ABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THREE DIFFERENT
METHODS OF ASSESSING UPPER-BODY STRENGTH-
ENDURANCE TO DISTINGUISH PLAYING RANK IN
PROFESSIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYERS
DANIEL G. BAKER
School of Biomedical and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University, Joodalup, 6027 Western Australia, Australia
ABSTRACT
Baker, DG. Ability and validity of three different methods of
assessing upper-body strength-endurance to distinguish play-
ing rank in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res 23(5): 1578–1582, 2009—To date, little study has been
performed to determine the importance of upper-body strength-
endurance (S-E) to success in rugby league football. Further-
more, debate exists as to which type of S-E testing, absolute
resistance or relative percent S-E testing, where performance is
gauged with an absolute resistance in kilograms or with a set
percentage of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), respectively, would
garner more informative results. To this end, 3 different methods
of assessing S-E (1 relative and 2 absolute S-E) were
investigated to determine their effectiveness and validity for
distinguishing between rugby league players of different
ranking. In study 1, 26 players of similar strength, but different
playing ranking, performed a bench press test with a resistance
of 60% of their 1RM to determine if any differences existed
between the groups in how many repetitions could be
completed with the same relative percentage resistance. The
fact that no significant difference existed between the groups in
repetitions performed indicated that this test of relative S-E did
not differentiate playing rank in rugby league. In study 2, 38
subjects performed tests with absolute resistances of 60 and
102.5 kg (bench press repetitions-to-fatigue (BP RTF) 60 and
102.5, respectively) in an effort to determine the merits of
absolute S-E testing. Both tests significantly differentiated
playing rank, but on the basis of how many repetitions were
performed, only the BP RTF 60 could be considered a valid test
of S-E. Absolute S-E testing with a moderate resistance of 60
kg appears to be a valid and effective test for discriminating
playing rank in rugby league players.
Address correspondence to Daniel Baker, dbaker2@optusnet.com.au.
23(5)/1578–1582
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1578 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
KEY WORDS bench press, testing, NFL 225
INTRODUCTION
R
esistance training may be undertaken to improve
a number of different muscular force outcomes
(11). Typically, these outcomes have been
identified as maximal strength, hypertrophy of
muscle, power, and strength-endurance (S-E), also known as
local muscular endurance (11). Over the past few decades,
the majority of studies have focused on the training or testing
of maximal strength, power, and hypertrophy (1–5,8,12,13).
Less research in comparison has looked at S-E, either in
training methodologies aimed at improving it or in the
development of appropriate and valid tests for assessing it
(14). This may be due to the great difficulty that lies in
choosing the appropriate resistance or exercise to assess this
factor and the fact that the nature of S-E can vary between
sports (e.g., rowing vs. wrestling) (14). For a set of resistance
training to be considered as S-E ‘‘oriented,’’ the American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Position Stand
concerning progression models in resistance training deems
that it must consist of at least 10 progressing to 25+
repetitions (11). This may occur across a broad spectrum of
resistances with more advanced trainers (11).
The aim of physical testing is to identify the physical
performance characteristics associated with elite athlete
performance and consequently identify whether athletes
may improve their physical training to improve their sports
performance. For example, testing of a broad range of athletes
in a sport may indicate that higher ranked athletes tend to
possess higher strength or power scores than less successful
athletes, and therefore, lower level athletes may train to
improve those aspects in an effort to improve sports
performance. Accordingly, S-E testing may only be of value
to sports where S-E is desirable in achieving a positive sports
outcome. One such sport may be rugby league football, which
is a collision sport played worldwide (9). In particular, due to
the number of collisions with large opponents that occur
during a game, S-E as manifested against heavy resistances is
of interest. Previous studies have illustrated the importance of

maximum strength and power in determining playing rank in
rugby league (1–5,9,13) and American college football (8);
however, S-E has not yet been included as an outcome
measure.
The purpose of this study was to compare the 3 different
measures of upper-body S-E to determine (a) if they could
distinguish between professional rugby league players
participating in the elite National First Division (NRL) from
state-based second division (SRL) players (1,5,8) and (b) were
valid measures of S-E as determined by the criteria set down
by the ACSM Position Stand (11). In particular, the tests
comprised 1 test of relative S-E and 2 tests of absolute S-E
with markedly disparate resistances (11,14).
