Biomechanics of the javelin throw Biomechanics of the javelin throw: A study to identify the key determinant of a successful javelin

throw for two different skill levels, with the view to improve performance

Abstract Two right handed female javelin throwers of two different skill levels (novice and elite) were filmed using 2D analysis completing 6 throws each with a 600g javelin, in order to investigate the key parameter of the technique. Multiple regression was used to analyse the three key parameters chosen for the study; linear velocity of javelin at release, angle of the right elbow during the final steps of the withdrawal stage, and the angle of the javelin at release, all in relation to the distance thrown. The data collected, and as hypothesised, revealed that the velocity at release showed the greatest variance in the distance thrown for both the novice and elite with variance levels of 95.5% and 77.9% and respectively. The release angle however showed no significant variance in the distance for either participant, and the elbow angle was shown to have a significant positive correlation with the distance for the elite (r=.780) but almost no correlation for the novice (r=-.087).

Introduction Past research on the biomechanics of the javelin throw has indicated that it is a highly complex movement (Atwater, 1979). Many previous studies (e.g. Bartlett & Best, 1988; Ikegami, 1981; Mero, 1994; Navarro, 1994) have tended to analyse a large number of different throw variables, fewer studies have focused on just a few variables and analysed them in depth. This study therefore aimed to explore some of the key components during the javelin throw for two different skill leveled performers. This limited but accurate data will

Biomechanics of the javelin throw benefit a novice much more than a mass of optimization data on technique that a less competent performer would not be able to process all at once.

In the throwing of the javelin, as in most other throwing events, the distance thrown depends largely on the state (for instance the velocity, angle of release and position) of the equipment at the point of release (Hubbard & Alaways, 1989). When each component of the throwing skill acts together in a smooth and successful manner, the result can be awe inspiring. The Hierarchical diagram (Figure 1) shows the main factors that contribute towards the overall distance thrown. This diagram will help to explain the most important parameters.

Distance prior to release

Distance after release

Height of release Distance

Air resistance Angle of release Speed of release

Position Forces exerted Distance

Figure 1: Hierarchical diagram for the javelin throw (Hay, 1993) The hierarchical diagram shows that the angle of the javelin at release and the speed of release are two key parameters in the determination of the total distance thrown. A number of studies have analysed the key factor of air resistance (Hatton & Parkes, 2005) and other complex issues of aerodynamics during the flight of the javelin. However, as Hubbard and Rust (1984) argue, the javelins flight path cannot be altered once the javelin is released, therefore this study focuses on factors that can be adjusted through training.

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

Hubbard and Alaways (1989) provide a valuable critique of selected experimental javelin literature focusing on a range of variables and methodological issues. A number of studies highlight that the velocity of the javelin at release is the most important variable in predicting distance, such as Komi & Meros (1985) significance value of p<0.01. Bartlett et al. (1996) backed up this statement with a value of p<0.0001 deeming the relationship highly significant. More recently Campos et al. (2004) found a correlation index between distance and release velocity that was high (r: .714) but not statistically significant (p: .072). Dearmond et al. (1989) found that the distance of the throw is determined by other important predictors such as height and angle of release point in addition to the velocity of the javelin at release. Bartlett et al.s 1996 study acknowledged that the angle of the elbow during the final steps of the withdrawal phase are close behind the velocity in terms of the importance of influencing the throw.

It is clear from past research that the velocity of the javelin at release as well as the angle of release are important parameters in the technique of the javelin throw. Another variable deemed of high significance by Bartlett et al. (1996) was that of the angle of the elbow during the final steps of the withdrawal phase. This final variable can be understood in more depth through looking at the kinematic chain (Figure 2).

