Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(4), 695-702© 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association

UPPER-BODY POWER AS MEASURED BY MEDICINE-BALL THROW DISTANCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TOCLASS LEVEL AMONG 10- AND 11-YEAR-OLD FEMALEPARTICIPANTS IN CLUB GYMNASTICS

MARIA A. SALONIA,' DONALD A. CHU,=^ PHILIP M. CHEIFETZ,-* AND GAIL C. FREIDH(JFI''*

'South Bay Sports and Physical Therapy, Copiaque, New York 11726, and Program in Sports Physical Therapy,Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah 84603; -Stanford Sports Medicine, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, California 94305; -^Nassau Community College, Garden City. New York 11530; 'SportsPhysical Therapy, KY Clinic, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KEntucky 40536.

ABSTRACT. Salonia, M,. D.A. Chu. P, Cheifetz, and G. Freidhoff.Upper-body power as measured by medicine-ball throw distanceand its relationship to class level among 10- and 11-year-old fe-male participants in club gymnastics. J. Strength Cond. Res.18I4):000-000. 2004.—The purpose of tbis study was to deter-mine whether or not a relationship existed between upper-bodypower and class level among female club gymnasts. Sixty femalegyinnastB between the ages of 10 and 11 and between class lev-els 5 and 8 participated in the study. The distance of a medicine-ball throw was used to measure upper-body power. Three typesof throws—overhead forward throw, overhead backward throw,and chest pass—were performed with a 6-lb rubber medicineball. Tbe mean distances of 2 trails were calculated and cate-gorized into age group and class level. An analysis of variancedesign was used to determine the relationship between meanthrow distances and throw type, age, and class level. No signif-icant differences were found between mean throw distances andthrow type, age, or class level. The results of this study show norelationship between upper-body power of female gymnasts andthrow type, age, and class level.

KEY WORDS, field testing, plyometrics, strength

INTRODUCTION

I lyometrics are muscle contractions that use aprestretch and result in a maximal force devel-opment and increased speed of movement (3).In the early literature, plyometrics focusedmainly on lower-extremity power training (1,

6). Numerous studies established the effectiveness of ply-ometric exercises in improving power in the lower ex-tremities (1-4). In the early 1990s, articles hegan to ap-pear in the literature discussing the use and effectivenessof plyometric training in the upper extremities. Many ci-tations in the literature mention medicine balls as a com-mon form of upper-extremity plyometric training (2, 4, 5,14). The throws seen in plyometric medicine-ball trainingare the chest pass, overhead forward throw, and overheadbackward throw. The chest pass is most commonly usedto train sports such as tennis, baseball, and track andfield (31. The overhead forward throw can be used fortraining of sports including softball, baseball, soccer, andgymnastics (17, 20). The overhead backward throw ire-verse overhead) is used in training baseball pitching, ten-nis, and gymnastics (7, 18, 20).

Medicine balls are also used for testing upper-bodypower (8, 11, 12, 22-24). Stockbrugger and Haennel (22)

and Viitasalo (23) found tbe medicine-ball throw test tobe a valid and reliable test for assessing power. Medicine-ball throw testing requires supei"vision hut can he per-formed quickly and easily. The only equipment requiredare a medicine hall and tape measure. It is a cost-effec-tive, quick measurement of upper-extremity power.

A review of the literature does not reveal a universalmedicine-ball weight to use when performing a test. Kb-hen et al. (9) are the only researchers who quantify howto determine the weight of the medicine ball. They rec-ommend 30'/ ! of a 1 repetition maximum bench press asthe appropriate weight. Viitasalo (23) found ligbter loadsof the medicine ball were more reliable measurements ofthrow distance, The most common weight described in theliterature is a 6-Ib medicine ball (2, 3, 18, 20).

