JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOMECHANICS, 1997,13,347-372
O 1997 by Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
of the Shoulder, Elbow, and Wrist
During a Penalty Throw in Water Polo
Michael E. Feltner and Grant Taylor
The purpose of the study was to examine the resultant joint forces (RJFs) and torques
(RTTs) at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist during penalty throws and determinethe relationships between muscle actions and motions of the throwing arm. Subjects with an
overhand (OH) throwing technique created larger maximal and average RJTs at the
shoulder and elbow compared to subjects with a sweep (SW) technique (Feltner &
Nelson, 1996).Prior to release, OH technique subjects decreased their abduction torque
and created adduction torques at the shoulder. Adduction torques and downward vertical motion of the trunk, together with an internal rotation torque at the shoulder,
resulted in large internal rotation angular velocities at release for the OH technique
subjects. The SW technique subjects did not exhibit these technique characteristics.
Additionally, throwing technique exhibited a moderate but positive relationship with
several chest, upper arm, and forearm circumference measures. Findings suggest that
muscular strength may be a causal determinant of technique style.
To understand the mechanics of any segmental movement, a model linking the kinematics of the motion and the kinetic factors responsible for producing the motion must
be developed. In a kinetic analysis, the multiple forces exerted on a segment by an adjacent segment can be substituted by a resultant joint force exerted through the joint center
(RJF) and a resultant couple or joint torque (RJT) (Andrews, 1974). Except near the limits
of the range of motion, the RJT indicates the net muscular activity at an articulation. Thus,
analysis of the RJFs and RJTs applied to a segment provides insight into the causal factors
responsible for the motion of the segment.
No previous investigation has examined RJFs and RJTs at the shoulder, elbow, and
wrist during throwing in water polo. In previous research (Feltner & Nelson, 1996) it was
demonstrated that water polo players use a continuum of technique styles to perform the
penalty throw. Examination of the kinematics of the trunk and arm motions together with
the segmental contributions to ball speed revealed an inverse relationship between the
upper arm internal rotation and horizontal adduction contributions to ball speed at release.
Subjects receiving a large contribution from upper arm internal rotation to ball speed at
release (hereinafter referred to as the overhand [OH] technique) adducted and internally
rotated the upper arm prior to and through ball release. Conversely, subjects receiving a
small contribution from upper arm internal rotation and a large contribution from upper
The authors are with the Department of Sports Medicine and Physical Education, Pepperdine
University, Malibu, CA 90263.
347
348
Feltner and Taylor
arm horizontal adduction to ball speed at release (hereinafter called the sweep [SWI technique) abducted the upper arm both prior to and through release and did not exhibit an
internal rotation motion of the upper arm before ball release.
At the instant of release, OH technique subjects tended to have less upper arm external rotation and were internally rotating the upper arm at a faster rate. The OH technique subjects also exhibited increased left-side trunk lean and a moderate tendency for
larger ball speed values at release. Last, OH technique subjects tended to have larger
maximal positions of upper arm abduction and reached maximal upper arm abduction
earlier in the throw. The SW technique subjects had increased positions of forearm pronation and horizontally adducted the upper arm at a faster rate at release. The SW technique
subjects also reached maximum horizontal adduction angular velocity nearer to the instant of release.
In the investigation of Feltner and Nelson (1996), it was unclear why the subjects
used different techniques to perform maximal velocity penalty throws. However, different
patterns of muscular activity may underlie the dissimilarities in the kinematic and velocity
contribution data. Therefore, the purpose of the present investigation was to observe RJFs
and RJTs at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist during penalty throws in water polo and examine the cause-effect relationships between muscle actions and the motions of the throwing
arm.
Methods
Thirteen right-handed male intercollegiate water polo players served as subjects (age 20.5
f 1.3 years, playing experience 6.3 +- 1.8 years) and provided written informed consent.
Several anthropometric measures were obtained to compare the subjects and compute
moment of inertia data (Hinrichs, 1985). After an unlimited warm-up period, the athletes performed a minimum of 10 penalty (4 m) throws to an unguarded water polo goal
using a regulation water polo ball (diameter 22.3 cm, mass 0.43 kg) and were encouraged to provide maximal efforts on all throws. Two genlocked video cameras (shutter
speed 1/1000 s) were used to videotape the subjects from the rear and the throwing arm
(right) side at a sampling rate of 60 Hz. Although this sampling frequency is lower than
the 200 Hz frame rates used to record motions in baseball pitches (Elliott & Armour,
1988; Elliott, Grove, & Gibson, 1988; Elliott, Grove, Gibson, & Thurston, 1986; Feltner
& Dapena, 1986) and the 100 Hz frame rates used for javelin throws (Whiting, Gregor,
& Halushka, 1991), the lower release velocity in water polo (15-20 d s ) compared to
baseball pitches (30-36 d s ) and javelin throws (30 d s ) warranted the use of a lower
sampling rate.
In pilot work associated with their study on the dynamics of the throwing arm in
football passes, Rash and Shapiro (1995) used coordinate data collected at 200 Hz and
Fourier analysis to determine that a 60 Hz sampling frequency would not violate the sampling theorem. Chung (1988) compared 50 and 200 Hz sampling frequencies by analyzing joint torque data at the shoulder during a volleyball spike (hand speed at impact 16-19
d s ) . He found that a 50 Hz sampling rate reduced the amount of noise in the torque data,
and he subsequently performed all kinematic and kinetic analyses using a 50 Hz sampling
frequency. Finally, Fleisig et al. (1996) examined 200 Hz and 67 Hz sampling rates during
football throws by comparing maximal values of select upper extremity torque and angular velocity data. The authors found that except for a decrease in the maximal value of
upper arm internal rotation angular velocity, the 67 Hz sampling rate did not affect the
maximum compressive forces at the shoulder and elbow, varus torque at the elbow, or
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
349
elbow extension angular velocity. Because the release velocity of the ball is similar in
water polo and football throwing (15-21 mls) (Rash, 1994; Rash & Shapiro, 1995) and
the angular velocities of the upper arm and forearm have smaller magnitudes in water
polo compared to football throwing (see Feltner & Nelson, 1996, and Rash & Shapiro,
1995), a 60 Hz sampling rate is justified to investigate the dynamics of the throwing arm
during water polo penalty throws.
Thirteen landmarks on or affixed to the throwing arm,head, trunk, and ball were
digitized for two trials per athlete.The direct linear transformation (DLT) method of threedimensional (3-D) reconstruction from multiple planar images (Abdel-Aziz & Karara,
1971;Walton, 1981) was used to determine the 3-D coordinates of the landmarks. Analysis of the trials started at the instant the ball left the water and concluded approximately
100 ms after release. Detailed data collection and analysis information was reported previously (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
The digitized coordinate data and computed DLT parameters were used to calculate
the 3-D coordinate data for each landmark. To facilitate comparisons among trials, coordinate data were computed at instants ("output frames") separated by intervalsof 17 ms, and
the time 10.00 s was assigned to the instant of release (Feltner & Dapena, 1986). Coordinate data were expressed in terms of an activity-relevant, right-handed, orthogonal reference frame, F$ (Figure 1). The axes of R, (%, Y,, and Z,) were defined by unit vectors i,
j,, and k,,respectively. Vector k, was vertical; i, was horizontal and parallel to the vertical
plane defined by the goal opening; and j, was perpendicular to i, and k, and pointed
toward the goal.