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

The

act of the

Figure 2: Kinematic chain of the javelin throw: actual velocity and time may vary between kinematic different skill levels chain on the resultant velocity of the javelin at release is especially important, and if the thrower is able to bring all their body movements together effectively they can produce an incredible amount of acceleration and momentum from which to propel the javelin up and forward at speeds of up to 31mxs-1 (Miller and Munro, 1983). The kinematic chain plays a vital role during this explosive skill, and coordination of the body parts work up the body from the feet at the distal point to proximal at the torso, and then from proximal to distal during the release of the javelin at the hand. By maintaining an extended elbow for as long as possible the thrower maximizes the possible acceleration path through which to build up speed during the explosion of the throw. This is backed up by Bartlett, et al. (1996), who concluded in their study that significantly longer acceleration paths at the start of the delivery stride and a delay in elbow flexion until final foot strike were important in generating greater release speeds. This highlights the significance of the kinematic chain, emphasizing the

Biomechanics of the javelin throw importance of the order in which the body parts move to produce the most powerful movement.

As seen, the results of experimental research leads practitioners to identify important parameters in order to optimize performance. In light of this, this study chose to analyse the variables considered to be the key factors in influencing the resulting distance of the throw:

- Joint angle of the elbow during the last few steps of the withdrawal phase (Figure 3) - Linear velocity of javelin just after release (first finite difference outlined in methods) - Angle of the javelin at release (Figure 4)

Figure 3: Figure showing the relative angle of the elbow to be meaured during the last few steps of the withdrawal phase.

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

Statement of aims and hypothesis The study aims therefore to analyse identify which is the best predictor by two performers of different skill these three key independent variables, to of the dependent variable, distance thrown, levels. It is hoped that comparison of the

Figure 4: Figure showing the absolute angle of the javelin in relation to the horizontal line at the level of the hand to be measured during release findings between skilled and non-skilled performer will make it possible for the non-skilled to focus on the most important component of the throwing skill, to improve performance, rather than being distracted by information on a large number of parameters early on in the development of the skill.

It was hypothesised that one of the three key parameters being studied would reveal the highest level of variance in distance deeming it the most influential factor.

Methods Two right handed females of similar age took part in the study. The elite skilled thrower came 7th in the National School Championships 2005 and was West of England U20 Javelin Champion, and the novice non-skilled thrower had learnt the basic technique at school. Unfortunately due to lack of availability of an athletics track, the study took place on grass at

Biomechanics of the javelin throw a local sport facility. However as both participants threw the 600g womens javelin on the same surface, the results are still reliable i.e. the measurement was consistent throughout the study. Tight black clothing was worn so that the reflective joint markers (used to reduce the chance of human error during digitisation) best represented the actual joints on the right side of the body, and remained in position. The markers were positioned on the wrist, elbow, shoulder and hip to provide accuracy for the digitisation process. For scaling purposes during the digitisation process, a meter ruler was placed where the individuals were to throw, and was filmed on camera for a few seconds, then taken away for the duration of the filming so as not to cause injury.

2D analysis was chosen over 3D, using one stationary Sony HVR-A1E HDVcam (25Hz) with a 1/500s shutter speed filming the complete withdrawal phase and release phase of the throw. Hubbard & Alaways (1989) Meta Analysis provides a useful discussion of video data collection techniques. Most studies in the analysis of the javelin make use of 3D analysis such as Bartlett et al. (1996) due to the large number of complex variables to be analysed that occur in more than one plane of the throwing motion. Studies such as Mero et al. (1994) use two cameras to examine the body segment contributions to the javelin throw in 2D, whereas the current study only used one camera due to the smaller number of parameters being studied, which occur predominantly in only the sagittal plane. The camera was placed 10m to the side of and in line with the release point. The camera captured the cross over stride, delivery stride and the release plus the few meters of the javelins path following release in order to be able to calculate the velocity. Six filmed throws were completed for both participants (having individually warmed up before hand), and the dependent variable of the distance was measured using a 100m tape measure from the foul line to the point where the javelin landed.

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

Each of the throws for both performer were digitised and analysed using Hu-m-an (Human movement analysis software, HMA Technology Inc, Ontario, Canada). The two independent variables were measured using Hu-m-an, except for the release angle which used the Dartfish software. The linear velocity, which is the rate of change of displacement over time (Hay, 1993) was determined by Hu-m-an using the method of first finite differences outlined below: Vxi = (xi+1 - xi-1) vyi = (yi+1 - yi-1) 2( t) 2( t) Vr = vx2 + vy2 = tan-1 vy vx (Hu-m-an Environment and reference manual, 2005)

The raw data was then analysed using a hierarchical multiple regression (Figure 1, Appendix A) technique on SPSS, to determine the most common variance of distance i.e. which of the three independent variables are the best predictors of the dependent variable and which are not.

