Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE EFFECTS OF STRENGTH ON THE ACCURACY
OF BASKETBALL SHOOTING
by
NORMAN GERALD COPPEDGE, B.S. in ED.
A THESIS
in
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION •
Approved
Accepted
June , 19^7
N0./7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation
to Dr. Richard A. Berger for his direction of this
thesis and to the other members of my committee. Dr.
Ramon W. Kireilis and Dr. John W. Cobb, Jr. for their
helpful criticism. Appreciation is also expressed to
the students who were very cooperative and made the study
possible.
li
\ * ^ v ^ •••. • \ * ^ ^ .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of Study 2
Need for the Study 2
Review of Literature ' 3
Effects of Weight Training on Performance 3
Relationship Between Strength and Physical Performance ... 8
Effect of Weight Training on Shooting Accuracy 14
II. PROCEDURE 18
Experimental Design 19
Statistical Analysis 20
III. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 21
Analysis of Results 22
IV. SUMMARY, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS 27
Summary and Results 27
Conclusion 28
LIST OF REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX 31
111
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. t - Ratios Within Groups at Distances of 15, 20, 25 Feet and Combined Distances , 24
2. t_ - Ratio Between Groups at Distances of 15, 20, 25 Feet and Combined Distances 25
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Each year the game of basketball is played more proficiently as
indicated by improved shooting percentages. Major college teams in
creased shooting percentages from 29.3 percent in 1948 to 43.9 percent
In 1967.
The improvement of shooting skill in basketball is due partly to
the greater stress in training on shooting practice and the use of
coaching aids which are designed to improve shooting ability. Some of
these aids are a glove with a thick patch in the palm to develop better
fingertip control of the ball while shooting and a smaller ring to fit
inside a regulation basketball goal to encourage the player to shoot
the ball with more arch.
Several research studies have determined whether shooting percent
ages are effected by practice shooting with backboards raised above
official height (8), shooting with oversized balls (21), and shooting
at baskets smaller than regulation size (2).
Other studies have examined the effect of weight training on per
formance of beginning basketball players (26); the effect of muscular
endurance, as improved by weight training, on accuracy in shooting
field goals in basketball (10); the relationship of age, height, arm
and shoulder girdle strength to basketball shooting ability (27); and
the relationship of strength and fatigue to shooting free throws in
basketball (1). However, no previous study has determined the effects
1
of strength improvement on basketball shooting accuracy at various
distances and angles from the basket.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of weight
training on the accuracy of shooting a basketball at selected distances
and angles from the basket.
Need for the Study
Coaches and athletes have always searched for training programs
which will result in better performances. This has resulted in the evalu
ation of weight training as a program leading to improved performance.
In some sports, strength is highly important for performance. This is
especially true in activities where power is needed to propel heavy ob
jects such as the shot put, discus, and hammer throw. Previous studies
have shown that power can be increased by weight training (9) (18). In
creased strength has also been shown to improve ability in activities
where speed, agility, endurance, and coordination are required for skill
ful performance (3) (9) (12) (13) (23) (24) (32).
There have been several studies (4) (15) (26) done to determine
the effects of weight training on jumping ability of basketball players,
but none have been done to determine the effect of weight training on
shooting accuracy at selected distances and various angles from the basket
This study is not only concerned with accuracy of shooting in
general but also to determine the differential effects that strength
Improvements may have on shooting accuracy at various distances from the
3
basket. It is hoped, through this study, that the coach, athlete, and
physical educator will be able to properly assess the value of weight
training as a training adjunct in basketball.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Strength is related to motor performance. In some activities an
increase of strength will improve athletic skills. Several studies
are presented concerning the effects of weight training on performance.
EFFECT OF WEIGHT TRAINING ON PERFORMANCE
The effect of weight training on the high jumping ability of
eight high school boys was investigated by Keller (19). Each subject
had one to three seasons of experience in this event prior to the study.
Three weeks before weight training the subjects high jumped until they
were able to attain their previous best effort. The subjects then
weight trained for eight weeks, three times weekly, on exercises consisting
of the high pull-curl, walking squat, half-bent rowing motion, sit-ups,
high rapid dead lift, side bends, press on toes, and straddle hop. After
the completion of training, the subjects' high jumping ability increased
on the average of 3.35 inches. It was concluded by the investigator that
weight training increased leg power.
Chui (9) studied the effects of a systematic weight training program
on athletic power. A control group and an experimental group trained three
times a week for twelve weeks. Both groups participated in a similar
program of physical education activities, but the experimental group
also engaged in weight training. The criteria for athletic power were
4
the standing Sargent Jumps, running Sargent Jumps, standing broad jump,
eight and twelve pound shot put, and sixty yard dash. The results showed
the weight trained group to be superior on all the criteria. It was con
cluded that weight training improved muscular power.
Zorbas and Karpovich (32) studied the effect of weight training
upon the speed of muscle contractions. Six hundred subjects were tested
to determine how fast they could complete tvzenty-four rotary arm movements.
Half the subjects had participated in weight training at least six months
and the other half had not. Each subject was given two trials with a
three-minute rest between trials. The best trial was taken as the score.
The weight trainers were found to be significantly faster than the sub
jects who had not trained with weights. The investigators concluded that
the practice of weight training improved movement time.
The effect of increased strength on muscular coordination and speed
of movement was studied by Masley, Hairabedian, and Donaldson (23). The
control group consisted of twenty-four students registered in a volleyball
class and fifteen students not registered for any physical education class.
The experimental group consisted of twenty-four students who trained with
weights for six weeks, three times weekly. All groups were tested before
and after six weeks on speed of movement, muscular coordination, and
strength. Speed of movement was measured by recording the time a subject
could rotate a wheel twenty-four revolutions with the arm. Muscular coord
ination was measured by coordinacing an eye stimulus with a muscular
response, and strength was measured by the Rodger's Strength Index. The
groups were equated on strength and speed but not on coordination. The
results showed that weight training increased strength, speed, and coord
ination more than volleyball or inactivity. The investigator concluded
that an increase in strength was apparently associated with increased
muscular coordination and speed of movement.
Garth (15) studied the effect of weight training on the vertical
jump. Nineteen basketball players were measured in the vertical jump
before and after a period of six weeks. During this period the subjects
trained on the military press, curls, forward raise, lateral raise, and
walking squat exercise. In addition, they performed twenty vertical jumps
a day using only body weight. An improvement was found of 2.47 inches
with the right hand and 2.46 inches with the left hand. It was concluded
by the investigator that weight training and/or twenty vertical jumps a
day increased vertical jumping ability.
Baer (3) determined the effects of static and dynamic strength
training on strength, work capacity, and reaction time. Sixty-three
subjects participated in a training program designed to increase the
strength of the wrist flexors. A strain gauge was used to measure strength
while work capacity was determined with an ergograph. An electronic device
was used to measure reaction time. The results showed that strength
training improved work capacity, reaction time, and strength significantly
in all groups. It was concluded that weight training was effective for
increasing performance in strength, work capacity, and reaction time.
The effect of increased strength in overcoming the handicaps of
added body weight was studied by Mitchell (25). Fifty-six male subjects
were tested before and after weight training for nine weeks. The subjects
were tested on chinning, dipping, shot-put, Sargent Jump, and 300-yard
dash. Each subject was tested four times on each measure; once without
weight added to the body; second, with five percent of body weight added;
third, with ten percent added; and fourth, with fifteen percent added.
Mean improvement in performance was sho\>m after nine weeks at all of the
added bodyweights. It was concluded that weight training was effective
for overcoming some of the handicaps of added weight.
De Lorme (12) weight trained the quadriceps muscle groups of tv7o
hundred University men, four times weekly, for periods up to four months.
Subjects were tested on an ergograph before and after training. The
final ergograph test results showed that fatigue occurred later at the
completion of training than before. 'The resistance employed on the
ergograph was the same at both testing periods. The investigator concluded
that increased strength resulted in improved endurance.
Meadows (24) compared the effects of static and dynamic training
on the speed and force of offensive football players. Eighty-four sub
jects were divided into three groups of twenty-eight each. One group
trained statically, another group dynamically, and the third was a control.
It was found that both the static and dynamic exercise groups improved
significantly over the control group in speed and force of the offensive
football charge. However, the two groups did not differ significantly
from each other in this respect. The investigator concluded that an
increase in strength does improve speed and force.
The effect of strength improvement on vertical jump ability was
studied by Berger (4). Eighty-nine subjects were divided into four
groups. One group trained with the squat exercise for ten repetitions
each session, another trained with fifty to sixty percent of maximum
for ten repetitions of jumping squats, a third group trained statically
at two positions of the squat, and the fourth group was a control. The
subjects trained for seven weeks, three times a week. The results shewed
that the group trained dynamically improved significantly in vertical
jump, whereas the group that trained statically did not. It was concluded
that training dynamically will improve leg pov/er vzhereas, static training
may not.
Dintiman (13) studied whether a flexibility training program, a
weight training program, and the combination of both would have differential
effects on running speed when used as supplementary training programs
to the conventional method of training sprinters. One hundred and forty-
five subjects were randomly assigned to one of the, following training
groups:
Experimental Group A—Conventional program of sprint training and flexibility training program.
Experimental Group B—Conventional program of sprint training and weight training program.
Experimental Group C—Conventional program of sprint training, flexibility training and weight training program.
Control Group I—Conventional program of sprint training.
Control Group II—Inactive.
Each group was tested for flexibility, leg strength, and running speed
before and after an eight-week training period. The results showed that
a combination of weight training and flexibility training, as supplements
to sprint training, increased running speed significantly more than an
unsupplemented sprint training program. It was concluded that a combination
8
of weight training and flexibility, as supplements to sprint training,
will improve running speed more than a sprint training program alone.
The influence of three different training programs on strength
and speed of a limb movement was studied by VJhitley and Smith (31).
One hundred and four students were divided into three experimental groups
and one control group. One experimental group trained with a combination
of isometric and isotonic exercises, another used the dynamic overload
method, and the third group trained with just the free swing method.
After a ten week training period it was found that significant speed and
strength increases occurred in both the isometric-isotomic and dynamic
overload trained groups. No significant speed or strength gains were
registered by either the free swing or control group. It was concluded
by the investigators that because of weight training the strength and
speed of arm movement was improved.
These studies have shown that weight training improves performance
in power (4) (9) (15) (19) (24), speed (13) (23) (29) (32), coordination
(23), and endurance(3) (12); therefore, strength is an important factor
in achieving athletic success in numerous sports requiring these physical
qualities.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRENGTH AND PHYSICAL PERFORM/ vNCE
Strength is necessary for any degree of m.uscular work; however,
the greater the resistance to be overcome in successfully accomplishing
a task the greater is the relationship between strength and performance.
The importance of age, height, and strength of the arm and shoulder
girdle, in relation to basketball shooting ability, was studied by C pycrman
(27). One hundred and seventy-one subjects from eight high schools in
9
Franklin County, Iowa, were used in this study. The control group was
composed of thirty-two boys and thirty-eight girls who were not varsity
basketball players. The experimental group consisted of twenty-three
boys and seventy-eight girls who were varsity basketball players. The
subjects ranged in age from thirteen to eighteen years, in height from
fifty-eight to seventy-five inches, and in weight from ninety-five to
two hundred pounds. Strength tests given were grip strength and push
and pull strength as determined by a dynamometer. Each subject took a
total of ninety shots at ten, fifteen, and twenty feet from the basket,
using a two hand set shot. The number of baskets made was the criterion
of accuracy. Arm and shoulder strength, was found to have no significant
correlation to shooting ability. It "was also found that the McCloy
Classification Index, based on age and height, does not correlate well
with shooting ability. The investigators concluded that shoulder girdle
and arm strength were not related to shooting accuracy.
Rarick (28) analyzed a battery of tests consisting of sprint,
Sargent Jump, four-pound shot put, hand dynamometer, and back and leg
lift, by means of factor analysis to determine the common elements
associated with these measures. Two of the common factors found were
general strength and arm strength. The factor of general strength was
related significantly to shot put ability (r=.433), which was expected
since strength is an important aspect of poxv er. However, the art? strength
factor was not significantly related to shot put scores, which seems to
contradict the expected results. The explanation given by the investi
gator was that strength probably would have had a higher relation to the
shot put had a twelve-pound shot been used instead of the four-pound shot.
10
The degree of relationship between the Strength Index and motor
ability test was studied by Larson (20). One hundred and sixty male
students were employed for this test. The motor ability test consisted
of bar snap, feet to bar, half-lever, bar vault, rope climb, frog stand,
standing broad jump, running broad jump, standing hop-step-jump, football
punt for distance, shot put, dodging run, and four hundred and forty
yard run. The Strength Index items were left and right grip, back and leg
strength, chinning, and dipping. A significant correlation coefficient
of .591 was found between the Strength Index and the motor ability test.
Therefore, the author concluded that strength is related to physical
performance.
Strength tests as measures of "general athletic ability in college
men were studied by Cozens (11). Two hundred and fifty college men were
tested on the Strength Index and a general athletic ability test, con
sisting of baseball throw, football throw, bar snap, Sargent Broad Jump,
dodging, three hundred yard run, Rodger's Arm Strength, McCloy's Arm
Strength, back and leg lift, knee resistance and pull, arm push and pull,
and left and right grip. A significant correlation coefficient of .597
was found between the Strength Index and general athletic ability. It
was concluded by the investigator that there is a relationship between
strength and performance.
Rasch (29) studied the relationship of static arm strength to speed
of arm movement. Speed of movement was measured by a contact chrono-
scope, and strength was measured by the pull exerted against a Chatillions
Improved Spring Balance. The investigator found that an insignificant
11
correlation coefficient existed between static strength and speed of
movement and, therefore, concluded that strength and speed were not
related.
Brown (7) determined the relationship of the Strength Index to
numerous physical fitness and motor ability tests. It was found by the
investigator that the correlation coefficients ranged from .389 to .689
between the Strength Index and tests consisting of sit-ups, two-hundred-
yard shuttle run, chins, Softball throw, bar snap, vertical jump, squat
thrust, sixty-yard dash, standing broad jump, running high jump, twelve-
pound shot, push ups and turn jump. It was concluded by the investigator
that strength is significantly related to physical performance.
The relationship between static strength and speed of arm movem.ent
was studied by Henry and Whitley (18). A spring scale was used to mea
sure arm strength. The speed of lateral arm adduction was determined and
related to static strength of the arm. The investigators found no signi
ficant correlation coefficient between static strength and speed of arm
movement. It was concluded that no relationship existed between strength
and speed.
The relationship of strength to physical performance was studied
by Mabee (22). Data were collected from one hundred and ten subjects,
who were tested for strength, physical fitness, and m.otor ability. Corre
lation coefficients were determined between the Strength Index and both
the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test and the Barrow Motor Ability Test. It was
found that a significant relationship existed between the Strength Index
and both the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (.587) and the Barrow Motor
12
Ability Test (.519). Strength was considered an important factor in
performance of these tests.
Harris (17) studied the relationship between force and velocity in
thirteen physical tests for one hundred and sixty-three junior high school
girls. Two of the tests measured static leg strength and static back
strength. Significant correlation coefficients were found betv/een the
static strength test and seven physical performance tests which consisted
of the Sargent Jump, forty-yard dash, broad jump, basketball throw for
distance, shot put for distance and obstacle relay race. The investigator
concluded that strength was an important factor in motor performance
involving speed and power.
Berger and Henderson (6) determined whether static or dynamic leg
strength was more related to leg power. Sixty-six.male college students
were tested for static and dynamic leg strength and leg power. A standard
leg dynamometer was used to measure static leg strength. Dynamic leg
strength was determined by the greatest amount of weight subjects could
lift from a squat position. Leg power was determined by a modification
of a leg power test devised by Gray, Start and Glencross (16). The
relationships between leg power and both static and dynamic leg strength
were highly significant, but not significantly different from each other.
It was concluded by the investigator that neither static leg strength
nor dynamic leg strength was more related to leg power than the other.
Berger and Blaschke (4) studied whether static strength or dynamic
strength was more highly related to motor ability. Eighty-three male
college students were tested for dynamic strength, static strength, and
13
motor ability. The dynamic strength test consisted of 1-RM chin and 1-RM
dip which were predicted from the number of chins and dips performed at
body weight. Total static strength was determined by four cable-tension
strength tests. The four tests measured strength of trunk extension, knee
extension, shoulder extension, and ankle plantar flexion. The motor ability
test consisted of items believed to measure the components comprising
motor ability. These items were: medicine ball put, Softball throw, fifty-
yard dash, six-hundred-yard run, two-minute sit up, leg power, forty-yard
shuttle run, and chins. Each test item in the motor ability test was
weighted according to its relationship to the criteria: dynamic and
static strength. Of the total number of seven motor ability test items,
dynamic strength was significantly related to five items while static
strength was significantly related to three items.. Dynamic strength was
found to be more related to the composite motor ability score than was
static strength. It was concluded that both dynamic strength and static
strength are related to motor ability, but that dynamic strength was more
highly related than static strength.
No general conclusions can be drawn which state emphatically that
strength is related to performance. This has been shown in the studies
by Rarick (28), Opperman (27), and Henry and Whitley (18) who found no
relationship between static strength and performance, whereas, Larson (20),
Cozen (11), Brown (7), Mabee (22), Harris (17), Berger and Henderson (6),
and Berger and Blaschke (5) found significant relationships of strength
to motor ability. It should be noted that the studies by Rarick (28),
Rasch (29), Opperman (27), and Henry and Whitley (18), employed static
strength as the criterion of strength, whereas, Larson (20), Cozen (11),
14
Brown (7), Mabee (22), Harris (17), Berger and Henderson (6), and Berger
and Blaschke (5), employed either dynamic strength alone or a combination
of the two as the criterion. The evidence seems to indicate that dynamic
strength is more related to performance than static strength. This was
Indicated by Berger and Henderson (6) who obtained a correlation coefficient
between dynamic strength and performance of .71 which was greater than the
correlation coefficient of .64 found between static strength and performance,
although the coefficients were not found to be significantly different.
Another study by Berger and Blaschke (5) showed that dynamic strength was
significantly more related to motor ability (r=.76) than was static
strength (r=.46).
Effect of Weight Training on Shooting Accuracy
Although the evidence is substantial regarding the effects of
weight training on power, balance coordination, strength, and endurance,
relatively little evidence supports or rejects weight training as a
training adjunct for improving basketball shooting accuracy.
The increase in muscular endurance produced by weight training was
examined by Allen (1) to determine whether it would be sufficient to offset
the fatigue developed in a basketball game and, thereby, increase basket
ball shooting accuracy. Five male students shot free throws before and
after being fatigued by a stool stepping exercise. The subjects were then
placed in a weight training program for six weeks. At the completion of
this period the subjects again shot free throws before and after being
fatigued using the same stool stepping exercise. It was found that increased
accuracy in shooting free throws was achieved after weight training. It
15
was concluded that the improvement of endurance from weight training off
sets the fatiguing effects of basketball playing on shooting accuracy.
The effect of an improvement in muscular endurance on accuracy in
shooting field goals in basketball was studied by Clifton (10). Fourteen
subjects were divided into two groups. Both groups particpated in a
weight training program. The groups were tested for shooting ability
before and after eight weeks by the following procedure: all subjects
performed for a five-minute period on a bicycle-ergometer at a prescribed
workload of 1000 Kgm/min. for the purpose of developing a partial degree
of fatigue. Upon completion of this, the subjects attempted to make ten
baskets from various positions on the floor. Between shots, the subjects
were required to run in place in order to keep from resting while the
ball was being retrieved. The results showed that shooting ability
between the two groups was not statistically different. The conclusion
drawn was that the improvement of muscular endurance by weight training
does not improve the accuracy of field goal shooting while shooting under
fatiguing conditions.
The effects of weight training on the performance of beginning
basketball players was investigated by Munroe (26). Thirty-three subjects,
enrolled in a beginning basketball class, were measured for shooting,
dribbling, and vertical jump. The experimental group was divided into
two matched sub-groups of eight each. One sub-group weight-trained for
the first five weeks of the study and the second sub-group weight-trained
during the second five weeks. The control group participated in the same
activity as the experimental group except they did no weight training.
16
All groups were measured for shooting ability before and after ten weeks.
The experimental group was measured also at five weeks of training. The
weight training program involved the military press, toe raise, straight
arm pull-over, and deep knee-bend. The experimental group improved
significantly in shooting ability, whereas, the control did not. The
other criteria were not significantly different between groups. No
significant differences were found between the sub-groups of the experi
mental group on any of the criteria. It was concluded by the investigator
that weight training improved shooting ability.
The evidence is not conclusive that weight training will improve
shooting accuracy since Clifton (10) showed that strength improvement
did not effect the accuracy of basketball shooting while Allen (1) and
Munroe (26) shox 7ed an improvement in accuracy due to weight training.
At least none of the studies showed adverse effects of weight training on
shooting accuracy.
CHAPTER II
PROCEDURE
Numerous studies have been made to determine the most effective
training program for improving athletic performance. In the sport of
basketball most of the studies have been concerned with the effect of leg
strength improvement on the vertical jump. Since vertical jump is a leg
power test, and power is a combination of force, or strength, and velocity,
it is expected that an increase in leg strength will increase vertical
jump ability. This has been confirmed in previous studies (4) (9) (15)
(19) (24) where an increase in strength has resulted in increased power.
Not nearly as well known is whether an increase in strength and, in turn,
power will affect shooting accuracy. The qtialities needed for shooting
accuracy are varied and include factors such as judgement of direction,
distance and force, proper timing, and muscular control as well as strength.
It is understandable that strength improvement may increase shooting
accuracy as the distance from the basket is increased since a lesser pro
portion of maximum strength is needed to reach the basket with the ball
when shooting. If a maximum or near maximum effort is demanded in shooting,
muscular control of the ball is decreased. The problem is to determine if
the strength factor in shooting can be significantly modified to the degree
that it affects other factors necessary for shooting accuracy.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether an increase in
strength has any affect on the accuracy of shooting a basketball at
selected distances of 15, 20, and 25 feet from the basket and at three
different angles.
18
19
Experimental Design
Seventy-eight subjects, enrolled in basketball physical education
classes at Texas Technological College, were divided into three groups.
Each group consisted of players who ranged in ability from beginners to
high school lettermen in basketball.
The groups were formed as follows: Experimental Group I (N=27)—
This group participated in a basketball game for twenty minutes and lifted
weights for ten minutes each session. The exercises used were the wrist
curls and sitting press. The subjects did two sets of sitting presses,
five to eight repetitions. Control Group No. I (N=29)—The subjects in
this group played a basketball game for twenty minutes and then practiced
set shots for ten minutes from all positions on the basketball floor. Con
trol Group No. II (N-22)—These subjects played a basketball game for
twenty minutes and then participated in drills other than shooting for
ten minutes. Subjects followed their respective programs for ten weeks,
twice weekly.
All subjects were given a shooting test at the beginning and end
of a ten-week period. Ten set shots were taken at each of three distances
and angles from the basket. The distances were 15, 20, and 25 feet and
the angles were 45, 90 and 135 degrees. A total of 90 shots were taken,
30 at each angle, which is 10 at each of the three distances.
The groups were considered as representative of the same population
since the analysis of variance between groups on initial scores at all dis
tances resulted in an insignificant F ratio of .77. The reliability of
the test was found to be .65 and was determined by the test-retest procedure
20
using twenty-four subjects. The time lapse between tests was three days.
The variability in shooting ability from one test to another is character
istic of the test and is a limitation since t ratios in a significance
test are inversely related to the reliability of the test.
Statistical Analysis
The t^ test was used to determine the difference in shooting
accuracy between the experimental group (Group E) and the two control
groups (Groups C-I and C-II) and within groups from each of the distances
and all distances combined. However, a one-tailed Jt test was used
between groups, because it was expected that if any differences were ob
tained, they would favor Group E (14). Since the groups were not able
to be equated initi.ally on shooting accuracy, although they were considered
representative of the same population, comparisons between groups were
made on mean improvement scores from the initial to the final test.
^WHm
CHAPTER III
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This study was designed to determine the effect of strength
Improvement on the accuracy of basketball shooting. Seventy-eight male
students at Texas Technological College enrolled in one of three different
physical education classes, were tested for shooting accuracy at 15, 20,
and 25 feet and at angles of 45, 90, and 135 degrees from the basket,
before and after a ten-week period. During the interim, all groups
participated in basketball games for 20 minutes, twice weekly, but per
formed a different activity the last 10 minutes of class time. The experi
mental group. Group E (N=27), weight-trained for 10 minutes each class
meeting. The control groups were Group C-I (N=29), which practiced shooting
set shots from various distances and angles from the basket for 10 minutes,
and Group C-II (N=22), which practiced basketball drills, other than
shooting, for 10 minutes.
A t_ test for correlated groups was used to determine whether
significant improvement in shooting accuracy occurred within groups at
each distance and combined distances. The t test was used for a one-tailed
test of significance to determine the presence of significant differences
in shooting accuracy between Group E and the two control groups from each
of the distances and all distances combined. Since the groups were not
equated initially on shooting accuracy, although they were considered
representative of the same population, comparisons between groups were
based on differences of raw scores from the initial test to the final
test.
21
'i^sSmii.i.' ' H ^
22
Analysis of Results
The group means, standard errors and _t -ratios within groups at
the distances of 15, 20, and 25 feet, and combined distances are presented
in Table I. Only Group C-I, which practiced shooting for 10 minutes,
improved shooting accuracy significantly at each distance. Group E
improved accuracy at distances of 15 feet and 25 feet, but not at 20
feet. Group C-II increased shooting accuracy at 15 feet only. Only
Groups E and C-I increased shooting accuracy when scores at all distances
were combined.
Table II presents the group means, standard errors and -ratios
between groups at the three distances and combined distances. The only
significant difference found between groups was at 25 feet where Group
C-II had significantly less shooting accuracy than Groups C-I and E.
Groups E and C-I surpassed Group C-II in shooting accuracy apparently
because of the differential effects of the training program.s. Weight
training by Group E and additional practice shooting by Group C-I was
more effective for increasing shooting accuracy than the training followed
by Group C-II.
Shooting accuracy is determined by factors such as judgement, power,
timing, and muscular control (30). Since previous studies have shown
that an improvement in strength may also increase these factors (11)
(29) (23) (24), it was not unusual to expect that shooting accuracy
in Group E would be improved. In addition, the increase in strength
by Group E permitted proportionally less of maximum strength than
previously required to propel the basketball to the basket at 25 feet.
Consequently, control over the ball's direction of flight was apparently
23
enhanced. As the force required to propel an object approaches maximum
force there is a diminution of accuracy.
It was difficult to ascertain definitely the aspects of motor
performance involved in shooting or the contributing effects of each
since they are interrelated. One factor common to most aspects of motor
performance is strength. The degree that strength is related to muscular
control and coordination in accuracy of performing tasks determines, some
what, the effect weight training has on accuracy improvement. The re
sults of this study are supported by Munroe (26) and Allen (1) who both
found an increase in shooting accuracy due to weight training.
24
TABLE I
t_-RAT I OS WITHIN GROUPS AT DISTANCES OF 1 5 , 2 0 , 25 FEET AND COMBINED DISTANCES
Distance
15 ft.
20 ft.
25 ft.
Combined Distances
Group
E
C-1
C-II
E
C-I
C-II
E
C-I
C-II
E
C-I
C-II
N
27
29
22
27
29
22
27
29
22
27
29
22
Mean Improvement
1.93
3.03
2.73
1.04
1.96
1.36
1.92
2.14
.18
6.14
7.06
3.91
S. E.
.78
.60
.93
1.10
.51
1.13
.86
.78
.69
1.78
1.09
1.97
_t -Ratio
2.44**
5.05*
2.94*
.95
3.84
1.20
2.23**
2.74*
.26
3.44*
6.45*
1.98
* S i g n i f l e a n t beyond the .05 l e v e l .
* * S i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l .
25
TABLE I I
t_-RATIOS BET\'/EEN GROUPS AT DISTANCES OF 15, 20, 25 FEET AND CO>BINED DISTANCES
Mean Dis tance Group N Improvement S. E. t - R a t i o
15f t . E 27 1.93
C-I 29 3.03 .98 1.11
E 27 1.93
C-II 22 2.73 1.21 .66
C-I 29 3.03
C-II 22 2.73 1.10 .27
20 f t . E 27 1.04 •
C-I 29 1.36 1.14 .81
E 27 1.04
C-II 22 1.36 1.54 .21
C-I 29 1.96
C-II 22 1.36 1.24 .48
25 f t . E 27 1.92
C-I 29 2.14 1.23 .16
Combined Di s t ances E 27 4.92
E 27 1.92
C-II 29 .18 1.14 1.84*
C-I 29 2.14
C-II 22 .16 1.04 2.23*
C-I 22 7.14 2.85 1.20
*Significant beyond the .05 point for one-tailed test of significance
•?/-'?f73^V •• ff'-
26
TABLE I I ~ c o n t i n u e d
Dis tance Group Mean
N Improvement S. E. t - R a t i o
E
C-II
27
22
4.92
3 .91 2 .11 .48
C-I 29
C-II 22
7.14
3.91 .19 1.64
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary and Results
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of weight
training on the accuracy of shooting a basketball. Seventy-eight male
college students enrolled in required physical education classes at Texas
Technological College were employed as subjects. The subjects were divided
into three groups, one experimental group and two control groups. The
experimental group. Group E (N=-27), participated in basketball playing
for 20 minutes and weight training for 10 minutes. The two control
groups participated in 20 minutes of'basketball, with Control Group C-I
(N=29) practicing shooting for the following 10 minutes, and Control
Group II (N=22) practiced basketball drills, other than shooting, for 10
minutes. All groups trained for 10 weeks, twice weekly, and were tested
for shooting accuracy at distances of 15, 20, and 25 feet and angles of
45, 90, and 135 degrees from the basket.
A t_ test for correlated groups was used to determine whether signi
ficant improvement in shooting accuracy occurred within groups at each
distance and combined distances. The t_ test was used for a one-tailed
test of significance to determine the presence of significant differences
in shooting accuracy between Group E and the two control groups from each
of the distances and all distances combined. Only Group C-I improved
shooting accuracy significantly at each distance. Group E improved shooting
accuracy at distances of 15 feet and 25 feet, but not at 20 feet. Group
C-II increased shooting accuracy at 15 feet only. Only Groups E and C-I
27
28
increased shooting accuracy when the scores at all distances were combined
The only significant difference found between groups was at 25 feet where
Group C-II had significantly less shooting accuracy than Groups C-I and
E.
Conclusion
The improvement of strength resulting from weight training in
creased basketball shooting accuracy at 25 feet; however, at 15 and 20
feet shooting accuracy due to weight training is not noticeably improved.
29
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Allen, E. Allen. "The Relationship of Strength and Fatigue to Accuracy in Shooting Free Throws in Basketball." Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1954.
^. Alley, L. B. and Measke, P. M. "To Improve Shooting Accuracy, Practice at Small Baskets." Athletic Journal (May, 1961), 42:34.
3. Baer, Adrian D., Gersten, Jerome W. and Robertson, Barbara M. "Effect of Various Exercise Programs on Isometric Tension, Endurance, and Reaction Time in the Human." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
4. Berger, Richard A. "Effects of Dynamic and Static Training on Vertical Jumping Ability." Research Quarterly (December, 1964), 34:419-424.
5. Berger, Richard A., Blaschke, Leon A. "Comparison of Relationship Between Motor Ability and Static and Dynamic Strength." Research Quarterly (March, 1967), 38:144-146.
6. Berger, Richard A. and Henderson, Joe M. "Relationship of Power to Static and Dynamic Strength." Research Quarterly (May, 1966), 37: 9-13.
7. Brown, Howard S. "A Com.parative Study of Motor Fitness Tests." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Indiana, 1955.
8. Chiappy, J. E. "Free Throw Shooting Story." Athletic Journal ' • (February, 1960), 41:38-39.
9. Chui, E. "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on Athletic Power." Research Quarterly (October, 1950), 21:188-194.
10. Clifton, Robert Lou. "Effect of Weight Upon the Accuracy in Shooting Field Goals in Basketball." Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1955,
11. Cozens, Frederick. "Strength Test as Measures of General Athletic Ability in College Men." Research Quarterly (October, 1950), 11: 188-194.
12. DeLorme, T. L. "Restoration of Muscle Power by Heavy Resistance Exercise for Development of Muscular Strength." Research Quarterly (May, 1956), 27:132-142.
13. Dintiman, George B. "Effects of Various Training Programs on Running Speed." 'Research Quarterly (December, 19.64), 35:456-63.
'•'Jfff
30
14. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd. ed. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1956.
15. Garth R. L. "A Study of the Effects of Weight Training on the Jumping Ability of Basketball Players." Unpublished Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1954.
16. Gray, R. K., Start, K. B., and Glencross, D. J. "A Useful Medifi-cation of the Vertical Power Jump,""Research Quarterly (May, 1962), 33:230-35. ^ ^
17. Harris, Jane E. "The Differential Measurement of Force and Velocity for Junior High School Girls." Research Quarterly (December, 1937), 8:114-21.
18. Henry, F. M. and Whitley, J. D. "Relationships Between Individual Differences in Strength, Speed, and Mass in an Arm Movement." Research Quarterly (March, 1960), 31:24-33.
19. Keller, E. P. "A Study of the Relationship of Strength and Weight to Ability in the Running High Jump." Unpublished Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1949.
20. Larson, L. A. "A Factor and Validity Analysis of Strength Variables and Test with a Test Combination of Chinning, Dipping, and Vertical Jump." Research Quarterly (December, 1940), 11:82-96.
21. Lindeburg, Franklin A. and Hewitt, Jack E. "Effect of an Oversized Basketball on Shooting Ability and Ball Handling." Research Quarterly (May, 1965), 36:164-167.
22. Mabee, D. D. "The Relationship of Strength to Dynamic Physical Performance." Master's Thesis, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, 1965.
23. Masley, John W., Hairabedian, A. and Donaldson, D. N. "Weight Training in Relationship to Strength, Speed, and Coordination." Research Quarterly (October, 1953), 24:308-315.
24. Meadows, Paul. "The Effects of Isotonic and Isometric Muscle Contraction Training on Speed, Force, and Strength." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Illinois, Urbana, 1959.
25. Mitchell, E. P. "The Effect of a Weight Training Program on the Retarding of Excess Weight on Performance of Selected Activities." Unpublished Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1948.
26. Munroe, R. W. "The Effect of Systematic Weight Training on the Performance of Beginning Basketball Players." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1956. ^
- '.1- yi'^f^^^^'^r. ,^'. '
31
27. Opperman, Edward F. "A Study of Shoulder Strength in Relationship to Basketball Shooting." Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1948.7
28. Rarick, Lawrence. "An Analysis of the Speed Factor in Sim.ple Athletic Activities." Research Quarterly (December, 1937), 8:89-105.
29. Rasch, Philip J. "Relationship of Arm Strength, Weight, and Length to Speed of Arm Movement." Research Quarterly (October, 1954), 25: 32-36.
30. Wells, Katharine F. Kinesiology. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 1966.
31. Whitney, Jim D. and Smith, Leon E. "Influence of Three Different Training Programs on Strength and Speed of a Limb Movement." Research Quarterly (March, 1966), 37:137-142.
32. Zorbas, W. S. and Karpovich, P. V. "The Effect of Weight Lifting Upon the Speed of Muscle Contractions, Research Quarterly (May, 1951), 22:145-148.
^jps
APPENDIX
32
A^M^
33
SUBJECT NO,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP E
FIFTEEN FEET
45° 90° 135°
Tl T2 Tl T2 Tl T2
3
3
4
1
5
3
3
7
7
5
5
6
3
0
3
7
6
3
4
5
4
5
2
3
3
2
5
5
5
8
5
3
6
8
3
6
5
4
6
2
5
6
4
6
3
5
4
1
6
1
4
8
4
6
3
5
5
6
7
6
5
5
7
7
4
4
3
2
4
7
6
3
4
9
4
6
6
5
6
3
6
5
8
7
6
7
6
7
5
8
6
5
.4
2
6
7
7
7
5
8
9
1
4
5
6
7
4
7
4
6
3
5
3
8
5
3
3
7
2
7
2
3
3
3
4
6
5
7
2
4
3
5
6
4
4
1
1
6
6
6
4
8
6
8
7
5
7
2
3
5
10
4
4
7
7
4
4
4
8
3
1
7
34
SUBJECT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP E
45"
Tl T2
TWENTY FEET
.o 90'
Tl T2
135
Tl T2
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
2
2
4
3
6
1
4
3
4
4
2
3
5
2
6
4
7
5
0
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
5
2
5
6 .
4
6
1
0
3
5
8
4
3
4
0
5
1
5
6
1
6
4
4
4
7
6
2
5
6
4
5
3
6
3
1
5
5
5
1
4
5
2
2
6
5
6
3
4
6
5
4
4 * .
2
5
6
9
7
5
4
5
5
0
5
8
8
4
3
3
2
3
4
6
4
5
6
3
4
5
5
3
4
6
2
2
2
3
6
4
1
3
0
6
2
2
4
4
5
1
4
2
2
7
1
8
5
6
1
2
4
4
9
4
3
6
1
3
5
5
5
4
6
6
4
1
6
4
2
2
3
35
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP E
SUBJECT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
45°
n 3
2
3
4
0
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
1
0
3
1
5
3
1
7
1
5
2
3
0
2
2
T2
2
5
4
2
4
2
6
4
5
3
5
6
1
5
5
2
6
2
3
6
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
TWENTY-FIVE
90°
Tl
2
3
2
3
3
0
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
1
5
1
2
2
4
6
3
1
4
3
4
5
5
FEET
T2
4
4
3
3
6
4
4
4
4
5
1
6
2
2
5
3
1
2
2
4
0
1
1
4
3
2
4
135°
Tl
1
2
2
2
1
4
4
2
3
5
1
5
3
2
4
4
2
1
4
3
2
1
2
4
0
0
2
T2
2
6
4
2
6
4
4
4
6
4
3
7
2
4
3
6
4
1
2
1
0
4
1
4
2
6
3
36
SHOOTING SCOPJIS FORGROUP NO. I
SUBJECT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
45°
Tl
7
5
6
4
4
6
7
5
7
5
3
6
8
7
5
5
6
2
3
4
2
4
5
1
3
4
5
5
4
T2
6
7
8
7
7
5
8
7
8
5
7
6
5
5
5
9
3
6
7
4
3
5
6
5
6
5
7
4
3
FIFTEEN
Tl
6
8
7
9
5
7
7
4
7
3
5
7
5
4
5
7
5
5
3
1
5
3
5
5
2
5
5
3
7
FEET
90°
T2
8
8
9
9
5
7
9
4
10
5
5
8
5
10
6
6
6
7
7
5
5
4
6
8
4
7
3
6
3
135°
Tl
6
5
6
6
4
7
8
7
7
5
3
5
1
7
3
6
7
4
6
4
3
7
7
2
7
6
4
3
5
T2
6
6
8
7
5
5
8
5
7
4
4
7
8
7
5
5
7
8
6
3
3
6
7
5
4
6
5
6
5
37
SUBJECT NO,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP I
45°
Tl
3
5
4
4
3
8
5
3
4
6
6
4
3
5
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
0
5
2
2
5
5
3
2
T2
7
5
6
5
2
7
6
5
8
4
3 .
6
3
4
2
6
4
7
4
3
2
2
4
3
4
4
5
4
2
TWENTY
90
Tl
4
7
6
7
3
4
6
4
7
4
4
7
2
4
6
3
5
3
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
3
6
2
4
FEET
1°
T2
7
5
7
8
3 ' .
10
6
2
8
4
7
5
6
6
3
2
5
3
4
4
7
2
5
4
1
3
5
2
4
135°
Tl
7
6
6
5
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
6
3
4
2
3
5
3
4
2
6
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
3
T2
5
4
6
5
4
5
8
4
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
1
4
3
4
5
2
6
5
3
5
6
3
5
38
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP NO.
SUBJECT NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Tl
3
3
2
1
2
7
2
1
3
3
3
3
0
4
2
1
2
2
4
4
1
0
2
3
2
1
3
1
4
45°
T2
3
3
6
5
3
4
6
2
6
3
6 .
3
3
3
1
4
4
5
3
2
4
0
3
5
3
0
4
1
2
TWENTY-FIVE
90°
Tl
4
3
6
7
4
2
5
1
3
2
2
4
1
6
3
1
3
1
3
0
2
1
1
3
1
3
5
1
4
FEET
T2
7
2
4
4
2 .
7
7
3
5
2
3
6
5
5
1
3
1
3
2
1
3
0
3
1
2
2
2
2
0
135°
Tl
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
1
5
3
2
4
0
1
2
2
4
1
4
2
2
1
2
3
1
4
4
2
3
T2
5
3
4
4
2
7
4
3
6
5
5
5
4
6
2
5
3
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
0
3
2
3
w
39
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP NO. II
SUBJECT NO. FIFTEEN FEET
45" 90' 135
Tl T2 Tl T2 Tl T2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
3
3
3
7
6
5
5
4
7
4
5
6
2
6
4
5
2
2
6
4
5
4
2
6
2
5
10
5
5
6 *
5
6
6
6
3
8
7
5
4
6
4
7
5
2
2
3
4
5
4
7
4
6
3
6
2
7
5
6
7
4
5
6
7
6
3
3
4
6
7
6
6
8
7
5
5
5
7
6
3
6
9
9
7
7
5
7
9
1
2
2
6
6
6
5
2
6
2
5
6
8
5
5
6
3
6
2
2
3
6
3
3
6
3
5
7
8
4
3
4
5
6
7
4
5
7
2
5
7
2
4
4
^*%ry
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP NO. I I
40
SUBJECT NO, TWENTY FEET
45' 90' 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Tl T2 Tl T2 Tl T2
0
0
6
5
4
6
4
3
1
3
3
4
6
1
4
6
3
2
1
3
4
4
3
2
2
0
4
6
3
3
5 •
2
4
4
5
0
4
4
8
1
7
5
2
7
2
1
4
4
7
4
5
3
7
3
4
4
3
1
3
4
2
3
3
6
5
4
3
2
6
3
4
4
6
5
5
4
5
5
4
2
5
5
8
3
5
3
4
5
2
1
1
7
4
2
5
2
4
5
3
5
6
4
0
5
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
1
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
2
4
7
5
6
3
3
6
SHOOTING SCORES FOR GROUP NO. II
41
SUBJECT NO. TWENTY-FIVE FEET
45" 90' 135
Tl T2 Tl T2 Tl T2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
0
5
3
2
5
1
4
0
1
2
3
3
4
2
4
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
0
4
2
4
1
4
4
1 '
3
3
3
4
0
2
5
0
3
4
3
4
3
1
3
5
2
3
1
3
3
4
1
4
3
6
3
3
4
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
2 .
4 •
1
2
2
5
3
3
0
4
4
5
1
2
2
2
0
6
2
1
3
0
0
0
2
2
5
4
4
1
1
2
5
5
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
5
3
4
2
3
2
1
2
4
2
2
1
5
3
1
3
5
2
2
2
