This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

The effect of different kick start positionson OMEGA OSB11 blocks on free swimmingtime to 15 m in developmental level swimmers

Heidi Barlow a, Mark Halaki a,⇑, Max Stuelcken a,b, Andrew Greene a,c,Peter J. Sinclair a

a Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of Sydney, Australiab Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australiac Faculty of Health, Social Care & Education, Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 14 March 2014

PsycINFO classification:3720

Keywords:SwimmingSwim startKick startCompetition block

a b s t r a c t

The introduction of the OMEGA OSB11 starting blocks (Swiss Tim-ing, Corgémont, Switzerland) which feature an adjustable inclinedplate built into the rear of the platform, have led to the evolution ofthe ‘‘kick start’’ style of swimming start. Previous studies examin-ing the effect of different starting positions using the OSB11 start-ing blocks have not examined swimming performance overdistances beyond 7.5 m. Therefore, the purpose of the currentstudy was to compare three starting positions (front, neutral andrear-weighted) using the kick start to determine whether a givenposition can improve swimming performance over a 15 m dis-tance. After undergoing four weeks of dive training using each ofthe three positions, ten developmental level swimmers completedthree 20 m sprint trials in each position. Results indicated that theneutral and rear-weighted positions produced faster times to 15 m(p < .01) when compared to the front-weighted position. Startingposition did not affect the swimmer’s velocity between 4.5 and5.5 m or between 14.5 and 15.5 m (p = .50). Developmental levelswimmers should choose between a neutral-weighted or rear-weighted position on the new OSB11 starting blocks.

� 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.02.0020167-9457/� 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus C42, 75East Street Lidcombe, 2141 NSW, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 9351 9883; fax: +61 2 9351 9204.

E-mail address: mark.halaki@sydney.edu.au (M. Halaki).

Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Movement Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/humov

Author's personal copy

1. Introduction

In swimming, a fast start (time to 15 m) is important for competitive success, particularly in sprintevents. This period of a race sequentially includes the block phase, flight phase, water entry, underwa-ter streamlining, underwater propulsion, breakout, and some free-swimming. The block phase influ-ences the performance in subsequent components of the start and, therefore, it is important forswimmers to optimize their take-off parameters on the block (Mason, Alcock, & Fowlie, 2007).

A number of different block techniques have been used by swimmers over the years. Particularattention in the literature has been given to two of these – the grab start and the track start, withthe main difference between the two techniques being the positioning of the feet on the platformsurface. In the grab start, both feet are placed at the front of the platform surface. For the track start,however, one foot is placed at the front of the platform surface while the other foot is placed towardsthe rear of the platform surface. This leads to differences in the timing and relative contribution of thearms and legs in the generation of force (Benjanuvatra, Lyttle, Blanksby, & Larkin, 2004; Breed &McElroy, 2000). Even though findings of various studies have been inconclusive as to which of thesetwo start techniques is superior (Benjanuvatra et al., 2004; Blanksby, Nicholson, & Elliott, 2002; Holthe& McLean, 2001; Juergens, Rose, Smith, & Calder, 1999; Kirner, Bock, & Welch, 1989; Shin & Groppel,1986; Welcher, Hinrichs, & George, 2008), a preference for the track start has emerged amongst inter-national level swimmers in recent times (Vint, Hinrichs, Riewald, Mason, & McLean, 2009). This islikely to be because the track start reduces the potential for a false start (automatic disqualification)by providing increased stability through a larger base of support (Breed & McElroy, 2000; Shin &Groppel, 1986).

In 2008, the governing body for swimming (Fédération Internationale de Natation, FINA) amendedthe rule pertaining to block design and this allowed the introduction of a new starting block by Omega(OSB11, Corgémont, Switzerland). The OSB11 is characterized by the addition of an adjustable inclinefootrest towards the rear of the platform surface (Fig. 1). The footrest is angled at 30� to the platformsurface and can be moved to five different positions. The OSB11 allowed the development of the kickstart, a variation of the track start where the rear foot is placed on the inclined footrest rather than theplatform surface. Studies have shown that the kick start using this inclined footrest allows a shorterblock time (Biel, Fischer, & Kibele, 2010; Honda, Sinclair, Mason, & Pease, 2010; Ozeki, Sakurai,Taguchi, & Takise, 2012); a higher horizontal take-off velocity (Biel et al., 2010; Honda et al., 2010;Ozeki et al., 2012); and faster times to 5 m (Honda et al., 2010), 7.5 m (Biel et al., 2010; Hondaet al., 2010), and 15 m (Ozeki et al., 2012) compared to the track start on traditional starting blocks.

