This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 7-2485 MALMISUR, Michael Charles, 1934- SELECTED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF JUNIOR DAVIS CUP PLAYERS AND THEIR RELATION TO SUCCESS IN TENNIS.
The Ohio State University, Fh.D., 1966 Education, physical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SELECTED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF JUNIOR DAVIS CUP
PLAYERS AND THEIR RELATION TO SUCCESS IN TENNIS
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Michael Charles Malmisur, B.A., M.Ed.
The Ohio State University 1 9 6 6
Approved by
Adviser Department of Physical Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Dr.
Lewis Hess, major adviser and director of this dissertation,
for his guidance and counseling, both personal and profes
sional, rendered by him during my entire doctoral study, and
to Dr. Bruce L. Bennett, and Dr. John W. Hendrix, both members of the dissertation committee, for their assistance through out this study.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my wife,
Karen, and my daughter, Joanna, for their faith and confi
dence in me and for many inconveniences they endured on my behalf throughout the course of this study.
ii VITA
March 2, 1934 Born - Youngstown, Ohio
1956 .... B.A., Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio
1962 .... M.Ed., Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 1963-1966 . . Instructor, Department of Physical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
Malmisur, Michael C. "Let'B Close the Gap Between Physical Education and Athletics," Ohio Schools, XLII (May, 1964), p. 32. Sicuro, Nathaniel A. and Malmisur, Michael C. "Placement Procedures for Coaching Positions," The Ohio High School Athlete, XXV (December, 1965), p. 107.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Physical Education
Allied Fields: Health Education and Educational Adminis tration
ili CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Importance of the S t u d y ...... 4 Design of the S t u d y ...... 9 Definitions ...... 13 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 15
II. RELATED LITERATURE...... 17
Reaction Time and Movement Ti m e ...... 17 Depth Perception ...... 30 Dynamic Balance ...... 37 Arm-Shoulder Coordination, Speed, and A g i l i t y ...... 43
III. METHOD AND PROCEDURE OP GATHERING D A T A ...... 53
The Problem ...... 53 Height and W e i g h t ...... 54 Reaction and Movement T i m e ...... 54 Arm-Shoulder Coordination ...... 60 Pure S p e e d ...... 62 A g i l i t y ...... 63 Wall Rebounding T e s t ...... 65 Depth Perception...... 67 Dynamic Balance ...... 69 Subjective Evaluation ...... 71 Competition...... 74 National Championship Seeding ...... 75 Composite of Test I t e m s ...... 76 National Rankings ...... 76
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...... 80
Hypotheses to be T e s t e d ...... 80 Statistical Applications ...... 81
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 98
Measured Test Items with Respect to Each O t h e r ...... 99
iv Chapter Page
Success Criteria with Respect to Each O t h e r ...... 99 Measured Test Items with Respect to Success Criteria ...... 99 Summary of the Tests of the Null Hypotheses...... 100 Conclusions ...... 100 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 101
APPENDIXES...... 104
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 126
V TABLES
Table Page
1 . The Experimental G r o u p ...... 55
2. Judgment S h e e t ...... 73
3. Statistical Application for Composite of Measured Items ...... 79
4. Mean and Standard Deviations for Subjects on Variables Tested ...... 83
5. Intercorrelation Matrix for Independent Vari ables Combining Composite of Measured Test I t e m s ...... 86
6. Coefficients of Determination for Highly Correlated Variables from Table 5 87
7. Intercorrelation Matrix for Independent V a r i a b l e s ...... 90
8. Coefficients of Determination for Highly Correlated Variables from Table 7 91
9* Intercorrelation Matrix for Dependent V a r i a b l e s ...... 92
10. Coefficients of Determination for Highly Correlated Variables from Table 9 94
11. Intercorrelation Matrix for Independent and Dependent Variables ...... 95
12. Coefficients of Determination for Highly Correlated Variables from Table 11 ...... 97
13* 50-Yard Dash for Boys ...... 112
14. Softball Throw for B o y s ...... 113
15. Physical Fitness Test Norms ...... 114
vi Table Page
16. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Wall Rebounding Test Reported in Legal Hits, Agility Re ported in S e c o n d s ...... 115
17. Raw Scores for all Subjects Reported from Judgments of Experts ...... 116
18. Ranking of Subjects Reported from Major Tournaments ...... 117
19. Ranking of all Subjects Reported in USLTA National Junior Championship Seeds and USLTA National Junior Rankings ...... 118
20. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Height Reported in Inches, Weight Reported in Pounds ...... 119
21. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Pure Speed Measured in Seconds, Arm-Shoulder Coordination Measured in F e e t ...... 120
22. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Reaction Time Reported in Hundredths of a S e co nd...... 1 21
23* Raw Scores for all Subjects, Dynamic Balance Reported in Number of Contacts...... 1 22
24. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Movement Time Reported in Hundredths of a S e cond...... 123
25. Average of Tournament Rankings Recorded in Standings...... 124 26. Raw Scores for all Subjects, Depth Perception Reported in Millimeters ...... 125
vii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Fortunate is the physical educator afforded the opportunity to study selected physical characteristics of an elite group of athletes for the ultimate purpose of learning more about the nature of those who excel in specific motor performances. The United States Lawn Tennis Associ ation (USLTA) made an investigation of motor traits possible through their Junior Davis Cup program.
Realizing the importance of developing young tennis talent, the USLTA in 1930 initiated a broad program of assisting promising boys, entitled the Junior Development program. To strengthen this plan the USLTA in 1937 estab lished the Junior Davis Cup program to select the outstanding players from the Junior Development program. The Junior
Davis Cup program supplements the efforts of the Junior
Development program by making available further special training and assistance to the more promising members and graduates of the Development program. Tournaments play a
1 vital role In the Junior Development program, and for the boys the USLTA holds annual National Junior Championships.^
Competition in the National Junior Championships is
open to those "who have not reached their eighteenth birthday before January first of the year of competition."^ The
objectives of the Junior Davis Cup program as a partner in
this event are—
1. To encourage a greater number of young players who have finished the junior age program to continue tennis as their major sport in order that there shall be more outstanding men players available for tourna ment play throughout the country;
2. To promote the aggressive style of play as recom mended by the Davis Cup committee and to develop a larger group of able players from which the Davis Cup teams may be selected;
3. To promulgate and Insist upon the highest standards of character, conduct, and sportsmanship and of amateurism on the part of all players participating in this program.3
The Junior Davis Cup program provided a clinic and professional teaching during the summer of 1965 for the
players who were considered among the best in the country.
This Intensive training period lasted two weeks and preceded
1John William Hendrix, "Factors Influencing Styles of Play in Tennis" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955), P« 167.
2United States Lawn Tennis Association, Official Guide and Tennis Yearbook (New York: H. A. Zimmer, Inc., 1965), P. £88.------^United States Lawn Tennis Association, Official Guide and Tennis Yearbook (New York: H. 0. Zimmer, Inc., 1961), p. 3d. 3 three major tournaments and the USLTA National Junior Champi onship. Many activities make up the Junior Development pro gram, and this clinic is representative, but "the National
Junior Championship has become the mecca for all young tennis players."2*' The clinic sessions were conducted at The Ohio State
University under the direction of Dr. John William Hendrix,
Professional Advisory Chairman of the Junior Davis Cup com mittee. With the invaluable cooperation of Dr. Hendrix, the encouragement of the USLTA, the assistance of Edward C. Olson, physical education instructor, and the willingness of the selected Junior Davis Cup players, a study was designed and undertaken to answer specific questions about this small group of able tennis players which had almost selected itself by meeting the high standards set by the Junior Davis Cup program. The following are qualifications for Junior Davis
Cup squad membership:
1 . No player shall be named on any squad whose character, conduct, sportsmanship or seriousness of purpose is deemed unsatisfactory by the committee in charge.
2. A candidate for this squad shall be a member in good standing of some sectional or local squad if there is one in his area, shall be at least sixteen years of age but not having reached his twenty-first birthday, and be considered by the committee to be of such maturity and outstanding performance as to justify his selection. For a period of from five to ten days prior to the National Singles the squad will be under the supervision of the Team Captain for intensive training.5
4Ibid., p. 37. 5rbld., pp. 39-40 4
The players having the highest national ranking for the year before In their age group are automatically selected, hut, furthermore, the presidents of each geographical section of the USLTA make recommendations to complete the team.
Importance of the Study
The significance of this problem can be stressed by the presentation of a brief historical background of Davis
Cup competition and the consideration of the importance of understanding the nature of motor performance. Results of studies such as this can further contribute to the field of physical education because of the need to know what physical elements are prerequisites to success in motor performance in tennis.
Historical background
Whitman, a member of the first Davis Cup team, asserted:
tennis has become a universal sport among nations. A ’king of games and a game of kings,1 a sportsman's pastime and a fighter's game, tennis will surely con tinue to play an even greater part in the life of to morrow than it has played in the past.6
What then is the history of the quest for the Davis
Cup which has had and continues to have immeasurable im portance for tennis, and, furthermore, a bearing upon this present investigation?
^Malcolm D. Whitman, Tennis Origins and Mysteries (New York: Derrydale Press, 1932), p. T49. In 1899 tennis was in its infancy in the western
United States. Tennis enthusiasts on the Pacific Coast,
attempting to stimulate interest in the game, requested the
prominent players of the East to play some exhibition matches
in California with successful players of the West. Four
players and a guide agreed to make the trip and to play a
series of exhibition matches at Monterey, California. This
team was composed of Dwight F. Davis, national doubles
champion; Halcombe Ward and Malcolm Whitman, national
champions in singles and doubles; and Beals C. Wright,
national interscholastic champion.?
Unexpectedly, the Pacific Coast exhibition matches
were received with great interest, and more invitations were
sent to the team requesting them to visit other cities on
the West Coast. Subsequently, other cities were visited,
and the exhibition matches were welcomed with the same
enormous enthusiasm. The team prepared to return to the
East because all were Harvard students, and the academic
year was to begin soon. Coincidentally, the International
Cup yacht races for the Americas Cup were being sailed as
they planned for their departure. Davis recalled:
The newspapers were full of accounts of the preliminary tryouts and then of the races themselves . . . this thought occurred to me: ’If team matches between players from different parts of the same country aroused such
?Fift.y Years of Lawn Tennis in the united States (New York! United States Lawn Tennis Association, 193^)* p. 69• 6
great interest and promote such good feelings, would not similar international contests have wider and far- reaching consequences.’8
Several months after the Pacific Coast exhibitions were concluded, Davis proposed to the USLTA the idea of pre senting a trophy to promote international tennis competition.
The USLTA enthusiastically accepted the plan, and Davis agreed to finance it. The Davis Cup was now "in being."
Two early attempts to arrange contests failed. Financial reasons caused cancellations of the first occasion, and the inability of the USLTA to organize a representative team canceled the second attempt. (The Spanish-American War was on, and two outstanding players joined the Rough Riders.)
After much correspondence and many valuable suggestions, terms were decided upon, and the Davis Cup contest of 1900, in which Great Britain was the challenging nation, marked the actual beginning of competition.9
To this day Davis Cup competition continues to excite widespread interest. Far more important than the results of the matches themselves have been the "by-products," and Davis expressed its value in this way:
Any element which assists in bringing (peoples) closer spiritually performs a valuable service to mankind. The hopes of the donor that the Cup might contribute its
8Ibid., p. 70.
^Wallis S. Merrihew, The Quest of the Davis Cu p (New York: American Lawn Tennis Association, 19^8), pp. 1-i1. little mite to mutual good-will and common understanding between sports-loving peoples have been more than real ized.10
Tennis is widely recognized as a vital cultural expression of society, and the Davis Cup contributes to the meaning of the game. America is annually confronted with the same problem of assembling a representative team strong enough to overcome all challenges for the Cup. Eugene Dixon, former American Davis Cup captain in 1929» summarized this task: The history of the quest for the Davis Cup is largely the story of the rise of successive one - or two man tennis dynasties. Strategy, team spirit, the careful organi zation and training of players, and their orientation to climatic, atmospheric and other foreign conditions have played a part in the results as written into the record books. But, in the main, throughout the 30 years the trophy has been in competition the contending nations have risen and fallen with the rise and decline of one or two players of majestic stature.11
In the last 15 years America has brought the Cup home only three times. A complete account of Davis Cup challenge rounds is contained in Appendix I. R. Dennis Ralston and
Charles R. McKinley captured the Davis Cup for the United
States in 1963 by defeating Australia. Both were former members of Junior Davis Cup teams. Conceivably, the 1965 junior team had among its members, players who, like Ralston and McKinley, will represent the United States in competition
10Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States, P. 72.
111bid.. p. 214. for the Davis Cup. Richard Dell, 1964 Eastern Interscholastic singles and doubles champion, National doubles champion, mem ber of the 1965 Junior Davis Cup squad, and a subject in the present investigation, explained, "I have great hopes of making the Davis Cup team; it's my goal."12
An endeavor to learn something of the characteristics of these present Junior Davis Cup playerB may reveal some
important criteria for probable success. Perhaps with this knowledge, and strengthened by other similar studies, the players of "majestic stature" could be determined earlier,
and the Davis Cup Committee might thereby be assisted in
finding men who could play championship tennis.
Understanding motor performance
Teaching competence depends upon adequate knowledge and understanding of the structure and functioning of the human organism. Understanding the functioning of an ex
ceptional group of tennis players can contribute to this need. The purpose of measurement in this study is to pro vide information pertaining to the abilities and capabilities of able tennis players.
Such information may, hopefully, provide knowledge
in the form of broad principles, which will enable teachers to guide the course of student experience more intelligently
1^Columbus Dispatch, July 7, 1965, p. 12B. and deliberately toward desired goals, and possibly make needed adjustments for better realization of the aims of the program.
It becomes apparent that the basic purpose of measure ment can be viewed as the improvement of teaching in order to facilitate learning, and this is one purpose of this study.
Design of the Study
The concern of this study was to determine what factors, if any, in Junior Davis Gup players underlie success.
The specific purposes of this study were (1 ) to determine the relation of agility, arm-shoulder coordination, pure speed, depth perception, reaction time, movement time, dynamic bal ance, wall rebounding test, height, and weight to success criteria composed of two tennis winning indices, a standing in tournaments, a subjective evaluation of tennis ability, and a composite of the above test items among Junior Davis
Cup players, (2) to determine the relation of a subjective evaluation of tennis ability by tennis experts to tennis success as measured by a standing in tournaments, and (3) to determine the relation of the physical measures to each other, and the success criteria to each other.
Under a financial grant from the USLTA, Edward Olson, doctoral candidate in physical education, had selected many tests to measure various aspects that might reveal some mean ingful degree of relation to success in tennis for Junior
Davis Cup players. 10
This investigator agreed to assist in the task of administering the previously selected tests in return for the opportunity to choose several variables for a personal and independent study. Mrs. Edward Olson, instructor in physical education, also assisted in the administering of the tests.
Another member of the testing team was Karyl Bailey, a gradu ate student in physical education.
The other part of this study is still being conducted by Olson, and covers such aspects as cardiovascular effi ciency, dynamic leg strength, upper arm strength, somato- typing, grip strength, antropometrlc measures, visual acuity, vital lung capacity, psychological capacities, center of gravity, and tennis skill.
This writer for his investigation chose to select certain physical characteristics justified on the basis of
Bryant J. Cratty's logic. Cratty lists the following for the selection of variables:
1. Physical educators should be concerned mainly with that aspect of human behavior which is characterized by observable, purposeful, voluntary movement, move ments which are task-centered and those which are reasonably complex.
2. Physical educators generally are called upon to teach healthy human beings, and thus should be familiar with all aspects of movement behavior which these individuals evidence. However, of main concern should be movements which occupy relatively large amounts of space and involve large skeletal muscles.
3» Movement behavior is worthy of investigation as a unit within itself and does not necessarily need to be related to various physiological-anatomical pro cesses which may accompany it. A comprehensive 11
approach should be taken to the study of motor performance and learning. Studies should be made of motor tasks not solely In units of strength but also In terms of spatial accuracy.13
Investigations have appeared studying many general and specific traits considered to be associated with and essential to successful performance in motor activities.
Many elements, both obvious and subtle, operate to Influence performance and are recognized as contributing to achievement in motor activities. Numerous physiological and anatomical factors limit the Individual's ability to succeed in motor performances, such as contractile strength of various muscles, ability to move with speed, ability to react quickly, and state of the organism, such as fatigue and level of physical condition. Within these capacity limitations individual motor performance is extremely variable.
Of the many variables involved In the ability to succeed in tennis, agility, arm-shoulder coordination, depth perception, dynamic balance, pure speed, reaction time, move ment time, wall rebounding test, height, and weight are recognized as Important and meet the criteria established by
Gratty. The author does not mean to imply that good per formance depends solely on the above variables. These selected variables take their place among many other neces sary factors such as endurance, strength, experience,
1 -'Bryant"5 J. Cratty, Movement Behavior and Motor Learning (Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger Co., 1964), pp. 21-22 . 12 determination, strategy, and stroking form. Certainly the psychological factors alone warrant an in-depth study, but it seems reasonable to assume that those selected may be es pecially important in causing the wide individual differences in specific motor abilities.
This study investigates certain physical character istics of a superior group of tennis athletes. The experi mental group is composed of 23 subjects. Sixteen of the sub jects were tested at the clinic by the entire testing team while seven were tested at the USLTA National Championship on
August 2 by Mr. and Mrs. Edward C. Olson in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Ten tests were administered to the experimental group, and fourteen variables were selected on the success criteria.
Among other factors, the success criteria will be com posed of experts' ratings. The elements of these ratings are based upon judgments of the players with regard to mobility, form, functional strength, concentration, motivation, and a composite of these elements resulting in a composite ability rating. Other success criteria will be two tennis winning in dices based upon the national championship seedings and the national rankings. Tournament play will compose the final criteria. The tournaments will be the Kentucky State Junior
Championship, the Western Junior Championship, the USLTA
National Championship, a composite of three championship tour naments excluding the Kentucky State Junior Championship, a composite of the four championship tournaments, and a composite of the measured test items. 13
Definitions
1. Motor Performance: Relatively short-term aspect of movement behavior marked by movement oriented toward the execution of an identifiable task. Considered to be goal-centered, purposeful, observable movement behavior of relatively short duration.1^
2. Arm-Shoulder Coordination: Series of movements of varying speeds and force combining into a motor act of a more complex nature. The question seems to be whether coordination implies internal integrations of the nervous system to produce finite variations in a simple act or whether it means complex outward mani festations of movement. Acceptance of the latter meaning of coordination indicates a broader outlook rather than a rejection of processes underlying the former.15
3. Reaction Time; Reaction time is the time that elapses between the beginning of a stimulus and the beginnings of a motor response.'®
4. Movement Time; The time from the beginning of con traction to completion of a movement defines move ment time.1?
5. Agility: Ability to move the body rapidly from one position in space to another, involving quick changes of direction.
6. Pure Speed: The rapidity with which successive move ments of the same kind can be performed.19
1 AIbld.. p. 2-5. 15Ibid., p. 49 1^A. T. Slater-Hammel, "Reliability, Accuracy, and Refractoriness of a Transit Reaction," Research Quarterly, XXXI (May, 1960), p. 86.
1?Ibld.
1®C. H. McCloy, "A Preliminary Study of Factors in Motor Educability," Research Quarterly, XI (May, 1940), p. 31 . 1 ^Leonard A. Larsen and Rachael Dunaven Yocum, Measure ment and Evaluation in Physical, Health, and Recreation Edu cation (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1951), p. 166. 14
7 . Dynamic Balance: The type of balance that is con cerned In keeping one's equilibrium while in motion, or while changing from one balanced position to an other. Dynamic balance, then, pertains to the equi librium evidenced through a series of changing posi tions taken successively .20 p0r a further clarifi cation, dynamic balance can be analyzed from two as pects. Physically, dynamic balance refers to the case of a body whose weight is so distributed that the re sultant of the forces is varying from movement to movement.
Neuromuscularly, dynamic balance refers to the mainte nance of an organized postural orientation under con ditions in which the activity pattern of the muscles is continually changing so as to disturb the gross postural orientation and require further muscular activity to re-establish orientation.21
8. Depth Perception; May be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension, to Judge distance, and to orient oneself in relation to other objects within the visual f i e l d . 22
9. Tennis Ability: A definition of skill was chosen for this term because it seemed to describe the test used to measure tennis ability. The term denotes that some learning has taken place and that a smoothing or an integration of behavior has resulted. Extraneous movements have been omitted, and the performance is executed with increasing speed and accuracy, a de crease In errors or perhaps the ability to apply greater force. A skilled act has to be learned. It is not one which might be termed instinctive or re flective or one in which successful performance is achieved in a single performance.23
20Ruth I. Bass, "An Analysis of the Components of Tests of Semicircular Canal Functions and of Static and Dynamic Balance," Research Quarterly, X (May, 1939), p. 33.
21 Harold G. Seashore, "The Development of a Beam-Walk ing Test and Its Use in Measuring Development of Balance in Children," Research Quarterly, XVIII (December, 1947), p. 247.
22r . G. Armstrong, Principles and Practices of Avi- ation Medicine (Baltimore: Willlams and Wilkins Co., 1952), FTTH ------
^Cratty, p. 23. 15
Assumptions and Limitations
The following list of assumptions serves to further confirm the reasons for selection of the variables in this study.
Assumptions
1. Reaction time defined as a quick conscious response to visual stimuli may contribute to success in tennis ability.
2. Movement time and pure speed implying quickness of movement, or the ability of the body to overcome the effect of inertia, may contribute to success in tennis ability.
3. Dynamic balance meaning the ability to establish and re-establish balance may be positively related to success in tennis ability. 4. Depth perception conventionally viewed in terms of the function it serves in relating the organism to its spatial relation in a three dimensional world may be of importance for success in tennis ability.
5. The height and weight of an individual, which could conceivably increase his range and strength, may be critical factors for success in tennis ability.
6. Tennis ability defined as economy of motion, effort, and time in play may be significantly related to suc cess in tennis ability.
7. Arm-shoulder coordination being the ability to combine varying movements into a complex but smooth pattern may be involved in success in tennis ability. 16
8. Agility viewed as the ability to change directions quickly may be a factor for success in tennis ability.
Limitations
The following list represents the limitations under which this study was conducted:
1. The findings of this study may be generalized only to the type of population sampled for this investigation.
The subjects for this study are of a unique nature for they represent the very best tennis players for their age group.
One should keep in mind that what can be learned about motor traits with respect to this group certainly cannot be claimed for the normal population. Special attention to this fact should be given by the reader when considering Chapter IV which contains the analysis of data. These subjects repre sent the very upper class of tennis players.
2. Any relation existing between two responses from a subject cannot necessarily be interpreted in terms of cause and effect. CHAPTER II
RELATED LITERATURE
Literature reviewed here shall follow this sequence:
(1) reaction time and movement time, (2) depth perception,
(3) dynamic balance, and (4) coordination, speed, and agility.
Because motor activities abound with the necessity for making a quick response to a visual stimulus, much material has been reported dealing with the various aspects of neuromuscular response. Slater -Hammel states:
One long recognized characteristic of human sensory- response systems is that they require time. It takes time for a stimulus to activate a sense organ; it takes time for neural impulses to pass along afferent neurons, and down efferent neurons; and it takes time for a re sponse organ to Initiate its action.1
Reaction Time and Movement Time
General studies
The whole scientific problem of reaction time as a field for careful investigation grew out of observations by astronomers who noted differences among themselves in re cording the movement when the image of a star reached the cross-hairs of an optical instrument.2
1A. T. Slater-Hammel, "Reliability, Accuracy, and Re fractoriness of a Transit Reaction," Research Quarterly, XXXI (May, 1960), pp. 217-228. 2w. R. Miles, "Studies in Physical Exertion: II. In dividual and Group Reaction Time in Football Charging," Re- search Quarterly, II (October, 1931), p. 12. 17 18
Coleman Griffith^ reported some of the earliest ex perimentation with reaction time and its relation to athletic skills. He was one of the first who attempted to discover If reaction time had any significant relation to athletic ability, and he found that the men with the fastest reaction time on the Illinois athletic teams were twice as fast as the slowest men. Miles^ conducted some reaction time experiments on football players. He devised a chronoscope that recorded the reaction times of seven men at once and that measured the men under conditions very nearly resembling those of actual play.
He indicated that there seemed to be a high relation between reaction time and efficiency in certain football skills. No correlations were reported by Miles to support his con clusion. He also reported while body movement of football players in response to a stimulus. Backs were the fastest.
Ends, guards, tackles, and centers followed in this order.
Westerlund and Tuttle,5 working with reaction time
In track athletes, attempted to determine whether there was a difference between the reaction times of those running short distances and those specializing in distance events.
3c. R. Griffith, Psychology and Athletics (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1928), p. 1^3.
%iles, pp. 4-13. 5«J. H. Westerlund and W. W. Tuttle, "Relationship Between Running Events In Track and Reaction Time," Research Quarterly, II (October, 1931), pp. 95-100. They also endeavored to see whether there was any correlation between speed In running and reaction time* Reaction time was measured by a finger response, which consisted of pres sing down on a telegraph key with the index finger at the presentation of a stimulus. It was found that in running track events the short-distance men had the fastest reaction
oime, followed by the middle distance and long distance runners. Furthermore, the mean reaction time (.121 sec.) of a group of champions was definitely shorter than that of any other group studied, regardless of the distance run. A coefficient correlation of .863 was found between speed in running 75 yards and reaction time. Lautenbach and Tuttle^ Investigated the relation be tween reflex time and running events in track and found a high coefficient of correlation (.815) with trained subjects, but a low negative correlation (.120) when testing untrained subjects. They concluded that a fast sprinter had fast reflex time.
Burpee and Stroll,? prompted by the knowledge that
Babe Ruth’s reaction time was twice as fast as the average reaction time, studied the reaction and movement times of
^R. Lautenbach and ¥. W. Tuttle, "Relationships Be tween Reflex Time and Running Events in Track," Research Quarterly, III (October, 1932), pp. 138-143.
^Royal H. Burpee and Wellington Stroll, "Measuring Reaction Time of Athletes," Research Quarterly, VII (March, 1936), pp. 110-118. 20
46 men, all residents of an urban club that offered gymnasium
facilities. They concluded that a significant negative re
lation existed between reaction time and successful partici pation in physical education activities. Also reported was a high negative correlation between reaction time and success
ful participation in physical education activities.
Beise and Peasely® in a study of college women re
ported faster reaction time readings for tennis players than
for golf and archery players. They also reported faster and more stable reaction time readings in a skilled group of
archers, golfers, and tennis players than in an unskilled
group definitely below average in physical performance.
Keller^ compared 359 athletes with 275 non-athletes
in a test devised to measure "total body quickness" (move ment time) as opposed to continued speed (such as running).
Comparisons were also made between quickness of bodily move ment and successful performance in athletic activities.
Several conclusions were reached: (1) athletes were signi
ficantly faster than non-athletes, (2) requirements in quick
ness of bodily movements are not the same for all sports, (3)
a group of baseball, basketball, football, and track athletes
®D. Beise and V. Peasely, "The Relation of Reaction Time, Speed, and Agility of Big Muscle Groups to Certain Sports Skills," Research Quarterly, VIII (March, 1937). pp. 133-142.
^Louis F. Keller, "The Relation of 'Quickness of Bodily Movement1 to Success in Athletics," Research Quarterly, XIII (May, 1942), pp. 146-155. 21 had a quicker reaction time than a group of gymnast a, swimmers, and wrestlers, and (4) there was a positive relation (0.54) between the ability to move the body quickly and success in athletic activities. Burley1® also attempted to determine whether the re action times of athletes differed from those of non-athletes and whether reaction times of athletes in one sport differed from the reaction times of athletes in other sports. He re ported that reaction time scores of athletes were signifi cantly different from those of non-athletes. He found that baseball players were significantly faster than football linemen, football backs, swimmers, and non-letter-winners.
Basketball players, football backs, football linemen, and high school letter winners were significantly faster than swimmers and non-letter-winners.
Winograd11 employed Keller's "quickness of bodily movement" test as a measure of reaction time and studied the relation of timing and vision to successful batting in baseball performance. No significant relation between batting average, slugging average, runs batted in, and re action time was found. Varsity baseball players, however, did have faster reaction times than a group of non-athletes.
10L. R. Burley, "Reaction Time of Trained Men," Research Quarterly, XV (October, 1944), pp. 232-9.
11 Samuel Winograd, "The Relationship of Timing and Vision to Baseball Performance," Research Quarterly, XIII (December, 1942), pp. 421-493. 22
Kroll1^ investigated the relation among total re sponse times for two wrestling take-down maneuvers, a strength test, and initial take-down ability. Two response time measures of actual take-down maneuvers used in wrestling and strength tests were secured on 100 high school varsity wrestlers. The measurements were compared to actual com petitive Initial take-down performances based on 1,029 indi vidual matches and 815 initial take-downs. Successful and unsuccessful groups were based on the criterion of having won a place in the state or sectional tournaments. There were no significant differences between successful and unsuccessful wrestlers on either of the response time measures, and strength measures were of no value in predicting competitive initial take-down ability.
Youngen^ 3 compared the reaction time and movement time measurements of 47 women athletes and 75 women non athletes. Sub-problems in the study were (1) the comparison of reaction time and movement time among participants in four different types of sports— tennis, fencing, swimming, and field hockey, (2) the correlation of reaction time and movement time of each athlete with physical education
^Walter Kroll, "Selected Factors Associated with Wrestling Success," Research Quarterly, XXIX (December, 1958), pp. 396-406. ”
13l o 1s Youngen, "A Comparison of Reaction and Move ment Times of Women Athletes and Nonathletes," Research Quarterly, XXX (October, 1959), pp. 349-355* 23 achievement as measured by letter grade, (3) the comparison of reaction time and movement time rank of individual ath letes and their coach-assigned ability rank in a sport activity, and (4) the correlation of reaction time and move ment time. She concluded that (1) women athletes were signi
ficantly faster than women non-athletes, (2) neither reaction
time nor movement time was correlated with coach-assigned positions, (3) tennis players, swimmers, fencers, and field hockey players did not differ significantly in reaction time,
(4) a trend indicated that the swimmers were the slowest movers, (5) reaction time and movement time of non-athletes were unrelated to physical education achievement, and (6) a
statistically significant but low correlation existed between reaction time and movement time.
Lindeburg1 ^ attempted to determine the extent to which practicing some physical skills, Including a few of
those commonly used in physical education curricula, affected
the speed of certain simple and more complex standardized movements. Specifically, the skill activities of table
tennis and the quickening exercises involving fast horizontal and vertical arm movements were employed. Two months sepa rated the test and the re-test periods. The conclusions drawn were that there was no transfer of training from the
1 ^Franklin A. Lindeburg, "A Study of the Degree of Transfer Between Quickening Exercises and Other Coordinated Movements," Research Quarterly, XX (May, 1949), pp. 180-195. 24 exercises, table tennis, or special arm movements to standard ized movements employed.
Motivation as a factor
Henry15 attempted to confirm earlier findings that suggested motivational factors (electric Bhocks) were very important in improving slow reaction times. He also wanted to investigate whether motivational factors could be gener alized to include more complicated "speed of movement" re sponses. The motivating influence of electric shock in speeding reaction time was substantiated, and a considerably larger Increase in speed was found for two types of more complex movements. In regard to the transfer effect, the motivation produced a statistically significant speed-up, and the motivated improvement in a relatively simple reaction showed statistically acceptable evidence of transfer to a more complicated coordination.
Henry1^ recorded reaction and movement times as a response to a single stimulus to determine individual dif ferences, adding a second stimulus to the original in order to determine the role that sensory stimuli (dim light, bright light, bright light plus shock, and sound) had in Improving
15Franklin M. Henry, "Increase in Speed of Movement by Motivation and by Transfer of Motivated Improvement," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), pp. 219-228.
1^Franklin M. Henry,"Independence of Reaction and Movement Times of Sensory Motivators of Faster Response," Research Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), pp. 43-53. speed of action when such stimuli were administered to the subject during the slower half of his successive responses to a reaction signal. He found that all groups Improved significantly in reaction time and most of them in movement time, whatever motivating stimulus they received.
Age as a factor
Hodgkins17 tested 930 men, women, and children ranging in age from 6 to 84 to determine the differences between males and females of various ages in their speed of reaction and movement and to ascertain whether or not a relation existed between reaction and movement time. It was reported that peak speed of reaction is reached between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one by both males and females, and a peak speed of movement is reached between the ages of fifteen and seventeen by both sexes. In the majority of age groups studied, there was no relation between speed of re action and speed of movement.
Atwell and Elbel1® studied whether a significant difference in reaction time existed between male high school students and university students. A slight difference in hand response within the high school group was found, with
1?Jean Hodgkins, "Reaction Time and Speed of Movement in Males and Females of Various Ages," Research Quarterly. XXXIV (October, 1963), pp. 335-343. 1^¥llliam 0. Atwell and Edwin R. Elbel, "Reaction Time of Male High School Students in Fourteen-Seventeen-Year Age Groups," Research Quarterly, XIX (March, 1948), pp. 22-9. 26 a tendency to more rapid response with increase in age. They also reported the mean time for hand response in the high
school group was significantly higher than the university
group. There was a significant but low correlation between hand response (reaction time) and body response (movement
time) for each group.
Clarke19 attempted to determine the relation of re
action time and movement time to certain motor performances,
strength scores, anthropometric measures, and maturity of boys 13 years of age. He found that reaction time measures
of different parts of the body had a low relation and that
reaction time measures were not significantly related to motor, strength, and anthropometric tests and pubescent
assessments.
Pierson20 investigated the extent of the relation be
tween reaction time and movement time for male subjects from
childhood to senility. Four hundred male subjects between
the ages of eight and eighty-three were measured, and it was
concluded that there was a statistically significant corre
lation between reaction time and movement time.
19h. Harrison Clarke, "Relationships of Reaction, Movement, and Completion Time to Motor, Strength, Antrhopo- metric and Maturity Measures," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (May, 1962), pp. 194-201.
20William R. Pierson, "The Relationship of Movement Time and Reaction Time from Childhood to Senility," Research Quarterly, XXX (May, 1959), pp. 227-231. 27
Exercise and activity as factors Elbel21 studied the effects of various forms of strenuous exercise upon the reaction time of men and con cluded that stool-stepping and push-ups caused no significant changes in reaction time but that hand (reaction time) and body (movement time) reaction time were significantly shortened by athletic competition. Hand-speed-accuracy also was significantly Improved in one group and decidedly im proved in another by athletic competition. Regular periods of fencing caused a distinct improvement in a fencing time- accuracy ratio.
Gollnick, Hearn, and Tweit22 studied the effects of physical training on the total body reaction time (movement time) in a group of low-fitness individuals. They tested 26 low-fitness subjects for total body reaction time, strength, agility, and explosive power and then re-tested on these items seven weeks later. The investigators concluded that total body reaction time could be improved by training, and one common factor to success in all was quickness of motion.
21E. R. Elbel, "A Study of Response Time Before and After Strenuous Exercise," Research Quarterly, XI (May, 194-0), pp. 86-95.
22P. D. G-ollnick, G. R. Hearn, and A. H. Tweit, "Effects of Training Program on Total Body Reaction Time of Individuals of Low Fitness," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (December, 1963), pp. 508-513. 28
Genasci.23 studied 108 subjects to determine if par ticipation for several months in selected physical education activities and athletics changed the total body reaction and movement time of undergraduate men. Measurements we re taken at the beginning, middle, and end of the quarter. Summarizing the conclusions: (1) there was a significant trend beyond the 0.01 level of significance to improve reaction and move ment time from the first to the last testing period, (2) all the varsity groups (football, wrestling, basketball, and baseball) moved faster than the beginning swimming group.
P h i l l i p s ^ attempted to determine the possible ef fects of warm-up exercises on reaction time and movement time. Reaction time did not change as a result of the exercise, and reaction time and movement time were sub stantially uncorrelated. Smith.25 attempted to determine whether reaction time and maximal velocity of a supported arm which is exposed to muscular stretch would be significantly faster than when the
23james E. Genasci, "A Study of the Effect of Par ticipation in Physical Education Activities and Athletics on Reaction and Movement Time" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept, of Physical Education, Colorado State College, 1960), pp. 1-77. ^^Wllliam H. Phillips, "Influence of Fatiguing Warm up Exercises on Speed of Movement and Reaction Latency," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (October, 1963), pp. 370-378.
2^Leon E. Smith, "Effect of Muscular Stretch, Tension, and Relaxation upon the Reaction Time and Speed of Movement," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), pp. 346-553. 29 limb was either tensed or relaxed. For both reaction time and movement time the fastest speeds recorded for the three conditions were (1) stretch, (2) tension, and (3) relaxation.
No significant correlations were found between reaction time and movement time under the three experimental conditions.
Summary
A review of the related research on reaction and movement time indicates—
1. Differences between skilled performers and non performers are significant.
2. Athletes in football, wrestling, basketball, baseball, and swimming have varying reaction and movement times but the reasons for these variations are not well- defined.
3. It is not evident that reaction time has a significant relation with movement times.
4. Psychological studies show that reaction and movement times can be improved and transferred by moti vational factors.
5. Reaction and movement time were improved through physical education sports activities but not through general exercise. 30
Depth Perception
Most spatial relations leading to movement behavior rely upon a three-dimensional world. This three-dimensional space field is one to which the player must structure his gross movements in motor response activities. The athlete continually bases his actions upon his perception of di mensional qualities in space.
Robert Montebello makes this point clear by way of illustration:
If you were to cover one eye with your hand or a piece of cardboard so that you could not see out of the eye, and then walk around the room, in and around furniture, out in the yard, you would find that you had no trouble whatever in getting around objects in your path or in moving around. However, while still covering the one eye, have someone throw a tennis ball at you from a distance of several paces and try to catch it. Even at a comparatively slow speed of the ball, you are more apt to miss the ball than to catch it.2°
It becomes difficult to act in relation to our environment when the ability to perceive the third dimension is not adequate. Many factors, of which binocular vision is the most important, cooperate to allow man to perceive depth and distance. In the present study, the writer is concerned with the ability to Judge the distance of objects by bin ocular vision. Although it seems important, few studies have investigated depth perception in athletics.
2^Robert Albert Montebello, "The Role of Steroscopic Vision in Some Aspects of Baseball Playing Ability" (un published Master's theses, The Ohio State University, 1953)> p. vi. 31 Bannister and Blackburn^? reported that inter-pupil lary distance (distance between the eyes) had some signifi cance in the ability to strike a ball. They suggested that athletes, rugby and football (soccer) players at Cambridge
University, had significantly larger inter-pupillary distance than did non-players, possibly facilitating binocular depth perception and contributing to their superior playing ability.
Olsen2® attempted to determine (1) whether significant differences existed in reaction time, depth perception, and visual span of apprehension between groups of varsity ath letes, intermediate athletes, and non-athletes, and (2) the relation, if any, of these three capacities to selected sports skills in basketball, soccer, hockey, and baseball.
The instrument selected to measure depth perception was the
Howard-Dolman apparatus, which is very much like the one used by the writer in the present study. The three groups of 100 each were tested, and analysis of variance showed significant differences between groups at the 0.01 per cent level. The following conclusions were reached: (1) the athletes and the intermediate athletes had better depth perception than the non-athletes, and (2) significant differences were not found
27h . Bannister and J. M. Blackburn, "An Eye Factor Affecting Proficiency at Ball Games," British Journal of Psychology, XXI (October, 1931), pp. 3&2-4.
2®Elhar A. Olsen, "Relationship Between Psycho logical Capacities and Success in College Athletics," Research Quarterly, XXVII (March, 1956), pp. 79-89. 32 between the varsity athletes and the intermediate athletes in depth perception. Hennis and Ulrich2^ studied the effect of a psychic stressor on depth perception, steadiness, blood pressure, and simple hand-eye coordination. The results were compared with the manifest anxiety scores (psychic stressor) of the sub jects. Depth perception was measured by means of the Howard-
Dolman apparatus. It was found that a psychic stressor sig nificantly influenced scores with regard to blood pressure, depth perception, steadiness, and eye-hand coordination.
Ross^0 investigated two areas: (1) to determine the relation between eye-hand coordination skills and visual perception skills, and (2) to compare the results of both the visual and motor tests in each grade (elementary school) with those of other grades. A test was given to measure the subject's amount of depth perception. Although sex was significantly related to seven of the eight dependent vari ables (boys were superior to girls in all measures, except one), depth perception was not significantly related to any of the motor tests. Of course, the author pointed out that
29Gall M. Hennis and Celeste Ulrich, "Study of Psychic Stress in Freshmen College Women," Research Quarterly, XXVIV (May, 1958), pp. 172-179. ^Mattie Ellen Ross, "The Relationships of Eye-Hand Coordination Skills and Visual Perception Skills in Children" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961), pp. 1-90. 33 it is evident that both the visual skills and motor skills of children are still in the process of development.
Montebello^1 studied the importance of depth per ception in several baseball skills, measuring it by a test devised at the School of Optometry, The Ohio State University.
Baseball ability was determined by three judges on the fol lowing performance tests: (1) catching fly balls with depth perception eliminated by partial occlusion, (2) catching thrown balls at a distance of 60 feet with depth perception eliminated by partial occlusion, (3) batting ten balls with depth perception eliminated by monocular occlusion and partial occlusion. The following conclusions were reached:
1. Depth perception is definitely essential to the successful performance of the baseball skills tested in this study. 2. Varsity baseball players, as a group, possess better depth perception than a group of non-athletes, as measured by the constant stimulus technique used in this study.
J>. The seven experts thought the depth perception sensitivity of varsity baseball players was better, on the average, than a group of non-athletes and that their depth perception sensitivity could be improved.
4. The methods and tests used in this study seem to indicate that no correlation exists between the individual
31Montebello, pp. 1-69. 34 player's depth perception and his batting average over one season of play.
5. The ability to recognize changes in speed of pitches was one of the skills most demanding very good depth perception based upon this study.
Winograd32 investigated the relation of timing and vision to successful batting in baseball. The subjects were grouped as school players, varsity athletes, rejected base ball candidates, and non-athletes. Vision was tested on the
Keystone Ophthalmic Telebinocular which measured eleven un usual functions of which depth perception was one. He con cluded that a definite difference is reliably distinguished between varsity players and non-athletes in depth perception and definite differences are reliably distinguished between rejected candidates for varsity baseball and non-athletes in depth perception. Possibly the athlete is superior to the rejected candidate in depth perception.
Graybiel, Jokl, and Trapy33 reported three Russian studies carried out during the 1952 Olympics that measured the effects of three visual functions— heterophoria, accom modation, and depth perception— on various motor skills.
The depth perception studies revealed that thirty tennis
^ ^ i nograd, pp. 481-493.
Graybiel, E. Jokl, and C. Trapy, "Accommodation, Visual Fields, Ocular Muscle Balance and Depth Perception of Athletes," Research Quarterly, XXVI (December, 1955)* PP. 480-485. 35 players had considerably better depth perception than 122
football players. As a group, the athletes did better than an untrained group. The depth perception and athletic pro
ficiency of tennis and soccer players were found to have a positive correlation.
Dickson34 used five tests of depth perception on 28 varsity athletes, 11 good Intramural players and 12 poor
Intramural players to determine whether tests of depth per
ception made a contribution to the prediction of basketball
shooting ability. He found no positive correlation between
any of the five tests used for depth perception and the
ability to shoot a basketball. He concluded that the five
tests used for depth perception did not measure the visual
factors of depth perception and that factors other than
depth perception operated to determine one’s ability to
shoot basketball accurately. The Howard-Dolman apparatus was used to measure depth perception.
Summary
A review of the related literature on depth per
ception indicates that—
1. Differences between skilled performers and non performers are significant in favor of the skilled group.
^Joseph F. Dickson, "The Relationship of Depth Per ception to Goal Shooting in Basketball" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1953), PP. 1-64. 36
2. Depth perception may be essential to certain sports proficiency, such as, baseball, soccer, and tennis.
Complex Skills: Dynamic Balance, Coordination,
Speed, Agility, and Specific Sports Ability
These basic abilities in the above heading have gener ally been considered fundamental skills or necessary elements for successful motor performance. Most physical educators would agree that these traits have implications for motor accuracy and precision.
Most physical educators today would feel that the abilities to change directions quickly, move quickly, main tain one's balance under various circumstances, unify complex movement patterns, and manifest specific sports ability are not only some of the most exciting human faculties, but con tribute important roles in motor proficiency. Hence, these factors became essential to this investigation.
In spite of the fact that physical educators have recognized for years that these elements must have some re lation to motor performance, there has been a dearth of re search efforts in these areas. Hence, their relation to athletics makes an investigation into these areas warranted. 37
Dynamic Balance
Early studies Bass35 devised tests for static and dynamic balance and analyzed the intercorrelations of these tests in an ef fort to determine the different factors concerned in each test in the function of balance as a whole. She concluded that static balance probably involved at least (a) the three semicurcular canals of the ear, (b) kinesthetic sensitivity and response, and (c) tensions reinforcing the goal response, which was balance. Dynamic balance included at least the same factors as given above tinder static balance, except that (b) and (c) were much more complex.
She suggested, furthermore, there were a number of different factors in balance and others functioned only when the eyes were open; thus, there are probably several func tions of the eyes in balance. Other factors function most when the eyes are closed and, therefore, must concern func tions other than vision.
S e a s h o r e , ^6 endeavoring to determine some relation between fine and gross motor abilities, compared dynamic balance measures with gross muscular coordination measures.
35Ruth I. Bass, "An Analysis of the Components of Tests of Semicircular Canal Function and of Static and Dynamic Balance," Research Quarterly, X (May, 1939), pp. 33-51. ^Harold G. Seashore, "Some Relationships of Fine and Gross Motor Abilities," Research Quarterly, XIII (October, 1942), pp. 259-274. 38
Dynamic balance was measured by a balance platform test of
"gross steadiness.” The test employed an apparatus consist ing of a platform for the feet that pivoted on an axle, parallel to the feet and midway between them. The object was to measure how steady the subject could keep this pivoted platform during a 30 second trial. The baseball throw for distance was one of eleven tests for gross coordination. He reported: (1) no overall or "general" positive dependence or inter-relatedness of fine motor abilities and gross abilities and (2) some activities which upon superficial analysis are called large muscle activities do involve finer motor co ordination. Estep,57 along the same line as Seashore, investigated the relation between static-equilibrium and ability in gross motor activities. The findings of this investigation sup ported the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between static-equilibrium and gross motor activities.
Dynamic balance in activities
Ryan58 explored the relation between performance on a selected motor skill and (1) intellectual capacity, (2) in tellectual achievement, and (3) motivation as measured by relative intellectual achievement. Motor performance was
37Dorothy P. Estep, "Relationship of Static Equilib rium to Ability in Motor Activities," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (March, 1957), pp. 5-15.
38pean E. Ryan, "Relative Academic Achievement and Stabilometer Performance," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (May, 1963), PP. 185-190. 39 measured on a stabllometer, which consisted of a balance plat form similar to the one used in the present investigation.
Subjects consisted of 80 volunteer male undergraduate and graduate students who had never before performed on the stabllometer or any similar Instrument. Academic capacity
(college entrance examination), academic achievement (grade point average), athletic ability (varsity letter awarded in high school or college), relative academic achievement (capa city related to achievement) showed no relation to stabllo- meter performance. Dynamic balance, as measured by the stabllometer, revealed no relation to athletic ability.
Espenschade, Dable, and Schoendube39 made two studies of dynamic balance in adolescent boys to test the hypothesis that balance might be disturbed during the repidly growing period of puberty. The Seashore Beam Walking test was ad ministered as a measure of dynamic balance. Subjects were classified according to maturity and, in order to examine the relation of dynamic balance to physical education activities, scores of 287 subjects were correlated with assigned grades in physical education. Physical education instructors singled out ten boys who were considered especially out standing in "athletic ability" and ten who were conspicuously poor. Several conclusions were drawn: (1) the relation be tween dynamic balance and physical abilities appeared to be
^Anna Espenschade, Robert R. Dable, and Robert Schoendube, "Dynamic Balance in Adolescent Boys," Research Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1953), pp. 270-5. 40 substantiated, (2) results by chronological age showed con sistent improvement between eleven and sixteen years but the rate of gain between thirteen to fifteen was noticeably slower, (3) dynamic balance was not related to height or weight, (4) the hypothesis that growth in dynamic balance was retarded at puberty was substantiated.
Gross and Thompson^0 attempted to determine whether ability in dynamic balance was related to speed and ability in swimming. The subjects were 78 male students between the ages of seventeen and twenty-eight years enrolled in advanced swimming at Pennsylvania State University, and dynamic balance was measured by the Bass Stepping Stone Test. The subjects were rated on their ability to swim nine strokes taught them in a six-week period, and were timed on three separate occasions for the 30-yard sprint in swimming. Con clusions drawn were that, (1) in general, individuals who had better dynamic balance, as determined by the Bass test, could swim faster than individuals who had poor dynamic balance,
(2) individuals who had better swimming ability, as deter mined by expert judgment tended to have better dynamic balance than individuals with poor swimming ability, and (3) dynamic balance, as measured in this study, was not a chance factor
^°Elmer A. Gross and Hugh L. Thompson, "Relation ship of Dynamic Balance to Speed and Ability in Swimming," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (December, 1957), pp. 342-346. and might be an important factor in speed and ability in swimming.
Mumby,41 with twenty-one students from intermediate and advanced wrestling classes at the University of California at Berkeley, compared dynamic balance with wrestling ability.
Two experts rated the wrestlers for ability. Balance was measured by the stabllometer with the students in the position of a normal wrestling crouch on the hands and knees.
Conclusions were that in balance and in ability to learn balance, good wrestlers are somewhat better than poor wrestlers. However, individual differences in these abilities did not correlate significantly with the judges' ratings of wrestling ability. Lafuze^2 attempted to determine the status of college freshmen women of low motor ability in agility, balance, kinesthetic response, serial reaction time (time required to perform a series of short runs involving change of direction by verbal signal), and strength. Also, she compared the ef fectiveness of eight weeks and sixteen weeks of instruction in the fundamental skills tested. Two groups were selected based upon the Scott Motor Ability Test: those whose scores
^1Hugh N. Mumby, "Kinesthetic Acuity and Balance Re lated to Wrestling Ability," Research Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1953), pp. 327-334. 42Marion Lafuze, "A Study of the Learning of Funda mental Skills by College Women of Low Motor Ability," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1950, PP« 149-157. were in the lower one-fourth, and those whose scores were in the upper one-fourth. The low motor group included 89 sub jects, the high group 84. Data presented in this study seemed to Justify the following conclusions: (1) the stu dents who scored in the lower quartile group on the Scott
Motor Ability battery made scores significantly lower than those in the upper quartile group on the tests given, (2) general motor ability and certain motor capacities could be improved by specialized instruction in the fundamental skills, (3) general motor ability and knowledge of funda mental skills could be improved more during a 16-week unit than during an 8-week unit, and (4) in the motor capacities sixteen weeks of instruction in the fundamental skills did not result in improvement greater than that which followed eight weeks of instruction. It is interesting that those skills which showed the most change were identical for the two groups— agility, balance, and serial reaction time. Slater-Hammel43 attempted to obtain preliminary evidence on the extent to which a new balance test could discriminate among selected groups of male college students.
The Reynolds' Balance Test, a teeter-board system, was ad ministered to selected groups of varsity athletes, physical education majors, and liberal arts majors. Conclusions
43a . T. Slater-Hammel, "Performance of Selected Groups of Male College Students on the Reynolds1 Balance Test," Research Quarterly, XXVII (October, 1956). on. 547- 351 . 43
reported were: (1) varsity athletes performed significantly
better on the balance test than physical education majors and
liberal arts majors, (2) physical education majors performed
significantly better on the balance test than the liberal
arts majors.
Summary
A review of the related literature on dynamic balance
indicates that--
1. Differences between skilled and nonskilled per
formers are significant.
2. Dynamic balance is a complex skill.
3. The relation of dynamic balance to gross motor
coordination is not clearly defined.
4. The relation of dynamic balance to success in
sports activities is not well established.
5. Balance as a skill may be improved.
Arm-Shoulder Coordination, Speed, and Agility
Calvin^ examined the effects of a progressive re
sistive exercise program, engaged in over a period of four
months, on the motor coordination of a group of high school
boys ranging in age from fourteen to eighteen. The exercise
program was in the form of weight training, with emphasis
^Sidney Calvin, "Effects of Progressive Resistive Exercises on the Motor Coordination of Boys," Research Quarterly, XXX (December, 1959), pp. 387-398. 44 upon the upper body. An effort was made to determine the effects of the weight training program on speed of movement, as indicated by a baseball wall bounce test; on accuracy, as
Indicated by the throwing of a baseball at a target; and on arm-hand dexterity, as indicated by the Minnesota Rate of
Manipulation Test. The results of this study gave no indi cation that muscular development associated with weight train ing over a four month period of time had in any way a deleterious effect on the motor coordination of this group of high school boys. The results seemed to indicate that progressive resistive exercises in the form of weight train ing tended to affect favorable the motor coordination of high school boys.
Olree^ attempted to determine the relation of skill in basketball, football (touch and tackle), playground ball and baseball, soccer and speedball, swimming, tennis, and volleyball with certain components of physical fitness: (1) accuracy, (2) agility, (3) balance, (4) coordination, (5) endurance, (6) flexibility, (7) muscular power, (8) muscular strength, and (9) speed. His conclusions were that (1) endurance had a larger correlation with skill in tennis than with skill in any other sport, (2) accuracy and balance had a larger correlation with skill in basketball; and agility,
^George Doyle Olree, "Relationship Between Skill in Sports, Participation in Sports, and Physical Fitness in College Men" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, George Peabody College, 1961), pp. 1-147. 45 coordination, muscular power, muscular strength, and speed had a larger correlation with skill in football, (3) flexi bility was not found to be related to skill in any of the seven sports at the 0.05 level of significance, (4) balance had a higher correlation with total sports skill than did any other component of physical fitness, (5) there was no intrinsic linear relation between participation in sports and physical fitness as determined by the study. Therefore, skill in sports seemed to be of the utmost importance when attempting to develop physical fitness through participation in sports. Both skill in football and participation in football had a higher correlation to agility, coordination, muscular power, muscular strength, speed, and general phy sical fitness than did skill or participation in any other sport.
Slater-Hammel^ attempted to obtain objective data on the contraction-movement relation during the tennis forehand drive. The muscles Investigated were in the driving arm and were the short head biceps brachii, long head biceps brachii, lateral head triceps brachii, long head triceps brachii, an terior deltoid, medial deltoid, posterior deltoid, and latlssimus dorsi. In the study a regulation tennis ball was suspended approximately four feet from the floor by means of
46A. T. Slater-Hammel, "An Action Current Study of Contraction-Movement in the Tennis Stroke," Research Quarterly, XX (December, 1949), pp. 429-431. 4
46
an elastic cord. The subject faced the ball and assumed the
position that he felt was comfortable for the stroke. On the
signal "Go," the subject shifted his weight to the rear foot
and completed what he considered a normal tennis drive. Sub
jects were one State University of Iowa physical education
department member and four undergraduate students in physical
education; they were considered competent because they had
played for several years. Simultaneous records of arm move
ment, contact of the tennis racket with the ball, and action
currents were taken on a Teledeltos Polygraph. Conclusions
threw light on the nature of coordination in tennis stroke
variation in contraction-movement relations from stroke to
stroke. The variations found were seldom greater than two
to three per cent. This would seem to indicate that the
strokes were well developed habit patterns. A comparison of
contraction-movement relations between subjects, however,
showed extensive variations in timing and general coordination.
The contraction-movement relations of a motor skill may not
be as stereotyped and Invariant as they appear in some forms
of analysis.
Espenschade^? studied the individual differences and
changes as the child grows and matures in such components of motor coordination as agility, balance, flexibility, strength,
^Anna Espenschade, "Development of Motor Coordi nation in Boys and Girls," Research Quarterly, XVIII (March. 1947), pp. 30-44. 47 static balance, and control. The subjects ranged in age from
13.0 to 17»5 years. She concluded that (1) boys showed an
Increase in ability to perform events of all classes, and the rate of growth was greater after 14 years of age than before and appeared to be more rapid in agility and control, (2) all tests for boys in which dynamic balance was a factor showed a marked adolescent lag; a possible explanation might be the rapid changes in body proportions and center of gravity in this age group.
Beise and P e a s e l y ^ in an investigation attempted to answer the questions: (1) Do individuals skilled in sports demonstrate a similarity in speed of reaction, in speed of running, and in speed when action requiring dexterity of moving the entire body is necessary? (2) Do these funda mentals of reaction time, speed, and agility differ with different sports activities? (3) How do individuals who rated very low or very high in Brace’s Motor Ability Tests respond to these tests?
Two wood plates were attached solidly to the floor at a distance of seventeen feet, ten inches apart. These plates were constructed of two pieces of wood, 13*5 inches by four inches, hinged together. A wire spring was placed in between the two pieces. The two floor plates were connected to an
^®D. Beise and V. Peasely, "The Relation of Reaction Time, Speed, and Agility of Big Muscle G-rbups to Certain Sports Skills," Research Quarterly, VIII (March, 1937), pp. 133-142. 48 electro-magnet, making possible recording on a revolving kymograph. When pressure was applied to either plate a record of that pressure was made on the kymograph. These plates were designated as Plate I (the starting plate), and
Plate II.
A straight line was drawn between the two plates indicating the line of direction in which the subject was to run. Another line was drawn slightly to the right of this line indicating a circuitous path winding in and out around three high stools. This line extending from Plate II to
Plate I was twenty-seven feet, ten inches in length.
At the end of the room in full view of the subject, at a height of four feet, seven Inches, a small electric bulb backed by a reflector was fastened to a standard. The light was also connected with an electro-magnet which made it possible to record each flash of the light on the kymo graph. Hundredths of seconds were recorded by an electric tuning fork tuned to the correct number of vibrations per second.
Conclusions drawn were these: (1) elements tested seemed to be fundamental to skill in certain sports, (2) significant differences between skilled and unskilled indi viduals could be determined by speed, agility, and reaction time tests, and (3) tennis required faster reaction time and agility than the more stationary sports such as golf and archery. 49 DIntiman^9 attempted to determine whether a flexibility training program, a weight training program, and a combi nation of both would affect running speed when used as sup plementary training programs to the conventional method of training sprinters. The subjects were 145 male freshman and sophomore students participating in required physical edu cation. Running speed was measured by the 50-yard dash with a running start. The subjects were tested before and after an 8-week training period. Conclusions drawn were that (1) the flexibility training program, used as a supplement to sprint training, did not Improve running speed significantly more than the sprint training program alone, (2) the weight training program, used as a supplement to sprint training, did not improve running speed significantly more than the sprint training program alone; however, a difference in ad justed means of only 0.01 prevented significance at the 0.05 level, and (3) the combination of the flexibility and weight training programs, used as supplements to sprint training, improved running speed signigicantly more than the sprint training program alone.
^George Blough Dintlman, "Effects of Various Train ing Programs on Running Speed," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), pp. 456-463. 50
Rarick^0 isolated and identified various factors that
govern the speed of muscular movement in man. Subjects were
51 male subjects of high athletic ability. He reported that
strength seemed to contribute little, if anything, to speed
when present in quantities greater than a certain minimum.
The chief factor limiting speed of movement in man was a
velocity factor of pure speed of muscular movement. Height
seemed to bear some slight relation to sprinting ability.
Arm strength exhibited only slight influence on speed.
Normal individuals with a high degree of motor ability or
skill and an average amount of strength could not increase
their speed of muscular performance to any appreciable ex
tent.
Hubbard^1 studied running habits of ten subjects,
five trained and five untrained, under conditions practically
identical with normal running conditions. The action of
certain key muscles of the lower limb was recorded and
analyzed in relation to the movements of the limb oscillation,
walking, and running. He concluded that improvement in run ning is the result of increasing the length of stride rather
than the rate of movement.
5°Lawrence Rarick, "An Analysis of the Speed Factor in Simple Athletic Activities," Research Quarterly, VIII (December, 1937), pp. 85-105.
Alfred W. Hubbard, "An Experimental Analysis of Running and Certain Fundamental Differences Between Trained and Untrained Runners," Research Quarterly, X (October, 1939), pp. 28-38. 51 Agler52 attempted to determine the effects of weight training on speed, strength, and explosive power. His sub jects were 24 menbers of the Otterbein College football team.
During the six weeks the study was conducted the subjects were required to lift weights three times a week for the amount of time required to complete the prescribed program.
Conclusions presented were that weight training increased leg strength, back strength, explosive power, and speed.
Sills and Everett53 attempted to further clarify the relation of endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy to the performance of motor skills and tests of strength. They studied forty-three University of Iowa students, who were divided into three groups of fourteen mesomorphic, thirteen endomorphic, and sixteen ectomorphic. Each subject was re quired to take twelve tests. The experiment was designed to include three tests of each of the following elements basic to physical activity: (1) strength, (2 ) agility, (3 ) speed, and (4) endurance. Conclusions reported were (1) mesomorphs are stronger than endomorphs and ectomorphs, (2) endomorphs are stronger than ectomorphs (although statistically signi ficant differences were not obtained, the mean scores were in
52Robert Agler, "A Study of the Effects of Weight Training on Speed, Strength, and Explosive Power" (unpuhLised Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1961), pp. 1-26.
53Frank D. Sills and Peter W. Everett, "The Relation ship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance in Motor and Strength Tests," Research Quarterly, XXIV (May, 1953). PP. 223-228. 52 favor of the endomorphs), (3 ) ectomorphs are superior to endo morphs in speed, agility, and endurance, (4) mesomorphs are superior to both ectomorphs and endomorphs in speed, agility, and endurance, and (5 ) excess weight is a handicap to endo morphs and insufficient strength is a handicap to ectomorphs in the performance of physical tests.
Summary
A review of the related literature on gross coordi nation, speed, and agility indicates that—
1. Motor coordination may be improved by weight training. 2. There may be a great variation in general co ordination of the tennis forehand drive.
3. Differences in speed and agility between skilled performers and nonskilled performers are significant.
5. Speed and agility may be fundamental to sports skill. 6 . The analysis of speed needs further study. CHAPTER III
METHOD AND PROCEDURE OF GATHERING DATA
The Problem
The focus of this present study is on the question: what specific physical characteristics, if any, are related to success in tennis among Junior Davis Cup players with respect to the following factors: (1) height and weight as measured by the Health-O-Meter scale, (2) reaction time and movement time as measured by the Automatic Performance Ana lyzer, (3) arm-shoulder coordination as measured by the
AAHPER Youth Fitness softball throw for distance, (4) pure speed as measured by the AAPHER Youth Fitness 50-yard dash with a running start, (5) agility as measured by the Barrow
Zig-Zag Test, (6 ) wall rebounding ability as measured by the
Dyer Backboard Test of Tennis Ability, (7) depth perception as measured by the Howard-Dolman apparatus, and (8 ) dynamic balance as measured by the stabilometer. The success criteria are (1) mobility, form, functional strength, concentration, motivation, and tennis ability as measured by a group of experts, (2) competition as measured by the Kentucky State
Junior Championship, St. Louis Junior Championship, Western
Junior Championship, USLTA National Junior Championship,
53 composite of tournaments, (3) USLTA National Championship seeds, national ranking, and (4) a composite of measured test items as established by weighted scores.
Height and Weight
All the subjects described in Table 1 participated in the study voluntarily and with the approval of the USLTA. As a result the writer felt that the participants were motivated to do their best. They are considered to be an exceptional group of able tennis players because of the stringent regu lations established for membership on the Junior Davis Cup team and because of the necessity for having demonstrated their tennis success in prior competition. As a whole the subjects were neither exceptionally tall nor heavy. Both measures were recorded to the nearest quarter.
Reaction and Movement Time
The instrument selected for measuring reaction and movement is an electronic device known as the Automatic Per formance Analyzer (APA).1 The apparatus is powered by 120 volts, 60 cycle AC and consists of a control cabinet, stimulus source, and stop attachments.
1Dekan~Timing Devices, P. 0. Box 712, Glen Ellyn, Illinois. 55 TABLE 1
THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Subject Age Height Weight State
A 16-10 66.50 13^.75 Puerto Rico B 17-11 72.50 173.50 Tennessee o o . C 17-3 -j 136.87 Louisiana o o D 18-1 • 158.25 Wisconsin
E 17-5 71.50 160.37 Puerto Rico
F 17-6 72.50 183.25 Florida
Or 17-9 70.50 163.50 Maryland
H 18-3 67.50 144.00 Maryland
I 17-10 70.50 148.62 California £ o o J 16-0 • 170.62 California K 17-A 69.50 136.50 California
L 17-3 69.75 172.12 California r* c- 0 0 H 17-1 • 152.00 California
N 16-7 72.00 163.12 California
0 18-5 70.25 145.50 Florida
P 18-7 72.50 165.00 Florida
Q 17-6 68.25 148.50 California
R 17-0 67.25 128.00 Florida
S 18-0 68.00 146.50 California
T 17-4 69.00 169.25 California
U 18-4 68.25 145.00 California
V 17-8 73.00 161.50 California
W 17-11 70.00 170.00 California 56
The control cabinet weighs leBS than twenty pounds and is contained in a carrying case. It iB a fifteen and one-half by ten inch box containing the relay switches and timer. On the face of the box is a three inch chronoscope marked off in units of 0.01 seconds, and a delay start circuit for varying the delay of stimulus adjustable from one to six seconds by a control knob. There are also a master switch for starting the timer and presenting the stimulus and an on-off switch. A push-button switch returns the hands of the chronoscope to zero after each trial. Also found here are outlets which connect the cabinet with the stimulus and stop equipment.
The stimulus is a light source known as a flasher light. It is a cylindrical tube #W 100 4, and it is one and one-hald Inches in length, and is connected to the cabinet by an electrical cord attachment. Inside the cylinder is a small bulb.
The stop attachments consist of a stop button In serted in the top of a handle (for gripping) two inches long and a cylinder five and one quarter inches long which stops the chronoscope upon impact. These also are connected to the cabinet by electrical cords.
Procedure
To test for reaction time a screen was placed be tween the tester operating the APA and the subject. On the right corner of the screen at eye level was attached the flasher light thirty inches from its insert and thirty-nine inches from the subject. The subject held the stop-button in his dominant hand and in any position that he considered most comfortable. Tape was placed on the floor marking where the subject stood facing the stimulus. Another screen was placed behind and encircling the subject in order to shield him from any distraction and to prevent waiting subjects from viewing the procedure and apparatus.
Two testers supervised each subject's trials. One tester (operator) operated the timer and recorded responses while the other (observer) standing to the subject's left gave the verbal signals and notified the operator when the subject was prepared. The following verbal instructions were given the subject: "Place your toes on the tape marks and face the stimulus. Hold the stop-button in your dominant hand with your index finger over the button in a ready po sition. When you are ready, I will notify the timing operator with an announced 'ready.' The 'ready' will be followed by a 'click' behind the screen. Shortly after the
'click' and at varying intervals the flasher light will light. As quickly as you can, press the stop-button when the light comes on, but remember the time before it lights up will vary, so be ready and concentrate on the light. I will not give the 'ready' until you are relaxed and have practiced the procedure for two trials." 58
While the observer checked the subject's position, the operator set the chronoscope in motion immediately fol lowing the "ready" at varying amounts of delay between the flashes of light. The delay occurred in the following
sequence:
Trial Delay
First 1.4 seconds
Second 1.9 seconds Third 1.0 seconds
Fourth .75 seconds
Fifth 2.6 seconds
The operator recorded the time from the chronoscope in one one-hundredths of a Becond after each trial, and the subject was not told how well he was responding.
The same procedure was employed to test movement time except that, instead of the push button stop, a cylinder was placed opposite the subject's left hip and twenty-seven
inches from his right hand (the reverse for left-handed sub
jects). The subject was instructed to place his right hand on his right thigh at the level of his greater trochanter and, when the flasher lighted, to move his hand firmly to the cylinder. The subject was instructed to hit the cylinder hard enough to make it swing. The subject caught the cylin
der on its way back or was permitted to let it hit foam rubber taped to the wall. The observer discounted any trials 59 in which the subject lunged ahead rather than just swinging his arm.
Hodgkins2 reported that scores recorded for ten trials were analyzed to determine whether or not practice or learn ing constituted a factor which should be considered. Trial 1 was compared with Trial 5 and with Trial 10, and Trial 5 was compared with Trial 10. In no case was there a significant difference. Genasci3 reported that in a preliminary investi gation to establish test trial patterns, a group of seven subjects were tested twenty-four times in succession. It was found that there was no change in reaction time between the first three trials and the last three trials, and all became irritable and expressed a desire for no further testing.
Therefore, it was decided to establish five as the number of trials per subject for this study. The means of the five trials for the first day and the second day were averaged for analysis. The first day’s means were correlated by the
Pearson r method with the second day's means to determine test reliability. For movement time a correlation coeffi cient of .63 was found and for reaction time .7 3 .
2Jean Hodgkins, "Reaction Time and Speed of Movement in Males and Females of Various Ages," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (October, 1963), PP- 335-343. 3james E. Genasci, "A Study of the Effects of Par ticipation in Physical Education Activities and Athletics on Reaction and Movement Time" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Colorado State College, i960), p. 23. 60
Arm-Shoulder Coordination
The softball throw for distance, as prescribed by the
AAHPER Youth Fitness Test,^ was selected to measure this variable. Two new softballs, small metal stakes or wooden stakes, and a tape measure were used. A football field is a convenient place to administer the test.
Procedure
Metal stakes were used to mark the football field in any conventional fashion. In this case, the stakes were placed from 50 feet to 225 feet with a marker every 25 feet on both sides of a rectangle some 30 yards apart. Another set of stakes established the two parallel lines, six feet apart, between which the subject must remain while throwing the ball.
Three testers were employed in this test. One tester
(marker) stood out and on the marked area, and when the ball was thrown, his responsibility was to mark the length of the throw by standing at the place establishing the distance thrown. If succeeding throws were longer, the marker moved; but if not, he remained at the initial mark. Another tester
(measurer), using a tape measure and utilizing the football field marking and stake marking, measured the longest throw.
^AAHPER F1tness Test Manual (Washington: American Assoc, for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1962), p. 11. 61
The third tester (observer and recorder) recorded the best of the three trials to the nearest foot, which is the
distance from the point of landing to the nearest point on
the restraining line. His further responsibility was to have
three additional softballs ready at the starting area, warn
the subject to remain inside the six foot space when throw
ing and discount any throws in which the subject's foot
faulted. Only an overhand throw might be used in keeping with the test specifications.
The subjects not being tested were permitted to warm-up by throwing a softball to one another. The subject
tested had the task of producing and applying force in a most integrated manner to secure a long throw.
Stein^ attempted to ascertain reliabilities of the
Individual test items of the Youth Fitness Test when adminis
tered in accordance with the instructions in the Youth
Fitness Manual. For the softball throw a reliability co
efficient of 0.931 and significant beyond the 0.001 level was reported.
^Julian V. Stein, "The Reliability of the Youth Fit ness Test,” Research Quarterly, XXXV (October, 1964), pp. 328-329. Pure Speed
The 50-yard dash, a test item of the AAHPER Youth
Fitness Test, was selected to measure pure speed.6 Four stop watches, four testers, and a track at least 65 yards long are needed. In this case the composition track at The
Ohio State University was employed.
Procedure The subjects ran individually and then paired with individuals with similar times. They were paired for moti vational purposes. The mean of these times was used for analysis. Whether running individually or paired the subject took his position fifteen yards behind the starting line and his time was recorded as the amount of time between the starter's signal (when the subject crossing the starting line) and the instant he crossed the finish line. The score was recorded in seconds and to the nearest tenth of a second.
Two testers (starters) stood at the starting line facing each other. Each held a stop watch with the index finger ready to initiate and stop the time. The other arm was raised and swung downward as the subject passed the starting plane. This arm movement alerted the other testers
(finishers) who were in identical positions at the finish
^AAHPER Fitness Test Manual. 63 line, and they, too, initiated the time upon movement of the starter's arm on their side of the track* The finishers then raised their arms and a downward motion signaled the starters that the subjects had passed the finish line. All stop watches were thus initiated and stopped almost simultaneously.
All the scores were recorded immediately and calculated later.
In the 50-yard dash Stein? reports a reliability coefficient of 0.924 and significant beyond the 0.001 level.
The subjects under the direction of the team's cap tain were given warm-up exercises for five minutes proceeding the running. Each subject ran the dash twice, waiting while the other subjects ran before making his second attempt.
Agility
The zig-zag run, a test item of the Barrow Motor
Ability Test,8 was selected to measure agility. Equipment needed are a stop watch, five standards, and tape for marking a gymnasium floor. Barrow reports correlation of coefficient measures of 0.996 for objectivity, 0.795 for reliability, and
0.736 for correlation with the criterion. Scoring is re corded in tenths of a second.
?Stein, pp. 328-329*
^Harold M. Barrow, "Test of Motor Ability for College Men," Research Quarterly, XXV (October, 1954), pp. 253-260. 64
Procedure
As depicted In Figure 1, a course was laid out by tape markings sixteen feet long and ten feet wide. In the middle of this rectangle another tape mark is placed. On these marks standards are placed thus establishing the test ing area. The tester explains the object of the test to the subjects: "The subject starts at point X in a semi-crouched position. He traverses the course three times and must not grasp the standards that have been placed as obstacles. If a foul is committed, as, for example, knocking over an obstacle, a second trial is permitted."
FIGURE 1
X 65 The subjects then line up behind this same tester and the course is carefully walked through. The subjects are then tested individually with times recorded on a stop watch and given to a second tester who immediately records the time on the subject's record card.
Wall-Rebounding Test
The Dyer Backboard Test of Tennis Ability^ was selected to measure tennis ability. Validity correlation of
0.92 was obtained with a criterion of player tournament standings, and a satisfactory reliability was reported.
Equipment needed is a blackboard or wall, approximately ten feet in hbight and at least fifteen feet in width; a re straining line, five feet from the base of the wall should be drawn; on the wall a line three inches in width, to represent the net, should be drawn so that the top is three feet from the ground; a stop watch with a second hand; two tennis balls and a racquet per player; and a box with extra tennis balls properly placed to the side of the subject being tested.
9joanna T. Dyer, "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Research Quarterly, IX (March, 1938), pp. 25-31 . Procedure
The following instructions were given the subjects:
"The object of the test is to cause the ball to strike the wall on or above the net line as many times as you can in thirty seconds. When I say ‘Go,1 start the test immediately.
Drop the ball and let it hit the floor once, then put it in play against the wall. Continue to play it to the wall until
I say 'Stop,1 at the end of thirty seconds. There is no limit to the number of times the ball may bounce before you hit it. You may volley the ball. The ball need not touch the floor before you play it except at the start and when a new ball is put into play. You may use any stroke or combi nation of strokes. You must play all balls from behind the restraining line. You may cross the line to retrieve balls, but any hits made while in such a position do not count.
You may use any number of balls. If, for any reason, you lose control of the ball in play, do not try to retrieve it.
Take another ball from the box and put it in play as you did at the start. Each ball striking the wall on or above the net line before the word 'Stop' counts as a hit and scores one point. You will be given three trials. The final score on the test in the sum of the scores on the three trials."
One tester gave the instructions and then demon strated the test. The subject was allowed to practice for about thirty seconds before the test began, and only a slight rest between trials was permitted. The tester who had given 67 the instructions counted the legal hits along with another tester who recorded the score. Another tester with the stop watch gave the "ready, go," and "stop." All testers and waiting subjects stood behind the subject to eliminate distractions.
Depth Perception
The instrument selected for measuring depth percep tion was the Howard-Dolman Depth Perception apparatus. The apparatus consists of a box 39-3/4 inches long, 3-1/4 inches wide, and 8-3/4 inches high. The end of the box nearest the subject has a rectangular window 1-1/3 inches high and 2-3/4 inches wide. Inside the instrument are two vertical black rods, one of which is fixed at the center of the box and the other movable on a track. The two rods are 1-1/2 inches apart when they are in a plane perpendicular to the observer.
The movable rod is controlled by two strings, which are placed in the subject’s hands at the beginning of the test.
A millimeter scale is set along the movable track. The center point of the scale, directly opposite the fixed rod is marked 50, and the scale ranges from 100 to 0 millimeters
(toward the observer). To eliminate shadows on the inside of the instrument, a 50-watt bulb is inserted fourteen inches behind the fixed rod and shielded by a sheet of paper between the bulb and the observer. Procedure The following instructions were given the subject
after he was seated in a chair 79 inches from the instrument:
"You are going to take a test which measures depth perception.
At the beginning of each trial you will manipulate these
strings so that the movable rod will be in the same plane as
the fixed rod. When you feel that the rods are beside each
other, say 'Okay.1 I will record as your score the point on
the scale where the movable rod was when you said 'Okay.1
This same procedure will be repeated for ten trials."
At the beginning of each trial the movable rod was placed at the extreme front end or back end of the instru ment. The ten trials taken by each subject were recorded on his record card. The mean of the trials was determined and this number represented the subject's depth perception score.
Originally the Howard-Dolman Test used only the mean of three trials. Imus10 Increased the reliability of the
test by using ten trials instead of three. Waymount and
HirBch,11 W a r r e n , 1^ and others achieved better results by the
10H. A. Imus, "Visual Examination of Flyers Returned from Combat," Journal of Aviation Medicine, XIX (February, 1948), pp. 6 2 - W . 11F. W. Weymount and M. J. Hirsch, "The Reliability of Certain Tests for Determining Distance Discrimination," American Journal of Psychology, LVIII (July, 1945), pp. 379- 39^ 12N. A. Warren, "Comparison of Standard Tests of Depth Perception," American Journal of Optometry, XVII (January, 1940), pp. 208-211. greater number of trials. Thus, ten trials were used in this study.
Dynamic Balance
Dynamic balance was measured on the stabilometer as depicted in Figure 2. The stabilometer consisted of a balance platform (A) forty-two inches long and twenty-one inches wide with a width of three-fourths inches; a pivot rod
(B) attached to the balance platform; and the stabilizing structure (0) which is twenty-three and one-half inches high at its apex and forty-three and one-half Inches long at its base. Two supporting boards connect the stabilizing struc ture. The balance platform is ten inches below the point of rotation. There is an 18-20° of rotation before the balance platform hits the supporting boards. The entire instrument measures forty-six inches long, forty-three and one-half inches wide and twenty-three and one-half inches high.
Procedure
The stabilometer was placed so that the stabilizing structures (C) were approximately two feet from and parallel to a wall. Screens were situated to the left and behind the stabilometer to eliminate distractions. Two tapes marking an equal distance from each other and from the pivot rod were attached to the balance platform. Two testers sat at each end of the stabilometer. 70
FIGURE 2
The subject was given the following instructions: "I will hold down one end of the balancing platform until it touches a supporting board. You will mount the balancing platform by placing your feet on the tape markings. The object of this test is to balance the balance platform so as to avoid hitting the supporting boards. You may stand as tall as you prefer or maintain a semi-crouched position, whatever seems best to you. You may move your arms in any way that enables you to avoid contact with the supporting boards. You will get five trials of thirty seconds with a thirty second rest period between each trial. If you hit a supporting board, get off immediately because any lingering will count as another contact." Each tester recorded Independently and counted the number of contacts to himself. The mean number of contacts recorded by each tester for each trial were totaled and averaged. The means of the five trials for the first day and the second day were averaged for analysis. For test reli ability which was found to be .08 by the Pearson r method, the averages for successive days were used for analysis.
Subjective Evaluation
Dr. John Hendrix, tennis coach for The Ohio State
University, member of the USLTA-AAHPER Joint Committee,
Chairman of Professional Advisory Committee for the Junior
Davis Cup Program, and Associate Professor of Physical Edu cation was interviewed to determine what elements he con sidered important for evaluating tennis players.^3 Dr. Hen drix -defined the terms which he felt other experts would probably understand. These terms with definitions were used to devise an instrument for evaluation. 1• Mobility: The player can react to make a play very fast; he makes continual adjustments while stroking; he makes adjustments at the last Instant necessary for a successful play; he can adjust to the unusual; and he has range and depth of adjustment.
2. Form: The player has no hitches or extraneous move ments in his stroke and can control the ball while in play.
13personal interview with Dr. John Hendrix, The Ohio State University, July 17, 1965. 72
3. Functional Strength: The player has the ability to hit the ball with force and can make shots when temporarily off-balance.
4. Concentration: The player is not bothered by adverse situations or any condition which might affect others, and he functions effectively while under pressure.
5. Motivation; The player manifests a desire to win and will punish himself to accomplish this end.
From these elements was devised an Instrument for evaluating tennis players on a 5-point basis: 5-excellent,
4-good, 3-average, 2-fair, and 1-poor. Mean scores were cal culated for each element and a composite of the elements pro vided an ability-rating for analysis. Table 2 illustrates the final evaluative instrument. Ratings were made just on the basis of the main headings. The information below the main headings served only to define the chief aspects of the ele ment being rated.
Procedure
At the USLTA National Junior Championship six experts were asked to evaluate and compare the players. The instru ment's use and definitions were personally explained when the experts received them. They, the experts, were asked to make comments on them or accept them as they existed. All six ex perts agreed to make the evaluation on the basis of the pre pared instrument. The experts possessed excellent qualifica tions;
1. Dr. Chester Murphy Tennis Coach, University of California, Berkeley Member USLYA-AAHPER Joint Committee Member Subcommittee of Junior Davis Cup Committee TABLE 2
JUDGMENT SHEET
Subjects Criteria Scale Functional Mobility Form Strength Concentration Motivation 1• Speed 1. Ball 1. Hits hard 1• Nothing 1. Desire to 5-Excellent control bothers win 4-Good him 3-Average 2.Adjusts 2. No 2. Hits off 2. Hits well 2. Punishes 2-Fair hitches balance under self to 1-Poor pressure win P »E •—Pre sent efficiency 2. Dr. John Hendrix Tennis Coach, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Member USLTA-AAHFER Joint Committee Professional Advisory Chairman of Junior Davis Cup Committee
3. Mr. Jack Waltz Captain, Junior Davis Cup Team, 1965 Law Student, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
4. Mr. Stan Drobac Tennis Coach, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Member of Subcommittee of Junior Davis Cup Committee
5. Mr. William Murphy Tennis Coach, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
6. Mr. William Price Member of Subcommittee of Junior Davis Cup Committee Coach of Charles McKinley and Earl Bucholtz
The means of two experts' rating were compared with
two other experts for a test reliability measure. The four
ratings used for this computation were selected at random.
It would appear that Dr. Hendrix was correct in his judgment
that others would understand the elements used in the evalu
ation. The correlation coefficient derived was .87* This
coefficient indicates that the instrument was certainly re liable even though time acting as a militating factor made it necessary to construct it as described.
Competition
Procedure
In order to ascertain the player's standings in the
Kentucky State Junior Championship, St. Louis Junior Champi onship, Western Junior Championship, and USLTA National 75 Junior Championship each Junior Davis Cup player was given a postcard with instructions to mail the writer regarding the results. The postcard provided the following information: name, name of tournament, rank in tournament, number entered, and person who defeated you. Because returns were poor, the results were also validated by the USLTA. Relative standings were calculated for analysis of these data.
National Championship Seeding
As a measure of the winning potential of the subjects, the national championship seedings were selected as one success criterion.
Procedure
The following represents a summary of the method of establishing seedings: All championship and other sanctioned tournaments ex cept handicap events shall have a seeded draw, conducted in accordance with the following rules: 1. The committee in charge of a tournament shall have full power in making the draw. In the case of the USLTA Championships, the committee appointed to represent the USLTA shall have such power. 2. The number of seeded players shall be determined by the committee, subject to the limitation that not more than 1 player may be seeded for every 4 entries. If a major fraction of 4 entries remains after such procedure, 1 additional player may be seeded. 3. The committee shall rank in order the number of domestic entrants to be seeded according to ability, using as a guide the USLTA ranking and sectional ranking of the pre vious year and,the performances of the players during the current year.H
^United States Lawn Tennis Association, Official Guide and Tennis Yearbook (New York: H. 0. Zimmer Co., 1965), pp. 299-302. 76
Composite of Test Items
Procedure The raw scores from best to worst were listed for each
independent variable for each subject. The subjects were then
assigned a rank score ranging from best to worst. The tallest
and heaviest subject was assigned the highest rank. Table 3
shows the ranks in place of the raw score. A subject's com
posite rank which was used for analysis was the sum of all
his ranks divided by ten, the number of tests.
National Rankings
Method and procedure The method and procedure for the rankings are con
tained in detail in a letter from the Chairman of the Junior
and Boys’ 16 Ranking Committee which can be located in Ap
pendix II. Essentially, the results of five or six hundred
junior and boys tournaments are studied by the ranking com
mittee for the final ranking. Certain tournaments, such as,
those played late in the year and those which find players
competing from several different sections of the United States,
are given more weight. With respect to the success criteria, the reader
should bear in mind the importance and meaning of the two
tennis winning indices. The national championship seedings
take into account past rankings and all tournament play up to TABLE 3
STATISTICAL APPLICATION FOR COMPOSITE OF MEASURED ITEMS Arm- Depth Reac- Wall Shoulder Move- Composite Sub- Per tion Pure Re- Coordi- Dynamic ment Rank ject ception Time speed Agility bounding nation Balance Height Weight Time Average A 3 8 3.0 7.0 13.0 13 8 17.0 17 14 10.3 B 13 3 5.5 1 1 .0 7.0 8 16 2.5 2 2 7.0 C 16 15 17.0 5.5 5.5 17 7 6.5 15 10 11.45 D 8 17 14.0 17.0 3.0 11 17 6.5 9 9 11.15 E 11 1 2 4.0 13.0 4.0 4 10 5.0 8 8 7.9 F 14 6 1 5.0 16.0 14.5 16 14 2.5 1 16 11.50 G 12 16 12.5 9.5 1 .0 9 3- 10.5 5 6 8.45 H 10 5 7.0 9.5 10.0 3 11 16.0 14 12 9.75 I 7 13 16.0 14.0 17.0 1 2 1 2 10.5 11 17 12.95 J 17 10 1.0 15.0 14.5 2 15 6.5 4 5 9.0 K 6 9 10.5 5.5 12.0 15 5 13.0 16 7 9.9 L 4 2 5.5 1 2.0 9.0 10 6 1 2.0 3 15 7.85 M 9 11 10.5 1 .0 2.0 14 4 6.5 10 11 7.9 N 15 14 2.0 8.0 5.5 6 13 4.0 6 13 8.65 Q 5 1 12.5 3.5 11 .0 7 1 14.0 12 1 6.8 S 2 4 8.0 2.0 16.0 5 2 15.0 13 4 7.1 V 1 7 9.0 3.5 8.0 1 9 1 .0 7 3 4.95
- 3 78 the USLTA National Championship. Hence, the seedings repre sent the best composite judgment of the players’ potential up to the USLTA National Championship. The national rankings take into account every tournament and past rankings includ ing the USLTA National Championship. Hence, the rankings be come the best composite judgment of the players’ potential after a complete season. The other tournament play utilized in this study as success criteria are included because they are considered major tournaments, and are, therefore, given more weight. Of more importance is the fact that they repre sent a time when the players should be reaching a high emo tional and skill level because they preceed the USLTA National
Championship and the close of a season. It was hoped, there fore, that the selected physical characteristics might reveal some meaningful relations at such an opportune time. The
Kentucky State Tournament was excluded from the composite of three championship tournaments (criterion of success) because it was the only tournament played on soft composition courts and, furthermore, not as Siany of the subjects participated in the tournament. It must be remembered that the seedings and rankings are the best criterion because of all that they represent.
Relative standings for tournament play were calculated for analysis by the following method. The winner of the tour nament received the first place and the player losing to him in the finals was automatically awarded the second place. Beginning with the semi-final round where two players were left, their scores were traced back through the tournament to determine the actual number of wins and losses in their sets played. A percentage was then calculated and the player with the highest win-lose percentage was given the higher standing.
This percentage method was used throughout the tournament to determine the rankings of the subjects for purposes of analysis. CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
It is hypothesized that there is no significant re lation between any of the selected physical variables among
Junior Davis Cup players with respect to the variables com prising the success criteria. This chapter presents the re
sults of the statistical applications of the data collected.
Hypotheses to be Tested
To answer the above question, the following null hypotheses were proposed:
1 . There is no significant relation between the in dependent variables (reaction time, movement time, depth per
ception, dynamic balance, arm-shoulder coordination, pure
speed, agility, wall rebounding, height, and weight) with re
spect to each other.
2. There is no significant relation between the de pendent variables (national championship seeds, national rank
ings, mobility, form, functional strength, concentration, moti vation, ability rating, Kentucky State Junior Championship,
St. Louis Junior Championship, Western Junior Championship,
United States Lawn Tennis Association National Championship, composite of the championship tournaments just stated
80 excluding the Kentucky State Junior Championship, composite of all the stated championship tournaments, and a composite of the measured test items) with respect to each other.
3. There is no significant relation between the in dependent variables with respect to the dependent variables.
Statistical Applications
One of the most direct methods of determining whether factors are common to two or more other factors is to compare them through correlation techniques. Since this study was concerned with linear relations, analysis of these data con sisted primarily of computing 407 Pearson r correlation co efficients for the Indicated variables and of testing the coefficients for significance.
A correlation coefficient relates the order in which a group of individuals is ranked, from most proficient to least, in one task to their ranking in a second. A corre lation coefficient is computed mathematically and is expressed in terms of a coefficient r which indicates the degree of relation existing between variables. If, for example, an individual’s score in shooting basketball free throws may be predicted by knowing the accuracy with which he is able to throw a baseball, it may be said that a general throwing ac curacy factor underlies performance of the two skills. If no such prediction is possible, these may be considered specific measures of performance. 82
The following key is applicable in interpreting the derived correlation coefficients:
A coefficient of Indicates an r that is 0.85 or above High 0.80 - 0.84 Very good O.70 - 0.79 Pair to good 0.60 - O .69 Poor 0.59 and below Generally unusable1
To interpret a correlation coefficient, ignoring the size of the sample, one may square it to determine the extent to which proficiency in one measure may contribute to the other. The r2 is called the coefficient of determination and indicates a percentage of common variance or the proportion of the variance in one variable that is associated with the variance in the other variable. For example, a correlation coefficient of .45 between two variables Indicates that one probably contributes about 20 per cent (.45) to the other.
The word probably was used in the sentence above because relation, evidenced in a correlation coefficient, may not indicate causality.
The coefficients were tested for significance by a method presented by Fisher.2 The Table of t was used in testing the significance of the observed correlations.
Table 4 indicates the means and standard deviations computed for all the variables, both dependent and independent,
1 Carlton R. Meyers and Erwin T. Blesh, Measurement In Physical Education (New York: Ronald Press Co."J 1962), p. 93.
2Ronald A. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1946), p. £0 9 . 83 designed for this study. Initially, a comparison of some of these statistics serves to reinforce by illustration the uniqueness of the subjects.
TABLE 4
MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SUBJECTS ON VARIABLES TESTED
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Reaction Time 20.637 2.972 Movement Time 38.460 2.888 Depth Perception 12.733 11.207 Dynamic Balance 9.503 7.717 Gross Coordination 199.521 26.216 Pure Speed 5.855 0.918 Agility 24.268 1 .028 Tennis Ability 140.278 15.781 Height 70.139 1 .885 Weight 155.335 14.590 National Championship Seeds 8.500 4.610 National Rankings 7.571 4.153 Mobility 3.425 0.588 Form 3.343 O.671 Functional Strength 3-364 0.649 Concentration 3.478 0.660 Motivation 3.833 0.555 Ability Rating 3.486 0.525
The mean time for pure speed (50-yard dash with a run ning start is 6.8 seconds, and for arm-shoulder coordination
(softball throw for distance) is 176.0 feet according to norms for seventeen year olds published by the American As sociation for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation.
The subjects tested in the present study obtained a mean of
5.8 for pure speed indicating a position above the ninety- fifth percentile for the norms. Also, the obtained mean of
199*5 feet by the subjects for arm-shoulder cOGrdiaatioh is the equivalent of the seventy-fifth percentile for the norms.
Thus, both means are well above the fiftieth percentile.
Test norms can be found in Appendix III, Table 13»
The Scoring Tables of college men for the Barrow
General Motor Ability Test may be used for a comparison of the obtained means for agility. Barrow^ indicates a mean of
25.1 to 25.2 for the fiftieth percentile while the subjects in the present study achieved a mean of 24.2 establishing them above the mean at the fifty-sixth percentile. Further more, the mean score obtained for college men for ability was
64. ^ The mean score in this study for tennis ability was
140.2 which certainly represents a superior rating.
This study is not directly concerned with how the subjects differ from the normal population, but a less than sophisticated or casual comparison of norms confirms the superb nature of the Junior Davis Cup players. The basic question remains: Although they tend to be better with re gard to certain motor traits, do these traits necessarily have a bearing upon their success in tennis? The ensuing correlation coefficients have endeavored to shed some under standing upon this inquiry.
^Harold M. Barrow, "Test of Motor Ability for College Men," Research Quarterly, XXV (October, 1954), pp. 253-260.
^Joanna T. Dyer, "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Research Quarterly, IX (March, 1938), pp. 25-31 . 85
The first task was to determine what relation, if any, each of the measured test items had with respect to the meas ured test items in a combined sense. Table 2 (page 73) indi cates the application for ranking the test items and deriving the composite of the measured test items. The subjects were then ranked according to the composite and sixty-six rank correlations were computed with the results depicted by Table
5. Only coefficients significant at the .01 level will be discussed in the rest of this chapter. The composite of measured test items and wall rebounding correlated highly with a coefficient of .835* Also evident are a high coeffi cient of .857 between reaction time and weight; a high coeffi cient of .876 between arm-shoulder coordination and height; and a good coefficient of .758 between dynamic balance and agility. Otherwise the correlation coefficients ranged from poor to generally unusable. The coefficients of determination for the best coefficients are calculated in Table 6.
The assumptions upon which this investigation are based seem to have true meanings in terms of the implications and objectives of the study, since the composite of measured test items had a coefficient of .835 with wall rebounding.
The measured test items as a composite may underlie tennis ability based upon the Dyer Backboard Test of Tennis Ability.
The application of this implication can only be accepted, however, when it can be reported that the tennis ability test TABLE 5
INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES COMBINING COMPOSITE OF MEASURED TEST ITEMS Arm-Shoulder Coordination Rebounding Perception ue Speed Pure Reaction Movement Balance Agility I^ynamlc Height Weight; Depth Time Time Wall
00 CVJ r •^Significant at the .01 level. **Significant at the .05 level. CO o\ 87 underlies actual success evidenced by tournament play or the tennis winning indices. TABLE 6 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR HIGHLY CORRELATED VARIABLES FROM TABLE 5 Coefficients Variables of Determination Composite of Measured Test Items with Tennis Ability .697 Reaction Time with Weight .734 Arm-Shoulder Coordination with Height .767 Dynamic Balance with Agility .374 Agility with Wall rebounding .729 This high correlation between the measured test Items and wall rebounding reminds one of a study suggesting that the Dyer Test has a higher correlation at the advanced level.5 The probable explanation given is that the Dyer Test measures advanced skill of volleying. Most experts will agree that volleying is not a skill exhibited by most beginners. This study confirms others reported in the related literature with respect to the relation of reaction time and movement time. A correlation coefficient of .237 does not indicate a meaningful relation. Perhaps height correlated highly with arm-shoulder coordination because arm-shoulder coordination was measured 5jack E. Hewitt, "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Ten nis Test,1' Research Quarterly, XXXXVT (May, 1965), PP» 153-157. 88 by the softball throw for distance. The production and appli cation of force could be greater in the taller subjects be cause the speed and distance at which an object travels are dependent upon the length of the arc through which the lever moves besides strength, number, speed, and sequence of con tracting muscles.^ Additional body movement will increase the total arc, but the taller subjects using an extended arm permits greater time and jdistance over which momentum is de veloped. One can readily see the importance of height in the tennis service. The stabilometer used to test dynamic balance in this study necessitated quick body changes. The test for agility demanded a similar skill. On this basis and because both tests required gross motor ability (vigorous contractions of large muscles and usually involving movement of the whole body), these may suggest reasons for the high relation be tween the two. One is somewhat perplexed with regard to the high correlation (.854) found between agility and wall rebounding. The subjects in this study displayed such excellent tennis racket control in the test of wall rebounding that gross body movements were appreciably minimized. The ability to change directions quickly was the basic factor in the test of agility. Hence, it would seem unlikely that such a meaning ful relation would be found. Movement and reaction time ^Marjorie A. Souder and Phyllis J. Hill, Basic Move ment (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1963)• 89 would seem to describe more accurately the underlying skills in the wall rebounding test, but this was not the case. Table 7 represents the resulting correlation coeffi cients when the composite of measured test items has been ex cluded from the independent variables. A correlation coeffi cient of .731 between dynamic balance and agility confirms the relation shown in the first intercorrelation matrix. The correlation coefficient between reaction time and wall rebounding is only .628 but satistically significant at the .01 level. This coefficient may, however, support some what the conjecture that the Dyer Test measures volleying ability. Besides necessitating the ability to handle skill fully the tennis racket, few experts would disagree that volleying demands quick reactions to a visual stimulus. A correlation coefficient of .651 between arm-shoulder coordination . and pure speed was found, but the correlation coefficients between the independent variables otherwise ranged from poor to generally unusable. The coefficients of determination for the best coef ficients in Table 7 are calculated in Table 8. Table 9 indicates the intercorrelations of the de pendent variables. The two tennis winning indices resulted in several interesting relations. The national championship seeds had a good correlation with mobility and form with r's of .712 and .704 respectively; a very good correlation with the Western Junior Championship (.807), and a high correlation TABLE 7 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Arm-Shoulder Coordination Perception ue Speed Pure Rebounding Movement Balance Agility Dynamic Weight' Height Depth Time Wall Reaction Time .180 .235 .290 .175 .237 .435 .628* .272 .053 Movement Time .103 .107 .346 .132 .228 .147 .075 .018 Depth Perception • 354 .262 .011 .222 .016 .351 .236 Dynamic Balance .117 .147 .731* .042 .522** .545** Arm-Shoulder Coordination .651* .036 .109 .105 .312 Pure Speed .070 .062 .116 .205 Agility .016 .259 .386 Wall Rebounding .339 .112 Height .684* ^Significant at the .01 level. **Significant at the .05 level. vo o 91 (.868) with the composite of three tournaments. The national rankings, although not correlating as well as the seeds, have a good correlation with form (.772) and a very good corre lation with the St. Louis Junior Championship (.837). If tournament play can be considered a vital measure of success, it would appear that the seeds were a better indicator of success than the rankings. TABLE 8 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR HIGHLY CORRELATED VARIABLES FROM TABLE 7 Coefficients Variables of Determination Dynamic Balance with Agility .534 Reaction Time with Wall Rebounding .398 Arm-Shoulder Coordination with Pure Speed .423 Of the variables based on the ratings of experts, (mobility, form, functional strength, concentration, and motivation) mobility and form correlated best. Mobility and a good correlation (.733) with form; a very good correlation (.805) with concentration; a high correlation (.894) with the ability rating; and in tournament play in the Western Junior Championship (.786), the USLTA National Championship (.868), a composite of three (.812), and a composite of four (.764). Form had a very good correlation (.826) with the ability composite rating and in the tournaments beginning with the Western Junior Championship had correlations ranging from good to high. Perhaps what the experts evaluated as ball TABLE 9 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES O O * 53 K t-3 t-a cq t-3 •-3 * o o O O c+ O O o o O CD c*- 0 M 0 • o O O i3 S CO P 53 H* ►3 CD ►J s B B o c+ O c+ < W o' 53 53 53 0* N i-31* •d o' 4 c+ ►3 JO JB h * m e+ O to CD p a 53* O ►*1 O H* CD H* JO c+ c+ H B 0 £ 0 c+ B CO ►J CD O CD H **1 3 O c+ H* H- H- CD O CD H- CD CD CD f CD H* 0 H* ts H- O OT 53 H* O 53 c+ 53 5* 13 CD 53 ^ 53 i-3 CD c+ ►3 c+ cn c+ C+ (D O 53 oq <<4 c + t Seedings .477 .712* .704* .475 .619** .385 .749* .279 .366 .807* .770* .868* .602** Rankings .462 .772* .453 .451 .269 .690* .242 .837* .493 .231 .394 .534** Mobility .733* .557** .805* .649** .894* .473 .419 .786* .868* .812* .764* Form .693* .639** .335 .826* .238 .683* .832* .765* .876* .749* Functional Strength .594** .405 .791* .590** .459 .498 .573** .576** .628** Concentration .767* .908* .629** .315 .605** .707* .660* .705* Motivation .745* .587** .583** .523 .655** .514 .565** Ability Rating .639** .529** .816* .856* .866* .879* Kentucky State Junior Championship .122 .491 .401 .434 .499 St. Louis Junior Championship .452 .509 .745* .553** Western Junior Championship .882* .918* .862* USLTA National Junior Championship .935* .792* Composite of Three .843* ♦Significant at the .01 level. ♦♦Significant at the .05 level. ♦♦♦The reader must bear in mind that the seedings and rankings are the best criteria, as explained in Chapter III. vo to 93 control, absence of hitches, speed, quick adjustments, and range and depth of adjustments emerge as important traits for success in tennis. However, the total ability composite rat ing the experts made correlated highly with tournament play, and tournament play remains a good indicator of success in future tournaments. The coefficients of determination for the best coefficients are calculated in Table 10. Table 11 displaying the intercorrelations between the independent and dependent variables represents the core of this study. With the exception of reaction time and arm- shoulder coordination, the independent variables resulted in Inconclusive correlation coefficients with regard to tourna ment play. Dynamic balance had a very good correlation (.801) with the national seeds; agility had a very good correlation (.848) with the national rankings; and, wall rebounding had a high correlation (.838) with the national rankings and a high correlation (.892) with the national championship seeds. Move ment time correlated highly (.877) with the national rankings. With regard to the experts' ratings, reaction time had a very high correlation (.977) with mobility and a high correlation (.854) with concentration. Pure speed had a good correlation (.711) with mobility, and agility had a very high correlation (.902) with functional strength. The ability com posite rating had a good correlation (.761) with weight. The coefficients of determination for the best coef ficients are calculated in Table 12. TABLE 10 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR HIGHLY CORRELATED VARIABLES FROM TABLE 9 Coefficients Variables of Determination Seeds with Mobility .506 Seeds with Form .495 Seeds with Western Junior Championship .651 Seeds with Composite of Three Tournaments .753 Rankings with Form .595 Rankings with St. Louis Junior Tournament .700 Mobility with Form .537 Mobility with Concentration .648 Mobility with Ability Rating .799 Mobility with Western Junior Championship .617 Mobility with USLTA National Championship .753 Mobility with Composite of Three .659 Mobility with Composite of Four .583 Form with Ability Composite Rating .682 Form with Western Junior Championship .692 Form with USLYA National Championship .584 Form with Composite of Three .767 Form with Composite of Four .561 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES Composite of Three of Composite Composite of Four of Composite St. Louis Junior Louis St. Kentucky Junior Kentucky USLTA National USLTA Ability Rating Ability Western Junior Western Concentration Championship Championship Championship Championship Tournaments tfttttRankings Tournaments *HH*Seedings Motivation Functional Mobility Strength Form •H P CD -P 04 g a o O d E © 3 *h OON O CO O V • 3 co CO GO CO vo 00 OVO CO CO VO —T— V— y— T— T 3 CVJ r* cvi nin i in CV n i n i t- t- m m n i CVJ c— & o n i ON Hfr n i n i * o ♦ * - h r • • • • • « • • • . . • « • . . • • • • • . • • • - 1 ■ a -p > © a O EH O P P. -P a © t O ft © d *H o o v o v o v O V 00 O C 00 CO 00 VO T— T““ CVJ V T“ CVJ CVJ m - C n i T— r— - t n r c~- OJ n k n i CVJ cvj * * * o Jin i OJ m • • • • • • • • • . Xl ft S ft © ft o © d © h 1 • -P VO VO V O o c x~ i— t r** n i o n i n i «— ymm C— ■H n i o n i n i OJ - t m !>- CM n i o m m N O m N O o - c m n t — • • . • • • • • • • . . • • . H d •H 3 }>»pq © d © a o o <— i O V o v t n 00 co s Ht -st o o h 00 vo «— CM T— - t *— - T— T— O n i n i n i CM o CVJ N O n i CTV * m CM ♦ r t m o * - - © J- • • • • . . • . • • n J -p O © H d o g . d © f! l r p 1 3 1 0 © o 1 ,d O o v o v - h o v O V -=t Composite of Three in CM T— v— vQ 00 CO Tournaments -cf CM • .• • p ra USLTA National i n kn ^ f © o \ CM CO P Championship kn -3F CM 1— . ••• © P P on CM KN CM Western Junior kn ON VO -cf © Championship cm in r» U • • . • cd a t - -cf -cf 60 St. Louis Junior o o CM vo Pi i n kn KN •H Championship •. • • £ 3 t - o KN KN Ph Kentucky Junior < f i n ^— ON CM -=t T— KN P Championship • •« • Pi cd * CM D*- KN T— © Ability Rating < f ,— VO to -^f -^f CU t - Pi .. • • •H * P * © -^f t - CM i n © Motivation CM kn m m © i f vo -3- T*- . • . • © P P -=f kn KN CM Concentration vo CM ON i f P kn -3- CM CM cd . «•. P P • * •• H CM CO GO O i—i r-1 P H Functional O o CO © © Pi M ON -cf CM KN f> > *ri Strength .• • • © © B U $ i—I iH © * Pi P CM kn -3" VO ,— i n • H f t Form kn i n i n -;4' o o cd i n i n KN •• U P . • o • cd o © © © p p p Pi ON •cfr i n KN p p Mobility o ON KN *“■» P -cf ^ f KN - p •p © p • •• • cd 0] 3 © S Pi * * -P P •H 00 CM in fj Pi P< cd *<•■** ^-Rankings kn -3" KN 3 ci) © H 00 CO r ~ CM o o P f t •• • • •H •H cd X * 1-1 60 * 4c * cd i a * 4 >H j>> © -H 4c fn -p q-& p P © •H P H h I H) S) •H •H H O T~{ Jh to a p © COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR HIGHLY CORRELATED VARIABLES FROM TABLE 11 Coefficients Variables of Determination Reaction Time with St. Louis Championship .567 Arm-Shoulder Coordination with St. Louis Championship .555 Dynamic Balance with National Seeds .641 Agility with National Rankings • 719 Wall Rebounding with Seeds .795 Wall Rebounding with Rankings .702 Reaction Time with Mobility .954 Reaction Time with Concentration .729 Pure Speed with Mobility .505 Agility with Functional Strength .813 Ability Composite with Weight .578 Movement Time with National Rankings .769 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This brief restatement of the problem in general terms will permit an overview of the investigation and an understanding of the accomplishments and significant results. This study attempted to determine what factors, if any, underlie success in Junior Davis Cup players. The subjects were tested to discover their level of attainment with regard to the following factors; agility, arm- shoulder coordination, pure speed, depth perception, reaction time, movement time, dynamic balance, wall rebounding, height, and weight. Correlation coefficients were computed between the a- bove measured test items (independent variables) and the suc cess criteria (dependent variables). The success criteria were composed of experts' ratings, national championship seeds, national rankings, and championship tournament competition. Correlation coefficients were computed for the in dependent variables with respect to each other, and for the dependent variables with respect to each other. The independent variables were also correlated sepa rately with the measured test items in a combined sense (composite of measured test items). 98 99 Measured Test Items with Respect to Each Other The following high correlations of coefficients were found: (1) composite of measured test items and wall redound ing (.835), (2) reaction time and weight (.857), and (3) arm- shoulder coordination and height (.876). A good correlation coefficient between dynamic balance and agility (.758) was also found. All those coefficients summarized here were statistically significant at the .01 level. Success Criteria with Respect to Each Other Although the national seeds correlated highly with three of the five tournament criteria, the composite ability rating correlated more highly and with four of the five. Of the variables based on the experts’ rating, the elements of form and mobility correlated highly with the tournament criteria with the exception of concentration. Measured Test Items with Respect to Success Criteria Reaction time correlated highly with mobility (.977) and concentration (.854), and showed a good coefficient with the St. Louis Junior Championship (.753). Movement time correlated highly with the national rankings (.877). Dynamic balance showed a very good correlation with the seedings (.801). Agility correlated highly with the national ranking (.848), and with functional strength (.902). Wall rebounding correlated highly with the best criteria resulting in a .892 100 coefficient with the seedings and a coefficient of .838 with the national rankings. All those coefficients summarized here were statistically significant at the .01 level. Summary of the Tests of the Null Hypotheses Hypothesis I: There is no significant relation be tween the independent variables with respect to each other. Rejected. Hypothesis II: There is no significant relation be tween the dependent variables with respect to each other. Rejected. Hypothesis III: There is no significant relation be tween the independent variables with respect to the de pendent variables. Accepted. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study and based upon the data gathered from the sample tested, the following con clusions seem worthy of consideration: 1. Dynamic balance and agility were meaningfully related. 2. National championship seedings were good indi cators of tennis success in this study. 3. National rankings were good indicators of tennis success in this study. 4. Ability ratings by experts were excellent indi cators of tennis success in this study. 101 5. There was no meaningful relation between the measured test items and tennis success. Recommendations for Future Research 1. The wall rebounding test correlated highly with the national championship seeds and national rankings, but not with actual tennis success in major competition. Studies should be conducted to develop tests of tennis ability which would discriminate better between the beginning, intermediate, and advanced performers. 2. Further research is needed to affirm the relation between dynamic balance and agility which was found in these Junior Davis Cup players. 3. Since the best indicators of tennis success found in this study were of a subjective nature, further research should be conducted to define more adequately the nature of these evaluations. 4. Although this study investigated some physical characteristics of Junior Davis Cup players, there remains a paucity of data collected on these players. Hence, further research is recommended in this area. For example, what relation can be found between the following physical factors and success criteria: lung capacity, cardiovascular endurance, anthropometric measures, and strength. 5. This study was concerned primarily with physical factors and no significant relations were found. Thus, 102 further research is recommended in the area of psychological factors influencing success in tennis competition. For ex ample, testing should be done to determine the influence of the following factors on success in tennis: determination, aggressiveness, emotional control, patience, pride, and con fidence. 6. Reaction time did not result in a conclusive relation with tennis success; however, indications of further research with future Junior Davis Cup players were given by its high relation to mobility, concentration, and the St. Louis Junior Championship. There are several pertinent facts worth mentioning in summarizing the findings of this study. The subjects of this study were an exceptional group, and, although their measured physical characteristics did not reveal any high relation with the success criteria, they did possess a high level of attainment with respect to the physical characteristics. It would seem, therefore, that before tennis players can reach a high level of potential, a high degree of excellence with respect to physical characteristics is necessary. Further support to this statement was evidenced by the high corre lation between the composite of measured test items and wall rebounding. Thus, although no high relation between the physical characteristics and the success criteria was found, this does not lead to the conclusion that they are not impor tant for success. These physical characteristics simply did not discriminate well with respect to able performers in ten nis. The most promising area for further research was found with regard to the experts' ratings. It would appear that when attempting to evaluate the potential of advanced players, experts can adequately evaluate future potential. A great deal more effort must, however, be advanced in order to develop evaluative instruments. Furthermore, physical educators should set forth more action research to develop such instruments for all levels of instruction and for as many activities as possible. > APPENDIXES 104 APPENDIX I DAVIS CUP CHALLENGE ROUNDS 1900 UNITED STATES d. BRITISH ISLES, 3-0 Longwood Cricket Club, Boston, Mass. 1901 No match. 1902 UNITED STATES d. BRITISH ISLES, 3-2 Crescent Athletic Club, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1903 BRITISH ISLES d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 Longwood Cricket Club, Boston, Mass. 1904 BRITISH ISLES d. BELGIUM, 5-0 Wimbledon, London 1905 BRITISH ISLES d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Wimbledon, London 1906 BRITISH ISLES d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Wimbledon, London 1907 AUSTRALIA d. BRITISH ISLES, 3-2 Wimbledon, London 1908 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Melbourne, Australia 1909 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Sydney, Australia 1910 No match. 1911 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Christchurch, New Zealand 1912 BRITISH ISLES d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 Melbourne, Australia 1913 UNITED STATES d. BRITISH ISLES, 3-2 Wimbledon, London 105 106 1914 AUSTRALIA d, UNITED STATES, 3-2 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1915-1918 No match. 1919 AUSTRALIA d. BRITISH ISLES, 4-1 Sydney, Australia 1920 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 5-0 Auckland, New Zealand 1921 UNITED STATES d. JAPAN, 5-0 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1922 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 4-1 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1923 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 4-1 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1924 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 5-0 Germantown Cricket Club, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1925 UNITED STATES d. FRANCE, 5-0 Germantown Cricket Club, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1926 UNITED STATES d. FRANCE, 4-1 Germantown Cricket Club, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1927 FRANCE d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Germantown Cricket Club, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1928 FRANCE d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1929 FRANCE d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1930 FRANCE d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1931 FRANCE d. GREAT BRITAIN, 3-2 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1932 FRANCE d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1933 GREAT BRITAIN d. FRANCE, 3-2 Stade Roland Garros, Auteuil, Paris, France 1934 GREAT BRITAIN d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 Wimbledon, London 107 1935 GREAT BRITAIN d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Wimbledon, London 1936 GREAT BRITAIN d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 Wimbledon, London 1937 UNITED STATES d. GREAT BRITAIN, 4-1 Wimbledon, London 1938 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 Germantown Cricket Club, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1939 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Merion Cricket Club, Haverford, Pennsylvania 1940-1945 No matches, World War II, 1946 UNITED STATES d, AUSTRALIA, 5-0 Kooyong Tennis Club, Melbourne, Australia 1947 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 4-1 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1948 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 5-0 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1949 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 4-1 fcWesb. Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1950 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N, Y, 1951 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 White City Courts, Sydney, Australia 1952 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 4-1 Memorial Drive Courts, Adelaide, Australia 1953 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Kooyong Tennis Club, Melbourne, Australia 1954 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 White City Stadium, Sydney, Australia 1955 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1956 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 5-0 Memorial Drive Stadium, Adelaide, Australia 1957 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Kooyong Stadium, Melbourne, Australia 1958 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 Milton Courts, Brisbane, Australia 1959 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills, N. Y. 1960 AUSTRALIA d. ITALY, 4-1 White City Stadium, Sydney, Australia 1961 AUSTRALIA d. ITALY, 5-0 Kooyong Stadium, Melbourne, Australia 1962 AUSTRALIA d. MEXICO, 5-0 Milton Courts, Brisbane, Australia 1963 UNITED STATES d. AUSTRALIA, 3-2 Memorial Drive Stadium, Adelaide, Australia 1964 AUSTRALIA d. UNITED STATES, 3-2 Harold T. Clark Courts, Cleveland Heights, APPENDIX II RANKING PROCEDURES October 27, 1965 Mr. Monroe C. Lewis Chairman, Junior and Boys' 16 Ranking Committee 6805 Washington Avenue St. Louis, Missouri Dear Mr. Lewis: Under a financial grant provided by the United States Lawn Tennis Association, a colleague and I are attempting to determine the relationship between certain human traits among Junior Davis Cup players to success in tennis. Dr. John Hendrix, Chairman of the Professional Ad visory Committee of the Junior Davis Cup Committee, acting as my advisor in this investigation suggested that you would be able to assist me with regard to some Information about ranking procedures. The final rankings of these players will constitute one of several measures of success. I need to know exactly what the criteria are for ranking the Junior Davis Cup players. Specifically, what are all the underlying considerations upon which the rankings are based? Of course, when the study is completed you will be informed of the results. Thank you for your kind consider ation and your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Michael Malmisur Instructor MM/cmd 109 110 November 1, 1965 Mr. Michael Malmisur The Ohio State University 327 W. 17th Avenue Columbus 10, Ohio Dear Mr. Malmisur: I have your letter of October 27 re ranking of Junior Davis Cup players. As you know only about 9 or 10 of this group are still in Junior Tennis, that is 18 and under. Several are playing mens tennis and are ranked according to their results in men's tournaments. We all know that the rankings are very important to all of these players as well as in all divisions— Mens, Boys 18-16, 14-12, and I am sure that all ranking committees try to get these as accurate as possible. I have been Chairman of Junior and Boys rankings since 1953 and think our rank ings have met with the general approval of all concerned. By regulations Junior and Boys 16 must play in the National Jr. and Boys tournament at Kalamazoo, Michigan, so this limits the number qualifying to 128 Junior and 96 boys 16. The results of the Nationals outweigh other tourna ments and results of late tournaments are more important than those of tournaments played early in the year— also tournaments that have players from several different sec tions of the United Stater are more important than those that are more of less local or sectional, where players are only playing the same players in many tournaments. For three weeks running there are 4 Jr. Boy tournaments proceed ing the National, starting with the Kentucky Invitational, St. Louis Invitational, the Westerns at Springfield, and players that play in the National tournament have met a great many other players from other sections of the country in these four tournaments. So these tournaments are very im portant. We also take results from the National Inter scholastic, River Oaks in Texas, National Hard Courts in California, Eastern in New York and Pacific Southwest in Los Angeles, California. I get results of all 5 or 6 hundred Junior and Boy tournaments and mark down all wins and losses and scores for review of my committee after picking out 45 to 50 Junior and 35 to 40 Boys who I consider are worth considering. These are sent to members of the ranking committee which consists of representatives from many sections of the country and ask 111 them to study the results and return to me for further study and then again return them to committee members for them to see any changes.. These are then returned to me for place ment In the rankings to be sent to the U8LTA for putting in the '’Call" for the Annual meeting where they are to be approved for final ranking. I am enclosing a sheet for one of the 47 Juniors be ing ranked this year showing how this is done. Incidentally, any player ejected from a tournament for misbehavior on or off the courts is not considered for ranking. Hope this will help you. Sincerely, Monroe C. Lewis Chairman Jr. and Boys Rankings APPENDIX III TABLE 13 30-YARD DASH FOR BOYS Percentile Scores Based on Age Percen- Age Percen tile 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 tile 100th 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 100th 95th 7.6 7.3 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.2 6.1 6.0 95th 90th 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.4 6.2 6.1 90th 85th 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.2 85 th 80 th 8.1 7.9 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.4 6.3 80th 75 th 8.3 8.0 7.6 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.4 75 th 70th 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.5 70th 65 th 8.5 8.2 7.9 7.5 7.3 7.0 6.7 6.6 65 th 60 th 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.6 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.6 60 th 55th 8.7 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.7 55th 50th 8.8 8.5 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.1 7.0 6.8 50th 45th 9.0 8.6 8.2 7.9 7.6 7.2 7.0 6.9 45th 40th 9.0 8.7 8.3 8.0 7.7 7.3 7.0 7.0 40th 35th 9.2 8.8 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.4 7.1 7.0 35th 30th 9.3 8.9 8.5 8.2 7.9 7.5 7.2 7.1 30 th 25 th 9.4 9.0 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.6 7.3 7.2 25 th 20th 9.6 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.3 20 th 1 5th 9.7 9.4 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.0 7.6 7.5 1 5th 10th 10.0 9.7 9.2 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.8 7.6 1 Oth 5th 10.8 10.2 9.6 9.3 8.8 8.5 8.0 7.9 5th 0 13.5 14.3 13.6 12.5 10.1 10.5 9.7 9.3 0 11 2 APPENDIX IV TABLE 14 SOFTBALL THROW FOR BOYS Percentile Scores Based on Age Percen Age Percen tile 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 tile 100th 165 192 183 242 231 247 263 265 100th 95 th 122 1 30 151 171 190 207 214 231 95th 90th 11 2 1 22 144 160 178 197 205 221 90th 85 th 107 118 136 153 169 189 195 210 85 th 80th 105 115 132 148 163 182 190 212 80th 75th 100 113 1 28 1 43 1 58 177 185 198 75th 70th 98 110 1 24 1 36 153 171 180 193 70th 65th 95 106 1 21 1 33 1 50 168 178 189 65th 60 th 92 103 118 1 29 147 164 172 185 60th 55th 89 1 01 114 1 25 144 159 168 181 55th 50th 87 99 110 1 21 139 1 56 165 176 50th 45th 84 96 106 119 1 3 o 153 160 172 45th 40th 82 94 102 115 131 1 50 156 167 40th 35th 80 91 100 112 1 27 145 1 54 163 35th 30th 77 88 97 108 123 140 1 50 161 30th 25th 75 86 94 103 118 135 147 1 56 25th 20th 71 82 90 98 113 1 30 140 151 20th 1 5th 67 77 87 92 106 123 133 143 15th 10th 63 71 83 85 100 115 120 1 30 10th 5th 54 63 75 73 90 102 102 115 5th 0 31 20 36 36 47 50 48 64 0 113 APPENDIX V TABLE 1 5 PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST NORMS Percentile Scores for College Men Percen Pull- Sit- Shuttle St.Broad 50-Yd Softball 600-Yd tile Ups Ups Run Jump Dash Throw Run-Walk 100 20 100 8.3 9' 6” 5.5 315 1:12 95 1 2 99 9.0 8 1 5" 6.1 239 1 :35 90 10 97 9.1 8' 2" 6.2 226 1 :38 85 10 79 9.1 7*11” 6.3 217 1 :10 80 9 68 9.2 7 ' 10" 6.4 211 1 :42 75 8 61 9.4 8 « 6.5 206 1 :44 70 8 58 9.5 7' 7” 6.5 200 1 :45 65 7 52 9.5 7 ’ 6" 6.6 196 1 :47 60 7 51 9.6 7 . 5«. 6.6 192 1 :49 55 6 50 9.6 7' 4" 6.7 188 1 :50 50 6 47 9.7 7' 3" 6.8 184 1 :52 45 5 44 9.8 7' 1 " 6.8 180 1 :53 40 5 41 9.9 7' 0" 6.9 176 1 :55 35 4 38 10.0 6 111" 7.0 171 1 :57 30 4 36 10.0 6*10" 7.0 1 66 1 :59 25 3 34 10.1 6 1 9" 7.1 161 2:01 20 3 31 10.2 6' 7" 7.1 1 56 2:05 15 2 29 10.4 6 1 5" 7.2 1 50 2:09 10 1 26 10.6 6* 2" 7.5 1 40 2:15 5 0 22 11.1 5' 10" 7.7 1 25 2:25 0 0 0 13.9 4 1 2" 9.1 55 3:43 114 APPENDIX VI RAW SCORES TABLE 16 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS TENNIS ABILITY REPORTED IN LEGAL HITS AGILITY REPORTED IN SECONDS Sub Tennis Ability Agility ject 1 st 2nd 3rd Total A 40 45 42 1 27 24.05 B 50 46 45 141 24.25 C 51 51 44 146 23.90 D 52 55 52 159 27.00 E 57 41 50 148 24.90 F 44 37 44 1 25 25.50 G 53 56 56 165 24.20 H 47 45 41 133 24.20 I 47 37 36 120 25.00 J 47 35 43 125 25.30 K 45 43 41 1 29 23.90 L 42 47 45 1 34 24.35 M 54 53 57 164 22.15 N 46 47 53 146 24.15 0 55 58 61 174 23.20 Q 44 44 42 1 30 23.70 #R 25.80 S 40 40 43 123 23.20 #T 24.85 *U 23.30 V 44 45 47 1 36 23.70 #W 22.95 #Were not tested. 115 TABLE 17 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS REPORTED FROM JUDGMENTS OF EXPERTS* Sub Functional Concen Moti Ability ject** Mobility Form Strength tration vation Average A 4.40 4.40 - 3-80 4.20 4.00 4.16 B 3.00 3.50 - 4.00 3.00 3.50 3.40 D 3.40 2.40 3.60 3.80 4.20 3.48 E 3.40 3.80 3.60 3.20 3.20 3.44 F 2.00 2.40 2.80 2.60 3.00 2.56 G 3.00 3.20 3.40 2.80 4.00 3.28 H 3.40 3.60 3.20 3.80 3.20 3.40 I 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.50 3.00 2.75 K 3.00 2.33 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.86 L 3.75 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.50 3.55 M 3.25 3.50 3.25 3^50 4.00 3.50 N 3.66 2.66 3.33 3.00 3.66 3.26 0 3.80 3.40 3.40 4.60 4.60 3.96 P 4.00 3.80 4.20 4.40 4.80 4.24 Q 3.66 3.33 3.33 3-33 4.00 3.33 W 4.33 4.66 4.66 4.66 4.66 4.60 *5.OO-Excellent 4.00-Good 3.00-Average 2.00-Fair 1.00-Poor **Missing subjects were not tested. 117 TABLE 18 RANKING OF SUBJECTS REPORTED FROM MAJOR TOURNAMENTS Kentucky St. Louis Western USLTA Sub State Jr. Jr. Jr. National ject Championship Championship Championship Championship A 3 3 2 5 B 5 9 1 2 14 *C 9 D 4 19 15 11 E 7 1 7 7 15 18 22 G 6 11 5 10 *H 14 I 14 15.5 19 20 J 11 .5 16 14 21 K 11.5 13 17 17 L 15.5 1 2 3 2 M 15.5 2 10 8 N 8 7 11 12 0 2 8 6 6 *P 1 1 3 *Q 15.5 4 5 #R 5 8 9 S 13 10 20 16 14 16 18 *U 4 9 4 V 10 6 13 15 *W 1 *Did not compete 118 TABLE 19 RANKING OF ALL SUBJECTS REPORTED IN USLTA NATIONAL JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIP SEEDS AND USLTA NATIONAL JUNIOR RANKINGS >ject Seeds Subject Ranking A 5 A 4 B 14 D 13 D 16 E 8 E 6 G 7 G 10 L 3 H 9 M 12 L 5 N 17 M 13 0 6 N 11 P 2 0 3 Q 10 P 1 R 11 Q 1 2 U 5 R 8 V 9 U 7 W 1 V 15 W 2 TABLE 20 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS Height Reported in Inches, Weight Reported in Pounds We_ight------Standing Subject 1 st day 2nd day Average Height A 129.00 132.50 137.75 66.50 B 173.00 174.00 i73.50 72.50 C 135.00 138.75 136.88 71.00 D 157.00 159.50 158.25 71.00 E 158.00 162.75 160.38 71.50 F 182.00 184.50 183.25 72.50 G- 162.00 164.50 163.25 70.50 H 142.00 146.00 144.00 67.50 I 146.00 151.25 148.63 70.50 J 171.50 169.75 170.63 71.00 K 137.00 136.00 136.50 69.50 L 172.50 171.75 172.13 69.75 M 153.00 151.00 152.00 71.00 N 164.00 162.25 163.13 72.00 #0 145.15 70.25 *P 165.00 72.50 148.50 68.25 #R 128.20 67.25 *S 1 46.50 68.00 169.25 69.OO #u 145.00 68.25 161.50 73.00 170.00 70.00 #0ne measurement used since reliability had been established. TABLE 21 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS Pure Speed Measured In Seconds, Arm-Shoulder Coordination Measured In Feet Pure Speed Gross Subject* xnd. Paired Average Coordination A 5.70 5.80 5.75 186.80 B 5.80 5.80 5.80 204.10 C 6.20 6.4 0 6.30 137.00 D 6.00 6.05 6.03 199.80 E 5.77 5.75 5.76 219.60 F 6.20 6.15 6.18 171.10 G 5.95 6.00 5.98 201.60 H 6.00 5.65 5.83 221.90 I 6.25 6.13 6.19 187.20 J 5.55 5.55 5.55 234.00 K 5.90 5.60 5.75 176.30 L 5.70 5.90 5.80 200.00 M 5.90 6.00 5.95 178.20 N 5.70 5.57 5.63 211 .40 Q 5.90 6.05 5.98 206.10 S 5.95 5.80 5.88 213.60 T 6.30 6.40 6.35 190.00 U 5.90 5.70 5.80 187.20 V 6.00 5.78 5.89 265.00 ♦Missing subjects were not tested. TABLE 22 HAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS Reaction Time Reported in Hundredths of a Second Sub First Day Second Day Best ject 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Avg. 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Avg.. Time A 19.50 20.00 22.00 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.00 15.00 22.00 22.50 19.00 19.70 15.00 B 17.00 14.00 14.00 27.50 17.50 18.00 18.50 16.00 21 .00 18.75 16.00 18.05 1 4.00 C 19.75 1 6.00 29.50 19.75 24.75 21 .95 22.50 22.00 27.00 24.00 22.00 23.50 16.00 D 22.00 28.00 25.00 30.00 22.50 25.50 35.50 23.00 37.50 24.50 20.00 28.10 20.00 E 18.00 24.50 21.00 21 .00 18.75 20.65 22.00 25.00 21 .00 24.00 16.50 21 .70 16.50 F 20.00 20.00 17.50 19.00 21.00 19.50 20.50 18.00 18.50 21 .00 20.00 19.60 17.50 a 22.50 31.00 28.50 32.00 30.00 28.80 22.00 22.00 27.00 23.50 23.00 23.50 22.00 H 20.00 24.00 24.50 13.50 21.00 16.60 20.00 18.00 23.00 27.00 21 .00 21 .80 13.50 I 21 .50 18.50 25.00 23.00 28.00 23.50 20.00 14.00 24.00 20.50 18.50 19.40 14.00 J 18.00 20.00 20.00 22.00 22.50 20.50 22.00 21 .00 21 .00 22.00 19.75 21 .15 18.00 K 18.50 23.00 22.25 23.00 18.00 20.95 17.50 20.00 20.00 20.00 21 .50 19.80 17.50 L 13.50 16.00 18.00 14.50 18.00 16.00 16.00 15.00 16.50 16.50 16.00 J 6.00 13.50 M 17.00 23.00 22.00 19.00 22.00 20.60 20.00 18.00 18.50 21 .00 23.00 '20.10 17.00 N 22.50 23.00 23.00 19.00 36.00 24.70 19.00 20.00 19.00 2C.50 16.00 18.90 16.00 0 27.00 26.00 26.00 19.00 24.00 24.40 20.00 22.00 27.50 20.00 22.00 22.30 19.00 P 22.00 21 .50 23.50 26.50 19.00 22.50 20.00 19.00 20.00 21 .00 18.50 19.70 18.50 Q 17.00 16.00 14.00 16.00 19.00 16.40 14.00 16.00 16.00 15.00 15.00 15.20 14.00 R 22.00 21 .00 29.00 41 .00 23.00 27.20 25.50 25.50 26.00 19.00 29.00 25.00 19.00 S 18.00 17.00 18.00 20.00 19.50 18.50 18.00 18.50 19.00 20.00 17.25 18.55 17.00 T 15.50 14.50 13.50 14.75 16.50 14.95 1 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.00 17.00 16.50 15.70 13.50 #U 15.50 18.50 20.00 22.00 23.00 19.80 15.50 V 22.50 23.50 20.00 18.50 20.50 21.00 17.00 16.50 18.00 19.00 20.50 18.20 16.50 * w 21 .00 21 .00 17.00 23.50 18.00 20.10 17.00 #Were not tested the second day. TABLE 23 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS, DYNAMIC BALANCE REPORTED IN NUMBER OF CONTACTS First Test Second Test ject 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Avg. 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Avg. A 1 3.00 1 .00 3.00 1.00 0.00 20.00 4.00 14.00 1 .00 3.00 1 .00 0.00 19.00 3.80 B 23.00 22.00 22.00 17.00 16.00 100.00 20.00 25.00 23.00 21 .00 17.00 16.00 102.00 24.00 C 10.00 1 .00 5.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 4.00 9.00 1 .00 5.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 3.75 D 29.00 25.00 26.00 20.00 18.00 118.00 23.60 27.00 23.00 28.00 18.00 17.00 116.00 23.20 E 9.00 8.00 4.00 2.00 14.00 37.00 7.40 8.00 7.00 4.00 1 .00 14.00 34.00 6.80 F 21 .00 1 3.00 9.00 20.00 16.00 79.00 15.80 20.00 15.00 9.00 18.00 1 5.00 77.00 15.40 G 5.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 2.40 5.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 2.40 H 19.00 11 .00 4.00 2.00 0.00 36.00 7.20 19.00 11.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 36.00 7.20 I 22.00 16.00 10.00 5.00 7.00 60.00 1 2.00 19.00 17.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 56.00 11.20 J 24.00 22.00 18.00 16.00 9.00 89.00 17.80 27.00 22.00 16.00 15.00 9.00 89.00 17.80 *K 14.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 3.40 L 8.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 17.00 3.40 8.00 4.00 6.00 2.00 0.00 20.00 4.00 M 11 .00 2.00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 16.00 3.20 10.00 3.00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 16.00 3.20 *N 19.00 16.00 10.00 15.00 14.00 74.00 14.80 *0 3.00 4.00 1 .00 0.00 1 .00 9.00 1 .80 *P 16.00 15.00 11 .00 14.00 15.00 71 .00 14.20 *Q 1 .00 0.00 0.00 1 .00 0.00 2.00 0.40 *R 11 .00 3.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 20.00 4.00 *S 4.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 2.00 24.00 16.00 20.00 16.00 18.00 94.00 18.80 *U 11 .00 9.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 28.00 5.60 *V 1 2.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 1 .00 28.00 5.60 #W 28.00 21 .00 31 .00 28.00 23.00 131.00 26.20 #One tester used since reliability had been established. 122 TABLE 24 RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS, MOVEMENT TIME REPORTED IN HUNDREDTHS OF A SECOND Sub First Day Second Day Best ject 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Avg. 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Avg. Time A 52.00 39.00 48.00 40.50 37.50 43.40 44.00 39.00 41 .00 38.00 40.00 40.40 37.50 B 3 6.00 32.50 35.00 35.00 34.00 34.50 40.00 38.00 35.50 34.00 30.00 35.50 30.00 C 39.75 39.50 40.00 40.00 36.00 38.65 46.00 35.00 37.00 37.50 36.50 38.40 35.00 D 37.00 37.50 35.75 35.50 34.00 35.95 39.00 42.00 39-00 48.50 35.75 40.85 34.00 E 47.00 37.50 40.00 36.50 38.50 39.70 35.00 37.00 36.00 41 .00 35.00 36.80 35.00 F 48.00 40.00 41 .50 38.50 39.75 41.55 37.00 55.00 38.00 40.00 44.00 42.00 37.00 G 40.50 38.00 37.75 35.00 34.25 37.10 39.50 37.00 39.75 39.00 39.00 39.65 34.25 H 50.00 43.00 44.00 39.50 37.00 42.70 36.50 34.00 42.75 43.50 43.50 36.50 34.00 I 49.00 41 .00 49.50 47.00 46.50 46.60 41 .00 46.00 41 .50 42.00 40.50 42.20 40.50 J 39.75 37.50 37.50 36.00 37.00 37-55 37.00 37.25 39.00 40.00 36.75 38.00 36.00 K 40.00 42.75 39.00 37.00 36.00 38.95 37.50 39.75 36.50 37.00 34.00 36.95 34.00 L 40.00 40.00 41 .50 38.50 41 .50 40.90 41 .00 40.50 43.50 46.00 42.00 42.60 38.50 M 37.50 36.00 45.25 39.75 38.00 39.30 39.00 41.00 46.00 38.00 38.00 40.40 36.00 N 40.50 44.25 47.00 44.50 41 .00 43.45 42.50 35.00 38.25 42.00 36.00 38.75 35.00 0 39.00 43.50 42.00 39.00 37.50 40.20 39.20 39.50 42.00 42.00 40.50 41.20 37.50 P 39.00 35.00 32.00 38.00 34.00 35.60 33.00 33.00 34.50 34.00 40.50 35.00 32.00 Q 33.50 31 .00 30.50 31.00 32.00 31 .60 34.00 31.00 33.50 34.00 33.00 33.10 30.50 R 40.00 41 .25 41.25 37.00 46.00 41 .10 40.00 35.50 36.50 38.00 35.50 37.10 35.50 S 36.00 36.00 40.00 37.00 36.50 37.10 37.00 36.00 39.25 37.00 35.25 36.90 35.25 T 34.00 36.75 34.25 39.00 36.00 36.00 36.50 36.00 42.25 47.00 37.50 39.95 34.00 *U 38.00 38.00 41 .50 36.50 36.00 38.00 36.00 V 34.00 35.00 34.00 37.00 32.00 34.40 33.00 29.50 42.00 38.00 39.00 36.30 29.50 *W 33.50 30.50 35.25 36.75 29.25 33.05 29.25 #Were not tested the second day. 1 24 TABLE 25 AVERAGE OF TOURNAMENT RANKINGS ______RECORDED IN STANDINGS______Avg. of St. Louis Jr., Avg. of Kentucky State Jr., Western Jr., and USLTA St. Louis Jr., Western Jr. Subject National Championships and USLTA National A 3.33 3.25 B 11.67 10.00 D 1 5.00 1 2.25 E 5.00 5.50 F 18.53 13.75 G 8.67 8.00 H 14.00 14.00 I 18.17 14.63 J 17.00 15.13 K 15.67 14.63 L 5.67 8.13 M 6.67 8.88 N 1 0.00 9.50 0 6.67 5.50 P 2.00 1 .67 Q 8.17 8.17 R 7.33 7.33 S 15.33 14.75 T 16.00 16.00 U 5.67 5.67 V 1 1.33 10.00 W 1.00 1 .00 I 125 o o o o o o o ino o o o o o o O O O O o 03 bO CO ONo *— 3 t— o co -3-kn 00 ONvo R 8 o KNt-- On ON inT- PS > • ••• •• • • • • • •• • • • • • a • • •• W < UNCMON00o CM on k- vo in on vo kn CMvo KNKN in CM T— 00 Eh kn CM CM o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o PI tS o o o o o o o o ino o o o o o o o o o o o o o P) ■P • • • a • • • • • ••• • • • •• • a a a • a M O 00 ONo -3" o 00 hJ-kn oo ONvo m cm r— o KNC— on on ina— S EH inOJ ON00 o CM ON tN- vo inOn VO KN CMvo KNKN in CM 00 kn T“ CM r“ - 3 - CM o o o o o o O O O o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o O o ino o o o o o o o O o o o o o Q •• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • a W o 00o in- in o OJ O 00 in inkn in o ino KN C-— CM KN ON EH H t CM CM T—» r " OS O o o o co o o o O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ph o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o ON • • • •••• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • a VO m VOvo kn VO00 -3-o T_ o KN o CM o CMin in o CO 3 T“ OJ m CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o M o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o EH CO ••• • a • • • a • a • • • • • • a • • • • a P h c-VO o o in T_ C- ONo vo ONvo CM O KNKN»— CM in KNT_ W OJ ina—• CM O VO ttJ o o O o o o o o o o o o o O O o o O o o o o o OJ M o o O o o o o o o o o o o O O o o O o o o o o • ••• • • • a a • a a • • • • • • • • • • • PH 1 0 in in in *“ ininOJ *- ONVO vo ON O CM o KNCM KN 00 VO o s 3E OJ t” 3 Q) M <3 P3 o Q P«HCtJW M •“D W PI N Ph O’(*303 Eh £3 > 03 ■* 3 i BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Armstrong, H. G. Principles and Practices of Aviation Medicine. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., w ; — Best, John W. Research in Education. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc. 1963"- Clarke, H. Harrison. Application of Measurement to Health and Physical Education! New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. Cratty, Bryant J. Movement Behavior and Motor Learning. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger Co., 1964. Dember, William N. The Psychology of Perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Fifty Years of Lawn Tennis in the United States. New York: United States Lawn Tennis Association, 1 931. Fisher, Ronald A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. London: Oliver and Boyd, 194-6. Griffith, C. R. Psychology and Athletics. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1928. Larson, Leonard A., and Yocum, Rachael Dunaven. Measurement and Evaluation in Physical, Health, and Recreation Education. St. Louis: C. V. Mosfcy C o . 1951 . Mathews, Donald K. Measurement in Physical Education. Philadelphia! w7 B. Saunders Co., 1963» Merrihew, S. Wallis. The Quest of the Davis Cup. New York: American Lawn Tennis,"Inc., 19^8. Meyers, Carlton R., and Blesh, Erwin T. Measurement in Physical Education. New York: Ronald Press Co., T'962. 127 128 Research Methods In Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Washington: American Association for Health, Phy- sical Education and Recreation, 1959. Souder, Marjorie A., and Hill, Phyllis J. Basic Movement. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1963. Whitman, Malcolm D. Tennis Origins and Mysteries. New York: Derrydale Press, 1932. Willgoose, Carl E. Evaluation in Health Education and Phy sical Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., T w r . ------ Articles and Periodicals AAHPER Youth Fitness Test Manual. Washington: American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1962. Alden, Florence D., and Horton, Margery O'Neal, and Caldwell, Grace Marie. "A Motor Ability Test for University Women for the Classification of Entering Students Into Homogeneous Groups," Research Quarterly, III (March, 1932), 83-120. Atwell, William 0., and Elbel, Edwin R. "Reaction Time of Male High School Students in 14-17 Year Age Groups," Research Quarterly, XIX (March, 1948), 22-29. Bannister, H., and Blackburn, J. M. "An Eye Factor Affecting Proficiency at Ball Games," British Journal of Psychology, XXI (October, 193^)• Barrow, Harold M. "Test of Motor Ability for College Men," Research Quarterly, XXV (October, 1954), 253-260. Bass, Ruth I. "An Analysis of the Components of Tests of Semicircular Canal Function and of Static and Dynamic Balance," Research Quarterly, X (May, 1939), 33-51* Beise, D., and Peaseley, V. "The Relation of Reaction Time, Speed, and Agility of Big Muscle Groups to Certain Sports Skills," Research Quarterly, VIII (March, 1937), 133-142. Bell, Thomas B. "The Validity of Certain Tests of Endurance," Research Quarterly, XIX (October, 1948), 229-241. 129 Brace, D. K. "Validity of a Football Achievement Test as Measures of Motor Learning and a Partial Basis for the Selection of Players," Research Quarterly, XIV (December, 194-3), 372-377. Brock, John D., Cox, Walter A., and Pennock, Erastus W. "Motor Fitness," Research Quarterly, XII (May, 1941), 407-415. Burley, L. R. "Reaction Time of Trained Men," Research Quarterly, XV (October, 1944), 232-239. Burpee, Royal H., and Stroll, Wellington. "Measuring Re action Time of Athletes," Research Quarterly, VII (March, 1936), 110-118. Calvin, Sidney. "Effects of Progressive Resistive Exercises on the Motor Coordination of Boys," Research Quarterly, XXX (December, 1959), 387-395. Carpenter, Aileen. "An Analysis of the Relationships of the Factors of Velocity, Strength, and Dead Weight to Athletic Performance," Research Quarterly, XII (March, 1941), 34-39. Clarke, Harrison H. "Relationships of Reaction, Movement, and Completion Times to Motor, Strength, Anthropo metric, and Maturity Measures," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (May, 1962), 194-201. Coleman, James W. "The Differential Measurement of the Speed Factor in Large Muscle Activities," Research Quarterly, VIII (October, 1937), 123-130. Cratty, Bryant J., and Sage, Jack N. "Effects of Primary and Secondary Group Interaction Upon Improvement in a Complex Movement Task," Research Quarterly, XXXV (October, 1964), 265-274. Deshon, Deane E., and Nelson, Richard C. "A Cinemato- graphical Analysis of Sprint Running," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), 451-4^5. DiGiovanna, Vincent. "The Relation of Selected Structural and Functional Measures to Success in College Athletics," Research Quarterly, XIV (May, 1943), 199-215. Dintiman, George Blough. "Effects of Various Training Pro grams on Running Speed," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), 4-56-463. 130 Dyer, Joanna T. "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," Research Quarterly, IX (March, 1938)* 25-31 . Elbel, E. R. "A Study In Variation in Response Time," Research Quarterly, X (March, 1939), 35.50. "A Study of Response Time Before and After Strenuous Exercise," Research Quarterly, XI (May, 1940), 86-95. Espenschade, Anna. "Development of Motor Coordination In Boys and Girls," Research Quarterly, XVIII (March, 1947), 30-44. Espenschade, Anna S. "Restudy of Relationships Between Physical Performances of School Children and Age, Height, and Weight," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (May, 1963), 144-153. Espenschade, Anna, Dable, Robert R., and Schoendube, Robert. "Dynamic Balance in Adolescent Boys," Research Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1953), 270-275. Estep, Dorothy P. "Relationship of Static Equilibrium to Ability in Motor Activities," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (March, 1957), 5-15. Everett, Peter W. "The Prediction of Baseball Ability," Research Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), 15-17. Farmer, Daniel S., and Henry Franklin M. "Condition Ratings and Endurance Measures," Research Quarterly, XX (May, 1949), 126-133. Fox, Katherine. "A Study of the Validity of the Dyer Back board Test and the Miller Forehand-Backhand Test for Beginning Tennis Players," Research Quarterly, XXIV (March, 1953), 1-7. Gollnlck, P. D., Hearn, G. R . , and Tweit, A. H. "Effects of Training Program on Total Body Reaction Time of Individuals of Low Fitness," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (December, 1963), 508-5^% Graybiel, A., Jokl, E., and Trapy, C. "Accommodation, Visual Fields, Ocular Muscle Balance and Depth Perception of Athletes," Research Quarterly, XXVI (December, 1955). 480-485. 131 Gross, Elmer A., and Thompson, Hugh L. "Relationship of Dynamic Balance to Speed and to Ability in Swimming," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (December, 1957)* 342- Harrison, John S. "Psychological Refractoriness and the Latency Time of Two Consecutive Motor Responses," Research Quarterly, XXXI (December, 1960), 590-600. Hennis, Gail M., and Ulrich, Celeste. "Study of Psychic Stress in Freshmen College Women," Research Quarterly, XXVIV (May, 1958), 172-179. Henry, Franklin M. "Increase in Speed of Movement by Moti vation and by Transfer of Motivated Improvement," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), 219-228. _ • "Independence of Reaction and Movement Times of Sensory Motivators of Faster Response," Research Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), 43-53. _ . "Reliability, Measurement Error, and Intra- Individual Difference," Research Quarterly, XXX (March, 1959), 21-24. Henry, Franklin M., and Rogers, Donald E. "Increase Re sponse Latency for Complicated Movements and a 'Memory Drum’ Theory of Neuromotor Reaction," Research Quarterly, XXXI (October, 1950). 448-458. Hewitt, Jack E. "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Tennis Test," Research Quarterly, XXXXVI (May, 1965), 153- 1 57. Hodgkins, Jean. "Reaction Time and Speed of Movement In Males and Females of Various Ages," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (October, 1963), 335-343. Hodgson, Pauline, £t al. "A Study of Some Relationships Between Performance and Certain Physiological Measures with Maximal and Submaxlmal Work," Research Quarterly. XVII (October, 1946), 208-224. Howard, Ray C. "Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental Abilities and Achievements of High School Boys," Research Quarterly, XI (October, 1940), 129-141. Hubbard, Alfred W. "An Experimental Analysis of Running and Certain Fundamental Differences Between Trained and Untrained Runners," Research Quarterly, X (October, 1939), 28-38. 132 Hutinger, Paul W. "Differences in Speed Between American Negro and White Children in Performance of the 35- Yard Dash," Research Quarterly, XXX (October, 1959)* 366-367. Imus, H. A. "Visual Examination of Flyers Returned from Combat," Journal of Aviation Medicine, XIX (February, 1948), 6 2 ^ § T . Keller, Louis F. "The Relation of 'Quickness of Bodily Move ment' to Success in Athletics," Research Quarterly, XIII (May, 1942), 146-155. Kretchmar, Robert T. "Vision in Sports," Research Quarterly, XX (October, 1949), 238-249. Kroll, Walter. "Selected Factors Associated with Wrestling Success," Research Quarterly, XXIX (Decamber, 1958), 396-406. Lafuze, Marion. "A Study of the Learning of Fundamental Skills by College Women of Low Motor Ability," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), 149-157. Landiss, Carl W. "Influence of Physical Education Activities on Motor Ability and Physical Fitness of Male Fresh men," Research Quarterly, XXVI (October, 1955), 295- 307. Lautenbach, R., and Tuttle, W. W. "Relationships Between Reflex Time and Running Events in Track," Research Quarterly, III (October, 1932), 138-143. Lehman, Harvey C. "The Most Proficient Years at Sports and Games," Research Quarterly, IX (October, 1938), 3-19. Lindeburg, Franklin A. "A Study of the Degree of Transfer Between Quickening Exercises and Other Coordinated Movements," Research Quarterly, XX (May, 1949), ISO- 195. Martie, J. E. "Exercise and Physical Development," Research Quarterly, II (May, 1931), 86-92. Masley, John W., Hairabedian, Ara, and Donaldson, Donald N. "Weight Training in Relation to Strength, Speed, and Coordination," Research Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1953), 308-315. McCloy, C. H. "A Preliminary Study of Factors in Motor Edu cability," Research Quarterly, XI (May, 1940), 28-39. Meyers, Carlton R. "Comparison of Two Methods of Using a Stop Watch," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (October, 1962), 491-493. Michael, Ernest, Skubic, Vera, and Rochelle, Rene. "Effect of Wam-Up on Softball Throw for Distance," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (December, 1957), 357-363. Miles, W. R. "Studies in Physical Exertion: II. Individual and Group Reaction Time in Football Charging," Research Quarterly, II (October, 1931), 5-13* Miller, Robert G., and Shay, Clayton T. "Relationship of Reaction Time to the Speed of a Softball," Research Quarterly, XXXV (October, 1964), 433-437. Mohr, Dorthy R., and Haverstick, Martha J. "Relationship Between Height, Jumping Ability, and Agility to Volleyball Skill," Research Quarterly, XXVII (March, 1956), 70-79. Mumby, Hugh H. "Kinesthetic Acuity and Balance Related to Wrestling Ability," Research Quarterly, XXIV (October, 1953), 327^3W. Munro, Sanford J. "The Retention of the increase in Speed of Movement Transferred from a Motivated Simpler Response," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), 229-233. Norrie, Mary Lou. "Timing of Two Simultaneous Movements of Arms and Legs," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), 311-522. Olsen, E inar A. "Relationship Between Psychological Capacities and Success in College Athletics," Research Quarterly, XXVII (March, 1956), 79-99. Pierson, William R. "The Relationship of Movement Time and Reaction Time from Childhood to Senility," Research Quarterly, XXX (May, 1959), 227-231. ______. "Comparison of Fencers and Non-Fencers by Psychomotor Space Perception, and Anthropometric Measures," Research Quarterly, XXVII (March, 1956). Phillips, William H. "Influence of Fatiguing Warm-Up Exer cises on Speed of Movement and Reaction Latency," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (October, 1963), 370-378. 1 3 4 Rarick, Lawrence. "An Analysis of the Speed Factor in Simple Athletic Activities," Research Quarterly, VIII (December, 1937), 85-105. Rochelle, R. H., Skubic, Vera, and Michael, E. D. "Perform ance as Affected by Incentive and Preliminary Warm-Up," Research Quarterly, XXXI (October, 1960), 499-504. Ryan, Dean E. "Prerest and Postrest on the Stabilometer as a Function of Distribution of Practice," Research Quarterly. XXXVI (May, 1965), 197-204. ______. "Relative Academic Achievement and Stabilometer Performance," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (May, 1963), 185-190. Scott, M. Gladys. "Measurement of Kinesthesis," Research Quarterly, XXVI (October, 1955), 324-341. Seashore, Harold G. "Some Relationships of Fine and Gross Motor Abilities," Research Quarterly, XIII (October, 1942), 259-274. ______. "The Development of a Beam-Walking Test and Its Use in Measuring Development of Balance in Children," Research Quarterly, XVIII (December, 1947), 246-259. Sills, Frank D., and Everett, Peter W. "The Relationship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance in Motor and Strength Tests," Research Quarterly, XXIV (May, 1953), 223-228. Slater-Hammel, A. T. "An Action Current Study of Contrac tion- Movement in the Tennis Stroke," Research Quarterly, XX (December, 1949), 424-431. ______. "Comparisons of Measures to a Visual Stimulus and Arm Movement," Research Quarterly, XXVI (Dec ember, 1955), 470-479: ______• "Effect of Blinking Upon Reaction-Time Measures," Research Quarterly, XXV (October, 1954), 338-343. ______. "Performance of Selected Groups of Male College Students on the Reynolds' Balance Test," Research Quarterly, XXVII (October, 1956), 347-351. ______. "Psychological Refractory Period in Simple Paired Responses," Research Quarterly, XXIX (December, 1958), 468-481. 135 Slater-Hammel, A. T. "Reliability, Accuracy, and Refractori ness of a Transit Reaction," Research Quarterly, XXXI (May, 1960), 217-228. Slater-Hammel, A. T., and Stumpner, R. L. "Batting Reaction- Time," Research Quarterly, XXI (December, 1950), 353- 356. Smith, Leon E. "Effect of Muscular Stretch, Tension, and Relaxation Upon the Reaction Time and Speed of Move ment," Research Quarterly, XXXV (December, 1964), 546-553. Solley, William H. "The Effects of Verbal Instruction of Speed and Accuracy Upon the Learning of a Motor Skill," Research Quarterly, XXIII (May, 1952), 231- 240. Stein, Julian V. "The Reliability of the Youth Fitness Test," Research Quarterly, XXXV (October, 1964), 528-329. Strong, Clinton H. "Motivation Related to Performance of Physical Fitness Tests," Research Quarterly, XXXIV (December, 1963), 497-507* United States Lawn Tennis Association. Official Guide and Tennis Yearbook. New York: H. 0. Zimmer, Inc., T9FTI ______. Official Guide and Tennis Yearbook. New York: H. 0. Zlmmerj Inc., 1965. Warren, N. A. "Comparison of Standard Tests of Depth Per ception, " American Journal of Psychology, XVII (January, 1940), 508-21 1 . Wear, C. L., and Miller, Kenneth. "Relationship of Physique and Developmental Level to Physical Performance," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (December, 1962), 615—631. Westerlund, J. H. , and Tuttle, W. W. "Relationship Between Running Events in Track and Reaction Time," Research Quarterly, II (October, 1930, 95-100. Weymount, F. W., and Hirsch, M. J. "The Reliability of Certain Tests for Determining Distance Discrimination," American Journal of Psychology, LVIII (July, 1945). “379-390. 1 3 6 Wilkins, Bruce M. "The Effects of Weight Training on Speed of Movement," Research Quarterly, XXIII (October, 1952), 361-369. Winograd, Samuel. "The Relationship of Timing and Vision to Baseball Performance," Research Quarterly, XIII (December, 1942), 421-493. Youngen, Lois. "A Comparison of Reaction and Movement Times of Women Athletes and Nonathletes," Research Quarterly, XXX (October, 1959), 349-355. Zimmerman, Helen. "Physical Performance of Children Taught by Special Teachers and by Classroom Teachers," Research Quarterly, XXX (October, 1959), 356-362. Other Sources Columbus Dispatch, July 7, 1965, p. 12B. Hendrix, Dr. John W. Personal Interview, July 17, 1965. The Ohio State University. Unpublished Material Agler, Robert. "A Study of the Effects of Weight Training on Speed, Strength, and Explosive Power." Unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1961. Dickson, Joseph F. "The Relationship of Depth Perception to Goal Shooting in Basketball." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1953- Ellena, Jack Duane. "Relationship of Physiological Factors to Football Performance." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1959* Genasci, James E. "A Study of the Effects of Participation in Physical Education Activities and Athletics on Reaction and Movement Time." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Colorado State College, i960. Hendrix, John William. "Factors Influencing Styles of Play in Tennis." Unpublished Ph. Ed. D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955. Montebello, Robert Albert. "The Role of Stereoscopic Vision in Some Aspects of Baseball Playing Ability." Un published Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1953. 137 Norred, Robert Gaines. "The Effect of Certain Selected Vari ables on Performance in Football." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1964. Olree, George Doyld. "Relationship Between Skill in Sports, Participation in Sports, and Physical Fitness in College Men." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, George Peabody College, 1961. Ross, Mattie Ellen. "The Relationship of Eye-Hand Coordi nation Skills and Visual Perception Skills in Children." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961 • Wilhelm, Arnold William. "The Relationship of Certain Measurable Traits to Success in Football." Unpub lished P.E.D. dissertation, University of Indiana, 1951.