Sports Biomechanics,

January 2007; 6(1): 109118

Qualitative biomechanical principles for application

in coaching

DUANE KNUDSON
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Chico, USA

Abstract
Many aspects of human movements in sport can be readily understood by Newtonian rigid-body
mechanics. Many of these laws and biomechanical principles, however, are counterintuitive to a lot of
people. There are also several problems in the application of biomechanics to sports, so the application
of biomechanics in the qualitative analysis of sport skills by many coaches has been limited.
Biomechanics scholars have long been interested in developing principles that facilitate the qualitative
application of biomechanics to improve movement performance and reduce the risk of injury. This
paper summarizes the major North American efforts to establish a set of general biomechanical
principles of movement, and illustrates how principles can be used to improve the application of
biomechanics in the qualitative analysis of sport technique. A coach helping a player with a tennis serve
is presented as an example. The standardization of terminology for biomechanical principles is
proposed as an important first step in improving the application of biomechanics in sport. There is also
a need for international cooperation and research on the effectiveness of applying biomechanical
principles in the coaching of sport techniques.

Keywords: Analysis, diagnosis, evaluation, skill, sport, technique

Introduction
Sport coaches naturally want the best for their athletes to help them improve performance
and reduce their risk of injury. These two objectives are also the purview of sports
biomechanics. The International Society of Biomechanics in Sports (ISBS) was founded to
foster applied biomechanics research in sport and to bridge the gap in providing this
knowledge for coaches. Biomechanical principles and research should be the primary
sources of knowledge used in qualitative analysis of sports.
Qualitative analysis is one of the most important professional activities of teachers and
coaches of motor skills (Knudson and Morrison, 2002). Although various terms have been
used for this important activity, for the purposes of this paper qualitative analysis is defined
as the systematic observation and introspective judgment of the quality of human
movement for the purpose of providing the most appropriate intervention to improve
performance (Knudson and Morrison, 2002, p. 4). In this paper, I argue that the true
qualitative application of biomechanical principles by many coaches has been limited by
several problems. I also summarize North American attempts to create general qualitative
Correspondence: D. Knudson, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Chico, CA 95929-0330, USA. E-mail:
dknudson@csuchico.edu
ISSN 1476-3141 print/ISSN 1752-6116 online q 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14763140601062567

110 D. Kundson
application principles of biomechanics and give an example of using these principles for the
qualitative analysis of the tennis serve. I conclude with a call for greater international
cooperation on teaching and research in the qualitative application of biomechanical
principles in coaching.
Biomechanical application chaos
Few would argue that Newtonian mechanics and biomechanical research provide
meaningful knowledge about how humans move or how that movement might be improved.
The how to in the application of that biomechanical knowledge in the gymnasium or on
the field, however, is less clear. What is considered biomechanical knowledge by coaches:
quantitative research, theory, or qualitative principles? How is professional experience
weighed against biomechanical research or principles? There is even confusion about what it
means to apply biomechanics knowledge in sport. What is needed is clear agreement
between the biomechanics and coaching communities about what constitutes applying
biomechanical concepts or principles.
Let us take one of the most popular biomechanical concepts applied by many coaches in
sport as an example, the centre of mass (or gravity) of the body. Is it a truly meaningful
application of biomechanics to tell a baseball player to keep his centre of mass low? This
uses biomechanical terminology in a cue, but it is a weak application of this concept to sport.
A better application would be to tell the infielder about where or how low the centre of mass
should be within their base of support, and how it should move, and how fast, to achieve a
certain mobility or stability objective to intercept a baseball quickly. A very low centre of mass
tends to favour stability over mobility, so it is easy to imagine a player with such flexion in the
lower extremities that they are actually slower in reacting to a hit ball. This section argues
that meaningful application of biomechanics by many coaches is rare because of several
problems that complicate genuine application of biomechanical knowledge in qualitative
analysis of sport skills.
One problem is the relative youth of the science of sport biomechanics and the problems
that result from playing from second chair. Although there has been much sports
biomechanics research and more journals as outlets for these reports, research cannot
keep up with all the technique issues and the changes in equipment in sports. The high
monetary and personnel cost of good biomechanical research has not been dramatically
reduced with advances and cost savings in computers and software. Neither are there
adequate funding opportunities for applied sports biomechanics research in most countries,
since most related government funding is focused on treating disease, and on issues that are
theoretical or concern physiological mechanisms. High-tech equipment does not perform
the important tasks of formulating meaningful biomechanical research questions,
eliminating confounding variables, appropriately defining dependent variables, executing
an experiment with attention to many technical issues, and interpreting the data for accuracy
and importance (Lees, 1999).
Coaches access to applied biomechanics knowledge is also limited because the youth of
biomechanics means there are fewer narrative or meta-analysis review papers on sport
biomechanics issues. Coaches are not likely to be able to access and read original sports
biomechanics research, so they need authoritative reviews to be written and transmitted to
professional journals and conferences to help them apply biomechanics in sport.
Another problem is that the Laws of Newtonian mechanics are counterintuitive and
difficult to learn for most people. Decades of research on physics instruction in higher
education have shown common conceptual misunderstandings of mechanics by most college

