Comparison of two recurve archery techniques: A preliminary study

Rosniwati Ghafar, Lau Jiun Sien, Mohd Asri Ariffin, Mardhiah Mohamed, Mohd Hafezi Mat Zain

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of two different archery methods on their shooting performances. Similarities or differences in each method were compared in certain steps in the shooting cycle of the participants, while performances were compared using the score achieved on a target face. The participants are four male recurve archers from Kelantan who volunteered to join this study. Pre and post-test scores of the total points for 36 arrows shot at 10 meters and 30 meters were collected. A 3D motion analysis (Qualysis AB, Sweden) system was used to record the method of the archers for stance, posture, and shoulder alignment phase. After a familiarisation period with the body markers and testing environment, the participants were asked to shoot 36 arrows with their personal method at a distance of 10 meters and 30 meters. Then, the participants were taught the new method known as Biomechanically Efficient Shooting Technique (BEST) method. One week was given for the participants to practice and familiarize with the new method. The scores were collected again at 10 meters and 30 meters with the BEST method. The methods of recurve archery were further broken down to 10 steps for analysis. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to detect the differences between their own method and the BEST method based on the 3D motion analysis data. Most of the participants showed significant changes in the shooting steps, 8 steps out of 10 steps showed significant differences based on p value. This showed that the BEST method is different from the participants’ method. The changes used in the method showed the improvement in the shooting performance. Most of the participants showed improvement in the score for 10 meters and 30 meters as well as the distance of the arrow away from the centre based on the p value. Thus, from the result, it can be concluded that the BEST method is able to improve the participants’ performances. 


Keywords


Recurve archery; motion analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References


Edelmann-Nusser, J., Heller, M., Hofmann, M., & Ganter, N. (2006). On-target trajectories and the final pull in archery. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 213-222.

FITA Coach’ s Manual RECURVE BOW Intermediate Level.

Lee, K. S. (2014). The KSL Shot Cycle [Online]. Available at: http://kisiklee.com/kslshotcycle [Accessed: 8 October 2015].

Lee, K. S. & Benner, T. (2009). Total Archery Inside the Archer. 1st ed. Adamson, S. (ed.). Astra LLc: pp page.

Mohamed, M. N. & Azhar, A. H. (2012). Postural Sway and Shooting Accuracy. Movement, Health & Exercise, 1, 50-60.

Nishizono, H., Shibayama, H. I., Izuta, T., & Saito, K. (1987). Analysis of Archery Shooting Techniques by Means of Electromyography. ISBS-Conference Proceeding Archive, 364-372.

Stuart, J. & Atha, J. (1990). Postural consistency in skilled archers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 223-234.

USA Archery (2006). The BEST Method Biomechanically Efficient Shooting Technique, 1-13.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15282/mohe.v6i2.92


Movement, Health & Exercise (MoHE) Journal

Innovative Manufacturing, Mechatronics & Sports Lab (iMAMS)
Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
26600 Pekan
Pahang, MALAYSIA

Tel.: +609 424 6358

Email: admin@mohejournal.com

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15282/mohe