Fig. 1. The Omega OSB11 starting block.

H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186 179

Author's personal copy

By contrast, Vint et al. (2009) found no effect of adding a 36� inclined footrest on the take-off velocitiesof swimmers or time to 6 m. This result was supported by Takeda, Takagi, and Tsubakimoto (2012)who showed that adding a footrest up to inclination angles 65� did not affect block times, horizontaltake-off velocities and time to 5 m.

When using a track or kick start, a swimmer may choose to distribute body weight evenly betweenthe two feet or adjust weight distribution so that more weight is over either the front or rear foot.Studies have shown that the rear-weighted track start had a longer block time (Vilas-Boas, Cruz,Sousa, Conceicao, & Carvalho, 2000; Welcher et al., 2008) but produced greater horizontal and verticalimpulses off the blocks (Breed & McElroy, 2000; Vilas-Boas et al., 2000). This allowed higher horizontaltake-off velocities to be recorded (Breed & McElroy, 2000; Welcher et al., 2008). On the basis of thisresearch, a comparison between the front, neutral, and rear-weighted kick start was performed byHonda, Sinclair, Mason, and Pease (2012). Using a dive and glide protocol, it was reported that therear-weighted condition had a longer block time, but an increased horizontal take-off velocity andan increased flight distance compared to the front and neutral-weighted conditions. Although therewas no between-condition difference in total time to 7.5 m, a higher average velocity was able tobe maintained between 5 and 7.5 m in the rear-weighted condition. Honda et al. (2012) suggested thatthis higher velocity between 5 and 7.5 m, measured during a glide with no free swimming, may pro-duce a faster overall race time. They concluded that more work incorporating the underwater andfree-swimming phases was required to determine whether advantages obtained during the blockphase were maintained over longer distances.

Therefore the aims of this study were to: (1) investigate whether there are differences in block andflight phase parameters between front, neutral, and rear-weighted kick starts in developmental ath-letes; and (2) determine whether any performance advantages from using a front, neutral, and rear-weighted kick start are maintained once free swimming has commenced. This information may beused by coaches to support decision making on start technique for developmental level athletes onthe new OSB11 starting blocks.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Ten swimmers (7 male, 3 female) from two training squads participated in this study. Participantcharacteristics are presented in Table 1. All participants competed in sprint freestyle events (up to200 m) at Australian national under-age or open level and were free of any acute or chronic injury thatmay have affected their performance during the study. Each participant read an information sheet out-lining the procedures of the study and provided written consent prior to commencement. The protocolused in this study was approved by the institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

2.2. Training protocol

Training sessions were conducted to familiarize the participants with each of the differentlyweighted starting positions that formed the three conditions in this study. This was done to reduce

Table 1Participant characteristics (mean ± standard deviation).

Competitive swimmers

Age (years) 19.3 ± 1.9Height (cm) 176.2 ± 6.2Mass (kg) 73.0 ± 10.1Swim training (hours/week) 17.9 ± 1.6Personal best times in 100 m Freestyle (s) 56.7 ± 3.3Personal best times in 100 m Freestyle (% World Record1) 114.7 ± 4.9

1 Current world records were obtained from (Fina.org., 2013).

180 H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186

Author's personal copy

the potential influence that a participant’s familiarity with a particular starting position may have hadon the results. At the first training session each participant’s regular starting position was recorded(Table 2). It was then ensured that participants used their regular rear foot placement and footrest set-ting throughout the study.

