COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CO ORDINATIVE ABILITIES AMONG DIFFERENT GAME PLAYERS

Transcription

1 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CO ORDINATIVE ABILITIES AMONG DIFFERENT GAME PLAYERS Author : Dr. Harish S. Kale, Director of Physical Education, Chhtrapati Shivaji Kala Mahavidyalaya, Asegaon Purna, Dist. Amravati (M.S.) INDIA. ABSTRACT: The main purpose of the study is to find the comparison of coordinative abilities among different game players. To achieve the purpose of this study, the investigator randomly selected (60) sixty male from District level volleyball, handball, basketball and softball players age ranging from 14 to 15 years. In that each game contends fifteen (15) players were selected as subjects for the study. Mainly three tests are used for these study ball reaction exercise, backward ball throw and modified bass test of dynamic balance respectively for the four groups. The data on coordinative abilities obtained from the subjects was statistically analyzed by using one-way analysis of variance. Post Hoc test was applied and F-Ratio was found significant. For the hypothesis, level of significance was set at.05 level. Results revealed that there was a significant difference found in complex reaction exercise, kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs among game players at 0.05 level with F.05 (3, 56) = degree of freedom. There was no significant difference in dynamic balance among game players. From the result of the study researcher s hypothesis were accepted. Introduction: Since long, strength, speed, endurance, flexibility, agility and balance are considered to be the components of motor abilities. Recently, the word agility has been replaced by the term coordinative ability. Coordinative abilities and physical abilities are distinguished and the basis for the differentiation is that coordinative abilities are connected with mental factors and require less energy while physical abilities are expressed by using comparatively more energy (Gundlash, 1984). Some studies on the coordinative abilities state that they are event-specific and the 18

2 degree of development of different coordinative abilities differ at various age levels both among males and females. Development of coordinative abilities and motor abilities would be able to achieve high level of performance (Platonov, 1986). Coordinative ability is a new term, which is still in its infancy. Scientists have defined coordinative ability in different ways and have classified it based on various factors. Coordinative abilities are primarily dependent on the control and regulation process of central nervous system. The theory of motor coordination, therefore, is the basis for understanding the nature of coordinative abilities. For each coordinative ability the motor control and regulation process functions in a definite manner. In case of a skill, this process is largely automatic (Singh, 1991). Performing integrated patterns of movement with good coordination involves agility, balance, speed and kinesthetic sense. The essential quality of this factor concerns the capacity of an individual to perform specific movements in a series quickly and accurately. Good coordination is associated with insight into the nature of the movement with kinesthetic sense, and with a learner s perception of relationships. As a result of this information, received from the senses, the individual is able to control his movements more accurately (Barrow, and McGee, 1979). Co-ordination is complex biomotor ability, closely interrelated with speed, strength, endurance and flexibility. Importance of coordination lies in the acquisition and performance of technique and tactics and their application in unfamiliar situations, which includes different terrain, equipment and apparatus, climatic conditions and opponents. Coordination is also solicited in space orientation when the athlete s body is in unfamiliar conditions like vaulting as well as in circumstances when the athlete loses balance such as slippery conditions, quick stops and sudden impact from opponents. Coordinative abilities are honed to perfection in sports where complicated movements are structured like in gymnastics, figure skating, downhill skiing. Likewise in every sport, a definite level of coordinative ability is required to overcome different situations. However, general coordination is the basis for all other types of coordinative abilities. The significance of coordinative abilities is less in sports with standard structure of movements and relatively constant in a competitive situation. Perfecting technique and tactical mastery determines the development of coordinative ability (Bumpa, 1983). Based on fundamental research work the following five coordinative abilities are identified. They are, space orientation ability, kinesthetic differentiation ability, rhythmic ability, reaction ability and balancing ability. Methodology: To achieve the purpose of this study, the investigator randomly selected (60) sixty male from District level 19

