IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v8y2008i3p18-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why have swimmers neglected the “fish kick” technique?

Author

Listed:
  • Luc Collard
  • Emmanuel Auvray
  • Ivan Bellaunay

Abstract

Given that horizontal-plane undulation (“fish kicking”) just under the water surface is more effective (from a hydrodynamic point of view) than vertical-plane undulation (“dolphin kicking”) (Lighthill, 1975), why then do expert swimmers experts not use this technique after the turn and before resuming their arm stroking action? Fourteen national-level swimmers (6 males and 8 females) were timed over 15m and 25m trials while dolphin kicking and then fish kicking. A comparative analysis revealed the strong potential of fish kicking (which equates to dolphin kicking on the side). Over 25m, the fish kicking times were only slightly slower than the dolphin kicking times, and this was in the absence of prior training. Over 15m and at no more than 1 metre below the surface, the swimmers went significantly faster in the side position (p<0.05). A multifactorial analysis (MFA) revealed that the determinants of high performance while kicking underwater are relatively independent of the swimmer’s absolute speed (e.g. personal best for 50m front crawl), gender, age and weight. In contrast, in the population of swimmers studied here, being a backstroke or butterfly specialist and being short were factors that appeared to favour speed in the undulation trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Collard & Emmanuel Auvray & Ivan Bellaunay, 2008. "Why have swimmers neglected the “fish kick” technique?," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 18-26, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:8:y:2008:i:3:p:18-26
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2008.11868444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2008.11868444
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2008.11868444?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:8:y:2008:i:3:p:18-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.