Results

Biomechanics of the javelin throw Table 1 above presents a summary of the raw data (which is presented in full in Appendix A: Table 1: mean results and standard deviations for elite and novice level participants
Elite meanSD Novice meanSD Elbow angle (degrees)158.103.72119.338.84Linear velocity of javelin (m x s1)18.921.4310.820.82Release angle (degrees)41.334.2737.836.34Distance (m)39.831.1016.52.68

Table 1A) showing the means and standard deviations for the distance thrown and the three release parameters which were chosen to be analysed in this study. There are clear differences between the two individuals, with the elite throwing 23.33m further on average. Standard deviations were much lower overall for the elite except for the velocity of the javelin, however the velocity averaged 8.1mxs-1 lower for the novice. Release angle appears to be the only fairly similar variable between the two individuals. Graphs 1, 2 and 3 illustrate these differences clearly.

2 5

1 3 2 5 6 4

Graph 1: A scatter graph representing the distance versus elbow angle for both performers with labelled series reflecting the throw number

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

5 3 6 1 4

Graph 1 shows the elite performers elbow angles to have much less variation with evidence
1 of a high positive correlation, with higher elbow angles throwing a further distance for the 3

elite individual. Graph 2 reveals a high positive correlation for the velocity versus distance
5 6 for both individuals with the higher velocity thrown by the elite reaching much further

distances. Release angle (graph 3) appears less significant in influencing the distance, with Velocity (mxs1 ) both individuals sharing similar results, but with the elite still throwing much further and with Graph 2: A scatter graph representing the distance versus velocity for both performers with labelled series reflecting the throw number less variation.

Pearsons Correlation (Table 2A) for the elite individual from the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, reveals a significant positive correlation between the two variables of the release velocity and the elbow angle, and the overall distance thrown (r=.883, p<0.01 for
5 4 1 3 release velocity; r=.780, p=0.05 for elbow angle). The release 6velocity is highly significant 2

with a confidence level higher than 99% that the value of r=.883 did not occur by chance. The release angle however showed a much lower positive correlation (r=.051) and was deemed not significant. The velocity accounted for 77.9% of the variance in distance (R2 = .
1

779, p<0.5) while the angle of the elbow and the release angle accounted for only 12.5% of
4 2

the variance (R2 = .125, p>0.05) (Table 3A).

For the 3: A scatter graph representing(Table 4A) reveals arelease angle for both Graph novice, Pearsons Correlation the distance versus significant positive correlation performers labelled series reflecting the throw number between the release velocity and the overall distance thrown (r=.978, p<0.01). Similar to the elite, the novices release velocity shows a confidence level higher than 99% that the value of

10

Biomechanics of the javelin throw r=.978 did not occur by chance. The release angle however showed a negative high correlation (r=-.466) while the elbow angle had hardly any correlation at all (r=-.087), with neither being significant. Velocity accounted for 95.5% of the variance in distance (R2 = .956, p<0.01) while the angle of the elbow and the release angle accounted for only 3.1% of the variance (R2 = .031, p>0.05) (Table 5A).

Discussion It must be explained that the elite level javelin thrower was of a high standard, however not quite at the standard of top elite javelin competitors, therefore some of the results may not quite agree with past research on elite throwers, however the elite should show closer results to past literature compared to the novice in this study. The significantly greater distances achieved by the elite level thrower over those of the club level thrower were predominantly caused by the significant differences in release speed. This therefore supported the hypothesis that one of the three key parameters that were studied would reveal the highest level of variance in the distance, deeming it the most influential factor. The release velocities for the elite thrower (18.95 1.43mxs-1) appear to be not far off data found in previous studies for highly trained olympic level javelin participants (21.86 1.09mxs-1, Komi & Mero, 1985; 23 1.9mxs-1, Mero et al., 1994). Similarly, the release velocities for the novice (10.82 0.82mxs-1) agree well with past research (10.2 0.97mxs-1, Bartlett et al., 1996).

