Ewa Dybinska, professor
Katarzyna Kucia-Czyszczon, Tadeusz Ambrozy
School of Physical Education, Krakow, Poland
Rein Hajland, professor
Tallin university, Tallin, Estonia

Key words: swimming race analysis, swimming race constituents, butterfly stroke

Introduction. The level of competitive swimming has been rising gradually and substantially over the last ten years. This can be attributed to numerous reasons. Among others, we can distinguish sophisticated coaching procedures, refined selection methods, increasingly more precise biomechanical analyses of water movement efficiency, normalisation and ongoing regulation of swimming rules [6] (swimming pool depth, types of lane ropes, water temperature, height and angle of starting platforms), as well as the increased availability of new technologies that, since 2010, has been severely restricted by the regulations [1,4,5,8]. As long as there is competitive swimming, the evaluation of the swimming race strategy remains one of the key issues for both coaches, swimmers and researchers [2,3,11]. Originally the evaluation of the swimming race strategy involved measuring split times. However, since the early 70’s, researchers and coaches have begun to expand their knowledge in this area and to include in their analyses more variables that describe the swimming race strategy. A number of techniques have been developed to provide researchers with a method that would allow to compare the analysed variables in case of both elite swimmers and average swimmers [7,9,19,12]. These techniques allow coaches to evaluate a swimming race in terms of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the swimmer.

The aim

The overall objective of the study was to attempt an evaluation of the dynamics of the changes of sports results in relation to the constituents of a swimming race, on the basis of the races held at a 25-metre swimming pool during the 50, 100 and 200 m men’s butterfly finals at the 2000-2011 European Championships. To accomplish this, the following research question was presented:

1.  What are the observed relationships between the sports result and the constituents of the 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly swimming races at the European Championships held between 2000 and 2011?

Methods

The research material comprised of a group of men, finalists of the 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly swimming competitions held at a 25-metre swimming pool at the 2000-2011 European Championships. The Championships were held in the following countries and cities: 1. 2000 – Valencia (Spain), 2. 2001 – Antwerp (Belgium), 3. 2002 – Riesa (Germany), 4. 2003 – Dublin (Ireland), 5. 2004 – Vienna (Austria), 6. 2005 – Trieste (Italy), 7. 2006 – Helsinki (Finland), 8. 2007 – Debrecen (Hungary), 9. 2008 – Rijeka (Croatia), 9. 2009 – Istanbul (Turkey), 10. 2010 – Eindhoven (Netherlands), 11. 2011 – Szczecin (Poland). The research material data was obtained from the publicly available international database of the European Championships results prepared by Rein Haljand, professor of kinesiology at Tallinn University (www.swimm.ee) and upon his consent. 

The basic research method used in the study was the method of indirect (assisted) observation involving the use of the descriptions, reports and video material prepared by professor Rein Haljand www.swimm.ee).

The study was carried out during final races at one of the swimming events of top importance (according to the LENA FINA classification), that is the European Championships held at a 25-metre swimming pool in the years 2000–2011.

The Swimming Technique Analysis System consisting of the following elements was used to analyse the recorded swimming technique testing data:

1. The required normalised equipment for the measurement of kinematic parameters for 25-metre swimming pools:. (4 digital video cameras, 2 digital recorders, TV screen and projector, PC, printer).

2. Computer hardware including the following: integrated interface and time board, a so called “black box”, equipment for two vide cameras travelling along the pool edge (one for underwater and one for above-water camera), flash start signal, scaling system for the procedures.

3. Software: discretisation software – technical data video, kinematic calculator to determine technique parameters, simulation software to evaluate the quality of technique parameters, graphics application to model movement image.

The study analysed the following constituents of 50, 100 and 200 m men’s butterfly competitions:

• Sports result (RS). The recorded time on the basis of the results protocols of the swimmers under study at the finals of the 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly.
• Start time and velocity (TS and VS). The time and velocity of swimming at the first 15 metres of the distance were measured, from the starter signal to the moment of the swimmer passing the marking point at the 15th metre of the pool.
• Frequency of arms movement over a distance (SR). The number of arms movements made by the swimmer during 1 minute. The frequency was measured for the respective sections of the race distance; for the 50 and 100 m butterfly two SR measurements were made at the first and second half of the race distance. In the case of the 200 m butterfly, four SR measurements were made for each 50 m section of the race distance.
• Turn time and velocity (TN and VN). The time and velocity of each turn of the race distance were measured for the section from 5 m before the turning wall to 15 m after the turn. One turn was recorded for the 50 m butterfly, 3 turns were recorded for the 100 m butterfly (at 25, 50 and 75 metres), and for the 200 m butterfly the velocity and time were measured for 3 turns (at 50, 100 and 175 metres).
• Finish time and velocity (TF and VF) The velocity and time of the final 5 m of the race distance before the finish wall of the swimming pool were measured.

The results of the analysis of the research material were presented as basic statistical parameters, the calculated arithmetic mean (x), standard deviation (S), minimum value (min), maximum value (max), range (R) and variation coefficient (V%). Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationships between the analysed variables, the sports result of the 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly and the constituents of the examined races.All statistical calculations of the data presented in this paper were made with the STATISTICA software (version 7.1) by StatSoft Polska, at the Sport Institute – Department of Water Sports of the University School of Physical Education in Cracow

Results. In order to address the main research problem, the obtained correlations between the sports result and the constituents of a swimming race were considered.

Table 1. Comparison of (Pearson’s) correlations between sports result and the constituents of the final races of the 50 m men’s butterfly  at the 2000-2011 European Championships

European Championship	Parameters	TS	VS	SR 25	SR 50	TN 25	VN 25	TF	VF
50 butterfly	RS (s)
Valencia 2000	23.31	0.94**	-0.93	0.19	0.25	0.89	-0.88	0.35	-0.38
Antwerp 2001	23.07	0.32	-0.32	-0.17	0.07	0.83	-0.84	0.80	-0.78
Riesa 2002	23.47	0.25	-0.30	-0.49	-0.22	0.22	-0.08	0.27	-0.29
Dublin 2003	23.22	0.65*	-0.67	-0.13	0.66	0.41	-0.43	-0.01	-0.01
Vienna 2004	23.35	0.43	-0.43	0.03	0.57	0.43	-0.46	-0.04	0.04
Trieste 2005	23.08	0.67	-0.67	-0.35	-0.01	0.44	-0.49	0.07	-0.06
Helsinki 2006	23.21	0.12	-0.13	-0.24	-0.44	0.56	-0.49	0.36	-0.38
Debrecen 2007	22.89	0.41	-0.46	-0.44	-0.51	0.50	-0.50	0.27	-0.26
Rijeka 2008	22.23	0.40	-0.43	0.09	-0.28	0.42	-0.41	0.83	-0.84
Istanbul 2009	22.07	0.78	-0.79	-0.77	-0.86	0.89	-0.87	-0.32	0.33
Eindhoven 2010	22.34	0.61	-0.63	0.70	0.04	0.87	-0.89	0.56	-0.56
Szczecin 2011	22.70	-0.29	0.31	-0.32	0.05	0.65	-0.66	0.85	-0.84

Significance level: *p<0.05

Key:

RS – Sports result

TS – Start time [s]

VS – Start velocity [m/s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

SR25 – Frequency at 25 [cycles/min]

SR50 – Frequency at 50 [cycles/min]

TN 25 – Turn time at 25 m [s]

VN 25 – Turn velocity at 25 m [m/s]

TF – Finish time [s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

• An analysis of the relationships correlations between the sports result and the constituents of the final races of the 50 m men’s butterfly  at the 2000-2011 European Championships (Table 1) the following patterns can be observed:
• For the majority of the analysed cases at the sprint distance (50 m butterfly) correlations were observed between the considered variables, however, the strengths of the correlations varied (depending on the year of the race),
• high and very high correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) were found between: sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN), and between start time (TS) and start velocity (VS) – almost complete correlation between these variables were observed in the case of the European Championship in Valencia in 2000. Average frequency (SR25 and SR50) as well as finish time (TF) and velocity (VF) correlated much less often with the sports result of a 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly competition.

Table 2. Comparison of (Pearson’s) correlations between sports result and the constituents of the races of the 100 m men’s butterfly  at the 2000-2011 European Championships

European Championship 100 butterfly	Parameters RS (s)	TS	VS	SR 25	SR 75	TN 25	TN 50	TN 75	VN 25	VN 50	VN 75	TF	VF
														Valencia 2000	51.31	0.22	-0.22	0.13	-0.66	0.92	0.81	0.71	-0.93	-0.81	-0.74	0.51	-0.51
Antwerp 2001	50.26	0.54	-0.54	-0.14	-0.55	0.50	0.73	0.96	-0.51	-0.73	-0.97	0.60	-0.60
Riesa 2002	50.77	0.10	-0.12	-0.16	-0.52	0.67	0.55	0.88	-0.66	-0.56	-0.89	0.66	-0.70
Dublin 2003	50.02	0.45	-0.47	0.02	-0.21	0.58	0.91	0.77	-0.57	-0.91	-0.79	0.68	-0.71
Vienna 2004	50.67	0.48	-0.48	-0.62	-0.40	0.96	0.91	0.90	-0.96	-0.89	-0.88	0.70	-0.69
Trieste 2005	50.55	0.44	-0.43	-0.59	-0.63	0.59	0.82	-0.09	-0.63	-0.81	0.12	0.37	-0.37
Helsinki 2006	50.63	0.72	-0.72	0.21	-0.63	0.89	0.92	0.54	-0.89	-0.92	-0.49	0.08	-0.08
Debrecen 2007	50.53	0.82	-0.83	-0.04	0.52	0.51	0.96	0.35	-0.54	-0.96	-0.36	0.04	0.00
Rijeka 2008	49.19	0.75	-0.75	0.11	0.16	0.47	0.75	0.68	-0.48	-0.74	-0.64	0.34	-0.37
Istanbul 2009	48.93	-0.02	-0.45	0.62	0.28	0.75	0.68	0.85	-0.74	-0.65	-0.83	0.61	-0.17
Eindhoven 2010	49.95	0.65	-0.66	0.52	0.38	0.57	0.87	0.85	-0.58	-0.85	-0.86	0.61	-0.51
Szczecin 2011	49.62	0.31	-0.01	-0.01	-0.04	0.78	0.80	0.15	-0.81	-0.81	-0.17	0.59	-0.62

Significance level: *p<0.05

Key:

RS – Sports result

TS – Start time [s]

VS – Start velocity [m/s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

SR25 – Frequency at 25 [cycles/min]

SR50 – Frequency at 50 [cycles/min]

TN 25 – Turn time at 25 m [s]

VN 25 – Turn velocity at 25 m [m/s]

TF – Finish time [s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

For the 100 m butterfly (Table 2) the following were observed for the majority of the considered cases:

• complete, high and very high correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) were found between: sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN) – at the 25, 50 and 75 metre of the race distance,
• however, even though correlations were found between the constituents of a swimming race such as start time (TS) and start velocity (VS) and the sports result of the 100 m butterfly, the correlations were high only in three cases, and in the case of finish time (TF) and finish velocity (VF) only in two cases.

Table 3. Comparison of (Pearson’s) correlations between sports result and the constituents of the races of the 100 m men’s butterfly  at the 2000-2011 European Championships

European Championships	Parameters	TS	VS	SR 100	SR 200	TN  50	TN  100	TN 150	VN  50	VN  100	VN 150	TF	VF
200 butterfly	RS (min)
Valencia 2000	1:53.28	0.93	-0.93	-0.04	-0.62	0.69	0.71	0.65	-0.72	-0.71	-0.66	0.12	-0.14
Antwerp 2001	1:52.93	0.40	-0.39	0.09	0.09	0.92	0.90	0.73	-0.91	-0.89	-0.76	-0.33	0.29
Riesa 2002	1:52.91	0.56	-0.57	-0.16	-0.57	0.73	0.76	0.84	-0.73	-0.77	-0.85	0.47	-0.46
Dublin 2003	1:51.98	0.66	-0.66	-0.53	-0.41	0.52	0.58	0.38	-0.47	-0.61	-0.36	0.31	-0.28
Vienna 2004	1:52.90	-0.38	0.40	0.20	-0.24	0.64	0.75	0.46	-0.67	-0.76	-0.46	0.46	-0.51
Trieste 2005	1:50.89	0.00	0.01	0.25	0.08	0.24	0.32	0.63	-0.28	-0.32	-0.64	0.61	-0.64
Helsinki 2006	1:52.33	0.43	-0.43	0.48	-0.05	0.40	0.39	0.86	-0.37	-0.40	-0.86	0.73	-0.73
Debrecen 2007	1:51.55	-0.08	0.06	0.47	-0.19	0.72	0.06	0.72	-0.70	-0.05	-0.71	0.88	-0.88
Rijeka 2008	1:50.60	-0.02	-0.45	0.62	0.28	0.75	0.68	0.85	-0.74	-0.65	-0.83	0.61	-0.17
Istanbul 2009	1:49.46	0.36	-0.38	-0.67	-0.52	0.29	0.10	-0.02	-0.27	-0.11	-0.02	-0.01	0.01
Eindhoven 2010	1:53.35	0.56	-0.56	0.21	0.65	-0.13	0.43	0.57	0.08	-0.40	-0.57	0.75	-0.74
Szczecin 2011	1:50.87	-0.16	0.10	0.07	0.07	0.23	0.87	0.61	-0.24	-0.89	-0.60	0.46	-0.46

Significance level: *p<0.05

Key:

RS – Sports result

TS – Start time [s]

VS – Start velocity [m/s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

SR25 – Frequency at 25 [cycles/min]

SR50 – Frequency at 50 [cycles/min]

TN 25 – Turn time at 25 m [s]

VN 25 – Turn velocity at 25 m [m/s]

TF – Finish time [s]

VF – Finish velocity [m/s]

An analysis of the correlations for the 200 m men’s butterfly at  the 2000-2011 European Championships revealed (Table 9) the following:

•  the greatest number of high and very high correlations (with the significance level p<0.05) were found between: sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN) – at the 50, 100 and 150 metre of the race distance,
• it should be also noted that there were high and average correlations (with the significance level p<0.05) betweens the parameters such as finish start (TF), finish velocity (VF) and the sports result of the finalists of the race, as well as, in five cases, with average frequency (SR 100 m, SR 200 m). Start time (TS) and start velocity (VS) highly correlated with sports result only in one case (Valencia 2000).

Discussion

The objective of the presented study was to attempt an evaluation of the dynamics of the changes of sports results in relation to the constituents of a swimming race, on the basis of the races held at a 25-metre swimming pool during the 50, 100 and 200 m men’s butterfly finals at the 2000–2011 European Championships.

For the 50 m butterfly it should be noted that, for most considered cases, high and very high correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) were observed between: sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN). However, it also should be noted that very high, almost complete correlation between sports result (RS), start time (TS) and start velocity (VS) were observed in the case of the European Championship in Valencia in 2000.

Thorough analyses of the correlations of the 100 m butterfly races revealed complete, high and very high correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) between:

sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN) at the 25, 50 an 75 metre. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there was high and very high correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) between: start time, finish time and finish velocity.