3 players age ranging from 14 to 15 years. In that each game contends fifteen (15) players were selected as subjects for the study. Mainly three tests are used for these study Table-1: Selected games, age range and players numbers ball reaction exercise, backward ball throw and modified bass test of dynamic balance respectively for the four groups. Games Age Range Players Number Volleyball Handball Basketball Softball Table-2: Selected coordinative abilities and tests Sr. Coordinative Abilities Tests No. 1. Complex Reaction Exercise Ball Reaction Exercise 2. Kinesthetic Differentiation ability of Upper Limbs Backward Ball Throw 3. Dynamic Balance Modified Bass Test of Dynamic Balance Results and Discussion: The data on coordinative abilities obtained from the subjects was statistically analyzed by using one-way analysis of variance. Post Hoc test was applied and Fratio was found significant. For the hypothesis, level of significance was set at.05 level. Coordinative Abilities Complex Reaction Exercise Table-3 Analysis of variance of coordinative abilities among games Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups * Within Groups Kinesthetic Between Groups Differentiation ability of Upper Limbs Within Groups Dynamic Balance Between Groups Within Groups * Significant at.05 level of significance F.05 (3, 56) = Table-3 reveals that there was significant difference between the means of 3.225* players of complex reaction exercise. The calculated F was where as tabulated F was Calculated F is greater than 20

4 the tabulated F, which shows significance in volleyball, handball, basketball and softball players of complex reaction exercise. Therefore, there is need of post hoc test. Table-3 reveals that there was significant difference between the means of players of kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs. The calculated F was where as tabulated F was Calculated F is greater than the tabulated F, which shows significance in volleyball, handball, basketball and softball players of kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs. Therefore, there is need of post hoc test. Table-3 reveals that there was significant difference between the means of players of dynamic balance. The calculated F was where as tabulated F was Calculated F is less than the tabulated F, which shows insignificance in players of dynamic balance. Therefore, there is no need of post hoc test. Table-4: Post hoc test table shows mean difference of complex reaction exercise among game players Volleyball Handball Basketball Softball M.D. C.D * * Table-4 clearly revealed that players, handball and softball players, significant difference was found between the means of volleyball and handball players, volleyball and softball players, as the mean difference of above two was greater than the critical differences. Insignificant difference was found between the means of volleyball and basketball players, handball and basketball basketball and softball players as the mean difference was less than the critical difference. The sequence of complex reaction exercise in all four groups was ( ) softball players > ( ) handball players > ( ) basketball players > (97.933) volleyball players. 21

5 Graph-1 Comparison of the means of complex reaction exercise among game players Table-5: Post hoc test table shows mean difference of Kinesthetic Differentiation ability of Upper Limbs among game players Volleyball Handball Basketball Softball M.D. C.D * Table-5 clearly revealed that significant difference was found between the means of volleyball and basketball players, as the mean difference of above one was greater than the critical differences. Insignificant difference was found between the means of volleyball and handball players, volleyball and softball players, handball and basketball players, handball and softball players, basketball and softball players as the mean difference was less than the critical difference. The sequence of kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs in all four groups was (16.400) basketball players > (15.933) handball players > (14.667) softball players > (13.267) volleyball players. 22

6 Graph-2 Comparison of the means of kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs among game players Conclusion: On the basis of the result drawn with the mentioned methodology Physical Education. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, p.109. the following conclusion were soughed Bumpa, Tudar O. (1983). Theory out. 1. There was significant difference in volleyball, handball, basketball and softball players of complex reaction exercise. 2. There was significant in volleyball, and Methodology of Training. lowa: Hunt Publication Company, p Gundlash, H. (1984). Definition of Coordinative Ability. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 1, handball, basketball and softball Harre, Dietrich (1982). Principles of players of kinesthetic differentiation ability of upper limbs. Sports Training. Berlin: Sportsverlog, pp There was no significant difference in volleyball, handball, basketball and Komi, Paavo V. (1984). Physiological softball players of dynamic balance. and Biomechanical Correlates of References: Barrow, Harold M. and McGee, Muscles Function: Effects of Muscle Structure and Stretch Shortening Rosemary (1979). A Practical Approach to Measurement in cycle on force and Speed. Exercise and Sports Science Review. 12, p

7 Matveyev, L. (1981). Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp Platonov, V.N. (1986). General Methods and Theory of Physical Culture. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp Schmidt, Richard A. (1988). Motor control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. Illinois: Human Kinetic Publication, p.311. Singh, H. (1991). Science Of Sports Training. New Delhi:D.V.S. Publication,pp Vern, Paul G.Vogel (1986). Physical Activity and Well Being. Virginia, p