It should be pointed out, that even though the primary factor in determining distance in this study is the velocity, it should not be expected to be the only reason for long throws. Likewise, although it is an independent variable in relation to the distance in this study, it could easily be considered a dependent variable, as it is affected by other parameters of the

11

Biomechanics of the javelin throw javelin technique. For instance, it has been clearly noted by Barlett et al. (1996) that the extension of the elbow during the final stages of withdrawal contributes to maintaining a longer acceleration path (the distance over which the javelin can be accelerated), therefore maximizing the velocity built up during the explosion of the throw. According to Best et al. (1993), shortening of the acceleration path through flexion of the elbow during the final few steps of the withdrawal should be delayed until late in the kinematic chain sequence of movements. The significance of this crucial technique in coaching is illustrated in more detail in the coaching section in Appendix B.

For the elite thrower the elbow angle was in fact the only other parameter analysed which revealed a significant difference with the distance thrown (p=0.05). With a mean elbow angle of 158.10 3.72, the elite thrower closely agrees with Steve Backleys (formal world record holder for mens javelin) elbow angle result of 156o reported in the Mero et al. (1994) study. For the novice however, the elbow angle was deemed not significant, highlighting the novices lack of technique in keeping the elbow extended to increase the throwing velocity, and therefore the distance stated as being very important by Bartlett et al. (1996). The concept of keeping the elbow extended for as long as possible links back to the importance of the kinematic chain, which the novice does not utilise correctly in order to get the optimum release velocity. Best et al. (1993) considered limb movement coordination to be extremely important in terms of determining the differences in javelin throwing ability between different skill leveled throwers. This has been supported not only by the differences seen in the current study, but also by differences reported by Mero et al. (1994).

The release angle, which did not show any significant sign of variance in the distance in the present study, has been recommended by Terauds (1978) to have an optimal release angle of

12

Biomechanics of the javelin throw somewhere between 20o-35o. This however was before the javelin itself was altered slightly in 1991 in order to reduce the dangerous distances being thrown by some of the men. As quoted out by Whiting et al. (1991), data describing the approach and release parameters of the new rules javelin performance are limited. In Whiting et al. (1991, p.112) as well as Best & Bartlett (1995) an average of 36o for the release angle was found. However, this angle evidently varies between individuals, as Hubbard and Alaways (1987) reported an average angle or release of 30.84o and Campos et al. (2004) reported a top Olympic athlete to have an average angle of 41.7o. The release angle of the elite thrower in the current study averaged 41.33o, while the novice averaged 37.83o, however as neither showed any significant variance in the distance, these results have little meaning. It may have been possible to make out an optimum throwing angle for both individuals if there had been a larger sample size from which to analyse the results. With so few results, determining a pattern from looking at the graph for release angle versus distance is difficult to spot. Ideally a mesokurtic curve would be seen on a scatter graph, revealing an optimum angle of release, with a normal distribution.

Another important consideration concerns data collection. This study made use of the 2D technique of video analysis which is defended by Miller & Munro (1983), as very few variables being studied and all occurring primarily within one plane, 3D analysis was not thought to be necessary. With regards to the analysis, calculation of the perspective during digitisation has to be exactly right in order to get the most accurate results. Parallax error can quite easily occur if the thrower does not throw in exactly the same place that the 1m ruler was filmed for each throw. The meter ruler was filmed for several seconds as near as possible to the anticipated release area. However, ensuring that both athletes threw in exactly the same spot for each of their throws is difficult, possibly resulting in some parallax error occurring.

13

Biomechanics of the javelin throw The linear velocity for both individuals did not quite fit all past research findings, such as those of Bartlett et al. (1996) whos results showed figures of around 27mxs-1 for the elite group, and 15.3mxs-1 for the novice group. It is quite possible that the athletes in this study were throwing slightly further away from the camera than where the meter ruler was placed, thereby decreasing the calculated apparent velocity of the javelin during the digitisation process on Hu-m-an.