Figure 1 - Sketch of a water polo player just prior to the instant of release and the axes of
reference frames R
, &, R,., R, and fk.
350
Feltner and Taylor
The time-dependent coordinates of each landmark were smoothed using a quintic
spline smoothing routine (Vaughan, 1980; Wood & Jennings, 1979) to reduce small random errors that may have occurred during digitizing. The smoothing factor (SF) was determined by observation of multiple plots of angular kinematic (Feltner & Nelson, 1996)
and joint torque data computed with several values of SF for each trial of all subjects. The
value of SF that reduced the amount of noise in the computed data, without introducing
systematic bias, was selected. The average (f1 SD) SF value was 5.0 (f1.5) x
m2per
frame and in each direction.
joint Kinetics
The throwing arm was modeled as a four-link kinetic chain composed of a ball, hand,
forearm, and upper arm (the ball was excluded after release). Segment mass as a percentage of total body mass and center of mass (CM) location for each segment were derived
from cadaver data presented by Clauser, McConville, and Young (1969) using the adjustments presented by Hinrichs (1990). Moment of inertia values were determined using
the data presented by Chandler, Clauser, McConville, Reynolds, and Young (1975) and
were personalized for each subject using the regression equations reported by Hinrichs
(1985).
The ball was assumed to be subjected to two forces: weight acting at its CM, and a
force made by the hand on the ball (F,). The hand was subjected to a proximal RJT (T,)
and three forces: weight acting at its CM, a distal RJF (-F,), and an RJF exerted by the
forearm at the wrist (F,). The forearm was acted upon by distal (-T,) and proximal (T,)
RJTs and three forces: -F,, an WF exerted by the upper arm at the elbow (F,), and weight
acting at its CM. The upper arm also was assumed to be acted upon by distal (-T,) and
proximal (T,) RJTs and three forces: weight acting at its CM, -F,, and an RJF exerted by
the tmnk at the shoulder (F,).
The instantaneous CM location and the local angular momentum of each segment
about its own CM were computed using the procedures presented by Dapena (1978). The
net force exerted on a segment was computed from the second derivative of the location
value of its CM. The net torque on each segment about its CM was calculated as the first
derivative of its local angular momentum. The procedures described by Andrews (1974,
1982) were then used to compute the proximal RJF and RJT exerted on each link in the
kinetic chain. All RJF and RJT values were initially computed in terms of reference frame
R,. To provide anatomically relevant meaning to these values, noninertial reference frames,
R,, R,, and R,, were defined at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder, respectively, at the instant
of each output frame (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
Reference Frames
Reference frame R, had its origin at the right wrist, and its axes (X,, Y,, and Z,) were
defined by unit vectors i,, j,, and k,, respectively (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).At the instant
of each output frame, T, and F, were projected onto in,j,, and k,. Components of T, in
the X,, Y,, and Z, directions represented longitudinal axis rotation, flexion/extension,
and ulnarlradial deviation, respectively (Figure 1). Positive X, components of F, were
directed proximally along the longitudinal axis of the hand, and Y, and Z, components of
F, were lateral and anterior shear forces at the wrist, respectively.
At the instant of each output frame, reference frame R, had its origin at the right
elbow, and its axes (X,, Y,, and &)were defined by unit vectors i,, j,, and k,, respectively
(Feltner & Dapena, 1986).
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
where s,,, s,,, and s,, represent the locations of the right shoulder, elbow, and wrist,
respectively. Vectors T, and F, were projected onto i,, j,, and k, at the instant of each
output frame. The components of T, in the X,, Y,, and Z, directions represented pronation/supination, vamsfvalgus rotation, and extensionlflexion, respectively (Figure 1). Positive X, components of F, were directed proximally along the longitudinal axis of the
forearm, while positive Y, and Z, components of F, were anterior and medial shear forces
at the elbow, respectively.
Reference frame R, had its origin at the right shoulder, and its axes (Xu,Y,, and Z,)
were defined by unit vectors i,, j,, and k,, respectively (Feltner & Dapena, 1986; Feltner
& Nelson, 1996). At the instant of each output frame, Tuand Fu were projected onto i,, j,,
and k,. The components of T, in the Xu, Y,, and Z, directions represented internalfexternal rotation, abductionfadduction, and horizontal adductionlabduction, respectively (Figure 1). Positive Xu components of F, were directed proximaily along the longitudinal axis
of the upper arm, while positive Y, and Z, components of F, were posterior and superior
shear forces at the shoulder, respectively. An additional reference frame, R,,, was defined
for the upper arm to better demonstrate the role of F, in producing the internallexternal
rotation motions of the arm (Chung, 1988). At the instant of each output frame, R,, had its
origin at the right shoulder, and its axes (X,., Y,., and Z,.) were defined by unit vectors i,,,
j,,, and k,,, respectively (Figure 1).
At the instant of each output frame, F, was projected onto i,., j,., and k,,. Positive Xu,
components of F, were directed proximally along the longitudinal axis of the upper arm
and were identical to the positive Xu components of F,. The Y,, components of F, were
contained in the plane defined by the upper arm and forearm and were perpendicular to i,,.
The Z,, components of F, were perpendicular to the plane defined by the upper arm and
forearm. Thus, positive and negative Z,, components of Fu would always tend to create
external and internal rotation torques, respectively, about the center of mass of the throwing arm. The Y,, components of F, would not contribute to the production of either external or internal rotation torques about the center of mass of the throwing arm.
Kinematic Data
To aid in the interpretation of the kinetic data, selected kinematic data reported previously
by Feltner and Nelson (1996) were used: upper arm abduction and external rotation,
forearm pronation, and trunk left-side lean angular displacements at release (OuA-,,,, $,Externat Rot,
e,A-pronationr
and eT-~e%Side ,,,, respectively); maximal upper arm abduction angular displacement; upper arm internal rotation and horizontal adduction angular velocities
at release (%,,,,,,,,,
and
respectively); and percentage contribution of upper arm internalfexternal rotation angular velocity to the speed of the ball at release
Feltner and Taylor
352
[%Iv,l(~,,~~~)].
The change in the upper arm abduction angle (AOuA-,,,) was computed as
value at release. The height of the trunk out of
the maximal OUA-,,value minus the,,O,
the water was determined as the vertical displacement of the midshoulder landmark
(s,d
at the instant of each output frame (Felmer & Nelson, 1996). The maximum and
release values for s,
as well as the change in ,s,
(As,,
= maximal ,s,
- s,
at release), were computed for each subject.
Data Analysis and Statistics
Since the RJF and RJT data are both second derivative parameters, their instantaneous
values can be influenced to a large extent by noise in the raw coordinate data and/or the
associated value of the SF selected to reduce this noise. To minimize potential interpretative errors based upon instantaneous RJF and RJT values, the analyzed portion of the
penalty throw (from t = 9.70 s until 10.00 s) was divided into three periods (Period 1, t =
9.70 s to t = 9.80 s; Period 2, t = 9.80 s to t = 9.90 s; Period 3, t = 9.90 s to t = 10.00 s). The
RJF and RJT data in each period were integrated using the trapezoidal rule, and the integral value was divided by period length to compute an average value for each RJF and
RJT component at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist.
The discrete kinematic and kinetic data for both trials of a subject were similar but
exhibited some variability. To obtain a better estimate of each discrete data parameter, the
two values per subject were averaged to obtain a mean estimate of each parameter per
subject. The mean values per subject were used to compute grand mean and standard
deviation values for all discrete measures. Feltner and Nelson (1996) demonstrated that
the percentage contribution of upper arm internalJexterna1rotation angular velocity to ball
speed at release [%lv,l(q,,-,,)I was a strong indicator of technique style (OH or SW).
Therefore, correlations between the discrete data parameters and %I~,l(q,,-,~)were determined to examine the relationship between technique style and the kinematic, RJF, and
RJT data. Last, ensemble composite RJF and RJT versus time graphs were computed by
averaging the RJF and RJT data for all trials at the instant of each output frame.
Results and Discussion
Prior to t = 9.700 s, the trunk and upper arm of most subjects were below the water surface, which resulted in a large amount of variability in the coordinate data. After release,
the hand and distal forearm were obscured in the views of both cameras, and the resulting
"noise" in the landmark locations created a large amount of variability in the RJF and RJT
data after t = 10.000 s. Therefore, detailed analysis was limited to the period from approximately 300 ms prior to release until the instant of release.
The average ball speed at release (16.5 mls, range 13.7-18.9 mls) was within the
range of average values (15.0-19.3 mls) reported previously (Davis & Blanksby, 1977;
Elliott & Amour, 1988; Rollins, Puffer, Whiting, Gregor, & Finerman, 1985; Whiting,
Puffer, Finerman, Gregor, & Maletis, 1985). The ball speed values at release were large
enough to classify the trials as representative maximal effort penalty throws.
The RJT data at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist are presented in Figures 2-4, respectively. The RJF data at the shoulder in reference frames R, and R,, are presented in Figures 5 and 6. Three graphs are presented for each set of RJT and RJF plots in Figures 2-6.
The first graph displays the ensemble average RJT or R E plot for the trials of all subjects
(standard deviation values are not shown to improve the clarity of the figure), and the
second and third graphs present the RJT or RJF data from a representative trial of an OH
(Subject S1) and an SW (Subject S2) technique subject, respectively.
(panuquo4 - ~ o ~aql
q vZ ~ J (Ps y ~ !941
~ Lq Palm!pu!) s)ussm
~ d ~m)a y ap!s 3uasaJld 32 pue qz s a m % ! u
~! s q d e ~aqj
l aaoqe
uanas Je qlafqns aql JO ( d -sn
sa~uanbasaqA - s q d e ~luanbasqns
l
ne pue s!q$ u! asealaJ JO luqsu! aql sa$ea!pu! s oofyo~= I
l e am1 [myaraa aq& '(aa~napallop) uo!lanpqe/uo!$3nppe @)uoz!~oq'(anma paqsep) uo!l3nppe
-2s(3) pue IS (q) qaafqnsJO pqq auo pue
/uo!lJnpqe ' ( a a ~ npgos)
~ u o ~ q a puJalxaneluquy
r
e
(e) JOJ nxawe13 a3uaraja~u! Japlnoqs aq? la
z a~lnZ!~
' q ~ a f q n ne
s p a f e ~ a a alqurasua
-
(panuyuo3) ~ o a aql3uynp
q ~
~ dh)sMa!a peaqaaao luasaad 3
s pue
(sy3!l aq] hq palea!pu!) quqsu! q s la qlafqns am jo ( d -SA
q~ sa.~&!a u! sqde.13 aql aaoqe saauanbas aqA '(amn3 pallop) uoFaUluo!sualxa '(aaan~paqsep)
-2s(3) pue 1s (q) q3afqnsjo ley1 auo
uo!lqoa sn%@alsruea'(ahlna pgos) uo!le~dns~uo!leuo.z~
pug 'q3afqns ne jo a3e.iane alqmasua (e) JOJ ameq a3uaaaja.1u! MoqIa aql le
c a.1n3!a
-
138
4
,
2
m
0)
L
-- oz-
, ,--. _ - - _
\
6'6
8'6
.' -
,--
L'6
:
--
-/
/
/ -
6
z
* -
-
.---2
---I---_-;..-_-_;--
\
\
\
1
u
0.b-
m
,.
),' ',
,' b . l l ' x
(s)
E
--
-/
B
- 09-
uo!xaU
sn61o~
uo!+ou!dns
4
o
&
2.
-4
-- oz
C
/
m
/
0)
/
-- 0.b
I
-- 09
--z
/
;[1
7
uo!sua+xl
mruoA
uo!*ouoJd
138
--
- 08
3
- 001-
uo!g>npqv -JOH
UO!T~~PPV
u o ~ o l o y louJa+x3
'08-
-- 09-- OP-- 02-
V)
3-
c
a
?
x
z
c
6
z
m
cn
uo!l>nppv -JOH
uo!Pnpqv
uo!+o+o~louJa+ul
I
I
I
I
1: O9
I
-- 0 s
2
-- OOL
--
- OZL
-$
-
+=fclns
JolAel pue ~ a u q a j
3
OP-
oz0
oz
0.b
138
uo!xaU
sn61o~
uo!~ou!dns
- 09--
-- ot-- oz-
\
,',, 8'6
1
,
-V
\
l,
\
/
uo!suaJx3
SnJDA
UO!JDUDJd
OZ
--- OP
2
Feltner and Taylor
-
20
Longitudinal Rot. (Positive X)
flexion
Ulnar Deviation
E
Z
.
I
L
Y
/\
I
10.-
I
/'
2
/
P
.-C
\
,
/
0,
\
,,-'-.
-- _---'
-: - - - - :--.--L------0/---
u
-,,
-
%
9.7
,
9.9
9.8
V)
3
0)
CK
u
.-
$
I
-10
Subject S1
20
u
.$
I
\
/
*
\
\
/
C
b
/
-10
I
,
--
t(s)
Longitudinal Rot. (Negative X)
Extension
Rodiol Deviation
REL
I
1
T
I
lb,'
/
cg, -
I
I
I
I
I
Longitudinal Rot. (Negative X)
Extension
Radial Deviation
REL
Figure 4 -RJT at the wrist in reference frame R, for (a) ensemble average of all subjects, and
one trial of subjects (b) S1 and (c) S2. Longitudinal rotation (solid curve), flexiodextension
(dashed curve), ulnarlradial deviation (dotted curve). The sequences above the graphs in Figures
4b and 4c present front views (Z, vs. -X,) of the subjects at six instants (indicated by the ticks)
during the throw. (continued)
(panuguo3) - ~ c u qaql
l l u y n p (sya!~a41 6q pa~ea!pu!) quqsu! uaaas le qaafqns aql
~ d ~ sMa!a
)
ap!s luasa~d3s pue q s s a m i ! ~ty sqde.13 aql aaoqe saauanbas aq& -(auna
JO( d -SA
pallop) "Z '(aama paqsep)
'(anma pgos) n~ -ZS(a) pue TS (q) sl3afqns JO ley3 auo pua
s a~n%!a
's~aafqnsIle JO a3e~aaealqurasua (e) JOJ "aaaureq aaua;lajal u! Jappoqs aql l e
-,
178
-
OO'V-
/'.-/----
\
- \
--
.
