# Statistical analysis of balance and anthropometric variables of male basketball players, ages 9-11.

IntroductionBasketball is a physically demanding team game with a variety of movements played by both sexes of all ages (H. Wissel, 2004, E. Uzicanin, 2008). These movements are based on running at different intensities and lengths of times, with sudden fluctuations in direction and speed, fast hand and feet movements, different kinds of jumps, throwing and catching the ball (S. Hatchell, 2006), as well as sudden stopping and starting. Moreover, these dynamic movements form the basis of fundamental basketball skills, such as shooting, passing, dribbling, rebounding, defending and moving both with and without the ball, all of which individual players must master to be successful in a team (H. Wissel, 2004). In order to effectively coordinate these movements and to achieve the maximum potential, athletes must master balance, which is essential for success in any sport (C. Sigmon, 2003, T. Emma, 2006).

Static balance can be defined as "... the ability to maintain a base of support with minimal movement" and dynamic balance as "...the ability to perform a task while maintaining a stable position" (D.A. Winter, A.E. Patla, J.S. Frank, 1990). In short, good balance means that an athlete's body is in control and has the capacity to make quick movements (M.P. Reiman, R.C. Manske, 2009). Balance is one of the most important attributes a player can possess (H. Wissel, 2004). After balance skills are mastered, other features, such as speed, agility, and explosiveness can be trained and developed to the fullest (T. Emma, 2006).

Anthropometric characteristics are also among one of the most significant factors that affect body movements and sports performance. In performance sports, such as basketball, physical characteristics particularly play a significant role in athletes and team success (C. Sen, C. Durgun, M.E. Kozanoglu, 2007). The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a relationship between body fat percentages and extremity segmental length (upper and lower) with balance in players, ages 9 to 11, of the Gazi University Junior Male Basketball Team.

Material and Methods

Results

Measurements

* Heights of athletes were measured using the Lafeyette measurement tool band on bare foot.

* Body weight measurements were taken using the Tanita brand scale, where, athletes only wore shorts.

* 3 variables: arm span, arm and leg were measured in centimeters using the Lafeyette measurement tool band.

* Skinfold measurements were taken using the Holtain brand skinfold caliper.

* Balance measurements were taken using the Lafayatte 16020 IRF/E stabilometer.

Measurement Methods

Skinfold Measurements:

Skinfold measurements were taken from 7 different areas: Triceps, Biceps, Chest, Scapula, iliac, Abdomen and Femur. Body fat percentages were calculated with the "Zorba" Formula (VY% = 0.99 + 0.0047 (body weight) + 0.132 (skinfold of 7 regions). Anthropometry Measurements:

Anthropometry measurements were taken from 3 areas: Arm Span, Arm and Leg. Balance Measurements:

Balance measurements involved the transfer of weight from right foot to left foot and left foot to right foot. These were repeated 3 times, the first one being the trial measurement. For these 3 measurements, the trial measurement for each direction was not taken into account and the greatest values of the latter 2 measurements were used in analysis of this study.

The measurements were recorded by reading the digital indications on the balance device. Each measurement took 30 seconds and the time during which the athlete was in balance was recorded in unit of seconds. Loss of balance measurements were calculated by subtracting the duration of maintained balance from 30 seconds, the maximum period.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed with SPSS v16.0, 2 sampling t-test, Pearson's correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics analysis methods.

As indicated in the Table 1, the mean height of the subjects is 147.92 (cm), the mean weight is 42.83 (kg), the mean arm span is 147.08 (cm), the mean arm length is 64.69 (cm), the mean leg length is 83.03 (cm), the mean triceps is 14.65 (mm), the mean biceps is 8.82 (mm), the mean chest is 13.06 (mm), the mean scapula is 11.95 (mm), the mean iliac is 11.48 (mm), the mean abdomen is 18.08 (mm) and the mean femur is 23.27 (mm).

The mean DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot was 16.01 and the mean LOB was 13.99.

The mean DMB of the subjects transferring the balance from the left foot was 19.01 and the mean LOB was 10.99.

The mean DMB of the subjects irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer was 17.52 and the mean LOB was 12.48.

In the table above there was a negative significant relationship between DMB starting the balance transfer from the right foot and Height (0.000), Weight (0.006), Arm Span (0.001), Arm (0.000), Leg (0.000) and Iliac (0.031).

In the table above there was a positive strong relationship between LOB starting the balance transfer from the right foot and Height (0.000), Weight (0.006), Arm Span (0.001), Arm (0.000), Leg (0.000) and Iliac (0.031).

In the Table 7, a negative relationship was seen between DMB measurements of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot and all parameters.

Table 8 revealed a relationship between LOB measurements of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot and all parameters.

In the table above there was a negative significant relationship between DMB values and Height (0.000), Weight (0.001), Arm Span (0.000), Arm (0.000), Leg (0.000), Triceps (0.013), Scapula (0.0199), Iliac (0.002) and Femur (0.007).

Table 10 showed a significant relationship between LOB values and Height (0.000), Weight (0.001), Arm Span (0.000), Arm (0.000), Leg (0.000), Triceps (0.013), Scapula (0.0199), Iliac (0.002) and Femur (0.007).

As indicated in the table above, there was no relationship between the body fat percentage and the balance.

In the table above, there was a significant relationship between DMB and LOB values with the body fat percentages of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot.

There was a reverse relationship between the duration of maintaining balance and the body fat

Discussion and Conclusion

Height, Weight and Body Fat Percentage

In this study, Gazi University Sports Club Male Junior Basketball Team players had the mean height of 147.92 cm, weight of 42.83 and body fat percentage of 14.56. The findings obtained in the study are consistent with the literature. In this study, the mean body fat percentages were calculated using the "Zorba Formula".

Balance and Correlation

The mean DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot was 16.01 and the mean LOB was 13.99. The mean DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot was 19.01 and the mean LOB was 10.99.

Irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer, the mean DMB of the subjects was 17.52, and the mean LOB was 12.48. There was a negative significant relationship between DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot and height (0.000), weight (0.006), arm span (0.001), arm (0.000), leg (0.000) and iliac (0.031). There was a positive significant relationship between LOB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot and height (0.000), weight (0.006), arm span (0.001), arm (0.000), leg (0.000) and iliac (0.031). There was a negative relationship between DMB measurements of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot and all parameters; however there was a positive relationship between LOB measurements and all parameters.

Irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer, there was a negative significant relationship between DMB values of the subjects and height (0.000), weight (0.001), arm span (0.000), arm (0.000), leg (0.000), triceps (0.013), scapula (0.0199), iliac (0.002) and femur (0.007).

Irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer, there was a positive relationship between LOB values of the subjects and height (0.000), weight (0.001), arm span (0.000), arm (0.000), leg (0.000), triceps (0.013), scapula (0.0199), iliac (0.002) and femur (0.007). No relationship was found between DMB and LOB starting the balance transfer from the left foot with the body fat percentage and the balance.

It was found that there was a significant difference between DMB and LOB values and the body fat percentages of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot. There was a reverse correlation between the DMB and the body fat percentage of subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot; there was a positive relationship between the LOB and the body fat percentages. As the body fat percentage of the subjects, who started the balance transfer from the left foot, increased, DMB decreases and LOB increases. Under light of the results percentage of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot; and there was a positive relationship between LOB and the body fat percentages. As the body fat percentage of an athlete, who started the balance transfer with the left foot, increased, DMB decreases and LOB increases.

of this study, it was observed that anthropometric measurements such as height and weight had a significant effect on the balance parameters.

As indicated in the result section, as the height, weight, arm, leg and arm span length are increased, LOB in the body increases. In addition to being one of the motoric parameters, balance is important due to the characteristics of basketball. Therefore, it can be concluded that the athletes with higher extremity length should be subject to special balance trainings.

There was a relationship between the skinfold measurements and the balance parameter. Regional excessive weight has a negative effect on the balance. For this reason, the trainings should aim to give the athletes a more homogenous physical structure so that an increase can be observed in balance skill.

Pinar et al. studied balance on dancers (S. Pinar, L. Tavacioglu, O.E. Atilgan, 2006, 259-265, S. Pinar, L. Tavacioglu, O.E. Atilgan, 2006, 297-302). The findings of Pinar's study are consistent with the results of this study. The researchers reported that there was a positive relationship between the height and the static balance levels of the dancers (S. Pinar, L. Tavacioglu, O.E. Atilgan, 2006, 259-265, S. Pinar, L. Tavacioglu, O.E. Atilgan, 2006, 297-302). It was found that as the height of the dancers decreased, duration of maintaining the balance increased; in other words, it was concluded that the height and the balance were reversely correlated. Based on the data obtained from these two studies, it can be suggested that height factor has a significant effect on the balance.

T. Tot (2009) found a significant relationship between the weight and the balance measurements on elite male basketball players. The findings of Tot are consistent with the results of this study. As the weight of athletes increased, the balance levels decreased. Based on these findings it can also be suggested that the weight affects the balance at all ages. Therefore, maintaining fitness levels of athletes is also important for balance (T. Tot, 2009).

The ability of balance shows individual variations. As a result of the balance measurements at certain intervals, learning factor become active and affects balance skill. In this study, it was also found that, in general terms, among three measurement values taken from the subjects, the highest measurements were the third measurements.

Balance activities should be given importance at young ages, because an athlete starts his/her sports career at a very young age.

As balance is a motor characteristic, balance trainings at young age increase balance levels of the athletes and this has a positive effect on future performances of athletes (I. Holm, N. Vellestad, 2008).

References

EMMA, T., 2006, Peak Conditioning Training For Young Athletes, Choaches Choice.

HATCHELL, S., 2006, The Complete Guide to Coaching Girls' Basketball, McGraw-Hill/Ragged Mountain Pres, USA, 26.

HOLM, I., VOLLESTAD, N., 2008, Significant Effect of Gender on Hamstring-to-Quadriceps Strength Ratio and Static Balance in Prepubescent Children From 7 to 12 Years of Age, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 36:2007-2013.

PINAR, S., TAVACIOGLU, L., ATILGAN, O.E., 2006, Dansgtlarda Denge Becerileriyle ilgili Olabilecek Faktorlerin incelenmesi, 9. Uluslar Arasi Spor Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabi, 259-265.

PINAR, S., TAVACIOGLU, L., ATILGAN, O.E., 2006, Yetiskin Dansgtlarda Denge Becerisinin Sergilenmesinde Cinsiyete Baglt Farkltltklartn Degerlendirilmesi, 9. Uluslar Arasi Spor Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabi, 297-302.

REIMAN, M.P., MANSKE, R.C., 2009, Functional Testing in Human Performance, 103-116.

SIGMON, C., 2003, 52-Week Basketball Training, Human Kinetics, 187.

SEN, C., DURGUN,C., KOZANOGLU, M.E., 2007, Deplasmanlt Ligde Basketbol Oynayan Sporculartn Ust Ekstremite Morfolojik Ozelliklerinin Mevkilere Gore Degerlendirilmesi, Spormetre Beden Egitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 3,135.

TOT, T., 2009, Elit Duzeydeki Erkek Hentbol ve Basketbolculartn Antropometrik Olgumleri ve Vucut Yag Oranlart ile Denge Duzeyleri Arastndaki iliskinin Arasttrtlmast, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Universitesi, Ankara..

UZICANIN, E., 2008, Elementary Games In Basketball Traning, Sport Scientific And Practical Aspects, International Scientific Journal of Kinesiology, 5, 1-2: 70-74.

Olga Sevim, Ceren Suveren

Gazi University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ankara, TURKEY

Email: sevimliolga@gmail.com

Table 1: Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values of each subject's height, weight, arm span, arm, leg, triceps, biceps, chest, scapula, iliac, abdomen and femur. Minimum Maximum Mean Values Standart Deviation Height 130 165 147.92 9.81 Weight 27.5 63.5 42.83 11.46 Arm Span 130 164 147.08 8.96 Arm 54 74 64.69 4.83 Leg 70 102 83.03 7.68 Triceps 5.1 29 14.65 6.46 Biceps 3.3 17.3 8.82 4.14 Chest 4.1 27 13.06 6.99 Scapula 4.2 29 11.95 6.94 Iliac 3.2 23 11.48 6.22 Abdomen 5 30 18.08 7.22 Femur 9.4 37 23.27 7.56 Minimum Maximum Mean Values Standard Deviation Height 130 165 147.92 9.81 Weight 27.5 63.5 42.83 11.46 Arm Span 130 164 147.08 8.96 Arm 54 74 64.69 4.83 Leg 70 102 83.03 7.68 Triceps 5.1 29 14.65 6.46 Biceps 3.3 17.3 8.82 4.14 Chest 4.1 27 13.06 6.99 Scapula 4.2 29 11.95 6.94 Iliac 3.2 23 11.48 6.22 Abdomen 5 30 18.08 7.22 Femur 9.4 37 23.27 7.56 Table 2: Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values of DMB (the duration of maintaining balance) and LOB (loss of balance) measurements of the subjects starting balance transfer from the right foot. Starting Balance Transfer from the Right Foot (n = 26) Minimum Maximum Mean Values Standart Deviation DMB 10.43 27.9 16.01 4.4 LOB 2.1 19.57 13.99 4.4 Table 3: Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values of DMB and LOB measurements of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot. Starting the Balance Transfer from the Left Foot (n=26) Minimum Maximum Mean Values Standart Deviation DMB 12.64 28.14 19.01 4.27 LOB 1.86 17.36 10.99 4.27 Table 4: Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values of DMB and LOB measurements of the subjects irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer. Minimum Maximum Mean Values Standart Deviation DMB 12.03 28.02 17.52 4.12 LOB 1.98 17.97 12.48 4.12 The mean DMB of the subjects irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer was 17.52 and the mean LOB was 12.48. Table 5: The relationship between DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot and the other parameters. Starting the Balance Transfer from the Right Foot (n = 6) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) P Results DMB-Height -0.693 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Weight -0.521 0.006 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm Span -0.625 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm -0.668 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Leg -0.698 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Triceps -0.340 0.090 There is no relationship between two parameters DMB-Biceps -0.243 0.231 There is no relationship between two parameters DMB-Chest -0.234 0.250 There is no relationship between two parameters DMB-Scapula -0.326 0.104 There is no relationship between two parameters DMB-Iliac -0.424 0.031 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Abdomen -0.229 0.261 There is no relationship between two parameters DMB-Femur -0.383 0.054 There is no relationship between two parameters Table 6: The relationship between LOB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot and the other parameters Starting the Balance Transfer from the Right Foot (n=26) Pearson Coefficient p Results ([rho]) LOB-Height 0.693 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Weight 0.521 0.006 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm Span 0.625 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm 0.668 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Leg 0.698 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Triceps 0.340 0.090 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Biceps 0.243 0.231 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Chest 0.234 0.250 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Scapula 0.326 0.104 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Iliac 0.424 0.031 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Abdomen 0.229 0.261 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Femur 0.383 0.054 There is a relationship between two parameters Table 7: The relationship between DMB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot and the other parameters Starting the Balance Transfer from the Left Foot (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) p Results DMB-Height -0.691 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Weight -0.653 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm Span -0.663 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm -0.683 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Leg -0.697 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Triceps -0.579 0.002 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Biceps -0.495 0.010 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Chest -0.469 0.016 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Scapula -0.546 0.004 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Iliac -0.672 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Abdomen -0.509 0.008 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Femur -0.595 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters Table 8: The relationship between LOB of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot and the other parameters Starting the Balance Transfer from the Left Foot (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) p Results LOB-Height 0.691 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Weight 0.653 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm Span 0.663 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm 0.683 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Leg 0.697 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Triceps 0.579 0.002 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Biceps 0.495 0.010 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Chest 0.469 0.016 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Scapula 0.546 0.004 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Iliac 0.672 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Abdomen 0.509 0.008 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Femur 0.595 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters Table 9: Comparison of DMB values of the subjects irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer and height, weight, arm span, arm, leg, triceps, biceps, chest, scapula, iliac, abdomen and femur variables. Irrespective of the Foot Direction for the Balance Transfer (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) p Results DMB-Height -0.727 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Weight -0.616 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm Span -0.676 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Arm -0.710 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Leg -0.733 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Triceps -0.481 0.013 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Biceps -0.386 0.051 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Chest -0.368 0.065 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Scapula -0.457 0.019 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Iliac -0.574 0.002 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Abdomen -0.386 0.052 There is a relationship between two parameters DMB-Femur -0.512 0.007 There is a relationship between two parameters Table 10: Comparison of LOB values of the subjects irrespective of the foot direction for the balance transfer and height, weight, arm span, arm, leg, triceps, biceps, chest, scapula, iliac, abdomen and femur variables. Irrespective of the Foot Direction for the Balance Transfer (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) p Results LOB-Height 0.727 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Weight 0.616 0.001 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm Span 0.676 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Arm 0.710 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Leg 0.733 0.000 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Triceps 0.481 0.013 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Biceps 0.386 0.051 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Chest 0.368 0.065 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Scapula 0.457 0.019 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Iliac 0.574 0.002 There is a relationship between two parameters DK-Abdomen 0.386 0.052 There is a relationship between two parameters LOB-Femur 0.512 0.007 There is a relationship between two parameters Table 11: Minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values of body weight percentages of the subjects Range Minimum Maximum Body Weight 20.36 5.89 26.25 Percentages (n=26) Mean Values Standart Deviation Body Weight 14.56 5.68 Percentages (n=26) In the table above, the mean body fat percentage of the subjects were 14.56. These mean values are consistent with literature data. Table 12: The relationship between DMB and LOB with the body fat percentage of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the right foot. Starting the Balance Transfer from the Right Foot (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient ([rho]) p Results Body Fat Percentage 0.337 0.093 There is no relationship DMB between two parameters Body Fat Percentage 0.337 0.093 There is no relationship LOB between two parameters Table 13: The relationship between DMB and LOB with the body fat percentage of the subjects who started the balance transfer from the left foot. Starting the Balance Transfer from the Left Foot (n = 26) Pearson Coefficient (P) p Results Body Fat Percentage -0.592 0.001 There is a relationship DMB between two parameters Body Fat Percentage 0.592 0.001 There is a relationship LOB between two parameters

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Title Annotation: | SPORT AND PERFORMANCE |
---|---|

Author: | Sevim, Olga; Suveren, Ceren |

Publication: | Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education and Sport/Science, Movement and Health |

Article Type: | Report |

Geographic Code: | 7TURK |

Date: | Jun 1, 2010 |

Words: | 3997 |

Previous Article: | Angiotensin-converting enzyme polymorphism in elite taekwondo athletes of Turkish and Azerbaijan taekwondo teams. |

Next Article: | The comparative study of anthropometrical characteristics in Tabriz elite football and volleyball players. |

Topics: |