Printer Friendly

Kinematic description of elite vs. low level players in team-handball jump throw.

Introduction

In team-handball, the objective of the game is to score goals. To succeed in an attempt to score a goal, a team-handball player must maximize the precision of the throw as well as ball release speed. This is especially true when throwing from a distance of more than 8 m from the goal (backcourt position). It is well known that team-handball players use different throwing techniques based on their playing position and it is dictated by the movements of the defensive players. Previous studies of team-handball throws (Fradet et al., 2004; Gorostigia et al., 2005; Joris et al., 1985; Pori et al., 2005; Sibila et al., 2003; Van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2004; 2007; Wagner and Muller, 2008) analyzed standing throws, standing throws with run-up, jump throws, and identified the ball release speed as the main performance factor determining the throwing movement. From these three different throwing techniques, the jump throw is the most frequently applied throwing technique in the game of team-handball. Wagner et al. (2008) found that 73-75% of all throws during the competitive team-handball game are jump throws. Although the jump throw is the most applied throwing technique in team-handball, a comprehensive analysis of 3D-kinematics of the team-handball jump throw is lacking.

However, Gorostiaga et al. (2005) analyzed team-handball players of different performance levels and found that age and body weight contributed significantly to differences in ball release speed during standing and three-step running throws. We also hypothesize that significant differences will be found in ball release speed in the team-handball jump throw, body height, and body weight between team-handball players of different performance levels.

Three-dimensional kinematics of the team-handball standing throw were investigated by Fradet et al. (2004), van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004; 2007) and Wagner and Muller (2008). Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2007) found that the angular velocity of the internal shoulder rotation at ball release and the maximal elbow extension contribute greatly to the ball release speed. Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004) suggested that 67% of the ball release speed was explained by the summation effects from the velocity of elbow extension and internal rotation of the shoulder. Significant differences in ball release speed and maximal internal rotation and wrist flexion angular velocity between two team-handball players of different performance levels were found by Wagner and Muller (2008). Team-handball players are familiar with the standing throw as well as the jump throw, although only the jump throw is used frequently during training and competition. We hypothesize that significant differences will be found between groups of different performance levels in the jump throw, specifically regarding the throwing arm and trunk angular velocities and their timing. After reviewing the studies of van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004; 2007) and Wagner and Muller (2008) we decided to analyze flexion/extension and rotation movements in the upper body.

Therefore, the aims of the study were: (1) to measure differences in ball release speed in team-handball jump throw and anthropometric parameters between groups of different performance levels and (2) to analyze upper body 3D-kinematics in the team-handball jump throw to determine significant differences between groups of different performance levels in the jump throw, specifically the throwing arm and trunk flexion/extension and rotation angular velocities and their timing. The findings Kinematics of team-handball jump throw of our study should provide new insights into the jump throw in team-handball and assist coaches in improving the performance of their athletes.

Methods

Participants

Twenty-six male volunteers (mean age: 21.2 [+ or -] 5.0 years, body weight: 76.9 [+ or -] 11.3 kg, body height: 1.81 [+ or -] 0.07 m, training experience: 6.8 [+ or -] 5.2 years) participated in our study. All participants were physically healthy, in good physical condition and reported no injuries during the time of the study. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and all participants signed informed consent.

Participants were recruited from the Austrian National Handball Team (n = 5), adults (n = 6), juniors (n = 5), youth (n = 5) from a Regional Handball Team, and sport students (n = 5). The performance level of the participants based on their experience and performance in competition was determined by 5 experienced team-handball coaches (licensed coaches). The performance level (Table 1) for each participant was rated from one (players of the Austrian National Handball Team) to level six (novice with no or little experience in competition). Performance level was rated by the 5 coaches before testing and independent of throwing performance. After this procedure, two groups with different levels of performance were established. Level 1, 2 and 3 players were grouped together as elite team-handball players (performance level: 1.8 [+ or -] 0.8; training experience: 11.6 [+ or -] 3.2 years) and level 4, 5 and 6 players were grouped together as low level players (performance level: 5.1 [+ or -] 0.9; training experience: 2.7 [+ or -] 1.9 years).

