Content uploaded by Ernest Baiget
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ernest Baiget on Oct 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 53/2016, 63-71 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2016-0028 63
Section I – Kinesiology
1 - Sport Performance Analysis Research Group, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
2 - Insitut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
3 - Sports Sciences Faculty, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain.
4 - Sports Research Centre, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain.
.
Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 53/2016 in September 2016.
The Relationship Between Maximum Isometric Strength
and Ball Velocity in the Tennis Serve
by
Ernest Baiget1, Francisco Corbi2, Juan Pedro Fuentes3, Jaime Fernández-Fernández4
The aims of this study were to analyze the relationship between maximum isometric strength levels in different
upper and lower limb joints and serve velocity in competitive tennis players as well as to develop a prediction model
based on this information. Twelve male competitive tennis players (mean ± SD; age: 17.2 ± 1.0 years; body height:
180.1 ± 6.2 cm; body mass: 71.9 ± 5.6 kg) were tested using maximum isometric strength levels (i.e., wrist, elbow and
shoulder flexion and extension; leg and back extension; shoulder external and internal rotation). Serve velocity was
measured using a radar gun. Results showed a strong positive relationship between serve velocity and shoulder internal
rotation (r = 0.67; p < 0.05). Low to moderate correlations were also found between serve velocity and wrist, elbow and
shoulder flexion – extension, leg and back extension and shoulder external rotation (r = 0.36 – 0.53; p = 0.377 – 0.054).
Bivariate and multivariate models for predicting serve velocity were developed, with shoulder flexion and internal
rotation explaining 55% of the variance in serve velocity (r = 0.74; p < 0.001). The maximum isometric strength level in
shoulder internal rotation was strongly related to serve velocity, and a large part of the variability in serve velocity was
explained by the maximum isometric strength levels in shoulder internal rotation and shoulder flexion.
Key words: serve velocity, isometric testing, shoulder internal rotation.
Introduction
Nowadays, the serve stroke is the most
important shot in competitive tennis, allowing the
player to win the point directly through an ace or
dominate the rally since the beginning (Gillet et
al., 2009; Kovacs and Ellenbecker, 2011b). This
stroke involves a patterned, repetitive motion that
is kinetically linked, and needs to be performed
with appropriate technique (Jayanthi and Esser,
2013). From a biomechanical perspective, the
tennis serve needs to activate all components of
the kinetic chain (i.e., feet, lower limbs, trunk,
shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand) (Bonato et al.,
2014; Eygendaal et al., 2007). Competitive players
should train physical aspects like strength, speed,
power, flexibility, local muscular endurance and
muscular balance, which could potentially reduce
the risk of injury (Kovacs and Ellenbecker, 2011b;
Reid and Schneiker, 2008). Specifically, strength
training has become vital in contemporary tennis
as the velocity and power deployed in the game
continue to increase (Abrams et al., 2011; Cardoso
Marques, 2005). Strength training programs
involving different methods (e.g., elastic tubing,
medicine ball exercises, resistance training or
lightweight dumbbell training) have been shown
to increase serve velocity in elite male junior
tennis players and in male and female college
tennis players (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2013;
Kraemer et al., 2003; Treiber et al., 1998).
The relationship between strength levels
64 The relationship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the tennis serve
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 53/2016 http://www.johk.pl
and serve velocity has been reported using
isokinetic testing (Cohen et al., 1994; Pugh et al.,
2003; Signorile et al., 2005), but there is little
information on the relationships between
maximum isometric strength and ball velocity.
Due to mechanical and neural significant
differences between dynamic and static muscular
actions, the use of isometric tests has been
considered inappropriate for predicting dynamic
performance (Bazyler et al., 2015; Wilson and
Murphy, 1996). However, it has been also
proposed that multi-joint isometric tests
conducted at specific joint angles may be
appropriate to assess dynamic performance
(Bazyler et al., 2015). In various athletic
populations (i.e., soccer players and wrestlers),
strong relationships between isometric strength
and performance (i.e., jumping and throwing
ability) have been found (Kraska et al., 2009;
McGuigan et al., 2006; McGuigan and Winchester,
2008; Stone et al., 2003, 2004). Although previous
studies have analyzed the relationship between
maximal isometric handgrip strength of the
dominant arm and serve velocity (Bonato et al.,
2014; Pugh et al., 2003), there is still a paucity of
studies analyzing the relationship between
maximal isometric strength and different upper
and lower limb joints involved in the kinetic chain
(i.e., wrist, elbow, shoulder, leg and back).