Since the pools at which the two squads trained did not have the new competition blocks installedat the time of this study, a purpose built block cover was used to replicate the OSB11 starting blocks.This replica block cover had a footrest that matched the exact specifications of the OSB11 block, andcould be adjusted to the same positions as the OSB11. Participants attended four training sessions overfour weeks with a minimum of four days between sessions. At each session participants performed 15dives in the following order: 5 front-weighted, 5 neutral-weighted and 5 rear-weighted. In the front-weighted position participants were instructed to distribute the majority of their weight on the frontfoot whilst still maintaining a stable position on the block. In the neutral-weighted position partici-pants were instructed to have an even weight distribution and, in the rear-weighted position, partic-ipants were instructed to distribute the majority of their weight on the rear foot whilst maintaining astable position on the block. A standardized starting procedure was used. Participants mounted theblocks and assumed the required position. When ready a tester gave the command ‘‘take your mark’’and a whistle was blown to signal the start of the trial. Following the dive participants were requiredto glide to the surface of the water and return to the blocks for their next trial. Each participant wasallowed at least 30 s rest between trials.

2.3. Testing protocol

Testing sessions took place within approximately 10 days of each participant’s final training ses-sion. Testing was conducted at Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre where OSB11 starting blocks wereused for all trials. Prior to testing, participants completed a warm-up based on their normal pre-raceroutine. The greater trochanter of the femur was identified and marked with a cross using a thick blackwater-proof pen. The markings were on the left side of the body (side visible to the video cameras) andwere used to assist in the measurement of hip position.

The position of each participant on the blocks and the alignment of the participant at water entry(approximately 3 m from the wall) were recorded using two video cameras (MVX330i, Canon, Japan).The video cameras were positioned perpendicular to the plane of motion at a distance of approxi-mately 7.5 m from the center of the swimming lane. Both cameras were positioned above water.One camera was positioned to capture the position of the participant on the block and the initial flightphase and the other camera was positioned to capture the participant position during the flight andwater entry phases. The footage was sampled at 25 Hz and each camera had a shutter speed of 1/500 s. Footage of a calibration frame (1.4 � 1.4 m), positioned in the field of view and centered aroundthe optical axis of each video camera, was recorded prior to data collection.

Swimming position and velocity data were recorded using a device known as a speed probe (TheCheetah Linear Motion Technology, Applied Motion Research Sport, QLD, Australia) that was

Table 2Regular starting position across participants.

Participant Starting positionregularly used

Footrest settingregularly used

Rear foot regularly usedduring a kick start

A Neutral 4 LeftB Neutral 3 LeftC Rear 3 LeftD Rear 2 LeftE Neutral 5 LeftF Neutral 4 LeftG Rear 3 RightH Front 3 RightI Front 3 RightJ Neutral 4 Right

H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186 181

Author's personal copy

connected to a laptop computer running the accompanying Cheetah software package (AMR Sport,Chirn Park, QLD, Australia). The speed probe is readily available to coaches and sports scientists work-ing with developmental swimmers in a typical training environment. It utilizes a cable attached to aparticipant and an optical encoder to provide time, distance and velocity data at a sample rate of100 Hz. The accuracy of the speed probe was assessed prior to data collection. This was achieved bycollecting data from the speed probe as a marker attached to the cable of the device was pulledhorizontally at a simulated swimming speed through the field of view of a 14 camera motion analysissystem (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA, USA). Position and velocity data were measuredover a 1 m distance, .5 m either side of, 1, 5, 7.5, 15, 20 and 25 m distances (i.e., for the 5 m distancedata were analyzed between 4.5 and 5.5 m). A comparison was then made between the data setsproduced by the speed probe and motion analysis system. The speed probe provided data that wasaccurate to within .1% for distance and .5% for velocity at distances from 4.5 to 25.5 m from the device.Data at the 1 m distance was less accurate (7% error for distance and 1% error for velocity), possiblydue to the time taken for tension to be developed within the cable once movement commenced.Therefore, the speed probe was used to measure velocities at and beyond 4.5 m from the wall, reduc-ing the effects of changes in the angle of the rope to the horizontal. During testing, the speed probewas positioned directly behind the starting block and raised on a platform so that the cable did notcome into contact with any hard surfaces. The speed probe cable was attached with a clip to the backof each participant’s swim suit at the height of the waist.

Each participant was required to perform 9 freestyle sprints to 20 m, 3 in each condition –front-weighted, neutral-weighted, and rear-weighted. The order of start positions was randomized.Participants were instructed to perform each trial at race pace and to continue to swim until they hadpassed the 20 m mark to ensure that representative values at the 15 m distance were obtained. The15 m distance was chosen because this is traditionally considered to be the end of the start phase(Mason, 1999). The same starting procedures outlined previously were used. False starts were disre-garded and the trial was repeated. Participants received a minimum break of 2 min between trials.

