Content uploaded by Joel M Stager
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joel M Stager on Jan 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education
#3091) >91&)6 68-'0)
Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and
Opinions of Professional Swim Coaches
Andrew C. Corne!
Eastern Michigan University%'362)8)1-',)(9
Josh C. White
University of Michigan
Brian V. Wright
Austin College
Joel Stager
Indiana University
3003;8,-7%2(%((-8-32%0;36/7%8 ,@477',30%6;36/7&+79)(9-.%6)
?-7)7)%6',68-'0)-7&639+,883<39*36*6))%2(34)2%'')77&< ',30%6$36/7 "8,%7&))2%'')48)(*36-2'097-32-228)62%8-32%03962%03*
59%8-')7)%6',%2((9'%8-32&<%2%98,36-=)()(-8363* ',30%6$36/7 "
)'311)2()(-8%8-32
362)@2(6);$,-8)37,$6-+,86-%2#%2( 8%+)63)0!)%',-2+314)8-8-:)%'-2+ 8%6876%'8-')7%2(
4-2-3273*63*)77-32%0 ;-13%',)7 International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education#30368-'0)
-.%6)
:%-0%&0)%8 ,@477',30%6;36/7&+79)(9-.%6):30-77
156
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 2012, 6, 156-170
© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Teaching Competitive Racing Starts:
Practices and Opinions
of Professional Swim Coaches
Andrew C. Cornett, Josh C. White,
Brian V. Wright, and Joel M. Stager
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of coaches’ percep-
tions regarding the most important elements of the competitive swim start and
the progressions coaches use to teach the skill to novice swimmers. A survey was
developed specically for this project and administered via an e-mail link sent to
all registered USA Swimming coaches. The nal survey elicited 471 responses.
When coaches were asked if a progression was used when teaching starts, 4.6%
reported using a written checklist, 89.8% a mental one, and 5.5% none at all.
Of those who used a progression to teach racing starts, 78.3% used a personally
designed progression while the remaining 21.7% used information provided by
a professional organization. The information obtained from the survey suggests
that teaching the racing start is an informal process. The lack of an authoritative
resource used in teaching racing starts to novice swimmers warrants further
investigation with regard to the safety of this complex skill.
The potential for injury exists during the execution of the competitive swim
start. One study spanning a 25-year period (1982-2007) reported 13 catastrophic
injuries resulting in “permanent severe functional brain or spinal cord disability”
specically within high school and collegiate swimming with all but one incident
occurring during the execution of a racing start (Mueller & Cantu, 2007). The
number of catastrophic injuries over this time period for all of age group swimming
is difcult to estimate as not all competitive swimmers and programs are registered
with USA Swimming or any other recognized organizing body.
With a goal to eliminate all preventable injuries, there is an obvious need to
understand the essential components as well as dangerous elements inherent in
the execution of racing starts as a means of minimizing the risks and subsequently
reducing or eliminating the number of catastrophic injuries. Prevention may begin
with the teaching practices and the expertise of the coaches and professionals work-
ing with novice competitive swimmers on this complex skill. Currently, there is a
general lack of literature on the knowledge and teaching practices of professional
Andrew Cornett is an assistant professor at Eastern Michigan University, School of Health Promotion
and Human Performance, Ypsilanti, MI. Josh White is the men’s swimming assistant coach at the Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Brian Wright is the men’s and women’s head swimming coach
at Austin College, Sherman, TX. Joel Stager is the director of the Counsilman Center for the Science
of Swimming at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, which is where the research was conducted.
1
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 157
coaches. To date, research on racing start safety has focused primarily on factors
affecting the outcomes of competitive racing starts (i.e., head depths and head
speeds) in an effort to establish empirically-based racing start regulations.
The literature on racing start safety has examined the effect of water depth
(Blitvich, McElroy, Blanksby, Clothier, & Pearson, 2000; Cornett, White, Wright,
Willmott, & Stager, 2011a, 2011b), block height (Cornett, White, Wright, Willmott,
& Stager, 2011c; Gehlsen & Wingeld, 1998; Welch & Owens, 1986), and start
type (Counsilman, Nomura, Endo, & Counsilman, 1988; Gehlsen & Wingeld,
1998; Welch & Owens, 1986) on head depth and speed during the execution of a
racing start. Additional work has focused on the ability of competitive swimmers
of different ages and ability levels to control the depth of their starts (Blitvich
et al., 2000; Cornett, White, Wright, Willmott, & Stager, 2012; White, Cornett,
Wright, Willmott, & Stager, 2011). Broad conclusions from this research are that
(a) maximum head depth and head speed at maximum head depth vary as a func-
tion of swimmer age, water depth, block height, and start type and (b) swimmers
regardless of age and competitive experience are able to modify start depth in
response to water depth and other factors.