2
'
-- ooz-
--.
<6
.
--- -
.
1
-----
-0
-- 002
-- 00.b
- 009
J
138
T OL-
138
9
- OOP5
V)
I
'
0
f
L
--
ooz
-- OOP
2
I
C
- 009
1s Palqns
w
~01Aelpue ~aujlaj
(panuguo3) ' M O J ~ J a y l 8 y ~ n (pq a g aql dq palea!py) quqsu! uaaas le ~ a a f q naql
s
p ( d -SA~ d ~SM)a!A ap!s luasard a9 pue q9 sam%!,# u! s q d e ~ %
ay$ anoqe saauanbas aq& -(aa~na
'(ahlna p!~os) ,"x -ZS (a) pue 1s (q) qaafqns jo IepJ auo pue
paffop) '"z'(anma paqsep)
'qaafqns ~ p j aze~aar?
o
aIqmasua (a)JOJ'"8ameq aaua~ajaru! Japlnoqs ayl Je am -9 an%!&
- oot-
13u
In
5
0
C
--
'--/
.-0-21
,
n
ooz-
2
2
;O
\
'.-./f3%--~
- %"--,
rn
\
.
L'6
<--4
__---
-0
--
C
C+
0
z
C
e.
2
ooz
rn
I
-- O O t
;o
G
-
,z-.
- 009
Feltner and Taylor
REL
Figure 6 -(continued)
Selected kinematic data are presented in Table 1. Table 2 reports the maximum and
release values for the shoulder, elbow, and wrist RJTs. Tables 3 and 4 present the average
RJT and RJF values during the intervals t = 9.80 s to t = 9.90 s (Period 2) and t = 9.90 s
until t = 10.00 s (Period 3). The average RJT and RJF values during Period I (t = 9.70 s
until t = 9.80 s) were quite small and are not reported. Last, select anthropometric data are
reported in Table 5. Correlations of all discrete data parameters with the percentage contribution of upper arm internal rotation to ball speed at release [%lv,l(q,,,,)] (Feltner &
Nelson, 1996) also are displayed in Tables 1-5.
The kinematic data in Table 1 indicate that the OH technique subjects tended to
have larger maximal abduction angles at the shoulder (Feltner & Nelson, 1996) and that
they adducted the upper arm immediately prior to release (A0,,,
in Table 1). Additionally, the OH technique subjects reached their maximum height out of the water prior
to release and were dropping at the instant of release (As,,, in Table 1). All SW technique subjects reached their maximum height out of the water at the instant of release.
The remaining kinematic variables presented in Table 1 were reported previously by
Feltner and Nelson (1996) and are repeated to aid in interpretation of the RJF and RJT
data.
At the shoulder, all subjects exhibited internal rotation, abduction, and horizontal
adduction torques between t = 9.70 s and release (Figures 2a-2c). The magnitudes of all
three components of T u increased during the throw and reached their largest values during
Period 3 (Table 3), between 30 and 70 ms prior to release (Table 2). After reaching their
maximal values, all three RJTs decreased in magnitude through the instant of release.
Despite these similarities, the components of T, exhibited several pronounced differences
between the OH and SW technique subjects (Figures 2b and 2c). For all three components
361
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
Table 1 Select Kinematic Data and Their Correlations With %Ival (c4iA-r3
Correlation
%Iv,l (c4iA.IE)
Mean
SD
r
eUA_,,,
Maximum
(O)'
at release (O)"
AeuA-Abd ("Ib
Maximum s,
(m)
time(s)
s,,, at release (m)
&Z-MS
(my
Raf at release ('1"
eUA-External
eFA-Prona,ion
at release ("Y'
6T-Len.SideLean at release ( O Y
Rot at release ('1s)"
at release ("Is)"
Iv,l at release (m/s)"
= (Maximum eUA-,,,) "Values reported previously in Feltner & Nelson (1996). bAeuA_Abd
(eUA-,,,at release). "As,,, = (Maximum s,,,) - (s,,
at release).
* p < .05.
of T,, larger maximal values (Table 2) and larger average values during Period 3 (Table 3)
were associated with an increased upper arm internal rotation contribution to ball speed at
release. Additionally, the OH technique subjects tended to rapidly decrease the abduction
torque at the shoulder before release and create adduction torques at release (Figure 2b).
Conversely, the SW technique subjects either maintained or increased the magnitude of
the abduction torque at the shoulder through the instant of release.
To examine the relationship between technique style and shoulder abduction torque,
the change in the abduction torque (ATu-,,) between its maximum and release values was
computed and plotted versus %I~,l(q,,-~,), the percentage contribution of upper arm internal rotation to ball speed at release (Figure 7). As indicated by the regression line in
Figure 7, the variables exhibited a high linear relationship (r = .90) and indicated that
subjects who produced large internal rotation angular velocities of the upper arm changed
from abduction to adduction torques at the shoulder prior to release. The decrease in abduction torque prior to release in the OH technique subjects is further reinforced by the
negative correlation (r = -.69) between %Iv,l(~,,,) and the value of the abduction/
adduction torque (adduction torques are negative) at release (Table 2).
The RJT data at the shoulder were quite similar to data for baseball pitching and
football passing. Between the instants of stride foot contact and ball release, horizontal
adduction, abduction, and internal rotation torques occurred at the shoulder during baseball pitches (Feltner, 1989; Feltner & Dapena, 1986; Fleisig, Andrews, Dillman, &
Escamilla, 1995) and football passes (Rash & Shapiro, 1995). However, the abduction
torque changed direction and created adduction torques at the instant of release during the
362
Feltner and Taylor
Table 2 RJT Values (Nm) at the Shoulder, Elbow, and Wrist, the Times (s) of Their
Occurrence, and Their Correlations With %Iv,l (e,,,)
Correlation
(%A-IE)
Mean
SD
r
Wrist
Max flexion
Time
Flexiodextension at release
Elbow
Max extension
Time
Max flexion
Time
Max varus
Time
Extensiodflexion at release
Varus/valgus at release
Shoulder (R,)
Max internal rotation
Time
Max abduction
Time
Max horizontal adduction
Time
Internal/external rotation at release
Abduction/adduction at release
Horizontal adductiodabduction at release
football passes (Rash & Shapiro, 1995). All three torques reached their largest prerelease
magnitudes 50-100 ms prior to release in all activities and then decreased in magnitude
through release.
