During a shot put, there are different finite variables that can be controlled by the thrower, including release angle, release height, release direction, and release velocity. Previous studies have determined thresholds of release velocity necessary for achieving certain distances, and this case study sought to expand upon that concept. Conclusions from key biomechanical data can make a significant difference in the performance of athletes in the shot put if properly understood by coaches. By utilizing this scientific approach to the shot put event, the throws coach will be able to determine more accurate adjustments and devise training stimuli to better accommodate the athlete. In this case study, researchers and the coach attempted to bridge the gap in the approach to teaching and coaching the glide shot put by using a physics-based equation regarding projectile motion in tandem with biomechanical analyses. The use of immediate feedback via video analysis was an essential part the coaching and teaching system. The athlete’s release angles decreased, and her maximum release velocities increased from 12.5 m/s in 2015 to 13.1 m/s in 2016. This USATF coaching education shot put project is an example in which the cooperation between sport science and coaching helped to produce an Olympic berth (19.24 m) by Felisha Johnson in the women’s shot put in 2016.
JudgeLWYoungMWanlessE.Using sports science and training theory to develop elite performance: a case study of a 2005 world championship finalist in the women’s shot put. Int J Sports Sci Coach2011;
6: 365–385.
2.
McCoyRWGregorRJWhitingWC, et al.
Kinematic analysis of elite shot-putters. Track Technique1984; 90: 2868–2871.
3.
TsirakosDKBartlettRMKolliasIA.A comparative study of the release and temporal characteristics of shot put. J Hum Mov Stud1995;
28: 227–242.
4.
MaherasAV.The relationship between the angle of release and the velocity of release in the shot put, and the application of the theoretical model to estimate the optimum angle of release. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, 1995.
5.
HayJG.The biomechanics of sports techniques.
Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1993.
6.
LandolsiMLabiadhLZarroukF, et al.
Kinematic analysis of the shot-put: a method of assessing the mechanical work of the hand action force. Eur J Sport Sci2018;
18: 1208–1216.
7.
LinthorneNP.Optimum release angle in the shot put. J Sports Sci2001;
19: 359–372.
8.
YoungMLiL.Determination of critical parameters among elite female shot putters. Sports Biomechanics2005;
4: 131–148.
JudgeLWYoungM.The shot put handbook.
Monterey, CA:
Coaches Choice, 2010.
11.
SmithSLSnowRE. Kinematic analysis of U.S. decathlete shot put performance. In: XIIIth symposium of the international society of biomechanics in sports, Prague, Czechoslavakia, ISBS.
HubbardMde MestreNJScottJ.Dependence of release variables in the shot put. J Biomech2001;
34: 449–456.
14.
Coh M, and Stuhec S. 3-D kinematic analysis of the rotational shot put technique. New Stud Athle 2005; 20: 57–66.
15.
Abdel-AzizYIKararaHM.Direct linear transformation from comparator coordinates into object space coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing2015;
81: 103–107.
16.
LeachRJForresterSMearsA, et al. How valid and accurate are measurements of golf impact parameters obtained using commercially available radar and stereoscopic optical launch monitors? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.009 (2017, accessed 4 November 2020).
17.
YoungM.Critical factors in the shot put. USA: Louisiana State University, 2004.
18.
WinterDASidwallHGHobsonDA.Measurement and reduction of noise in kinematics of locomotion. J Biomech1974;
7: 157–159.
19.
YoungM. Kinetic linking in the shot put. In: 1st annual Chinese national throws conference, Beijing, China, May 2009.
20.
YoungM.Biomechanical analysis of the men’s shot put at the 2004 United States Olympic trials.
USA:
University of Louisiana, 2004.
21.
Matveyev LP and VB Giljatsova. The Dynamics of the Training Load. Mod Athle Coach 1991; 29: 16–19.
22.
BartonietzKE.Biomechanics of the snatch: toward a higher training efficiency. Strength Cond J1996;
18: 24–31.
23.
JudgeLW.Developing speed strength: in season training program for the collegiate thrower. Strength Cond J2007;
29: 42–54.
24.
JudgeLW.The complete track and field coaches’ guide to conditioning for the throwing events.
Monterey, CA:
Coaches Choice, 2008.
25.
KyriazisTATerzisGBoudolosK, et al.
Muscular power, neuromuscular activation, and performance in shot put athletes at preseason and at competition period. J Strength Cond Res2009;
23: 1773–1779.
26.
StoneMHSanbornKO’BryantHS, et al.
Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J Strength Cond Res2003;
17: 739–745.
27.
LankaJE. Biomechanical investigation of shot putting technique in athletes of different skill level.
28.
Zatsiorsky VM, Lanka JJ, and Shalmanov AA. Biomechanical analysis of shot putting technique. Exer Spo Sci Revi 1981; 9: 353–389.
29.
AlexanderMJLinderKJWhalenM.Structural and biomechanical factors differentiating between male and female shot put athletes. J Hum Mov Stud1996; 103–146.
30.
HayJGWilsonBDDapenaJ.Identification of the limiting factors in the performance of a basic human movement. 1976; 13–19.
31.
ArielG.Computerized biomechanical analysis of the world’s best shot putters. Track Field Q R1973; 199–206.
32.
DelevanP.Techniques of putting the shot. Track Field Q Rev1973; 211–213.
33.
Koltai J. Thoughts on traditional and new putting techniques. In: The Throws: Contemporary theory, technique and training (edited by F. Wilt), pp. 34–35. Los Altos, CA: Tafnews Press, 1974.
34.
NettT.Foot contact at the instant of release in throwing. Track Technique1962;
274.
35.
BartonietzK.Strength training for throwers. The Throws2000; 22–26.
36.
DessureaultJ. Selected kinetic and kinematic factors involved in shotputting. In: Asmussen E and Jorgensen J (eds) Biomechanics VI-B. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, pp.51–60.
37.
GregorRJEdgertonVRPerrineJJ, et al.
Torque-velocity relationships and muscle fiber composition in elite female athletes. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol1979;
47: 388–392.
38.
de Mestre NJ, Hubbard M and Scott J (1998) Optimizing the shot put. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport (edited by N. de Mestre and K. Kumar), pp. 249±257. Gold Coast, Qld: Bond University.
39.
BompaTO.Theory and methodology of training: the key to athletic performance. 3rd ed.
Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall, Hunt, 1994.
40.
ReisVMFerreiraAJ.The validity of general and specific strength tests to predict the shot put performance – a pilot study. Int J Perform Anal Sport2003;
3: 112–120.
41.
JudgeLWBellarDThrasherAB, et al.
A pilot study exploring the quadratic nature of the relationship of strength to performance among shot putters. Int J Exerc Sci2013;
6: 171–179.
42.
NuzzoJLMcCaulleyGOCormieP, et al.
Trunk muscle activity during stability ball and free weight exercises. J Strength Cond Res2008;
22: 95–102.
43.
StoneMHMoirGGlaisterM, et al.
How much strength is necessary?Phys Therapy Sport2002;
3: 88–96.
44.
GarhammerJ.Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc1980;
12: 54–60.
45.
YessisMD.Training for power sports, part 2. Strength Cond J1995;
17: 68–73.
46.
BlazevichAJBabaultN.Post-activation potentiation versus post-activation performance enhancement in humans: historical perspective, underlying mechanisms, and current issues. Front Physiol2019;
10: 1359.
47.
Cuenca-FernándezFSmithICJordanMJ, et al.
Nonlocalized postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects in trained athletes: a pilot study. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab2017;
42: 1122–1125.