Although shown to be a reliable test for upper-extrem-ity power, easy to administer, and one of the first testsused, the medicine-hall throw testing lacks normativedata in the literature. Aussprung et al. (2) reported thatcollege football players who used an ll-lb medicine hallthrew an average of 19-22 ft, and those who used a 5-Ibmedicine ball threw an average of 26-29 ft. Female col-lege athletes from various sports threw a 5-lb medicineball an average of 9-12 ft. A chest pass in tbe seatedposition on the floor was the only throw measured.

Roetert and Ellenbecker (19) measured junior andadult tennis players. Junior-player norms are based ondata collected from nationally and regionally ranked maleand female players who are 18 years old or younger.Adult-player norms are based on male and female tennisplayers who are 25 years old or older. Forehand, back-hand, overhead forward, and reverse medicine-ball tosseswere measured. The throw distance with a 6-lb medicineball was categorized into "excellent, good, average, andneeds improvement." The junior female overhead medi-cine-hall toss was greater than 23 ft in the "excellent"rank with an average of 15-19 ft. The female junior re-verse (backward) overhead toss was greater than 34 ft, inthe "excellent" rank with an average of 20-27 ft. UnlikeAussprung, Roetert and Ellenbecker measured the med-icine-ball throws in standing.

Todd Ellenbecker, a tennis expert and member of theU.S. Tennis Association, reported unpublished norms(19). Over 500 ranked male and female tennis playerswere grouped in 2 categories: "13 and under" and "14-

695

696 SALONIA, CHU, CHEIFETZ KT AL.

TABLK 1. Throw distance (inches) of pilot study,'

Gymnastno.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425

P1551401681838462314550403597767482105689713412092712514491126

OFTl

163127182172956237494240351068570819662106138131115139147108124

T2

16913618118082544153424536103876970966111015113513513614893133

P16315519597713618283832136758335675341029212711716911889120

OB

Tl

223123202164941819282035281013268341034410611413412119510293136

T2

22615519816081422055273522122606283814412310812191187124105138

P14812916114787666364833539781816182599112412610916413284105

CPTl

167149175155956273653354695101796486699713213011816515879142

T2

159158169156935942444847411081069283110619411912911717016487127

OF = overhead forward throw; OB = overhead backward throw; CP = chest pa.ss; p = practice; Tl = trial 1; T2 = trial 2.

16." The chest pass was performed with a 6-lb medicineball from a seated position with the back supportedagainst a fence. Girls aged 13 and under threw an aver-age distance of 14 ft, whereas girls aged 14-16 threw anaverage distance of 15.5 ft. Boys 14 and under threw anaverage of 17 ft, whereas boys aged 16 and under threwan average of 21 ft.

Sands (21) measured throwing distances of 9- to 11-year-old female gymnasts. Both overhead forward andoverhead backward medicine-ball throws were used andwere measured with a 6-lb medicine ball thrown from astanding position. The 9-year-old girls threw an averageof 10 ft and 9.5 ft, the 10-year-oId girls threw an averageof 12 ft and 12,5 ft. and the 11-year-oId girls threw anaverage of 13 and 14 ft in the overhead forward and over-head backward throws, respectively. Sands found a sig-nificant difference between tbe 10- and tbe 11-year-oldgirls. Tbe distance increased with age, and the overheadforward and overhead backward tosses were closely re-lated. However, there was no consideration of class level.

Tbe class level classifies the gymnasts by ability andrank. Class level 1 is tbe lowest level and is wbere newgymnasts begin. Gymnasts rise in class level as tbey im-prove and new skills are attained. Class level 5 is thepoint at which gymnasts will begin to compete. During ameet or competition, gymnasts must reach a predeter-mined total score to qualify to move up to the next level.Tbe total score is tbe sum of each of the scores dunngperformance on each apparatus (floor exercise, unevenparallel bars, balance benm, and vaulting). Tbe highestclass level is 10, which consists of state-, national-, andOlympic-ranked gymnasts. The skills performed by eacbgymnast arc tbe determining factor of class level, and ageis not a factor.

