the shuttle from under it, but if you time it right it actually won't slice. Another key point is that a little bit of downward motion with the forearm is OK. The racket still has some upward trajectory because of the wrist, so in combination there is hardly any slicing. That's why it often looks like good players are almost slicing the shuttle. 

Of course if you have less time, you're going to need to tighten up the wrist, and there will be a lot less backstroke, especially at the wrist level. So it won't be this "looser", larger, and more powerful, stroke. That goes with any stroke -- for a properly executed stroke with "good kinetic chain form", a quicker, less powerful stroke corresponds with more tightness along the kinetic chain, but still the same idea holds: propagation of momentum and energy from the base (closed end of the kinetic chain), along the joints (leg drive, hip rotation, torso rotation, shoulder rotation, elbow flexing, wrist flexing or wrist pronation) to the end effector (the racket). 

The following is a page from my OneNote on badminton technique: 

Try not to execute any stroke with an "open kinetic chain". If you have to, at least make sure to generate enough of a "base" so that your shot feels good.

 

You must first prioritize this quality above power. Because this is actually where power comes from. It must come from the base of your kinetic chain and propagate outward (and yes, this means you need to work on proper footing and footwork too). By forcing yourself to do it properly, you will learn to plan your movement to accommodate this.

 

This is one of the biggest differences between trained players vs players with bad habits.

 

 

 

Exercise: Focusing on accuracy

What helped me was just purely focusing my attention on making sure the shot was executed with good kinetic form. Practice forehand drives and forehand lifts without worrying about your power output. Instead, focus on the quality of the shot (i.e. how it bounces off your racket without slicing) and the accuracy of the shot.

 

This is what Ice meant when he said to focus on the accuracy of the shot first. It's not necessarily about where the shot goes, but more that when you focus on accuracy instead of power, you'll think about your body and how it feels in relation to the shuttle and the racket. You'll have to think and prepare for how you want to hit the shot, because accuracy doesn't come without thought. On the other hand, power often comes without thought -- it comes via instinct, strength, muscle, emotion. But… that's only true for very very basic things, not with complex movements like badminton. In badminton, power comes from proper form + time (see below) much like a lot of things. By taking your mind off of power, you forget your instinct and patterns and go into a "learning mode" where you are perceptive about your own sphere of control and the feedback and adjust accordingly.

 

Cue/Check

When you do it right, you'll feel that you're executing the shot with your body, not your wrist or elbow or fingers or wherever. You won't feel unnecessary tension and pain in your joints or muscles because you're trying to force a fast, powerful shot that doesn't exist and reinforcing the lack of kinetic planning and bad habits.

 

Corollary: Power is proportional to time

The interesting corollary to all of this is that if you're holding constant shot quality and accuracy (which is the most important) by executing the same consistent and optimal form, power becomes proportional to time. The only variable you have to play with is how much time you have to execute the shot.

 

And since the amount of time you have from the shot coming off of the opponent's racket and the shot being available to you is bounded by some figure, the only variables you can control are how quickly you're able to mentally process the shot, how prepared you are for the shot, and where you decide to take the shot.

Earning more time: Keeping your racket in position
Let's just discuss the preparation part because that's the easiest to fix. When coaches and others say "keep your racket up", this is what they mean. You will know when you're not doing it right because when you execute the stroke, it will feel as if you're fighting the inertia of the stroke. Remember Stroke: Kinetic Chain? You will feel "rushed" in having to put your racket into position against inertia, fight and cancel out the velocity that was generated while you rushed to raise your racket into position, then perform the stroke. However this requires extra movement because of that extra backwards velocity, so you're going to have to perform a longer stroke (power is proportional to time). That means either you eke out a terrible quality shot that goes outside or just perform a weak shot.

 

So what do you do? Just keep that racket "in position"! And by "in positiion", I mean keep it in a position where you'll have to move it very minimally to get it into the right spot. And that means you actually need to pay attention to where you think the shuttle is going to come very fast where you'll have little time to line up a shot. Think about all the shots you may have to perform, and either imagine or actually experiment whether it's possible to do a shot that is:

1. Quick enough
2. Proper form (kinetic chain is properly engaged with maximal energy transfer)

Focus units

 Watched this video the other day. It's all about focus, and how to manage it -- kind of a game changer, even though I had supposedly learned this lesson before. I read Deep Work and all that, so I should know all about treating your mind as a resource, and managing it efficiently, effectively, blah blah.

 But you know... we forget lessons all the time. That's what practice is for, to drill known concepts into "muscle memory", unconscious processing, habit (that's why they're called drills, I guess) (also on another note... practice doesn't always make perfect). The Power of Habit anyone? And that's what churches are for. It's not enough to tell people once, even if they totally agree with your message during a fiery revival and have some sort of awakening/revelation. That shit happens to me all the time* and it lasts two weeks at best. Not religious revelations, although sometimes it feels spiritual.. 

Anyways, back to focus. The main thing I took from this video, aside from remembering how focus works, was why I had trouble actually implementing the lesson. You see, if I know one thing about myself it's my neuroticism and small working memory. That's two things. And that's a terrible combination with my tendency to worry about missing or failing at anything, so I try to take everything on. That's three. Further I attribute every failure to personal weakness, so I either get dejected or reject the feedback and attempt to delude myself or blame the problem, the situation, or others. Okay, four things and a half. On top of that, I refuse to reach out for help or advice because technically that's also personal weakness. Five things and a half. Also, I sometimes like to gimp myself by insisting I do things, but without using X. Just for fun and generality. Six. 

So when you put 2 and 1 and 1.5 and 1 and .5 together, you get a guy trying to juggle 4 balls and a knife and a torch with one arm, terrible form, while constantly worrying and beating himself up with the other arm or just throwing a tantrum when he drops the ball, causing even more balls to drop, yet still insisting that he can juggle them all while taking on even more balls and doing the same thing over and over. Definition of insanity much? 

Watching this video made me realize that I'm allowed to let myself focus on juggling one ball at a time, and in fact that's pretty much the only way I'm going to get things done. It reminded me how much I actually love focusing, if only I would let myself. It did this my making me face the hard truth that actually I'm finite, and suck just like everyone else and I should just allow myself the pleasure of focusing on something rather than somethings and quit setting physically unattainable nth dimensional bars for myself. Yes, we all suck. If some people look like they suck less it's actually because they accepted the suck and figured out how to make the best out of it. Probably. I mean I'd hate to think that it's just me who sucks.

*More like once every few months, but you get my point