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Two different studies were performed in separate years on
2 different groups of professional rugby league players to
distinguish the appropriateness and validity of 3 different tests
of upper-body S-E. Conceptually, these tests assess 2 different
theories of the measurement of S-E—that being relative S-E
and absolute S-E (14). The investigated resistances also
spanned a wide spectrum, which is considered to be an
important factor in determining the relative importance of
endurance activities (14). The bench press exercise was
chosen because upper-body pushing and pressing away of
opponents is a fundamental task in the sport. Previous
research has shown that bench press strength and power
tests discriminate athletes in rugby league (1–4)—whether
absolute or relative S-E also did was of interest.
In the first study, 26 subjects (NRL = 13, SRL = 13), who
were identified as possessing similar strength levels despite
participating in differently ranked leagues, were tested for 1
repetition bench press (1RM BP) strength. Three days later,
they were tested by having to perform as many bench press
repetitions as possible until fatigue with a resistance of 60%
1RM BP (BP RTF 60% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]). A
figure of 60% 1RM was chosen as considerable research
indicates that around 20 or more repetitions can be performed
at such a resistance (6,7,10,12), which would fulfill the ACSM
Position Stand (11) concerning the validity of the test. This
study would give rise to determining if more elite players
could perform more work (repetitions) at the same relative
intensity as less successful counterparts and consequently is
considered a test of relative S-E (14).
In the second study, 38 subjects comprising 19 NRL and 19
SRL players were tested for 1RM BP strength. On 2 different
days, they were tested by having to perform as many bench
press repetitions as possible till fatigue with 2 markedly
different resistances of 102.5 kg (BP RTF 102.5) and 60 kg (BP
RTF 60). This study would give rise to determining if more
elite players could perform more work (repetitions) at the
same absolute resistance as less successful counterparts and
consequently is considered a test of absolute S-E (14). The 2
absolute resistances chosen were a high-intensity resistance
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
of 102.5 kg (i.e., the NFL 225 test) and a more moderate
resistance of 60 kg. These markedly different resistances may
distinguish differing S-E qualities—high-intensity S-E or low-
intensity S-E (14)—it is unknown if either is more important
for rugby league success.
The relationship between playing rank and physical
performance data can be analyzed by assigning the groups
a ranking of 2 for the NRL groups or 1 for the SRL groups.
The individual scores in the various tests are then correlated
to player group ranking to determine the extent of the
relationship between playing rank and S-E score, a method
that has been used before in this type of analysis (1–5).
Subjects
For both studies, all subjects were members of the same
football club and performed similar strength training, relative
to their different playing positions, strength levels, and
training experience in the 8 weeks leading up to testing. All
subjects were experienced in resistance training, with a
minimum of 3 years of participation. This included maximal
strength, power, and S-E training. However, the full-time
professional NRL players performed additional training
sessions (fitness, skill, and tactics), but not additional
resistance training. All the athletes had performed a preseason
resistance training cycle immediately prior to testing,
establishing them in peak condition at the time of testing.
The subjects were informed of the purpose and nature of the
tests and voluntarily consented to participate in the testing
procedures.
Study 1. Twenty-six subjects, who were identified from a
much larger player pool as being of similar in maximum
strength and recent training history but different in player
ranking, volunteered to participate in this study, which was
considered to be a normal part of their testing and training
requirements. The 2 groups, comprising 13 NRL and 13 SRL
players, are described as being 94.4 (7.9) kg and 87.8 (8.6) kg in
mass, 182.4 (6.5) and 184.8 (6.4) cm in height, and 24.9 (3.0)
and 20.0 (1.2) years of age, respectively. The groups were
different in age and body mass but not height. There was no
difference in 1RM BP strength between the groups (NRL =
125.0 6 15.4, SRL = 120.0 6 10.8).
Study 2. Thirty-eight subjects, comprising 19 NRL and 19
SRL players, volunteered to participate in this study, which
was considered to be a normal part of their testing and
training requirements. They are described as being 97.4 (10.4)
kg and 92.5 (7.5) kg in mass, 186.1 (5.4) and 184.0 (4.8) cm in
height, and 25.0 (3.3) and 19.5 (1.7) years of age, respectively,
of which only the age data were significantly different
between the groups. The groups were also different in 1RM
BP strength (NRL = 143.0 6 15.6, SRL = 120.4 6 12.2).
Procedures
Study 1. Athletes were assessed for 1RM BP strength using the
methods previously outlined (1–4). Seventy-two hours later,
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 5 | AUGUST 2009 | 1579
Ability of Three Tests of Strength-Endurance to Distinguish Playing Rank in Rugby League
after warming up with their usual procedures, they were
required to perform a repetitions-to-fatigue test bench
pressing a relative resistance equal to 60% of their individual
1RM BP (RTF BP 60% 1RM). This test was deemed a test of
relative S-E and was implemented to determine if more
successful athletes could perform more work at the same
relative percentage intensity levels as similarly trained,
although less successful counterparts. As no difference
existed between the groups in 1RM BP strength, the 60%
1RM resistance was essentially the same for both groups.