Therefore, the aims of this study were (a) to
analyze the relationship between maximum
isometric strength levels in different upper and
lower limb joints involved in the service kinetic
chain and serve velocity in competitive tennis
players, and (b) to determine a prediction model
based on the relationship between these variables.
Material and Methods
Participants
Twelve male high-performance tennis
players (mean ± SD; age: 17.2 ± 1.0 years; body
height: 180.1 ± 6.2 cm; body mass: 71.9 ± 5.6 kg)
with International Tennis Numbers (ITN) ranging
from 1 (elite) to 2 (advanced) volunteered to
participate in the study. All the players
participated in an average of 20 to 25 hours of
training per week, which focused on tennis-
specific training (i.e., technical and tactical skills),
aerobic and anaerobic training (i.e., on- and off-
court exercises) and strength training. All players
had a minimum of five years of prior only tennis-
specific training oriented to age category
competition (i.e., Under [U]12, U14 and U16).
Inclusion criteria for all subjects required each
participant to be a healthy tennis player with no
history of upper extremity surgery, no shoulder,
back or knee pain for the past 12 months and no
rehabilitation for the past 12 months. No vigorous
physical activity was performed in the 24 hours
before testing. All the players were right-handed.
No caffeine ingestion was allowed in the 24 hours
before testing. Before participating, all subjects
provided written informed consent, and
experimental procedures as well as potential risks
were explained. Parental written informed
consent was obtained for subjects under 18 years
of age. The scientific committee of the Research
and Health Education Foundation of Osona
approved the study.
Procedures
The study was divided into two testing
sessions: (a) serve velocity and (b) maximum
isometric strength tests, which were performed on
the same day, with 30 min rest periods between
sessions. On the one hand, this procedure was
used to determine to what extent maximum
isometric strength related to serve velocity. On the
other hand, multiple regression analyses were
used to develop models that were most effective
at predicting serve velocity. Before any baseline
testing, all participants attended two
familiarization sessions to introduce the testing
procedures and to ensure that any learning effect
was minimal for the study measures. To reduce
the interference of uncontrolled variables, all the
subjects were instructed to maintain their habitual
lifestyle and normal dietary intake before and
during the study. The subjects were told not to
exercise the day before testing and to consume
their last (caffeine-free) meal at least three hours
before the scheduled test time.
Serve Velocity Testing
Testing was conducted on a hard-surface
tennis court (GreenSet surface, Worldwide S.L.,
Barcelona, Spain) with stable wind conditions (air
velocity < 2 m·s-1), using new tennis balls (Head
ATP, Spain). Before the serving test, all subjects
performed a warm-up protocol (i.e., dynamic
movements in the shoulder, plus 8 to 12 slow
serves). Each player was instructed to hit two sets
of six flat serves (i.e., with a minimum amount of
spin) on each side of the court with 60 s rest
by Ernest Baiget et al. 65
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
periods between sets. Only the services that were
“in” were registered. In this regard, we assumed
that the direction and service target (T, body and
wide) significantly affected the execution of the
serve (Reid et al., 2011) and this fact might
influence the test reliability. Peak ball velocity
(km·h-1) was measured in real time by a hand-held
radar gun (Stalker Pro, EUA; frequency: 34.7 GHz
[Ka-Band] ± 50 MHz). The radar was positioned at
the center of the baseline, 4 m behind the server,
aligned with the approximate height of ball
contact (~ 2.2 m), and pointing down the center of
the court. For data analysis, the average values of
serves in play were recorded. Subjects were
encouraged to hit the ball as hard as possible
using a normal tennis serve form. Direct feedback
of velocities was provided to encourage maximal
effort. Inter-trial reliability for serve velocity was
3.1 ± 1.1%.
Isometric Strength Testing
Participants were asked to perform nine
maximal isometric tests (leg and back extension;
wrist and elbow flexion and extension; shoulder
flexion and extension, internal and external
rotation). Only the dominant arm was tested.