2.4. Data analysis

Video footage was digitized using DartFish (version 5.5, 2009, Switzerland). This program has beenshown to be a valid and reliable tool for 2D angle analysis (Norris & Olson, 2011) and has been pre-viously used in research on swimming starts (Seifert et al., 2010).

The following variables were selected for analysis based on previous literature and the determin-istic model of Guimaraes and Hay (1985):

2.4.1. Hip position at the startHorizontal distance from the front of the starting block to the swimmer’s hip (Blanksby et al.,

2002). Using DartFish, this measurement was taken at the frame before first distinguishable move-ment after the whistle and was used to indicate whether there were differences in the start positionsbetween the three conditions.

2.4.2. Reaction timeUsing DartFish, a frame by frame analysis was performed to find the time interval between the

sound of the whistle and the first distinguishable movement of the participant (Blanksby et al., 2002).

2.4.3. Movement timeUsing DartFish, a frame by frame analysis was performed to find the time interval between the first

movement of the participant and the frame when the participant was no longer in contact with theblock.

2.4.4. Block timeSum of reaction time and movement time.

182 H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186

Author's personal copy

2.4.5. Take-off angleUsing DartFish, the angle formed between the horizontal axis and a line between shoulder and hip

joints. This measurement was taken at the first frame where the participant was no longer in contactwith the block.

2.4.6. Entry angleUsing DartFish, the angle between the horizontal axis and the line formed from the fingertips to the

hip joint (Breed & McElroy, 2000; McDonald, 2008). This measurement was taken at the last frame be-fore fingertip entry into the water.

2.4.7. Time to 5 and 15 m distanceTime to each distance based on the speed probe data.

2.4.8. Average velocity between 4.5–5.5 and 14.5–15.5 m distancesAverage velocity recorded in each interval based on the speed probe data. The average velocity over

a 1 meter interval was chosen as the swimmer may be at different phases in the stroke. The averageover one meter would minimize such variability.

2.5. Statistical analysis

All statistical tests were performed using STATISTICA (Version 10, StatSoft, Inc., U.S.A.). Two factorrepeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) with factors of start positions (front-weighted, neu-tral-weighted and rear-weighted) and trials (1, 2 and 3), were used to determine differences in all vari-ables across conditions. Where significant ANOVA results were found, Tukey’s post hoc test was usedto identify significant differences between factor levels. All values are expressed as mean ± SD, and pvalues less than or equal to .05 were considered to be statistically significant. Normality was con-firmed using probability plots.

3. Results

A velocity over distance plot for an exemplary subject for the three starting positions as measuredby the speed probe is shown in Fig. 2. Note that irregularities in the velocity trace are the velocity in-creases and decreases with each stroke.

Results for each of the analyzed variables are presented in Table 3. There was a significant differ-ence in hip position at the start (F2, 18 = 19.50, p < .01). The horizontal distance between the front ofstarting block and the hip significantly increased from front-weighted to neutral-weighted torear-weighted positions. Reaction time was not significantly different (F2, 18 = .13, p = .88) betweenpositions. There were, however, significant differences in both movement time and block time(F2, 18 P 18.08, p < .01) where participants had longer times in the rear-weighted position comparedto both the front and neutral-weighted positions. There were no significant differences in take-off

Fig. 2. Velocity as measured by the speed probe over distance for an exemplary subject for the neutral-weighted startingposition.

H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186 183

Author's personal copy

angle (F2, 18 6 .04, p P .96) between positions. However, entry angle was significantly greater by �1�in the rear-weighted position compared to the other positions (F2, 18 = 4.39, p = .03).

The times to 5 and 15 m were significantly different between positions (F2, 18 P 11.13, p < .01), withTukey’s test revealing that the time to each distance was significantly faster for the rear-weightedposition compared to the front-weighted position (p < .01), while only the time to 15 m was signifi-cantly faster for the neutral-weighted position compared to the front-weighted position (p < .01).Position had no effect on velocity between 4.5 and 5.5 m or between 14.5 and 15.5 m (F2, 18 6 .86,p P .44). No main effects for trials (F2, 18 6 1.15, p P .33) nor any interaction effects (p P .20) werefound for any variables.