Gymnastics bas become a sport of almost exclusively

children and adolescents, yet gymnastic training is phys-ically demanding (23). Although strength plays an impor-tant role in women's gymnastics, gymnastics is more of apower-dominated sport (15). Success in gymnastics de-pends on the gymnast's ability to generate maximumstrength at a high velocity (speed) during each particularskill. Power should be considered training and testing ofgymnasts. Currently, notbing in the literature supportsany valid measurement of upper-extremity power of fe-male gymnasts and how it relates to class level.

Identifying normative data on upper-body power for10- and 11-year-oid female gymnasts will help developcriteria for identification and development of talent, phys-ical status of population, identification of weaknesses andstrengths of upper extremities, safe progression to moredifficult skills or to advance skill levels, safe return togymnastics after upper-extremity injury, and the identi-fication of successful upper-extremity training programs.

M E T H O D S

Experimental Approach to the Problem

The 3 hypotheses tested were that (a) no significant dif-ference was in the mean throw distance for each classlevel, (b) no significant difference was in tbe mean tbrowdistance for each age group, and (c) no significant differ-ence was in the mean tbrow distance for eacb type ofthrow. The purpose of this study was to determine wheth-er or not a relationship existed between upper-body pow-er and class level, age. and tbj-ow type among 10- and 11-year-old female club gymnasts. The gymnasts threw 1practice throw and 2 test throws. Tbe distance of thethrows were recorded and used to represent a measure-ment of power. Power, age, tbrow type, and class level

Mi Die INF BALL, POWER, AND GYMNASUCS 697

TABLE 2. ^test results of the pilot study.*

N Mean SD SEM

Two-sample f-test and confidenee intervalTwo sample /-test for OF-1 vs. OF-2

OF-1 24 99.5 44.4 9.1OF-2 24 100.5 46.6 9.5

95*?! CI for (I. OF-1 and jx OF-2: (-27.5, 25.4)/-test OF-1 = p. OF-2 (vs. not - ) : T = -0.08 p - 0.B4 df = 46

Two-sample Mest for OB-1 vs. OB-2OB-1 24 91.7 61.5 13OB-2 24 97.2 57,6 12

95% CI for ^J. OB-1 and (x OB-2: -40, 29)Mest M- OB-1 = L OB-2 (vs. not =): T = -0.32 p = 0.75 rf/ = 46

Two-sample ^test for CP-1 vs. CP-2CP-1 24 98.0 47.7 9.7CP-2 24 100.7 46.4 9.5

95% CI for l CP-1 and M- CP-2: (-30,0, 24.7)^test M-CP-1 = |x CP-2 (vs. not =) :T - -0.20 p = 0.S5 df = 46

* OF-1 = overhead forward throw, trial 1; OF-2 = overheadforward throw, trial 2; SD = standard deviation; SEM — stan-dard error of the mean; CI = confidence interval; OB-1 = over-head backward throw, trial 1: OB'2 = overhead backward thntw;trials 2; CP-1 = chest past, trial 1, CP-2 = chest past, trial 2.

were statistically analyzed to determine their relation-ship.

Pilot StudyA pilot study was performed to test and practice the pro-cedures outlined for data collection. Twenty-five noncom-petitive (class levels 1-4) female gymnasts ages 4-11 par-ticipated in the pilot study. The pilot study results arerecorded in Tahle 1.

A 2-sampIe t-test was calculated hased on the pilotstudy data. The mean throw distance of trial 1, x-,-,, wascompared with the mean throw distance of trial 2,X7,,. Thenull hypothesis was that the mean distance of throw trial1 was equal to the mean distance of trail throw 2, //<,: p,.j.i^ fly-;. The null hypothesis was tested at tx = 5%. Theresults indicated that the null hypothesis could not berejected. Therefore, no difference was between the meandistance of throw trial 1 and throw trial 2 for each typeof throw (see Table 2).

SubjectsThe subjects were 60 female gymnasts who were recruit-ed from local cluh teams on Long Island, NY. Fifteen sub-jects were placed in each class level. The inclusion criteriawere competitive female club gymnasts between the agesof 10 and 11 and class levels 5-8. Gymnasts were exclud-ed from the study if they did not return a signed permis-sion slip from a parent or legal guardian the day of thetest- The gymnasts were injury free in the upper extrem-ities. The presence of an injury was determined by com-plaints of symptoms that prohibited the gymnast fromperforming upper-extremity skills.

The gymnastics clubs were randomly selected. Thecoach was contacted to determine interest in participa-tion. The order of the gymnasts participating and the se-lection of the type of throw were randomized. The gym-nasts' rights were protected by Rocky Mountain Univer-sity's Internal Review Board and obtained before thestart of the investigation.

FIGURE 1. Overhead forward throw position.

Protocol of Data Collection1. Eacb gymnast's age and class level were recorded. If

the gymnast had no knowledge of her class level, hergymnastics coach determined the class level.

2. Each gymnast was assigned a number. The table ofrandom numbers was used to determine the gymnasts'order of throw.

3. The name of each thi'ow was placed on a slip of paperand placed in a container. The gymnast',s coach blindlydrew 1 slip of paper for each gymnast tested.

4. Each gymnast stood at the throwing line on a stencilof feet that were secured to the floor by adhesive tape.

5. The exact procedure was explained to each gymnast.The principal investigator read a script from an indexcard. The script is shown below:

A. Overhead forward—"You are about to peribrni an overheadforward pass. When I say go, you will lift the medicine ball overyour head and throw it forward as far as you can. Aim at thetarget. Each person in the gi'oup will take a turn. You will have1 practice and 2 throws with a 2-minute rest between eachthrow. Do you understand? Any questions?"B. Overhead hackward—"You are about to perform an overheadbackward pass. Face your back to the target and when I say go,you will lift the medicine ball over your head and throw it back-ward as far as you can. Aim al the larget. Each person in thegroup will take a turn. You will have 1 practice and 2 throwswith a 2-minute rest between each throw. Do you understand?Any questions?"C. Chest pass—"You are about to perform a chest pass. When 1say go, you will lift the medicine ball to your chest and throw itforward as far as you can. Aim al the target. Each person in thegroup will take a turn. You will have 1 practice and 2 throwswith a 2-minute rest between each throw. Do you understand?Any questions?"

A 6-Ib rubber medicine ball, 9-in. diameter, was damp-ened in a bucket of water.

6. Each gymnast held the medicine hall in hoth handswith arms relaxed and then quickly threw the bull for-ward toward the target. Figures 1-3 represent over-head forward throw, overhead backward throw, andchest pass positions, respectively.

7. The distance of the throw was recorded to the closestone-quarter inch.

8. The 2-minute rest time was measured with a stop-watch.

9. Steps 4-9 were repeated for each trial.

698 SALONIA, CHU, CHEIFETZ ET AL.

TABLE 3. Age, class level, throw type, and mean distance ofeach gymnast.*

F1GI.JRE 2. Overhead backward throw position.

FIGURE 3. Chest pass throw position.

The raw data were used to calculate the mean dis-tance for each throw, they included the total number of10- and 11-year-oid gymnasts who participated in thestudy, and they were grouped by age, class level, andthrow type. The means of the dependent variables werecalculated.

Statistical AnalysesAn analysis of variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2 x 3 factorial de-sign was used to determine the relationship betweenmean throw distance and class level, mean throw dis-tance and age, and mean throw distance and type ofthrow.

The ANOVA table was also provided with interactionterms, which provide a relationship between the throw,class level, and age. The following relationships were ex-amined: relationship between age and class level, rela-tionship between age and class throw type, and relation-ship between class and throw type.

Null hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference inmean throw distance for class level, i.e., //„; ix v = ^-^i^,

where

\L^i^ = mean distance of throw of class levels 5 and 6

1X7 ^ mean distance of throw of class levels 7 and 8.

Gymnast no.

123456789101112131416161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434446464748495051525354555657585960

Age(years)

10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101011

u11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Classlevel

111222111222111222111222111222111222111222111222111222111222

Throwtype

123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123123

Distance

(in.)

4.183.433.333.212.753.154.274.342.743.712.673.692.853.033.833.543.443.513.832.723.794.053.263.303.603.863.503.754.883.583.904.713.104.073.463.183.243.703.333.784.054.054.564.563.186.033.504.293.394.073.813.863.193.273.443.483.104.013.553.75

(m)

164.75135.13131.00126.25108.13124.13168.25166.75107.75146.13105.25145.25112.25119.13150.75139.25135.38138.25150.63107.25149.38159.38128.25129.88141.63151.88137.88147.75192.13140.75153.63185.38122.13160.25136.38125.38127.75145.63131.13148.75159.38159.63179.50179.38125.13237.25137.75168.88133.50160.13149.88152.13125.63128.88135.50137.00122.13158.13139.75147.75

•'• Level 1 = class level 5 and 6; level 2 = class level 7 and 8;throw type 1 = overhead forward throw; throw type 2 = over-head backward throw; throw type 3 = chest pass.

TABLE 4. Throw means categorized by age, class level, andthrow type.' '

Levels 5 and

OF

Age 10 y 164,75168.25112.25150.6314L63

Age 11 y 153.63127.75179.50133.50135.50

OB

135.13166.75119.13107.25151.88185.38145.63179.38160.13137.00

6

CP

131.00107.75150.75149.38137.88122.13131.13125.13149,88122,13

Levels 7 and

OF

126.25146.13139.25159.38147.75160.25148.75237.25152.13158.13

OB

108.13105.25135.38128.25192.13136.38159.38137.75125,63139.75

8

CP

124.13145.25138.25129.88140.75125,38159.63168.88128.88147.75

* OF = overhead forward throw; OB - overhead backwardthrow; CP = chest pass.

Null hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference inmean throw distance for age g^roups, i.e., H,,: (i o l^-iu

where

^10 = mean distance of throw of 10-year-old girls

|Xii ^ mean distance of throw of 11-year-oId girls.

Null hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in

MEDICINE BALL, POWER, AND GYMNASTICS 699

mean throw distance for throw type, i.e, H^. [LOF = (Jk)B=

where

fio/.- ^ mean distance of overhead forward throw

lifii) = mean distance of overhead backward throw

\X(,c ^ mean distance of overhead chest pass.

R E S U L T S

Sixty 10- and 11-year-oId female gymnasts were random-ly tested from 16 gymnastic clubs. Gymnasts were nottested if they were absent the day of testing or did nothave their permission slip signed by a parent or guardian.The gymnasts tested were from class levels 5-8. Eachgymnast performed 1 practice and 2 trial throws for 1type of throw. The mean of trial i and trial 2 were cal-culated and are presented in Table 3. The mean throwdistances categorized by age, class level, and throw typeare presented in Table 4. Descriptive statistics for age,class level, and thj'ow types are summarized in Table 5.Descriptive statistics for distance in relation to throwtype, distance in relation to age, and distance in relationto class level are summarized in Tables 6-8 and Figures4-6, respectively.

TABLE 5. Descriptive statistics.

Age (years) Class level Throw typeOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotalOFOBCPTotal

Mean (in.)147.5000136.0250135.3500139.6250143.7500133.8250135.6500137.7417145.6250134.9250135.5000138.6833145.9750161.5000130.0750145.8500171.3000139.778146.1000144.7000158.6375139.1000138.0875145.2750146.7375148.7625132.7125142,7375157.5250125.2625140.8750141.2208152,1313137.0125136.7937141.9792

SD N Mean (ft) Mean (m)

10

11

Total

5 and 6

7 and 8

Total

5 and 6

7 and 8

Total

5 and 6

7 and 8

Total

22.444224.029517.470820.722312.168435.03358.5309

20.825617.134828.345412,962620.435221.094720.878711.662421.607937.152655.060818.911535.148931.454732.724517.051028.673420.550025.112614.277121.041129.834830.766714.887328.606325.540129.873714.801124.9082

556

1555$

1610101030

555

15555

1510101030101010801010103020202060

12.2911.3411.28

11.9811.1511.30

12.1411.2411.29

12.1613.4610.84

14.2811.6512.18

13.2211.5911.51

12.2312.4011.06

13.1310.4411.74

12.6811.4211.40

3.753.713.443.553.653.403.463.93

3.433.443.523.704.103,303.704.353.563.713.684.033.533.513.693.733.783.373.634.003.183.583.863.483.47

• SD = Standard deviation; OF = overhead forward throw; OB = overhead backward throw; CP = chest pass.

700 SALONIA, CHU, CHEIFETZ ET AL.

TABLE 6. Relationship between distance and throw type.

Throw type Mean N SD

OFOBCP

Total

152.1313142.7817136.7938143.9022

20202060

25.540125.120114.801122.8982

TABLE 7.

Age (years)

1011

Total

TABLE 8.

Class level

5 and 67 and 8Total

Relationship between

Mean

138.6833149.1212143.9022

Relationship between

Mean

142.7375145.0670143.9022

distance

N

303060

distance

N

303060

and age.

SD

20.435224.347322.8982

and class level.

SD

21.041124.924022.8982

260 r

240

220'

200'

180'

160

140

120

100CO• 80

' 1

CM

N =

beginner30

advani^d

LEVEL

FIGURE 5. Mean and standard deviation of throw distanceand class levels.

260'

240'

220'

200'

180'

160'

140'

LU 120'

^ 100

Q 80

c

Oe

ten year otds

AGE

FIGURE 4. Mean and standard deviation of throw distanceand age.

240'

220

200-

180'

160'

140'

DIS

TAN

CE

o o

'Me

1 J

L

n—

= ^ — j

overhead chest

THROTYPE

FIGURE 6. Mean and standard deviation ol" throw distanceand throw type.

A 2 X 2 X 3 factorial ANOVA design was used to de-termine the relationship between mean throw distanceiind throw type, mean throw distance and age, and meanthrow distance and class level. The research failed to re-ject all 3 hypotheses. No significant difference was be-tween mean throw distances for each clas.s level, betweenmean throw distances for each age group, or betweenthrow distances for throw type. Because no significantmain effects were found, no interaction terms were con-sidered (see Table 9).

DISCUSSION

The medicine-ball throw test was designed to assess up-per-body power l22). The purpose of this study was to usemean throw distance as a measurement of upper-hodypower and determine the relationship between upper-body power and class level, age, and throw type.

Upper-hody power is an important component of wom-en's gymnastics (16). However, no significant differencewas found between mean throw distance and class level.Therefore, upper-body power did not change across classlevels 5 and 6 to class levels 7 and 8. Several factors mayrelate to the lack of increased power with the more ad-vanced class levels. This study observed large variabilityof upper-body power among gymnastic clubs. Withinsome clubs, the gymnasts in class levels 7 and 8 threwfarther than did class levels 5 and 6, and in other clubsclass levels 5 and 6 threw farther. This may be becauseof the variability of the throw distances among class lev-els. Varied strength, power, and conditioning programsamong the clubs may be a contributing factor to the dis-crepancies. Vossen et al. (24) and Crowder et al. (8) foundpower-training exercises were superior over strength-training exercises to increase the measurement of power.

MEDICINE BALL, POWI-K, AND GYMNASTICS 701

TABLE 9. Analysis of variance factorial design of throw distance, throw type, age, and class level.