Study 2. Athletes were assessed for 1RM BP strength using the
methods previously outlined (1–4). After a further 10-minute
rest, the athletes were asked to perform a repetitions-to-
fatigue test bench pressing an absolute resistance of 102.5 kg
(RTF BP 102.5). This resistance was chosen because it is
a widely used test in American football, where it is known as
the NFL 225 BP test (7,12). Data suggest that while athletes
at college level may average 7 repetitions with this resistance
(7), the more successful athletes at the National Football
League Draft Combine testing camp typically perform 20 to
21 repetitions (12). These data suggest that this test may
distinguish between S-E capabilities of athletes within the
same sport and that is why it was chosen.
The second test of absolute S-E was performed 72 hours
later. After warming up with their usual procedures, the
athletes were required to perform a bench press test of
repetitions to fatigue with an absolute resistance of 60 kg
(RTF BP 60). This lighter resistance was chosen to determine
if a medium-intensity resistance (as opposed to the high-
intensity resistance of 102.5 kg) was more effective in
distinguishing NRL from SRL players (14). Furthermore,
the validity and appropriateness of both absolute tests of S-E,
according to the ACSM criteria (8), had yet to be determined
for this population group.
Statistical Analyses
Factorial analyses of variance were used to determine if
differences existed between the groups in measures of BP RTF
TABLE 1. Comparison of relative S-E between NRL
and SRL players.*†
No. of repetitions
at 60% 1RM BP
NRL (n = 13) 20.5 (3.1)
SRL (n = 13) 20.7 (3.2)
*S-E = strength-endurance; NRL = National First
Division; SRL = state-based second division; 1RM BP = 1
repetition maximum bench press.
†The relative S-E test entailed the performance of
repetitions to fatigue with a resistance of 60% 1RM BP.
Values are expressed as mean (SD). No difference existed
between groups.
the TM
1580 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
TABLE 2. Comparison of measures of absolute S-E
between NRL and SRL players.*†
RTF BP 60 RTF BP 102.5
NRL (n = 19) 36.1 (7.2) 12.5 (4.3)
SRL (n = 19) 28.0 (5.6)‡ 5.9 (3.9)‡
*S-E = strength-endurance; NRL = National First
Division; SRL = state-based second division; BP = bench
press.
†The tests entailed the performance of repetitions to
fatigue with 2 different absolute resistances, 102.5 kg (BP
RTF 102.5) and 60 kg (BP RTF 60). Values are expressed
as mean (SD).
‡Significantly different between groups.
60% 1RM, BP RTF 102.5, and BP RTF 60 as well as 1RM BP.
In the event of a significant F ratio, Fisher post least squares
difference (PLSD) post hoc comparisons were used to
determine where these differences existed. Pearson moment
correlations were also calculated between individual S-E
scores and ranking as SRL or NRL level. Significance was
accepted at an alpha level of p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Results for study 1 concerning the merit of relative S-E testing
are contained in Table 1. No difference existed between NRL
and SRL groups in how many repetitions could be performed
to fatigue with a relative resistance of 60% 1RM BP. Test
scores in BP RTF 60% did not correlate significantly to player
ranking and were of an extremely minor magnitude. Results
for the 2 absolute tests of S-E are contained in Table 2. Both
tests deemed to be measuring absolute S-E, which were
effective in distinguishing NRL from SRL players. The
significant correlation between BP RTF 102.5 and playing
rank was moderate (r = 0.63, r2 = 0.4) and almost identical to
that for maximum strength (r = 0.64, r2 = 0.41), but higher
than that for the BP RTF 60 test (r = 0.54, r2 = 0.29).
DISCUSSION
The results of this investigation illustrate that the tests deemed
to be tests of absolute measure of S-E significantly
discriminate between rugby league players of different grades
or achievement levels, despite those players possessing similar
recent training experiences. However, a relative S-E test
measuring the ability of players to perform work at the same
relative intensity of 60% 1RM did not distinguish between
players. The possible reasons for these results will be
discussed below along with a discussion on the appropriate-
ness and validity of these tests in assessing S-E in rugby league
players.
As rugby league is a collision-based sport where players
attempt to push away or drive opponents backward

throughout the game, it would appear that a test entailing
pushing or pressing resistance away from the body would
meet the basic upper-body movement specifications at least
for assessing S-E. Certainly, 1RM BP and maximum power
(Pmax BT) during bench throw/pressing clearly distinguish
NRL players from SRL and lower level players (1–4,13).