4. Discussion

The horizontal distance between the front of the starting block and the hip significantly increasedfrom front-weighted to neutral-weighted to rear-weighted positions indicating that three distinctconditions were used in the current study. As there was no detectable difference in the reaction timebetween the three conditions, the significant increase in block time for the rear-weighted positioncompared to both the front and neutral-weighted positions was due to the increased movement time.A longer block time for the rear-weighted condition was also reported by Honda et al. (2012). Despitethe longer time spent on the block, the rear-weighted position allowed for a faster time to the 5 m dis-tance compared to both the front-weighted and neutral-weighted positions.

It may be assumed that shorter block time is indicative of better performance; however, this is notnecessarily true. Previous studies have shown that longer movement times for the rear-weighted po-sition allowed swimmers to generate a larger horizontal impulse while on the block (Breed & McElroy,2000; Honda et al., 2012; Vilas-Boas et al., 2000; Welcher et al., 2008). This increased impulse from therear weighted position generated higher horizontal velocities at take-off, which more than compen-sated for the increased time required to generate this impulse. In addition, the rear-weighted positionmay allow more effective use of the footrest to produce greater force production. Greater foot restforces have been associated with better performance (Slawson, Conway, Cossor, Chakravorti, & West,2013). Furthermore, longer flight distances with the rear-weighted position would have allowed thisvelocity to be preserved for longer, since air resistance is negligible compared with water resistance(Vantorre, Seifert, Fernandes, Boas, & Chollet, 2010).

Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the conditions for average swimmingvelocity between 14.5 and 15.5 m. This suggests that velocity at 15 m was determined by free swim-ming speed and not by dive performance, consistent with the results of Takeda, Ichikawa, Takagi, andTsubakimoto (2009). The time to the 15 m distance, however, was significantly faster for the rear-weighted condition compared to the front-weighted condition. This demonstrates that the timeadvantages to reach 5 m in the rear-weighted position were maintained through to 15 m, enablingthe swimmers to reduce times not only to 5 m, but throughout the free swimming component. This

Table 3Mean ± standard deviation of the variables measured across all positions and trials.

Variable Front-weighted Neutral-weighted Rear-weighted

Hip position at the start (m) .33 ± .09*,� .41 ± .07^,� .48 ± .08^,*

Reaction time (s) .20 ± .03 .20 ± .05 .20 ± .04Movement time (s) .50 ± .06� .52 ± .05� .56 ± .05^,*

Block time (s) .70 ± .07� .72 ± .07� .77 ± .07^,*

Take-off angle (�) 6.1 ± 4.0 6.1 ± 3.5 6.2 ± 3.3Entry angle (�) 35.2 ± 2.3 35.3 ± 2.4 36.0 ± 2.6^,*

Time to 5 m (s) 1.47 ± .68� 1.44 ± .69� 1.38 ± .70^,*

Time to 15 m (s) 7.57 ± 1.51*,� 7.42 ± 1.55^ 7.39 ± 1.57^

Ave Velocity 4.5–5.5 m (m/s) 2.83 ± .55 2.83 ± .36 2.94 ± .55Ave Velocity 14.5–15.5 m (m/s) 1.83 ± .48 1.77 ± .33 1.82 ± .23

^ Significantly different to Front, p < .05.* Significantly different to Neutral, p < .05.� Significantly different to Rear, p < .05.

184 H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186

Author's personal copy

represents an important new finding that builds on the previous work of Honda et al. (2012) and maybe particularly relevant for swimmers participating in sprint events (Mason, 1999).

Entry angles for the rear-weighted dives were statistically greater than those for the other two con-ditions. Seifert et al. (2010) have previously reported a positive correlation between the duration offlight and entry angle, and that a greater entry angle may reduce friction during dive entry by reducingthe size of the water entry hole. In practice, however, the average change in entry angle between rear-weighted and other conditions for the current study was less than one degree, and therefore unlikelyto be of great practical significance.

It is important to note that although subjects had a preferred position prior to the recruitment intothe current study, all subjects (without exception) had faster times to both 5 and 15 m during the rear-weighted condition compared to the front-weighted condition. This implies that, regardless of anypreference in starting position, a swimmer will perform better in the rear-weighted condition thanthe front-weighted condition.

4.1. Limitations

Reaction forces on the block were not measured in the current study. Although findings from pre-vious studies in regards to impulse generated on the block were used to explain the current results, itwould have been ideal to have measured block forces. The kinematics of the participants were notmeasured during the flight phase. As a result, any kinematic differences between the conditions dur-ing the flight phase could not be investigated. The reaction time, movement time and block time weremeasured from the video footage at 25 frames per second or a sample time of 40 ms. As most motorcontrol studies examining reaction time report a significant difference of 10–20 ms between differentconditions (Jongsma, Elliott, & Lee, 1987), it can be argued that the resolution used in the current studymight not be high enough to reveal differences less than 40 ms. Indeed, Honda et al. (2012) measuredreaction time differences between dive positions using a force platform which, while statistically sig-nificant, differed by only 30 ms. While the present study was unable to resolve reaction time valuesthis small, the overall time to 15 m differed by 180 ms, suggesting that reaction time was not a majorcontributor to performance. Future studies interested in examining a higher time resolution shouldconsider either using a high speed camera, or measuring reaction from force rather than displacementdata.

5. Conclusion

The neutral and rear-weighted positions produced faster times to the 15 m distances compared tothe front-weighted position. The average difference in time to 15 m between front and rear weightedstarts was .18 s, an amount larger than the difference between second and fourth place times for the50 m men’s freestyle finals at the past three Olympic Games (Olympic.org., 2013). This would suggestthat that the neutral and rear-weighted position allowed for critical improvements in take-off param-eters that more than compensated for a longer block time. Based on the results of this study it wouldappear that these developmental level swimmers should choose between a neutral-weighted or rear-weighted position on the new OSB11 starting blocks.

Acknowledgments

We would like the thank Dr. Damien O’Meara and Miss Jessica Corones and the team at the NewSouth Wales Institute of Sport for their guidance and support throughout the project. A special thankyou also goes to the swimmers who participated and to their coaches for allowing them to do so.

References

Benjanuvatra, N., Lyttle, A., Blanksby, B., & Larkin, D. (2004). Force development profile of the lower limbs in the grab and trackstart in swimming. In M. Lamontagne, D. Gordon, E. Robertson & H. Sveistrup (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIIth internationalsymposium on biomechanics in sports (pp. 399–402). Ottawa, Canada.

H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186 185

Author's personal copy

Biel, K., Fischer, S., & Kibele, A. (2010). Kinematic analysis of take-off performance in elite swimmers: New OSB11 versustraditional starting block. In P. L. Kjendlie, R. K. Stallman & J. Cabri (Eds.), XIth international symposium for biomechanics andmedicine in swimming – Book of abstracts (pp. 91). Oslo, Norway.

Blanksby, B., Nicholson, L., & Elliott, B. (2002). Biomechanical analysis of the grab, track and handle swimming starts: Anintervention study. Sports Biomechanics, 1, 11–24.

Breed, R. V. P., & McElroy, G. K. (2000). A biomechanical comparison of the grab, swing and track starts in swimming. Journal ofHuman Movement Studies, 39, 277–293.

Fina.org. (2013). Federation Internationale De Natation. Available from http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php. [Retrieved 04December 2013].

Guimaraes, A. C. S., & Hay, J. G. (1985). A mechanical analysis of the grab starting technique in swimming. International Journal ofSport Biomechanics, 1, 25–35.

Holthe, M. J., & McLean, S. P. (2001). Kinematic comparison of grab and track starts in swimming. In J. Blackwell (Ed.),Proceedings of the XIXth symposium on biomechanics in sports (pp. 31–34). San Francisco, CA: University of California SanFrancisco.

Honda, K. E., Sinclair, P. J., Mason, B. R., & Pease, D. L. (2012). The effect of starting position on elite swim start performance usingan angled kick plate. In E. J. Bradshaw, A. Burnett & P. A. Hume (Eds.), eProceedings of the 30th conference of the internationalsociety of biomechanics in sports (Vol. 3, pp. 72–75). Melbourne, Australia.

Honda, K. E., Sinclair, P. J., Mason, B. R., & Pease, D. L. (2010). A biomechanical comparison of elite swimmers start performanceusing the traditional track start and the new kick start. In P. L. Kjendlie, R. K. Stallman & J. Cabri (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIthinternational symposium for biomechanics and medicine in swimming (pp. 94–96). Oslo, Norway.