The pronatiodsupination RJTs at the elbow were less than 5 Nm throughout the
throw (Figures 3a-3c). Due to the inherent relationship between the internal rotation torque
at the shoulder and the varus torque at the elbow (Feltner, 1989; Feltner & Dapena, 1986),
the pattern of the varus torque was nearly identical to that of the internal rotation torque
for all subjects. The varus torque increased in magnitude and reached its peak values
during Period 3 near t = 9.96 s and then decreased through release (Figures 3a-3c, Tables
2 and 3). Additionally, larger varus torques were associated with an increased internal
rotation contribution to ball speed at release (Tables 2 and 3). The extensionKlexiontorques
at the elbow were quite small (<I0 Nm) for most subjects until near t = 9.90 s. Between
t = 9.90 s and release, the average flexion/extension torque at the elbow was negligible
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
363
Table 3 Average RJT Values (Nm) at the Shoulder, Elbow, and Wrist During Periods
2 and 3 and Their Correlations With %Iv,l ((4rA.,3
,
Correlation
%Iv~l(%A-IE)
Mean
SD
r
Period 2 (t = 9.80 s to t = 9.90 s)
Wrist flexionlextension
Elbow extensionlflexion
Elbow vmslvalgus
Shoulder internuexternal rotation
Shoulder abductionladduction
Shoulder horizontal abductionladduction
Period 3 (t = 9.90 s to t = 10.00 s)
Wrist flexionlextension
Elbow extensionlflexion
Elbow vmslvalgus
Shoulder internallexternal rotation
Shoulder abductionladduction
Shoulder horizontal abductionladduction
Note. The RJT values between t = 9.70 s and t = 9.80 s were of small magnitude and are not
reported.
(Table 3). During this interval, some subjects exhibited brief intervals of extension torques
at the elbow (maximum magnitudes ~ 2 Nm),
5
while other subjects created torques of
much smaller magnitude in both the flexion and extension directions (Figures 3a-3c). At
release, all subjects were creating flexion torques at the elbow (Table 2).
As with the shoulder torques, the varus and extension/flexion torques at the elbow
were similar to those that occurred during baseball pitching and football passing. In the
period preceding release, varus torques were reported at the elbow by Feltner and Dapena
(1986), Feltner (1989), Werner, Fleisig, Dillman, and Andrews (1993), Fleisig et al. (1995),
and Fleisig et al. (1996) during baseball pitching and by Rash and Shapiro (1995) and
Fleisig et al. (1996) during football passes. In these activities, the varus torque reached its
maximal value approximately 50 ms prior to release (near the instant of maximum elbow
flexion) and decreased through release. All previous baseball and football investigations
reported minimal extension (20-40 Nm maximal values) or flexion torques in the period
when the elbow joint was extending prior to release.
The resultant joint torque data at the wrist in the longitudinal rotation and ulnarl
radial deviation directions were quite small (<5 Nm) throughout the throw (Figures 4a4c). All subjects exhibited a flexion torque at the wrist throughout the penalty throw. The
flexion torque reached its largest values during Period 3 near t = 9.97 s (Tables 2 and 3)
and then decreased through release. No discernible differences were noted in the patterns
of the flexion torque at the wrist for the OH or SW technique subjects (Figures 4b and 4c).
Feltner and Taylor
364
Table 4 Average RJF Values (N) at the Shoulder, Elbow, and Wrist During Periods 2
(t = 9.80 s tot = 9.90 s) and 3 (t = 9.90 s tot = 10.00 s) and Their Correlations With
%IVB~ (%A-~E)
Correlation
(%A-IE)
%IvBl
Mean
SD
r
Period 2
XH
YH
Period 3
XH
YH
ZH
x,
YF
ZF
Note. The RJF values between t = 9.70 s and t = 9.80 s were of small magnitude and are not
reported.
* p 2 .05.
The RJF data at the wrist and elbow were similar for all subjects during the throw,
and their average values (Table 4) indicated that all components of F, and F, reached their
maximal magnitudes during Period 3 (t = 9.90 s to t = 10.00 s). Increased average values
for the Z, component of F, and Z, component of F, during Period 3 were associated with
a large internal rotation contribution to ball velocity at release (Table 4). Between t = 9.90
s and t = 10.0 s, the externally rotated position of the upper arm,flexed position of the
elbow, and pronated position of the forearm resulted in the Z, component of F, and the Z ,
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
365
Table 5 Anthropometric Data and Their Correlations With %Iv,l (a+,,.,)
Correlation
(%A-re)
%IvB~
Mean
SD
r
Mass (kg)
Height (cm)
Circumference measures (cm)
Waist
Chest
Axillary
Biceps
Elbow
Forearm
Wrist
Hand
Segment lengths (cm)
Upper arm
Forearm
Hand
Finger I11 (middle finger)
Hand breadth (cm)
Hand span (cm)
component of F, being oriented anterior to the plane formed by the upper arm and forearm (Figure 1). As such, both force components would be associated with an anteriorly
directed (Y,) force on the ball at release. The tendency for the OH technique subjects to
produce larger ball speeds at release (Table 1) was due in part to the larger Z, components
of F, and Z, components of F, during Period 3, as they would be associated with larger
forces made by the hand on the ball.
The RJF data at the shoulder in reference frames R, and R,. are presented in Figures
5 and 6 , respectively. The components of F, that coincided with the longitudinal axis of
the upper arm (Xu and Xu,) reached a local maximum near t = 9.90 s in all subjects,
decreased slightly in magnitude, and then rapidly increased, reaching their maximal value
at release in all subjects. Positive values for the Xu and Xu,components of F, indicate that
the muscles and ligaments of the shoulder are in tension and act to maintain the integrity
of the shoulder joint as the trunk and arm are rotated during the throw. The Y, component
of F, was negative (directed anteriorly) throughout the throw. It maintained a roughly
constant magnitude between t = 9.85 s and t = 9.98 s, then decreased in magnitude and
was near zero values at release. The Z, component of F, differed between the OH and SW
technique subjects. For the OH technique subjects, the Z, component of F, reached its
maximal positive value (directed superiorly) near t = 9.95 s, rapidly changed direction,
Feltner and Taylor
Figure 7 - Change in the abduction/adductioncomponent of T, (AT,,,)
rotation contribution to ball speed at release [% Iv,l(~@,,~-,,)].The % Iv,l(~@,,,)
previously by Feltner and Nelson (1996).
versus the internal
data were reported
and was a negative value (directed inferiorly) at release (Figure 5b). The SW technique
subjects maintained smaller magnitude and positive Z, components of Fu throughout the
throw; however, the magnitude of these forces decreased in the 50-100 ms period before
release and had near zero values at release (Figure 5c). In spite of the negative values for
the Z, component of F, near release, larger average values for the Z, component of F,
during Period 3 were associated with a large internal rotation contribution to ball velocity
at release (Table 4).
When examined in reference frame R,,, the Y,, components of Fu (directed
superior in the plane defined by the upper arm and forearm) were generally negative
during the throw for all subjects (Figures 6a-6c). The Z , components of Fu (directed
anterior to the plane defined by the upper arm and forearm) were positive throughout
most of the throw and reached their maximum magnitudes near t = 9.95 s for all subjects.