One caution to be aware of when using multiple regression is that if n is small (for example three or four pairs of data), there is a possibility that a spuriously high r value can occur by chance. This is because no factors other than chance would be acting on the variables to cause the relationship. The study undertaken had 6 pairs of 3 for both throwers (6 throws analysing 3 different independent variables). In addition, according to Vincent (2005), a key assumption of multiple regression is that the ratio of subjects to independent variables should ideally be no less than 5:1. This study had a ratio of 6:3 (i.e 6 throws and 3 variables). Ideally a higher ratio of subjects to independent variables would be needed, as a reduced ratio seriously limits the ability to generalise the equation (Vincent, 2005, p. 117)

One limitation that should be pointed out was the lack of availability of a proper javelin throwing track. However although this may have altered the results slightly, both individuals threw under the same conditions making it a fair experiment.

14

Biomechanics of the javelin throw References Atwater, A.E. (1979). Biomechanics of overarm throwing movements and of throwing injuries. In R.S. Hutton & D.I. Miller (Eds.), Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 7, 43-85. New York: Franklin Institute Press Bartlett, R.M., & Best, R.J. (1988). The Biomechanics of javelin throwing: a review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 6, 1-38. Bartlett, R.M., Mller, E., Lindinger, S., Brunner, F., Morris, C. J. (1996). ThreeDimensional Javelin Release Parameters for Throwers of Different Skills Levels. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12, 58-71. Best, R.J., Bartlett, R.M., & Morriss, C.J. (1993). A three-dimensional analysis of javelin throwing technique at the 1991 World Student Games. JournalofSportsSciences, 11, 315-328. Best, R.J., Bartlett, R.M., & Sawyer, R.A. (1995). Optimal javelin release. Journal Of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 371-394. Campos, J., Brizuela, G., & Ramon, V. (2004). Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of elite javelin throwers at the 1999 iaaf world championships in athletics. IAAF/NSA, 2(4), Retrieved from http://www.coachr.org/ threedimensional_kinematic_analysis_of_elite_javelin_thrower.htm Dearmond, R., & Semenick, D. (1989). The Javelin throw: a kinesiological analysis with recommendations for strength and conditioning programming. NSCA Journal, 11(2). Hay, J.G. (1993). The biomechanics of sports techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hatton, L., & Parkes, B. (2005, November). Javelin throwing - the appliance of science. Retrieved from http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/AW_JavelinArticle_1105. Hubbard, M., & Alaways, L. (1989). Rapid and accurate estimation of release conditions in the javelin throw. J. Biomechanics, 22(6), 583-595. Hubbard, M., & Rust, H.J. (1984). Simulation of javelin flight using experimental aerodynamic data. Journal of Biomechanics, 17, 769-776. Human Movement Analysis (2005). Hu-m-an Environment and reference manual. Ontario: HMA Technology Inc. Ikegami, Y., Miura, M., Matsui, H., Hashimoto, I. (1981). Biomechanical Analysis of the Javelin Throw. In A. Morecki, K. Fidelus (Eds.), Biomechanics VII-B, 271276. Baltimore: University Park Press. Komi, P.V., & Mero, A. (1985). Biomechanical analysis of Olympic javelin throwers. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 139- 150

15

Biomechanics of the javelin throw Mero, A., Komi, P.V., Korjus, T., Navarro, E., & Gregor, R.J. (1994). Body segment contributions to javelin throwing during final thrust phases. Journal Of Applied Biomechanics, 10, 166-177. Miller, D.I., & Munro, C.F. (1983) Javelin position and velocity patterns during final foot plant preceding release. J. Hum. Mvt Stud, 9, l-20. Navarro, E., Cabrero, O, & Vizcaino, F. (1998). A Procedure for determining the angular velocity of the upper arm about its longitudinal axis relative to the thorax in javelin throwing. Proceedings of the Isbs congress http://www.isbs.org/. Terauds, J. (1978). Computerized biomechanical analysis of selected javelin throwers at the 1976 Montreal Olympiad. Track and Field Quarterly Review, 1, 29-31. Vincent, W.J. (2005). Statistics in kinesiology. Leeds: Human Kinetics. Whiting, W.C., Gregor, R.J., & Halushka, M. (1991). Body segment and release parameter contributions to new-rules javelin throwing. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics , 7, 111-124.