Jongsma, D. M., Elliott, D., & Lee, T. D. (1987). Experience and set in the running sprint start. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64,547–550.

Juergens, C. A., Rose, D. J., Smith, G. A., & Calder, C. A. (1999). A kinetic and kinematic comparison of the grab and track starts incompetitive swimming. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31 [supplement ab 616].

Kirner, K. E., Bock, M. A., & Welch, J. H. (1989). A comparison of four different start combinations. Journal of Swimming Research,5, 5–11.

Mason, B. R. (1999). Where are races won (and lost)? In R. Sanders & J. Linsten (Eds.), Applied proceedings of the XVIIthinternational symposium on biomechanics in sports – Swimming (Vol. 1, pp. 1–10). Perth, Western Australia.

Mason, B., Alcock, A., & Fowlie, J. (2007). A kinetic analysis and recommendations for elite swimmers performing the sprint start.In M. H. Menzel & H. J. Chagas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international society of biomechanics in sports(pp. 192–195). Brazil.

McDonald, M. D. (2008). Biomechanical comparison of three competitive swim start techniques. Journal of Human MovementStudies, 24, 19–23.

Norris, B. S., & Olson, S. L. (2011). Concurrent validity and reliability of two-dimensional video analysis of hip and knee jointmotion during mechanical lifting. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 27, 521–530.

Olympic.org. (2013). Official website of the Olympic movement. Available from http://www.olympic.org/swimming-1500m-freestyle-men. [Retrieved 24 July, 2013].

Ozeki, K., Sakurai, S., Taguchi, M., & Takise, S. (2012). Kicking the back plate of the starting block improves start phaseperformance in competitive swimming. In E. J. Bradshaw, A. Burnett, & P. A. Hume (Eds.), eProceedings of the 30th conferenceof the international society of biomechanics in sports (4, pp. 373–376). Melbourne, Australia. Available from https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/5336.

Seifert, L., Vantorre, J., Lemaitre, F., Chollet, D., Toussaint, H. M., & Vilas-Boas, J. P. (2010). Different profiles of the aerial startphase in front crawl. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 507–516.

Shin, I. S., & Groppel, J. L. (1986). A comparison of the grab start and track start as utilized by competitive swimmers. In D. M.Landers (Ed.), Sport and elite performers (pp. 171–175). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Slawson, S. E., Conway, P. P., Cossor, J., Chakravorti, N., & West, A. A. (2013). The categorisation of swimming start performancewith reference to force generation on the main block and footrest components of the Omega OSB11 start blocks. [ResearchSupport, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 468–478.

Takeda, T., Ichikawa, H., Takagi, H., & Tsubakimoto, S. (2009). Do differences in initial speed persist to the stroke phase in front-crawl swimming? Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1449–1454.

Takeda, T., Takagi, H., & Tsubakimoto, S. (2012). Effect of inclination and position of new swimming starting block’s back plateon track-start performance. Sports Biomechanics, 11, 370–381.

Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Fernandes, R. J., Boas, J. P. V., & Chollet, D. (2010). Comparison of grab start between elite and trainedswimmers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 887–893.

Vilas-Boas, J. P., Cruz, M. J., Sousa, F., Conceicao, F., & Carvalho, J. M. (2000). Integrated kinematic and dynamic analysis of twotrack-start techniques. In R. Sanders & Y. Hong (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIIIth international symposium on biomechanics insports. Applied program: Application of biomechanical study in swimming (pp. 113–117). Hong Kong: The Chinese University ofHong Kong.

Vint, P. F., Hinrichs, R. N., Riewald, S. A., Mason, R. K., & McLean, S. P. (2009). Effects of handle and block configuration on swimstart performance. In Paper presented at the XXVII international society of biomechanics in sports conference, Limerick, Ireland.Available from http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/3172/2976.

Welcher, R. L., Hinrichs, R. N., & George, T. R. (2008). Front- or rear-weighted track start or grab start: Which is the best forfemale swimmers? Sports Biomechanics, 7, 100–113.

186 H. Barlow et al. / Human Movement Science 34 (2014) 178–186