Thorough analyses of the correlations of the 200 m butterfly races revealed the greatest number of high and very high correlations (with the significance level p<0.05) between: sports result (RS), turn time (TN) and turn velocity (VN) at the 50, 100 and 150 metre of the race distance.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that high and average correlation (with the significance level p<0.05) was found between TF – Finish time [s], VF – Finish velocity [m/s] and the sports result of the finalists of the race.

Conclusions

1. The following characteristics of the sports results of the finalists of the 50, 100 and 200 m butterfly competitions held at a 25-metre swimming pool at the European Championships were observed for the respective years:

Ø  2000 – 2007    minor yet continuous increase of sports results was observed;

Ø  2008 – 2009    conspicuous sharp increase of sports results;

Ø  2010 – 2011    substantially lower sports results were observed in comparison with 2008 – 2009.

For all the 50, 100 and 200 butterfly races at the European Championships, the best results, both average and top, were noted for the European Championship in Istanbul in 2009. 

2. The analysis of the men’s butterfly competitions at the European Championships held between 2000 and 2011 revealed the largest number of significant correlations between the sports results and:

• for the 50 m race distance – start time and velocity and turn time and velocity,
• for the 100 m race distance – turn time and velocity,
• for the the 200 m race – turn time and velocity and, in fewer cases, finish time and velocity and average frequency of arms movement.

3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the considered constituents of a swimming race play a significant role (next to psychomotor, functional, technical and tactical parameters) in achieving optimal sports results, it depends, however, (for butterfly) on the distance.

References:

1. Anderson, M., Hopkins, W., Roberts, A., Pyne, D. Ability of test measures to predict competitive  performance in elite swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2008; 26: 123-130.
2. Arellano, R., Brown, P., Cappaert, J., Nelson, R. Analysis of 50-m, 100-m and 200-m Freestyle swimmers at the 1992 Olympic Games. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 1994; 10: 189-199.
3. Aspenes, S, Kjendlie, P.L., Hoff, J., Helgerud J. (2009) Combined strength and endurance training in  competitive swimmers. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine 8, 357-365
4. Chatterjee, S., Laudato, M. An analysis of world record times of men and women in Running, Skating, and swimming. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1996; 10(4): 274-278.
5. Costa, M., et al. Tracking the performance of world-ranked swimmers. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2010; 9: 411-417.
6. FINA. FINA swimming rules 2009–2013. Lausanne, Switzerland: FINA, 2009.
7. Maglischo, E.W. Swimming fastest. Champaign, Illinois: 2003, Human Kinetics.
8. O’Connor L., Vozenilek J. Is it the athlete or the equipment? An analysis of the top swim performance from 1990 to 2010. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011; 25(12): 3239-3241.
9. Mageean, A.L., Alexander, R.P., Mier, C.M. Repeated Sprint Performance in Male and Female College Athletes Matched for VO Relative to Fat Free Mass. International Journal of Exercise Science, 2011; 4(4): 229-237.
10. Pyne, D, Trewin, C., Hopkins, W. Progression and variability of competitive performance of Olympic  swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2004; 22: 613-620.
11. Fukuda, D.H., Smith, A.E., Kendall, K.L., Cramer, J.T., Stout, J.R. An Alternative Approach to the Army Physical
12. Fitness Test Two-Mile Run Using Critical Velocity and Isoperformance Curves. Military Medicine, 2012; 177 (2): 145-151
13. Heazlewood, T. Prediction versus reality: The use mathematical models to predict elite performance in swimming and athletics at the Olympic Games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2006; 5: 541-547.

 

Corresponding author: Professor Ewa Dybińska, 15.09.2013 r,

Sport Institute – Department of Water Sports University School of Physical Education,

Al. Jana Pawła II 78,

31-557 Cracow, Poland,

Phone: +48503909267 Fax: +48 12 683 11 13,

E-mail: dybinskaewa@gmail.com