Comparison of the Start, Turn and Finish Performance of Elite Swimmers in 100 M and 200 M Races
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020) 19, 397-407 http://www.jssm.org ` Research article Comparison of the Start, Turn and Finish Performance of Elite Swimmers in 100 m and 200 m Races Daniel A. Marinho 1,2, Tiago M. Barbosa 2,3, Henrique P. Neiva 1,2, António J. Silva 2,4 and Jorge E. Morais 2,3 1 Department of Sport Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal; 2 Research Centre in Sports, Health and Human Development, Covilhã, Portugal; 3 Department of Sport Sciences, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Bragança, Portugal; 4 Department of Sport Sciences, Exercise and Health, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal and Roig, 2016). As the race distance becomes longer (i.e. Abstract from 50 m to 1500 m), different phases of the race have The main aim of this study was to compare the start, turn, and different partial contributions to the final race time. In short finish performance of 100 m and 200 m events in the four swim- events (e.g. 100 m events), the start and turn account for ming strokes in elite swimmers of both sexes. The performances nearly a third of the final race time (Morais et al., 2018). of all 128 finalists (64 males and 64 females) of the 100 m, and Contrarily, in long-distance events (e.g. 800 m and 1500 m 200 m events at a major championship were analyzed. A set of races), the swimming pace (i.e. swim stroke) plays the ma- variables related to the start, turn, and finish were assessed. In the jor role (Lipinska et al., 2016; Morais et al., 2019). Among start a significant and moderate race effect was verified in both the swimming community the 200 m events are claimed to sexes (100 m vs 200 m). It was highest in butterfly events (males: be too long for sprinters and too short for long-distance Δ = 9.81%, p = 0.046, η2 = 0.60; females: Δ = 7.96%, p < 0.001, swimmers (Madge, 2014). Moreover, these 100 m−200 m η2 = 0.75). In the turn a significant and moderate-strong race ef- fect was verified in all strokes in both sexes, the highest being in events are the only Olympic events where the distance can butterfly (males: Δ = 12.26%, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.93; females: Δ = be doubled in all swim strokes (i.e. all swim strokes are 10.74%, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.92). The finish had a significant and raced in the 100 m and 200 m distances). Therefore, it is moderate race effect in butterfly and in breaststroke (females). important to provide insights into a comparison of the The underwater variables were found to be the main contributors phases of the race (namely the start, turn and finish) in to a faster start. Over the turn, key determinants were the surface these events for both coaches and swimmers, as stroke spe- variables. As for the finish, mixed results were observed. It can cialists could compete in both distances. be suggested that the underwater profile was the main determi- The literature has reported that the clean swim nant in starting, whereas the surface profile was the main deter- minant in turning. Therefore, coaches are advised to focus on such phase was the best predictor of the final race time in 200 m race phases to enhance the total race time. events (Arellano et al., 1994; Thompson et al., 2000). Nonetheless, differences can be observed in the clean swim Key words: Swimming, technique, performance, analysis. between short- and middle-distance events, such as the 100 m and 200 m, respectively. Sprinters (100 m) achieve a faster speed in comparison to their middle-distance coun- Introduction terparts (200 m) (Arellano et al., 1994; Jesus et al., 2011). However, it is yet unclear whether differences in average In competitive swimming, records at major events such as race speed are also due to variations or changes in the per- Olympic Games, World and European Championships are formance delivered in the start and turning phases (Sim- still being broken. The swimming fraternity is always aim- baña et al., 2018a). It is reported that swimmers racing the ing to enhance swimmers’ final time by improving their 100 m events reach the 15 m mark, and also break the water performance in key moments of the race. Video analysis of sooner in comparison to their 200 m counterparts (Jesus et elite swimmers’ performance is a major tool for swimmers, al., 2011; Veiga et al., 2016). coaches and researchers (O’Donoghue, 2006). The infor- In other studies, the 200 m events at major compe- mation that is retrieved by such analysis help swimmers in titions were analyzed (Chengalur and Brown, 1992; understanding their handicaps, and hence how to improve. Hellard et al., 2008; Skorsky et al., 2014). Such analyses If in the past the performance enhancement was under- included the start (Arellano et al., 1994; Jesus et al., 2011), pinned by improving mostly the swim stroke (i.e. clean and turn (Mason and Cossor, 2001; Veiga and Roig, 2016). swim − refers to the swim speed during an intermediate Moreover, surface and underwater profiles in these seg- distance, without the interference of the wall push-off) ments of the race were also analyzed (Veiga and Roig, (McGibbon et al., 2018; Menting et al., 2019), now the fo- 2016; Veiga et al., 2016). Start and turn phases can be fur- cus is shifting more towards the remaining phases of a race ther broken down into subphases (surface and underwater). (start, turn and finish) (Morais et al., 2019). These subphases might explain the performance delivered Lately there has been an increasing interest by prac- in the start and turn. However, solid insights into other var- titioners, analysts and researchers in the role played by the iables related to the start and turn subphases in elite swim- start, turns and finish (Peterson Silveira et al., 2018; Veiga mers are not found in the extant literature (e.g. Tor et al., Received: 16 May 2019 / Accepted: 26 March 2020 / Published (online): 01 May 2020 398 100 m and 200 m race performance 2015; Veiga and Roig, 2016). As far as our understanding competitive swimming. The distances used for the start and goes, the literature remains unclear about the importance turn variables were calibrated based on the pool’s marks of underwater and/or surface profiles during the start and (i.e. 5 m and 15 m marks in the swim lanes) (Morais et al., turn, which can ultimately affect the water entry and the 2018; Morais et al., 2019). Each start, turn and finish per- water break (e.g. Veiga and Roig, 2016; Veiga et al., 2016). formance were analyzed individually for each swimmer. For instance, swimmers may choose to extend their under- Two expert evaluators performed all race analyses individ- water phase, and hence save energy for the swim stroke. Or ually and separately. The agreement between both evalua- to break the water sooner, leading to a faster start of the tors was verified with the Intra-Class Correlation Coeffi- swim stroke (Vantorre et al., 2014). On top of that, very cient (ICC). This ranged between 0.989 and 0.999 (very few studies have analyzed the finish, and how important it high agreement). is for the final race time (Ikuta, 1998; Suito et al., 2015). Among coaches and swimmers there is the claim that fin- Start and finish ishing fast is paramount to delivering a good performance. The following variables were selected for analysis: (i) re- Nevertheless, we failed to find solid evidence to back up action time (also known as block time, the time lag be- such a claim. Overall, despite the start, turn and finish be- tween the starting signal and the instant the swimmer’s feet ing understood in the swimming fraternity as important left the block). This was retrieved from the championship contributors to the performance, it might be suggested that official website (www.europeanchampionships.com); (ii) more evidence on this matter could be of substantial im- flight time (the time lag between the instant the toes leave portance. the block and the hands entered the water); (iii) entry time Therefore, the main aim of this study was to char- (the time lag between the starting signal and the instant the acterize and compare a set of variables related to the start, hands enter the water); (iv) entry distance (the distance be- turn and finish performance between the 100 m and 200 m tween the starting head-wall and where the hands entered events in the four swimming strokes by elite male and fe- the water); (v) underwater time (the time lag between the male swimmers. It was hypothesized that the start time, instant the hand entered the water, and the head broke turn time and the finish present a significant race effect (i.e. through the water surface); (vi) underwater distance (the significant differences between races). distance between where the hands entered the water and the head broke through the water surface); (vii) underwater Methods speed (between the entry time and water break time); (viii) water break time (the time lag between the starting signal Participants and the head breaking through the water surface); (ix) The performances of all 128 finalists (64 males and 64 fe- break distance (the distance between the starting head-wall males) in the 100 m, and 200 m events (four swim strokes, and the head water break); (x) 15 m time (the time lag be- 8 swimmers per event) at the 2018 long course meter LEN tween the starting signal and the swimmer’s head reaching European Aquatics Championships held in Glasgow were the 15 m mark).