Test protocol

After a general and a team-handball specific warm up of 20 min the participants performed vertical team-handball jump throws. To confirm that the jump throw was a vertical jump throw, the horizontal difference between take off and landing may not exceed more than 2 m. The participants were instructed to throw the ball (IHF Size 3) onto a target at 8 m distance, and to hit the center of a square of 1 x 1 m at about eye level (1.75 m), with maximum ball release speed. The subsequent evaluation was used only for those throws that hit the target. The participants had to continue to throw until 10 jump throws per participant were achieved. Of these 10 throws the six with the highest ball release speed for each player were included in the calculation.

Kinematic analysis

The experimental set-up consisted of a Vicon MX13 motion capture system (Vicon Peak, Oxford, UK) including eight cameras sampling at 250 frames per second. For kinematic analysis, 39 reflective markers of 14 mm diameter were attached to specific anatomical landmarks (Plug-In Gait Marker Set, Vicon Peak, Oxford, UK) of every participant. Three-dimensional coordinates of the 39 markers were reconstructed with the Nexus software (Nexus 1.3, Vicon, Oxford, UK) and smoothed using cross validation splines (Woltring, 1986). To calculate the joint centre positions, we used a three-dimensional model (Plug In Gait Model, Vicon Peak, Oxford, UK) dividing the body into lower and upper body models (Davis et al., 1991). The lower body model was defined as a system of rigid bodies including the pelvis and the left and right femur, tibia and foot (Kadaba et al., 1990) and the upper body model included the thorax, head, the left and right humerus, radius and hand (Rab et al., 2002). Leg length, shoulder offset, elbow and wrist width, and hand thickness were measured for each participant to identify joint centres. Head and thorax origins were calculated using each of the four markers constituting the segment. The orientation of these segments was identified by calculating three orthogonal axes directions (x-axis sagittal, y-axis transverse and z-axis longitudinal; Figure 1). Two of these axis directions were calculated directly from the marker data, and the third was determined perpendicularly to the plane defined by the direction of these two axes. The shoulder joint centers were calculated from the thorax segments using the measured shoulder offset (the longitudinal distance from the shoulder marker to the shoulder joint centre). To calculate the upper extremity joint centers from the proximal to distal direction we used joint centers of the proximal segments, the markers of the joints, the wand markers of the segments (to determine the plane) and the joint widths (elbow and wrist width) to determined the distance from the joint markers to the joint centers. The orientations of the extremity segments were labeled by the longitudinal axis (Figure 1), the transverse axis (from the distal joint centre to the distal joint marker) and the perpendicular sagittal axis, with the distal joint centre as the origin.

Angle calculations

Three-dimensional joint angles (Cardan angles) were calculated by the relative orientation of the proximal and distal segments. The joint flexion angles (shoulder, elbow, and wrist flexion) were the angles determining the longitudinal axes of the proximal and distal segments (Figure 2). The angle directions were defined as positive for shoulder, elbow and wrist flexion and negative for shoulder and wrist hyperextension. The shoulder internal-external rotation angle was defined as the rotation of the humerus along the longitudinal axis of the humerus (Figure 2). A positive value corresponds to an internally rotated humerus. The forearm pronation and supination was calculated between the sagittal axis of the hand and the sagittal axis of the radius, where a positive value corresponded to a forearm pronation. Trunk rotation angle was defined between the sagittal axis of the thorax and those of the sagittal axis ([X.sub.Global]) of the measurement field (Figure 2). Finally, the trunk flexion was calculated between the projected sagittal thorax axis and the sagittal ([X.sub.Global]) of the measurement field (Kadaba et al., 1990; Rab et al., 2002). Our utilized method was similar to those used in recent studies (Fradet et al., 2004; Van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2007) analyzing kinematics of the team-handball throw, and identical to those used for bowling (Ranson et al., 2008) and the volleyball spike jump (Tilp et al., 2008; Wagner et al., 2009). The measurement accuracy of our model is described in Tilp et al. (2008) and the reliability of the kinematic variables in Ranson et al. (2008).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Phase classification

