.. J"., _ ...... ;.~- , • ,~- ... ~.-{ .., .. -.. -. ,. ".I.; .. ,.,.! ., , ... :. j"':" ,.,...,,~.~ ':'t~ .. ·~fr .. ~~r\ 1 . \ 1 1 ~ 1 .­ An On-site Test Battery to Eval~ate . ! Giant Slalom .Skiinq Performance - 1 By , .- in partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the, degree of Master of- Arts . (Educatio~) .' .' f Department of Physical Education Division of Graduate Studies and Research Faculty of Education .. ) .. ~ MC~ill University • ,', , > _...,. ..... Montireal, Quebec . , \ January, 1988 t \ ~ r • ':"'J. 1 Q ,. {. \' .. / Permission has been granted rL' autorisation a étE! ac.cordl!e to the Nati-onal Library of à la Bibliothèque nationa1e Canada to Ilicrofilm this du Canada de microfi lmer thesi~ and to lend or sell cet te thèse et . de prêter ou copies of the ,film. ; de vendre des exemp1aires dU fi1m• • The author (~opyright owner) L'auteur (titulaire du droit j' has' reserved other d'auteur) se réserve 1es pub1ication rights, and autres droits de publicat~on: néither the thesis nor ni la thèse ni de longs extensive ex,tracts from it extraits 4e - celle-ci ne May be printed or otherwise doivent êt~e imprimés ou reproduced wi thout h~s/her autrement reproduits sans son written permis&ion. autorisation écrite. l SBN ~ 0-:315-459 86-7 o ...... .... .. c , • .' -, " - , ", "T"'- ".;;" "\ "1 • .. • • ..••• ....... :' .• -~. 'f ';. .. v ii ,'c" ABSTRACT ,/ • ,/ ,Thirty,-three subj ects were jf'Eudied using' tersts to meqsure pO\ier, agi-lity, anaerobic endurance and aerobic , IC! enduranc~ to determine if an on-site test battery would • ~distinguish among club (n = 11'), divisional (n = 14), and " provincial lever (n- = 9) giant s!alo.m skiers. Both /' construct validity and' criterion-related, validity of the test battery were examined. univariate F tests1 were used to examine for differençes among the three levels, of..... skiers. Significant differences were found for the , following tests: peak power, me an power, and post-exercise , ( " lac:tàte, for, a 60s W.lngate. cycle erg0!Ueter ~est, high <box test, hexagonal obstacle test, double leg jumping test, and • \ f\ Leger shuttle run test of aerobic endurance. criterion related' validity was ,established since there were high significant correlations between giant slalom performance time and these test variables: hexagonal obstacle test Cr,~ 1 = .82), high box test (r = -.80), and double leg jumping (r = -.86)-. These data illustrate that an on-site test battery can be used to d,istinguish among giant slalom alpine ski~rs. '. .0- \ • , , -" .. _, / ,~"i .. _., ... _~\.;; •.~ .. ~",,\~ ~~~~~;~~.. ':..;'1-~./,,, " r , RESUME Des mesures de puissance, d'agilité, d'endurance.. anaerobique et .aerobique ont ete '"evalue pour determiner si çes mesures p0l:lvaient diftinguer entre des skieurs alpins de niveau club Cn = Il), divisi'on Cn = 14), ou provincial La validité de la batterie de--- tests a été , ., examiné. Une analyse de varian'ce a demontre une difference , significati~e en,tre les trois gaupes avec les mesures 04 suivantes; puissance maximale, moyenne q.e la puissance et """le niveau-d'acide lactique apres un Wingate de 60s, la course navette de Léger pour l' endurance aérobique, un ,1 / _ ( "high box test", ·un test d'obstacle hexagonale et un test ae saut a deux jambes. Certaines" variables de la batterie ont etabli la validité puisque 'qu'il y ~it des cor­ rélations significatives entre le temps de p'~forrnance au ski alpin et le test d' obstacle hexagonale (r = .82), le 1 .., "high box test" (r = -;ao), et le saut a deux jambes (r. = Cl -.86). En conclusion, ces dànnees demontrent qu 1 il est possi~e de distinguer entre differents niveau de s'kieurs , alpins avec l'aide de tests physiologiques. , o / / ~.' 'f C / , 1 ..... -. '" .. ".,. ~ .. /~; ·~;t S;~"I/'l •.. ;~v1t' f :,., ., ~.< .... ~ -: ~·":I:";l;~~~":·:!~·;!·-l':?~'';~i;:':''~Î j " ' .. ; i- .... (, , .. ~.( \ ."".. '- ïv t .. .' ACRNOWLEDGEMEHTS ) The completion of this" document would not .have been possible. without the help and ·support of many people . ..1* • First', l would like to' thank roy family. ,+hey h~ve a;Lways r been a source of reassurance, "".'êspecially my' Mom who has always believed< '~strongly in my capabilities, and helped me with proof-reading~ . Second, ,my sincere th~nks go' out to Susan Bartlett for the many hours of' proof-reading and typing done on !{bis ,/" l , thesis .. AIso, for understanding the vast time commi tment .. that it takes to write such a document.· l would al ~o l ike to thank coaches Tim Clark, Dan Lavallé, M.ike Sutherland, and Franko Bernie{r for allowing ,their athletes to take part in this study~ AIso, l wish to express my sincere gratitude to the skiers who took part in this study and gave an excellent effort on each test. To Tiro Gallivan, for help with the frustrating SPSS program. To Kelley Orr, George Boucher, Marek Kaczinski, for help with data collection, and especially... Dr. 