After t = 9.95 s and through release, the OH technique subjects tended to create negative
values for the Z , components of F, (Figure 6b), while the SW technique subjects merely
component of F, (Figure 6c). In spite of the
decreased the positive magnitude of the 5,
negative values for the Z,, component of F, at release, increased average values for the
Z,, component of F, were associated with a large internal rotation contribution to ball
velocity at release.
In a Y,, versus &,view of the throwing arm,the flexed position of the elbow during
the penalty throw would result in the &,components of F, passing below the center of
mass of the throwing ann (CM-). Thus, positive Z , forces would create external rotation torques about an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the upper arm (Xu) passing
through CM,,,,
while negative Z,, forces would create internal rotation torques about
CM,,. Near the instant of release for the OH technique subjects, the negative values for
the 5.
components of F, coupled with large magnitude internal rotation torques at the
shoulder rapidly increased the internal rotation angular velocity of the upper arm (Feltner
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
367
& Nelson, 1996) and the associated large internal rotation contribution to ball speed at
release. In the SW technique subjects, positive values for the &,components of F, together with the small magnitude internal rotation torques at the shoulder through the instant of release resulted in small to negligible upper arm internal rotation angular velocities at release and the associated small internal rotation contribution to ball speed (Feltner
& Nelson, 1996).
The RJF and RJT data together with kinematic data reported in the present and
previous (Feltner & Nelson, 1996) investigations allowed us to develop the following
general interpretation for the OH technique subjects (Subject Sl). As the ball was lifted
from the water near t = 9.70 s, the trunk and upper body were rapidly raised above the
surface of the water and oriented so the trunk was approximately perpendicular to the
plane of the goal (Feltner & Nelson, 1996). The trunk then was twisted in a counterclockwise direction (viewed from above) through the instant of release. These motions were
due primarily to the actions of the legs but were probably aided by the actions of the
nonthrowing (left) arm and the rotary muscles of the trunk (Barr & Gordon, 1980; Davis
& Blanksby, 1977; Juba, 1972; Lambert & Gaughran, 1969; Rollins et al., 1985). Clarys,
Cabri, and Teirlinck (1992) reported significant electromyographical (EMG) activity in
the rectus femoris and biceps femoris muscles in the legs and the rectus abdominis during
both 4 m and 8 m water polo throws.
At t = 9.70 s, the upper arm for the OH technique subjects was in a position of
horizontal abduction and continued to be horizontally abducted until near t = 9.81 s; the
upper arm then was horizontally adducted through release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996). Because the counterclockwise rotation of the trunk would tend to horizontally abduct the
upper arm relative to the trunk, horizontal adduction muscle activity was required to limit
the amount of horizontal abduction that occurred prior to t = 9.81 s and produce the horizontal adduction angular velocities through the instant of release. The horizontal adduction torque at the shoulder was created in part by the actions of the pectoralis major as it
exhibits EMG activity during the water polo throw (Clarys et al., 1992).
Near t = 9.70 s, the OH technique subjects were in positions of upper arm abduction
(Feltner & Nelson, 1996). Shortly after t = 9.70 s, abduction torques were present at the
shoulder and were responsible for the continued abduction of the upper arm until near t =
9.90 s. After this instant, the abduction torque decreased in magnitude and acquired adduction values prior to release. This resulted in the observed upper arm adduction that
occurred between t = 9.90 s and release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
As the horizontal adduction and abduction torques were occurring at the shoulder,
an internal rotation torque also was present. Prior to approximately t = 9.90 s and as the
upper arm was externally rotated at the shoulder (Feltner & Nelson, 1996), the internal
rotation torque was used to control the rate of the upper arm external rotation (Feltner,
1989; Feltner & Dapena, 1986).After t = 9.90 s and through release, the internal rotation
torque helped produce the large internal rotation angular velocity of the upper arm (Feltner
& Nelson, 1996). The pectoralis major EMG activity reported by Clarys et al. (1992) also
of adduction and internal rotation torques at the shoulder.
would aid in
Interestingly, the OH technique subjects also used the vertical motions of the trunk
to help produce the internal rotation angular velocity of the upper arm. The OH technique
subjects reached their maximum vertical displacement of the trunk near t = 9.90 s and then
moved in a negative Z, direction or dropped through release. As the trunk experienced
negative Z, accelerations and was dropping, it tended to produce negative Z, forces on the
upper arm at the shoulder. Due to the position of the trunk and the externally rotated
position of the upper arm,a negative Z, force at the shoulder would have components in
368
Feltner and Taylor
the negative Z, and Z,, directions (Figure 1). Thus, negative Z, forces on the upper arm at
the shoulder would create an internal rotation torque about CM,,.
The internal rotation
torque produced by the negative Z,component of the F, was further enhanced by the
adduction torque that occurred at the shoulder immediately prior to release. Adduction
torques at the shoulder would be associated with negative Z, and Z,,components of the
F, at the shoulder and also would create internal rotation torques about CM,, (Chung,
1988; Feltner & Dapena, 1986). The relationship between the adduction torque at the
shoulder (Figure 2b) and F, is apparent in the decreasing positive Z, and increasing negative Z , values for the components of F, (Figures 5b and 6b, respectively) between approximately t = 9.95 s and release for Subject S l .
The dropping or downward motion of the trunk prior to release could decrease the
height of the ball at release and increase the chances for a defender to block the shot. To
avoid this potential negative effect, the OH technique subjects produced a large amount of
trunk lean to the left and maintained the elbow in a flexed position at release (Feltner &
Nelson, 1996). The flexed elbow position at release also increased the distance between
the ball and the longitudinal axis of the upper arm (axis of rotation for the internal rotation
angular velocity) and enabled the internal rotation motion of the upper arm to significantly contribute to ball speed at release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
Subjects who used the SW technique exhibited trunk motions similar to those of the
OH technique subjects during the penalty throw (Feltner & Nelson, 1996). Between t =
9.70 s and t = 9.90 s, the horizontal abduction/adduction motions of the upper arm and the
presence of a horizontal adduction torque at the shoulder for the SW technique subjects
were similar to those displayed by the OH technique subjects. After t = 9.90 s and in spite
of producing horizontal adduction torques of smaller magnitude, the SW technique subjects rapidly increased their rate of upper ann horizontal adduction and tended to have
larger horizontal adduction angular velocities at release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996). An
abduction torque was present at the shoulder throughout the throw for the SW technique
subjects. As the ball left the water, the arm was in a position of upper arm adduction and
the abduction torque controlled the slight adduction motion that occurred until near t =
9.80 s (Feltner & Nelson, 1996). After t = 9.80 s, the abduction torque was responsible for
producing the upper arm abduction that occurred through release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
Small magnitude internal rotation torques also were present at the shoulder for the SW
technique subjects throughout the penalty throw. The upper arm was maintained in a position of external rotation between t = 9.70 s and t = 9.90 s and experienced only a small
amount of internal rotation in the 100 ms preceding release (Feltner & Nelson, 1996).
Thus, the internal rotation torques present for the SW technique subjects were not of
sufficient magnitude to produce a large internal rotation angular velocity of the upper arm
at release.
At any instant during the penalty throw, the SW technique subjects generally had
smaller positive vertical displacements of the trunk relative to the OH technique subjects.
However, the SW technique subjects increased their vertical height out of the water throughout the throw and reached their maximum vertical displacement at release. Perhaps to
prevent the ball from having a low vertical position at release due to the vertical motions
of the trunk and the adducted position of the upper arm early in the throw (Feltner &
Nelson, 1996), the SW technique subjects produced abduction torques at the shoulder
throughout the penalty throw. However, the upward motions of the trunk and abduction
torques at the shoulder would be associated with positive Z, forces made by the trunk on
the upper arm at the shoulder (Chung, 1988). Due to the externally rotated position of the
arm during the penalty throw, positive Z, forces have positive Z,, components (Figure 1)
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
369
and create an external rotation torque about CM-. Evidently, the internal rotation torque
created by the ligaments and muscles at the shoulder (Xu component of T,) is nearly equal
in magnitude to the external rotation torque created by the &,component of F,, and only
negligible to small magnitude internal rotation angular velocities of the upper arm are
produced at the instant of release. Thus, the minimal upper arm internal rotation contribution to ball speed at release in the SW technique subjects is related to their need to abduct
the arm and maintain a positive upward motion of the trunk throughout the penalty throw.
The lack of significant extension torques at the elbow during the penalty throw
(Figures 3a-3c, Tables 2 and 3) strongly suggests that the elbow extension motion is due
to the force created by the upper arm on the forearm at the elbow. As the trunk is rotated
counterclockwise and the upper arm undergoes its abduction and horizontal adduction
rotations relative to the trunk, forces applied to the forearm at the elbow and directed
along the longitudinal axis of the upper arm are necessary to maintain the centripetal
acceleration of the elbow relative to the shoulder (Feltner & Dapena, 1986). In turn, this
force creates an extension torque about the CM of the forearm. This mechanism to produce the extension motion of the forearm was described for a baseball pitch by Feltner and
Dapena (1986) and Feltner (1989) and was shown to contribute to shank motion during
running (Putnam, 1991) and punt kicks (Putnam, 1983, 1991, 1993). The presence of
flexion torques at the elbow near release indicates that the flexor muscles are needed to
control the amount of extension that occurs as a result of the trunk and upper arm rotations. Clarys et al. (1992) reported simultaneous EMG activity of both the biceps brachii
and triceps brachii from approximately t = 9.85 s until after the instant of release. The
bicepsltriceps cocontraction may suggest that the elbow muscles primarily act to control,
not produce, the amount of extension that occurs during the penalty throw.
As the trunk, upper arm,and forearm undergo their respective rotations prior to and
through release, the forearm places a large force on the hand at the wrist (I?,). Due to the
position of trunk and arm segments near release (Figure 1; sequences above Figures 2-45)
and the desire to throw the ball in the positive Y, direction, F, must have a large Z,
component near release. However, Z, components of F, would tend to create extension
torques about the CM of the hand. If the hand extended near release, this would decrease
the forces made by the hand on the ball and ultimately reduce ball speed at release. To
prevent an unwanted extension motion of the hand, wrist flexion torques (Figures 4 a - 4 ~ )
were present in both the OH and SW technique subjects, which enabled the hand to apply
large forces to the ball. This agrees with the findings of Joris, Edwards van Muyen, van
Ingen Schenau, and Kemper (1985), who found that female handball players (ball mass
0.37 kg, diameter 16.6 cm) generated large forces in wrist and finger flexor muscles prior
to release to transfer energy from the lower arm to the hand and ball.
The obvious question that arises from the findings of the current and previous investigations (Feltner & Nelson, 1996) is why did the subjects voluntarily use either the
OH or SW technique to produce a maximal velocity penalty throw? To attempt to identify
the causal factors for technique determination, we examined the relationships between the
anthropometric and velocity contribution data. Surprisingly, all circumference measures
associated with the chest, upper arm, and forearm exhibited moderate, but significant,
positive correlations with the upper arm internal rotation contribution to ball speed at
release (Table 5). This may indicate that muscular strength was the causal determinant for
technique style. Subjects who were stronger (larger circumference measures) were able to
create the necessary muscular strength and associated larger magnitude joint torques required by the OH technique. Conversely, the weaker subjects were unable to use the overhand technique and had to adopt the sweep technique to produce sufficient ball speed. The
370
Felfner and Taylor
relationship between upper extremity girth measures and strength can be confounded by
many factors (Katch & Hortobagyi, 1990). However, the relatively uniform somatotype
and low percentage of body fat exhibited by water polo athletes would argue that circumference measures may be a good superficial measure of muscular strength in this sample.
McMaster, Long, and Caiozzo (1991) reported that U.S. national team water polo
athletes had higher shoulder adductor/abductor isokinetic (30°/s and 180°/s) strength ratios than a group of college-age noncompetitive males. Bartlett, Storey, and Simons (1989)
also reported that of 14 muscle groups at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist, only shoulder
adductor strength was significantly correlated with ball speed in baseball throwing. Together with the present findings, these studies indicate that water polo players may require
increased strength of the shoulder adductors to internally rotate the upper arm when using
the OH technique. Thus, diminished or low strength of the shoulder adductor muscles
may require some water polo athletes to use the SW technique.
What are the advantages of using the OH versus SW technique? The OH technique
requires greater muscular strength and associated joint torques; however, both the varus
torque at the elbow and internal rotation torque at the shoulder are produced by large
contributions from the ligamentous structures at each joint. In turn, large tensile forces in
these connective tissue structures may place them at increased risk of injury. Rollins et al.
(1985) reported that the predominant injury seen in water polo athletes is subacromial
impingement resulting from combined horizontal adduction, abduction, and internal rotation of the throwing arm that occur during the OH technique. Thus, the SW technique and
its associated lower muscular strength requirements may decrease the athlete's risk of
injury. However, the OH technique does exhibit a positive but moderate relationship with
ball speed at release (Table 1). As in most competitive sporting events, the potential for
increased performance (higher ball speeds at release) may outweigh the possibility of
increased injury risks associated with the overhand technique.
References
Abdel-Aziz, Y.I., & Karara, H.M. (1971). Direct linear transformation: From comparator coordinates into object coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. In Proceedings ASPUI Symposium on Close-Range Photogrammetry, Urbana, Illinois (pp. 1-19). Falls Church, VA: American Society of Photogrammetry.
Andrews, J.G. (1974). Biomechanical analysis of human motion. Kinesiology IV. Washington, DC:
AAHPERD.
Andrews, J.G. (1982). On the relationship between resultant joint torques and muscular activity.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14, 361-367.
Ban; D., & Gordon, A. (1980). Water polo. East Ardsley, UK: EP Publishing.
Bartlett, L.R., Storey, M.D., & Simons, B.D. (1989). Measurement of upper extremity torque production and its relationship to throwing speed in the competitive athlete. American Journal of
Sports Medicine, 17, 89-9 1.
Chandler, R.F,, Clauser, C.E., McConville, J.T., Reynolds, H.M., & Young, J.M. (1975). Investigation of the inertialproperties of the human body (AMRLTechnical Report 74-137). WrightPatterson Air Force Base, OH.
Chung, C.S. (1988). Three-dimensional analysis of the shoulder and elbow joints during the volleyball spike. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Clarys, J.P., Cabri, J., & Teirlinck, P. (1992). An electromyographic and impact force study of the
overhand water polo throw. In D. MacLaren et al. (Eds.), Biomechanics and medicine in
swimming (pp. 111-116). London: E & FN Spon.
Clauser, C.E., McConville, J.T., & Young, J.W. (1969). Weight, volume and center of mass of segments of the human body (AMRLTechnical Report 69-70). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
OH.
Three-Dimensional Kinetics
371
Dapena, J. (1978). A method to determine the angular momentum of a human body about three
orthogonal axes passing through its center of gravity. Journal of Biomechanics, 11,251-256.
Davis, T., & Blanksby, B.A. (1977). A cinematographic analysis of the overhand water polo throw.
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 17,5-16.
Elliott, B.C., &Armour, J. (1988). The penalty throw in water polo: A cinematographic analysis.
Journal of Sports Science, 6,103-114.
Elliott, B., Grove, J.R., & Gibson, B. (1988). Timing of the lower limb drive and throwing limb
movement in baseball pitching. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 4,59-67.
Elliott, B., Grove, J.R., Gibson, B., & Thurston, B. (1986). A three-dimensional cinematographic
analysis of the fastball and curvehall pitches in baseball. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 2,20-28.
Feltner, M.E. (1989). Three-dimensional interactions in a two-segment kinetic chain. Part 2: Application to the throwing arm in baseball pitching. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics,
5,420450.
Feltner, M.E., & Dapena, J. (1986). Dynamics of the shoulder and elbow joints of the throwing arm
during a baseball pitch. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 2,235-259.
Feltner, M.E., & Nelson, S.T. (1996). Three-dimensional kinematics of the throwing arm during the
penalty throw in water polo. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12(3), 359-382.
Fleisig, G.S., Andrews, J.R., Dillman, C.J., & Escamilla, R.F. (1995). Kinetics of baseball pitching with
implications about injury mechanisms. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 23,233-239.
Fleisig, G.S., Escamilla, R.F.,Andrews, J.R., Matsuo, T., Satterwhite, Y.,& Barrentine, S.W. (1996).
Kinematics and kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics, 12(2), 207-224.
Hinrichs, R.N. (1985). Regression equations to predict segmental moments of inertia from anthropometric measurements: An extension of the data. Journal of Biomechanics, 18,621-624.
Hinrichs, R.N. (1990). Adjustments to the segment center of mass proportions of Clauser et al.
(1969). Journal of Biomechanics, 23,949-95 1.
Jijris, H.J.J., Edwards van Muyen, A.J., van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & Kemper, H.C.G. (1985). Force,
velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. Journal of
Biomechanics, 1 8 , 4 0 9 4 4 .
Juba, K. (1972). All about waterpolo. London: pelhim Books.
Katch, F.I., & Hortobagyi, T. (1990). Validity of surface anthropometry to estimate upper-arm muscularity, including changes with body mass loss. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 52,
591-595.
Lambert, A.F., & Gaughran, R. (1969). The technique of waterpolo. North Hollywood, CA: Swimming World.
McMaster, W.C., Long, S.C., & Caiozzo, V.J. (1991). Isokinetic torque imbalances in the rotator cuff
of the elite water polo player. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 19,72-75.
Putnam, C.A. (1983). Interaction between segments during a kicking motion. In H. Matsui & K.
Kobayashi (Eds.), Biomechanics VIII-B (pp. 688-694). Champaign, E Human Kinetics.
Putnam, C.A. (1991). A segment interaction analysis of proximal-to-distal sequential segment motion patterns. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, 130-144.
Putnam, C.A. (1993). Sequential motions of body segments in striking and throwing skills: Descriptions and explanations. Journal of Biomechanics, 26(Suppl. I), 125-135.
Rash, G.S. (1994). A comparison of 51 kinematiclkinetic parameters in the throwing motion of the
short and long pass of 4 elite college quarterbacks. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, S176.
Rash, G.S., & Shapiro, R. (1995). Athree-dimensional dynamic analysis of a quarterback's throwing
motion in American football. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11(4), 443459.
Rollins, J., Puffer, J.C., Whiting, W.C., Gregor, R.J., & Fineman, G.A.M. (1985). Water polo injuries to the upper extremity. In B. Zarins, J.R. Andrews, & W.G. Carson (Eds.), Injuries to the
throwing arm (pp. 3 11-317). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Vaughan, C.L. (1980). An optimization approach to closed loop problems in biomechanics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
. m a $o ~ o dJ ~ I ~dl!s~an!un
M
aurp~addadayl jo saqxo3 pw slaquraur atp pw
'uogaalIo3 alvp 3uunp pals!sse o q smapms
~
sno~aurnuayl 'suqdmo~.A ' u o s l a ~'S 01 palqapu! are
aM '1!3uno3 qmasax I(lrs~aa!unau!p~addadayl m o ~slm?r8
j
dq papoddns svM y3masaJ s ! q ~
s~uau18pal~ou73~
'6 LVLLP 'ZT 'SJ?UvYJam0?8
aunds 30 asn aql u o '(6~61)'~'3
' s ~ u ! u u.~1 ~"v.9
~
'POOM
$0 pnunoy .8uyyloornsa v p 103 SUO!I~U~J
'86-56 '£1 ' 2 ~ ! 3 . f pSl10d~i0
a~
IDU
-mof uuJ?Jazuv.s~auf~opad
alga ur 8 u ~ ~ o ofod
n p JalvM $0 s!sd@w 2yd~~3oleurau~3
@uoys
-uaur!p-aaq~,'(~861)' ~ 'sgalepq
9
i,y ' . r x '108a~9"v.9 'uauuau!s "'31
'xagtq
:
" 3 '' 8~u p l q ~
'PZ 1
-11 1 '1' s ~ ~ u u L ~jlodsJo
~ u ~ opu.inof
? ~ luuo?ivwnuI '8ur~o.quyan~fs a p - ~ a u01 suoy
-nqguo3 mawred aseaIa1pue 1uaur8asLpoa '(1661) 'pq ' e ~ q s n l vi,y~"ra ' ~ o 8 a ~"3.M
f ) '%ug!q&
'~LZ+LZ 'LT 'Adv~avjp~?sXtjdsvods puv 3!padoyi.~Jo1Z)u.inof .8u!qn!d 1leqasvq %u!
-mp Moqra aql jo s3!ueq3auro!% '(£661) '8.1 's~aJpuVi,y "f.3'uvuf~l!a " ~ " 3
'Z!s!a~t~ '.TS '~aurafi
.Wd
I(lrs~aa!un'Ll!sxan~alms emrrn1Ksuuad 'uo!jauassIp 1v~013oppaqsgqndun .uo.fzour u m n y
1
sso& 8u?L@unnb104anb?utpajpaz.fgv.~aua8y :hjazumv.iBoioyd a8uv1 asol3 '(1861) ' ~ ' 'uoqefi
io/Ael pue ~aujlaj
ZLE