While these works have contributed to an expanding body of knowledge, they
have primarily focused on a better understanding of racing start safety through an
examination of factors affecting start outcomes. These studies have neither char-
acterized the most important motor skill components of contemporary racing starts
nor the methods used by professionals in teaching them. Likewise, the literature
has not addressed the common errors in starting technique that experts consider
to be dangerous.
As a result, the purpose of the present study is to address this gap in the racing
start literature by surveying professional swim coaches on (a) their perceptions
concerning the most important features of the racing start, (b) their perceptions on
the most dangerous errors in technique associated with competitive racing starts,
and (c) the methods coaches most commonly employ to teach the skill. In doing
so, it is hoped that providing this information to professional certication agencies
and coaches’ safety training agencies (e.g. American Red Cross and USA Swim-
ming) will improve coaching education and teaching practices thereby reducing
the number of catastrophic injuries resulting from their execution.
Method
A survey was constructed specically for this project. The process entailed construct-
ing an open-ended survey, which was rst given to ten local coaches for interpretation.
The open-ended survey was modied based on the input from the local coaches. Then
the open-ended survey was sent to 500 coaches, and 52 completed surveys were
returned within 4 weeks. The questions on this survey required written responses to
a variety of questions related to teaching competitive swim starts. No information
was supplied or implied by the survey at this stage; questions were left “open” for
the coaches’ interpretations. The responses were used to rene the clarity of the
questions and insure that the intended interpretations were effectively conveyed. The
responses were reviewed and condensed into those frequently repeated and most
commonly given. The responses were categorized and then a shorter, closed form of
the survey was created which could be lled out on the internet. Local coaches were
2
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
158 Cornett et al.
again asked to complete the survey and minor modications were made as a result of
their responses. The nal version of the survey was then approved by the university’s
human subjects committee and a request to participate in the study emailed nationwide
by USA Swimming to all of its registered swim coaches with a link to the website.
The nal survey consisted of three parts: (a) Participant Characteristics, (b)
Teaching of Starts, and (c) Essential Elements of Starts. The rst part of the survey
was designed to assess the background and experience of each coach. The ques-
tions in this part of the survey asked for (a) years of coaching experience, (b) age
of swimmers coached, and (c) type of teams coached.
The questions on the second part of the survey were concerned specically
with the teaching of competitive racing starts. For instance, the rst question asked,
“Dening a dive as ‘a hand rst entry into water,’ do you consider the ability to do
a dive a requirement for a swimmer before you will begin to teach them a competi-
tive start?” Next, the survey questioned the coaches about teaching progressions
(i.e., ordered sets of steps, from simplest to the most complex, for learning a skill;
American Red Cross, 2004): “With an athlete who can execute a dive, do you have
a written or mental progression that you follow when teaching the athlete to do a
competitive start?” If the coach used a written or mental teaching progression, they
were asked to indicate how the teaching progression was designed: “personally
designed” or designed using information from another source such as the club for
which the coach worked, American Red Cross (ARC), USA Swimming, the YMCA,
or the American Swim Coaches Association (ASCA). Then, the coach was provided
a list of “certain steps that coaches have indicated they use when teaching a start to
an individual who already knows how to complete a dive” and instructed to “select
YES next to any steps that you use when teaching a start and place a number next
to each of these indicating the order in which you teach them.” Subsequently, the
coach was asked to specify the age “you typically begin having your swimmers
start from the blocks,” the oldest age of a “swimmer that you have ever taught to
use the blocks for the rst time,” and the age range that “is most challenging to
teach a safe and effective start.” Next, the coach was asked what factor made “this
group difcult to teach.” The nal question of the second part of the survey asked
what the coach would do “if your swimmers are reluctant to use the blocks.”
The third part of the survey consisted of two questions. The rst question
provided a list of elements (derived from the open-ended survey) of the competi-
tive swim start in the typical order in which they occur. The coach was instructed
to “rank the following elements of a competitive start based upon importance to
the proper completion of a start on a scale of 1-5” (with 1 being unimportant and
5 being essential). The second question provided a list of “errors in starting tech-
nique” (again, derived from the open-ended survey) and directed the coach to “rate
them on a scale of 1-5” (with 1 meaning that you do not consider the behavior to
be dangerous and 5 indicating that the behavior is so dangerous that you would
prohibit the swimmer from using the blocks until further skills had been learned).
Results
The closed-form internet survey resulted in responses from 471 coaches, but not
all respondents completed each question. We were not able to determine how many
coaches were contacted (or especially how many coaches actually received and/
3
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 159
or read the e-mail from USA Swimming) due to the manner in which the survey
was disseminated through USA Swimming. We decided after much deliberation
not to estimate a return rate which would have virtually no validity or reliability.
Due to the relatively large number of responses from coaches with such diverse
backgrounds and experiences, we felt this convenience sample served the study
purposes adequately. The years of coaching experience of the surveyed coaches
are displayed in Table 1. In addition, the age of the swimmers and types of teams
coached by the surveyed coaches are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 1 Years of Coaching Experience of Surveyed Coaches
Coaching Experience (yrs) Percent (%)
0-5 21.3
6-10 20.7
11-15 20.2
16-20 11.5
21-25 8.7
Over 25 17.6
Table 2 Percentage of Coaches Who Have Previously Coached
Swimmers of the Specified Ages
Age (years) Percent of Coaches (%)
6 & Under 74.5
7-10 92.8
11-14 94.3
15-18 88.5
19-22 27.0
Over 22 51.2
Table 3 Percentage of Coaches Who Have Previously Coached
Teams of the Specified Type
Type of Team Percent of Coaches (%)
Club 93.2
Jr. High School 19.1
High School 61.6
College 27.0
Masters 43.1
4
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
160 Cornett et al.
For the second part of the survey concerning the teaching of starts, when asked
if they consider the ability to do a dive a requirement for a swimmer before teaching
them a competitive start, 74.4% of coaches responded “yes” while the remaining
25.6% responded “no.” When asked if they have a written or mental progression
that they follow when teaching the athlete to do a start, 89.8% of the coaches used
a mental progression, 4.6% used a written progression, and 5.5% did not use a
progression. Of the coaches who used a progression to teach starts, the majority
(78.3%) said that the progression they use was “personally designed.” The remaining
coaches who use a teaching progression indicated that their teaching progression
was derived from another source, such as the American Red Cross (6.1%), USA
Swimming (1.9%), the YMCA (1.6%), the club for which they worked (1.6%),
ASCA (1.3%), “another source” not listed in the survey (6.1%), or “other” (2.9%).
Table 4 displays the results from when the coaches were provided “certain steps
that coaches have indicated they use when teaching a start to an individual who
already knows how to complete a dive” and instructed to “select YES next to any
Table 4 Percentage of Coaches Using Certain Steps to Teach the Racing
Start and the Average Order in Which the Step Is Taught
Skill Average Order
Percent
Using
Start from the side in deep water 2.4 84.8
Jump into streamline on deck 3.4 27.0
Use of a live or video demonstration 3.8 62.7
Completing a shallow start from the side 4.3 82.5
Jump from the block 4.5 91.8
Practice streamlining after a dive 4.7 79.4
Completing a shallow standing dive 4.8 18.0
Start from the side in shallow water 5.6 46.5
Standing dive in shallow water 5.6 88.0
Standing dive off of a block in deep water 6.0 23.7
Practice streamlining after a start 6.0 53.7
Start from a short block 6.9 24.0
Emphasizing height by instructing the swimmer to go over an
obstacle (noodle, hula hoop, etc.) on a start 8.2 73.1
Emphasizing distance by instructing the swimmer to go out
and over or past an obstacle (noodle, hula hoop, etc.) on a
start 8.6 63.9
Standing dive off of a block in shallow water 9.6 72.7
Work on a pike entry 9.9 52.6
5
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 161
steps that you use when teaching a start, and place a number next to each of these
indicating the order in which you teach them.”
The most frequent responses when coaches were asked at what age they
typically begin having swimmers start from the blocks were 6 years and under
(30.5%), 7-8 years (38.7%), and “age is not a factor, I base my decision solely
on skill” (16.1%). Additional responses included 9-10 years (4.7%), 11-12 years
(0.3%), 13-14 years (0.3%), and “age is not a factor, I base my decision solely on
condence” (9.4%). Table 5 shows the results for the next two survey questions:
“What age is the oldest swimmer that you have ever taught to use the blocks for
the rst time?” and “What age range is the most challenging to teach a safe and
effective start?” When asked why a group was challenging to teach a start, the most
frequent responses were “fear” (47.6%), “poor coordination” (20.5%), and “size –
large stature” (8.0%). Additional responses included “feel pressure to use the block
when they do not want to” (7.4%), “lack of attention” (6.3%), “poor understanding
of directions” (5.4%), “weak – insufcient strength” (2.7%), and “lack of fear”
(2.1%). The coaches provided four different answers when asked what is done “if
your swimmers are reluctant to use the blocks”: “allow them to use the side of the
pool until they choose to” use the starting blocks (64.9%), “encourage them to use
the blocks” (31.3%), “my swimmers are never reluctant to use the blocks” (3.5%),
and “force them to use the blocks” (0.3%).
In the third part of the survey, the coaches rated the importance of various ele-
ments of the start and the level of danger of common “errors in technique.” Table
6 displays the ranking, from most to least important, of 20 elements of the com-
petitive start previously identied by swim coaches as “essential.” Table 7 shows
the ranking, from most to least dangerous, of 20 common “errors in technique.”
Table 5 Percentage of Responses for the Oldest Swimmer
Coaches Taught to Execute a Start for the First Time and the Most
Challenging Age to Teach Safe and Effective Starts
Age (yrs)
Oldest Swimmer Taught to Execute
Start for First Time (%)
Most Challenging Age to
Teach a Racing Start (%)
6 & Under 0.6 32.0
7-8 1.3 19.5
9-10 4.8 10.4
11-12 13.5 9.5
13-14 28.1 9.8
15-16 23.9 5.5
17-18 9.0 2.1
Over 18 18.7 11.3
6
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
162
Table 6 Ranking From Most to Least Important of 20 Elements
Identified by Swimming Coaches as Essential to the Competitive
Swim Start
Rank Elements of a Competitive Swim Start
1 Legs and feet push strongly off the blocks
2 Glide and streamline
3 Head between arms at entry
4 Breakout
5 Toes over the edge of the block
6 Begin kicking
7 Feet placed in proper position
8 Entry through a single hole
9 Balance on the block
10 Proper angle at entry
11 Weight placed on feet properly
12 Arms and hand move forward
13 Head tucked between arms
14 Quick reaction to starting horn
15 Proper head position while on the block
16 Change angle underwater
17 Streamline position in air
18 Listen to starters instructions
19 Hands gripping the edge of the block
20 Knee and feet at shoulder width
7
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 163
Discussion
The main objective of this study was to identify the features of the competitive
swim start perceived by coaches to be important and dangerous and the methods
they used to teach starts. The USA Swimming (USAS) registered swim coaches
responding to the survey represented all levels of coaching experience (Table 1),
despite the fact that no attempt was made to insure a broad, representative sample
or equivalent distribution in regard to coaching experience. Within the respondent
sample, two categories were somewhat disproportionate; there appear to be fewer
coaches with 16-20 and 21-25 years of coaching experience in the sample. It is
not clear if the distribution of years of coaching experience in the sample is rep-
resentative of the population of all USAS registered coaches or if coaches with
16-25 years of experience were less inclined to participate in the study. Values for
this variable for all certied coaches in USAS are not available and thus it was
not possible to test whether or not the sample differed from the USAS coaching
Table 7 Ranking From Most to Least Dangerous of 20 Common
“Errors in Technique” for Competitive Swim Starts as Identified by
Swimming Coaches
Rank Errors in Technique
1 Loss of balance on block
2 Going too deep
3 Attempting to “save” a false start
4 Too steep of an angle of entry
5 Diving downwards off the blocks
6 Swimmer is not comfortable doing a start
7 Poor concentration
8 Arms pushed backwards behind head at entry
9 Toes not over the edge of the block
10 Moving upwards not outwards off the blocks
11 Head too low at entry
12 No change in direction after entry
13 Belly op
14 Using a pike entry
15 Not pushing downwards during the ight
16 Head too high at entry
17 Not pushing off the blocks strongly enough
18 Head above arms during ight
19 Not looking forwards during ight
20 Poor streamline
8
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
164 Cornett et al.
population in regards to years of coaching experience. In the end, the convenience
sample was seen as appropriate for the purpose of the present study in that the
“experience” groups were relatively well-balanced with the opinions and practices
of each group represented.
Teaching Progressions for Head-First Entry
The most important ndings of this study relate to the progressions used by pro-
fessional swim coaches to teach the competitive racing start. The American Red
Cross (ARC) denes a teaching progression as “an ordered set of steps, from the
simplest to most complex, for learning a skill” (American Red Cross, 2004, p.
126) and has attempted to formalize the teaching of dives by developing a “Head-
First Entry Progression.” The progression consists of entering the water using ve
different entry styles: (a) the “sitting position,” (b) the “kneeling position,” (c)
the “compact position,” (d) the “stride position,” and (e) the “shallow head-rst
entry.” In completing the Head-First Entry Progression, the swimmer gradually
builds from a head-rst entry while sitting on the side of the pool toward the nal
stage, a “shallow head-rst entry” while standing on the side of the pool. Because
of the potentially catastrophic effects of an improperly performed racing start, it
was expected that nearly all coaches would utilize a formal progression (such as
the ARC Head-First Entry Progression) in teaching novice swimmers to execute
the racing start.
Thus, we considered the ndings surprising that 5% of coaches reported no
use of a progression and nearly 80% of coaches using a progression used one that
was “personally designed.” Although we expected that coaches who use a teaching
progression would reference the ARC as the source from which their progression
was developed, the results indicated that only 1 in 20 coaches actually did so. We
do not have any specic explanation for this discrepancy between our results and
our original hypotheses.
Perhaps the difference relates to a distinction made by the surveyed coaches
between executing a dive and a racing start. One could easily argue that the ARC
Head-First Entry Progression is a progression used for teaching swimmers to
execute a dive, not a racing start. Since three-fourths of coaches reported that they
consider the ability to dive as a prerequisite for teaching a swimmer to execute a
racing start, the Head-First Entry Progression would likely be considered by coaches
as separate from a racing start progression. Neither the ARC nor USAS provide a
series of steps for progressing a swimmer from executing a dive to a competitive
racing start. Further, the ARC does not provide justication, a source, or verica-
tion of effectiveness for the progression that is described. This might then explain
why the majority of coaches reported “personally designing” their progression:
a progression developed by an otherwise “authoritative source” was not readily
available. Regardless of the explanation, because of the potentially catastrophic
consequences of an improperly executed racing start, it seems that the teaching of
this complex skill needs to become a formalized process.
Steps Used to Teach the Racing Start
There appears to be an absence of a progression between the nal step in the ARC
Head-First Entry Progression (i.e., the shallow-angle dive) and the competitive
9
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 165
racing start. Because the coaches were asked to identify the steps used “when
teaching a start to an individual who already knows how to complete a dive” and
the order in which the skills are taught, their collective responses might provide
the general framework for an actual racing start progression.
It may be that the optimal progression for teaching competitive starts begins
with the rst movements swimmers make when standing on the starting blocks.
Maglischo (2003) described the “preparatory” phase as being from when the swim-
mer is standing on the starting block to when the swimmer is bent at the waist with
hands grabbing the front of the starting block. The swimmer holds the prepara-
tory position until the starting command signals the beginning of the race. Survey
responses indicate that two of the rst steps used by over 80% of coaches to teach
the racing start to swimmers (who were already able to execute a dive) were “start
from the side in deep water” and “complete a shallow start from the side.” These
two initial steps combine Maglischo’s preparatory position with a dive from the
side of the pool (i.e., the nal skill from the ARC Head-First Entry Progression).
In doing so, the coaches gradually progress the swimmer from a shallow-angled
dive while standing to a shallow racing start from the side of the pool. Once these
steps are mastered, the coaches presented the requisite skills swimmers need to
execute a safe racing start. The nal challenge was to get swimmers comfortable
with performing the movements from an elevated platform (i.e., the starting block).
When asked in the open-ended survey to identify important elements to the
“proper completion” of a racing start, the coaches’ 20 most frequently repeated
responses included eight that occur during the preparatory phase of the racing start:
“toes over the edge of the block,” “feet placed in proper position,” “balance on the
block,” “weight placed on feet properly,” “proper head position while on the block,”
“listen to starters instructions,” “hands gripping the edge of the block,” and “knees
and feet at shoulder width.” Thus, although the preparatory position may seem like
an incidental phase of the racing start, the coaches’ perception is that this phase is
important. Coaches perceived that proper hand, head, and feet placement require
emphasis. In addition, because “loss of balance on the block” was considered by
coaches to be the most dangerous common “error in technique,” instructional
attention to the maintenance of balance and weight distribution is emphasized.
The nal recommended step in the racing start progression was to execute
these fundamental skills from a starting platform elevated above the water. Once
the swimmer is able to execute a racing start from the side of the pool, the general
trend was for coaches to introduce the starting block to the swimmer. It appears that
the vast majority of coaches (over 90%) do so by having the swimmers perform a
“jump from the block” with a feet-rst entry into the water. This is presumably to
help swimmers get comfortable standing on and jumping off a starting block that is
0.76 m (30 in) above the surface of the water. Almost one-fourth of coaches follow
a “jump off the block” with a “standing dive off a block in deep water.” In doing
so, coachers are requiring swimmers to make the transition from a feet-rst entry
off the starting block to a head-rst entry off the starting block. The only difference
between a standing dive off a starting block and a racing start is the incorporation
of the “preparatory position” into the sequence of the complex movement that the
racing start represents.
Sequentially, the last skills coaches reported utilizing while teaching the racing
start were “work on a pike entry,” “emphasizing height by instructing the swimmer
10
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
166 Cornett et al.
to go over an obstacle on a start,” and “emphasizing distance by instructing the
swimmer to go out and over or past an obstacle on a start.” While these are identi-
ed by coaches as skills needed to perform the racing start, they are perceived to be
advanced skills used more to rene or improve starting technique than to teach the
skill. The “pike entry” is an entry technique during which the swimmer attempts to
minimize resistance by entering the water at a steeper angle than more traditional
entry techniques. Because the athletes are entering at a steeper angle, they must
“scoop” upwards immediately as a precaution against contact with the bottom of
the pool when performed in relatively shallow water. The goal of the technique is
to counteract the forces exerted by the water on the athlete that cause the legs to
“slap” the water during a “at” entry. Perhaps more than half of coaches reported
teaching this skill because “entry through a single hole” and “proper angle at entry”
were rated as two of the ten most important elements of the racing start. Despite
its widespread use, coaches acknowledged safety concerns pertaining to the pike
entry when they rated “too steep an angle of entry” and “using a pike entry” as
two dangerous “errors in technique.” Coaches’ safety concerns are substantiated
by the scientic literature which demonstrated signicantly deeper head depths
for “pike” starts than other starting techniques such as the “at” and “track” starts
(Counsilman et al., 1988; Gehlsen & Wingeld, 1998; Welch & Owens, 1986).
Similar safety concerns exist when coaches emphasize height or distance by
having swimmers clear obstacles during a racing start. This skill has the advantage
of encouraging swimmers to “push strongly off the blocks” with the legs and feet,
which is the element of the racing start considered to be the most important by
coaches. The ARC considers these to be “advanced skills” and suggests that they
“only be practiced by experienced swimmers in water at least 12-feet deep under
the supervision of an experienced coach” (American Red Cross, 2008; p. 12).
While start depth and speed have not been measured for athletes practicing these
specic skills, logic suggests that the increased height would lead to a steeper
entry angle and greater downward vertical velocity at impact than values for other
entry techniques (e.g., the “at” start). Since the majority of coaches report utiliz-
ing such skills when teaching starts, it would seem that this is an area in need of
research attention.
Although the preceding skills represent a potential teaching progression from
completing a head-rst entry from the side of the pool to executing a racing start
from the starting block, these were not the only skills coaches emphasized during
the teaching process. For example, coaches reported practicing various skills
presumably designed to establish proper streamlining technique throughout their
personalized progressions for teaching the racing start (Table 4). Coaches had
swimmers “jump into streamline on deck,” “practice streamlining after a dive,”
and “practice streamlining after a start.” This appears to underscore the importance
coaches place on streamlining in that the coaches rated the “glide and streamline”
and “head between arms at entry” as two of the three most important elements of
a competitive racing start.
It is not apparent why coaches place high importance upon the ability to
streamline as that specic question was not asked. The ability to “hold a stream-
line,” however, is clearly important from the perspective of performance as well
as the perspective of safety. Blanksby, Wearne, and Elliott (1996) suggest that the
“vulnerability of the head when diving must be counteracted by children keeping
11
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 167
the thumbs clasped and the upper limbs extended overhead at all times” (p. 83).
Further, Blitvich, McElroy, Blanksby, and Douglas (1999) stated that “the level
of risk in any dive entry can be reduced if the diver keeps the hands together and
the arms extended beyond the head” (p. 558). While studying rst-year university
students with varied swimming and diving backgrounds, Blitvich et al. (1999)
found that during one out of four dives, the swimmer “pulled both arms backward
before or at maximum depth, thus leaving their head totally unprotected” (p. 558).
While the authors concluded that this acts to increase the level of risk, the degree
to which the head is protected by maintaining proper streamline technique has not
been veried. It certainly seems logical that the hands and arms serve to decrease
the impact force of the head should a collision with the bottom of the pool occur.
No research literature could be found to support this hypothesis and thus the extent
to which the arms provide protection to the head and neck should an impact occur
is a subject to be pursued in future research.
Rules and Regulations for Teaching Racing Starts
Survey results indicate that four of the ve most dangerous “errors in technique” as
perceived by the coaches pertain to those causing swimmers to go too deep during
the start (Table 7). Specically stated, professional coaches identied “going too
deep” as the second most dangerous error in starting technique. This leads to a
critical question, “What is an appropriate minimum water depth for the teaching
of racing starts?” USAS rules state that “minimum water depth for teaching racing
starts, prior to certication, in any setting from any height starting blocks or the
deck shall be 6 feet (1.84 meters)” (USA Swimming, 2011, p. 44). One study has
been located in the research literature that investigated the head depths and speeds
of children learning to execute a dive. Blanksby and colleagues (1996) measured
head depths and vertical head velocities of children in a learn-to-swim program
when performing different developmental stages of diving. They found that at
least one swimmer went deeper than 1.52 m in all but one of the developmental
stages of diving (the sit dive), and in ve of the developmental stages of diving,
the swimmer was travelling at “vertical velocities which could dislocate or crush
an adult cervical spine” at 1.52 m should an impact occur (Blanksby et al., 1996;
p. 82). As a result, these authors concluded that the initial learning stages of the
dive should take place “in water deeper than 1.5 m because more depth is required
for safe transition from novice to skilled performer” (Blanksby et al., 1996, p. 84).
Currently, it is difcult to adequately evaluate the USAS minimum standard of 1.84
m for learning starts as attempts to locate data in the literature that present vertical
head velocities at this depth were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the survey results
indicate that professional coaches are acutely aware of the potential for injury due
to deep dives into shallow water (Table 7).
Coaches also recognize the importance of the swimmers ability to control the
depth of their starts. USAS requires each swimmer to demonstrate to the coach “the
ability to safely enter the water” during each stage of the ARC Head-First Entry
Progression before being allowed to execute racing starts in a water depth of less
than 1.84 m. All swimmers 10 years and younger and/or with less than one year
of competitive experience must demonstrate this ability and “the ability to safely
execute a shallow racing start from a starting block” in order to be “certied” (USA
12
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
168 Cornett et al.
Swimming, 2009; emphasis added by author). For swimmers 11 years and older
or with more than one year of competitive experience to be permitted to execute
racing starts in a water depth of less than 1.84 m, the swimmer must be “capable
of safely controlling the depth of his or her racing starts” (USA Swimming, 2009).
Thus, regardless of age or years of competitive experience, a swimmer must dem-
onstrate the ability to control start depth prior to being permitted to execute racing
starts in less than 1.84 m. Within the skills used by coaches to teach the racing
start (Table 4), the ability to modify and execute shallow dives regardless of water
depth is recognized as important.
There have been two studies that have dealt specically with purposeful modi-
cation of racing start depth (Cornett et al., 2012; White et al., 2011). In both of
these studies, swimmers were instructed to execute two racing starts: (a) a “typical”
racing start and (b) a racing start in which the swimmer was asked to execute a
“shallow start.” White et al. found that when asked to execute a shallow start, novice
high school (14.8 ± 1.1 yrs) and experienced collegiate aged swimmers (20.1 ± 1.2
yrs) completed signicantly shallower starts. Using the same methods but study-
ing a different sample, Cornett et al. found that competitive age group swimmers,
ranging in age from 6-14 years, also executed shallower starts after being asked
to execute a shallow start. Collectively, these studies indicated that swimmers of
varying age and competitive experience are able to control the depth of their racing
starts when asked to do so. Thus, it seems reasonable to require swimmers of all
ages and competitive backgrounds to demonstrate control of start depth prior to
being permitted to execute racing starts in a water depth of less than 1.84 m.
The important question remains, “Does the ability to purposefully control start
depth increase the safety of swimmers executing starts in shallower water depths?”
While this is a difcult question to answer, Blitvich et al. (2000) found that elite
junior swimmers completed signicantly shallower starts in a 1.2 m depth pool than
in a 2.0 m depth pool. The swimmers were not asked to execute a shallow start in
this study; instead, they were permitted to warm-up in the pool prior to executing
the starts so that they were aware of the water depth. This is a particularly relevant
nding because it demonstrated that experienced swimmers made start depth
modications when presented with different starting end water depths by simply
being aware of the water depths. As a result, before swimmers are permitted to
execute racing starts in a particular pool, swimmers should always be informed as
to the water depth at the different ends of the pool and, perhaps more importantly,
swimmers should enter the pool feet rst until they are “aware” of the water depth.
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the (a) methods used
to teach the racing start to competitive swimmers, (b) the perceptions of professional
coaches in regards to the essential elements of the racing start, and (c) the most
dangerous errors in technique that occur from its execution. In order to accomplish
this, a survey was developed and a link to the survey website was distributed to all
USA Swimming (USAS) registered coaches. Perhaps the most intriguing results
13
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
Teaching Competitive Swim Starts 169
from the survey responses related to the progressions used to teach the racing
start. The majority of the 471 coaches responding to the survey (94.5%) reported
using a progression to teach the racing start, but approximately 4 out of 5 of those
coaches stated that the progression they used was “personally designed” and 9 out
of 10 reported using a non-written “mental progression.” These ndings led to the
conclusion that the teaching of racing starts is an informal, individualized process.
Perhaps the rst step in formalizing the teaching of racing starts is for a racing
start progression to be developed and/or endorsed by both the American Red Cross
(ARC) and USAS. Currently, USAS endorses a progression developed by the ARC
solely for head-rst entries. This progression ends with a “shallow-angle dive”
from the side of the pool, not a racing start. When they were asked about the steps
used to teach the racing start, USAS coaches responding to this survey provided
steps that could be used as starting points to develop a racing start progression:
“start from the side in deep water,” “completing a shallow start from the side,”
“jump from the block,” and “standing dive off a block in deep water.” In design-
ing a racing start progression, the elements of the start perceived by these coaches
to be the most important, “legs and feet push strongly off the block,” “glide and
streamline,” and “head between arms at entry,” and the most dangerous, “loss of
balance on the block,” “going too deep,” and “attempting to ‘save’ a false start”
appear relevant to consider.
Coaches are aware of the dangers of deep starts by novice swimmers. Because
of the potentially catastrophic effects of “going too deep” during a racing start,
rules are in place by USAS such that “uncertied” swimmers are not permitted to
execute racing starts in a water depth of less than 1.84 m. In order to execute starts
in water shallower than this, the swimmer must demonstrate the ability to “control”
the depth of the start. Once swimmers possesses an element of control over their
starting depth, it is recommended that swimmers enter pools feet-rst until they
have had the opportunity to become “aware” of the water depth.
This research represents a step forward in the understanding of the procedures
used to teach novice swimmers competitive racing starts. The data represent the
composite perceptions of nearly 500 coaching professionals, some with minimal
experience and some with more than 25 years of coaching knowledge. We propose
that the information gained from them help to improve the practices used to safely
teach swimmers the racing start because, as the ARC previously stated, “the best
protection against possible [head-rst entry or racing start] injuries is an informed,
safety-conscious swimmer” (American Red Cross, 2008; p. 14).
Acknowledgements
Financial support for the project was received from USA Swimming. Ron Van Pool, Murray
Stevens, and Carol Zaleski were fundamental in providing support and important input. Paul
Sigfusson, DDS, deserves special recognition as liaison between the Councilman Center
and USA Swimming and project advisor. Christopher Nelson aided in survey data compila-
tion and deserves recognition. We would like to thank John Petersen of Risk Management
Services, Inc. for encouragement and constructive feedback. Finally, we would like to thank
Andrea Cornett for her valuable insights into the teaching of the competitive racing start.
14
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2 [2012], Art. 7
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/ijare/vol6/iss2/7
DOI: 10.25035/ijare.06.02.07
170 Cornett et al.
References
American National Red Cross. (2004). Swimming and water safety. Yardley, PA: StayWell.
American National Red Cross. (2008). American Red Cross safety training for swim coaches.
Yardley, PA: StayWell.
Blanksby, B.A., Wearne, F.K., & Elliott, B.C. (1996). Safe depths for teaching children to
dive. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 28(3), 79-85.
Blitvich J.D., McElroy, G.K., Blanksby, B.A., & Douglas, G.A. (1999). Characteristics
of ‘low risk’ and ‘high risk’ dives by young adults: risk reduction in spinal injuries.
Spinal Cord, 37(8), 553-559.
Blitvich J.D., McElroy, G.K., Blanksby, B.A., Clothier, P.J., & Pearson, C.T. (2000). Dive
depth and water depth in competitive swim starts. Journal of Swimming Research.
14, 33-39.
Cornett, A.C., White, J.C., Wright, B.V., Willmott, A.P., & Stager, J. M. (2011a). Racing
start safety: Head depth and head speed during competitive swim starts into a water
depth of 2.29 m. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 5, 14-31.
Cornett, A.C., White, J.C., Wright, B.V., Willmott, A.P., & Stager, J.M. (2011b). Water depth
inuences the head depth of competitive racing starts. International Journal of Aquatic
Research and Education, 5, 32-41.
Cornett, A.C., White, J.C., Wright, B.V., Willmott, A.P., & Stager, J.M. (2011c). Block
height inuences the head depth of competitive racing starts. International Journal of
Aquatic Research and Education, 5, 174-186.
Cornett, A.C., White, J.C., Wright, B.V., Willmott, A.P., & Stager, J.M. (2012). Start depth
modication by adolescent competitive swimmers. International Journal of Aquatic
Research and Education, 6, 68-79.
Counsilman, J., Nomura, T., Endo, M., & Counsilman, B. (1988). A study of three types of
grab start for competitive swimming. National Aquatics Journal, 2-6.
Gehlsen, G.M., & Wingeld, J. (1998). Biomechanical analysis of competitive swimming
starts and spinal cord injuries. Journal of Swimming Research, 13, 23-30.
Maglischo, E.W. (2003). Swimming fastest. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mueller, F.O., & Cantu R.C. (2007). Catastrophic sports injury research. Twenty-Fifth
Annual Report: Fall 1982 to Spring 2007. Chapel Hill, NC: National Center for Cata-
strophic Injury Research.
USA Swimming. (2009). Racing start certication checklist. Colorado Springs, CO: USA
Swimming.
USA Swimming. (2011). 2011 USA swimming rules and regulations. Colorado Springs,
CO: USA Swimming.
Welch, J., & Owens, W. (1986). Water depth requirements of competitive racing starts.
Swimming research, 2(3), 5-7.
White, J.C., Cornett, A.C., Wright, B.V., Willmott, A.P., & Stager, J.M. (2011). Competitive
swimmers modify racing start depth upon request. International Journal of Aquatic
Research and Education, 5, 187-198.
15
Cornett et al.: Teaching Competitive Racing Starts: Practices and Opinions of Pro
Published by ScholarWorks@BGSU, 2012