Source

Corrected modelInterceptAge (y)Class levelThrow typeAge (y), class levelAge (y), throw typeClass level, throw typeAge (y), class level, throw typeErrorTypeCorrected total

Type III sum of .squares

7977.3201242471.453

1634.22581.399

2390.05526.219

480.4471548.9721576.004

22958.0751273406.848

30935.395

df1111121222

486059

Mean square

725.2111242471.453

1634.22581.399

1195.027266.219240.223774.486788.002478.293

F

1.5162597.719

3.4170.1702.4990,5570.5021.8191.648

p value

0.1570.0000.0710.6H20.0930.4590.6080.2090.203

Measuring power after implementing a specific power-training program across different class levels would be asuggestion for future study.

in addition to power, gymnastics requires strong mo-tor skills such as muscle coordination and balance. Vari-ability of these motor skills among gymnasts may alsocontribute to the lack of power progression among classlevels. To eliminate subject variability, future researchcan be performed with a gymnast performing all types ofthrows. Also, a longitudinal study can be performed mea-suring gymnasts' power as they advance through classlevels.

No significant difference was found between meantbrow distance and age; therefore, upper-body power didnot change with age. Mayhew et al. {13) and Viitasalo (23)also found that age was not a contributing factor to up-per-body power in young athletes. Sands (21) found that9-year-oid female gymnasts were less consistent than 10-and 11-year-old female gymnasts. He attributed the dif-ferences to growth-related characteristics, whereas the10- and 11-year-old gymnasts have similar physical char-acteristics. A suggestion for future study is to comparegymnasts at different ages who are within the same classlevel to test upper-body power.

No significant difference was found between meanthrow distance and tbrow type. Upper-body power re-mained consistent between the overhead forward throw,the overhead backward throw, and the chest pass.

This study observed variability in throw techniqueduring the overhead backward throw. Some gymnasts at-tained a greater ball height, thereby decreasing the meanthrow distance. Stockbrugger and Haennel {22> found theoverhead backward toss to be a valid and reliable test.However, the subjects were competitive volleyball playersages 16-30. Age and familiarity of the movement patternmay have contributed to the consistency of these subjects'throws. Although gymnasts are familiar with backwardmovement patterns, these subjects appeared to be uncom-fortable with the overhead backward throw. Perhaps anadditional practice throw may be warranted in these sub-jects.

Gillespie and Keenum (10) used upnght posts mount-ed on a crossbar to control the subjects' throw height. Thisexperiment was perfonned with an overhead forwardpass and would be difficult to implement with an over-head backward pass. A future study controlling the ver-tical height of the overhead backward throw is warrantedin young gymnasts.

Because the results of this study indicate that testing

gymnasts for upper-body power with the overhead for-ward throw, overhead backward tbrow, or chest pass willmeasure upper-body power equally well, a gymnasticscoach can choose only 1 of the 3 tests for normative datatesting. Also, because none of the main effects were sig-nificant, no interaction effects were considered.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Medicine-ball throw distance is a quick and easy test tomeasure upper-body power. This .study found no relation-ship between upper-body power and class level, age, andthrow type. The variability among gymnastic clubs mayhave been a contributing factor of the measurement ofmean power. Future studies exploring the influence ofpower training programs and the effect of development ofpower across gymnastic class levels would explore theseinteractions.

REFERENCES

1. ADAMS, T. An investigation of selected plyomptric training ex-ercises on muscular leg strength and power. Track Field Q. Rev.84:36-^0, 1984.

2. Aus-sPBUNG, D., J. AussPRUNG, AND D. GEHRI. Strt'nffth Train-ing Design and New Concepts in Clinica/ Applicalions. Dux-bury, MA: Strength and Perfonnance Consultants. 1995,

3. BAECHLE, T., AND T. ROGKH. E.ssentials of Strength Trainingand Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic*, 2000.

4. BALLMANN, K., J . S(;ANIJ\N, AND C. LANTZ. Prediction of hunchpress strength in untrained females from anthropomt'tric di-mensions and psychological indicators of activity involvement.J. Hum. Movement Stud. 37:217-233. 1999.

