No announcement yet.

Theoretical justification for return/tension relationship

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theoretical justification for return/tension relationship

    This message was submitted to the Biomch-L moderators and forwarded to
    the subscribers.
    Krystyna Gielo-Perczak, Biomch-L Co-moderator

    Title: Theoretical justification for return/tension relationship

    I came up with a seemingly useful diagnostic tool for coaches but I
    would like to strengthen up the theory behind.

    The goal is to diagnose unwanted tension (as defined by
    counter-productive excess antagonist activity) in a sports movement.
    The technique I came up with is to use a visual cue - the 'return' after
    a follow through. What I mean by 'return' is the natural return of a
    joint (through elasticity of supporting muscles) to its base position
    after being taken to an extreme position by the follow through.

    It was in badminton smashes that I looked at this. After the racket
    impacts the shuttle it follows through such that the forearm becomes
    pronated and the wrist flexed. This then bounces back, or 'returns' to
    a more neutral position. Through self experiments and discussion with
    coaches I concluded that unwanted tension interfered with this process
    so that the return was reduced or eliminated (at least temporarily) when
    the player was tense (e.g.
    putting in too much effort).

    The coaches I have talked to about this have welcomed the diagnostic
    technique because it allows easy diagnosis of tension through
    observation of the follow through/return.

    The thing is I'm lacking a really good theoretical justification for
    Can anyone add any weight to my theory?



    Joe Wright