Paddle-to-podium: A constraints-led approach to sprint-paddle training in competitive Australian female surfers

Abstract

Female surfing is evolving rapidly with increasing expectations for athletes aspiring to qualify for the Olympics and World Championship Tour. Sprint paddling is a critical component of surfing performance, and paddling velocity in a pool setting has been shown to be a strong predictor of competition level in the ocean environment. Therefore, this study aimed to enhance sprint paddling performance among female surfers through a technique training intervention utilising a constraints-led approach. Experimental design included baseline testing prior to a 6-week control period, assessments pre and post the approximately 6-week training intervention, and a 6-week non-trained retention period with a final follow-up testing session. Pool-based testing consisted of a 15-m sprint-paddle test with video analysis for spatiotemporal data, a 12-s paddling force test, and a perception of paddling proficiency questionnaire. Additionally, internal and external shoulder strength and range of motion, and a 1RM maximum pull-up test were assessed in the gym. The training intervention applied Newell's Model of Constraints by manipulating task constraints to enhance paddling technique. Results showed significant improvements in sprint time to 15 m (PRE: M = 10.79 ± 0.40 s, POST: M = 10.50 ± 0.32 s) and average velocities (PRE: M = 1.57 ± 0.07 m/s, POST: M = 1.63 ± 0.04 m/s), stroke efficiency (decreased stroke count and increased stroke length), maximal and average force in the pool, and perceived paddling proficiency. These findings suggest that coaches should integrate this novel training into the daily training environment to continue to advance female surfing performance.

Keywords

Efficiency force skill acquisition surfboard technique

Introduction

In January 2024, Australian surfer Molly Picklum achieved the first-ever perfect 10/10 score for a female at Pipeline during the Pipeline Pro on the North Shore of Oahu, Hawaii, marking what has been called the “greatest heat in women's surf history” against Hawaiian surfer Betty-Lou Sakura Johnson.¹ This milestone highlights a generational shift in women's surfing, with female athletes challenging long-standing expectations and raising the bar for those aspiring to qualify for the Olympics and World Championship Tour (WCT). Previous research has identified sprint paddling as a key factor in surfing performance, with studies assessing sex differences in 15 m sprint paddling bouts in a pool setting suggesting that female surfers have potential for performance gains.^2–4 While research has begun to investigate strength and conditioning strategies to improve paddling speed in female surfers, there remains a paucity of literature on female stroke kinematics and technique optimisation.⁵ To further advance the sport for female surfers, it is essential to address this disparity.

Paddling

Surfers are judged exclusively on their wave-riding performance during competition, typically representing only 4% of total heat time.⁶ The majority of time (>50%) is spent engaging in paddling bouts ranging from prolonged, submaximal efforts (endurance paddling) to short, powerful bursts (sprint paddling) lasting 4–5 s.^7,8 Sprint paddling, accounting for 60–80% of paddling efforts, is crucial for positioning, wave-catching, paddling out to the lineup, priority paddle battles, and generating momentum for catching waves (see Appendix).^6–12 Effective sprint paddling enhances speed and power for subsequent manoeuvres and is essential for catching larger, more critical waves that boost scoring potential.^13,14 According to Secomb et al.,¹⁵ deficits in sprint paddling reduce wave-catching opportunities, limit skill development, and ultimately decrease scoring potential. Thus, sprint paddling ability is a key performance predictor in surfing and could be the difference between catching the winning wave of the heat, or not.

Due to limited surfing-specific paddling research, technical insights are often drawn from front-crawl swimming, which breaks down a single stroke cycle into four phases: entry and catch, pull, push, and recovery (Figure 1).^14,16–18 Common technical issues like inefficient catch may hinder front-crawl swimming performance, while increased stroke length correlates with higher swim speeds.^19–21 In surfing, a lower chest position during sprint paddling in men is associated with higher paddling speeds, which corresponds to greater activation of the latissimus dorsi, upper trapezius, and middle deltoid muscles.^22,23 It is not surprising then that relative upper-body pull strength correlates with peak paddling velocity in male surfers.^24,25 Additionally, research indicates a positive correlation between maximal force and sprint velocity in front-crawl swimming.^26–28 Morouco et al.²⁹ measured tethered force across various front-crawl distances, finding that both maximal and average force were associated with higher velocities during 50 m sprints. This suggests that force may also be relevant for shorter distances, such as 15 m, highlighting the need for further investigation, particularly in female surfers, to refine technique for long-term performance gains.

Figure 1.

Phases of the surf paddling stroke cycle. Reach occurs during the recovery phase and is characterised by increased length.

Learning design & constraints-led approach

When coaching to improve technique, it's important to consider the various approaches available and tailor them to the learner's needs.³⁰ Two primary methods for skill acquisition are Linear Pedagogy (LP) and Nonlinear Pedagogy (NLP). LP, considered the traditional approach, is based on the belief that there is an “optimal” technique or a “one-size-fits-all” model.³⁰ Coaches using this approach tend to rely on prescriptive methods, such as direct instruction and repetitive drill-based practice, to encourage athletes to consistently reproduce specific movement patterns.³⁰ However, LP has been criticised for being overly prescriptive and for relying on isolated drills that may not transfer effectively to real-world performance.³¹ In contrast, NLP encourages exploration throughout the learning process, enabling learners to discover optimal solutions tailored to their individual needs.^32,33 Aligned with the principles of ecological dynamics, which integrate concepts from dynamical systems theory, ecological psychology, and neurobiology, NLP emphasizes the interaction between athletes and their environment, where open skills—such as paddling—are performed in dynamic contexts that require constant adaptation to external stimuli.^30,34,35 Within NLP, increased exploration fosters learning rather than hindering performance, with “mistakes” considered an integral part of the learning process.^31,33,36,37 For instance, Lee et al.³³ found that twenty-four 10-year-old female beginner tennis players demonstrated greater movement variability when practicing under NLP, suggesting that effective performance can be achieved through multiple movement solutions, rather than relying on a single “optimal” technique.

The Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) is an example of NLP and a method of leveraging constraint manipulation to encourage athletes to discover unique movement solutions based on their individual, environmental, and task constraints.³¹ Constraints define the boundaries that encourage or discourage goal-directed movements or behaviours and can be strategically manipulated to promote technical changes.^31,33,38,39 Individual constraints relate to personal characteristics including structural (i.e., height and anthropometry) and functional (i.e., motivation, fear, focus) constraints. While structural constraints change slowly over time (i.e., childhood to adulthood), functional constraints are more fleeting and situation specific.^31,40 Environmental constraints are any factors in the individual-environment interaction that are external to the individual, encompassing both physical (i.e., wave size and wind speed) and sociocultural (i.e., localism, power dynamics, cultural expectations) constraints.^31,37,41 For instance, when a surfer paddles into a consequential wave that is pulling water off (of) dry reef, they must work in a harmonious interplay with their individual (i.e., arm span, fear, perception of action capabilities), environmental (i.e., wind direction and crowd), and task constraints to accomplish the goal of paddling into the wave successfully. In this study, individual and environmental constraints were controlled where possible (i.e., occurring in the pool setting) to assess the impact of technique on sprint paddling performance, while task constraints were manipulated to facilitate technical adaptation.

Task constraints consist of movement objectives, rules, and equipment that shape goal-directed behaviour, and can be manipulated to promote skill adaptation and effectively induce technique changes through NLP.^31,42–44 This approach encourages athletes to explore and adapt, discovering emerging and unique movement patterns that suit their specific constraints. For example, Gray⁴⁵ created an activity called ‘Connection ball’ in which baseball batters place a rubber ball between their biceps and forearm of their back arm (furthest from the pitcher) and swing in any way while keeping the ball from falling out until as close as possible to the point of bat-ball contact. Thus, if the batter uses an undesired movement solution, such as an early separation between their arms and body, they cannot achieve the specified goal. In this example, the practitioner is using task constraints to elicit a change in technique through the addition of equipment (rubber ball) and rules around the instruction of the task. Therefore, through the implementation of targeted constraints, the individual will dynamically self-organise to optimise their unique movement solution to the task objectives.