Qualitative biomechanical principles

111

students (Halloun and Hestenes, 1985; Hestenes and Wells, 1992; Hestenes Wells, and
Swackhammer, 1992). Recent studies using standardized tests of biomechanical concepts
have shown that, as for physics students, kinesiology majors have difficulty in replacing their
nave views of mechanics (McCloskey, 1983) with an understanding of Newtonian
mechanics (Knudson, 2004; Knudson et al., 2003).
Let us not kid ourselves and assume that, because students or coaches have listened to a
few lectures on the biomechanics of sports, they can apply this information in their
qualitative analysis of human movement. Pedagogy scholars have argued for years that the
introductory biomechanics class typically does not teach this important clinical skill
(Hoffman, 1984) and there is some evidence that this is true (Knudson, Morrison, and
Reeve, 1991). Psychological research clearly shows that integration and application of
knowledge involves a much deeper understanding (Bloom, Mesia and Krathwohl, 1964)
than memorization; most college students graduate without adopting these higher levels of
cognition (Magolda, 1992; Perry, 1970; Piaget, 1972).
Another problem is the lack of consensus on what meaningful application of biomechanics
truly means. In the West, sports biomechanics began with attempts to apply physics to the
coaching of sports (Bunn, 1955; Dyson, 1971). Most sports biomechanics books, with a few
exceptions (e.g. Hay, 1973; Hay and Reid, 1982; Knudson, 2003; Kreighbaum and Barthels,
1985), are often physics books using sports examples for illustrations. Defining kinetic energy or
centre of mass using sport skill examples is not truly applying biomechanical knowledge to
improve movement or optimize performance.
There are extremes in what some people consider application of biomechanics. At one end
are those who video-record a movement and make instant observations or erroneous
calculations to gain credibility with a client, before offering pseudo-scientific suggestions. At
the other end are scientists who critically evaluate evidence, and carefully design experiments
or computer models to simulate technique or training interventions. Some of these
individuals work for state or national Olympic training centres. Interested readers should see
the review by Lees (1999) on the limitations of applying biomechanics even from specific
quantitative biomechanical services to sports performance of elite athletes. Often
biomechanical quantification must be combined with a qualitative analysis of the movement
with the coach for meaningful application of biomechanical intervention to be effective
(Lees, 1999; McPherson, 1996).
A critical problem in applying biomechanics is the chaos in terminology. As scientists have
struggled to understand the multi-factorial nature of biomechanical issues, many variables
and terms have been used to try to explain the phenomenon. Different experimental
variables and, at times, sloppy scholarship and writing have a combined affect on the
confusion in terminology. For example, Steindler (1955) modified the engineering
terminology of a kinematic chain, and proposed that some of the differences in muscle
actions might be explained by classifying the linked segment system of the body as open or
closed kinetic chains. Despite the major problems with classifying human movements this
way (Blackard, Jensen, and Ebben, 1999; Di Fabio, 1999; Dillman, Murray, and
Hintermeister, 1994), this terminology has become common in the fitness and allied health
professions. Another example is the confusion in trying to describe the mechanism of
sequential coordination observed in high-speed movements. Explaining the contribution of
each segment to speed at the end of the limb has been attributed to coordination of temporal
impulses (Hochmuth and Marhold, 1978), the kinetic link principle (Kreighbaum and
Barthels, 1985), summation of speed (Bunn, 1955), proximal-to-distal sequencing
(Marshall and Elliott, 2000), and transfer of energy or momentum (Lees and Barton,
1996; Miller, 1980), to name just a few. The problem has been studied based on kinematic

112 D. Kundson
contributions and kinetic variables. I have advocated the use of segmental interaction
because it implies the passive dynamics of energy being transferred from one segment to the
next (Knudson, 2003), even though the origin of these transfers is controversial (Nunome,
Asai, Ikegami and Sakurai, 2002; Putnam, 1993; Roberts, 1991).
This confusion in terminology takes on another aspect when considering the different
languages spoken by ISBS members and by coaches and scientists. A coach might use sportspecific or personal terminology for a theory about a skill that is different from various
biomechanical theories or principles. The primarily double pendulum motion of a golf
swing, for example, means that rotations or interaction between the left arm and the golf club
for a right-handed golfer are critical to performance. Golf coaches usually fall into one of two
theoretical camps on this issue, the active-push group and the passive-pull group. The former
believes that an active push by the right hand, for a right-handed golf swing, late in the
swing facilitates the uncocking or extension of the club segment. The latter group believes
that a skilled golf swing transfers energy distally, so it is better not to try to push the club, but
to pull or swing from the trunk and arm, and allow the wrist to release from centripetal
forces. It is hard to resolve such controversies because Newtons Third Law explains that
forces do not act alone and are a mutual interaction between two bodies. Research on
transfer of energy, forearm and grip strengths, and a simulation study (Sprigings and Neal,
2000) have suggested that the latter of the two theories is most probably correct. Whatever
the final truth, there remains the problem of the variety of words used to describe the same
phenomenon. Note that the words in apostrophes are not the only ones used in describing
this issue in golf and other high-speed impact or release sports, and that push and pull
also have different golf-specific meanings for the impact and flight phase of golf shots.
Order from chaos?
Despite criticism from other sport sciences that biomechanics research tends to be
atheoretical, many biomechanical theories have been tested and authors have proposed: skillspecific (e.g. Bunn, 1955), fundamental movement pattern-specific (e.g. Kreighbaum and
Barthels, 1985), and generic theories, principles or concepts of biomechanics (e.g. Knudson,
2003; Meinel Schnabel, 1998; Norman, 1975). Unfortunately, there is disagreement as to
whether general principles of biomechanics can be formulated because of the interaction of
goals and environmental context (Hochmuth and Marhold, 1978). This section summarizes
three major North American attempts (Hudson, 1995; Knudson, 2003; Norman, 1975) to
establish a concise list of general principles of biomechanics that can be used as a theoretical
structure for teaching and applying qualitative biomechanics. There are clearly other
attempts in the international community (e.g. Dyson, 1971; Hochmuth, 1984; Sanders and
Wilson, 1989, 1990a, 1990b) to propose general biomechanical principles for application.
This summary of the North American approaches is purely for brevity and is intended to
stimulate international discussion on this topic. It also should be noted that some of these
authors prefer to use the term concept to refer to biomechanical controls of movement,
while this paper uses the term principle, which implies a more refined rule for application
that is closer to a scientific law than to the more general idea of a concept.
After many years of teaching undergraduate biomechanics, Bob Norman concluded that
students needed to focus on qualitative understanding of a small set of general biomechanical
principles. He presented these principles in several papers and wrote a paper for coaches
based on ten principles (Norman, 1975). His hypothesis was that 10 biomechanical
principles (Table I) could be used to facilitate teaching and to focus coaching on causes of
errors and the dynamics of human motion, rather than meaningless discrete body positions

Qualitative biomechanical principles

113

Table I. Comparison of general principles of biomechanics.

Knudson (2003)
Movement principles
Balance
Coordination continuum
Forcemotion
Forcetime
Inertia
Range of motion
Segmental interaction
Projectile principles
Optimal projection
Spin

Hudson (1995)

Norman (1975)

Balance
Coordination

Stability
Continuity of joint force
Combined influence of force and its application time

Compactness
Range of motion
Nature of segments
Number of segments

Direction of force application

Summation of joint force
Summation of body segment velocities
Production of angular momentum

Path of projection
Spin
Speed of motion
Extension at release

Conservation of momentum (linear and angular)

Manipulation of weight distribution
Manipulation of segment angular momentum

presumed to be key technique points. He also stated that coaches might get by with seven
principles, since the last three were special cases of the impulse-momentum relationship.
The second scholar to try to synthesize biomechanical knowledge into a small set of
principles was Jackie Hudson. After years of reflective teaching and several studies of
observation and qualitative biomechanical interventions, she also proposed ten generic
biomechanical principles that she called core concepts of kinesiology (Hudson, 1995).
These principles (Table I) are part of her model for movement purpose-based observation
and evaluation of human movement called POSSUM (Hudson, 1985). Hudson
emphasized kinematic concepts that are truly more like principles, as each could be viewed
as a continuum between two mechanical objectives. Hudson advocated that for
biomechanical principles to be truly applicable in improving human movement, they must
be visually observable to the coach, and that the athlete should then be able to change this
aspect of movement to a more favourable position on the continuum. She also chose less
scientific and technical terminology so that the biomechanical principles could be more
easily communicated and used by coaches and physical education teachers.
One of the most recent attempts to define general application principles of biomechanics
was by Knudson (2003). His nine principles (Table I) are similar to the previous efforts, but
build on them by organizing them into body motion principles and outcome-projectile
principles. Like Hudson, the principles try to use terminology that bridges the gap between
science and coaching. Knudson did not use Hudsons core concept of speed, instead
focusing on principles that would be the application tools, corresponding to Newtons
Laws of Motion. These principles will be the basis for an example of how biomechanical
principles can be used by a coach in the qualitative analysis (Knudson and Morrison, 2002)
of the tennis serve.

Tennis serve example

A tennis coach can use the nine principles of biomechanics as theoretical and conceptual
tools in working with players. The primary benefit of these principles may come in the
qualitative analysis of stroke technique. A recent book focusing on biomechanical principles
specific to tennis provides more examples (Knudson, 2006). This section will summarize

114 D. Kundson

Figure 1. The four-task model of qualitative analysis. Adapted with permission from Knudson and Morrison (2002).

how these biomechanical principals can be applied in the four key tasks (Figure 1) of the
qualitative analysis of movement (Knudson and Morrison, 2002).
To prepare for qualitative analysis, coaches should integrate experiential and tennisspecific knowledge with the biomechanical principles relevant to the strokes they will analyse.
This knowledge can be organized in various ways, such as separating the movement into
temporal phases or critical features of technique. In the second task, coaches are encouraged
to use all their senses in a systematic observational strategy of several trials of the skill before
moving on to the evaluation and diagnosis task of qualitative analysis. This third task of
qualitative analysis has two sub-tasks that rely heavily on biomechanics.
In evaluation, the coach identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the serve performance.
Hay and Reid (1982) noted that analysts tend either to mentally compare the observed
movement to the expected or mental image of the movement (the sequential method) or to
evaluate relevant biomechanical variables or principles (the mechanical method). To use the
later method the coach focuses on evaluating some specific biomechanical principles relevant
to the serve; Hay and Reid recommended these deterministic biomechanical models of
movements as the best approach to qualitative analysis. Whichever method of evaluation is
used, the coach makes a judgement about the quality of performance using either an ordinal
or a continuous scale (Figure 2). The advantage of this approach is that selection of some

Figure 2. Evaluation of technique or a biomechanical principle such as range of motion (ROM) in a vertical jump can
be evaluated using either ordinal or continuous (visual analog) scales. Reprinted with permission from Knudson
(2000, p. 22).

Qualitative biomechanical principles

115

standard of performance of a biomechanical principle can readily be matched with a

directional change in the principle towards a desirable technique.
Comprehensive qualitative analysis models (Hay and Reid, 1982; Knudson and Morrison,
2002; McPherson, 1990) recommend that before intervention is selected for the athlete, the
analyst should also diagnose performance. Diagnosis of performance means to prioritize the
interventions that are most likely to be effective. Unfortunately, there is little research into
this topic and several rationale have been proposed to diagnose movement strengths and
weaknesses (Knudson and Morrison, 2002). The last task of qualitative analysis is selecting
the intervention based on the diagnosis of performance.
As an example of how biomechanical principles are useful in the tasks of qualitative
analysis, consider the tennis serve performance illustrated in Figure 3. Assume that a coach
has observed several attempts of the players best effort serves and that the technique used
was consistent with the sequence of movements illustrated. The principles of biomechanics
are often most useful in the evaluation/diagnosis and intervention tasks of qualitative
analysis.
In evaluating movement, the coach would notice several strengths and weaknesses in the
application of biomechanical principles to the tennis serve. The coach might mentally note
that the coordination and timing between backswing and forward swing was good and the
player hit the ball. Thinking in terms of biomechanical principles, he or she could conclude
that the player also had a good compromise between weight shift and balance for the
beginning player. All these technique points and biomechanical principles would be
evaluations within the desirable range of either the ordinal or interval scale in Figure 2.
The weaknesses in performance include a western grip, an abbreviated backswing, a low
toss and point of impact, a relatively simultaneous overarm striking pattern, and a slow
upward ball trajectory. These correspond to weak application of biomechanical principles,
including: a limited range of motion due to the grip, simultaneous coordination that limits

Figure 3. Sequence images of the serve of a tennis player. Qualitative evaluation of the performance based on
biomechanical principles and other sport science knowledge provides a strong theoretical basis for suggesting
intervention. Reprinted with permission from Knudson and Morrison (2002).

116 D. Kundson
segmental interaction and energy transfer, and a less than optimal initial ball trajectory. The
evaluation of each of these weaknesses into the inadequate or excessive bands in
the ordinal scale in Figure 2 would then logically point to a direction for technique change.
The change that is selected for intervention depends on the diagnosis of performance.
The diagnosis of this serve is based on the biomechanical relationships between the
biomechanical principles (Hay and Reid, 1982) and the integration of this knowledge
with tennis-specific and other sport sciences (Knudson and Morrison, 2002). Diagnosis
prioritizes the possible technique factors so that the change most likely to be effective is
selected. The coach in this example might base his or her diagnosis on a combination of
relating biomechanical actions to previous actions (Hay and Reid, 1982) and their tennisspecific or experiential knowledge of the serve. A coach knows that a good overarm pattern
using the principles of segmental interaction and sequential coordination take considerable
practice time to acquire. This might also be true for modifying the range of motion of the
racket arm in the backswing. Since research appears to show that the abbreviated backswing
can be effective with similar loading of the body (Elliott, Fleisig, Nicholls and Escamilla,
2003), the coach mentally stores these adjustments for later consideration. The immediate
changes that might be most effective are other modifications in the range of motion due to
the grip and the weak initial trajectory related to the low height of impact. The best coaches
avoid paralysis by analysis by limiting technique adjustments to one or two items.
In the intervention stage, the coach executes a plan to help this player improve his or her
serve. Verbal feedback is often the first step, but coaches have many options besides feedback
(Knudson and Morrison, 2002) to help guide a performers development. In this case, the
coach might say: That serve showed great synchronization between the toss and the hitting
action, but I would like you to work on two adjustments that will improve your serve. First,
lets switch back to the continental grip and then lets hit a few more, focusing on impacting
the ball as high above the court as you can. If the player were older and interested, the coach
could share a few of the biomechanical reasons for these changes. The grip improves the
range of motion that can be created by forearm and wrist rotations, and the higher point of
impact allow for a more aggressive trajectory and higher probability of success into the
opponents service box. Coaches should attempt to use cue words and phrases, and avoid
long dissertations on the techniques and biomechanical rationale for their suggestions. In
this example, the coach could encourage the player to hit several more serves thinking about
using a hammer grip and reaching higher to hit the serve. Paralysis by analysis can be
created by using confusing or excessive verbal feedback, even if it was based on sound
biomechanical principles and sport science knowledge.
Future opportunities
General principles or theories of biomechanics could provide important tools for the
qualitative application of biomechanics by teachers and coaches, but there are problems in
reaching this ideal. The models proposed have some consistency, but there in not complete
order from chaos. Biomechanical research is still likely to use various terms for similar
concepts, and coaching theories or jargon are not likely to coincide with biomechanical
terminology. To improve the application of biomechanics research in sport coaching, there
has to be more work and international dialogue about the general principles of biomechanics.
Sport biomechanics scholars need to work together to foster consistent use of terminology
in the applied biomechanics literature. The International Society for Electrophysiological
Kinesiology (ISEK) has established terminology and standards for reporting EMG research
and the International Society of Biomechanics has begun work on several standards for

Qualitative biomechanical principles

117

documenting the three-dimensional kinematics of the various joints of the body. An

international group of biomechanists from ISBS or this journal could be formed to establish
standard terminology for applied biomechanics principles and research. The consistent use
of terms that are understandable to coaches would then be recommended for use in ISBS
publications. This would probably improve communication between sports biomechanics
scholars and sports coaches. Understandable terms for each biomechanical principle could
provide a theoretical toolbox to which coaches and students could attach more complete
descriptions of mechanical variables and research (Knudson, 2005).
The application of biomechanics in the qualitative analysis of sport skills can also be improved
by greater international cooperation in research on this topic. Quantitative biomechanical
services to elite athletes usually are implemented with qualitative analysis. Research that
documents if qualitative analysis based on certain biomechanical principles is more effective
than other principles or other logic would be invaluable for coaches and biomechanics. Such
research is urgently needed and is most certainly aligned with the mission of the ISBS.

References
Blackard, D. O., Jensen, R. L., and Ebben, W. P. (1999). Use of EMG analysis in challenging kinetic chain
terminology. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31, 443 448.
Bloom, B. S., Mesia, B. B., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David
McKay.
Bunn, J. W (1955). Scientific principles of coaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Di Fabio, R. P. (1999). Making jargon from kinetic and kinematic chains. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical
Therapy, 29, 142 143.
Dillman, C. J., Murray, T. A., and Hintermeister, R. A. (1994). Biomechanical differences of open and closed chain
exercises with respect to the shoulder. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 3, 228 238.
Dyson, G. (1971). Mechanics of athletics (5th edn.). London: University of London Press.
Elliott, B., Fleisig, G., Nicholls, R., and Escamilla, R. (2003). Technique effects of upper limb loading in the tennis
serve. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 6, 7687.
Halloun, I. A., and Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of
Physics, 53, 10431055.
Hay, J. G (1973). The biomechanics of sport techniques. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Hay, J. G., and Reid, J. G. (1982). The anatomical and mechanical bases of human motion. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall.
Hestenes, D., and Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159166.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141 158.
Hochmuth, G. (1984). Biomechanics of athletic movement. Berlin: Sportverlag.
Hochmuth, G., and Marhold, G. (1978). The further development of biomechanical principles. In E. Asmussen and
K Jorgensen (Eds.), Biomechanics VI-B (pp. 93106). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Hoffman, S. J. (1984). The contributions of biomechanics to clinical competence: A view from the gymnasium. In
R. Shapiro, and J. R. Marett (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Teaching Kinesiology and
Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 6770). Colorado Springs: NASPE.
Hudson, J. L. (1985). POSSUM: Purpose/observation system for studying and understanding movement.
Communication to the AAHPERD National Convention, Las Vegas, USA.
Hudson, J. L. (1995). Core concepts in kinesiology. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66 (5),
5455, 5960.
Knudson, D. (2000). What can professionals qualitatively analyze? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance,, 71 (2), 1923.
Knudson, D. (2003). Fundamentals of biomechanics. New York: Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers.
Knudson, D. (2004). Biomechanics concept inventory: Version two. In M. Lamontagne, D. G. E. Robertson, and H.
Sveistrup (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIInd International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 378380).
Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Knudson, D. (2005). Evidence-based practice in kinesiology: The theory to practice gap revisited. The Physical
Educator, 62, 212221.

118 D. Kundson
Knudson, D. (2006). Biomechanical principles of tennis technique: Using science to improve your strokes. Vista: Racquet
Tech Publishing.
Knudson, D., and Morrison, C. S. (2002). Qualitative analysis of human movement (2nd edn.). Champaign: Human
Kinetics.
Knudson, D., Morrison, C., and Reeve, J. (1991). Effect of undergraduate kinesiology courses on qualitative
analysis ability. In J. D. Wilkerson, E. Kreighbaum, and C. L Tant (Eds.), Teaching kinesiology and biomechanics in
sports (pp. 17 20). Ames: Iowa State University.
Knudson, D., Noffal, G., Bauer, J., McGinnis, P., Bird, M., Chow, J. et al. (2003). Development and evaluation of a
biomechanics concept inventory. Sports Biomechanics, 2, 267277.
Kreighbaum, E., and Barthels, K. M. (1985). Biomechanics: A qualitative approach for studying human movement
(2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Burgess.
Lees, A. (1999). Biomechanical assessment of individual sports for improved performance. Sports Medicine, 28,
299305.
Lees, A., and Barton, G. (1996). The interpretation of relative momentum data to assess the contribution of the free
limbs to the generation of vertical velocity in sports activities. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 503-511.
Magolda, M. B. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, R. N., and Elliott, B. C. (2000). Long-axis rotation: The missing link in proximal-to-distal segment
sequencing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 247 254.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248 (4), 122130.
McPherson, M. N. (1990). A systematic approach to skills analysis. Sports Science Periodical on Research and
Technology in Sport, 11 (1), 110.
McPherson, M. N. (1996). Qualitative and quantitative analysis in sports. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24,
S85S88.
Meinel, K., and Schnabel, G. (1998). Bewegungslehre sportmotorik. Berlin: Sportverlag Berlin.
Miller, D. I. (1980). Body segment contributions to sport skill performance: Two contrasting approaches. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 219233.
Norman, R. (1975). Biomechanics for the community coach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 46
(3), 4952.
Nunome, H., Asai, T., Ikegami, Y., and Sakurai, S. (2002). Three-dimensional kinetic analysis of side-foot and
instep soccer kicks. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 2028 2036.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1 12.
Putnam, C. (1993). Sequential motions of the body segments in striking and throwing skills: Descriptions and
explanations. Journal of Biomechanics, 26 (suppl.1), 125135.
Roberts, E. M. (1991). Tracking velocity in motion. In C. L. Tant, P. E Patterson, and S. L. York (Eds.),
Biomechanics in sports IX (pp. 325). Ames: Iowa State University.
Sanders, R., and Wilson, B. (1989). Some biomechanical tips for better teaching and coaching: Part 1. New Zealand
Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 23 (4), 1415.
Sanders, R., and Wilson, B. (1990a). Some biomechanical tips for better teaching and coaching: Part 2. New Zealand
Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 24 (1), 1617.
Sanders, R., and Wilson, B. (1990b). Some biomechanical tips for better teaching and coaching: Part 3. New
Zealand Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 24 (2), 1921.
Sprigings, E. J., and Neal, R. J. (2000). An insight into the importance of wrist torque in driving the golf ball:
A simulation study. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 16, 356366.
Steindler, A. (1955). Kinesiology of the human body under normal and pathological conditions. Springfield: Charles
C. Thomas.