In our study, the measured jump throws were separated into 3 different phases. These 3 phases depend on the phase separation for the team-handball standing throw (van den Tillar and Ettema, 2004; 2007). We termed the arm cocking phase as the time lag between the moment when the knee flexion angle became maximal (same side as throwing arm) and before the ball speed dramatically increases (the difference between ball release speed and the velocity of the centre of mass becomes positive). The maximal knee flexion angle was chosen because this occurrence was easily detectable and corresponds to the moment when the throwing arm moved backward. The arm acceleration phase corresponds with the phase of increasing ball release speed and was defined as the time lag from the end of the arm cocking phase until ball release. The arm deceleration phase was defined as the time lag between ball release and the moment when the shoulder internal rotation angle has a local minimum angle (Figure 3).

Angular velocity and ball release speed

Angular velocities were calculated using the 5-point central difference method (Feltner and Dapena, 1989). To measure the ball release speed, the linear velocity of the centre of the ball was calculated and the centre of the ball was defined as the middle point of 2 markers that were positioned on the opposite sides of the ball (Figure 1). To determine the moment of ball release, the distance between the centre of the ball and the hand marker (head of the second metatarsal) was calculated. The distance between the centre of the ball and the hand marker increases abruptly at ball release (van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2007).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 15.0. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Means and standard deviations of the variables were calculated for descriptive statistics. Six groups of variables were used for statistical analysis: 1) performance (ball release speed, body height and weight), 2) maximal rotation angular velocity (trunk internal rotation, shoulder internal rotation and forearm pronation), 3) maximal flexion/extension angular velocity (trunk flexion, shoulder flexion, elbow extension and wrist flexion), 4) angular velocity at ball release (trunk flexion and shoulder internal rotation), 5) timing of the maximal rotation (trunk internal rotation, shoulder internal rotation and forearm pronation) and 6) timing of the maximal flexion/extension angular velocity variables (trunk flexion, shoulder flexion, elbow extension and wrist flexion). Multivariate linear models were calculated to determine if all variables within a group of variables differ significantly between elite and low level players. If the multivariate analysis resulted in a significant difference, (p < 0.05) independent t-tests (post-hoc test) were calculated for all variables within this group. Significance was set at (p < 0.05) and effect size ([[eta].sub.2]) was defined as small for [[eta].sub.2] > 0.01, medium for [[eta].sub.2] > 0.09 and large for [[eta].sub.2] > 0.25 (Cohen, 1988).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Results

Mean ([+ or -]SD) values of ball release speed, body height and weight, statistical results of the multivariate group analysis of performance and results of independent t-tests are depicted in Table 2. Significant differences with a large effect (p < 0.001, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.64, 1-[beta] = 0.99) were found for the performance between elite and low level players. Independent t-tests showed significant differences between elite and low level players in ball release speed (p < 0.001, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.62, 1-[beta] = 1.00), body height (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.18, 1-[beta] = 0.60) and body weight (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.24, 1-[beta] = 0.74).

The mean ([+ or -]SD) values of the maximal angular velocities and the angular velocities at ball release are listed in Table 3. Multivariate group analysis showed significant differences with a large effect size between elite and low level players for the maximal rotation angular velocities (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.31, 1-[beta] = 0.67), maximal flexion/extension angular velocities (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.44, 1-[beta] = 0.85), and angular velocities at ball release (p < 0.01, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.41, 1-[beta] = 0.92). In detail, significant differences were found between the two groups of participants for the maximal trunk internal rotation (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.16, 1-[beta] = 0.52), forearm pronation (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.20, 1-[beta] = 0.65) and trunk flexion angular velocity (p < 0.01, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.36, 1-[beta] = 0.94), as well as trunk flexion (p < 0.05, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.37, 1-[beta] = 0.95) and shoulder internal rotation angular velocity (p < 0.01, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.16, 1-[beta] = 0.54) at ball release.

