1. Joe Todora
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Ben Meyer (Department of Exercise Science)
Normative data for overhead back and
between-the-legs front throws
Abstract
Purpose: Overhead back (OHB) and between-the-legs front (BLF) throws
are components of total body power training programs. The distance of a
throw, as a raw score, is difficult to evaluate. Percentiles permit the
evaluation of raw scores and facilitate the comparison of two sets of data
that are based on different units of measurement. By obtaining normative
data for OHB and BLF throws, it will be possible to make comparisons with
other power assessments. The purpose of this study was to obtain
normative data for OHB and BLF throwing techniques in an undergraduate
student population.
Methods: Thirty-six male and thirty-three female undergraduate students
participated in the study. For both throwing techniques, males used a 14 lb
(6.35 kg) medicine ball and females used an 8 lb (3.63 kg) medicine ball.
Subjects performed three trials for each technique, and distances were
measured using a fiberglass tape. For each technique, the best of the
three throws was used in the analysis. Percentiles were computed using
the SPSS 18.0 default method. Paired t-tests were used to check for
statistically significant differences between the two throws. The cut-off
chosen for statistical significance was p = 0.05.
Results: Males threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (8.9 ± 1.5 m) than in the
OHB (8.6 ± 1.6 m). Females also threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (6.5 ±
1.3 m) than in the OHB (5.8 ± 1.3 m). Individuals who threw far using one
technique tended to throw far using the other technique (r = 0.847, males; r
= 0.845, females).
Conclusion: The results of this project indicate that male and female
undergraduate students are able to throw a medicine ball farther using the
between-the-legs front technique than using the overhead back technique.
The normative data obtained in this study provide a basis for classification
of throwing proficiency and comparisons to other power assessments.
Introduction
The overhead back throw (OHB) and between-
the-legs front throw (BLF) are used in physical
fitness assessments and as a training tool for
various sports. Athletes throw an object, such as
a shot or medicine ball, using maximal effort in
order to achieve the largest horizontal distance
possible. Figures 1 and 2 show typical OHB and
BLF sequences.
The distance of a throw, as a raw score, is difficult
to evaluate. Percentiles permit the evaluation of
raw scores and facilitate the comparison of two
sets of data that are based on different units of
measurement (Stockburger, 1996). By obtaining
normative data for OHB and BLF throws, it will be
possible to make comparisons with other power
assessments (Harman, Garhammer, & Pandorf,
2000).
The purpose of this study was to obtain normative
data for OHB and BLF throwing techniques in an
undergraduate student population.
Acknowledgments
The authors’ participation in the 2013 MARC-ACSM conference was
supported by Shippensburg University Student Services, Inc.
Results
Tables 1 and 2 show the percentiles for males
and females, respectively. Males threw farther (p
< 0.05) in the BLF (8.9 1.5 m) than in the OHB
(8.6 1.6 m). Females also threw farther (p <
0.05) in the BLF (6.5 1.3 m) than in the OHB
(5.8 1.3 m). Individuals who threw far using one
technique tended to throw far using the other
technique (r = 0.847, males; r = 0.845, females).
Figures 3 and 4 show the frequency distributions
for OHB distance for males and females,
respectively. The males’ distribution for OHB
distance approximated a symmetrical distribution,
while the females’ distribution was positively
skewed.
Figures 5 and 6 show the frequency distributions
for BLF distance for males and females,
respectively. The males’ distribution for BLF
distance approximated a symmetrical distribution,
while the females’ distribution was slightly
positively skewed.
Discussion
The results of this project indicate that male and
female undergraduate students are able to throw
a medicine ball farther using the BLF technique
than using the OHB technique. The normative
data obtained in this study provide a basis for
classification of throwing proficiency and
comparisons to other power assessments.
The authors recommend that a larger population
of subjects be assessed in their performance of
the OHB and BLF throws. This is especially
important for the females, whose positively-
skewed distribution indicates that mostly lower-
skilled subjects took part in the present study.
References
Harman, E., Garhammer, J., & Pandorf, C. (2000). Administration, scoring,
and interpretation of selected tests. In T.R. Baechle & R.W. Earle (Eds.).
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (pp. 287-317).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stockburger, D. (1996). Score transformations. In Introductory statistics:
Concepts, models, and applications. Retrieved from
http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/introbook/sbk14m.htm
Figure 1. Overhead back throw (typical participant).
Figure 3. Frequency distributions for OHB throw
distances (males).
Figure 4. Frequency distributions for OHB throw
distances (females).
Methods
Thirty-six male (age = 22 ± 1 yr; standing
height = 1.79 ± 0.09 m; mass = 87 ± 20 kg)
and thirty-three female (age = 22 ± 4 yr;
standing height = 1.65 ± 0.07 m; mass = 61 ±
9 kg) undergraduate students volunteered for
the study. For both throwing techniques,
males used a 14 lb (6.35 kg) medicine ball
and females used an 8 lb (3.63 kg) medicine
ball. Subjects performed three trials for each
technique, and distances were measured
using a fiberglass tape. For each technique,
the best of the three throws was used in the
analysis.
Percentiles were computed using the SPSS
18.0 default method. Paired t-tests were used
to check for statistically significant differences
between the two throws. The cut-off chosen
for statistical significance was p = 0.05.
Pearson product moment correlation
coefficient values were computed in order to
determine the extent of the relationship
between measures.
Figure 2. Between-the-legs front throw (typical participant).
Table 1. Percentiles for OHB and BLF
throws (Males, 14 lb medicine ball).
Table 2. Percentiles for OHB and BLF
throws (Females, 8 lb medicine ball).
Percentile OHB (m) BLF (m)
90 10.7 10.8
80 10.0 10.3
70 9.1 9.6
60 8.9 9.2
50 8.5 8.9
40 8.1 8.7
30 7.6 8.0
20 6.7 7.6
10 6.5 6.8
Percentile OHB (m) BLF (m)
90 7.2 8.1
80 6.6 7.5
70 6.5 7.2
60 6.0 6.5
50 5.8 6.4
40 5.2 5.9
30 4.8 5.7
20 4.7 5.2
10 4.5 5.1
Figure 5. Frequency distributions for BLF throw
distances (males).
Figure 6. Frequency distributions for OHB throw
distances (females).
0
5
10
15
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Frequency
Distance (m)
OHB (Male)
0
5
10
15
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Frequency
Distance (m)
BLF (Male)
0
5
10
15
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency
Distance (m)
OHB (Female)
0
5
10
15
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency
Distance (m)
BLF (Female)