Clearly, the choice of the movement was applicable for this
sport and population group—it is more of a case of choosing
the appropriate resistance and test methodology.
It could be expected that athletes with similar training
backgrounds within a sport score similarly at the same relative
% 1RM level in an S-E test. Many studies exist that illustrate
that 20 to 21 repetitions are typically performed with
resistances of around 60% 1RM in the bench press (and
other exercises), as was the case in this study (6,7,10,13). If
differences do exist between athletes in relative S-E, then
conceivably they may be between athletes of markedly
dissimilar sports, such as rowing and power lifting, and these
differences, if they exist, may occur at low % 1RM levels. It is
conceivable, e.g., that the training that rowers perform would
afford them considerable advantage in buffering the high
muscle acidity associated with the performance of .25 to 30
repetitions (performed @ ,50% 1RM), resulting in them
possessing an advantage over powerlifters who do not
typically perform very high repetition training. It remains to
be seen if this type of relative S-E testing could actually
distinguish between similarly trained although differently
ranked athletes within the same sport (e.g., higher and lower
ranked rowers). The results of this investigation suggest not
and as such tests of relative S-E are not recommended for use
in distinguishing between athletes within a sport. Stone et al.
(14) have stated that relative tests of endurance have little
actual relevance to real-life situations.
Consequently, appropriate tests of absolute S-E have been
sought. The great difficulty lies in choosing the appropriate
resistance and methodology (e.g., 1-set S-E performance vs.
multiple-set S-E performance). In this investigation, only a 1-
set methodology was used and the discussion will be limited
to results from this type of methodology; however, future
research may also need to look at multiple-set S-E testing
methods to determine if they garner more distinguishing
results between athletes of different ranking within a sport.
On the surface, the BP RTF 102.5 test appears quite
successful in distinguishing NRL from SRL players. However,
on further investigation, it would also appear invalid as a test
of S-E, according to the ACSM criteria (11). The ACSM
guidelines require S-E sets to have a minimum of 10
repetitions. For the SRL group, only 4 of the 19 subjects
could perform 10 or more repetitions with this resistance and
3 could not even perform 1 repetition. In the NRL group, 4
athletes could not perform 10 repetitions with this resistance.
Consequently, the resistance of 102.5 kg must be considered
too heavy to represent a test of S-E per the ACSM guidelines
(11) for half of the subjects. Clearly, this test represented
a feat of maximal or near-maximal strength for the majority
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
of those subjects. So, while there was a significant difference
between groups in the performance of this test, it would be
unwise to state that based on this test alone absolute S-E is
a potent discriminator of rugby league player ranking, given
that BP RTF 102.5 test was not measuring S-E in a large
section of this population.
The results of the BP RTF 60 test were also significantly
different between the groups; however, the high number of
repetitions performed by all subjects in both groups suggests
that this test may be a more valid test, according to the ACSM
criteria, of measuring S-E for this population group. Based on
the results of the BP RTF 60 test, it could be more confidently
stated that absolute S-E does distinguish between rugby
league players of different achievement levels. As rugby
league is a game where absolute work is important—large
opposing players must be driven backward—it could be
expected that an appropriate test would indicate the
importance of absolute S-E in distinguishing between players
of different caliber. As the results for the relative S-E test
indicate that differently ranked players of the same maximal
strength levels do not possess greater relative S-E abilities, the
reasons for the results in study 2 must be attributed to
differences in absolute or maximal strength levels.
The overwhelming body of data clearly illustrates that
rugby league players participating in higher levels of
competition possess higher maximal strength levels com-
pared with participants in lower ranked competitions, despite
no or sometimes minor differences in body mass (1–5,13).
The superior maximal strength capabilities extend to greater
absolute S-E capabilities and the ability to perform more
work at the absolute submaximal resistances, in this case
ranging from 60 to 102.5 kg. Higher absolute 1RM BP levels
would mean that for the NRL players, the absolute
resistances of 60 and 102.5 kg would be at lower percentages
of the 1RM compared with the SRL players. Given the
results for study 1 and various other studies (6,7,10) that have
investigated repetition performance levels at submaximal
resistances, it is to be clearly expected that the much stronger
group would perform more repetitions with resistances
equivalent to lower % 1RM levels. Thus, the significant
differences that existed between the groups in study 2 may be
attributed to the advantage that higher levels of maximal
strength afford one group over another when the S-E test is
based on absolute work performance.
So, while absolute S-E scores correlated well with player
ranking in study 2, these results appear predicted upon the
fact that maximal strength relates most highly to rugby league
player ranking. In study 2, the correlation between player
ranking and 1RM BP was of a similar magnitude to those
in previous studies (1–4). The 2 absolute resistance tests
also correlated well to 1RM BP scores (r = 0.94, r2 = 0.88 for
BP RTF 102.5 and r = 0.82, r2 = 0.67 for BP RTF 60),
although as already discussed, the higher 102.5 kg resistance
test is most likely a test of near-maximal strength, not S-E,
and consequently could be expected to correlate well to
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 5 | AUGUST 2009 | 1581
Ability of Three Tests of Strength-Endurance to Distinguish Playing Rank in Rugby League
a maximal strength test. Nonetheless, a resistance of 60 kg
represented a mean relative resistance of only 42 and 50%
1RM for the NRL and SRL groups, respectively, but
performance at this low intensity still appears statistically
largely accountable on 1RM strength levels (r2 = 0.68).
Based on these results and those of other studies (6,7,10,12),
it would indicate that absolute S-E is largely dependent upon
maximal strength, and therefore, efforts should be made to
improve maximal strength levels as this will largely attribute
to increases in absolute S-E capabilities. It must also be stated
that only a 1-set model of assessing S-E was used in these
studies, and it is not known if a multiple-set protocol would
garner different results.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Athletes with similar training backgrounds within a sport
score similarly at the same relative % 1RM level in an S-E test,
and consequently, relative S-E tests are not recommended for
distinguishing between athletes within a sport. Conceivably
relative S-E tests may distinguish between athletes of
markedly dissimilar sports and hence may be useful more
in a multisport talent identification program.
Tests of absolute S-E appear better able to distinguish
between higher and lower ranked athletes within a sport.
The greatest difficulty may lie in choosing the appropriate
resistance. Based on these studies and the ACSM guidelines,
the absolute resistance chosen should allow the worst
performed athletes to lift 10 to 20 repetitions, with a group
average in the range of 30 to 40 repetitions and with the
better-performed athletes performing up to 60+ repetitions.
For experienced professional rugby league players, an absolute
resistance of 60 kg appears to be an appropriate absolute
resistance that measures S-E capabilities and distinguishes
playing rank. Athletes in other sports should choose an absolute
resistance of magnitude commensurate with their absolute
strength levels that allows for the above repetition achievements.
Furthermore, the results of this and other studies indicate
that absolute S-E is largely dependent upon maximal strength,
and therefore, efforts should be made to improve maximal
strength levels as this will largely attribute to increases in
absolute S-E capabilities.
the TM
1582 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
REFERENCES
1. Baker, D. Comparison of maximum upper body strength and power
between professional and college-aged rugby league football players.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 30–35, 2001.
2. Baker, D. The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the
maintenance of maximal strength and power in professional and
college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 172–177,
2001.
3. Baker, D. A series of studies on the training of high intensity muscle
power in rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15:
198–209, 2001.
4. Baker, D. Differences in strength and power between junior-high,
senior-high, college-aged and elite professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 16: 581–585, 2002.
5. Baker, D and Newton, RU. Comparison of lower body strength,
power, acceleration, speed and agility and sprint momentum to
describe and compare playing rank in professional rugby league
players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 153–158, 2008.
6. Brzycki, M. Strength testing: Predicting a one-rep max from reps-
to-fatigue. J Health Phys Educ Rec Dance 64: 88–90, 1993.
7. Chapman, PP, Whitehead, JR, and Binkert, RH. The 225-lb reps-
to-fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press
performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 12:
258–261, 1998.
8. Fry, AC and Kraemer, WJ. Physical performance characteristics of
American collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 5: 126–138,
1991.
9. Gabbet, TJ. Science of rugby league football: A review. J Sports Sci
23: 961–976, 2005.
10. Hoeger, W, Hopkins, D, Barette, S, and Hale, D. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males and
females. J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
11. Kramer, WJ, Adams, K, Carafelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, and Triplett-
McBride, T. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand:
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002.
12. McGee, KM and Burkett, LN. The National Football League
Combine: A reliable predictor of draft status? J Strength Cond Res
17: 6–11, 2003.
13. Meir, R, Newton, R, Curtis, E, Fardell, M, and Butler, B. Physical
fitness qualities of professional rugby league football players:
Determination of positional differences. J Strength Cond Res 15:
450–458, 2001.
14. Stone, MH, Stone, ME, Sands, WA, Pierce, KP, Newton, RU, Haff,
GG, and Carlock, J. Maximum strength and strength training—A
relationship to endurance? Strength Cond J 28: 44–53, 2006.