Literature DB >> 24150143

The Role of Knee Positioning and Range-of-Motion on the Closed-Stance Forehand Tennis Swing.

Steven M Nesbit1, Monika Serrano, Mike Elzinga.   

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of knee positioning and range-of- motion on the closed-stance forehand tennis swing. The analyses of tennis swing mechanics were performed using a computer model comprised of a full-body model of a human and an inertial model of a racket. The model was driven by subject forehand swings (16 female college-level subjects) recorded with a high-speed digital motion analysis system. The study discovered that both initial knee positioning and range-of-motion were positively related to racket velocity and characteristic of more skilled players. The direct effects of knee positioning and range-of-motion on racket movement are minimal, however there are several indirect biomechanical effects on the forehand motion such as movement of the body mass center, work of the knee, hip and back joints, and the angular range-of-motion of the hips and torso. Some of these indirect effects were related to racket velocity and characteristic of more skilled players. Factors that influenced knee positioning and range-of-motion include years of playing, amount of coaching, and body style. Efforts to both increase and restrict the knee movements of the subjects resulted in substantially lower racket velocities (and other detrimental biomechanical effects) implying that there may be optimal knee positions and range-of-motion for a given subject. The most skilled subject exhibited a high degree of consistency of knee positioning and range-of-motion. This subject adjusted for varying ball height through modified initial knee positioning while maintaining fairly constant ranges-of-motion. Key pointsInitial knee positioning and range-of-motion were positively related to racket velocity and characteristic of more skilled players for the closed stance forehand motion.Knee positioning and range-of-motion had several indirect biomechanical effects on the forehand motion such as movement of the body mass center, work of the knee, hip and back joints, and the angular range-of-motion of the hips and torso.Efforts to both increase and restrict the knee movements resulted in substantially lower racket velocities implying that there may be optimal knee positions and range-of-motion for a given subject.The most skilled subject exhibited a high degree of consistency of knee positioning and range-of-motion. This subject adjusted for varying ball height through modified initial knee positioning while maintaining fairly constant ranges-of-motion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical models; forehand; knee joint; tennis swing

Year:  2008        PMID: 24150143      PMCID: PMC3763335     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  8 in total

1.  Technique effects on upper limb loading in the tennis serve.

Authors:  B Elliott; G Fleisig; R Nicholls; R Escamilia
Journal:  J Sci Med Sport       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.319

2.  Kinetics of the upper extremity in the open and square stance tennis forehand.

Authors:  R E Bahamonde; D Knudson
Journal:  J Sci Med Sport       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.319

3.  Are patient-specific joint and inertial parameters necessary for accurate inverse dynamics analyses of gait?

Authors:  Jeffrey A Reinbolt; Raphael T Haftka; Terese L Chmielewski; Benjamin J Fregly
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.538

4.  Work and power analysis of the golf swing.

Authors:  Steven M Nesbit; Monika Serrano
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

5.  Comparison of reaction-movement times from four variations of the upright stance.

Authors:  D J Cotten; D Denning
Journal:  Res Q       Date:  1970-05

6.  Biomechanical model of the human foot: kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase of walking.

Authors:  S H Scott; D A Winter
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Can laboratory-based tennis profiles predict field tests of tennis performance?

Authors:  Arlette C Perry; Xuewen Wang; Brandon B Feldman; Tiffany Ruth; Joseph Signorile
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  The effects of racket inertia tensor on elbow loadings and racket behavior for central and eccentric impacts.

Authors:  Steven M Nesbit; Michael Elzinga; Catherine Herchenroder; Monika Serrano
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2006-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

  8 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Mechanics and learning practices associated with the tennis forehand: a review.

Authors:  Machar Reid; Bruce Elliott; Miguel Crespo
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  Pelvic rotation and lower extremity motion with two different front foot directions in the tennis backhand groundstroke.

Authors:  Sayumi Iwamoto; Toru Fukubayashi; Patria Hume
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Can the Open Stance Forehand Increase the Risk of Hip Injuries in Tennis Players?

Authors:  Caroline Martin; Anthony Sorel; Pierre Touzard; Benoit Bideau; Ronan Gaborit; Hugo DeGroot; Richard Kulpa
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.