The mean ([+ or -]SD) values for the timing of the maximal angular velocities are shown in Table 4. Multivariate group analysis revealed no significant differences between elite and low level players for rotation (p = 0.19, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.19, 1-[beta] = 0.39) and flexion/extension timing (p = 0.07, [[eta].sub.2] = 0.33, 1-[beta] = 0.62).

Proximal-to-distal sequencings (mean [+ or -] SD values of all participants) of the maximal angular velocities in the jump throw in team-handball are depicted in Figure 3 (2-8).

Discussion

Ball release speed, body height and weight

As with previous studies in team handball (Gorostiaga et al., 2005; van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2006a, Wagner and Muller, 2008) we found significant differences in ball release speed between elite and low level players (Table 2). The results of our study confirm that ball release speed is the main important factor determining throwing performance in team handball. The elite players in our study achieved ball release speed of 22.3 [+ or -] 1.5 m x [s.sup.-1] which are lower but comparable to those described by Pori et al. (2005) for Slovenian National Handball Team players (24.0 [+ or -] 1.4 m/s) and Sibila et al. (2003) for Slovenian elite team-handball players (24.1 [+ or -] 1.3 m-s-1) when performing a jump throw. Therefore, the level of our elite players is comparable to international level players.

Relevant statistical differences between elite and low level players were also found in body height and body weight (Table 2). We suggest that team-handball players of higher body height and weight have the ability to achieve a higher ball release speed in the jump throw. These results support our experience associated with elite team-handball players, (particularly backcourt players, who have to throw with high ball release speed), weigh more than 90 kg and are taller than 1.90 m. The advantage of height and weight was also evident as the Olympic Champion 2008, France, whose backcourt players weighed 96.5 [+ or -] 7.7kg, and were 1.93 [+ or -] 0.05m tall as listed in the official homepage of the International Handball Federation (IHF). These anthropometric characteristics may be the precondition for higher ball release speed in the jump throw because of longer moment arms and muscles that may be responsible for greater strength and power. Gorostiaga et al. (2005) found significant differences in body weight, maximal strength, muscle power output of the upper extremity muscles and team-handball throwing velocity between Spanish male elite and amateur handball players.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Maximal angular velocities

The results of our study are in agreement with other studies in team-handball (van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2004; 2007; Wagner and Muller, 2008) regarding the maximal angular velocities of the throwing arm. Maximal angular velocities of shoulder internal rotation, elbow extension and wrist flexion of our elite as well as low level players (Table 3) were higher than those found by van den Tillaar and Ettema (2007) (shoulder: 3426 [+ or -] 838[degrees]/s; elbow: 1430 [+ or -] 246[degrees]/s; wrist: 568 [+ or -] 193[degrees]/s) for the standing throw in team-handball and lower than those found by Wagner and Muller (2008). A world class team-handball player reaches a maximal angular velocity of shoulder internal rotation of 8130 [+ or -] 1200[degrees]/s and a ball release speed of 25.1 [+ or -] 0.8 m/s during a standing throw. Because of the difference in the shoulder internal rotation angular velocity between a world class team-handball players (Wagner and Muller, 2008) and Austrian (Wagner and Muller, 2008) as well as Norwegian top and first class players (van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2007) it was surprising that we were not able to determine significant differences in the maximal shoulder internal rotation angular velocity between elite and low level players in the present study. Elite as well as low level players were able to reach a shoulder internal rotation angular velocity of approximately 5000[degrees]/s. We suggested that the ability to reach a shoulder internal rotation angular velocity of more than 7000[degrees]/s is limited to just a few players worldwide, which are able to throw the ball faster than 25 m/s in the jump throw in team-handball.

However, van den Tillaar and Ettema (2007) found a significant correlation between ball release speed and angular velocity of the shoulder internal rotation at ball release (r = 0.67, p = 0.024) for the standing team-handball throw. In our study, we hypothesized to find significant differences in the shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at ball release between elite vs. low level players, which could be confirmed in our results shown in Table 3. Elite vs. low level players differ significantly in the shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at ball release. Based on the results of van den Tillaar and Ettema (2007) and our study of team-handball players, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of the angular velocity of shoulder internal rotation at ball release.

As shown in Figure 4, we found that participants who reached a lower ball release speed may have the ability to produce a high maximal angular velocity of shoulder internal rotation but not at ball release (Figure 4, participant # 26). Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2006b) stated that the angular velocity of shoulder internal rotation in the team-handball standing throw with a skilled vs. an unskilled arm produced significantly different values at ball release (skilled: 2555 [+ or -] 991[degrees]/s, unskilled: 1220 [+ or -] 728[degrees]/s). Therefore, we postulate that the ability to reach the maximal angular velocity of shoulder internal rotation at the right time (near ball release) may be achieved by effective coaching.

In our study, we found no significant differences between elite vs. low level players in the team-handball jump throw for the shoulder flexion, elbow extension and wrist flexion. It was surprising to find an increase in the maximal forearm pronation angular velocity of the low level players compared to the elite players because we hypothesized to find higher maximal angular velocities in the elite vs. low level players. Because the ball release speed of the low level players compared to the elite players was lower, the ability to reach a higher maximal forearm pronation angular velocity may not be a performance determining parameter in team-handball jump throw or may be counterproductive when attempting to reach a higher ball release speed. Further studies analyzing the forearm and finger movements during team-handball throwing are warranted to measure the influence of the forearm pronation on the energy flow from the forearm to the fingers and the ball.

The importance of the fast trunk flexion to execute the team-handball jump throw was indicated by the significant differences of the maximal trunk flexion angular velocity and trunk flexion angular velocity at ball release between elite vs. low level players (Table 3). In our participants, we found that it was necessary for them to execute the trunk movement either with the proximal-to-distal sequence from the trunk to the throwing arm (Table 4 and Figure 2) or aquired as the result of experience and game competition. During competition, the throwing player during offense anticipates the strong defensive play from a defensive player and attempts to move the trunk forward as quickly as possible before the offensive player is attacked (immediately before ball release, which resulted in a higher trunk flexion angular velocity at ball release of the elite vs. low level players as shown in Table 3. The elite players with ample competition and training experience may have already habitually adopted this trunk movement and have exhibited the movement during testing.

However, significant differences between elite vs. low level players were also found in the maximal trunk internal rotation angular velocity. Elite players reached higher trunk internal rotation angular velocities than those with less experience in training and competition. We suggest that a dynamic trunk flexion and rotation is important to improve the performance in team-handball jump throws that resulted in an increase of ball release speed. This is new information enhancing recent studies (Fradet et al., 2004; Gorostigia et al., 2005; Joris et al., 1985; Muller, 1982; Pori et al., 2005; Sibila et al., 2003; Van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2004; 2007; Wagner and Muller, 2008) analyzing the throwing movement in team-handball and may be helpful for coaches in the training process. Trunk movements are normally well observable for experienced coaches, easy correctable and therefore practical to improve the performance in team-handball jump throw of low level players during training without using complex measurement devices.

Timing and proximal-to-distal sequencing

As shown in Table 4, we found no significant difference in the timing of the maximal rotation and flexion/extension trunk and throwing arm movements. Elite as well as low level players used a similar proximal-to-distal sequencing in the team-handball jump throw as shown in Figure 2. We suggest that the minimal requirement in team-handball throwing, a proximal-to-distal sequencing from the trunk to the upper arm, forearm and hand is detectable for all participants measured in the study.

