BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 205
Chapter 10
Propulsive Forces in Swimming
A.R. VORONTSOV AND V.A. RUMYANTSEV
The nature of propulsive forces in
swimming
The aquatic locomotion of a human is a result of the
interaction of body segments with the water. On
land a human uses the ground surface as a solid and
immobile support. Effort is applied against the
ground and the grounds reaction transmitted to
the body makes the body move. During swim-
ming a swimmer creates the immobile support
in the mobile fluid medium, using its density and
viscosity, and overcomes opposing resistive forces.
The nature of swimming is that it occurs in water,
which resists the swimmers motion through it. The
hydrodynamic resistance (HDR) manifests itself as:
(i) the force that slows down and stops the swim-
mers motion through the water (see Chapter 9); and
(ii) as a hydrodynamic reaction force to the movements
of the swimmers limbs through the water. This
hydrodynamic reaction force (RF) is the source of
propulsion for the swimmers locomotion.
The swimming velocity depends upon the magni-
tude and direction of the RF (or total pulling force)
created by movements of the swimmers working
segments, and the magnitude of the active hydrody-
namic resistance. The RF created by the swimmer
constantly changes its value and direction during
the cycle of swimming motions due to the alter-
ation of working phases and recovery phases.
Correspondingly, there are changes in the effective
pulling forcea component of the resulting RF equal
to the projection of the RF vector to the direction of
motion. The value of active HDR also changes con-
tinuously within the swimming cycle.
The interaction within the swimming cycle of
these two horizontal forces (effective pulling force
and active hydrodynamic resistance), as a rule not
equal at any one moment, may be described by
the equation of set non-stationary activity of a
swimmers body in fluid flow (Toussaint et al. 1998;
Cappaert 1998; Kolmogorov & Lyapin 1998):
FP(effective)(t) FDA(frontal)(t) = (m0 + m)dv(CM)/dt
(10.1)
where FP(effective)(t) = momentary value of total effec-
tive propulsive force developed by the swimmers
propelling segments (result of working movements
of arms, legs and body); FDA(frontal)(t) = momentary
value of frontal component of hydrodynamic resis-
tance affecting the swimmers body; m0 = body
mass; m = added water mass of an inertial origin;
and dv(CM)/dt = momentary acceleration of body
centre mass.
It follows from Eqn. 10.1 that when FPropulsive =
FDrag the swimmer moves with uniform velocity,
when FP > FD the swimmer accelerates, and when
FP < FD the swimmer decelerates.
To generate high propulsive force during swim-
ming is not an easy task. Not all components of the
resultant RF contribute to an effective RF (pulling
force) due to deviation of the vector of the reac-
tion force from the swimming direction at certain
moments of pulling actions (Schleihauf 1979;
Rumyantsev 1982; Cappaert & Rushall 1994). At
the same time a substantial part of the mechanical
energy of the pulling actions is lost in transfer of
kinetic energy to the water mass which the swimmer
uses as a support. As a result, only a portion of the
205
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 206
206 locomotion
mechanical work performed by a swimmer is used
effectively to overcome HDR. As we shall demon-
strate later in this chapter, it is not enough simply to
press against the water as hard as possible. Instead,
the aim should be to adroitly change the direction of
movement throughout the course of the pull so that
the vector of the resulting RF remains as close to the
swimming direction as possible.
Biodynamic details of pulling
movements
The propulsive forces in swimming originate from
muscular contractions (muscle draught). When the
biokinematic chains shoulder-forearm-hand and hip-
low leg-foot begin to move they encounter hydro-
dynamic resistance. When the muscle draught
balances the external hydrodynamic RF force and
the latter balances the HDR, the body general centre
of mass (GCM) begins to accelerate in the direction
of locomotion. Thus the hydrodynamic reaction
force transforms into a propulsive (pulling) force.
Since the pulling movements are rotational move-
ments of extremities in the joints the system of
forces may be expressed by the following equation
(the displacement of the axis of rotation condition-
ally accepted as zerosee Fig. 10.1):
0 If it is assumed that the hand velocity is roughly
rinert.
r proportional to the angular velocity in the shoulder
Q rm
Finert. Fm
F Miller (1975) supposed that corresponding changes
rQcos
mg
rinert.cos
Fig. 10.1 Forces and their levers (relative to the axis of
rotation, 0); illustration to Eqn. 10.1.
Fmrm = I + Fr mgrinertia cos + QrQ cos (10.2)
where Fm = resultant force of muscle draught (N); rm
= lever of the resultant muscle force (m); I = moment
of the inertia of the arm (kg m2); F = resultant
hydrodynamic reaction force (N); r = lever of the RF
(m); mg = gravity (N); rinertia = radius of the arm iner-
tia force (m); Q = hydrostatic force (N); rQ = lever
of the hydrostatic force (m); = relative angular
position of the arm (degrees); and = angular accel-
eration of the arm ( degrees per second per second;
may be positive as well as negative).
If we assume that during underwater pull the
gravitational and hydrodynamic forces are equal,
opposite and colinear the equation is simplified:
Fmrm = I + Fr (10.3)
It follows from this equation that the reduction of
length of the levers of external forces (inertia and
hydrodynamic reaction) by bending the arm at the
elbow joint leads to increase of the dynamic and
time-spatial characteristics of the arm pull and
requires smaller muscle torque. Miller (1975) repre-
sented Eqn. 10.2 in the following form:
Fmrm mr 2inertia + CDr3 2 (10.4)
where Fmrm = torque of muscular force; = angular
acceleration of the arm (or arm segment); m = arm
(arm segment) mass (kg); and CDr32 = torque of the
hydrodynamic reaction created by the arm (or arm
segment).
multiplied by the distance between hand and shoul-
der (= r), it follows that the torque of hydrodynamic
RF varies as a cube of the length of its lever while
the torque of inertia varies as the square of rinertia.
in pulling technique (decrease of rinertia and r and
increase of ) would improve the efficiency of the
pulling action. Muscular draught is applied to the
shoulder close to the axis of rotation (Fig. 10.2) and
the lever of muscle force is small. The resultant RF
is applied to the distal portion of the arm and its
lever is several-fold longer in respect to the lever of
muscle draught. By arm flexion a swimmer changes
the ratio of forces applied to opposite ends of the
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 207
propulsive forces in swimming
l1
l2
Fig. 10.2 The formation of the muscle
draught torque and RF torque during
arm pull:
I + RF l2 = | Fmuscle l1|
where = angular acceleration.
bone lever and is able to balance greater RF torque
by smaller muscle torque when the arm is bent. In
freestyle and butterfly the elite swimmers demon-
strate maximal elbow bending (the angle between
shoulder and forearm) in the middle (90120) por-
tion of the pull.
As may be seen from Eqn. 10.4, pulling patterns
with consecutive flexion extension of the arm
have an obvious biomechanical and hydrodynamic
advantage over pulling patterns without move-
ments in the elbow and wrist joints.
1 Movement of the elbow joint allows a selective
increase in the angular velocity and acceleration of
the hand and forearm without involving the most
massive segment of the arm, i.e. the shoulder. Pull-
ing patterns with elbow bending require much less
muscle torque to create an equal RF and an effective
pulling force than arm pulls without elbow bending.
2 Bending the elbow and wrist joints provides effi-
cient space orientation of the propelling segments
(Counsilman 1968; Makarenko 1975; Schleihauf
1979). It increases the working surface area of the
pulling segments (projection of these segments to
the direction of the pull) and makes it possible
to steer the propulsive forces in the direction of
swimming.
3 The strength of the arm bent at the elbow joint is
significantly higher than that of a straight arm.
Measurements of maximal isometric strength in
207
Fm
RF
boundary postures, imitating the distinct phases
of arm pull, shows that bent arm pull creates on
average a 20% greater force than straight arm pull
(Butovich & Chudovsky 1968; Vorontsov 1981). It
is possible that by bending the elbow, the direction
of torque in the shoulder joint changes. This could
imply that more muscles can deliver work in the
shoulder joint (Toussaint et al. 1998).
4 In the course of the arm pull the movements of the
arm joints are coordinated in a pattern which pro-
vides consecutive achievement of maximal angular
velocities in different joints. This avoids excessive
loading of the arm muscles, which work in a more
economical way. The catch phase is performed by
simultaneous extension in the shoulder and flexion
in the elbow/wrist joint. At the beginning of the
backward pull (downsweep) the hand and forearm
accelerate due to arm bending in the elbow joint,
while the shoulder moves with low angular velocity
and gradually passes from a streamlined position to
a resistive position.
During the insweep the shoulder begins to acceler-
ate its rotation while the angle between the hand
and forearm remains relatively constant. Thus the
swimmer uses hand and forearm as a single blade.
In the main phase, as the shoulder rotation deceler-
ates, the acceleration of the forearm at the elbow
joint begins. The forearm performs a fast extension
of the elbow joint (push), during which the hand
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 208

208 locomotion

slows down its rotation and attains its optimal space

orientation. This is the moment when the swim-
mers arm delivers the highest magnitude of RF and
effective pulling force. After this working part of the
pull is completed the exit of the arm from the water
is performed by movement at the shoulder joint.
5 The pulling pattern with alternate elbow bending
and extension provides a gradual increase of hydro-
dynamic reaction force and its propulsive compon- (a)

ent in the initial part of the pull, stabilization in the

middle part, and a sharp increase to the maximum
force at the end of the pull. In pulling patterns with-
out movements in the elbow and wrist joints the
hydrodynamic force decreases significantly after
the arm passes the middle of the pull. RFtotal =RFeffective

Concepts of propulsion in swimming

=90
Theory of the straight oar-like arm pull (OLP) (b)

This theory stems from striving to convert 100%
of the hydrodynamic reaction force into effective
propulsive force. It follows from Newtons Third
Law of Motion that the most efficient types of pull
are those employing a straight movement of the
hand (and forearm) along the direction of swim-
ming motion under the mid-line axis of the body,
with the armforearm pitch close to 90 relative to
the pulling direction (Fig. 10.3a,b). Thus during the
oar-like pull the propulsive force is created almost
entirely by pressure (form) resistance. The magni-
tude of propulsive force (RF) may be derived from
Eqn. 9.1: RF = 1/2 V2CDS, where = water density,
V = speed of the water flow interacting with the
body, CD = the hydrodynamic coefficient of the
propelling segment and S = the surface area of the
propelling segment.
For several decades the role of frontal (form)
resistance was deemed paramount in describing
the origination of propulsive forces in swimming
(Cureton 1930; Kiphut 1942; Silvia 1970). The prin-
ciples of Newtonian mechanics (action-reaction
principle, principle of conservation of momentum,
principle of proportionality) were employed to
prove that straightline arm pull (oar-like pull
OLP) is the most efficient, as the direction of the vec-
tor of hydrodynamic RF created by the swimmers
Fig. 10.3 (a) Oar-like pull (side view). (b) Contribution of
the frontal drag force (RFtotal) on the hand into effective
RF.
arm coincides with the direction of swimming
motion. It was assumed that in OLP the effort which
the swimmer applies to the water maximally trans-
forms into forward propulsion when the direction
of the vector of resultant RF maximally coincides
with the direction of swimming (RFeffective = RFtotal).
Any deviation of the swimmers arms during pull
from a straightline direction was interpreted as a
technical error or as a movement to compensate for
deficiencies in the structure of the human motor
apparatus, which is not perfect for aquatic locomo-
tion. This view still has its adherents among scient-
ists and coaches (see, e.g., Rushall et al. 1998).
The lift and lift-and-drag theories: curvilinear
(propeller-like) arm pull (PLP)
The theory of OLP presumes that the swimmer
should maintain the maximal surface area of the
propelling segments (CD S), and constantly in-
crease the velocity of the pull and pressure created
by these segments during the pulling motion.
Actually the hand velocity and pulling effort (RF)
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 209
propulsive forces in swimming
F2
F1
Fminimal
Fig. 10.4 Typical intracycle dynamic
of pressure force on swimmers hand
during front crawl.
demonstrates two or three large pulses, with stabi-
lization and even a transient decrease in the middle
part of the arm pull. Figure 10.4 shows the typical
intracyclic changes of the pressure developed by a
swimmers hand during the front crawl. Such intra-
cyclic pressure dynamics bring into question the
importance of the frontal reaction force as the sole
or main propulsive force in aquatic locomotion.
The introduction of objective methods of research
and biomechanical analysis in the late 1960s and
early 1970s revealed significant deviations of the
hand trajectory in both vertical and transverse
planes from the optimal direction of locomotion in
elite swimmers (Fig. 10.5a). These deviations need
to be explained.
Opponents of the straight pull used as an argu-
ment the principle of immobile support, which
presumes that efficient pulling actions employ com-
plex trajectories of working movements so that at
every point of the pull the working segments of the
arms and legs interact with standing, immobile
water. As soon as a swimmer begins to apply force
against the water the latter starts to move in the
direction of the hand motion, leading to a decreased
velocity difference between hand and water and
decreased efficiency of the pulling action. Therefore,
in order to create high RF (to find efficient support-
ive reaction), the pulling segments should interact at
every point of the working movement with stand-
ing, immobile water. This condition is satisfied when
pulling actions are performed not exactly linearly
209
Tcycle
Ipull
Trec
T1
Tpull Tminimal
T2
backwards, but employ a complex curvilinear tra-
jectory. If one considers swimming movements in
the orthogonal coordinate system (Fig. 10.5b), it
appears that during pulling actions the working
segments of the arms and legs accomplish move-
ments not only straight backwards along the x-axis,
but also across the transverse (z-y) and vertical (x-y)
planes. During the working phase of swimming
motions the arm segments interact with three-
dimensional (3-D) water flow at some angle of attack
and change their leading edge 23 times (depending
on the swimming stroke). Belokovsky (1971) showed
that in synchronized swimming the effective pulling
force and high swimming velocity (e.g. 1617 s for
a 25-m swim) may be achieved by using so-called
standard figure 8-like sculling patterns without
any significant backward displacement of the swim-
mers hands. The magnitude of the total and effec-
tive propulsive force in this case depends upon the
pitch of the hands, the working trajectory, and the
velocity of transverse hand movements.
Counsilman (1969, 1971), using an analysis of
underwater movies, found that world-class swim-
mers perform arm pulls as sculling movements with
very complex curvilinear trajectories in 3-D space.
In these pulling patterns the hand and forearm
perform significant vertical and transverse move-
ments and continuously change the direction of
the pull and their pitch (the angle of attack and lead-
ing edge) relative to the water flow. Counsilman
concluded that it is virtually impossible to find
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 210

210 locomotion

z x

y y

Front view
Side view

3
x
Hand velocity (m s1)

Bottom view
2

0 5 10 15
(a) t (1/22.5s)

x z z

y x y
c
a
a

f b
b
b f

e d
d
e

d c
f
c
a e

(b) Side view Bottom view Front view

Fig. 10.5 (a) Example of a swimmers fingertip trajectory pattern (front crawl) and absolute hand speed date.
(b) Trajectory of the hand relative to the system of orthogonal coordinates in front crawl arm pull. (Adapted from
Schleihauf 1979.)
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 211

propulsive forces in swimming 211

V Area of low
L RF pressure
2
L

RF

3

D
D
+ +
+
1
Area of high pressure

Fig. 10.6 Bernoullis principle: origin of hydrodynamic lift on (left) a hydrofoil and (right) the hand (according to Reischle
1979). (1), area of stagnant waterhigh pressure; (2), area of low pressure above the hand; (3), area of turbulence (low
pressure) in the wake of the hand.

instances when the hand and forearm are disposed
to the water with an angle of attack exactly 90 to the
pulling direction. He made an assumption that the
major contributor to human locomotion in water is
the hydrodynamic lift force (normal component of
resulting hydrodynamic reaction), which originates
when the hand and forearm move at an angle of
attack to the water flow (to pulling direction). In this
case both segments interact with water flow as a
hydrofoil.
Counsilman cited Bernoullis principle to explain
the nature of propulsive forces in swimming
(Fig. 10.6). According to this principle the hydro-
dynamic lift originates as the result of the differ-
ence between water flow velocities on the upper and
lower surfaces of the hand (and forearm). Coun-
silman estimated that the hydrodynamic profile of
the human hand creates a significant lift force. The
properties of the hand and forearm as hydrofoils
were also studied by Schleihauf (1974), Bartels and
Adrian (1974), Reischle (1979), Onoprienko (1981)
and Rumyantsev (1982), all of whom shared the
opinion that hydrodynamic lift makes a signific-
ant contribution to swimming propulsion. Issurin
and Kostyuk (1978) found that during swimming
at maximal velocity backward displacement of the
hand (the projection of its trajectory on the x-axis)
comprises only 25% of the length of its absolute
trajectory. The average velocity of backward dis-
placement of the hand was found to be less than the
average forward velocity of body motion. At the
same time the absolute hand velocity relative to
the water flow achieved 34 m s1. By using trans-
verse and vertical sculling movements, swimmers
achieve a high magnitude of lift to create high
resulting RF without significant displacement of
water mass backwards, and prolong the duration of
action of the propulsive force. These theoretical
speculations and experimental data formed the
basis of the theory of curvilinear, propeller-like pull-
ing patterns (PLP).
Three-dimensional analysis of the absolute move-
ments of limb segments and the core body in relation
to orthogonal coordinates has allowed an under-
standing of the hydrodynamic nature and complex-
ity of propelling forces (Schleihauf 1974, 1979; Wood
1979; Cappaert 1993, 1998). This analysis showed
that in sport swimming no examples could be found
of pulling patterns in which exclusively the frontal
(pressure) or normal (lift) component of hydrody-
namic reaction was used to create propelling force.
Propulsive forces are created by contributions
of both normal and frontal components of hydro-
dynamic reaction. The relative contributions of
drag and lift forces to a swimmers propulsion vary
significantly between distinct phases and moments,
between individuals, and between swimming
strokes. By changing the pitch of the hand it is
possible to steer the resultant propulsive force in
the direction of swimming.
Both drag and lift forces can be derived using the
following equations of hydrodynamics:
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 212
212 locomotion
FD = 1/2 V2CDS (see Eqn. 9.1)
L = 1/2 V2CLS (10.5)
where L = lift force, CL = coefficient of lift of the pro-
pelling segment, S = surface area of the propelling
segment, and V = absolute velocity of the propelling
segment relative to water flow. It follows from Eqn.
10.5 that to create high total and effective pulling
force the following conditions must be satisfied.
1 There should be a high velocity of interaction
of the propelling segments with water flow (both
frontal and lift forces are proportional to the square
of the propelling segments velocity).
2 There should be optimal hydrodynamic orienta-
tion (pitch) of the segments relative to the water
flow (selective maximization of CD and CL due to the
continuously changing direction of the pull).
3 There should be optimal balance between the
size of the segments projection on the pulling
trajectory and the wing surface area creating lift.
4 The pulling trajectory should have optimal ampli-
tude and direction.
Counsilman (1977), influenced by the studies of
Schleihauf, also came to the conclusion that both
drag and lift forces are equally important in creating
the effective propulsive force. Thus originated the
lift and drag theory of swimming propulsion. The
results of Schleihaufs studies on the relationship of
hydrodynamic drag and lift forces developed by the
biokinematic pair armforearm facilitated a better
understanding of human aquatic locomotion and
were used as the basis for subdividing arm pulls
into four phases: downsweep, insweep, backsweep
and upsweep.
The vortex theory and the complex mechanism
theory of swimming propulsion
The vortex theory is widely used for the descrip-
tion and analysis of swimming in fish, and was
introduced into sport swimming by Colwin (1984,
1992), who supported his theoretical speculations
on vortex theory by some video data obtained in
sport swimming. He proposed that part of the
kinetic energy lost by swimmers to the water mass
could be reabsorbed into pulling action from water
vortices.
More recently Toussaint et al. (1998) expressed the
opinion that neither drag nor lift theories give a
complete explanation of the mechanism of pulling,
and supported this by successful experiments on
visualization of water flow around the swimmers
arm. They assumed that since the pulling segments
of arms and legs move in a quasi-steady water flow,
the vortex theory may explain better the mechanism
of action of the propulsive force. This is especially
true for transitional periods of the pull, when the
hand and forearm change sharply the direction
(leading edge) and velocity of the pull. The mecha-
nism of how the starting vortex and bound vortex
(circulation) facilitate the pressure differential and
thus increase propulsive force is shown in Fig. 10.7
(the so-called condition of Zhoukovsky).
The latest studies in aerodynamics have dis-
proved the Bernoulli principle as an explanation of
lift. This principle assumes equal transit time for
particles over and under the aerofoil. In fact, the
upper-surface transit time is always less than that
below (Denker 1998). The generally accepted theory
taught that the wing begins to produce lift as result
of a starting vortex, which is formed behind the
trailing edge as the wing moves forward. This vor-
tex causes circulation to appear around the wing.
With this circulation superimposed on passing flow,
the upper-surface air velocity becomes greater than
that below. The flaw in this explanation is that there
are no known physical principles to explain how the
starting vortex can cause circulation. All that is
known is that a starting vortex really does occur, the
above-wing flow does have a greater velocity, and
the magnitude of the lift force is much greater than
would follow from Bernoullis principle even a
flat aerofoil can create effective lift under certain
conditions.
Experiments in water tanks confirm that both lift
and drag forces occur when hand and forearm casts
are exposed to water flow or are moved relative to
standing water (Schleihauf 1974, 1979; Grinev 1977),
and both these forces contribute to propulsion in
aquatic locomotion. In practice, it is of little con-
cern exactly what is the reason of the lift, and which
theory is most accurate.
Recently, the most widely accepted theory of
swimming propulsion is the lift-and-drag theory of
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 213
Accelerated motion
Bound Starting
vortex Lift vortex
u P1
+
+ u
P2
(a)
Fig. 10.7 The Vortex Theory: circulation (bound vortex) around the hand and the system of vortices behind the rear
surface of the hand create lift (condition of Zhoukovsky). Flow velocity above the wing: V1 = V u. Flow velocity below
the wing: V2 = V + u. Pressure differential: P = P2 P1 = 1/2 (V12 V22) = 2Vu (where u = flow velocity in bound vortex).
propeller-like pull (PLP). Hence, until a better
theory of aquatic propulsion is developed, we
would like to focus on the lift-and-drag concept in
order to discuss the following topics:
under what conditions does the hydrodynamic
reaction force originate on working segments?
what is the potential of arm and leg segments to
create propelling forces? and
what are the factors determining the efficiency of
pulling actions? etc.
Hydrodynamic potential of arm
segments
As mentioned above, propulsive forces created by
the swimmer are the result of the interaction of
arm and leg segments with the water flow during
pulling movements. These propulsive forces by
their nature are forces of hydrodynamic resistance.
The ratio of forces created by distinct segments of
limbs is determined as:
Fi+1/Fi = Si+1 Ci+1 Vi+12/Si Ci Vi2
where Fi and Fi+1 = hydrodynamic forces (N) of
segments i and i + 1; Si and Si+1 = frontal surface
area (m2) of segments i and i + 1; Ci and Ci+1 = non-
propulsive forces in swimming 213
Motion at uniform velocity
Flow V
Circulation Leading-edge vortex
(bound vortex)
Lift
Trailing-edge
vortex
u P1
+
P2
+
u
(b)
dimensional drag coefficients of given segments;
and Vi and Vi+1 = velocities of segments interaction
with water flow. The shoulder has the least S C
product and least propulsive potential. The fore-
arm and hand have approximately equal S C
products since the smaller support area of the
hand is compensated by a greater drag coefficient
CDhand (Butovich & Chudovsky 1968; Bagrash et al.
1973).
A decisive factor in determining the relationship
of hydrodynamic forces created by the arm seg-
ments is the velocity of their interaction with water
flow. The difference in angular and linear velocity of
arm segments relative to the axis of the shoulder
joint determines the difference in absolute velocity
of the segments interaction with the water flow.
Thus it determines the magnitude of total RF cre-
ated by each arm segment.
The angular and linear velocity increases from
shoulder to hand proportionally with the increase
in the radius of rotation. Butovich and Chudovsky
(1968) and Makarenko (1975) showed that the
(10.6)
average intra-cyclic linear velocity of the shoulder
and RF created by the shoulder are negligible.
Moreover, at some points in the pulling action the
shoulder creates a drag to the forward motion. Due
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 214

214 locomotion

Number of lead

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 10.8 Location of the tensioleads

P (g cm2 ) I 44.5 26.7 5.8 5.4 4.4 2 on a swimmers arm and maximal
II 54.3 25.0 6.1 6.0 4.1 1.9 values of the pressure. (Adapted
III 14.4 14.7 5.9 5.7 3.3 1.6 from Rumyantsev 1984.)

to active movements in the elbow and wrist joints value of leads 46) by the surface area of a segment
the forearm and hand have a significant advantage and corresponding relative drag coefficients it is
over the shoulder in terms of angular and linear possible to obtain the maximal relative hydro-
velocity. Thus only the forearm and hand of a swim- dynamic forces of arm segments. The magnitudes
mer create significant hydrodynamic reaction forces of drag coefficients at an angle of attack of 90 were,
(i.e. propulsive force). respectively: for hand 1.0, forearm 0.7, shoulder
Miller (1975), using a mathematical model of the 0.6 (data obtained during exposure of plaster cast
front crawl arm pull with bending of the elbow, of arm segments to water flow in the water tank;
found that the ratio of hydrodynamic forces of hand Butovich & Chudovsky 1968).
and forearm is about 2.5 : 1. Since she used a model Table 10.1 gives the values of hydrodynamic
which did not include hand movement at the wrist forces after correction (Rumyantsev 1982). These
joint, the hand and forearm were assumed to have measurements show that in conditions of natural
the same angle of attack relative to the water flow. In swimming (III) the hand creates about 7075% of
reality a swimmer uses minor hand movements at the total hydrodynamic force of the arm. A further
the wrist joint to give the hand the most efficient 20% or so is created by the distal half of the forearm.
position (Schleihauf 1979). Thus it may be assumed (N.B. These results were obtained for flat flow
that the ratio of hydrodynamic forces created by using arm casts exposed to water flow at a 90 angle
hand and forearm should be greater than the above of attack and the sole reaction force acting on the
value. arm segments is frontal (form) resistance.) The con-
Bagrash et al. (1973), using tensiometry, measured clusion may thus be made that the major propelling
hydrodynamic pressure on distinct arm segments
during front crawl swimming (46 male well-trained Table 10.1 Maximal intracyclic hydrodynamic force of
swimmers). The experiment included: arm segments during front crawl swimming. (From
1 tethered swimming using straight arm pull; Bagrash et al. 1973; adapted by Rumyantsev 1982.)
2 tethered swimming using pull pattern with elbow
bending; and Relative FI FII FIII
Arm segment S (cm2) Cx (N) (N) (N)
3 natural swimming.
Figure 10.8 depicts the location of pressure leads Hand 151 1.0 65.8 79.6 61.3
and corresponding magnitudes of maximal hydro- Forearm 221 0.7 24.1 23.6 15.6
dynamic pressure during tethered and free swim- Shoulder 217 0.6 5.0 5.1 4.4
ming (averaged for 20 strokes).
Cx = drag coefficient. FI = force during tethered
Multiplying the maximal pressure developed by swimming using straight-arm pull. FII = force during
a segment (for hand, readings of lead 1; for forearm, tethered swimming using elbow bending. FIII = force
mean value of leads 2 and 3; for shoulder, mean during natural swimming. S = surface area.
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 215
propulsive forces in swimming
forces during swimming are generated by the hand
and distal half of the forearm. It means that in
analysing hydrodynamic forces we can neglect any
force produced by the shoulder (Schleihauf 1979;
Wood 1979). Schleihauf (1979) determined the effec-
tive propulsive force delivered by arm segments at a
swimming speed of 1.66 m s1. The average pro-
pulsive force delivered by the hand was 48 N, and
the average effective forearm propulsive force
was 24 N.
Drag and lift during different phases of
pulling actions
Effect of form and orientation of arm segments on
hydrodynamic forces
Studies performed in water tanks using casts of the
hand with differently shaped palms and finger
Fig. 10.9 The most efficient
hydrodynamic forms of the hand.
(From Makarenko 1996.)
215
positions (Counsilman 1968; Makarenko 1975;
Onoprienko 1981) show that the most effective
combinations for creating a high hydrodynamic
reaction are (Fig. 10.9):
1 flat palm with fingers and thumb held together;
2 flat palm with thumb apart; and
3 flat palm with fingers and thumb held slightly
apart.
Forms 1 and 2 are more effective for those phases
where the hand moves at sharp angles of attack to
the pulling direction and works as a hydrofoil.
Onoprienko (1981) stressed the important role of the
abducted thumb for fixing the hand at the wrist joint
and increasing the rigidity of the hand. Form 3 has
the advantage for phases where the hand moves
relatively straight backwards at an angle of attack
> 60 (an increase of the frontal hydrodynamic
force despite a decrease of CDx when the fingers
are slightly apart may be attributed to the greater
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 216

216 locomotion

Lift RF Lift RF

V of flow Drag
Drag
V of flow

= 30 =45

=270

=315
=225
Lift RF

V
Drag =180 =0

=135 =45

=270
= 45
=90

Fig. 10.10 Sweepback angles and angles of attack of the hand.

supporting surface area). Analysis of underwater
movies and video recordings (Counsilman 1968,
1977; Haljand 1984; Haljand et al. 1986) shows that
expert swimmers generally perform pulling actions
with some spreading of the fingers. The reason for
this is still unknown. It may be that any advantage
in hydrodynamic reaction force when the fingers
are held tightly together in a strong water flow is
cancelled out by the excessive energy spent in keep-
ing the fingers together.
The orientation ( pitch) of the armforearm relat-
ive to the 3-D flow is an important factor in deter-
mining the ratio of drag and lift forces, the total
magnitude of the RF and the effective pulling force.
Schleihauf (1974, 1979) exposed plaster casts of the
hand to water flow in a tank to analyse the influence
of the pitch of propelling segments on the magni-
tude of hydrodynamic forces. He considered the
armforearm model in terms of the characteristics
of an aerofoil, namely the angle of attack () and
sweepback angle (; French tangage). For a swimmer
the angle of attack is the angle formed by the in-
clination of the propelling surface (arm and leg
segments) to the direction of the pull, while sweep-
back angle defines the leading edge of the pro-
pelling segment.
Figure 10.10 depicts the angles of attack and
sweepback angles of the hand (arrows show the
direction of flow). Analysis of the forces and hydro-
dynamic (drag and lift) coefficients used a system
of coordinates where the x-axis related to the flow
direction.
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 217

propulsive forces in swimming 217

Schleihauf (1979) introduces the lift-to-drag index

to assess the predominant contribution of these
two forces in the momentary value of the resultant
RF:
L/FD = 1/2 CDyV2S/1/2 CDxV2S
= CDy/CDx (10.7)
where CDy = momentary value of coefficient of lift of
the propelling segment, and CDx = momentary value
of the drag coefficient.
This formula may be used to determine the lift
and drag ratio in resultant RF for distinct phases of
the arm pull and for the entire pull. If the value of
the index > 1, then lift predominates; if < 1 then the
drag component is greater.
Frontal component of the hydrodynamic RF
(frontal drag, FD)
In experiments involving streamlining the hand
casts and increasing the angle of attack the co-
efficient of the frontal force, CDx, increases ex-
ponentially and achieves its maximum at an angle
of 90. The form of the propelling segment and
the sweepback angle also influence the magnit-
ude of CDX and FD at different angles of attack
(Table 10.2).
Normal component of hydrodynamic reaction
hydrodynamic lift (L)
Streamlining of the hand by water flow creates a
small (|CDy| < 0.2) normal force even at = 0
and = 90 (Reischle 1979; Schleihauf 1979). With
increased angle of attack () up to its critical value
(3035) the coefficient of normal reaction (CDy) also
increases, but beyond these critical values of it
again decreases to 0 at a 90 angle of attack.
Changes in the form of the propelling segments,
angle of attack and sweepback angle cause much
greater variation in the normal component of the
hydrodynamic reaction than the frontal component
(Table 10.3). The greatest variation of CDy due to
changes of magnitude of the sweepback angle was
found for angles of attack below 60. For angles
of attack greater than 60 the absolute values and
dynamics of CDy become very similar at different
sweepback angles.
Separation of the fingers significantly decreases
the normal component (lift), while thumb abduction
increases the lift. The maximal value of CDy for the
hand occurred with the thumb abducted to 75%
of its maximal amplitude (Schleihauf 1979). It may
be concluded that when it is necessary to create
significant lift, as in sculling movements ( < 35),
the most efficient hand position is with the fingers
held together and the thumb apart.

Table 10.2 The impact of the form of the propelling surface and sweepback angles on the magnitude of frontal reaction at
given angles of attack.

Authors Method Position of fingers Cxmaximal

Schleihauf (1979) Hand casts exposed to Thumb apart from fingers 0 7590 1.35
flow in water channel 90 90 1.40
180 80 90 1.30
270 70 80 1.40
Fingers 46 mm apart, 0 85 1.15
thumb apart
Wood (1979) Hand casts, aerochannel, Fingers together 90 90 1.10
V = 40 m s1 Fingers tightly adducted, 90 90 1.07
palm concave
Fingers apart 90 90 1.07

= sweepback angle; = angle of attack; Cx = hydrodynamic coefficient of frontal RF.

BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 218

218 locomotion

Table 10.3 Impact of the form of the propelling surface and its sweepback angle on the maximal normal component of
hydrodynamic reaction at given angles of attack.

Authors Form of propelling segment and finger positions Cymaximal

Schleihauf (1979) Hand cast

Fingers together, thumb abducted 90 0 15 0.85
90 55 0.65
180 30 0.85
270 35 1.10
Fingers together, thumb abducted 67.5 0 4045 0.80
Fingers 3.2 mm apart, thumb at 67.5 0 4550 0.70
Fingers 6.4 mm apart, thumb at 67.5 0 4555 0.50
Fingers together, thumb at 45 0 50 0.70
Wood (1979) Hand-forearm cast
Fingers together 0 55 0.60
90 50 1.07
180 35 0.46
Fingers together, hand concave 0 55 0.68
90 50 1.01
180 35 0.57
Fingers apart 0 60 0.53
90 55 0.88
180 15 0.44

= sweepback angle; = angle of attack; Cy = coefficient of the lift (normal force).

It should be stressed that most effective coefficients

The resulting hydrodynamic reaction force (RF)
The momentary magnitude of the resulting hydro-
dynamic force created by the hand and forearm
is determined by the form of the handforearm
connection, angle of attack, sweepback angle and
absolute velocity of the arm and forearm in respect
to 3-D water flow.
In the course of the pull a swimmer varies and
of the hand and forearm in order to use effectively
both drag and lift forces to create a high resulting RF
and effective pulling force. With an angle of attack
() between 10 and 35 the resulting hydrodynamic
force is created predominantly by the normal (lift)
component (CDy/CDx 1.33). Within the range
3555 the RF of the hand is formed by equal contri-
butions of normal and frontal (drag) components
(CDy/CDx = 0.75 1.33). With angles of attack of the
hand >55 the RF is formed predominantly by the
drag (CDy/CDx 0.75). When the angle of attack is
greater than 75 the resulting hydrodynamic reac-
tion force is formed almost exclusively by the drag.
of hydrodynamic reaction (CD) occur when the
angle of attack of the armforearm 30. Swimmers
strive for this degree of flow streamlining during the
main phase of the pull. According to the data of
Schleihauf (1979) and Cappaert (1998) the angle of
attack of the hand and forearm at the instant when
they develop maximal RF and effective pulling force
is within the range 6075. However, during the ini-
tial (insweep) and transitional phases of the pull
swimmers use sharp angles of attack (Schleihauf
1979).
Much smaller hydrodynamic reaction is pro-
duced when the angle of attack of the propelling
segments is 1015. Values in this range are used
by swimmers during the parts of the recovery that
are performed under water (arm entry and exit in
front and back crawl and butterfly, forward sweep
in breaststroke).
It is worth mentioning the strong relationship
between the RF and sweepback angle of the hand.
Thus a hand orientation with = 15 and = 0
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 219
propulsive forces in swimming
gives 31% greater RF than with = 15 and = 45.
Increasing the angle of attack by 10 ( = 25) at
= 0 creates 8% less RF than at = 25 and = 45 pelling segments (VGCM/Vhand). The closer to 1 is
(Schleihauf 1979; Rumyantsev 1982).
Comparison of the oar-like pull (OLP)
and curvilinear pull (CLP)
It is now firmly established that efficient arm pull
patterns begin with active overtaking rotational
movements of the hand and forearm at the elbow
and wrist joints with respect to the shoulder (Coun-
silman 1968, 1977; Makarenko 1975; Haljand et al.
1986). This technique is characterized by a gradual
increase of the hydrodynamic RF and its effective
component (Counsilman 1977; Schleihauf et al. 1979;
Haljand et al. 1986; Maglischo 1993). It helps to avoid
significant angular accelerations of the arm seg-
ments and sudden changes in intracycle velocity of
the swimmer. Unskilled swimmers have been found
to have a rapid increase of hydrodynamic reaction
at the beginning of the pull followed by chaotic
changes (Counsilman 1977; Schleihauf 1979).
During the preliminary phase the total RF and
effective pulling force increase gradually with an
increase of the angle of attack and velocity of the
hand and forearm. At the moment of entry into the
water the hand with fingers together creates a minor
resistive force. At the same time extension of the
arm over the head improves the streamlining of the
head and shoulders and reduces total HDR. This
effect is facilitated by the positive vertical compon-
ent of the RF created by the hand.
During the transitional phase there is a gradual
decrease of the angle of attack of the hand and fore-
arm, and the magnitude of RF and effective pulling
force also decreases.
In the middle part of the arm pull the propulsive
force is created by roughly equal contributions of
the normal and frontal components of RF. An opti-
mal relationship of these two components is deter-
mined by a number of factors. The most important
are as follows.
1 Rules for particular swimming disciplines limit
the direction and amplitude of movements, and
their timing.
219
2 The relationship of the velocity of a swimmers
GCM motion to the relative velocity of the pro-
this ratio, the greater the advantage in velocity of
interaction with water flow, the better support reac-
tion attains the swimmer.
3 Speed-strength abilities and strength endurance
of the swimmer. These determine the changes in
kinematic and dynamic characteristics of the pulling
actions during an entire race (angle of arm flexion in
elbow joint, stroke rate, stroke distance, etc.).
4 The range of movement and flexibility of the
joints, which limit the possible variations in the posi-
tion of the pulling segments relative to the water
flow and direction of locomotion.
5 Development of the kinesthetic sense (feeling for
water), allowing manipulation of the parameters
of pulling actions. Schleihauf (1979) assumed that
CLP requires more perfect feeling for the water
than OLP.
Schleihauf (1979) showed that in elite swimmers
the propulsive part of the arm pull in every stroke
shows the following.
1 Patterns with exaggerated curvilinear trajectory
of armforearm movement:
(a) pulls with predominantly transverse move-
ments of the hand and forearm; and
(b) pulls with significant change of the depth of
the pull.
In these pulling patterns the propulsive force is cre-
ated predominantly by the normal (lift) component
of hydrodynamic reaction and efficient propulsive
force may be created in all phases of the pull.
2 Patterns with a relatively straight trajectory. Here
the propelling force is created predominantly by the
frontal pressure force, mainly in the middle part of
the pull while the hand moves backwards.
The CLP has some advantages over the OLP.
Thus in order to achieve an equal absolute velocity
of interaction with water flow the CLP utilizes a
lower relative backward velocity of the arm seg-
ments and requires much less effort to overcome
their inertia than OLP (Table 10.4 gives mass-
inertial characteristics of the propelling segments).
This advantage of the CLP depends upon swim-
ming velocity. During swimming at low velocities a
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 220
220 locomotion
Table 10.4 Relative mass (% of total body mass) of arm
and leg segments in adult males. (From Zatsiorsky et al.
1981.)
Segment Mass of segment/body mass 100%
Hand 0.61
Forearm 1.62
Upper arm 2.71
Foot 1.37
Lower leg 4.33
Upper leg 14.17
swimmer using OLP is able to achieve (by increas-
ing relative arm velocity) the same velocity of
armforearm interaction with water flow as in CLP.
So the advantage of CLP will be only in the smaller
effort needed to overcome the inertia of the pulling
segments. At maximal swimming velocity, when
the relative backward velocity of the pulling seg-
ments is limited by the speed-strength abilities of an
athlete, the OLP does not allow such a high velocity
of armforearm interaction with the flow as in CLP.
As the external load increases with increased swim-
ming velocity the angle of arm bending at the elbow
joint also increases (Butovich & Chudovsky 1968;
Counsilman 1977). This movement is aimed at util-
izing the angles of maximal force (AMF) and is
accompanied by a deviation of the armforearm
trajectory from the direction of motion.
Apart from the advantage in velocity of interac-
tion of the propelling segments with the water flow,
the CLP allows the pulling segments to find still
water and thus increase the stroke distance while
maintaining the optimal stroke rate. Moreover, the
longer duration of arm interaction with the flow
(longer pulling trajectory) of CLP may create a
greater impulse of RF than OLP.
The main advantage of OLP is the utilization of
most effective coefficients of hydrodynamic reac-
tion due to high angles of attack ( = 55 75), while
CLP achieves lower values of CDx as it utilizes much
smaller angles of attack. Thus a smaller velocity of
arm interaction with water flow in OLP may be
compensated by a greater CDx. Due to effective
armforearm orientation and direction of pull the
OLP allows greater transformation of the hydro-
dynamic reaction force into an effective propulsive
force during swimming.
Thus it may be concluded that both pulling pat-
terns have high propulsive potential. However, the
use of OLP and CLP in individuals will depend
on a number of hydrodynamic and biomechanical
(anatomical) factors.
Normal and frontal components of
propulsion in different swimming
strokes
The amount by which the hydrodynamic reaction
force may deviate from the direction of propulsion
depends on the swimming stroke. In synchro-
symmetrical swimming strokes (e.g. breaststroke
and butterfly) transverse components of the hydro-
dynamic force are mutually discharged and vertical
components are used efficiently for body support.
In swimming strokes with alternate arm and leg
movements (front and back crawl) it is necessary to
avoid significant deviation of the hydrodynamic
reaction force from the swimming direction, since
this may cause undesirable sideways and vertical
deviation of the body and thus increase the hydro-
dynamic resistance. It follows that during butterfly
and (especially) breaststroke swimming, the pulling
action may be closer to a CLP and even a propeller-
like pulling pattern than occurs during front and
back crawl. Assessment of the relative contribution
of the lift and drag in the resultant RF and effective
pulling force may be made on the basis of the data
given in Table 10.5. For different swimming strokes
the combination of drag and lift force and the distri-
bution of total and effective hydrodynamic force
within the swimming cycle will vary significantly.
The lift-and-drag index, diagonality index and force
distribution index show that lift predominates over
drag force in breaststroke. In freestyle and butterfly
lift and drag forces appear to be about equally
important during the major portion of the propuls-
ive phases of the pull. In backstroke, swimmers use
drag force more than lift force (i.e. sculling move-
ments are less important for backstroke than for
breaststroke, butterfly or freestyle).
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 221

propulsive forces in swimming 221

Table 10.5 Characteristics of pulling motion curve-linearity in four competitive swimming strokes.

Diagonality Lift-and-drag Force distribution

Stroke index* index index

Freestyle 59 13 1.04 0.28 0.82 0.07

Butterfly 44 21 0.95 0.39 0.81 0.06
Backstroke 47 17 0.77 0.21 0.58 0.13
Breaststroke 81 9 1.25 0.21 0.65 0.13

* The diagonality index is the average angle of the negative hand line of motion and
the forward direction at the points of first, second and third maximal RF production.
The lift-and-drag index is the average ratio of lift and drag forces (CL/CD) at the
three largest occurrences of RF.
The force distribution index is the average location of the three largest occurrences
of RF expressed as a percentage of the total duration of the underwater phase of the
arm pull.

Figure 10.11a d shows a hand propulsive force
diagram (combination of lift and drag force into
resultant RF), intracyclic dynamics and impulse of
total and effective propulsive forces in four swim-
ming strokes (Schleihauf 1979). These graphs char-
acterize the rhythmical structure of the pull and
values of forces applied by swimmers in distinct
phases of the pull. The largest effective propulsive
forces in freestyle and butterfly occur near the end
of the arm pull (after the hand passes two-thirds
of the pull). In breaststroke the largest effective
propulsive force occurs at the midpoint of the
inward sculling motion of the hands.
The cycle of arm movements and
phases of arm pull
The swimming cycle or cycle of swimming movements
as a multiple repeated system of movements con-
sists of a preliminary part (recovery) and a working
part (pull). The recovery is aimed at restoring the
working posture of the arms or legs, while the pull
creates the propulsive force.
A single cycle is characterized by a beginning and
end, and intervening phases which differ in their
kinematic and dynamic characteristics and have
distinct motor objectives. The optimal duration of
each phase within the swimming cycle is necessary
for the effective coordination of swimming move-
ments and maintenance of high and relatively uni-
form intracyclic velocity.
Table 10.6 shows the phases of the arm cycle in
all swimming strokes. The main feature of such a
subdivision of the cycle into phases is the prevail-
ing direction of the vector of hand velocity within
the system of immobile orthogonal coordinates
(Schleihauf 1979).
The objective of the initial phase is to prevent any
decrease of intracyclic velocity, start acceleration of
the body, and move the pulling segments to their
most effective position in readiness for the main
part. In this phase the hand and forearm work as
hydrofoils. The acceleration of the body GCM dur-
ing the initial pulling phase is created in breast-
stroke and butterfly by leg kick (the transfer of the
pulling effort from legs to arms). In front and back
crawl this initial acceleration is accomplished by the
main phase of pull of the opposite arm (transfer of
the pulling effort from one hand to another) and
also by utilization of kinetic energy (inertia) of the
entire system.
The objective of the main phase is to achieve max-
imal intracyclic velocity. During the main phase the
hand and forearm maintain an optimal orientation
relative to the water flow and direction of motion.
From an anatomical point of view the main phase
can be subdivided into two parts: pull and push.
The boundary point between these parts is the
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 222

Bottom view Bottom view D=74.0

D=68.5
R=87.8

R=96.9

L=55.0 L=62.6

V = 3.0 AP= 38 V=3.3 AP=34

Side view Side view

L=129.1

L= 94.4

R=190 R=136.8

V = 3.8 V=3.3
AP = 41 AP=40

D=139.4 D= 98.9

Hand force vs. time B Hand force vs. time

B
175
R 125 R
150 RE RE
RE 100 RE
A
125
Hand force (N)

Hand force (N)

A
100 75

75
50
50
25
25

0 0

Time (1/66s) Time (1/66s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 10.11 Impulse of resultant and effective reaction force in four competitive swimming strokes: (a) freestyle; (b)
butterfly; (c) backstroke; and (d) breaststroke. AP, angle of pitch (degrees); V, absolute hand velocity relative to water
flow (m s1); D, frontal drag component; L, lift component; RF, resultant reaction force. (a) bottom view, middle of stroke;
side view, finishing sweep motion; hand force vs. time, R, resultant force; RE, resultant effective force. (b) bottom view, inward
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 223

Side view Side view

R= 62.9
L=25.4

D=38.5
R=38.7
Side view L= 56.0
R=75.7
D=60.2
D=29.2

V = 2.6 AP = 30
V=3.2 AP=24

Bottom view L=46.0

V= 3.2 AP=49 Bottom view

D=40.3
L = 40.8
R=76.9

Side view

L= 65.5
V = 3.1
L=47.8
AP = 52
R = 71.0
D = 58.1

V =3.6 AP=12

V=3.0
AP = 46
R=75.8
D=58.9

Hand force vs. time Hand force vs. time

B C D
R R
RE RE
60 RE 80 RE
B
50
Hand force (N)

Hand force (N)

A 60
40

30 40 A

20
20
10

0 0

Time (1/66s) Time (1/50s)

(c) (d)

scull motion; side view, finishing sweep motion. (c) side view: midstroke; side view, downward sweep; bottom view, inward
sweep; side view, upward sweep. (d) side view, downward sweep; bottom view, inward scull motion. (From Schleihauf
1979.)
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 224
224 locomotion
Table 10.6 The structure of the arm cycle in competitive swimming strokes.
Phases of cycle
Pull (working part)
Swimming stroke Initial Main
Front crawl 5
Back crawl 6 Downsweep Insweep-
Butterfly 7 outsweep
Breastroke Outsweep Insweep
moment when the hand crosses the transverse plane
(y-z) passing through the shoulder joint. The push is
the most vigorous, decisive part of the pull, and
maximal intracycle swimming velocity occurs dur-
ing the last two-thirds of the push.
In the course of the transitional phase (end of the
pull) the hand and forearm create mostly vertical
and lateral reaction forces to lever out the negative
forces (gravity, inertia). Another motor objective of
the transitional phase in front crawl, backstroke and
butterfly is to achieve arm exit with minimal resist-
ance to forward motion of the body.
The objective of the recovery phase is to restore
the initial position of the arm for the start of the next
cycle with minimal effort. The inertia of the arm seg-
ment (in butterfly and breaststroke inertia of the
upper body as well) may be utilized to minimize the
fluctuation of the intracyclic velocity.
Biodynamics of leg movements in
swimming
The role of leg movements in propulsion
Leg actions are able to create greater hydrodynamic
forces than arm actions (Butovich & Chudovsky
1968; Bagrash et al. 1973; Belokovsky & Kuznetsov
1976; Haljand 1984, 1986). There are several reasons
for this.
1 Legs possess significantly greater propelling sur-
face area.
2 The relative movement of the feet during the
working phase has no backward part (except in
Transitional Preliminary part (recovery)
Upsweep Exit and movement Entry and extension
above water forwards
Arm stretch
breaststroke). This allows a high velocity of inter-
action with the water flow to be developed at any
swimming velocity.
3 The muscle groups of the legs are significantly
stronger than those of the arms (Onoprienko 1981).
In sport swimming these features play a minor
role for creating effective propulsive forces. In fin-
swimming the propelling surface area of the lower
extremities is increased more than twofold, giving
a three- to fourfold increase in hydrodynamic RF
and a 1.5- to 2-fold increase in swimming velocity
(Onoprienko 1981).
Due to the orientation of the foot and lower leg
relative to the water flow and direction of motion
these high hydrodynamic forces act mostly in a ver-
tical direction and only a small fraction of them
acts straightforwards in the direction of motion.
Consequently, leg kick creates a smaller effective
propulsive force than arm pull. In front and back
crawl about 15% of the total propulsive force is
created by leg kick. In butterfly stroke the contri-
bution of leg kick propulsion is greater, maybe
up to 2025%. The exception is breaststroke, in
which approximately equal proportions of the
total propulsive force are created by leg and arm
movements.
Despite the limitations of legs as propelling
agents, leg movements create useful propulsive
forces in every swimming stroke at any swimming
velocity (Persyn et al. 1975; Onoprienko 1981).
Besides contributing to propulsion, leg movements
also perform several very important compensatory
functions (Butovich & Chudovsky 1968; Makarenko
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 225

propulsive forces in swimming 225

1975; Persyn et al. 1975; Haljand et al. 1986). They
serve to:
neutralize the negative forces (gravity and iner-
tia) and transverse components of hydrodynamic
reaction force made by pulling actions;
smooth the intracycle fluctuations of swimming
velocity;
maintain a high and streamlined body position;
regulate the velocity and amplitude of body rota-
tion around the longitudinal axis in front and back
crawl and around the transverse axis during breast-
stroke and butterfly;
facilitate the propulsive phases of arm pull; and
unify all movements in a single system, the swim-
ming cycle.
Hydrodynamic potential of leg segments
The values of the maximal intracycle pressure
forces for distinct leg segments are given in Table
10.7. Calculations were based on: (i) for footread-
ings of lead 1; (ii) for lower legaverage readings of
leads 2 and 3; (iii) for upper legaverage readings of
leads 4, 5 and 6.
It was found that in natural swimming the foot
created about 70% of the legs hydrodynamic reac-
tion. Another 20% of RF is created by the lower leg.
The foots contribution to propulsion appears more
significant if one takes into consideration its advan-
tage in space orientation in water flow (Counsilman
1977). The intracyclic dynamics of the hydrody-
namic reaction force vary significantly from stroke
to stroke and from individual to individual. It may
be concluded that the main propelling segments of
the leg are the foot and distal half of the lower leg.

The contribution of leg segments to propulsion is

determined by the velocity of their interaction with Table 10.7 Maximal intracyclic hydrodynamic forces
the water flow, their surface area and their hydro- developed by the leg segments during front crawl
swimming. (From Bagrash et al. 1973; adapted by
dynamic coefficients. Bagrash et al. (1973) used Rumyantsev 1982.)
tensiometry to measure hydrodynamic pressure
experienced by distinct leg segments during front Leg Relative FI FII FIII
crawl swimming under the following conditions, segments S (cm2) CD (N) (N) (N)
denoted IIII:
Foot 185 1.0* 94.1 126.0 110.4
Iduring tethered swimming using straight leg kick Lower leg 301 0.7 33.1 46.7 38.3
without noticeable knee flexion; Upper leg 580 0.7 7.5 11.8 9.4
IIduring tethered swimming with natural leg kick;
IIIduring free swimming. CD = coefficient of hydrodynamic resistance. FI = force
Figure 10.12 shows the location of tensioleads on during tethered swimming using straight leg kick without
noticeable knee flexion. FII = force during swimming
a swimmers leg and the corresponding maximal with natural leg kick. FIII = force during free
values of hydrodynamic pressure (average for 20 swimming. S = surface area.
cycles) in conditions I, II and III. * CD of the foot was conditionally accepted as 1.0.

Number of lead

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 10.12 Location of tensioleads on P (gcm2) I 51.9 27.8 4.3 3 1.8 1.1
swimmers leg. (Data from Bagrash II 69.5 39.3 6.0 5.1 2.3 1.5
et al. 1973.) III 60.9 33.1 4.0 3.7 2.0 1.4
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 226
226 locomotion
The form and orientation of the leg (foot) in water
flow and 3-D space
The question of the influence of the form and ori-
entation of the leg on hydrodynamic forces remains
open. Onoprienko (1981) studied the influence of
the limited range of angle of attack on frontal re-
sistance of the foot at a flow velocity of 2.0 m s1.
He found that during interaction of water flow with
the frontal surface of feet in the range of angles
60 90 ( = 90) there was moderate increase of
frontal drag (FX at = 90/FX at = 60 = 1.08) due to
an increase in the propelling surface of the foot.
When water flow interacts with the internal surface
of the foot ( = 90) at a 90 angle of attack ( = 90)
there is much less hydrodynamic reaction than at
= 0 (FX at = 0/FX at = 90 = 1.28). The reduction
of frontal hydrodynamic reaction was a result of
reduction of CD with change of flow direction relat-
ive to the foot (CD at = 0/CD at = 90 = 1.13) due to
a decrease in the supporting area. The change of
from 45 to 90 ( = 90) gives an increase of sup-
porting area (from 200 to 223 cm2) and decrease of
hydrodynamic pressure from 0.32 to 0.28 N cm2.
As a result FX varied insignificantly.
Though leg movements are able to create a high
resultant hydrodynamic RF, due to space orienta-
tion of the foot and lower leg, the major component
of the hydrodynamic reaction is directed along the
vertical axis downwards (upwards in backstroke).
The transverse component is also significant while
the component of hydrodynamic reaction in the
direction of locomotion is small.
Since during natural swimming at high velocity
the foot of a skilled swimmer does not move back-
wards relative to the system of immobile coordin-
ates (Makarenko 1975; Reischle 1979), propulsive
forces are delivered predominantly by the normal
component of hydrodynamic reaction. Consequ-
ently, leg actions develop a much smaller effective
propulsive force than arm actions (except in breast-
stroke and butterfly).
Coordination of joint movements of the leg
segments during leg kick
The most effective kicking patterns use movements
in all leg joints. The advantage of leg kick with knee
flexionextension over straight leg kick corresponds
to the advantage of arm pull with flexion in elbow
and wrist over the straight arm pull.
A selective increase in the angular velocity of the
proximal segments (upper leg) has a fundamental
impact on leg kick due to the mass-inertial char-
acteristics of the leg segments (see Table 10.4).
Transition from the distal to the proximal segment
of the leg involves a much greater increase in muscle
mass compared with a similar transition along the
arm. The muscles of the upper leg begin acceleration
of the leg during the working phase. Coordination
of the joint movements of the leg segments is charac-
terized by an overtaking movement of the upper leg
relative to the lower leg and foot. During the crawl
and butterfly the hip begins an upward movement
while the lower leg and foot are still accelerating
downwards. This pattern of leg movement has been
called whip-like movement. Thus during a leg kick
there is consecutive transformation of the torque of
internal and external forces from the hip joint to the
knee joint and ankle joint, with a gradual increase of
amplitude and angular velocity of segments from
the hip to the foot (Haljand 1986; Table 10.8).
The maximal intracyclic value of the leg kicks
propelling force is recorded, as a rule, during the
second quarter of leg extension at the knee joints
(Haljand 1984). This is delivered by effective space
orientation and high angular velocity of the foot.
After this moment, if there is no need to create
significant vertical force, the swimmer can decrease
the relative velocity of knee extension and finish
the movement using leg inertia. This technique
facilitates the efficiency of the leg kick. With
Table 10.8 Angular amplitude () and velocity () of leg
kick in hip joint and knee joint during butterfly swimming
in skilled swimmers. (From Haljand 1974; adapted by
Vorontsov 1981.)
Joint Type of movement (E SD) (E SD)
Hip Extension 24 3 140 43
Flexion 30 7 151 64
Knee Flexion 67 19 261 39
Extension 62 14 420 101
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 227
propulsive forces in swimming
increased swimming velocity kicking movements
with reduced amplitude and high tempo are more
efficient. A fast and narrow leg kick provides a high
velocity of foot interaction with the water flow and
reduces the negative effect of resistance and inertia
forces during leg recovery.
Contribution of the core body in
swimming propulsion
Since a swimmers body is subject to hydrodynamic
resistance it is important that it undergoes locomotor
reconfigurationthe ability to change its form and
rigidity in order to reduce hydrodynamic resist-
ance (HDR) and transfer the effort from segment
to segment. Of course, this ability is developed
in humans much less than in sea mammals and
fishes. Nevertheless, it is commonly held that one
of the fundamental differences between the elite
and ordinary swimmer is the ability to reduce HDR
during swimming (Counsilman 1968; Toussaint &
Beek 1992; Maglischo 1993).
Colwin (1984, 1992) has introduced into swim-
ming theory the term kinematic streamlining. Refer-
ring to the swimmer, this term perhaps has a
narrower meaning than locomotor reconfiguration.
It presumes the synchronization of body and limb
alignment with peaks of armforearm acceleration
during the pull in order to reduce: (i) the frontal sur-
face area exposed to water flow and turbulence in
body wake; and (ii) wave resistance. Hence, propul-
sive forces will predominate over resistive ones (see
Eqn. 10.1) and swimming velocity will increase
significantly.
The body of a swimmer can contribute directly to
propulsion with undulating movements, especially
in the butterfly and breaststroke (Persyn et al. 1992;
Coleman et al. 1998). Coleman et al. (1998) came to
the conclusion that in breaststroke the forces cal-
culated on the basis of instantaneous velocity
and acceleration of the body, differ in timing and
amount from the forces due to hand motion, calcu-
lated accordingly to the algorithms of Schleihauf
using drag and lift coefficients. They used visualiza-
tion of water flow in the body wake to show that
added water mass may contribute to stabilization and
even increase the velocity of the body GSM.
227
Rolling of the body along its longitudinal axis in
the front and back crawl helps the swimmer to uti-
lize the massive and strong muscles of the back and
breast and, thus, increase the muscle draught and
resultant RF. This rotation also assists recovery of
the opposite arm over the water and reduces trans-
verse movements of the arms.
Characteristics of a rational swimming
technique
Countless attempts to quantify the average values
of spatial, time-spatial and dynamic (kinetic)
characteristics of pulling and kicking patterns in
world-class swimmers have failed due to the huge
variability of these parameters (Counsilman 1968,
1977; Makarenko 1975; Schleihauf 1979; Schleihauf
et al. 1988; Maglischo 1993). This variability stems
from the significant differences demonstrated by
world-class swimmers in body type and composi-
tion, level of basic and complex physical abilities
(flexibility, maximal strength, rapidity, speed-
strength, explosive strength, etc.). Nevertheless, it is
possible to establish certain principles and qualita-
tive characteristics of a rational swimming tech-
nique. Individual techniques should satisfy these
principles in order to develop a highly effective pro-
pulsive force and achieve high swimming velocities.
Effective use of lift and drag to create a high
supportive RF
Effective pulling patterns employ complex curvi-
linear or diagonal motions in the course of which a
swimmer constantly changes the pitch of the arm
forearm and the direction of motion. Thus, lift and
drag forces are combined in a high resultant RE and
effective pulling force. At every point of the curvi-
linear pulling trajectory the propelling segments
interact with the standing undisturbed water and
shift a larger mass of the water over a shorter distance.
The smaller the backward displacement of the pro-
pelling segments in respect to the immobile system
of orthogonal coordinates, the higher the efficiency
of the working movements. In the front crawl, top-
class swimmers demonstrate a backward displace-
ment of the hand within the range 0.40.5 m while
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 228
228 locomotion
less skilled swimmers have hand displacements of
0.60.7 m and more (Issurin & Kostyuk 1978).
High elbow position during arm pull
One of the distinct features of a rational swimming
technique is an arm pull with a high elbow position
relative to the hand. From the point of view of
hydrodynamics, an overtaking rotational movement
of the armforearm relative to that of the shoulder
(elbow bending) gives working segments their most
efficient form and position (increase of CD hand, Shand
and CD forearm, Sforearm) in the water flow and pro-
vides high resultant RF. The movement of the elbow
joint also facilitates muscle draught to balance the
high value of hydrodynamic reaction.
Using angles of maximal force during pulling
actions: coordination of joint movements
The biomechanical chains of the human motor
apparatus are able to exert maximal joint torque
in isolated movements when the limbs segments
occupy a particular position relative to each other
and the core body. In this position the direction of
muscle draught and the starting length of the mus-
cles are optimal for delivering the maximal effort.
The angles at which segments are disposed relative
to each other when the maximal force (muscle
torque) is generated are called the angles of maximal
force (AMF). During locomotion in water the swim-
mer is trying to perform a significant part of the
working movements within the range of AMF in the
elbow, shoulder, hip and knee joints, to create max-
imal torque at the appropriate instants.
Arm pull in the front and back crawl and butterfly
is a complex movement. It consists of two parts: (i)
pullingconsecutive flexing of the arm at the wrist
and elbow joints and extension at the shoulder joint;
and (ii) pushing, performed by continuous exten-
sion at the shoulder joint accompanied by extension
at the elbow and wrist joints. Each part has its own
zone of AMF. The two largest pulses of the RF dur-
ing arm pull (Fig. 10.12) are the result of the con-
secutive utilization of the AMF and highly precise
timing of joint movement in three joints. Swimmers
increase and decrease hand and forearm velocity
with every change of pulling direction. Corres-
pondingly, intracyclic propulsive force changes in
pulses. The first largest peak of muscle effort occurs
during the pulling part of underwater movement
when the angle between the forearm and the direc-
tion of motion is about 45, and the angle between
the forearm and shoulder is approximately 160.
The final part of the pulling phase and first half of
the push phase is performed by active extension of
the shoulder with utilization of the hand and fore-
arm as a supporting surface. Shoulder extension
gradually slows during the latter half of the push
phase, and active extension of the elbow take place.
The second largest pulse of RF occurs during the last
third of the push.
Maintaining uniform high intracyclic
swimming velocity
Swimming is a cyclical locomotion during which
the working phases alternate with preliminary
movements needed to recover the initial working
posture of the limbs. During the recovery phase
propulsive forces do not act on the swimmers body
and it is the subject of hydrodynamic drag and
inertia. Hence the swimming velocity decreases
until the working phase of the next swimming cycle
begins, when it starts to increase again.
Fluctuations of intracyclic swimming velocity are
inevitable since a significant part of pulling action is
performed beyond the range of AMF and recovery
is necessary. The fluctuations necessitate additional
effort to accelerate the bodys GCM and overcome
the inertia of the body and added mass of the water
(Issurin 1977). Thus velocity fluctuations increase
the energy cost of swimming.
The magnitude of intracyclic velocity fluctuations
may be reduced and average swimming velocity
increased by shortening the duration of recovery,
increasing the amplitude and frequency of the
pulling actions, and improving the timing of arm
and leg movements.
Reduction of hydrodynamic resistance and action
of negative forces
The position of the head relative to the water level
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 229
propulsive forces in swimming
and the horizontal alignment of the body affect
the magnitude of frontal resistance (wave-making
resistance + form resistance) experienced by the
swimmer. The swimmer should maintain the most
streamlined position and keep the angle of attack
within a given range.
When a swimmer adopts a prone, streamlined
position in the water the gravity force is balanced by
the upthrust (buoyancy force). During active swim-
ming he/she needs to periodically lift the head and
part of the upper body to perform recovery and
inhalation. During these auxiliary movements the
weight of the out of the water body parts may
increase from 5 to 15 kg, giving rise to the sink-
ing force. To compensate for this sinking force
the swimmer must apply an additional upwardly
directed force. Skilled swimmers usually perform
the recovery and auxiliary movements rapidly with
minimal lifting of body parts out of the water. The
timing of arm and leg movements as well as trans-
verse arm movements during the pull is partly
designed to compensate or eliminate the negative
action of this sinking force.
Optimal ratio of stroke rate to stroke distance
The stroke rate is the number of strokes or complete
swimming cycles performed per unit time (usually
per second). Stroke distance is the distance covered
by a swimmer per stroke or per complete swimming
cycle. Swimming velocity usually equates to the
product of stroke rate and stroke distance:
V = SR SD (10.8)
where SR = stroke rate (pulls s1) , and SD = stroke
distance (m).
It follows from Eqn. 10.8 that different ratios of SR
and SD may result in the same swimming velocity,
although an individual swimmer achieves a maximal
swimming velocity only at one particular ratio of SR
and SD. Too high a stroke rate disturbs the coord-
ination of the swimming movements since the
muscles are not able to relax during recovery and
thus fatigue sets in very rapidly. During swimming
with a low SR and high SD the swimmer has to
make an excessive effort in every stroke, which
may increase the anaerobic fraction of total energy
229
supply. The consequent accumulation of lactic acid
decreases the swimmers working capability.
During training every swimmer selects the most
effective individual ratio of SR and SD. The com-
fortable stroke rate seems to be the most stable
individual characteristic, depending probably on
the nature of the individuals nervous system and
muscle fibre composition. It changes very little
over multiyear training periods. The objective of
technical training is to develop maximal SD for a
given individuals comfortable stroke rate.
The value of stroke distance and its dynamics
during competitive racing are the important cri-
teria of stroke quality. It depends upon technical
and physical training (muscle power) and an indi-
viduals feeling for the water.
Conservation of mechanical energy within the
system of swimmers movements
Efficient conservation of kinetic energy within the
swimming cycle is achieved by the following.
1 Relatively rigid fixation of segments in joints dur-
ing pulling actions (e.g. fixation of the shoulder at
the beginning of the downsweep) altered by fixation
of the hand and forearm in the elbow and wrist
joints at the end of insweep-beginning of outsweep).
2 Locomotor reconfiguration of the body in order
to store elastic energy, dampen oscillations of pro-
pulsive force, and reduce HDR via:
(a) optimal level of tension of body muscles
creating a relatively rigid frame on which are
transmitted the forces of hydrodynamic reaction
developed by the arm and leg movements;
(b) relaxation of non-active muscles; and
(c) kinematic streamliningideal alignment of
the body at the instants of peak propulsive force.
3 Use of the kinetic energy (inertia) of the recover-
ing segments to increase propulsive momentum.
4 Transfer of the kinetic energy of the moving seg-
ments into potential energy of elastic deformation of
muscles and tendons.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to P. Brown for help in edit-
ing the manuscript.
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 230
230 locomotion
References
Bagrash, L.F., Minenkov, V.V. &
Chubarov, M.M. (1973) Tensiometrical
studies of swimmers efforts. Theory and
Practice of Physical Culture 4, 2731.
Barthels, K. & Adrian, M.J. (1974) Three-
dimensional spatial hand patterns of
skilled butterfly swimmers. In: Swim-
ming II (eds P.J. Clarys & L. Lewillie),
pp. 154 160. University Park Press,
Baltimore.
Belokovsky, V.V. (1971) Analysis of stand-
ard sculling patterns in synchronised
swimming. Presentation at the Annual
Scientific Session of Swimming Depart-
ment of the Central State Institute of
Physical Culture, Moscow, June 1971.
Belokovsky, V.V. & Kuznetsov, V.V. (1976)
Analysis of dynamic forces in crawl
stroke swimming. In: Biomechanics V-B
(ed. P.V. Komi), pp. 235 242. University
Park Press, Baltimore.
Butovich, N.A. & Chudovsky, V.D. (1968)
Sport Swimming. Fizkultura i Sport,
Moscow.
Cappaert, J. (1993) 1992 Olympic report.
Limited circulation communication to
all.
Cappaert, J.M. (1998) Biomechanics of
swimming as analysed by 3 D technique.
In: Abstract Book of VIII International
Symposium Biomechanics and Medicine in
Swimming, Jyuvaskyla, Finland, 28 June
2 July 1998 (eds K.L. Keskinen, P.V.
Komi & A.P. Hollander), p. 41.
Jyuvaskyla University Publishers,
Jyuvaskyla, Finland.
Cappaert, J. & Rushall, B.S. (1994) Biomech-
anical Analysis of Champion Swimmers.
Sport Science Associates, Spring Valley,
CA.
Coleman, V., Persyn, U. & Ungerechts B.
(1998) A mass of water added to the
swimmers mass to estimate the velocity
in dolphin-like swimming below water
surface. In: VIII International Symposium
on Biomechanics and Medicine in Swim-
ming, Jyvskyl, Finland, 28 June2 July
1998, p. 49. Gummerus Printing,
Jyvskyl, Finland.
Colwin, C.M. (1984) Fluid dynamics:
Vortex circulation in swimming pro-
pulsion. In: ASCA World Clinic Yearbook,
pp. 3846. American Swimming Coaches
Association, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Colwin, C.M. (1992) Swimming Into the 21st
Century. Human Kinetics Publishers,
Champaign, IL.
Counsilman, J.E. (1968) The Science of
Swimming. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Counsilman, J.E. (1969) The role of sculling
movements in the arm pull. Swimming
World 10, 67.
Counsilman, J.E. (1971) The application
of Bernoullis principle to human pro-
pulsion in water. In: Swimming I (eds
L. Lewillie & J.P. Clarys), pp. 5971.
Universit Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.
Counsilman, J.E. (1977) Competitive Swim-
ming Manual for Coaches and Swimmers.
Counsilman Co., Bloomington, IN.
Cureton, T.K. (1930) Mechanics and kine-
siology of swimming. Research Quarterly
1, 87121.
Denker, J.S. (1998) See how it flies. A new
spin on the perceptions, procedures
and principles of flight. http://www.
monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/title.h
tml.
Grinev, V.G. (1977) Utilisation of lift and
drag forces in swimming propulsion.
PhD thesis (abstract), State Central
Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow.
Haljand, R. (1984) A new scientific
approach to analysing swimming
technique. In: How to Develop Olympic
Level Swimmers: Scientific and Practical
Foundations (ed. J.L. Cramer), pp. 72105.
International Sport Media, Helsinki.
Haljand, R., Tamp, T. & Kaal, R. (1986)
The Models of Swimming Strokes Technique
and Methodics of its Perfection and Control,
2nd edn. Tallinn Pedagogic Institute,
Tallinn.
Hollander, P.A., de Groot, G., van Ingen
Schenau, G.J., Kahman, R. & Toussaint,
H.M. (1988) Contribution of the legs in
front crawl swimming. In: Swimming V
(eds B.E. Ungerechts, K. Reischle & K.
Wilke), pp. 3943. Human Kinetics
Publishers, Champaign, IL.
Issurin, V.B. (1977) Evaluation of hydro-
dynamic resistance and propelling
forces in swimming. Theory and Practice
of Physical Culture 9, 2021.
Issurin, V.B. & Kostuk, Yu.I. (1978) Under-
water kinematic characteristics of front
crawl arm pull. Theory and Practice of
Physical Culture 9, 1315.
Kiphut, R.J.H. (1942) Swimming. Barnes,
New York.
Kolmogorov, S.V. & Lyapin, S.H. (1998)
Biomechanics of a set unstationary
active motion of biological objects in
water environment. In: Abstract Book
of VIII International Symposium Bio-
mechanics and Medicine in Swimming,
Jyuvaskyla, Finland, 28 June2 July 1998,
p. 82. Jyuvaskyla University Publishers,
Jyuvaskyla, Finland.
Maglischo, E.W. (1993) Swimming Even
Faster. Mayfield Publishing Co.,
Mountain View, CA.
Makarenko, L.P. (1975) Technical Skill of a
Swimmer. Fiskultura i Sport, Moscow.
Makarenko, L.P. (1996) Fundamentals of
swimming technique. In: Sport Swim-
ming (eds N.Zh. Bulgakova & L.P.
Makarenko), pp. 40129, Fiskultura,
Obrazovanie i Nauka, Moscow.
Miller, D.I. (1975) Biomechanics of swim-
ming. In: Exercise and Sport Sciences
Reviews (eds J.H. Willmore & J.F. Keogh),
pp. 219248. Academic Press, NY.
Onoprienko, B.I. (1981) Biomechanics of
Swimming. Zdorovya, Kiev.
Persyn, U., De Maeyer, J. & Vervaeke, H.
(1975) Investigation of hydrodynamic
determinants of competitive swimming
strokes. In: International Series on Sport
Sciences, Vol. 2, Swimming II (eds
L. Lewillie & J.P. Clarys), pp. 214222.
University Park Press, Baltimore.
Persyn, U., Coleman, V. & Van Tilborg, L.
(1992) Movement analysis of the flat and
the undulating breaststroke pattern. In:
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming
(eds D. MacLaren, T. Reilly & A. Lees),
pp. 7580. E. & F.N. Spon, London.
Reischle, K. (1979) A kinematic investiga-
tion of movement patterns in swimming
with pro-optical methods. In: Swimming
III (eds J. Terauds & E.W. Bedingsfield),
pp. 127136. University Park Press,
Baltimore.
Rumyantsev, V.A. (1984) Bio-dynamical
Principles of Pulling Technique in Human
Swimming. Central State Institute of
Physical Culture, Moscow.
Rumyantsev, V.A. (1982) Biodynamic Prin-
ciples of Propulsion in Swimming. Central
State Institute of Physical Culture,
Moscow.
Rushall, B.S., Springings, E.J., Holt, L.E. &
Cappaert, J.M. (1998) Forces in swim-
ming a re-evaluation of current status.
In: Swimming Science Bulletin, No. 19 (ed.
B.S. Rushall), pp. 136. San Diego State
University, San Diego, CA.
Schleihauf, R.E. (1974) A biomechanical
analysis of freestyle. Swimming Technique
11, 8996.
Schleihauf, R.E. (1979) A hydrodynamic
analysis of swimming propulsion. In:
Swimming III (eds J. Terauds & E.W.
Bedingsfield), pp. 70109. University
Park Press, Baltimore.
Schleihauf, R.E., Higgins, J.R., Hinrichs, R.
et al. (1988) Propulsive techniques: front
crawl stroke, butterfly, backstroke and
BOSC10 28/07/2004 10:20 Page 231
breaststroke. In: Swimming V (eds B.
Ungerechts, K. Reischle & K. Wilke),
pp. 53 59. Human Kinetics Publishers,
Champaign, IL.
Silvia, C.E. (1970) Manual and Lesson Plans
for Basic Swimming, Water Stunts, Life-
saving, Springboard Diving, Skin and
Scuba Diving. C.E. Silvia, Springfield,
MA.
Toussaint, H.M. & Beek, P.J. (1992) Bio-
mechanics of competitive front crawl
propulsive forces in swimming
swimming. Sports Medicine 13 (1),
824.
Toussaint, H.M., Hollander, A.P., van den
Berg, C. & Vorontsov, A. (2000) Mech-
anics and energetics of swimming. In:
Biomechanics of Swimming, Exercise and
Sport Science (eds W.E. Garrett & D.T.
Kirkendall), pp. 639660. Lippincott,
Williams & Wilkins, PA.
Vorontsov, A.R. (1981) Biomechanical
Foundations of Swimming Technique.
231
Central State Institute of Physical
Culture, Moscow.
Wood, T.C. (1979) A fluid dynamic
analysis of the propulsive potential of
the hand and forearm in swimming.
In: Swimming III (eds J. Terauds & E.W.
Bedingsfield), pp. 6269. University
Park Press, Baltimore.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., Aruin, A.S. & Seluyanov,
V.N. (1981) Biomechanics of Human Motor
System. Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow.