Performance Support in Finnish Javelin Throw

Performance Support in Finnish Javelin Throw

Performance Support in Finnish
Javelin Throw
Riku Valleala
KIHU – Research Institute for Olympic Sports
Athletics Coaches Seminar, 6-8 Nowember 2015, Oslo
Contents of the presentation
•
•
•
•
The history of javelin research in Finland
Different methods and feedback
Individual Throwing Techniques
Way to Rio 2016
Introduction
Factors affecting to throwing
distance
Throwing distance
Release parameters
Aerodynamic factors
Release speed
Javelin
Release angle
Wind
Release height
Gravitation
Release angle of attack
Release angle of side-slip
Release pitching moment
Modified from:
• Hay, 1993
• Morriss and Bartlett, 1996
Javelin research at 1990s
•
•
•
•
The whole 90’s very active time
Special project during 1991-1999
78 athletes, totally 315 throws analyzed
3D motion analyses, ”throwing gate”, speed radar
Javelin research at 1990s
Javelin research at 1990s
• Javelin gun was developed
– For testing javelin flight
characteristics
– From an old anti-aircraft gun
– Pneumatic launch
• Extensive model testing with
the gun 1995-1998
– Diff. between and inside javelin
models
– COG tests for women’s javelin
– Change of IAAF rules for womens
javelin 1999 (3 cm change of
COG)
• The gun again in action in
2008 for the modern models
Javelin research on the 21st
century
• Technique analyses again
starting in 2004
– Gradually increasing year by year
– Latest years
• 2-3 training camps
• 2-3 competitions per year analyzed
• During 2005-2016
– Totally 753 throws analyzed
• 207 competition throws
• 458 training throws
– 552 for men and 231 for women
Methods and feedback:
Traditional motion analysis
• For measuring
– Javelin release parameters
– Body movements during
throwing
• Basic 3D motion analyses
since 1991
• Frame rate development
–
–
–
–
1990s: 100 / 60 fps
2004-2006 125 fps
2008 -> 250 fps
2014 -> 200 fps
Methods and feedback:
Traditional motion analysis
• In competitions
– 2-3 throws/athlete
– Digitazing the whole body
landmarks + javelin
– About 30 different variables
– Results in 1 week after
competition
• Accurate and systematic info
about competition throws
• Coaches wating impatiently
release speed values and
other results…
Methods and feedback:
Traditional motion analysis
• In training camps
–
–
–
–
4-8 throws/athlete from one training session
Digitazing only javelin + some extra points
9-18 different variables
Results in 8-24 hours
• Fewer variables – better
understanding and usability
• Feedback faster, but still… it should
be instant
Methods and feedback:
Fast motion analysis
•
•
•
•
•
For instant feedback about release parameters
Used from 2013 once a year in April indoor
Using Simi Motion
Reflecting markers on the javelin + autodigitizing
Results for the release parameters in 2 min.
Methods and feedback:
Fast motion analysis
• Concentrating on the control of the javelin
Methods and feedback:
Fast motion analysis
• Concentrating on the control of the javelin
Methods and feedback:
Fast motion analysis
• Concentrating on the control of the javelin
Methods and feedback:
Force plates
• For getting accurate information about force
production in 3D
• Together with fast motion analyses indoor
• So far, mostly visual and qualitative feedback
than systematic
statistical results
Methods and feedback:
Force plates
Ari Mannio: Resultant force of brace leg vs. release speed
9800
9600
9400
N
9200
9000
8800
8600
8400
26,0
26,2
26,4
26,6
26,8
27,0
m/s
27,2
27,4
27,6
27,8
28,0
Methods and feedback:
Pressure insoles
• For analyzing pressure
distributions and force production
• Novel Pedar system
• 99 recording units/insole
• Sampling rate 100 Hz
• Received data:
– Pressure distributions under feet
– Calculated total forces
– Timing and force profiles
• Insoles used twice at two different
training camps 2011
Methods and feedback:
Pressure insoles
• Force production curves of throwing steps:
Methods and feedback:
Pressure insoles
– Horizontal forces even more
important in javelin
Voima (N)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
6000
Voima (N)
• Individual visual analyzing
propably the most
rewarding way
• Pressure distributions not
very useful
• Insole measures pressure,
so calculated total forces
represent only vertical
forces!
4000
2000
0
Methods and feedback:
Speed radar
• For getting the approach speed
• Reliable variable would be the
speed of the COM
– But, it needs full body digitizing
• So, speed radar was used in 2012
couple of times (also in 1990’s)
• From behind or from the front view
• BUT too much problems and noice
in signal for getting usable data
Methods and feedback:
Ultimate player
Javelin flight analytics 2008
800 g, Nemeth Classic 95
100
98
Note! With javelin gun:
- no rotation in javelin
- no oscillations
- attack angles 0
- no wind in this case
96
94
92
Distance [m]
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
33 degrees
76
36 degrees
74
39 degrees
72
70
24
25
26
27
28
Release speed [m/s]
29
30
31
Distance [m]
Javelin flight analytics 2008
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
800 g javelins, 39 degrees
Polyn. (Nordic Orbit, Carbon 1)
Polyn. (Nordic Orbit, Carbon 2)
Polyn. (Nordic Airglider, Steel)
Polyn. (Nordic Champion, Carbon)
Polyn. (Ote Composite FX)
Polyn. (Nemeth Classic 95)
26,0
26,5
27,0
27,5
28,0
28,5
Release speed [m]
29,0
29,5
30,0
Javelin flight analytics 2008
• There are differencies within the same javelin model
between ”individuals”
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
600 g, Diana 80 steel, javelin 1
33 degrees
36 degrees
39 degrees
20
22
24
26
28
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
600 g, Diana 80 steel, javelin 2
33 degrees
36 degrees
39 degrees
20
22
24
26
28
The new Finnish carbon
javelin ”Angon”
• Developed by One Way Sport
• Co-operation with One Way and Tampere Univ. of
Technologies
– Goal to have a javelin stiff enought but easy to throw
• A lot of testing in practice with Finnish throwers
• Javelin gun shows that it’s very stable in air and flight
distance comparable to other carbons.