Conclusion

We examined the team-handball jump throw that is the most often applied throwing technique in team-handball (Wagner et al., 2008). We found significant differences in ball release speed, body height and weight between elite and low level players. We suggest that team-handball players of higher body height and weight have the ability to achieve a higher ball release speed in the jump throw, which is in agreement with recent studies in team-handball (Gorostiaga et al. (2005). Significant differences between elite and low level players were also found in the maximal trunk flexion and trunk internal rotation angular velocity as well as the trunk flexion and shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at ball release. Whereas the importance of a high shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at ball release in the team-handball throwing performance were also shown by van den Tillaar and Ettema (2007). The differences in the trunk movements between elite vs. low level players give new insights into the jump throw in team-handball. We suggest that an increase in trunk flexion and rotation angular velocity improve the performance in team-handball jump throw that should result in an increase of ball release speed. The results of our study could aid coaches in improving the performance of their athletes; however, additional training studies in team-handball players are warranted.

Key points

* Team-handball players who were taller and of greater body weight have the ability to achieve a higher ball release speed.

* An increase in trunk flexion, trunk rotation and shoulder internal rotation angular velocity should result in an increase of ball release speed.

* Trunk movements are normally well observable for experienced coaches, easy correctable and therefore practical to improve the performance in team-handball jump throw of low level players during training without using complex measurement devices.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Miriam Klous from the Department of Kinesiology, Motor Control Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University for assistance during data collection.

Received: 07 September 2009 / Accepted: 09 November 2009 / Published (online): 01 March 2010

References

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Davis, R.B., Ounpuu, S., Tyburski, D. and Gage, J.R. (1991) A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Human Movement Science 10, 575-587.

Feltner, M. and Dapena, J. (1989) Three-dimensional interactions in a two-segment kinetic chain. Part II: Application to the throwing arm in baseball pitching. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics 5, 420-450.

Fradet, L., Botcazou, M., Durocher, C., Cretual, A., Multon, F., Prioux, J. and Delamarche P. (2004) Do handball throws always exhibit a proximal-to-distal segment sequence? European Journal of Sport Science 22, 439-447.

Gorostiaga, E.M., Granados, C., Ibanez, J. and Izquierdo M. (2005) Differences in physical fitness and throwing velocity among elite and amateur male handball players. International Journal of Sports Medicine 37, 225-232.

Joris, H.J.J., Edwards van Muyen, A.J., van Ingen Schenau, G.J. and Kemper, H.C.G. (1985) Force, velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. Journal of Biomechanics 18, 409-414.

Kadaba, M.P., Ramakrishnan, H.K. and Wooten, M.E. (1990) Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 8, 383-392.

Muller E. (1982) Movement transfers in throwing movements. Leistungssport, 12, 314-322. (In German).

Pori, P., Bon, M. and Sibila, M. (2005) Jump shot performance in team-handball. A kinematic model evaluated on the basis of expert modeling. International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Kinesiology 37, 40-49.

Rab, G., Petuskey, K. and Bagley, A. (2002) A method for determination of upper extremity kinematics. Gait and Posture 15, 113-119.

Ranson, C.A., Burnett, A.F., King, A., Patel, N. and O'Sullivan, P.B. (2008) The relationship between bowling action classification and three-dimensional lower trunk motion in fast bowlers in cricket. Journal of Sports Science 26, 267-276.

Sibila, M., Pori, P. and Bon, M. (2003) Basic kinematic differences between two types of jump shot techniques in handball. Acta Universita Palacki Olomuc 33, 19-26.

Tilp, M., Wagner, H. and Muller, E. (2008) Differences in 3D kinematics between volleyball and beach volleyball spike movements. Sports Biomechanics 7, 386-397.

Van den Tillaar, R. and Ettema, G. (2004) A Force-velocity relationship and coordination patterns in overarm throwing. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine 3, 211-219.

Van den Tillaar, R. and Ettema, G. (2006a) A comparison between novices and experts of the velocity-accuracy trade-off in over-arm throwing. Perceptual and Motor Skills 103, 503-514.

Van den Tillaar, R. and Ettema, G. (2006b) A comparison of performance and kinematics in throwing with the dominant and nondominent arm in handball players. 14th International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, 14-18 July, Salzburg-Austria. Proceedings. 165-168.

Van den Tillaar, R. and Ettema, G. (2007) A three-dimensional analysis of overarm throwing in experienced handball players. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 23, 12-19.

Wagner, H. and Muller, E. (2008) Motor learning of complex movements. The effects of applied training methods (differential and variable training) to the quality parameters (ball velocity, accuracy and kinematics) of a handball throw. Sports Biomechanics 7, 54-71.

Wagner, H., Kainrath, S. and Muller, E. (2008) Coordinative and tactical parameters of team-handball throw. The correlation of level of performance, throwing quality and selected technique-tactical parameters. Leistungssport 38(5), 35-41. (In German).

Wagner, H., Tilp, M., von Duvillard, S.P. and Muller, E. (2009) Kinematic analysis of volleyball spike jump. International Journal of Sports Medicine 30, 760-767.

Woltring, H.J. (1986) A FORTAN package for generalized cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentation. Advances Engineering Software 8, 104-113.

Herbert Wagner (1,2) [mail] Michael Buchecker (1,2), Serge P. von Duvillard (3) and Erich Muller (1,2)

(1) Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Austria, (2) CD-Laboratory "Biomechanics in Skiing", University of Salzburg, Austria, (3) Department of Physical Education and Biology, College of Idaho, USA

[mail] Dr. Herbert Wagner

Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Rifer Schlossallee 49, 5400 Hallein/Rif, Austria

Herbert WAGNER

Employment:

PostDoc at the Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, and CD-Laboratory "Biomechanics in Skiing", University of Salzburg, Austria

Degree

PhD

Research interests

Motor control and motor learning, movement variability, performance in sport games

E-mail: herbert.wagner@sbg.ac.at

Michael BUCHECKER

Employment

Research assistant and PhD candidate at the Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, and CD-Laboratory "Biomechanics in Skiing", University of Salzburg, Austria

Degree

MSc

Research interests

Applied Biomechanics, Rehabilitation, Training and Testing

E-mail: michael.buchecker@sbg.ac.at

Serge P. von DUVILLARD

Employment

College of Idaho

Degree

PhD, FACSM, FECSS

Research interests:

Applied/Exercise Physiology, Testing and Monitoring of Elite Athletes, Biomarkers of Performance, Exercise Biochemistry, Cardiac Patients and Rehabilitation, etc..

E-mail: skyblue@myenet.com

svonduvillard@collegeofidaho.edu

Erich MULLER

Employment

Head of the Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, and CD-Laboratory "Biomechanics in Skiing", University of Salzburg, Austria

Degree

PhD, Professor

Research interests

Biomechanics; Training and Coaching; Motor Learning

E-mail: erich.mueller@sbg.ac.at
Table 1. Classification of the level of performance.

                              Experience in
LOP       Team                competition              n

Level 1   Austrian National   First Austrian HL        1
          Handball Team       First German HL          3
                              First Spanish HL         1
Level 2   Regional Team       Second Austrian HL       2
                              Third German HL          2
Level 3   Regional Team       Third Austrian HL        2
          Junior Team         Third Austrian HL        1
Level 4   Junior Team         Austrian Junior Champ    4
Level 5   Youth Team          Austrian Youth Champ     4
Level 6   Youth Team          Less experience          1
          Sport Students      No experience (novice)   5

HL = Handball League. Champ = Championship

Table 2. Summary of performance variables (ball release speed),
body height and weight. Data are means ([+ or -] SD).

                                                        Low level
                                      Elite players      players
                                        (n = 12)         (n = 14)

Peformance ***
Ball release speed (m x [s.sup.-1])    22.3 (1.5)     18.0 (1.9) ***
Body height (m)                        1.85 (.08)     1.78 (.07) *
Body weight (kg)                         83 (12)        72 (9) *

                                        Effect size       Power
                                      ([[eta].sup.2])   (1-[beta])

Peformance ***                              .64            .99
Ball release speed (m x [s.sup.-1])         .62           1.00
Body height (m)                             .18            .60
Body weight (kg)                            .24            .74

* < 0.05, *** < 0.001.

Table 3. Summary of maximal rotation (trunk internal rotation,
shoulder internal rotation and forearm pronation) and flexion-
extension angular velocity ([degrees]/s) parameters (trunk
flexion, shoulder flexion, elbow extension and wrist flexion)
as well as parameters at ball release (trunk flexion, shoulder
internal rotation). Data are means ([+ or -] SD).

                              Elite players   Low level players
                                (n = 12)          (n = 14)

Rotation *
Max. trunk int. rotation        756 (52)         667 (138) *
Max. shoulder int. rotation    5039 (896)        4955 (1042)
Max. forearm pronation         1354 (491)       1954 (720) *
Flexion/extension *
Max. trunk flexion              474 (100)       328 (108) **
Max. shoulder flexion          1112 (219)        1046 (245)
Max. elbow extension           1626 (133)        1526 (241)
Max. wrist flexion              807 (166)         864 (445)
Ball release **
Trunk flexion                   258 (104)        128 (74) *
Shoulder internal rotation     4428 (1129)      3450(1177) **

                                Effect size       Power
                              ([[eta].sup.2])   (1-[beta])

Rotation *                          .31            .67
Max. trunk int. rotation            .16            .52
Max. shoulder int. rotation         .01            .06
Max. forearm pronation              .20            .65
Flexion/extension *                 .44            .85
Max. trunk flexion                  .36            .94
Max. shoulder flexion               .02            .11
Max. elbow extension                .06            .23
Max. wrist flexion                  .01            .07
Ball release **                     .41            .92
Trunk flexion                       .37            .95
Shoulder internal rotation          .16            .54

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Table 4. Summary of the timing (s) of the maximal rotation (trunk
internal rotation, shoulder internal rotation and forarm
pronation) and flexion-extension angular velocity variables
(trunk flexion, shoulder flexion, elbow extension and wrist
flexion). Data are means ([+ or -] SD).

                              Elite players    Low level players
                                 (n = 12)          (n = 14)

Rotation
Max. trunk int. rotation       -.087 (.018)      -.104 (.028)
Max. shoulder int. rotation    .003 (.003)        .005 (.006)
Max. forearm pronation         .012 (.010)        .016 (.011)
Flexion/extension *
Max. trunk flexion             -.051 (.020)      -.065 (.057)
Max. shoulder flexion          .051 (.005)        .038 (.035)
Max. elbow extension           -.018 (.014)      -.011 (.009)
Max. wrist flexion             .000 (.033)        .018 (.022)

                                Effect size       Power
                              ([[eta].sup.2])   (1-[beta])

Rotation                            .19            .39
Max. trunk int. rotation
Max. shoulder int. rotation
Max. forearm pronation
Flexion/extension *                 .33            .62
Max. trunk flexion
Max. shoulder flexion
Max. elbow extension
Max. wrist flexion

* p < 0.05.
COPYRIGHT 2010 Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research article
Author:Wagner, Herbert; Buchecker, Michael; von Duvillard, Serge P.; Muller, Erich
Publication:Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Article Type:Clinical report
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Mar 1, 2010
Words:5562
Previous Article:Prediction of sport adherence through the influence of autonomy-supportive coaching among Spanish adolescent athletes.
Next Article:The effects of intermittent exercise on physiological outcomes in an obese population: continuous versus interval walking.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters