Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start

Which is the best for female swimmers?

Robert L. Welcher, Richard N. Hinrichs, Thomas R. George

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare three competitive swimming starts (grab, rear-weighted track, and front-weighted track). The starts were compared in terms of time and instantaneous horizontal velocity, both at take-off from the block and at 5 m from the wall. Twenty US college female swimmers performed three trials of each of the three randomly ordered starts. Swimmers left the block significantly sooner using the front-weighted track start (0.80 s) than the other two starts (both 0.87 s; P<0.001). In the rear-weighted track start, however, the athletes left the blocks with significantly higher horizontal velocity than in the grab or front-weighted track start (3.99 vs. 3.87 and 3.90 m/s, respectively; each P < 0.001). By 5 m, the front-weighted track start maintained its time advantage over the grab start (2.19 vs. 2.24 s; P = 0.008) but not the rear-weighted track start (2.19 vs. 2.21 s; P = 0.336). However, the rear-weighted track start had a significant advantage over the front-weighted track start in terms of instantaneous horizontal velocity at 5 m (2.25 vs. 2.18 m/s; P = 0.009). Therefore, the rear-weighted track start had a better combination of time and velocity than the front-weighted track start. There was also a trend for the rear-weighted track start to have higher velocity at 5 m than the grab start, although this did not reach statistical significance (2.25 vs. 2.20 m/s; P = 0.042). Overall, these results favour the rear-weighted track start for female swimmers even though most of the athletes had little or no prior experience with it. Additional research is needed to determine whether males would respond similarly to females in these three different swimming starts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)100-113
Number of pages14
JournalSports Biomechanics
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Athletes
Research

Keywords

  • Bilateral deficit
  • Front-weighted track
  • Grab
  • Instantaneous velocity
  • Rear-weighted track

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start : Which is the best for female swimmers? / Welcher, Robert L.; Hinrichs, Richard N.; George, Thomas R.

In: Sports Biomechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2008, p. 100-113.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Welcher, Robert L. ; Hinrichs, Richard N. ; George, Thomas R. / Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start : Which is the best for female swimmers?. In: Sports Biomechanics. 2008 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 100-113.
@article{0d7dc576fedc44c9bd14e70d0cf5330e,
title = "Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start: Which is the best for female swimmers?",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to compare three competitive swimming starts (grab, rear-weighted track, and front-weighted track). The starts were compared in terms of time and instantaneous horizontal velocity, both at take-off from the block and at 5 m from the wall. Twenty US college female swimmers performed three trials of each of the three randomly ordered starts. Swimmers left the block significantly sooner using the front-weighted track start (0.80 s) than the other two starts (both 0.87 s; P<0.001). In the rear-weighted track start, however, the athletes left the blocks with significantly higher horizontal velocity than in the grab or front-weighted track start (3.99 vs. 3.87 and 3.90 m/s, respectively; each P < 0.001). By 5 m, the front-weighted track start maintained its time advantage over the grab start (2.19 vs. 2.24 s; P = 0.008) but not the rear-weighted track start (2.19 vs. 2.21 s; P = 0.336). However, the rear-weighted track start had a significant advantage over the front-weighted track start in terms of instantaneous horizontal velocity at 5 m (2.25 vs. 2.18 m/s; P = 0.009). Therefore, the rear-weighted track start had a better combination of time and velocity than the front-weighted track start. There was also a trend for the rear-weighted track start to have higher velocity at 5 m than the grab start, although this did not reach statistical significance (2.25 vs. 2.20 m/s; P = 0.042). Overall, these results favour the rear-weighted track start for female swimmers even though most of the athletes had little or no prior experience with it. Additional research is needed to determine whether males would respond similarly to females in these three different swimming starts.",
keywords = "Bilateral deficit, Front-weighted track, Grab, Instantaneous velocity, Rear-weighted track",
author = "Welcher, {Robert L.} and Hinrichs, {Richard N.} and George, {Thomas R.}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1080/14763140701683247",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "100--113",
journal = "Sports Biomechanics",
issn = "1476-3141",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start

T2 - Which is the best for female swimmers?

AU - Welcher, Robert L.

AU - Hinrichs, Richard N.

AU - George, Thomas R.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - The aim of this study was to compare three competitive swimming starts (grab, rear-weighted track, and front-weighted track). The starts were compared in terms of time and instantaneous horizontal velocity, both at take-off from the block and at 5 m from the wall. Twenty US college female swimmers performed three trials of each of the three randomly ordered starts. Swimmers left the block significantly sooner using the front-weighted track start (0.80 s) than the other two starts (both 0.87 s; P<0.001). In the rear-weighted track start, however, the athletes left the blocks with significantly higher horizontal velocity than in the grab or front-weighted track start (3.99 vs. 3.87 and 3.90 m/s, respectively; each P < 0.001). By 5 m, the front-weighted track start maintained its time advantage over the grab start (2.19 vs. 2.24 s; P = 0.008) but not the rear-weighted track start (2.19 vs. 2.21 s; P = 0.336). However, the rear-weighted track start had a significant advantage over the front-weighted track start in terms of instantaneous horizontal velocity at 5 m (2.25 vs. 2.18 m/s; P = 0.009). Therefore, the rear-weighted track start had a better combination of time and velocity than the front-weighted track start. There was also a trend for the rear-weighted track start to have higher velocity at 5 m than the grab start, although this did not reach statistical significance (2.25 vs. 2.20 m/s; P = 0.042). Overall, these results favour the rear-weighted track start for female swimmers even though most of the athletes had little or no prior experience with it. Additional research is needed to determine whether males would respond similarly to females in these three different swimming starts.

AB - The aim of this study was to compare three competitive swimming starts (grab, rear-weighted track, and front-weighted track). The starts were compared in terms of time and instantaneous horizontal velocity, both at take-off from the block and at 5 m from the wall. Twenty US college female swimmers performed three trials of each of the three randomly ordered starts. Swimmers left the block significantly sooner using the front-weighted track start (0.80 s) than the other two starts (both 0.87 s; P<0.001). In the rear-weighted track start, however, the athletes left the blocks with significantly higher horizontal velocity than in the grab or front-weighted track start (3.99 vs. 3.87 and 3.90 m/s, respectively; each P < 0.001). By 5 m, the front-weighted track start maintained its time advantage over the grab start (2.19 vs. 2.24 s; P = 0.008) but not the rear-weighted track start (2.19 vs. 2.21 s; P = 0.336). However, the rear-weighted track start had a significant advantage over the front-weighted track start in terms of instantaneous horizontal velocity at 5 m (2.25 vs. 2.18 m/s; P = 0.009). Therefore, the rear-weighted track start had a better combination of time and velocity than the front-weighted track start. There was also a trend for the rear-weighted track start to have higher velocity at 5 m than the grab start, although this did not reach statistical significance (2.25 vs. 2.20 m/s; P = 0.042). Overall, these results favour the rear-weighted track start for female swimmers even though most of the athletes had little or no prior experience with it. Additional research is needed to determine whether males would respond similarly to females in these three different swimming starts.

KW - Bilateral deficit

KW - Front-weighted track

KW - Grab

KW - Instantaneous velocity

KW - Rear-weighted track

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42449158147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=42449158147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14763140701683247

DO - 10.1080/14763140701683247

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 100

EP - 113

JO - Sports Biomechanics

JF - Sports Biomechanics

SN - 1476-3141

IS - 1

ER -