Isometric peak force was measured using a strain
gauge (MuscleLab 4000e; BoscosystemLab, Rome,
Italy). The amplified and calibrated force signal
was sampled at 200 Hz. The specific position for
each isometric pull was established before each
trial with the use of goniometry. Subjects
performed three maximal voluntary contractions
of 3-5 s duration separated by 1 min (between
sets) and 5 min (between joints) of rest. Strong
verbal encouragement was given during every
contraction to promote maximal and fast
voluntary effort. The isometric mid-thigh pull test
was performed in a closed kinetic chain position
with a multipower strength machine
(Technogym, Italy), the angle selected was 70º
(0º was fully extended). Upper limb positions
were tested in a cable jungle machine
(Technogym, Italy) with subjects seated. Similar
racket grip diameter was selected with the aim of
increasing specificity, and special attention was
placed on grip comfort during tests to avoid
strength feedback inhibition (Shim et al., 2012). In
the upper limb tests, participants sat in an upright
position with 90° of flexion at the hip, with the
thighs supported and the medial borders of the
knees placed together. All participants were
restrained by a waist band and two thoracic straps
crossing over at the sternum, which together
acted to prevent any extraneous movement.
Shoulder flexion and extension positions were
recorded with the upper extremity flexed to 90°
(Hurd and Kaufman, 2012; Hurd et al., 2011) and
the elbow extended, while the shoulder rotation
movement was performed with the shoulder
abducted and the elbow flexed to 90°. To prevent
hip extensor activity from contributing to the
isometric peak force of the lumbar extensors, the
apparatus seat height was adjusted so that the
trunk-thigh angle was 135° and the shank-thigh
angle was 90°. Elbow and wrist tests were
performed in a seated position, with the elbow
bent at 90°. In both cases, subjects were asked to
hold a U-shaped handle linked to the strain gauge
in a prone position.
Statistical Analyses
Mean values (± SD) were calculated for all
variables. The normality of variable distribution
was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
The relationship between quantitative variables
was described using Pearson’s product-moment
correlation coefficients (r). Multiple regression
analyses were performed to explain the variance
in the serve ball velocity, using the independent
variables of upper and lower limb positions.
Significance was tested at the 95% confidence
level (p < α ≤ 0.05). All statistical analyses were
performed using SPSS for Windows 15.0 (SPSS,
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Players hit a total of 144 serves (72 to the
left side and 72 to the right side). Mean (± SD)
serve velocity and serves considered good are
shown in Table 1.
The relationships between maximal
isometric strength values and serve velocity for
each of the measurements are shown in Table 2.
Serve velocity demonstrated a strong positive
relationship with shoulder internal rotation (r =
0.67; p < 0.05). None of the other quantitative
variables analyzed was significantly correlated
with serve velocity in any of the analyzed
positions, with Pearson’s r coefficients ranging
from low to moderate (r = 0.36 – 0.53).
Multiple regression analyses were
conducted to evaluate how maximal isometric
strength values predicted serve velocity. Leg and
66 The relationship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the tennis serve
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 53/2016 http://www.johk.pl
back extension, wrist and elbow flexion and
extension, shoulder flexion and extension, and
internal and external rotation were used as
independent or predictor variables, and peak ball
serve velocity as a dependent or predicted
variable. The linear combination of shoulder
flexion and internal rotation was significantly
related to serve velocity (F (2,8) = 4.784, p < 0.05).
The multiple correlation coefficient was 0.74,
indicating that approximately 55% of the variance
of the serve velocity could be accounted for by the
linear combination of shoulder flexion and
internal rotation maximal isometric strength. The
regression equation for predicting the serve
velocity was: Serve velocity = 143.86 + (0.07 x
shoulder internal rotation) + (0.068 x shoulder
flexion).
When including wrist flexion, the multiple
correlation coefficient was 0.76, indicating that the
proportion of variance in serve velocity explained
by the model increased only to 58%. When the
other strength variables were added to the model,
their ability to predict serve velocity was reduced.
Table 1
Serve velocity and serves considered good
(mean ± SD) by left, right and both sides.
Both sides
(n = 12)
Left side
(n = 6)
Right side
(n = 6)
Serves considered good
(%) 52.1 ± 15.5 59.7 ± 10.8 47.2 ± 18.1
Average service velocity
(km·h-1) 173.4 ± 8.7 173.6 ± 8.1 173.5 ± 10.6
Table 2
Maximum isometric strength variables (mean ± SD)
and correlation coefficient (r) between serve velocity.
Variables
Maximum isometric
strength
(N)
Average serve velocity
(km·h-1)
r p
Extension
Leg and back 1351 ± 469.6 0.47 0.121
Wrist 157.4 ± 47.9 0.37 0.265
Elbow 199.2 ± 66.6 0.53 0.144
Shoulder 126.1 ± 29.4 0.48 0.119
Flexion
Wrist 260.7 ± 65.3 0.52 0.085
Elbow 219.4 ± 64.3 0.36 0.377
Shoulder 197.0 ± 39.1 0.57 0.054
Rotation
Shoulder external
rotation 107.3 ± 30.1 0.50 0.117
Shoulder internal rotation 197.8 ± 62.2 0.67 0.023
by Ernest Baiget et al. 67
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Discussion
The main finding of this study was that
maximum isometric strength of shoulder internal
rotation was strongly related to serve velocity and
that shoulder flexion and internal rotation
maximum isometric strength seemed to be good
predictors of ball speed on a serve, explaining
55% of the variance in serve velocity.
The importance of maximum isometric
strength in different sports has been previously
demonstrated (McGuigan and Winchester, 2008).
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study that has related maximum isometric
strength of different upper and lower body joints
to serve velocity in competitive tennis players. A
strong significant relationship was found between
maximum isometric strength levels in shoulder
internal rotation and serve velocity (r = 0.67; p <
0.05), highlighting an important role that the
shoulder internal rotation plays in the serve
motion. In this regard, shoulder internal rotation
is considered a key element to developing high
racket velocities and hence, fast serves (Elliott,
2006; Elliott et al., 1995; Elliott et al., 2003). In
contrast to these results, when strength testing
was conducted using isokinetic dynamometry, the
relationship between shoulder internal rotation
and ball serve velocity was found to be low and
not statistically significant (Cohen et al., 1994;
Pugh et al., 2003; Signorile et al., 2005). This
emphasizes the differences between static
strength testing (the joint angle and muscle length
do not change during contraction) and dynamic
strength testing with limb movements at constant
velocity around the joint (the velocity of
movement is maintained constant by a special
dynamometer) (Baltzopoulos and Brodie, 1989).
On the contrary, if we compare the contribution of
speed of shoulder (~ 40%) and wrist (~ 30%) joints
to the linear racket speed prior to impact (Elliot et
al., 1995; Gordon and Dapena, 2006; Martin et al.,
2013; Sprigings et al., 1994), this contribution
coincides with the coefficients of determination
(r2) between maximum isometric strength of the
internal rotation (45%), wrist flexion (27%) and
serve velocity, showing the similarities between
these two different methods (maximum isometric
strength vs speed of joints). None of the other
quantitative variables analyzed (maximum
strength level in leg and back, wrist, elbow and
shoulder extension; wrist, elbow and shoulder
flexion; and shoulder external rotation) was
significantly correlated with serve velocity (r =
0.36 – 0.57). Although these joints and movements
are included as a part of the service kinetic chain
(Elliott, 2006), the isolated variables, without
being related with other predictor variables, are
not good predictors of ball speed during the
tennis serve. This fact denotes the limitations of
evaluating isolated joints and movements related
with serve speed; moreover, it emphasizes the
importance of an efficient kinetic chain for a high
speed tennis serve. The kinetic chain of the tennis
service starts with the feet and knees generating
ground reaction forces that can be transferred up
to legs, the trunk/back and the shoulder to the
elbow joint and finally to the wrist and the hand
(Bonato et al., 2015; Eygendaal et al., 2007). This
complex and coordinated action implies a
synchronized movement summating forces by
one joint (e.g., shoulder) to the next one (e.g.,
elbow and wrist) throughout all the joints of the
kinetic chain and out into the ball. This implies
inter-muscular coordination (magnitude and
timing) of agonist, synergist and antagonist
muscles during the powerful movement (Cormie
et al., 2014).
The multivariate analyses used to predict
player’s serve velocity have showed that
approximately half (55%) of the variability in
serve velocity can be explained by shoulder
internal rotation and shoulder flexion, suggesting
that isometric testing provides an acceptable
indication of serve velocity in tennis. In this
regard, Signorile et al. (2005) found that the
multiple regression model using diagonal
throwing peak torque was predictive of peak
serve speed (r2 = 0.69; p < 0.0001), and this
complex movement (a diagonal throw) includes
shoulder flexion and internal rotation. The
multivariate analyses conducted previously using
isokinetic dynamometry did not include shoulder
internal rotation in the best prediction model
(Cohen et al., 1994; Pugh et al., 2003), again
highlighting the differences between both
methods of strength testing (isometric versus
isokinetic dynamometry). This previous study
found that wrist flexion and elbow extension
torque production were highly related to serve
velocity (p < 0.01) (Cohen et al., 1994) and that
only around 19% of the variance in ball speed was
accounted for by knee extension, shoulder
68 The relationship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the tennis serve
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 53/2016 http://www.johk.pl
rotation and grip strength (Pugh et al., 2003).
The wrist flexion slightly assists in
generating high velocity, increasing the variance
explained in serve velocity by only 3%, indicating
that it is not one of the main contributing joint.
This low contribution may be due to the fact that
the muscle chain in the upper limb will follow
proximal to distal order of activation (Elliott et al.,
2003), and the wrist represents the final link of
this kinetic chain, not creating the power, but
transferring the final ball speed. The other
variables analyzed (leg and back, wrist and elbow
extension; elbow flexion; and shoulder external
rotation) reduced the predictive strength of our
equation, indicating that these variables were not
directly involved in the acceleration phase of the
racket to the ball. The rest of the variance in serve
velocity may be explained by the multifactorial
nature of the tennis serve motion as well as the
fact that strength is not the only factor involved in
producing ball speed during the tennis serve. Ball
speed depends on a combination of several factors
such as technique, coordination and flexibility
(Cohen et al., 1994; Pugh et al., 2003; Reid and
Schneiker, 2008). Furthermore, there are other
muscular groups that can contribute to serve
velocity. For example, it may be possible to
increase the predictive ability of the model by
introducing an assessment of trunk strength.
Experienced tennis players effectively use the
kinetic chain (i.e., rotate, extend and flex the trunk
to produce force) via a lower extremity muscle
activation to provide a stable base (Kovacs and
Ellenbecker, 2011a; Kovacs and Ellenbecker,
2011b). Additionally, the magnitude of the
angular momentum generated by the trunk in the
frontal plane during the serve helps distinguish
high-speed from low-speed servers (Bahamonde,
2000).
Maximum isometric shoulder internal
rotation and flexion seem to be good predictors of
serve velocity. Therefore, tennis coaches and
physical trainers have a choice of which static
muscular actions to use in their strength training
aimed to improve serve velocity. In this regard,
isometric strength training has been associated
with significant improvements in dynamic
strength, although it only produces adaptations at
the specific trained joint angle, with less transfer
to other muscle lengths (Folland et al., 2005). The
tennis serve is a dynamic movement where the
summation of forces from the ground up through
the kinetic chain is sustained by a stretch-
shortening cycle, and the total body perspective is
just as important as individual segments in
isolation (Kovacs and Ellenbecker, 2011b).
Therefore, on the one hand, maximal isometric
strength training should only be an additional
method and should be combined with dynamic
and ballistic methods (e.g., elastic tubing,
medicine ball exercises, resistance training or
lightweight dumbbell training). On the other
hand, it is not recommended that coaches perform
only analytical strength exercises (i.e., shoulder
rotation or shoulder flexion). In order to achieve
better results, coaches should consider using
training methods that allow for involving these
two movements within the specific kinetic chain
of service. To develop stroke velocity, other
authors have recommended the use of medicine
ball throws (plyometrics) (Earp and Kraemer,
2010; Genevois et al., 2013; Reid and Schneiker,
2008; Wakeham and Jacobs, 2009) or cable pulley
machines (Keiser pneumatic devices) (Kovacs and
Ellenbecker, 2011b; Roetert et al., 2009). These
exercises make it possible to incorporate shoulder
internal rotation and shoulder flexion into the
kinetic chain (i.e., an overhead diagonal cable or a
medicine ball throw). Exercises of this kind may
complement generic strength training and allow
to meet sport-specific demands (i.e., the plane of
movement, velocity and body positioning during
the strokes) (Earp and Kraemer, 2010).
There are certain limitations of this study.
First, as previously discussed, to improve the
predictive capacity of the model, it would be
necessary to introduce other variables such as
technique, coordination, flexibility or other
strength variables such as trunk rotation or core
stability. Second, isometric testing was conducted
using static positions and this method cannot
replicate all joint angles, specific tennis
movements and the rotation velocities of
segments in stroke production (Murphy and
Wilson, 1997). Moreover, interference of
uncontrolled variables such as different service
techniques used (i.e., foot-up and foot-back), the
type of a racket and the type and tension of
strings on the rackets used by players, could have
a direct impact on serve velocity (Bower and
Cross, 2005; Lees, 2003). Finally, the effectiveness
of tennis serve is not only determined by the ball
by Ernest Baiget et al. 69
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
speed, there are important additional
performance indicators such as the ball rotation or
spin (topspin or slice serves) and accuracy
(Abrams et al., 2011; Elliot et al., 1995).
In conclusion, the present study showed
that the maximum isometric strength level in the
shoulder internal rotation was strongly related to
serve velocity in high-performance tennis players
and a large part of the variability in serve velocity
could be explained by maximum isometric
strength levels in shoulder internal rotation and
shoulder flexion.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Institut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya. The authors thank all
the players and coaches for their enthusiastic participation. They would also like to thank the Centre
Internacional de Tennis of the Catalan Tennis Federation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical
assistance of Andreu Fuster, Margalida Mas and Abraham Batalla during the experiments.
References
Abrams GD, Sheets AL, Andriacchi TP, Safran MR. Review of tennis serve motion analysis and the
biomechanics of three serve types with implications for injury. Sports Biomech, 2011; 10: 378–390
Bahamonde RE. Changes in angular momentum during the tennis serve. J Sports Sci, 2000; 18: 579–92
Baltzopoulos V, Brodie DA. Isokinetic dynamometry. Applications and limitations. Sports Med, 1989; 8: 101–
116
Bazyler CD, Beckham GK, Sato K. The use of the isometric squat as a measure of strength and explosiveness.
J Strength Cond Res, 2015; 29: 1386–1392
Bonato M, Maggioni MA, Rossi C, Rampichini S, La Torre A, Merati G. Relationship between
anthropometric or functional characteristics and maximal serve velocity in professional tennis players.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2015; 55: 1157– 1165
Bower R, Cross R. String tension effects on tennis ball rebound speed and accuracy during playing
conditions. J Sports Sci, 2005; 23: 765–771
Cardoso Marques MA. Strength training in adult elite tennis players. Strength Cond J, 2005; 27: 34–41
Cohen DB, Mont MA, Campbell KR, Vogelstein BN, Loewy JW. Upper extremity physical factors affecting
tennis serve velocity. Am J Sports Med, 1994; 22: 746–750
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power. Part 1 - Biological basis
of maximal power production. Sports Med, 2011; 41: 17–38
Earp JE, Kraemer WJ. Medicine ball training implications for rotational power sports. Strength Cond J, 2010;
32: 20–25
Elliott B. Biomechanics and tennis. Br J Sports Med, 2006; 40: 392–396
Elliott B, Marshall RN, Noffal GJ. Contributions of upper limb segment rotations during the power serve in
tennis. J Appl Biomech, 1995; 11: 433–442
Elliott B, Reid M, Crespo M. ITF biomechanics of advanced tennis. London: ITF Ltd; 2003
Eygendaal D, Rahussen FTG, Diercks RL. Biomechanics of the elbow joint in tennis players and relation to
pathology. Br J Sports Med, 2007; 41: 820–823
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Ellenbecker T, Sanz-Rivas D, Ulbricht A, Ferrauti A. Effects of a 6-week junior tennis
conditioning program on service velocity. J Sports Sci Med, 2013; 12: 232–239
Folland JP, Hawker K, Leach B, Little T, Jones D. Strength training: Isometric training at a range of joint
angles versus dynamic training. J Sports Sci, 2005; 23: 817–824
Genevois C, Frican B, Creveaux T, Hautier C, Rogowski I. Effects of two training protocols on the forehand
70 The relationship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the tennis serve
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 53/2016 http://www.johk.pl
drive performance in tennis. J Strength Cond Res, 2013; 27: 677–682
Gillet E, Leroy D, Thouvarecq R, Stein JF. A notational analysis of elite tennis serve and serve-return
strategies on slow surface. J Strength Cond Res, 2009; 23: 532–539
Gordon BJ, Dapena J. Contributions of joint rotations to racquet speed in the tennis serve. J Sports Sci, 2006;
24: 31–49
Hurd WJ, Kaplan KM, El Attrache NS, Jobe FW, Morrey BF, Kaufman KR. A profile of glenohumeral internal
and external rotation motion in the uninjured high school baseball pitcher. J Athl Train, 2011; 46: 289–
295
Hurd WJ, Kaufman KR. Glenohumeral rotational motion and strength and baseball pitching biomechanics. J
Athl Train, 2012; 47: 247–256
Jayanthi N, Esser S. Racket sports. Curr Sports Med Rep, 2013; 12: 329–336
Kovacs M, Ellenbecker T. An 8-stage model for evaluating the tennis serve: Implications for performance
enhancement and injury prevention. Sports Health, 2011a; 3: 504–513
Kovacs M, Ellenbecker T. A performance evaluation of the tennis serve: Implications for strength, speed,
power , and flexibility training. Strength Cond J, 2011b; 33: 22–30
Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, Fry AC, Koziris LP, Ratamess NA, Bauer JE, Volek JS,
McConnell T, Newton RU, Gordon SE, Cummings D, Hauth J, Pullo F, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ, Mazzetti
SA, Knuttgen HG. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players.
Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2003; 35: 157–168
Kraska JM, Ramsey MW, Haff GG, Fethke N, Sands WA, Stone ME, Stone MH. Relationship between
strength characteristics and unweighted and weighted vertical jump height. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform, 2009; 4: 461–73
Lees A. Science and the major racket sports: A review. J Sports Sci, 2003; 21: 707–732
Martin C, Kulpa R, Delamarche P, Bideau B. Professional tennis players' serve: correlation between
segmental angular momentums and ball velocity. Sports Biomech, 2013; 12: 2–14
McGuigan MR, Winchester JB. The relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in college football
players. J Sports Sci Med, 2008; 7: 101–105
McGuigan MR, Winchester JB, Erickson T. The importance of isometric maximum strength in college
wrestlers. J Sports Sci Med, 2006; 5: 108–113
Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. The ability of tests of muscular function to reflect training-induced changes in
performance. J Sports Sci, 1997; 15: 191–200
Pugh SF, Kovaleski JE, Heitman RJ, Gilley WF. Upper and lower body strength in relation to ball speed
during a serve by male collegiate tennis players. Percept Mot Skills, 2003; 97: 867–872
Reid M, Schneiker K. Strength and conditioning in tennis: Current research and practice. J Sci Med Sport,
2008; 11: 248–256
Reid M, Whiteside D, Elliot B. Serving to different locations: set-up, toss, and racket kinematics of the
professional tennis serve. Sports Biomech, 2011; 10: 407–414
Roetert EP, Kovacs M, Knudson D, Groppel JL. Biomechanics of the tennis groundstrokes: Implications for
strength training. Strength Cond J, 2009; 31: 41–49
Shim JK, Karol S, Kim YS, Seo NJ, Kim YH, Kim Y, Yoon BC. Tactile feedback plays a critical role in
maximum finger force production. J Biomech, 2012; 45: 415–20
Signorile JF, Sandler DJ, Smith WN, Stoutenberg M, Perry AC. Correlation analyses and regression modeling
between isokinetic testing and on-court performance in competitive adolescent tennis players. J
Strength Cond Res, 2005; 19: 519–526
Sprigings E, Marshall R, Elliott B, Jennings L. A three dimensional kinematic method for determining the
by Ernest Baiget et al. 71
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
effectiveness of arm segment rotations in producing racket-head speed. J Biomech, 1994; 27: 245–254
Stone MH, Sanborn K, O’Bryant HS, Hartman M, Stone ME, Proulx C, Ward B, Hruby J. Maximum strength-
power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J Strength Cond Res, 2003; 17: 739–45
Stone MH, Sands WA, Carlock J, Callan S, Dickie D, Daigle K, Cotton J, Smith SL, Hartman M. The
importance of isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of-force development in sprint cycling. J
Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18: 878–84
Treiber FA, Lott J, Duncan J, Slavens G, Davis H. Effects of Theraband and lightweight dumbbell training on
shoulder rotation torque and serve performance in college tennis players. Am J Sports Med, 1998; 26:
510–5
Wakeham T, Jacobs R. Preseason strength and conditioning for collegiate tennis players. Strength Cond J,
2009; 31: 86–93
Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The use of isometric test of muscular function in athletic assessment. Sports Med,
1996; 22: 19–37
Corresponding author:
Ernest Baiget
Postal address: University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Sagrada Família 7, 08500, Vic, Spain
Telephone: +34 938 816 164
Fax: +34 938 891 063
E-mail address: ernest.baiget@uvic.cat
