Content uploaded by Ziemowit Bańkosz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ziemowit Bańkosz on Aug 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
128
PROPRIOCEPTIVE ABILITY OF FENCING
AND TABLE TENNIS PRACTIONERS
ZIEmOwIT BAńkOSZ
1 *, PAwEł SZumIELEwICZ2
1 University School of Physical Education, Wrocław, Poland
2 Fencing Club “Wrocławianie”, Wrocław, Poland
AB STR ACT
Purpose. The aim of the study was to compare the spatial component of proprioceptive ability by reproducing a upper limb
movement typical in table tennis and fencing. Methods. The research comprised 41 young males of which 12 were table tennis
players, 14 fencers, and 15 not involved in any competitive sports as a control. The experiment was based on assessing the preci-
sion of pronation and supination of the forearm at the elbow joint in recreating a set movement range by use of a goniometer.
Results and conclusions. The results point to a higher level of proprioceptive ability in fencers and table tennis players than
the control group but only in respect to the tasks executed with the dominant limb. This is inferred to be the result from the
specific character of both sports (i.e. the intensive use of one limb and the consequent laterality of that limb) causing higher
sensitivity and proprioception. This may provide a link between swordplay, table tennis, and the level of proprioception. The
research methodology used herein may be useful in monitoring fencing training. Although not unequivocally statistically
significant, the results indicate the potential for further research in this area.
Key words: proprioception, fencing, table tennis, joint position sense
doi: 10.1515/humo-2015-0001
2014, vol. 15 (3), 128– 133
* Corresponding author.
Introduction
Achieving success in modern sports requires ever-in-
creasing levels of peak physical and mental conditioning,
hence the search for newer and more efficient training
methods by sports practitioners and researchers [1].
Some researchers have suggested that one way to mobi-
lize fitness potential without increasing strain is through
the use of training methods that focus on developing
motor coordination abilities such as the ability to kines-
thetically differentiate movement and its ranges by way
of proprioception [1]. The literature features research
that stresses the significance of proprioception in sports
yet also notes the complexity and variety of measuring
standards due to various factors including difficulties
in selecting the methods of assessing the motor skill in
question [1, 2]. Nonetheless, the noted dependency be-
tween sporting excellence and proprioceptive ability has
suggested that this factor should be taken into account
during the recruiting process [3]. Lephart et al. [4] com-
pared the accuracy of movement at the knee joint in
gymnasts and a control group concluding that specific
sports training had a positive influence on knee proprio-
ception by creating enhanced neurosensory pathways in
athletes. Similar findings showed that ice hockey players
and ballet dancers presented significantly better results
than a control group in proprioception of the foot and
ankle complex and linked this result with their involve-
ment in athletic activity [5]. When examining figure
skaters, Starosta et al. [3] found a mutual relationship
between the level of proprioceptive sensitivity and ath-
letic achievement, concluding that a higher achieve-
ment level is associated with greater proprioception in
recreating a set range of movement. Other authors have
pointed out the importance of developing sensorimo-
tor perception in beginner swimmers as a base for fur-
ther improvement [6].
The literature demonstrates that proprioceptive ability
is better developed in those parts of the body directly
involved in a given sport. Li and Huang [7] drew similar
conclusions, finding basketball sharpshooters to exhibit
a high level of motion sensitivity in finger and elbow
flexors and a great degree of accuracy in choice reaction
tasks. The results of Starosta [1] and Starosta et al. [3] may
also indicate the particular significance of proprio-
ceptive ability. In these bodies of work, it was found
that the differentiation of movement in canoeists dur-
ing the competitive season is much greater than in the
preceding training season. In addition, a significant
relationship between the level of proprioception, the
results of a motor test, and technique was found [3].
Walaszek and Nosal [8] found that children practicing
acrobatic rock’n’roll were characterized by a higher level
of proprioception than a control group. Analysis of the
relationship between the results of exercise tests and the
precision of applying strength (proprioceptive sensi-
tivity) concluded that research on proprioceptive sen-
sitivity may be useful in monitoring training in nu-
merous sports [2].
Proprioception of movement can be expressed in the
selection, execution, or sensation of the position of in-
Z. Bańkosz, P. Szumielewicz, Proprioceptive ability of fencing and table tennis practioners
129
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
dividual body parts (the spatial component), the muscle
strength involved in the movement (the strength com-
ponent), and the speed of the movement (the temporal
component) [9]. According to Starosta [1], developing
proprioceptive ability by initiating, refreshing, and ac-
quiring kinesthetic awareness in the three above-men-
tioned components may increase training effectiveness.
Some authors have emphasized the importance of specific
exercises improving movement imagery and kinesthet-
ic ability (based on creating kinesthetic experience) in
improving and strengthening proprioception [10].
Table tennis and fencing are sports in which success
depends on many interconnected factors, with motor
coordination abilities indicated as the most important.
Borysiuk [11] found that such abilities have a decisive
effect in fencing, especially in the spheres of movement
precision and motor adaptation. Czajkowski [12] also
highlighted the significance of motor coordination in
this sport, emphasizing the special role of time percep-
tion as a tactical option and the ability to take an oppo-
nent by surprise as an integral part of any bout. Similar
conclusions on the significance of motor coordination
were found in the literature on table tennis [13, 14].
However, little research has assessed the level and
significance of proprioceptive ability in both sports,
where the role of such features as sensing (sensing time,
the table tennis ball, or weapon) are very important
[12, 15]. Those few studies in the literature suggest that
proprioceptive ability significantly affects technical skills
and sporting success in table tennis [9, 13, 16]. These
include skills such as selecting the paddle’s position and
angle, the selection and strength intensity of a stroke,
and discerning the ball’s rotation [9, 14]. In fencing,
notions such as the sense of the weapon, distance, and
pace have been analyzed [17]. Other aspects of par-
ticular significance include ‘sensing the steel’, sensing
the position of the upper limb (forearm, arm, hand)
when thrusting or controlling the weapon, directing
thrusts towards the target area, movement precision
when parrying, the speed at which the arm is straight-
ened, and [17]. Due to the fact that the skills related to
effective proprioceptive ability seem important both
in table tennis and fencing, it would be interesting to
determine whether athletes involved in these sports
display a high level of motor skills (measured by known
and available methods). An answer in the affirmative
would emphasize the significance of kinesthetic diver-
sity in both sports and may prompt its inclusion and
development in the training process. An assessment of
the level of proprioceptive ability could also serve in
monitoring training in fencing and table tennis.
Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare pro-
prioceptive ability by recreating the position (spatial
component) of upper limb movements typical in table
tennis and fencing. This would include a search for all
correlative relationships between the above factors. It
was hypothesized that a higher level of this ability in
table tennis and fencing athletes than in untrained in-
dividuals may signify the importance of this factor in
both sports, determine a link between athletic activity
and the level of proprioceptive ability, and also signify
the influence of specific training on how propriocep-
tive ability is shaped.
Material and methods
Research comprised young males at a similar age
level. The sample included 12 table tennis players, 14
fencers, and 15 of their peers as a control. Measures of
age, body height, and body mass of the examined groups
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Basic descriptive characteristics of the examined
groups for age, body height, and body mass
Age
(years)
Body height
(cm)
Body mass
(kg)
SD SD SD
Table tennis
(n = 12) 13.17 1.03 163.75 3.96 57.75 6.38
Fencing
(n = 14) 12.64 0.74 158.57 8.11 49.43 7.35
Control
(n = 15) 12.67 0.49 154.8 7.49 47.8 7.97
The fencers were members of a fencing club with
about 3 years’ competitive experience. Competitive expe-
rience in the case of the table tennis players was slightly
longer at about 5 years. The control group comprised
15 boys from a local primary school not involved in
any competitive sport.
Testing was performed with a goniometer to assess
the precision of recreating a set movement range [3, 9].
The testing apparatus consisted of a specially constructed
goniometric appliance to measure forearm pronation
and supination at the elbow joint (Figure 1). It con-
sisted of a stationary main body with a rotating cylin-
der attached to a handle in which the cylinder/handle
rotated on a Teflon bearing. A revolving linear poten-
tiometer fixed at the end of the cylinder recorded the
angle of rotation. An analog-to-digital converter and Lab-
view software ver. 2009 (National Instruments, USA)
were used to digitally record the angular values when
rotating the cylinder/handle.
Figure1. Goniometer and subject positioning
Z. Bańkosz, P. Szumielewicz, Proprioceptive ability of fencing and table tennis practioners
130
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
Participants sat on a chair of adjustable height and
held the handle of the appliance in such a way that
the forearm and the upper arm formed a right angle. The
elbow of the arm executing the movement was posi-
tioned touching the body (Figure 1). During the ex-
amination the forearm’s axis coincided with the axis
of movement, while the capitulum of the third meta-
carpal bone coincided with the rotation axis in accor-
dance with the requirements of the measured move-
ment range.
The participants were not allowed to familiarize
themselves with the appliance prior to testing. For the
purpose of the test, participants were blindfolded and
asked to execute a pronation movement with the
dominant limb three times beginning from the start po-
sition of 0 and rotating the handle to an angle of 45°.
Upon reaching the 45° angle a loud ring was automati-
cally sounded. Immediately after completing the third try,
the participants were asked to repeat the same move-
ment five times but this time from memory (blind-
folded with no audio cue) and to stop at the 45° angle.
The above procedure was then repeated with a supina-
tion movement, and then repeated in full for the non-
dominant hand.
The software recorded the maximum range of move-
ment in each direction (pronation/supination) as the angle
was reproduced by the subject. The subject’s starting
position was confirmed before each attempt and ad-
justed by the researcher conducting the test. The time for
repeating the five movements ‘from memory’ could
not exceed 30 s. The extent of proprioceptive differen-
tiation was determined for both the dominant and
non-dominant limbs in the pronation and supination
movements by calculating the precision rate, or the
standard deviation of the recreated angular values, by
the formula:
PR = ,
xi –
2
5
5
i = 1
in which PR – precision rate, xi – the value of the recreated
angle of pronation or supination in i
th sample, –
arithmetic mean of the recreated angles.
Precision rates were calculated for S-D (pronation of
dominant limb), S-D (supination of dominant limb), P-ND
(pronation of non-dominant limb), and S-ND (supina-
tion of non-dominant limb). A smaller precision rate was
treated as an indicator of better proprioceptive ability
(in more accurately recreating the spatial component of
the movement in question). Statistical analysis of the
acquired results was performed with Statistica software
(Statsoft, USA). After basic descriptive statistics were
calculated, between-group comparisons were made with
the Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance and
multiple comparisons of mean ranks for all groups.
Results
The purpose of the experiment was to assess the
precision of recreating a pronation and supination move-
ment of the forearm at the elbow joint by three groups:
table tennis players, fencers, and a control group not
involved in any competitive sports. The table tennis
players acquired the lowest precision rates in recreat-
ing supination with the dominant limb and pronation
with the dominant limb. These values were slightly
higher in the case of the non-dominant limb (Table 2).
It is interesting to note the high or average mean dis-
persion and variation of the results as evidenced by the
standard deviations and interquartile ranges as well as
the relatively average and high values of the coeffi-
cient of variation.
Table 2. Basic descriptive statistics of the precision rates in recreating pronation with the dominant limb (P-D), supination
with the dominant limb (S-D), pronation with the non-dominant limb (P-ND), and supination with the non-dominant limb
(S-ND) movements
Variable (°) Me (°) Min (°) Max (°) IQR (°) SD (°) CV (%)
Table tennis
(n = 12)
P-D 5.44 4.68 1.59 8.75 4.93 2.55 47.00
S-D 5.28 4.02t1.93 14.58 3.35 3.61 68.33
P-ND 5.55 5.78 2.63 9.32 2.70 1.96 35.41
S-ND 7.46 6.95 2.46 16.99 6.28 4.34 58.15
Fencing
(n = 14)
P-D 4.84 4.60t1.60 8.28 3.45 2.03 42.00
S-D 5.01 4.43*2.84 7.95 2.33 1.71 34.31
P-ND 7.49 6.73 2.72 16.38 5.60 4.04 53.99
S-ND 6.39 5.81 1.38 10.59 2.64 2.61 40.89
Control
(n = 15)
P-D 7.61 7.71 2.51 17.99 4.74 3.99 52.47
S-D 7.44 7.15 2.44 12.61 4.60 3.10 41.75
P-ND 7.18 6.09 1.24 13.97 5.68 3.84 53.43
S-ND 5.86 5.81 2.37 11.35 2.82 2.56 43.65
– mean, Me – median, Min – minimum, Max – maximum, IQR – interquartile range, SD – standard deviation,
CV – coefficient of variation, * – difference from control at p < 0.05, t – difference from control group at p < 0.10
Z. Bańkosz, P. Szumielewicz, Proprioceptive ability of fencing and table tennis practioners
131
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
A similar distribution of the results and their values
may be observed in the group of fencers. The arithmetic
means and medians were slightly lower in the tests per-
formed with the dominant limb than the non-domi-
nant one (Table 2). Of interest is that the difference in
performing the pronation movement was quite con-
siderable. Analysis of the dispersion and variation of the
results indicates smaller differentiation than in the
table tennis group.
Analysis of the results in the control group revealed
larger median and mean values in most of the analyzed
movements compared with both groups of athletes
(Tab. 2). Coefficients of variation and standard deviations
in all four analyzed movements were similar and at an
average level, signifying average intragroup differences.
Analysis also included comparing the precision rates
obtained in the tested movements by all of the groups.
As normal distributions were not found in some of the
movements, intergroup differences were assessed us-
ing non-parametric tests. Comparison of the arithmetic
means and medians found similar results between the
table tennis players and fencers in virtually all four of
the tested movements, with no statistical differences
revealed by Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of vari-
ance. Precision rates obtained by the athletes were lower
than the control group in movements performed with
the dominant limb in both pronation and supination
(a sign of better ability). Kruskal–Wallis one-way analy-
sis of variance found a statistically significant difference
(H = 6.20, p = 0.0451) only in supination of the domi-
nant limb (S-D). The post–hoc multiple comparisons
of mean ranks for all groups did not confirm a statisti-
cally significant difference, with p values of 1.00 be-
tween fencers and table tennis players, 0.15 between
fencers and controls, and 0.07 between table tennis
players and controls. No statistically significant differ-
ences between the athletes and the control group were
observed in the tests performed with the non-domi-
nant limb.
Discussion
This study analyzed the spatial component of pro-
prioceptive ability, which involves sensing and differ-
entiating the position of individual body parts, in this
case, the position of the forearm at the elbow joint
during a pronation and supination movement. The lit-
erature claims that the level of proprioceptive, or kin-
esthetic, sensitivity is the highest in parts of the body
involved in a given sport. This was found to be the case
in basketball players, who displayed greater sensitivity
and a higher level of upper limb proprioception [7].
Arman et al. found that professional ballet dancers dem-
onstrated greater accuracy than a control group in posi-
tioning upper and lower limb joints and hypothesized
this to be the effect of improved proprioceptive response
as a result of dance practice [18]. Other researchers have
also pointed out the significance of proprioceptive sensi-
tivity in soccer as well as the connection between the
level of proprioception and improved technique in karate
[19, 20]. Rejman et al. [21] examined monofin swim-
mers and suggested that the high level of kinesthetic
response in this group was the result of an adaptation
prompted by the specificity of the additional sensory
stimulus received in the form of feedback from the large
surface area of the monofin.
Similar conclusions can be inferred by the results of
the present study, although better movement execution
by the two athlete groups was only observed in the dom-
inant limb when compared with the control group. The
table tennis players and fencers displayed lower mean
and median precision rates than the control group for
the dominant limb in the supination movement, albeit
these differences were not unequivocally statistically
significant as determined by post-hoc testing. This may
suggest a relationship between the practice of sword-
play and table tennis and the level of proprioceptive
ability. The differences in executing these movements
with the dominant limb may result from the specific
character of both sports (hitting a ball with a paddle,
holding and wielding a blade) being performed with
the dominant limb. It is possible that practicing a sport
that involves numerous repetitions of precise arm, fore-
arm, hand, or finger movements may increase the pro-
prioceptive sensitivity of the more frequently used limb,
and may ‘solidify’ or ‘refresh’ kinesthetic sensation [1].
This may account for the better results (especially in the
case of the fencers) in the supination movement. In the
case of the non-dominant limb, the two athlete groups
did not differ from the control group.
In table tennis, supination and pronation movements
are performed to change the angle of the paddle [13].
In fencing, supination and pronation movements at the
elbow joint are characteristic during parrying, espe-
cially in the Quarte (parry 4) and Sixte (parry 6) [17].
The results of the present study may corroborate the
extensive use of these types of parries in training and
competition by the examined fencers, while at the same
time, give rise the use of the research methodology
herein to monitor training progression.
Studies on proprioception have indicated that ath-
letes are characterized by greater proprioceptive dif-
ferentiation than individuals not involved any sports
[2–4, 8, 9]. This difference between a trained and un-
trained population was explained by the specificity of
the practiced sport. However, these differences may in
fact result from the development of proprioceptive ability
during the training process typical of a given sport. In
addition, a higher level of this ability may also result
from the general recruitment and selection criteria of
a given sport, as evidenced by the relationship found
between proprioceptive ability and skill level [1, 3, 22].
In regards to the previously cited works, there are also
reports that have indicated a lack of a clear difference
Z. Bańkosz, P. Szumielewicz, Proprioceptive ability of fencing and table tennis practioners
132
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
in reproducing movements between athletes and un-
trained individuals. Jerosh et al. [23] compared female
table tennis players with a control group finding no
differences in the accuracy of reproducing movements
at the elbow joint. The differences in the results of studies
on proprioceptive ability may attest to its large variability
and dependence on numerous factors as well as the use
of different measurement methods assessing its level.
Some researchers have suggested that the components
(strength, spatial, and temporal) of proprioceptive ability
are relatively independent of each other, that no inherent
relationship exists with the age of an athlete, and that
data collected on this ability is highly variable. Instead,
it is believed that the level of each individual component
depends on physical and mental health as well as the
level of motivation [24, 25].
Conclusions
1. The results point to a higher level of propriocep-
tive differentiation in fencers and table tennis players
than in the control group although only for movements
executed by the dominant limb. This may be the result
of the specific character of both sports, i.e. the intensive
use of one limb, and may therefore provide a link be-
tween swordplay, table tennis and proprioceptive ability.
Although not unequivocally statistically significant, the
results indicate the potential for further research in this
area.
2. The fencers and the table tennis players executed
the task of forearm supination (by the dominant limb)
better than the control group and is believed to origi-
nate from the use of this movement in both sports. It
can be considered that the research methodology used
herein may serve in monitoring training progress in
these sports.
References
1. Starosta W., The concept of modern training in sport.
Studies in Physical Culture & Tourism, 2006, 13 (2), 9–23.
2. Zatoń M., Błacha R., Jastrzębska A., Słonina K., Repeat-
ability of pressure force during elbow flexion and exten-
sion before and after exercise. Hum Mov, 2009, 10 (2),
137–143, doi: 10.2478/v10 038- 0 09 -0010- 6.
3. Starosta W., Aniol-Strzyzewska K., Fostiak D., Jablo now-
ska E., Krzesinski S., Pawlowa-Starosta T., Precision of
kinesthetic sensation – element of diagnosis of perfor-
mance of advanced competitors. Biol Sport, 1989, 6 (3),
265 –271.
4. Lephart S.M., Giraldo J.L., Borsa P.A., Fu F.H., Knee
joint proprioception: a comparison between female in-
tercollegiate gymnasts and controls. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc, 1996, 4 (2), 121–124, doi: 10.1007/
BF 01477265.
5. Li J.X., Xu D.Q., Hoshizaki B., Proprioception of foot
and ankle complex in young regular practitioners of ice
hockey, ballet dancing and running. Res Sports Med,
2009, 17 (4), 205–216, doi: 10.1080/15438620903324353.
6. Ebahrawi M., The effect of kinesthetic perception exer-
cises on distance and time start in crawl swimming. Ovid-
ius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/
Science, Movement & Health, 2014, 14 (1), 116–122.
7. Ji L., Huang B., A discussion on psychological character-
istics of female basketball sharpshooters (Abstract). Sport
Science/ Tiyu Kexue, 1987, 7 (2), 61–64.
8. Walaszek R., Nosal T., Assessment of the impact of one-
year training in acrobatic rock’n’roll on overall motor
coordination in eight-year-old children. Baltic Journal
of Health and Physical Activity, 2014, 6 (2), 90–99, doi:
10.2478/bjha-2014-0009.
9. Bańkosz Z., Skarul A., Changes in the level of kinesthet ic
differentiation ability in table tennis players. Studies in
Physical Culture & Tourism, 2010, 17 (1), 41–46.
10. Toussaint L., Blandin Y., Behavioral evidence for motor
imagery ability on position sense improvement follow-
ing motor imagery practice. Movement & Sport Sciences
– Science & Motricit´e, 2013, 82, 63– 68, doi: 10.1051/
sm/2013093.
11. Borysiuk Z., Complex evaluation of fencers predisposi-
tion in three stages of sport development. Biol Sport, 2006,
23 (1), 41–53.
12. Czajkowski Z., The essence and importance of sense of
timing in fencing. Studies in Physical Culture & Tourism,
2009, 16 (3), 241–247.
13. Bańkosz Z., Accuracy of movement repeatability and
sport level of table tennis players. In: Sadowski J., Niż ni-
kowski T. (eds.), Coordination motor abilities in scientific
research, AWF Warszawa, Biała Podlaska, 2008, 46–52.
14. Hotz A., Muster M., Table tennis: teaching and learning
[in German]. Meyer & Meyer, Aachen 1993.
15. Starosta W., Felbur B., Structure and conditioning of
“ball feeling” in the opinions of table tennis players
and coaches. In: Sadowski J., Starosta W. (eds.), Movement
Coordination in team sport games and martial arts.
AWF, Warszawa 1998, 180–184.
16. Bańkosz Z., Błach W., Kinesthetic differentiation ability
and playing precision in table tennis players [in Polish,
abstract in English]. Medycyna Sportowa, 2007, 23 (2),
99–105.
17. Czajkowski Z., Understanding fencing. The unity of theo-
ry and practice. SKA SwordPlay Books, New York 2005.
18. Arman E., Gulbin R.N., Rana S.V., Joint position sense
in Turkish professional ballet dancers. Journal of Physi-
cal Education and Sport Sciences, 2013, 7 (1), 61–68.
19. Cynarski W.J., Obodyński K., Litwiniuk A., The techni-
cal advancement and level of chosen coordination abilities
of people practicing karate. In: Sadowski J. (ed.), Coordi-
nation motor abilities in scientific research. AWF War-
szawa, Biała Podlaska 2005, 428–433.
20. Buraczewski T., Cicirko L., Storto M., Correlation be-
tween the level of development of coordination motor
abilities and a special skill in children at the beginner’s
stage of football training. In: Sadowski J., Niżnikowski T.
(eds.), Coordination motor abilities in scientific research.
AWF Warszawa, Biała Podlaska 2008, 66–71.
21. Rejman M., Klarowicz A., Zatoń K., An evaluation of
kinesthetic differentiation ability in monofin swimmers.
Hum Mov, 2012, 13 (1), 8–15, doi: 10.2478/v10038-
011-0048-0.
22. Bańkosz Z., The kinesthetic differentiation ability of table
tennis players. Hum Mov, 2012, 13 (1), 16–21, doi: 10. 2478/
v10038-011-0049-z.
Z. Bańkosz, P. Szumielewicz, Proprioceptive ability of fencing and table tennis practioners
133
HUMAN MOVEMEN T
23. Jerosch J., Thorwesten L., Reuter M., Proprioceptive ca-
pabilities of the elbow joint in elite female table tennis
players [in German]. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin ,
1997, 48 (2), 43–44, 46– 48.
24. Kollarovits Z , Diagnosis of sensorimotor abilities at table
tennis[In Slovak]. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae
Universitatis Comenianae, 1995; 36:201-208
25. Kollarovits Z., Teplicka S., Gerhat S, Evaluation of kines-
thetic differentiation abilities Testing of sensorimotor
abilities in table tennis and tennis [In Slovak, English
abstract]. TVS Telesna Vychova & Sport, 1993, 3 (1), 14–18.
26. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Come-
nianae, 1995, 37, 189–196.
27. Kollarovits Z., Teplicka S., Stability of kinestetic differ-
entiation abilities in the period of several months [in
Slovak, English abstract]. Telesna Vychova & Sport, 1999,
9 (1), 45–48.
Paper recived by the Editiors: April 3, 2014
Paper accepted for publication: June 23, 2014
Correspondence address
Ziemowit Bańkosz
Katedra Dydaktyki sportu
Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego
al. I.J. Paderewskiego 35
51-612 Wrocław, Poland
e-mail: ziemowit.bankosz@awf.wroc.pl