Within the context of this study, improving an athlete's sprint paddling ability is crucial in fostering a positive perception of their action capabilities (i.e., perception-action coupling) and enhancing performance.⁴⁶ Improving paddling technique is intended to open-up more opportunities for action (i.e., affordances) which are shaped by both structural and functional (i.e., perception of paddling proficiency) individual constraints. Affordances are dynamic and evolve in response to changes in an individual's action capabilities.⁴⁷ As a result, a surfer who improves their sprint paddling technique would, in theory, be better equipped to respond effectively within their performance context. Therefore, a key consideration in any learning or performance environment is what the athlete perceives as possible (affords) within a given performance landscape.

Dann et al.,³⁸ discussed ocean-based training as the “gold standard” in surf training due to its ability to uphold principles of representativeness and adaptability. However, because of the unpredictable nature of ocean conditions, coaches must remain flexible with applying alternative training modalities when ocean training isn’t feasible. In fact, studies have shown a strong correlation between paddling performance in a controlled environment and competition level, as evidenced by 15-metre sprint paddling times, peak velocity, and 400-metre paddling endurance in a pool-setting.^48,49 Therefore, in the absence of favourable or accessible ocean conditions, the use of alternative training environments to develop surfing performance, including paddling, is justified.

Given the advantages of contemporary skill acquisition approaches like CLA, the current study investigates the effect of a pool-based CLA-focused technique development program on paddling velocity, specifically targeting the catch and reach phases of the stroke cycle. In addition to velocity, we aim to assess changes in force production, efficiency (measured through spatiotemporal data), the athlete's self-perception of paddling proficiency, and gym-based strength and range of motion (ROM). We hypothesise that a 10-session CLA-focused technique development program will improve surfers’ velocity and times to 5, 10, and 15 m in a pool, increase force output in the pool, enhance paddling efficiency (as evidenced by a reduced stroke count), boost perception of paddling proficiency, and increase upper-body strength and ROM in the gym. Ultimately, we propose that refining sprint paddling technique could play an important role for female athletes aspiring to succeed on the World Championship Tour (WCT).

Materials and methods

Participants

Twelve competitive Australian female surfers (n = 12, age 16.1 ± 5.8 years, height 161.4 ± 5.9 cm, weight 53.4 ± 8.2 kg, arm span 165.6 ± 5.3 cm) participated in this study, selected through convenience and purposive sampling based on availability and specific criteria (i.e., female competitive/elite surfers). Surfers were classified as ‘Trained/Developmental’ (n = 1), ‘Highly Trained/National Level’ (n = 4) or ‘Elite/International Level’ (n = 7) as defined by McKay et al.⁵⁰ and were competing at local ‘Boardriders’ competitions, the Pro Juniors Series, Qualifying Series (QS), and/or Challenger Series (CS) events. Due to injuries, variations in video quality, and scheduling constraints, not all twelve participants completed every testing session, as detailed in the Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses sections.

All surfers were required to provide their written informed consent before participating in this study and surfers under the age of 18 were required to provide the consent of a parent or guardian. Additionally, an Adult Pre-Exercise Screening System form or a Pre-Exercise Screening System for Young People (Source: ESSA) was completed, depending on age. This study was approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 2023/126).

Experimental design

Surfers underwent an 18-week intervention including control (baseline [BL] to pre-training [PRE]), training (PRE to post-training [POST]), and follow-up (POST to follow-up [FOLL]) phases (Figure 2). Pool- and gym-based testing commenced 6 weeks before the start of the training intervention (BL; n = 10). Testing was repeated 6 weeks later (PRE; n = 10), <5 days before the training intervention began. The training intervention comprised 8–10 sessions performed over a 4 to 8-week period, depending on the individual surfer's competition schedule. After five training sessions, surfers completed a 15-m sprint-paddle test (mid-testing [MID]; n = 10). Following the intervention, POST (n = 9) testing was conducted. Six weeks after POST testing, with no further intervention-specific training, FOLL (n = 4) testing was completed. Surfers were encouraged to engage in all normal activity (i.e., surfing and gym-based training) during all intervention phases.

Figure 2.

Experimental design including baseline (BL), pre-training (PRE), mid-training (MID, post-training (POST), and follow-up (FOLL) testing.

During BL, PRE, POST, and FOLL testing, pool testing was completed at least 4 h, and not more than 48 h, after dryland tests to allow for adequate recovery, flexible scheduling for the athletes, and to ensure testing was completed within a timeframe that reflected the current training adaptations.⁵¹

Pool-based testing

Surfers conducted pool-based testing in an outdoor 25- or 50-m swimming pool depending on location. Surfers were asked to bring their standard competition surfboard for testing and use the same board for all testing sessions. Additionally, all surfers wore a spring suit (short arm and/or short leg) wetsuit or rash guard of no more than 2 mm and were asked to wear the same suit for all testing sessions. Surfers performed a warm-up consisting of a 100-m continuous paddle at 50% perceived intensity, followed by four efforts of 25 m (60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) interspersed with 20 s of recovery between each bout, and finally 2 × 3 m at 100% separated by 1 min of rest.¹⁵

As this study is conducted in a pool setting, outcomes are immediately concerned with technique change and how the individual is interacting in this aquatic environment. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to enhance sprint paddling performance over 15 metres in the pool. Transfer of skills to the dynamic ocean environment is anticipated and proposed for future studies.

15-m sprint-paddle test

Each participant completed three maximal effort 15-m sprint-paddling trials, with four min of recovery between each trial. Surfers began from a stationary prone position on their surfboard, with the first two trials incorporating kick, and the fastest time to 15 m was used for ‘with kick’ analysis. The third trial was performed without kick to determine the contribution of arms only (i.e., pull). A horizontal position transducer (IRex, Southport, Australia) was mounted on a standardised frame of approximately 1.2 m above the waterline, adjusted per pool location. Using a bulldog clip, the flywheel line from the IRex was attached to the middle of the posterior neckline of the surfers’ wetsuit. Timestamps were recorded at every 0.02 m of line released from the transducer flywheel, with instantaneous velocity calculated at 2000 Hz using custom software. As the transducer is designed to measure velocity in the horizontal plane, a correction was performed to adjust for the raised flywheel line angle.

For spatiotemporal analysis, sync lights were linked to the IRex system to synchronise velocity data with camera recordings. Two camera angles were utilised: (i) underwater side view (GoPro Hero 10, GoPro Inc., US) was placed 30 cm below the water surface and aligned with the surfer's navel to capture underwater stroke phases (i.e., catch, pull, and push), and (ii) overhead top view (GoPro Hero 11) captured above water view (i.e., recovery and reach), maintaining full-body visibility as trained staff moved alongside the surfer on the pool deck during the 15 m paddling effort.

12-s paddling force test

Three 12 s maximal stationary paddling trials were completed during each testing session with four min of rest between each trial. An IMADA strain gauge (2000 Hz sampling rate) was mounted at 0.84 m to 0.92 m height, depending on pool location. Surfers wore a waist belt and were tethered to the strain gauge via a rope looped at 2.2 m, creating a stationary tether. Surfers began each trial in a prone position on their surfboard and were instructed to paddle maximally for the duration of the effort. Surfers were given a 3-s countdown and verbal encouragement throughout. Force data was recorded using IMADA Force Recorder Standard software, and each trial was videoed with a 2D camcorder (4 K Panasonic HC-VXF1).

Perception of paddling proficiency (POPP)

A task-specific scale (i.e., Likert scale) was developed by the primary author in consultation with a High Performance Sports Psychologist and administered to assess athletes’ self-reported perceptions of their paddling ability before each pool-based testing session. Likert scales are used as an acceptable alternative method of measuring self-efficacy, which is concerned with an individual's perceived capability of a certain task (i.e., paddling ability).^52,53 A five-step process was followed inclusive of (a) understanding the construct, (b) developing the items, (c) determining the outcome space (i.e., how items are organised and scored), (d) specifying the measurement model, and (e) gathering feedback and piloting the questionnaire.⁵⁴ Each item featured a straightforward, declarative statement, such as “I am good at most sports,” based on the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ).⁵⁵ Eight items were identified targeting paddling specific capabilities (See Supplementary Materials). Each item used a five-point rating scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with a neutral option of ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (3).^52,56 Scores were evaluated both individually and as a combined total, with the aggregate score offering a more comprehensive representation of the dynamic nature of surfing, where all recorded elements are crucial for success. To ensure reliability and validity, pilot testing was conducted with five participants, ranging from recreational to former elite female surfers, all of whom were part of the Surfing Australia employee base. Test-retest reliability showed no significant differences between individual and combined scores when measured one week apart. Participants confirmed content was clear, relevant, within scope, and easy to follow.

