Journal of Sports Sciences, March 2012; 30(6): 601–608
Kinematic differences between front crawl sprint and distance
swimmers at a distance pace
CARLA B. McCABE & ROSS H. SANDERS
Centre of Aquatics Research and Education, The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
(Accepted 19 January 2012)
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine whether there are differences in kinematics between sprint and distance front
crawl specialists when swimming at a distance pace using a six beat kick. Seven sprint and eight distance male specialists
performed one maximum 400 m swim through a 6.75 m3 calibrated space recorded by six gen-locked cameras. The
following variables were calculated: average swim velocity, stroke length, stroke frequency, upper limb and foot
displacement, elbow angle, the shoulder and hip roll angle, duration of the stroke phases and time corresponding to
particular events within the stroke cycle relative to hand entry. Differences between the groups were assessed by an
independent t-test and effect size (d) calculations for each variable. The groups only differed significantly with respect to the
average swim velocity, with the distance swimmers maintaining a greater velocity throughout the 400 m. However, effect
sizes were moderate for elbow angle range during the pull phase (d ¼ 0.78) and the total hip roll magnitude (d ¼ 0.76). There
was little evidence to suggest that sprint and distance swimmers using a six beat kick pattern differ in technique when
swimming at a distance pace and therefore coaches should not encourage the development of different techniques between
these groups.
Keywords: swimming technique, distance pace, sprint specialists, distance specialists
Introduction
Competitive swimmers tend to specialise in either
sprint (50–100 m) or distance events (400mþ)
which is largely determined by their innate or trained
physiological
and
mechanical
characteristics
(McArdle, Katch, and Katch, 1996; Hohmann,
Dierks, Luenhenschloss, Seidel and Wichmann,
1999). Dependent on the specialised event, coaches
design training programs to strategically direct the
swimmer towards their peak performance by developing physiological aspects appropriate for the event
duration (Johnson and Gadboy, 1999; Lydersen,
1999). Additionally there has been considerable
speculation that sprint and distance swimmers utilise
different stroke technique characteristics in order to
achieve maximal performance and as a consequence
coaches should develop these techniques accordingly
(Costill, Maglischo, and Richardson, 1992;
Cappaert, 1999; Ito and Okuno, 2003).
Whilst this seems sensible it may be problematic
and unnecessary. Swimmers often engage in aquatic
programs at a young age in order to learn how to
swim and to develop the correct techniques (Blanksby, Parker, Bradley, and Ong, 1995). After a period
of repetitive practice the technique is well established, and then difficult to change once at the
‘autonomous’ stage of learning (Magill, 2001). As a
result, there may be a benefit to developing
characteristics of technique to suit sprint performance or distance performance early in a swimmers
development.
However, this requires early identification of
whether a swimmer is more suited to distance or
sprint swimming and problems may arise from
incorrect assessment of sprint versus distance competitive potential. Also coaches of young swimmers
are not sufficiently well informed with regard to
identifying distance speciality based on physiological
and anthropometric parameters and they may not be
sufficiently knowledgeable or experienced to develop
the optimal technique for event specialisations.
To address the issue of whether swimmers need to
be trained in sprint or distance technique at an early
age, it is important to establish (1) What differences
exist between the techniques of sprint and distance
Correspondence: Carla B. McCabe, The University of Edinburgh, Centre of Aquatics Research and Education, Edinburgh, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.660186
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
602
C. B. McCabe & R. H. Sanders
swimmers and (2) Whether swimmers adjust appropriately between paces without having had event
specific technique development from a young age.
Relative to distance swimmers, it has been
reported that sprint swimmers utilise a deeper
pulling action of the hand (Cappaert, 1999), a
greater extension of the elbow during the underwater
stroke cycle (Wilke, 1992; Cappaert, 1999) and a
greater knee range of motion during the flutter kick
(Cappaert, 1999) in order to maximise propulsion.
Cappaert (1999) reported that sprint swimmers tend
to roll the shoulders approximately 168 less than their
distance counterparts and attributed this difference
to the shorter stroke cycle durations in sprinting.
It has been suggested that distance swimmers
stroke with a reduced vertical displacement of the
hand and a smaller internal angle of the elbow, i.e.
greater elbow flexion throughout the underwater
stroke cycle compared to sprinters in order to reduce
the muscular contribution about the shoulder joint
and thus minimise energy cost (Vorontsov and
Rumyantsev, 2000). Cappaert (1999) proposed that
distance swimmers increase the magnitude of
shoulder roll as a method of lengthening the stroke
and tend to utilise the kicking action primarily for
balance rather than a direct source of propulsion
compared to sprint swimmers (Watkins and Gordan,
1983; Costill et al., 1992; Vorontsov and Rumyantsev, 2000; Maglischo, 2003). Indeed, when comparing the techniques of sprint and distance swimmers,
one factor that has not been addressed is the beat
pattern of the kick. It is therefore possible that
previous differences observed in technique may have
been influenced simply by the kicking frequency i.e.
2 beat, 4 beat or 6 beat rather than differences being
associated with the pace.
Despite the findings that sprint and distance
swimmers are technically different, the effect of the
swim pace was not considered. It is therefore
unknown whether sprint and distance swimmers
are kinematically different due to their distance
specialisation, or whether the differences reported
in the existing literature are due to the swim pace.
Indeed McCabe, Psycharakis, and Sanders (2011)
reported that sprint and distance swimmers do not
differ to the extent expressed in the literature, when
both groups swim at a sprint pace, suggesting that
the swim pace was accountable for the previously
observed differences between sprint and distance
swimmers. It is unknown whether this is also the case
when both groups swim at a distance pace.
McCabe et al. (2011) reported that when swimming at a sprint pace: (1) sprint specialists pull the
hand through the pull phase in a shorter period of
time compared to distance specialists and (2)
distance swimmers obtain maximum shoulder roll
earlier in the stroke cycle than sprinters. Because the
latter study was the first to directly compare sprint
and distance swimmers at a similar pace (sprinting),
it is unknown whether these observed differences
exist when both groups swim at a distance pace.
Therefore the purpose of this study was to
determine whether there are differences in the
kinematics of sprint and distance front crawl
specialists when swimming at a 400 m pace using a
six beat kick.
Methods
Participants
Seven sprint specialists (18.3 + 2.3 yrs; 75.8 + 6.4
kgs; 184.4 + 6.3 cm; 400 m swim time- 4.24.26
mins + 9.10 sec) and eight distance specialist
male swimmers (17.5 + 2.5 yrs; 72.3 + 10.5 kgs;
181.8 + 7.5 cm; 400 m swim time- 4.02.59 mins +
7.08 sec), who competed at a national and international level, volunteered to participate in this study.
The selection of skilled swimmers was based on an
increased likelihood that their stroke characteristics
and stroke patterns would be well established and
consistent (Pyne, Trewin, and Hopkins, 2004;
Nikodelis, Kollias, and Hatzitaki, 2005). Furthermore, the selection of participants required that all
swimmers have a preferred kick pattern of a six-beat
kick, whether swimming at sprint or distance pace –
this facilitated valid comparison between swim
techniques without the confounding effect of different kick patterns. All test procedures were approved
by the institutional ethics committee and swimmers
provided signed written informed consent prior to
their participation.
To enable tracking of the swimmers, the following
19 anatomical landmarks were identified: the vertex
of the head (using a swim cap), the right and left of
the: tip of the 3rd distal phalanx of the finger, wrist
axis, elbow axis, shoulder axis, hip axis, knee axis,
ankle axis, 5th metatarsophalangeal joint, and the tip
of 1st phalanx (big toe). These markers defined a 14
segment body model allowing anthropometric calculations, such as the whole body centre of mass,
utilising Deffeyes and Sanders (2005) adapted
version of Jensen’s (1978) elliptical zone method.
Testing procedure
Each participant was required to swim one 400 m
initiated from a push start in a 25 m level deck
swimming pool. The instruction given to each
swimmer was to maximise their 400 m swim
performance. Since previous studies have indicated
that the breathing action influences the magnitude of
body roll in front crawl swimming (Payton, Bartlett,
Baltzopoulos, and Coombs, 1999; Castro, Minghelli,
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
Sprint vs. distance specialists
Floss, and Guimaraes, 2003), all swimmers were
required to familiarise themselves with the breathholding protocol within the calibrated space during
their individualised warm-up.
The swimming volume was calibrated using a
rectangular prism frame of the following dimensions:
4.5 m length (x), 1.0 m width (y), and 1.5 m height
(z) enclosing a calibrated volume of 6.75 m3. The
construction of the calibration frame situated it halfbelow and half-above the water surface with the x
axis aligned with the swimming direction. The
accuracy and reliability of the three-dimensional
coordinate calculation of this frame was established
by Psycharakis, Sanders and Mills (2005) who
reported small errors which were similar to, or better
than, other frames used in three-dimensional studies
of movement in large spaces. The calibration frame
was recorded by six gen-locked JVC KY32 CCD
cameras (four below and two above the water
surface) and digitised to yield separate calibration
files for the above and below water views using the
Ariel Performance Analysis System (APAS) software
which incorporates the direct linear transformation
(DLT) algorithms of Abdel-Aziz and Karara (1971).
The accuracy of the DLT coefficients was enhanced
by adjusting the heights of all cameras so that the
calibration control points were clearly distinguishable. All six cameras recorded the motion of the
swimmer at a sampling frequency of 50 Hz and an
electronic shutter speed of 1/120 seconds.
Data processing
One stroke cycle, defined as the period between the
instant of hand entry (either right or left) to the
instant of hand entry of the same hand, for each
50 m within the 400 m was selected for analysis
(total of eight stroke cycles). This meant that the
trials digitised were a combination of right and left
handed stroke cycles both between and within
participants. All swim trials were initiated from a
push start at the top end of the 25 m pool and
recorded through a calibrated volume that was
positioned 5.25 m from the bottom end of the
25 m pool. As a result each selected stroke cycle
was captured during the first 25 m per 50 m within
the 400m in order to avoid any possible influence
that the swim turn may have on stroke kinematics.
APAS was used to manually digitise the nineteen
body landmarks separately for the above and below
water views from all six camera views and all eight
stroke cycles per swimmer. Continuous coordinates
for each stroke cycle was obtained by combining the
above and below water output files which was then
input into a bespoke MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc.)
program to calculate all variables. A Fourier transform, regarded as highly appropriate when analysing
603
periodic data such as swimming (Bartlett, 1997), was
used to smooth the raw data for each stroke cycle. Six
harmonics were retained in the inverse transform
corresponding to the highest frequency harmonic
retained being between 3.5 to 5 Hz depending on the
swimmer’s stroke cycle time.
Data analysis
The average horizontal swimming velocity (vav) was
calculated by dividing the swimmer’s mean centre of
mass horizontal displacement by the time to complete one stroke cycle. Stroke length (SL) was the
horizontal displacement of the centre of mass during
one stroke cycle. Stroke frequency (SF) was the
inverse of the time (seconds) to complete one stroke
cycle which was then multiplied by 60 to yield units
of strokes per minute.
The vertical motion of the upper limb was
represented by the z displacement (m) of the tip of
the 3rd distal phalanx of the finger, wrist axis and
elbow axis. The z displacement (m) of the 1st
phalanx tip (big toe) was representative of the foot’s
vertical motion. Both the vertical motion of the
upper limb and foot segments were referenced to an
external point. The lateral motion of the tip of the
3rd distal phalanx of the finger, wrist axis and elbow
axis, with respect to the swimmer’s centre of mass,
was calculated as the absolute y displacement (m).
Shoulder and hip roll angles were calculated
independently as the angle between the unit vector
of the line joining the shoulders and hips respectively, projected onto the yz plane (i.e. the plane
perpendicular to the swimming direction, x), and the
horizontal (y) axis. Computationally, this is: atan (Sz/
Sy) and atan (Hz/Hy); where Sz and Sy are the z and y
components of the shoulder unit vector and Hz and
Hy are the z and y components of the hip unit vector.
The elbow angle was quantified as the arc-cosine
of the dot product of the upper arm and lower arm
unit vectors. The elbow angle was quantified at five
instants within the underwater stroke cycle, namely:
1st back, shoulder x, end back, hand exit, recovery
(Figure 1). The elbow angle at hand exit was
determined at the moment the finger crossed
0.75 m on the vertical axis (since half of the frame
was equally above and below the water). Referring to
Figure 1, the elbow angle range during the pull and
push phases was calculated as: X3-X2 and X4-X3
respectively.
Four separate phases were identified; entry, pull,
push and recovery (Chollet, Chalies, and Chatard,
2000; Seifert, Chollet, and Brady, 2004). Each
phase, within every stroke cycle, was determined
from the swimmer’s horizontal (x) and vertical
displacement (y) of the finger and noting the time
corresponding to these displacements. Figure 1
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
604
C. B. McCabe & R. H. Sanders
Figure 1. Analysis of the horizontal displacement of the finger and shoulder was used to define instances throughout the stroke cycle. Elbow
angle data and stroke phase durations were then calculated corresponding to when these instances occurred. Instances were defined as
follows: X1 ¼ finger entry, X2 ¼ beginning of finger moving horizontally backward ‘‘1st back’’, X3 ¼ finger vertically aligned with the
shoulder ‘‘shoulder x’’, X4 ¼ end of backwards movement ‘‘end back’’, X5 ¼ finger re-entry ‘‘recovery’’.
illustrates the definition of each discrete phase. Time
was expressed as a percentage of the stroke cycle.
Digitising reliability
In a previously related study, the authors established
that the digitising reliability for each of the variables
tested was acceptable due to the reported small
errors after digitising one stroke cycle 10 times
(McCabe et al., 2011).
Statistical analysis
Prior to statistical analysis, the data were assessed for any
learning or fatigue effects within the trials. A single factor
ANOVA, with the trial number as the factor, was used
to evaluate whether any of the stroke cycles’ differed
significantly in magnitude relative to each other. This
was repeated for each kinematic variable. Within the
400m swim, stroke cycles 1, 7, and 8 were consistently
different from those recorded in laps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Therefore, the mean of each variable in the stroke cycles
of laps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were used for statistical analysis.
To examine the differences between sprint and distance
swimmers for each variable, an independent t-test
assuming equal variances, was used with a confidence
level of p 5 0.05 accepted as significant. All processed
data were analysed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0.
The effect size (d) for each variable was also
calculated in order to measure the magnitude of
difference between the groups. Interpretation of the
effect size data was in accordance to Cohen (1988)
whereby effect sizes of greater than 0.2 and less than
0.5 are considered small, greater than 0.5 and less
than 0.8 are moderate, and greater than 0.8 are large.
Results
Race parameters
Distance swimmers were found to have a
0.09m s71 greater average swim velocity than
sprinters. However, no significant differences were
found between the swim groups in relation to the
stroke length and stroke frequency variables and the
effect sizes ranged from small to moderate (Table I).
Hand-path
The vertical or lateral displacements of the upper
limb were not significantly different between the
Sprint vs. distance specialists
605
Table I. Data and statistical comparisons of the differences between sprint (SG) and distance (DG) specialists for the following variables:
race parameters, upper limb displacement, elbow angle, shoulder and hip roll variables, stroke phase durations.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
Parameter
Swim Velocity (m s71)
Stroke Length (m)
Stroke Frequency (Hz)
Max finger depth (m)
Max wrist depth (m)
Max elbow depth (m)
Max finger width (m)
Max wrist width (m)
Max elbow width (m)
Elbow Angle: 1st back (degs)
Elbow Angle: shoulder x (degs)
Elbow Angle: end back (degs)
Elbow Angle: hand exit (degs)
Elbow Angle: re-entry (degs)
Elbow Angle: range of pull (degs)
Elbow Angle: range of push
Entry (% stroke cycle)
Pull (% stroke cycle)
Push (% stroke cycle)
Recovery (% stroke cycle)
Hand Exit (% stroke cycle)
SG
DG
P-Value
Effect Size
t-Value
1.41 + 0.06
2.24 + 0.32
38.6 + 6.0
0.66 + 0.11
0.52 + 0.10
0.32 + 0.10
0.39 + 0.11
0.37 + 0.08
0.34 + 0.09
155.2 + 6.2
101.4 + 6.8
140.3 + 8.2
126.6 + 30.1
144.5 + 13.5
53.8 + 5.3
38.9 + 8.6
41.5 + 5.6
14.0 + 2.5
15.1 + 1.7
25.4 + 4.2
79.2 + 3.8
1.50 + 0.05
2.19 + 0.18
41.3 + 3.7
0.67 + 0.06
0.52 + 0.05
0.33 + 0.05
0.40 + 0.07
0.38 + 0.06
0.31 + 0.03
151.7 + 8.8
104.7 + 7.2
140.8 + 7.5
129.0 + 22.7
146.3 + 23.1
47.3 + 10.2
35.7 + 9.2
39.1 + 6.4
13.6 + 2.5
16.2 + 1.5
27.0 + 3.6
78.0 + 4.7
0.01a
0.73
0.31
0.82
0.85
0.84
0.96
0.79
0.41
0.39
0.37
0.91
0.87
0.86
0.14
0.50
0.45
0.72
0.21
0.42
0.60
71.64b
0.20
70.55
70.12
0.01
70.13
70.11
70.14
0.46
0.45
70.47
70.06
70.09
70.09
0.78
0.36
0.40
0.16
70.69
70.41
0.28
2.80c
0.36
1.05
0.24
0.19
0.21
0.05
0.28
0.86
0.85
0.91
0.12
0.18
0.18
1.51
0.70
0.77
0.24
1.04
0.49
0.54
Data are expressed as mean (+SD), p value and effect size. aindicates a significant difference between groups, bindicates a large effect size,
indicates a large t-value.
c
two groups and the effect sizes were small (Table
I). At the specified instants throughout the stroke
cycle, the magnitude of elbow angle was not significantly different between the groups and the effect
sizes were small to moderate (Table I). The elbow
angle range during the pull phase approached a
large effect size (d ¼ 0.78) indicating that sprinters tend to utilise a greater range of motion
throughout this phase compared to the distance
swimmers.
Stroke phase durations
The stroke phase durations and occurrence of the
hand exiting the water were not significantly different
between the groups (Table I).
Shoulder and hip roll
The magnitude of total shoulder and hip roll angle
were not significantly different between the sprint
and distance swimmers (Figure 2). The effect size
between groups was very small for total shoulder roll
but approached a large effect size for the total hip roll
(d ¼ 0.77) indicating that the sprinters tend to
display a greater hip range of motion compared to
the distance swimmers (Figure 2). The occurrence of
both maximum left and right shoulder and hip roll
angle was not significantly different between the
groups and the effect sizes ranged from small to
moderate (Figure 2).
Foot vertical displacement
The vertical displacement of the left foot (sprinters:
0.30 + 0.12 m; distance swimmers: 0.36 + 0.07 m)
and the right foot (sprinters: 0.30 + 0.14 m; distance
swimmers: 0.35 + 0.06 m) were not significantly
different between the swim groups and the effect
sizes were moderate.
Discussion
This study found that the average swim velocity was
the only variable to distinguish sprint and distance
specialists, with the latter group having a greater
average swim velocity than the sprinters. Although
swim velocity is the product of stroke length and
stroke frequency, neither of these variables differed
between the groups suggesting that the combination
of these parameters across swimmers and groups is
too variable to show significant differences. The
maintenance of a greater velocity by distance
swimmers relative to the sprinters must be due to
either: (1) a greater generation of propulsive impulse
during the stroke cycle, or (2) ability to minimise the
resistive forces acting on the swimmer through a
better streamlined body shape or alignment. Because
this study examined only the kinematic aspects of the
front crawl stroke cycle, it is not possible to evaluate
the propulsive or resistive forces acting on the
swimmers throughout the 400 m. However, when
examining elite vs. non-elite front crawl swimmers,
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
606
C. B. McCabe & R. H. Sanders
Figure 2. Magnitude and temporal aspects of shoulder and hip roll for sprint (SG) and distance (DG) swimmers when swimming at a
distance pace. Data are expressed as mean (+ SD), p value (p) and effect size (d). Shoulder and hip roll angle are measured in degrees (degs)
and time data expressed as a percentage of the stroke cycle (%SC).
researchers have concluded that the fundamental
difference between these groups is the ability of the
elite swimmers to reduce their hydrodynamic resistance through a better whole body streamlining
position (Toussaint and Beek, 1992; Cappaert,
Pease, and Troup, 1996). In fact Cappaert et al.
(1996) reported that elite swimmers use less propulsive force compared to the non-elite group, who
apply greater propulsive forces to compensate for a
poor body position. Thus, one possibility is that the
distance swimmers in this study where able to
maintain a better hydrodynamic body shape or
alignment throughout the 400 m than the sprinters,
resulting in a greater average swim velocity. Another
possibility is that the sprint swimmers were unable to
sustain their propulsive force due to bioenergetic
limitations related to their physiology; for example, a
greater percentage of fast twitch fibres (Maglischo,
2003). Further research incorporating kinetic analysis together with analysis of physiological energy
expenditure is required to shed light on which of
these possibilities is dominant. In any case it is
recommended that coaches encourage distance
swimmers to engage in activities which improve the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the swimmers’ body.
The finding that sprint and distance swimmers
stroke with a similar upper limb trajectory when
swimming at a distance pace contradicts the view
held by Cappaert (1999) who compared swim groups
without considering the effect of swim pace. However these findings do support those of McCabe et al.
(2011) who reported a similar upper limb trajectory
by sprint and distance specialist swimmers when
both groups swam at a sprint pace. It is therefore
suggested that all swimmers, despite their distance
specialisation, display a similar stroke pattern when
both groups swim at the same pace. The evidence
suggests that swimmers utilise a trajectory of the
upper limbs under the water that suits the requirements of the swim event. Consequently, it is
recommended that all coaches be aware that at the
same pace both groups of specialised swimmers use a
similar stroking pattern of the upper limb and should
not engage in practices whereby unique techniques
are developed and enforced due to the swimmers
specialisation per se.
The finding that both sprint and distance specialists stroke with a similar elbow angle magnitude at
specified instants throughout the stroke cycle challenges current opinions expressed by Wilke (1992)
and Cappaert (1999) but supports those of McCabe
et al. (2011). These conflicting findings can be
explained due to the fact that both Wilke (1992) and
Cappaert (1999) did not take into account the swim
pace when examining the swimmers whereas
McCabe et al. (2011) compared the groups when
both swam at a maximal sprint pace. Based on the
results from this study and those of McCabe et al.
(2011) it appears that specialised sprint and distance
swimmers do not utilise different magnitudes of
elbow angle flexion throughout the stroke cycle when
both groups swim at the same pace. Consequently it
is recommended that coaches and swim teachers do
not encourage either group to alter the magnitude of
elbow angle throughout the stroke cycle when
developing their techniques.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
Sprint vs. distance specialists
While differences between groups in the range of
motion of elbow angle within the pull phase were not
significant, the effect sizes (d ¼ 0.78) approached the
‘large’ category as defined by Cohen (1988). The
findings from this study suggest that sprint swimmers
may utilise a greater range of motion of the elbow
angle within the pull phase than the distance
swimmers. McCabe et al. (2011) hypothesised that
sprint specialists had a trained ability to move their
hand through the pull phase faster than the distance
specialists when swimming at a sprint pace. It is
possible that a greater range of motion of the elbow
joint during the pull phase may also be related to the
sprinters’ trained ability or musculature. However,
since distance swimmers were found to maintain a
greater average swim velocity throughout the 400 m
compared to the sprint swimmers, it is questionable
whether an increased range of motion of the elbow
angle within the pull phase is beneficial in terms of
the propulsion generated when swimming at a
distance pace. Indeed based on the findings of
Cappaert et al. (1996), the increased elbow angle
range of motion within the pull phase may be utilised
by the sprint swimmers to generate more propulsive
forces to compensate for a poor body position. Since
this study only examined kinematic variables, it is
imperative that further research which investigates
the kinetic aspects of the swimming stroke is
conducted to evaluate the above proposals and
substantiate the observation that distinguishes sprint
and distance swimmers.
The finding that sprint and distance specialists do
not differ with respect to the stroke phase durations
when swimming at a distance pace conflicts with
McCabe et al. (2011), who reported that sprinters
utilise a shorter duration of the pull phase compared
to distance swimmers when sprinting. However, the
results from this study suggest that both sprint and
distance specialist swimmers spend similar durations
within each of the stroke phases in order to optimise
distance performance. Consequently, coaches should
not encourage either group to adjust the temporal
aspects of the stroke phases when distance swimming.
It was found that the total magnitude of shoulder
and hip roll angle was not different between sprint
and distance swimmers when swimming at a distance
pace, which is contradictory to the results expressed
by Cappaert (1999) but in agreement with McCabe
et al. (2011). It is therefore proposed that previous
observations that reported distance swimmers roll
their shoulders more than sprinters may have been
due to the swim pace and not the swimmer’s distance
specialisation.
The finding that the difference in total magnitude
of hip roll between distance and sprint swimmers
approached a large effect size (d ¼ 0.77) suggests
that further investigation should be conducted to
607
determine whether these groups differ in their hip
roll patterns when swimming at distance pace. This
study indicates that sprint swimmers tend to roll
their hips more than the distance swimmers when
swimming at a distance pace. It is proposed that
the sprinters greater hip rolling action may also
affect their active drag profile by increasing the
frontal surface area relative to the distance swimmers. As a result, it is highly possible that the
increased total hip roll magnitude of the sprint
specialists may have contributed to the lower
average swim velocity. Further research is necessary to confirm this observation and the proposed
links between the magnitude of hip roll angle and
the swimmers’ active drag and their impact on
swim velocity.
The temporal aspects of the shoulder and hip roll
were not found to differ between sprint and distance
swimmers, with both groups obtaining maximum
shoulder and hip roll, to both sides, at similar times
within the stroke cycle. McCabe et al. (2011)
reported differences between sprint and distance
swimmers in terms of maximal shoulder roll when
both groups swam at a sprint pace. However, such
differences are not evident in this study and coaches
should not attempt to develop different shoulder roll
patterns between these groups.
The finding that the amplitude of the kick was not
different between groups does not support the view
held by Cappaert (1999) but is in agreement with
McCabe et al. (2011). It is therefore concluded that
when both groups swim at a sprint or distance pace,
both specialist swimmers utilised the same kicking
amplitude.
Conclusion
In the case of most variables, sprint and distance
swimmers are generally not sufficiently different in
their techniques when swimming at a distance pace
to warrant different approaches to technique development. It is most likely that differences between
these groups found in previous research were due to
the swim pace and not the distance specialisation of
the swimmer.
References
Abdel-Aziz, Y.I., and Karara, H.M. (1971). Direct linear
transformation from comparator coordinates into object space
coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. In Proceedings of
the symposium on close-range photogrammetry (pp. 1–18). Falls
Church, VA: American Society of Photogrammetry.
Bartlett, R. (1997). Data processing. In Introduction to sports
biomechanics (pp. 188–205). London: E and FN Spon.
Blanksby, B.A., Parker, H.E., Bradley, S., and Ong, V. (1995).
Children’s readiness for learning front crawl swimming.
Australian Journal of Science and Medicine of Sport, 27(2),
34–37.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 02:41 06 March 2012
608
C. B. McCabe & R. H. Sanders
Cappaert, J.M., Pease, D.L., and Troup, J.P. (1996). Biomechanical highlights of world champion and Olympic swimmers. In
J.P. Troup, A.P. Hollander, D. Strasse, S.W. Trappe, J.M.
Cappaert, and T.A. Trappe (Eds.), Biomechanics and medicine in
swimming VII, Proceedings of the VII international symposium on
biomechanics and medicine in swimming (pp. 76–80). London: E
and FN Spon.
Cappaert, J.M. (1999). Biomechanics of swimming analysed by
three-dimensional techniques. In K. Keskinen, P. Komi, and
A.P. Hollander (Eds.), Biomechanics and medicine in swimming
VIII, Proceedings of the VIII international symposium on
biomechanics and medicine in swimming (pp. 141–145).
Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä Press.
Castro, F., Minghelli, F., Floss, J., and Guimaraes, A. (2003).
Body roll angles in frontcrawl swimming in different velocities.
In J.C. Chatard (Ed.), Biomechanics and medicine in swimming IX
(pp. 111–114). St Etienne, France: University of St Etienne.
Chollet, D., Chalies, S., and Chatard, J.C. (2000). A new index of
coordination for the crawl: Description and usefulness. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 54–59.
Cohen, J. (1988). The t test for means. In Statistical power analysis
for the behavioural sciences (pp. 19–74). NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Costill, D.L., Maglischo, E.W., and Richardson, A.B. (1992).
Front crawl. In Swimming (pp. 65–78). London: Blackwell
Scientific.
Deffeyes, J., and Sanders, R.H. (2005). Elliptical zone body
segment modelling software: Digitising, modelling and body
segment parameter calculation. In Q. Wang (Ed.), Proceedings of
XXIII international symposium on biomechanics in sports (pp. 749–
752). Beijing: The China Institute of Sports Science.
Hohmann, A., Dierks, B., Luenhenschloss, D., Seidel, I., and
Wichmann, E. (1999). The influence of strength, speed, motor
coordination and technique on the performance in crawl sprint.
In K. Keskinen, P. Komi, and A.P. Hollander (Eds.),
Biomechanics and medicine in swimming VIII: Proceedings of the
VIII international symposium on biomechanics and medicine in
swimming (pp. 191–196). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of
Jyväskylä Press.
Ito, S., and Okuno, K. (2003). A fluid dynamical consideration for
armstroke in swimming. In J.C. Chatard (Ed.), Biomechanics
and medicine in swimming IX (pp. 39–44). St Etienne, France:
University of St Etienne.
Jensen, R.K. (1978). Estimation of the biomechanical properties of
three body types using a photgrammetric method. Journal of
Biomechanics, 11, 349–358.
Johnson, R., and Gadboy, J. (1999). Underloading, overloading
and philosophies of training. Swimming Technique, 36(1), 17–
21.
Lydersen, K. (1999). One hot sprint program. Swimming
Technique, 36(1), 9–13.
Magill, R.A. (2001). The stages of learning. In Motor learning:
Concepts and applications (pp. 183–198). Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
Maglischo, E.W. (2003). Front crawl stroke. In Swimming fastest
(pp. 95–144). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., and Katch, V.L. (1996). Individual
differences and measurement of energy capacities. In Exercise
physiology: Energy, nutrition, and human performance (pp. 188–
213). Baltimore, MD; London: Williams and Wilkins.
McCabe, C.B., Psycharakis, S., and Sanders, R. (2011). Kinematic
differences between front crawl sprint and distance swimmers at
sprint pace. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(2), 115–123.
Nikodelis, T., Kollias, I., and Hatzitaki, V. (2005). Bilateral
interarm coordination in freestyle swimming: effect of skill level
and swimming speed. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(7), 737–745.
Payton, C.J., Bartlett, R.M, Baltzopoulos, V., and Coombs, R.
(1999). Upper extremity kinematics and body roll during
preferred-side breathing and breath-holding front crawl swimming. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 689–695.
Psycharakis, S.G., Sanders, R.H., and Mills, F. (2005). A
calibration frame for 3D analysis of swimming. In Q. Wang
(Ed.), Proceedings of the XXIII international symposium on
biomechanics in sports (pp. 901–904). Beijing: The China
Institute of Sports Science.
Pyne, D.B., Trewin, C.B., and Hopkins, W.G. (2004). Progression and variability of competitive performance of Olympic
swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 613–620.
Seifert, L., Chollet, D., and Brady, B.G. (2004). Effect of
swimming velocity on arm coordination in the front crawl: A
dynamic analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 651–660.
Toussaint, H.M., and Beek, P.J. (1992). Review article: Biomechanics of competitive frontcrawl swimming. Sports Medicine,
13(1), 8–24.
Vorontsov, A.R., and Rumyantsev, V.A. (2000). Propulsive forces
in swimming. In V. Zatsiorsky (Ed.), Biomechanics in sport: The
encyclopaedia of sports medicine (pp. 205–231). Oxford: Blackwell.
Watkins, J., and Gordan, A.T. (1983). The effects of leg action on
performance in the sprint front crawl stroke. In A.P. Hollander,
P.A. Huijing, and G. DeGroot (Eds.), Biomechanics and
medicine in swimming: Proceedings of the fourth international
symposium of biomechanics in swimming and the fifth international
congress on swimming medicine (pp. 310–314). Amsterdam:
Human Kinetics Publishers.
Wilke, K. (1992). Analysis of sprint swimming: The 50m freestyle.
In D. MacLaren, T. Reilly, and A. Lees (Eds.), Biomechanics
and medicine in swimming, swimming science VI (pp. 33–46).
London: E and FN Spon.