5. BAXTEK-JONES, A,, N. MAFFULLI, AND P. HELMS. LOW injuryrates in elite athletes. Arc/i. Din. Child. 68:130-132. 1993.

6. BoDi, J.. A, CRP:SSWELL, T, ENGEL, AND S. NICOI. Increase injumping height associated wilh maximal effort vertical depthjumps, Re,s-. Q. Exerc. Sport 58:11-15. 1987,

7. CHU, D.. ,VJD R. PANAKIELLO. Jumping inti) plyometrics: Sportspecific plyometrics: Baseball pitching. Natl. Slrength Cumi.A.SAW, X 11:81, 1989,

8. CROWDKH. V.R., S.W. JOLLY, B . COLLINS, AND S. JOHNSON. TheefFect of pylometric push-ups on upper body power, Track FieldQ. Rev. 93:58-59. 1993,

9. EBBEN. W,, D. BIJVCKARD, AND R, JKNWKN. Quantification ofmedicine ball vertical impact forces: E.stimating eflective train-ing loads. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:271-274, 1999.

10. GlLLEsriE, J., AND S. KEENUM. A validity and reliability anal-ysis ol'the seated shot put as a test of power. J. Hum. MovementStud. 13:97-105. 1987.

11, HKTDERSCHEIT, B., K. MCLEAN, G. DAVIS. The effects of isoki-netic vs. pylometric training on the shoulder Internal rotators.J. Orthop. Sports Phys. T/ier. 23:125-13;i. 1996.

702 SALONIA, CHU, CHEIFETZ ET AL.

12. MAYIIEW, J., M. BEMBEN, D. ROHRS. J . WARR, AND D. BEMBEN.Seated shot put as a measure of upper body power in collegemales. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 21:137-148. 1991.

13. MAYHEW, J . . M. BKMEJEN, D. ROHRS, et al. Comparison of upperbody power in adolescent wrestlers and basketball players. Pe-diatr. Exerc. Sci. 7:422-431. 1995.

14. MKPJUSEN. R., F . PIPER, M. WII.LMAN, AND J. BORMS. Gymnas-tic iixjuries. Sports Med. 13:337-356. 1992.

15. NEWTON, R., ANU K. MCEVOY. Baseball throwing velocity: Acomparison of medicine ball training and weight training. J.Strength Cond. Re.s. 8:198-203. 1994.

16. NlKMAN, D. The exercise test as a component of the total fit-ness evaluation. Primary Care. 28:119-135. 2001.

17. PERRY, J. Anatomy and biomechanics of the shoulder in throw-ing, swimming, gymnastics and tennis. Clin. Sports Med. 2:247-270. 1983,

18. RiciTAitas, J.E., T.R. ACKIAND, AND B. ELLIOTT. The effect oftraining volume and growth on gymnastic performance inyoung women. Pediatr. Exerc. ScL 11:349-363. 1999.

19. RoETERT, p., AND T. El-LENTiECKER. Complete Conditioning forTennis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998. pp. 19-22.

20. ROSE, K., AND T. BALL. A field test for predicting maximumbench press lift of college women. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 6:103-106. 1992.

21. SANDS, W. Physical abilities profiles—1993 national top test-ing. Paper presented at: USA Gymnastics 1994 National Con-gress; 1994; Belle Meade.

22. STOCKBRUCMtER, B., AND R. HAENNEL. Validity and reliabilityof a medicine ball explosive power test. J. Strength Cond. Res.15:431^38.2001.

23. VllTASALO, J. Evaluation of explosive strength for young andadult athletes. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 59:913. 1988.

24. VOSSEN, J. ,J. KRAMKR, D. BURKE, AND D. VOSSEN. Compariyonof dynamic push up training and body plyometric push uptraining on upper body power and strength, J. Strength Cond.Res. 14:248-253. 2000.

Address correspondence to Maria Salonia, RIAPT®optonline.net or SouthbayPT@yahoo.com.