Gym-based testing

Shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) range of motion (ROM)

Passive shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM was assessed with surfers lying supine on a physiotherapy bed with their shoulder abducted at 90˚ and elbow flexed at 90˚.⁵⁷ The primary examiner stabilised the trunk and scapular region over the shoulder joint with one hand, and moved the forearm with the other hand, ensuring the 90˚ joint angles were maintained.⁵⁷ The secondary examiner measured the degree of IR and ER ROM using a handheld goniometer (Ӧssur, Ӧssur hf., Iceland).⁵⁸ Two trials were conducted per arm, with a third trial added if initial measurements differed by more than 5%. The maximum IR and ER ROM was recorded.

Maximal isometric internal and external shoulder rotation strength

The VALD Force Frame (VALD Performance, Brisbane, Australia) was used to assess unilateral, isometric shoulder strength with the shoulder joint abducted at 90˚, the elbow flexed at 90˚, and the torso alongside the crossbar.⁵⁹ Surfers commenced each trial lying supine with their legs straight and the non-testing arm across their chest to minimise compensation from other muscles. The warm-up consisted of one trial on each arm of 80% and 90% perceived intensity. Two maximal trials were performed per arm, with a third trial warranted if the initial efforts differed by more than 5%. Each trial involved pressing maximally against the pad internally for 5 s, resting for 10 s, and then pressing externally for 5 s. Maximum force produced in each trial was recorded, and two minutes of rest was required between trials.⁶⁰

One repetition maximum (1RM) pull-up

The 1RM pull-up assessed maximum upper body pull strength. Surfers performed a warm-up on a lat pulldown machine with two sets of five repetitions at 60% bodyweight, separated by 2-min rest.⁶¹ They then performed one bodyweight pull-up. Technique required starting in a neutral grip with arms fully extended, pulling until the proximal inferior aspect of the mandible cleared the horizontal aspect of the bar, and returning smoothly without swinging or bouncing.⁶² Surfers with successful attempts increased load using certified plate weights suspended from a lifting belt worn around the waist (increments between 1.25 kg and 10 kg). A 2-min rest was observed between each attempt.⁶² Once a failed attempt occurred, the successful weight lifted in the previous effort was recorded as the subject's 1RM.

Training intervention

The training intervention was designed in collaboration with a national age swim coach who contributed knowledge of activities aimed at enhancing swimmers’ catch and reach techniques in front-crawl. Initial piloting involved the primary author performing these activities both in front-crawl and on a surfboard to assess their relevance to surfboard paddling. A notable observation was the restricted thoracic rotation caused by the surfboard. Once refined, activities were piloted with experienced competitive to elite female and male Australian surfers and coaches, outside of the study population, to evaluate their practicality and efficacy. Pilot surfers found activities engaging and effective in improving paddling technique, largely due to their gamified, process-oriented structure.

Activities were designed with reference to CLA.³¹ Individual and environmental constraints were controlled where possible while task constraints were manipulated. Specifically, individual constraints were not manipulated directly as a part of the training intervention, with any changes (e.g., motivation, confidence) emerging organically based on interaction with the environment and tasks implemented during the intervention. Similarly, environmental constraints were not explicitly modified, and athletes interacted with a consistent pool-based environment during testing and training. Task constraints were directly manipulated and incorporated into the session design in the form of training aids (i.e., equipment), objectives, and instruction. Consequently, athletes were free to individually adapt their movement patterns to fit task constraints and satisfy the objectives (Table 1) of the designated training activity. Implicit (process focused) verbal instructions were provided sparingly by the coach, emphasising precise cues aimed at assisting athletes in developing their unique movement solutions, rather than directly imposing pre-conceived technical changes (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Task constraints outlined with details in the type of manipulation, the rationale for the activity, and how the activity was implemented.

Task Constraint	Type of manipulation	Rationale	Implementation
Kickboard	Equipment and objective Objective example: getting to the other side of the pool without letting the kickboard out from under your hips.	Hip and core stability	Position the kickboard horizontally underneath your hips. Swim to the other side of the pool without letting the kickboard out from under your hips.
Catch up stroke	Instruction and objective Instruction example: “Next, you will swim freestyle to the other side of the pool, but each time your hand enters the water, you will place it on top of the other hand in streamline before pulling the bottom hand back (demonstrate).”	Hip and core stability, with thoracic rotation	Place one hand on top of the other (streamline) after the recovery phase prior to your next pull phase (alt. arm) for the duration of the lap.
Oncores (Standard Oncore, Oncore Academy, Australia)	Equipment and instruction	Latissimus dorsi engagement and body awareness	Place your hands on top of the Oncores (do not grip), press from underneath your armpits (dependent on exercise, see Table 1).
Short dog/long dog	Instruction	Catch position, bringing the fingertips straight back	Hands begin separated above the head. Alternating, bring one hand down to chest level, rotate it, and bring it back through the water to its starting position. Repeat. In the long dog variation, the hand comes down to hip level (pull and push phase).
FINIS hand paddles (Agility Paddle Floating, FINIS Australia, Australia)	Equipment and objective	Catch position, bringing the fingertips straight back, forearm in line with hand, slight bend in the elbow	Hand paddles maintained surfers’ hand alignment, ensuring fingertips were brought straight back. Catching an edge prompted immediate correction.
0.5 kg diving weights (PVC Dive Weight, Adreno Ocean Outfitters, Australia)	Equipment, instruction, and objective	Challenging hip and core stability with increased stroke length (reach)	Diving weights were placed in each hand and surfers were instructed to paddle to the other side of the pool while increasing stroke length, keeping their weight close to their body to avoid injury, and maintaining stability on their surfboard.
Resistance tool (Water TechniX Swim Trainer Pool Fitness Resistance Belt Tether, MrPoolMan, Australia)	Equipment, instruction, and objective	Mimic the feeling of being pulled up the face of a wave, which is heavily important at waves of consequence (reach focus)	The resistance tool was attached to the swimming block on one end and positioned around the surfers’ hips on the other. Surfers were instructed to paddle out until they felt resistance and then maximally paddle for 10 s while focusing on increased stroke length (reach).

Table 2.

Example of a training session structure and all activities. Each session lasted a duration of one hour.

Activity	Metric/time	Focus & Key Cues
1. Dryland warm-up:
Roller for latissimus dorsi	2 min	Underneath the armpits, on your side.
Massage ball for pectoralis major & rotator cuff	2 min each	Use a wall. Breathe.
Quadruped thoracic rotation	10 reps	Keep hips and lower back stable, rotate only from your mid to upper back. Keep knees in line.
Bow and arrow stretch	10 reps each side	Keep knees together. Open up only as far as you can.
Internal shoulder rotation (5 kg band)	5 reps each side	Core engaged, strong stance, shoulder stable, slight space between your elbow and body.
External shoulder rotation (5 kg band)	5 reps each side	Same as above.
Pull downs (5 kg band)	5 reps each side	Knees bent, pitched out elbow like you’re “rolling over a big barrel”, use your lat muscles to pull your arm down to your side.
2. Pool warm-up:
Freestyle	2 × 50 m
Kickboard under hips	2 × 25 m	Stabilise your hips and core.
Catch up stroke	1 × 50 m	Stabilise your hips and core.
Oncores: press for 3-s, release for 3-s	2 × 25 m	Place your hands on top of the Oncores (do not grip), press from underneath your armpits, engage your lat muscles.
Oncores: alternating arms (3-s each arm)	2 × 25 m	Same as above. Alternating one arm at a time. This exercise will challenge your core, ensure hips and core are stable.
Oncores: press and hold	2 × 25 m	Press with both arms and hold until you get to the other side of the pool.
Swim with Oncores	2 × 25 m	You may grip the Oncores if need be (no grip is more effective). Using your lat muscles, pull your body to your hand to propel yourself through the water.
3. Catch focus:
Paddle warm up	1 × 50 m	Pull through the water from underneath your armpit with your fingertips pointed towards the bottom. Ensure your hand is in line with your forearm and your elbow is pitched out (slightly bent).Key cues:“Like you’re rolling over a barrel”“Stake your hand in the water and pull your body through, like walking!”“Bring your body to your hand (not your hand to your body)”
Short dog	2 × 25 m
Long dog	2 × 25 m
Single arm	1 × 50 m each arm
Single arm with Finis paddles	1 × 50 m each arm
Paddle with Finis paddles	2 × 50 m
4. Reach focus:
Reach and hold (2 s)	2 × 50 m	Focus on long strokes with extra length. Keep hips and core stabilised and reach from your thoracic.
Paddle with diving weights	2 × 25 m
Resistance	2 × 10 s
Paddle (stretch out)	1 × 50 m
5. Cool down:
Freestyle (stretch out)	1 × 50 m

All instructional and coaching interactions were overseen by the primary author (PhD Candidate) due to their extensive coaching background and knowledge and dedication to the subject area. Each training session commenced with a 10-min dryland warm-up consisting of thoracic mobility exercises and a shoulder warm-up routine (Table 2). Surfers then participated in pool-based activities tailored to the session's focus and periodisation (Tables 1 and 2). Sessions were attended individually or in groups dependent on participants’ schedules. All sessions concentrated on refining either catch or reach positions, frequently integrating both aspects concurrently.

Data analyses

15-m sprint-paddle test

Data from the IRex Analyser (v21, Southport, Australia) was exported as a comma-separated value (csv) file and analysed in Microsoft Excel (Version 2301, Microsoft Corporation, Washington, USA). Trigonometric calculations and Pythagoras’ theorem were used to calculate the hypotenuse length for each 0.02-m displacement, based on IRex height above water level and distance from the wall. Additional calculations determined horizontal velocity. Outcome measures including time to 5, 10, and 15 m, the highest 1-m average velocity and the corresponding distance and time at which it occurred, were recorded.

Spatiotemporal

Spatiotemporal analysis aimed to assess stroke count and distance covered per stroke and across specific stroke phases (pull, push, and recovery). Spatiotemporal analysis was determined using AMR RX Motion Player Software (Swordfish v22.6.050, Southport, Australia), coupled with a K-Lite Codec Pack (v 1.9.24.38 Mega), and a Microsoft Excel database. Within AMR RX Motion Player Software, stroke phases were time stamped and segmented at distinct events: hand entry, catch, pull/push transition, and hand exit. Hand entry was identified as the first frame of finger entry, while catch was determined by the frame immediately after fingers ceased moving forward (i.e., pure downward displacement).^63,64 The pull/push transition was determined as the frame where metacarpal-phalangeal joints were perpendicular to the glenohumeral joint, and hand exit was recognised at the first frame of full hand exit from water.^63,64 Side view footage was utilised for catch and pull/push transition analysis, while top view footage observed hand entry and exit as the left arm was more visible. As side view camera footage was collected from the right side of the participant's body, data from the left arm was only partially visible requiring adequate inter-rater reliability by the current research group, with findings demonstrating moderate to excellent reliability based on Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). Stroke events were exported as a csv and input into an automated Excel database for calculating stroke count, distance per stroke phase, and stroke phase durations.

12-s paddling force test

Each trial was exported to MATLAB (v R2023a, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts) and filtered at 21 Hz using a lowpass fourth-order Butterworth filter. Filtered data was then analysed within Microsoft Excel to determine the maximal and average force. Each test commenced at the lowest cell of the lowest trough within 1.5 s of the initial momentum spike and concluded 8 s later.

Statistical analyses

Dependent paired t-tests were used to determine differences between BL (T1) and PRE (T2) testing for the control period (n = 10). Mixed effects models assessed within-subject differences across ‘with kick’ testing sessions (T2, T3, and T4), with fixed effects (e.g., time) determined based on outcome variables (e.g., 15-m sprint time) (n = 10). Additional dependent paired t-tests evaluated PRE vs POST differences across multiple metrics including 15-m sprint pull (without kick) trials (n = 9), spatiotemporal data (n = 6), average and maximal force (n = 8), combined and individual POPP scores (n = 9), and gym metrics (n = 9). Non-normal data was assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and effect size was calculated via Cohen's d. All statistical analysis was completed using R studio (version 4.0.1). Given the small sample size (n = 4), differences between POST (T4) and FOLL (T5) were assessed and reported using descriptive statistics.

Results

Control period

No significant changes were observed in pool-based testing variables between BL and PRE (n = 10). However, internal rotation strength in the right shoulder significantly increased from BL (M = 133.5, SD = 45.0 N) to PRE (M = 146.5, SD = 37.0 N, t = −2.67, p < 0.05, d = 0.85) in gym-based testing. All other outcome measures, including gym-based and POPP, showed no significant change between BL and PRE.

Intervention

15-m sprint-paddle test

The intervention significantly improved time to 15-m with kick (PRE: M = 1.57 ± 0.07 s, MID: M = 1.61 ± 0.03 s, POST: M = 1.63 ± 0.04 s, estimate = −0.14, SE = 0.059, 95% CI [−0.263, −0.026]) (Figure 3) and best 1-m average velocity (PRE: M = 1.57 ± 0.07 m/s, MID: M = 1.61 ± 0.03 m/s, POST: M = 1.63 ± 0.04 m/s, estimate = 0.03, SE = 0.011, 95% CI [0.009, 0.054]). However, there were no significant changes in time to 5 m, 10 m, or the distance and time to achieve the best 1-m average velocity.

Figure 3.

Box and Whisker Plot represents the main effect of time (s) by 5 (a), 10 (b), and 15 m (c) with kick across pre-intervention (PRE, T2), mid-intervention (MID, T3), post-intervention (POST, T4), and follow-up (FOLL, T5) testing sessions (* p ≤ 0.05).

Significant improvements were observed in pull-only (without kick) time to 5 m (PRE: M = 4.42 ± 0.38 s, POST: M = 4.16 ± 0.23 s, t = 2.73, d = 0.98), 10 m (PRE: M = 7.73 ± 0.46 s, POST: M = 7.44 ± 0.35 s, t = 3.13, d = 1.08), and 15 m (PRE: M = 11.07 ± 0.57 s, POST: M = 10.78 ± 0.49 s, t = 2.68, d = 0.91) (Figure 4), as well as time to the best 1-m average velocity (PRE: M = 7.91 ± 0.76 s, POST: M = 6.92 ± 0.72 s, t = 2.68, d = 1.06) (n = 9). However, the best 1-m average velocity itself did not improve, nor did the distance required to achieve it.

Figure 4.

Box and Whisker Plot represents the main effect of time (s) by 5 (a), 10 (b), and 15 m (c) without kick across pre-intervention (PRE, T2), post-intervention (POST, T4), and follow-up (FOLL, T5) testing sessions (* p ≤ 0.05).

Spatiotemporal

Following the intervention (n = 6), stroke count decreased (t = 3.37, d = −1.38), while stroke distance increased for both arms (R: t = −3.68, d = 1.50; L: t = −3.73, d = 1.52). Right arm pull distance (t = −4.57, d = 1.86) and left arm recovery distance also increased (t = −3.27, d = 1.34) (Table 3). No significant changes were found for left arm pull distance, right/left arm push distance, or right arm recovery distance (Table 3; Figure 5 and 6).

Figure 5.

Participant 10 showcasing the reach position during PRE (left) and MID (right) testing. Participant 10 demonstrates an increased reach position and greater thoracic mobility, while maintaining stability in her hips and core during MID testing.

Figure 6.

Participant 8 showcasing the catch position during PRE (top) and POST (bottom) testing. Participant 8 displays a stronger wrist position during POST testing, enhancing her ability to catch water with a larger surface area as she transitions into the pull phase. In contrast, during PRE testing, the wrist “slips,” preventing optimal catch and effective pull through the water.

Table 3.

Means ± SD for spatiotemporal data in pre and post pool-based testing.

Spatiotemporal	Pre (T2)	Post (T4)
Stroke count	25.00 ± 2.37	23.30 ± 2.34 *
Stroke distance (m)	R: 1.23 ± 0.12	R: 1.32 ± 0.14 *
Stroke distance (m)	L: 1.22 ± 0.12	L: 1.32 ± 0.14 *
Pull distance (m)	R: 0.32 ± 0.02	R: 0.34 ± 0.01 *
Pull distance (m)	L: 0.34 ± 0.04	L: 0.38 ± 0.03
Push distance (m)	R: 0.39 ± 0.07	R: 0.41 ± 0.41
Push distance (m)	L: 0.36 ± 0.06	L: 0.38 ± 0.06
Recovery distance (m)	R: 0.24 ± 0.03	R: 0.26 ± 0.04
Recovery distance (m)	L: 0.24 ± 0.02	L: 0.26 ± 0.04 *

Note. p-value of each significant difference is represented by * p ≤ 0.05.

“R” denotes the right arm, and “L” represents the left arm.

12-s paddling force test

A significant increase in maximal force (PRE: M = 123.69 ± 22.92 N, POST: M = 129.65 ± 25.62 N, t = −2.45, d = 0.87) and average force (PRE: M = 62.52 ± 11.65 N, POST: M = 65.68 ± 10.56 N, V = 3, r = 0.97) was observed post training (n = 8).

Gym-based testing

No significant changes were observed between PRE and POST for all gym variables (n = 9) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Means ± SD for gym-based testing. Pull-up measurement (kgs) refer to any weight added above a bodyweight pull-up.

Measure	Baseline (T1)	Pre (T2)	Post (T4)	Follow-up (T5)
Internal Rotation (IR) ROM (°)	R: 60.78 ± 6.85	R: 62.44 ± 13.91	R: 67.44 ± 9.41	R: 63.75 ± 8.42
Internal Rotation (IR) ROM (°)	L: 61.55 ± 8.44	L: 66.44 ± 12.99	L: 66.78 ± 12.0	L: 69.75 ± 12.84
External Rotation (ER) ROM (°)	R: 81.67 ± 9.55	R: 79.33 ± 9.85	R: 84.11 ± 8.57	R: 82.25 ± 1.26
External Rotation (ER) ROM (°)	L: 76.11 ± 5.58	L: 77.11 ± 12.27	L: 75.22 ± 12.27	L: 75.50 ± 5.74
IR Strength (N)	R: 137.22 ± 63.99	R: 154.22 ± 53.72	R: 155.33 ± 42.22	R: 136.75 ± 27.65
IR Strength (N)	L: 134.11 ± 62.40	L: 145.0 ± 54.75	L: 144.11 ± 42.56	L: 124.0 ± 29.47
ER Strength (N)	R: 108.44 ± 45.06	R: 111.67 ± 42.77	R: 114.44 ± 37.84	R: 94.50 ± 24.73
ER Strength (N)	L: 114.33 ± 54.15	L 120.78 ± 50.40	L: 120.11 ± 35.68	L: 94.25 ± 12.97
Pull-up (kgs)	7.18 ± 8.39	7.19 ± 8.56	7.36 ± 8.35	4.38 ± 3.75

Perception of paddling proficiency (POPP)

Combined POPP scores significantly increased from PRE to POST (t = −2.54, p < 0.05, d = 0.85), while no significant differences were present within individual items (n = 9) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Means ± SD for perception of paddling proficiency (POPP). Significant differences were observed for combined scores between pre- and post-testing.

	Baseline (T1)(n = 10)	Pre (T2)(n = 9)	Post (T4)(n = 9)	Follow-up (T5) (n = 4)
“I am a strong paddler.”	2.90 ± 1.10	3.22 ± 0.83	3.78 ± 0.83	4.25 ± 0.50
“I have good paddle technique.”	2.90 ± 0.83	3.00 ± 1.00	3.44 ± 0.73	4.25 ± 0.50
“I am a fast paddler.”	2.70 ± 0.64	3.0 ± 0.71	3.44 ± 0.73	4.0 ± 0.82
“I can get into waves successfully.”	3.90 ± 0.70	4.0 ± 0.71	4.22 ± 0.44	4.75 ± 0.50
“I can get into waves of consequence successfully.”	3.70 ± 0.64	3.67 ± 0.71	3.89 ± 0.33	4.50 ± 0.58
“I could win a paddle battle.”	2.90 ± 0.83	3.44 ± 1.01	3.44 ± 0.73	3.75 ± 0.50
“I can maintain position in a strong sweep.”	3.80 ± 0.60	3.33 ± 0.87	4.0 ± 0.71	4.25 ± 0.96
“I catch a lot of waves in my surf sessions.”	3.80 ± 0.40	3.89 ± 0.33	3.78 ± 0.83	4.0 ± 0.82
Combined total *	26.33 ± 4.70	26.4 ± 4.90	29.8 ± 3.90	33.75 ± 4.19

Note. p-value of each significant difference is represented by * p ≤ 0.05.

Follow-up

Changes observed between POST and FOLL testing for pool-based assessments are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Descriptive analysis results for individual participants from post and follow-up pool-based testing.

Measure	Participant	Post (T4)	Follow-up (T5)
5 m (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	4.11 s, 4.25 s	4.20 s, 4.38 s
	Participant 2	3.74 s, 4.08 s	4.07 s, 4.40 s
	Participant 3	3.94 s, 4.02 s	3.96 s, 4.01 s
	Participant 7	4.12 s, 4.26 s	3.78 s, 3.99
10 m (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	7.31 s, 7.66 s	7.54 s, 7.73 s
	Participant 2	6.90 s, 7.52 s	7.22 s, 7.81 s
	Participant 3	7.17 s, 7.29 s	7.28 s, 7.35 s
	Participant 7	7.32 s, 7.51 s	6.89 s, 7.20
15 m (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	10.57 s, 11.05 s	10.74 s, 11.08 s
	Participant 2	10.13 s, 10.99 s	10.41 s, 11.21 s
	Participant 3	10.48 s, 10.73 s	10.69 s, 10.76 s
	Participant 7	10.47 s, 10.86 s	10.01 s, 10.40 s
Best 1 m average velocity (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	1.63 m/s, 1.56 m/s	1.64 m/s, 1.57 m/s
	Participant 2	1.62 m/s, 1.48 m/s	1.58 m/s, 1.50 m/s
	Participant 3	1.60 m/s, 1.56 m/s	1.57 m/s, 1.51 m/s
	Participant 7	1.62 m/s, 1.58 m/s	1.63 m/s, 1.63 m/s
Distance (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	11 m, 11 m	12 m, 13 m
	Participant 2	8 m, 8 m	9 m, 9 m
	Participant 3	7 m, 9 m	10 m, 6 m
	Participant 7	12 m, 9 m	10 m, 14 m
Time (w/ kick, pull)	Participant 1	7.92 s, 8.30 s	8.81 s, 9.71 s
	Participant 2	5.64 s, 6.14 s	6.58 s, 7.12 s
	Participant 3	5.21 s, 6.65 s	7.28 s, 4.68 s
	Participant 7	9.21 s, 6.87 s	6.89 s, 9.75 s
Average Force	Participant 1	57.42 N	59.39 N
	Participant 2	80.94 N	75.33 N
	Participant 3	54.99 N	59. 73 N
	Participant 7	62.48 N	55.75 N
Maximal Force	Participant 1	104.87 N	106.71 N
	Participant 2	166.09 N	140.29 N
	Participant 3	118.02 N	111.01 N
	Participant 7	107.59 N	119.76 N

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the impact of a constraints-led technique training intervention on sprint paddling performance among competitive female surfers. Supporting our hypothesis, results indicated that the intervention significantly reduced the time to 15 m and increased the best 1-m average velocity for trials ‘with kick’. Additionally, a decrease in all split times (5, 10, and 15 m) and a faster time to the best 1-m average velocity ‘without kick’ was observed. Importantly, spatiotemporal analyses revealed improved paddling efficiency, as evidenced by a reduced average stroke count across 15 m, thereby increasing stroke distances for both arms. Maximum and average force also increased, indicating that technical improvements translated into enhanced force application in the pool setting. Subjectively, surfers reported improved perception of sprint paddling performance. Contrary with our hypothesis, no significant changes were found in gym-based outcome variables following the training intervention. Descriptive analysis during the follow-up period revealed that technique maintenance varied among participants, highlighting the need for a more individualised approach to training in the future.

Velocity

The typical duration of sprint paddling bouts during wave catching in competitive settings ranges from 6.1 to 12.5 s.^65,66 Consequently, split times at 5, 10, and 15 m emerge as particularly pertinent for maximising sprint-paddle velocity when catching waves. The current study's findings indicate that optimising catch and reach positions can significantly decrease times to 5, 10, and 15 m when a kick is not adopted; however, improvements were only evident at 15 m when employing a kick. This could be attributed to the training intervention's focus on upper-body technique, which did not specifically encourage kick during technique sessions. The use of kick could be influenced by task (i.e., paddling out to the lineup) and environmental constraints present (i.e., swell and wind direction), thus the individual must be able to adapt to their surroundings and use kick when appropriate. Importantly, sprint paddling times for all surfers were faster with kick compared to without. Loveless and Minahan⁶⁷ similarly found that incorporating a kick enables surfers to achieve faster times over 15 m, suggesting its effectiveness in facilitating optimal positioning when catching a wave. This study also revealed a significant improvement in average velocity over 1 m with kick, indicative of improved maximum speed capabilities from the intervention. However, there remains a need for enhancing acceleration while kicking through faster 5- and 10-m split times.

Another noteworthy finding was that the most significant increase in velocity was observed between PRE and MID testing for the ‘with kick’ trials (Figure 3), suggesting that as few as four or five sessions were sufficient in producing noticeable improvements in time to 15 m. This may be attributed to the introduction of constraints between PRE and MID testing sessions, which likely disrupted baseline techniques and encouraged learners to explore more functional task solutions. Given surfers’ dynamic competition schedules, the MID testing results could represent an optimal starting point for technique adaptation. Furthermore, the increase in velocity and decrease in time to 5, 10, and 15 m was sustained throughout POST, with some participants maintaining or further improving performance, while others showed declines during the FOLL testing session.^65,66

Stroke kinematics

Findings revealed a significant decrease in stroke count, an increase in stroke distance for both arms, and an increase in pull distance for the right arm only (Figure 5 and 6). Reducing stroke count and increasing stroke distance has been shown to enhance efficiency in front-crawl swimming, allowing athletes to exert less effort over various distances, including sprint efforts.^68–70 Additionally, sprint swimmers typically spend more time in the propulsive phases (pull and push) compared to distance swimmers.^63,71,72 By increasing stroke distance and decreasing stroke count, athletes could conserve energy during the 42–54% of time spent paddling in a surf session, including the 4–8% specifically dedicated to sprint paddling into a wave.^7,65 This conservation of energy may allow an athlete to exert more effort once they are riding the wave, translating to increased scoring potential.

In addition to enhancing performance, reducing stroke count also decreases the overall number of rotational repetitions of the glenohumeral joint, potentially lowering the risk of shoulder overuse injuries.⁷³ Furthermore, this study observed an increase in pull distance only on the right arm which may be influenced by the cohort's predominant right-hand dominance (R = 11, L = 1). No significant differences were found in push phase duration, which was expected as this was not an area of focus for the training intervention. This study demonstrates that enhancing the catch and reach aspects of paddling technique can positively influence stroke kinematics, potentially improving efficiency, physiological performance, and shoulder health. Future research should explore similar methodologies while targeting different phases of the stroke cycle such as the push phase.

Force

The current study observed significant improvements in both maximal and average force following the intervention. Borgonovo-Santos et al.⁷⁴ compared ‘pre’ and ‘post’ paddling tests, separated by a 6-min endurance paddle at 60% maximal velocity. Faster paddlers exhibited lower energy expenditure in both tests despite the increased energetic demand.⁷⁴ Additionally, no relationship was found between mean tethered force and maximum sprint paddling velocity.⁷⁴ A critical distinction between Borgonovo-Santos et al.⁷⁴ and the current study is the absence of kicking within the tethered force test. Since surfers utilise kicking when paddling into waves, Borgonovo-Santos et al.'s⁷⁴ findings should be interpreted with caution. The current study suggests that increased force may play a role in enhancing speed, although due to interacting individual, environmental, and task constraints contributing to movement outcomes (i.e., speed enhancement) other factors such as refined technique, stroke kinematics, and the athletes’ perception of action capabilities likely contributed as well. To better understand the relationship between tethered force and sprint paddling velocity, future studies should specifically consider the influence of kicking in force production and other performance variables.

Perception of paddling proficiency

In addition to objective measures of sprint paddling performance, it is essential to consider an athlete's perception of their ability to perform specific tasks, such as paddling fast over 15 m. This understanding provides valuable insight into the athlete's perception of affordances, or the possibilities for action offered by the interaction of individual, environmental, and task constraints.⁴⁷ Affordances evolve through the development of perceptual-motor expertise gained from extensive sports training, implying that experts are better able to perceive affordances relevant to their specific skill domain compared to non-experts.^47,75 Renshaw et al.³⁷ suggested that as learners become more skilled, they may encounter increased variability in individual, environmental, and task constraints, which fosters more adaptable behaviour.^37,76 Therefore, improving sprint paddling may enhance an athlete's ability to perceive and act on affordances in their environment. Future studies should explore whether pool-based training effectively transfers to the representative environment (ocean).

This study assessed athletes’ perception of paddling proficiency using a Likert scale. Results showed improvement post-intervention for combined scores only, not individual items. This outcome is likely due to the combined scores capturing paddling proficiency in its entirety within the performance environment. Paddling proficiency involves not only direct paddling characteristics such as strength, technique, and speed, but also how these translate to the performance setting (i.e., paddling into waves). Since the study was conducted in a controlled pool setting, this questionnaire provided insight into athletes’ perceptions of their sprint paddling ability as it might apply to dynamic ocean conditions. Future training should focus on targeted exercises within representative contexts, reinforcing athletes’ perception of action capabilities and readiness for the specific demands of their training and competition environments.^34,77,78

Constraints-led approach

This innovative training intervention utilised a CLA to encourage technique changes through the implementation of key task constraints. The CLA complemented the surfers’ diverse learning styles, with athletes’ observably responding positively to the tailored activities, particularly game-like exercises conducted in group settings. CLA is well-suited to surfing, where there is no single “correct” way to perform a manoeuvre, and “innovation” is a key judging criterion.⁷⁹ By implementing task manipulations, coaches encouraged athletes to discover optimal movement solutions while respecting fundamental technical characteristics that enhance performance and minimise injury. Alongside improvements in technique and speed, increased force production was observed, suggesting that pool-based activities using task constraints allowed athletes to better express their underlying strength capabilities.

Limitations

Within this study, we aimed to enhance athletes’ action capabilities by improving sprint paddling technique, thereby optimising their ability to reach 15 m in a pool as quickly as possible. However, the ultimate challenge for these athletes lies in performing these skills effectively in their actual competitive environment—catching waves, paddling out to the line-up, and engaging in paddle battles. Athletes are continuously perceiving sensory information within their environment and behaving, or moving, based on these key constraints as they attempt to coordinate their actions within their surroundings.⁷⁷ Therefore, one limitation of this study was that athletes completed testing and training within a pool setting rather than the dynamic and unpredictable ocean environment. While this approach allowed us to control variables that are uncontrollable in the ocean, it may not fully replicate the complex conditions athletes face during surfing competitions. A valuable next step would be to integrate training sessions in more representative, sport-specific environments. This would enable athletes to practice and refine their skills under conditions that closely resemble those encountered in real-world surfing scenarios, thereby enhancing the applicability of our findings to competitive performance.

Another aspect of the dynamic nature of surfing is the variability in training consistency among surfers. Specifically, some surfers completed their initial four or five sessions relatively quickly (within 1 to 2 weeks), but then took 4 to 5 weeks to finish their final five sessions. This fluctuation in training schedule may have contributed to the pronounced improvements observed during MID testing, followed by a more modest progression thereafter. Factors such as competition schedules, travel commitments, the pursuit of favourable swell conditions, and adherence to a structured training regimen different from their usual practices could account for this variability. As a result, only four surfers were available for FOLL testing, which limited the analysis and generalizability of results. A larger participant pool across all testing sessions, particularly during FOLL testing, would have provided a more robust basis for drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, the effect size was sufficient in all t-tests conducted within the intervention. Lastly, a true control group instead of a single-sample design could have better highlighted group differences.

Practical implications

There are several valuable coaching insights worth highlighting. Firstly, given that FOLL testing revealed a wide range of results including improvements, no changes, and signs of deconditioning, it is crucial that future studies explore individualised training approaches tailored to each athlete's specific needs and their physical and emotional states on a given day. This is particularly important for female athletes, who face the additional challenge of fluctuating hormones and ongoing development.^80,81 Moreover, a significant portion of the training focused on lower speeds to prioritise technical nuances and ensure shoulder safety and stability throughout the learning phase. As training progressed through periodisation, intensity gradually increased, ensuring that athletes maintained learned techniques even at higher velocities. However, the coach subjectively observed that as athletes attempted to increase their paddling speed, they often reverted to previous, less efficient techniques. Therefore, it is recommended to incorporate more technical activities at varying speeds to reinforce optimal paddling mechanics at higher velocities, aligning with NLP principles of exploration in dynamic situations.³³ Anecdotally, athletes generally found it easier to grasp and execute the reach positioning within the stroke compared to the intricacies involved in mastering the catch position technique. Thus, coaches are advised to allocate sufficient time to mastering the fundamental aspects of this complex movement pattern before incorporating reach positioning. Lastly, the ‘reach and hold’ exercise overly accentuated the reach position and caused an unnecessary pause between the recovery and glide phases of the stroke. To address this issue, it is recommended to omit this exercise and instead utilise the diving weights to achieve the desired elongation of the reach phase without prolonging recovery duration.

Coaching takeaways

Technique adaptation should be guided by the interaction between individual, task, and environmental constraints.

Manipulating task constraints emerges as particularly effective in promoting technique changes for sprint paddling performance.

Enabling athletes to explore, adapt, and self-organise to determine their unique movement patterns can lead to performance gains and potentially reduce the risk of injury.

Providing athletes with tools for individual practice with periodic refresher sessions could be particularly effective in promoting sustained performance gains.

Improving sprint paddling performance in female surfers could offer a competitive edge in the ocean environment.

Conclusion

Female surfing is experiencing rapid growth, with increasing expectations for athletes aspiring to qualify for the WCT and Olympics. Sprint paddling ability enables a surfer to increase their performance metrics such as catching waves and producing momentum for initial and subsequent manoeuvres.^7,10,15 This study aimed to enhance sprint paddling velocity, efficiency, force, gym-based strength and ROM, and perception of paddling proficiency in female surfers through a technique-focused training intervention utilising a CLA. The intervention resulted in significant improvements in sprint paddling performance including faster times to 15 m and increased best 1-m average velocity ‘with kick’, as well as faster times to 5, 10, and 15 m and time to best 1-m average velocity ‘without kick’. Furthermore, stroke efficiency, maximal and average force in the pool, and perceived paddling proficiency also improved. There were no significant changes in gym-based strength and ROM measures. Coaches are encouraged to integrate this novel training into the daily training environment to continue to advance female surfing performance.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251358823 - Supplemental material for Paddle-to-podium: A constraints-led approach to sprint-paddle training in competitive Australian female surfers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251358823 for Paddle-to-podium: A constraints-led approach to sprint-paddle training in competitive Australian female surfers by April L Denny, Joanna Parsonage, Daniel Chalkley, Jonathon Headrick, Luke MacDonald, Sienna P Gosney, Justin Keogh and Clare Minahan in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251358823 - Supplemental material for Paddle-to-podium: A constraints-led approach to sprint-paddle training in competitive Australian female surfers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251358823 for Paddle-to-podium: A constraints-led approach to sprint-paddle training in competitive Australian female surfers by April L Denny, Joanna Parsonage, Daniel Chalkley, Jonathon Headrick, Luke MacDonald, Sienna P Gosney, Justin Keogh and Clare Minahan in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This project was aided by an affiliation of the lead researcher with the Griffith Sports Science unit of Griffith University, the Sport Performance Innovation and Knowledge Excellence (SPIKE) unit of the Queensland Academy of Sport (QAS), the Surfing Australia High Performance Program, and the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS).

Consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in this study. Participants under the age of 18 were required to provide the consent of a parent or guardian.

Data availability

The authors elect that research data is not shared due to athlete confidentiality.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Queensland Academy of Sport (QAS), the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), and Surfing Australia under QAS Grant #152.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 2023/126).

ORCID iDs

April L Denny

Daniel Chalkley

Sienna P Gosney

Justin Keogh

Clare Minahan

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Pierson

. ‘The Greatest Heat in Women’s Surf History’ Just Went Down at Pipeline. Surfer, https://www.surfer.com/news/greatest-heat-womens-surf-history-pipeline (2024, accessed 01 December 2024).

MacDonald

Chalkley

Parsonage

, et al. The importance of paddling to surfing performance: insights from elite athletes, coaches, and performance support practitioners. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024; 19: 2334–2344.

Parsonage

Secomb

Nimphius

, et al. The meaningful use of sprint paddling data to determine surfer’s strengths and weaknesses: a gender comparison. JASC 2015; 23: 79–82.

Parsonage

Secomb

Tran

, et al. Gender differences in physical performance characteristics of elite surfers. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 2417–2422.

Anthony

Brown

. Resistance training considerations for female surfers. Strength Cond J 2016; 38: 64–69.

Mendez-Villanueva

Bishop

Hamer

. Activity profile of world-class professional surfers during competition: a case study. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20: 477–482.

Farley

Harris

Kilding

. Physiological demands of competitive surfing. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 1887–1896.

Meir

Lowdon

Davie

. Heart rates and estimated energy expenditure during recreational surfing. Aust J Sci Med Sport 1991; 23: 70–74.

Loveless

. Paddling Performance in Recreational and Competitive Junior Surfers . PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Australia, 2009.

10.

Mendez-Villanueva

Bishop

. Physiological aspects of surfboard riding performance. Sports Med 2005; 35: 55–70.

11.

Farley

ORL

Secomb

Parsonage

, et al. Five weeks of sprint and high-intensity interval training improves paddling performance in adolescent surfers. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 2446–2452.

12.

Lowdon

. Fitness requirements for surfing. Sports Coach 1983; 6: 35–38.

13.

Klingner

Elferink-Gemser

. Riding to the top – A systematic review on multidimensional performance indicators in surfing. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2022; 17: 655–682.

14.

Volschenk

Crowley-McHattan

Whitting

, et al. Surfboard paddling technique and neuromechanical control: a narrative review. Int J Aquatic Res Educ 2021; 13: 3.

15.

Secomb

Farley

Lundgren

, et al. Comparison of the sprint paddling performance between competitive male and female surfers. JASC 2013; 21: 118–120.

16.

Pelayo

Alberty

Sidney

, et al. Aerobic potential, stroke parameters, and coordination in swimming front-crawl performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2007; 2: 347–359.

17.

Cortesi

Giovanardi

Gatta

, et al. Inertial sensors in swimming: detection of stroke phases through 3D wrist trajectory. J Sports Sci Med 2019; 18: 438–447.

18.

Brackley

. Exploring the Transfer from Drills to Skills in Elite Freestyle Swimming . PhD Thesis, Victoria University, Australia, 2020.

19.

Riewald

Rodeo

. Science of swimming faster. Champaign, Illinois, USA: Human Kinetics, 2015.

20.

Bassan

César

TEAS

Denadai

, et al. Relationship between fatigue and changes in swim technique during an exhaustive swim exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2016; 11: 33–39.

21.

Craig

Skehan

Pawelczyk

, et al. Velocity, stroke rate, and distance per stroke during elite swimming competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17: 625–634.

22.

Nessler

Ponce-Gonzalez

Robles-Rodriguez

, et al. Electromyographic analysis of the surf paddling stroke across multiple intensities. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 1102–1110.

23.

Sheppard

Osborne

Chapman

, et al. Technique adjustments influence the performance of sprint paddling in competitive male surfers. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2013; 8: 43–52.

24.

Coyne

JOC

Tran

Secomb

, et al. Association between anthropometry, upper extremity strength, and sprint and endurance paddling performance in competitive and recreational surfers. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 728–735.

25.

Sheppard

McNamara

Osborne

, et al. Association between anthropometry and upper-body strength qualities with sprint paddling performance in competitive wave surfers. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 3345–3348.

26.

Morouço

Vilas-Boas

Fernandes

. Evaluation of adolescent swimmers through a 30-s tethered test. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2012; 24: 312–321.

27.

Wackwitz

Pearson

. A pilot investigation into force production in tethered swimming as an inidividual monitoring tool. In: 36th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Auckland, 2018, pp.1053–1056: NMU Commons.

28.

Santos

Bento

Pereira

, et al. The relationship between propulsive force in tethered swimming and 200-m front crawl performance. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 2500–2507.

29.

Morouço

Keskinen

Vilas-Boas

, et al. Relationship between tethered forces and the four swimming techniques performance. J Appl Biomech 2011; 27: 161–169.

30.

Davids

Button

Bennett

. Dynamics of skill acqusition: A constraints-led approach. USA: Human Kinetics, 2012.

31.

Newell

. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG and Whiting HTA (eds) Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1986, pp.341–360.

32.

Chow

Davids

Button

, et al. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Rev Educ Res 2007; 77: 251–278.

33.

Lee

Chow

Komar

, et al. Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS One 2014; 9: e104744.

34.

Davids

Araujo

Hristovski

, et al. Ecological dynamics and motor learning design in sport. In: Hodges NJ and Williams MA (eds) Skill acquisition in sport. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2012, pp.112–130.

35.

Seifert

Hacques

Komar

. The ecological dynamics framework: an innovative approach to performance in extreme environments: a narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 2753.

36.

Schmidt

Lee

. Motor learning and performance: From principles to application. 5th ed. USA: Human Kinetics, 2011.

37.

Renshaw

Davids

Newcombe

, et al. The constraints-led approach: Principles for sports coaching and practice design. Milton: Routledge, 2019.

38.

Dann

Duhig

Roberts

, et al. A principled approach to skill acquisition in competitive surfing: embracing representative learning design. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024; 19: 2534–2547.

39.

Davids

Araújo

Shuttleworth

, et al. Acquiring skill in sport: a constraints-led perspective. Int J Comput Sci Sport 2003; 2: 31–39.

40.

Balagué

Pol

Torrents

, et al. On the relatedness and nestedness of constraints. Sports Med Open 2019; 5: 6.

41.

Renshaw

Keith

Newcombe

, et al. The constraints-Led approach: Principles for sports coaching and practice design. London: Routledge, 2019.

42.

Colombo-Dougovito

Block

. Make task constraints work for you: teaching object-control skills to students with autism Spectrum disorder. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance 2016; 87: 32–37.

43.

Gagen

Getchell

. Using ‘Constraints’ to design developmentally appropriate movement activities for early childhood education. Early Child Educ J 2006; 34: 227–232.

44.

Silva

Figueiredo

Morais

, et al. Task constraints and coordination flexibility in young swimmers. Mot Control 2019; 23: 535–552.

45.

Gray

. Comparing the constraints led approach, differential learning and prescriptive instruction for training opposite-field hitting in baseball. Psychol Sport Exerc 2020; 51: 101797.

46.

Gibson

. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1979.

47.

Weast

Shockley

Riley

. The influence of athletic experience and kinematic information on skill-relevant affordance perception. Q J Exp Psychol 2011; 64: 689–706.

48.

Tran

Lundgren

Secomb

, et al. Comparison of physical capacities between nonselected and selected elite male competitive surfers for the national junior team. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2015; 10: 178–182.

49.

Farley

Coyne

Secomb

, et al. Comparison of the 400 meter timed endurance surf paddle between elite competitive surfers, competitive surfers and recreational surfers. JASC 2013; 21: 125–127.

50.

McKay

AKA

Stellingwerff

Smith

, et al. Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2022; 17: 317–331.

51.

Sporer

Wenger

. Effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance following various periods of recovery. J Strength Cond Res 2003; 17: 638–644.

52.

Maurer

. A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. J Appl Psychol 1998; 83: 324–329.

53.

Gallagher

. Self-efficacy theory - an overview. In: Ramachandran VS (ed.) Encyclopedia of human behavior. 2nd ed. California, USA: Academic Press, 2012, pp.314–320.

54.

Nemoto

Beglar

. Developing Likert-scale questionnaires. In: Sonda N and Krause A (eds) JALT2013 conference proceedings. Tokyo: INSAK, 2014.

55.

Marsh

Richards

Johnson

, et al. Physical self-description questionnaire: psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1994; 16: 270–305.

56.

Joshi

Kale

Chandel

, et al. Likert Scale: explored and explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2015; 7: 396–403.

57.

Walker

Pizzari

Wajswelner

, et al. The reliability of shoulder range of motion measures in competitive swimmers. Phys Ther Sport 2016; 21: 26–30.

58.

Cools

De Wilde

Van Tongel

, et al. Measuring shoulder external and internal rotation strength and range of motion: comprehensive intra-rater and inter-rater reliability study of several testing protocols. J Shoulder and Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1454–1461.

59.

Couch

Sayers

Pizzari

. Reliability of the ForceFrame with and without a fixed upper-limb mold in shoulder rotation strength assessments compared with traditional hand-held dynamometry. J Sport Rehabil 2021; 30: 1246–1249.

60.

Hazell

MacPherson

REK

Gravelle

BMR

, et al. 10 Or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2010; 110: 153–160.

61.

Johnson

Lynch

Nash

, et al. Relationship of lat-pull repetitions and pull-ups to maximal lat-pull and pull-up strength in men and women. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 1022–1028.

62.

Coyne

. Influence of Anthropometric and Upper Body Strength Qualities on Surfboard Paddling Kinematics . PhD Thesis, Edith Cowan University, Australia, 2015.

63.

Chollet

Chalies

Chatard

. A new Index of coordination for the crawl: description and usefulness. Int J Sports Med 2000; 21: 54–59.

64.

Mezêncio

Pinho

Huebner

, et al. Overall indexes of coordination in front crawl swimming. J Sports Sci 2020; 38: 910–917.

65.

Secomb

Sheppard

Dascombe

. Time-motion analysis of a 2-h surfing training session. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2015; 10: 17–22.

66.

Minghelli

. Time-motion analysis in surf: benefits. Int J Sport Exc Health Res 2018; 2: 97–99.

67.

Loveless

Minahan

. Two reliable protocols for assessing maximal-paddling performance in surfboard riders. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 797–803.

68.

Craig

Pendergast

. Relationships of stroke rate, distance per stroke, and velocity in competitive swimming. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1979; 11: 278–283.

69.

Seifert

Chollet

Chatard

. Kinematic changes during a 100-m front crawl: effects of performance level and gender. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007; 39: 1784–1793.

70.

Morais

Barbosa

Nevill

, et al. Understanding the role of propulsion in the prediction of front-crawl swimming velocity and in the relationship between stroke frequency and stroke length. Front Physiol 2022; 13: 876838.

71.

Keskinen

Komi

. Stroking characteristics of front crawl swimming during exercise. J Appl Biomech 1993; 9: 219–226.

72.

Seifert

Chollet

Bardy

. Effect of swimming velocity on arm coordination in the front crawl: a dynamic analysis. J Sports Sci 2004; 22: 651–660.

73.

Tovin

. Prevention and treatment of swimmer's shoulder. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006; 1: 166–175.

74.

Borgonovo-Santos

Zacca

Fernandes

, et al. The impact of a single surfing paddling cycle on fatigue and energy cost. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 4566.

75.

Fajen

Riley

Turvey

. Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sports Psychol 2009; 40: 79–107.

76.

Lindsay

Spittle

. The adaptable coach – a critical review of the practical implications for traditional and constraints-led approaches in sport coaching. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024; 19: 1240–1254.

77.

Pinder

Davids

Renshaw

, et al. Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011; 33: 146–155.

78.

Lascu

Spratford

Pyne

, et al. Train how you play": using representative learning design to train amateur cricketers. J Sports Sci 2022; 40: 498–508.

79.

World Surf League (WSL). World Surf League Rules and Regulations, https://www.worldsurfleague.com/pages/rules-and-regulations (2019, accessed 01 October 2024).

80.

Burden

Biswas

Hackney

. Female athlete sport science versus applied practice: bridging the gap. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2024; 19: 1518–1521.

81.

Meignié

Duclos

Carling

, et al. The effects of menstrual cycle phase on elite athlete performance: a critical and systematic review. Front Physiol 2021; 12: 654585.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

0.01 MB