'René Turcotte for translating my abstract, sitting on my committee and helping with data collection . .",Finally, to my advisor Dr. Bavid Montgomery for sUPPort and encouragement when ever it was needed. He has offered many hOUliS of help and advice' in both my career, and my academic pursuits for which l am most grateful. He is • truly an exceptional professor. , j v • \ . , , Tatie of Contents • 'li, CHAP1'ER 1 'ul • paqe Introductiqn ,- , [; 1. 1 Nature and scop~ of the proplem •••• -..........• . 3 '1. 2 Significance of \~he study ...••••••••...••••.. 7" 1. 3 Hypotheses .............................. 8 1.4 Limitations •...••·l •••••••••••••• ~ ••• 'Ie ••••••••• 9 . 1.5 Delimitations ..•••..... · ..... · ........... " ... 10 1. 6 Operational Definitions •....•••..•'. ~. • • • . •. 10 \ CHAP1'ER 2 If ~ Reviewof the literature ____1.. 2 • 1 Strength and power .... .. · .......... .. 1 1 2. 2 ~aerobic endurance: .. .. .. · ........ 13 , -- - , 2.21 The Wingate anaerobic test ...• · ........ 23 ) 2.22 The hexagonal obstacle test ••• ~ ........ 26 2.23 , The high box test. · .................... 27 2.3 Aerobic endurance •....•• · ..... · ..... · ..... 28 2.31 The 20-m shuttle run test •.••• · ......... 33 Methods 3'. 1 Subj ects .• . .. .. .. · '- .... · ........ 35 3.2 Treatment of tHe subj ects ...•• . .. 36 • ·......... 3.3 Giant slalom time. trial ...... ................o " _ .. - "r· ...~ - .... ~j, . _. l·~ ··W J ~- .~ .. , . " vi • Page) 3.4 Winqate anaerobic . · ............. 38 3,.5 Hexagonal obstacle test• •••.••••••••••••••••••?,~ • ~ , 40 ~ 3.6 ~ " High box test .... ........... " ................. 42 3.7 20-m shuttle run test ••••••••• ,. •• fi •••••••• • '.,' 43 3.8 Five double-leg jump test •.•••••.•••••••••••• 43 j.9 Vertical jump test •••• :. ....................., 44 o 3.10 Skinfold test ..••..••••••• , •• ~ ••••••.••••••• 44 '.' 3.11 Experimental design and st~tical analysis'45 -.' CHAPl'ER• 4 Results ,"" 4.1 Descriptive data. .............. · ............. 47 -4.2 Wingate anaerobic test •••••••• · . .. .. 49 4.3 On-si te tests ...................... ". ~ . .. 52 20-m shuttle run test •• ;.: •••• · ............. 54 4.5 Giant slalom time trial ••••••• • ••••••• 11 •••••• 56 J 4.6 Coefficiets of variation ••.••••••••••• ~ •••••• 57 .\' 4.7 Correlational analysis •••••••• · ............. 59 CHAPTER. 5 ' '~ "Discussion 5.1 Caliber of the subjects. · ............. 61 5.2 Jumping tests ............. '.... ' .. · . .. ~ .. .. 64 5.21 Hexagonal obstacle test ••••••••••••••••• 64 , '. o .' ····V c~ " vii 1) Paqe 5.22 High box test ..•. ....... .......... 66 5.23 Five double 1eg jump test. ........ 68 5.24 vertical jump test. .....................~ 69 5.3' .wingate anaerobic test. ...................... 70 5.4 Post exercise b100d lactate '.' . .............. 73 j 5.5 20~m shutt1e run test ••••.•... .......... 75 CBAPl'ÈR 6 Summary, Conclusions and Recomendations 6.1 Summary ...........•............•• .......... 7·8 6.2 Conclusions •• .... ... 79 6;3 Recommendations. · ...... , .. .. ... 80 REFERENCES. ., . · ............ ..~. 82 APPENDIX. .. .. .. .~ ·............. ..... 89 k - Hexagonal obstacle test. ........ 89 /. / . \ \ , i'" ~. ~ \ • l '< t .. 1, ~_~ ... c . '. ....•.... .... ; i -f. _ .•. - ........ ; ( .. "'<";1 .1", ~('J:..~ .. , ..- t"'" • , " viii • List of Tables Table paqe ." 4.1 Physical\characteristics (X + S.O.) of club .r..... (n=l1), divisional (n=l4) and provincial (n=9) ski racers....................................... 48 4.2 Wingate anaerobic test (X ± S. E.) for the club • (n=11),- divisional (n=14) and provincial (n~9) ski racers...................................... r50 4.3 .Résults (X + S.E.) for the high box, hexagonal obstacle, vertical jump, and five doub~e leg jump test for club (n=ll), divisional (n=l4) and provincial (n=9) skiers..................... 53 4.4 Results for the 20-m shûttle run test (X ± S.E.) for the club (n=ll), divisional (n=14) and prov- incial (n=9) ski racers ............••...•.•....• 55 4.5 Results (X + S.E.) for the giant slalom time trial for the club, divisi~nd provincial ski racers...................................... 56 4.6 Coefficients of variation of on-site tests •...•. 58 -4.7 Pearson correlation matrix of the performance variables (n=33)................................ 60 ,'> '5.1 A comparison of peak power from various studies ~ using a cycle ergometer test with the Wingate res istance. .. 71 , 5.2 Aerobic characteristics of various ski racers... 77 o ' , " " • <,;.ç-'~jI _ .. \ ~' 1 .',1, ." f " " - '" ". , U~~ ". \ ~_ ;'Tf~ .~} ," . iX Q ~ List of Figures (~. 1 Fiqure " Page \ 0 \ 4.1 Power