Appendix A

Multiple regression Figure 1 below highlights the equation for multiple regression:

16

Biomechanics of the javelin throw

Y=b1X1+b2X2+b3X3......b7X7+C

(Figure 1)

Where Y is the dependent variable, X1 is an independent variable, b1 is the regression coefficient for X1 etc and C is a constant.

Table 1A: The raw data collected for both participants (E. stands for Elite and N. stands for Novice)

E. 1stE. 2ndE. 3rdE. 4thE. 5thE. 6thElbow angle during 156162.2152157.6160.5160.3withdrawal (degrees) 4.13 2.40 4.47 3.54 1.80 3.54Javelin release velocity (m x s-1)18.52117192018Release angle (degrees)404637443645Distance (m)3940.738.540.0541.439.3N. 1stN. 2ndN. 3rdN. 4thN. 5thN. 6thElbow angle during 112.5106.1128.9127.6118.6122.3withdrawal (degrees) 2.98 5.90 7.41 5.39 3.50 6.45Javelin release velocity (m x s-1)121111.510.51010Release angle (degrees)323842294640Distance (m)20.416.218.716.313.913.5

Overall distance thrownVelocity of javelin at releaseElbow angle during withdrawalAngle of javelin at releasePearson Overall distance thrownVelocity of javelin at releaseElbow angle during withdrawalAngle of javelin at releasePearson Correlation Overall distance thrown Correlation Overall distance thrown Velocity of javelin at Velocity of javelin at release release Elbow angle during Elbow angle during withdrawal withdrawal Angle of javelin at release1.000 Angle of javelin at release1.000 .883 .978

17

.780 -.097 .051.883 -.466.978 1.000 1.000

.317.780 -.374-.087

Biomechanics of the javelin throw Table 2A: Elite thrower Table 4A: Novice thrower Correlations Correlations
1.000Sig. (1-tailed) 1.000Sig. (1-tailed) Overall distance thrown Overall distance thrown Velocity of javelin at Velocity of javelin at release release Elbow angle during Elbow angle during withdrawal withdrawal

.814 -.233 1.000 1.000 .532.051 .018-.466 .317 -.374 .532 .018

Angle of javelin at release. Angle of javelin at release. .010 .000 .034 .435 .462.010 .176.000 . . .024 .328 .270.034 .233.435 .024 .328 . . .139.462 .487.176 .270 .233 .N Table 2A highlights a Overall distance thrown correlation between the two variables of the release significant positive .N Overall Table 4A highlightsVelocity distance thrown correlation between the of the release velocity and a significant positive of javelin at velocity and the elbow angle, and the overall distance thrown (r=.883, p<0.01 for release velocity; the overall distance Velocity of(r=.978, p<0.01). The release angle shows a negative high thrown javelin at release r=.780, p=0.05 for elbow angle). The angle of the javelin at release shows a lower positive release correlation (r=-.466) while the elbow angle has hardly any correlation at all (r=-.087), with Elbow angle during correlation (r=.051) and was deemed not significant. Elbow angle during withdrawal both being deemed not significant. withdrawal Angle of javelin at release6 Angle of javelin at release6 .139 .487

Table 3A: Elite thrower Table 5A: Novice thrower

6 6 6 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 6 6 6 6

Table 3A shows the model summary from the heirarchical multiple regression analysis. It shows 6 6 what the dependent variable was and what the predictors were in each of the two models. Collumn Table 5A shows the model summary from the heirarchical multiple and the outcome, while R26 is a regression analysis. It shows R shows the multiple correlation coefficient between the predictors 6 what the dependent variable was and what the predictors were in each by the predictors. 6 measure of how much of the variability in the outcome is accounted forof the two models. Collumn 6 R shows the multiple correlation coefficient between the predictors and the outcome, while R2 is a measure of how much of the variability in the outcome is accounted for by the predictors.

66 66

18