• http://www.onewaysport.com/angon/
Individual results
Mannio: Release parameters by time from 2008->2015
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
-5,0
1
2
3
4
Release angle
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Release speed
Release angle of side-slip
Release angle of attack
Individual results
Ruuskanen: Release parameters by time from 2008->2015
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
-5,0
1
2
3
Release speed
4
5
6
7
Release angle
8
9
10
11
12
13
Release angle of attack
14
15
16
17
18
19
Release angle of side-slip
Individual results
Pitkämäki: Release parameters by time from 2008->2015
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
1
2
Release speed
3
4
5
Release angle
6
7
8
9
Release angle of attack
10
11
12
13
14
Release angle of side-slip
Individual results
• Hip and shoulder rotation in pulling phase
180
Antti Ruuskanen 88,98 m - Hip and
shoulder rotation angles
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
40
20
60
Hip
40
shoulders
Tero Pitkämäki 82,34 m - Hip and
shoulder rotation angles
Hip
Shoulder
20
0
0
s
s
Individual results
• The path of the javelin
Antti Ruuskanen 88,98 m - Path of
the javelin from above
2,5
Tero Pitkämäki 82,34 m - Hip and
shoulder rotation angles
4
3
3,5
2,5
javelin
Javelin
COG
COG
2
1,5
m
1
0,5
3m
2m
2,5
1,5
2
3,5
3
2,5
m
2
1,5
1
Individual results
• Path of the javelin: Zelezny (89,66) and Räty (86,60) in Barcelona
1992 (Mero et al.)
Forces better along the long axis af javelin.
Propably smaller attack angles.
Extra speed by shortening the radius at the
end of the throw.
Bad attack angles produced easier.
Individual results
• The path more straight in the longest throws?
– Zelezny, Yego, Röhler…
Individual results
Individual results
Individual results
Individual results
Utriainen: Release point of the javelin
Mannio: Right leg knee angle at
final foot contact
0,05
140
0,00
135
-0,05
130
-0,10
125
-0,15
180
26,5
27,0
27,5
28,0
28,5
21,5
22,0
22,5
23,0
23,5
24,0
24,5
Sormunen: Distance btw left and right
at moment of final foot contact
Ruuskanen: Knee angle at release
1,55
160
1,50
140
1,45
120
100
21,0
25
26
27
28
29
30
1,40
21,0
21,5
22,0
22,5
23,0
23,5
24,0
2,00
1,80
1,60
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
Ruuskanen
Mannio
Wirkkala
Pitkämäki
Kiertokulma, hartiat lopussa
Kiertokulma, hartiat alussa
Kiertokulma, lantio lopussa
Kiertokulma, lantio alussa
TJ-RJ etäis. Irr. suora
TJ-RJ etäis. Irr. sivus.
TJ-RJ etäis. Irr. pitkitt.
TJ-RJ etäis. alussa suora
TJ-RJ etäis. alussa sivus.
TJ-RJ etäis. alussa pitkitt.
V olkap. O päkiä etäis. RJ
TJ polvik.3
TJ polvik.2
TJ polvik.1
Kyynärk.3
Kyynärk.2
Kyynärk.1
RJ polvik.
Irrotuskohta
Irrotuskorkeus
Vetomatka
Vetoaika
Tukiask. kesto
vähenem. %
Nopeus irr
Nopeus TJ
Nopeus RJ
Sivutt. Ryntökulma
Ryntökulma
Lähtökulma
Lähtönopeus
Tulos
Individual differencies
4 male throwers, over 80 m: Individual averages compared
to group average (9-24 throws/athlete)
Individual differencies
Ruuskanen
Mannio
Wirkkala
Pitkämäki
• Variables that differ between throwers:
–
–
–
–
Angle of attack and side-slip
Point of the release compared to support leg
L shoulder – R foot distance at R leg touch down
L-R foot distance sideways during pulling phase
Individual differencies
• Variables that are very constant
• And their approximate values for average
81 m throw
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Release speed
Approach speed
Pulling distance
Pulling time
Right leg knee angle
Support leg knee angle
Length of the final step
Hip rotation angle
(start/end)
28,3 m/s
5,9 m/s
1,72 m
0,107 s
135 degrees
175/158/161
1,60 m
116/80 degrees
Way to Rio 2016
• Goals (from 2014)
1. Efficient throwing performance
2. Good control of the javelin
3. Individually optimal technique
• Deeper co-operation
– Biomechanists ”to be the part of the
family” in throwing team
• Training camps
– Biomechanist present at camps
– Fast feedback + self-evaluation of
the throwers
Thank you!