Head-Heavy and Head-Light Rackets on Forehand Groundstroke

Result

Adi Abdilah, Teguh Satria, Prayogi Guntara and Mustika Fitri

Faculty of Sport and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jln. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

adiabdilahspd@student.upi.edu

Keywords: Head-Heavy, Head-Light, Forehand Groundstroke.

Abstract: This research is motivated by the use of head-heavy and head-light racket on forehand groundstroke result

that will get different result. The use of head-heavy racket will result in better accuracy compared to head-

light racket. The objective of this research is to find out the effect of using head-heavy racket with forehand

groundstroke on tennis, the influence of using head-light racket on forehand groundstroke on tennis, and to

find out which racket is more influential on forehand groundstroke on tennis. The method used in this

research is descriptive method with quantitative approach. The sampling technique in this research is

purposive sampling with 8 tennis athletes from 25 members of UPI tennis club. The instrument used is The

Hewiit Tennis Achievement Test. From the results of data processing and data analysis with homogeneity

and normality test, the data are homogeneous and normal. Hypothesis calculation from equality significance

test (one party) calculation results t-count 8,245 and t-table 1,761. Obtained t-count> t-table so that H0 is

rejected. That is, the head-heavy racket is better than head-light. It was concluded that the head-heavy racket

was more significant than the head-light racket against forehand groundstroke on tennis.

1 INTRODUCTION

For the achievement of optimal performance in the

game of tennis can be achieved through the very

important role of a coach. Therefore, the coach

should be able to arrange the program, choose, and

apply the training method in accordance with the

purpose of the exercise itself.

Besides coach, parents and athletes themselves

have equal roles and responsibilities in achievement.

For optimal achievement in the tennis game, the

basic factor that a tennis player needs to master is

the equipment called racket.

Modern rackets have facilitated a change in

playing style from one of technique to one

characterised by power and spin. The combination

of the increased stiffness of modern rackets and the

tendency for tennis balls to have become harder has

led to an increased shock transmission from the

racket to the player, which is probably a major

contributor to tennis elbow (Miller, 2006).

Biomechanical data on most bracing and

protective equipment systems is lacking. To better

understand the clinical success of counterforce

bracing, a biome chanical analysis of braced and

unbraced tennis players (serve and backhand

strokes) was undertaken (Groppel and Nirschl,

1986).

The study shows that simple heuristics that rely

on a few valid cues can lead to highly accurate

forecasts. In many domains the decisions of experts

are inferior to the decisions of statistical models of

experts (Scheibehenne and Bröder, 2007).

The purpose of this study is to identify the age of

peak performance in a broad range of athletic events

incorporating multiple, diverse biological systems,

learned skills, and motivation. Although many

researchers have noted that the absolute levels of

peak performance among super athletes have

improved dramatically in the last 100 years, to date

no one has answered the question of stability of peak

performance age over this time period (Schulz and

Curnow, 1988).

First thing to be considered is the weight,

balance, great grip, the material and the installation

of the strings. Two rackets that weigh the same but

have different masses may have very different swing

weights due to different mass distributions of each

racket.

In this study, researchers have a basic

assumption quoted in an article listed on the website,

Claire Davis states that: “However, a racket with a

400

Abdilah, A., Satria, T., Guntara, P. and Fitri, M.

Head-Heavy and Head-Light Rackets on Forehand Groundstroke Result.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 400-403

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

bigger mass can be useful because of the effect the

mass has on the speed of the outgoing ball."

From the above statement it can be concluded

that "the head-heavy racket will be very useful

because it has a mass effect on the impact of the

ball, this can be proven by using the law of

conservation of momentum. The heavier the mass of

the racket, the harder it is to make a back swing but

is very useful when forward swing and impact on the

ball.

The objective to be achieved in this research is to

know the difference between forehand groundstroke

results between the use of head-heavy and head-light

rackets.

Although cardiorespiratory variables were not

different at submaximal intensities between the two

tests, VO2max values derived from laboratory

measurements were underestimated. Using field

testing in addition to treadmill testing provides a

better measurement of a player’s individual fitness

level and may be routinely used to accurately

prescribe appropriate aerobic exercise training

(Girard et al., 2006).

The results showed that place inconsisteny is

more important than action inconsistency in

children's judgments of story adequacy, except when

the action involves the story theme. Developmental

differences in story judgments generally were larger

for inconsistent actions than for inconsistent places,

perhaps due to children's problems in abstracting an

action theme early in story processing (McPherson

and Thomas, 1989).

Theoretical and methodological aspects of self-

efficacy theory are assessed in this study, and the

tennis performance of 40 active players (M age=

26.6 years) serves as the criterion variable. On a

theoretical level, only self-efficacy beliefs, and not

response-outcome expectations or the valence

thereof, were consistently and significantly related to

12 dimensions of tennis performance (Barling and

Abel, 1983).

Competitive tennis play requires a combination

of the major physiological variables; however, the

specifics of these variables have yet to be

determined appropriately. General strength and

flexibility training have been suggested as being

beneficial for performance and injury prevention, yet

specific guidelines are lacking (Kovacs, 2006).

2 METHODS

The research was carried out in 2016 to 2017. In this

study, the authors used descriptive method because

they wanted to know the comparison of using head-

heavy and head-light rackets on forehand

groundstroke on tennis game because based on

information and problems that have been collected

by researchers is what happens at the moment. As

described in Sudjana (2005): "Descriptive research

is a study that attempts to describe a phenomenon,

an incident occurring now. In other words,

descriptive research takes issue or focuses on actual

issues as they were at the time of the study.

The characteristics of descriptive method are: (1)

Descriptive research tends to describe a

phenomenon as it is by studying a phenomenon as it

is by regularly reviewing it, using objectivity and

done carefully; (2) Absence of any given or

controlled treatment; (3) Absence of hypothesis test.

2.1 Research Location

In a study titled head-heavy and head-light rackets

on forehand groundstroke results, the location of the

research on the title was held at Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), Faculty of Sport and

Health Education (FPOK) on the students who

participated in the indoor tennis courts held in UPI

indoor tennis. The reason for choosing the location

is making the research process more effective and

efficient.

2.2 Population and Sample

2.2.1 Population

In a study conducted by a researcher, first need to

determine the population as a source of data for

research purposes.

Population is a group of subjects needed by

researchers, i.e. groups where researchers want to

generalize the findings of his research. As for the

population in this study is a student of Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Bandung which follows

the tennis club about 25 people.

From the total population, researchers took eight

men aged 18-21 years with the ability to play tennis

field that is considered homogeneous to serve as a

sample of research. Researchers conducted research

on Student Activity Units (UKM) tennis UPI

Bandung because the researcher is an active member

of UPI Bandung tennis since becoming a student

until now, so that communication and with other

members can run smoothly.

Head-Heavy and Head-Light Rackets on Forehand Groundstroke Result

401

2.2.2 Sample

The sample is part of the population that is

considered to represent the entire population in

question. According to Sugiyono (2012): "the

sample is part of the number and characteristics

possessed by the population". In sampling not all

populations are sampled because researchers use

purposive sampling technique with nonprobability

sampling method. According to Sugiyono (2012):

"Nonprobability Sampling is a sampling technique

that does not give equal opportunities / chances for

each element or member of the population to be

selected to be sampled". While purposive sampling

according to Sugiyono (2012): "technique

determination of samples with certain

considerations".

In this research, the researcher took samples

from the students of Universitas Pendidikan

Indonesia (UPI) Bandung who participated in the

field of Student Activity Unit (UKM) tennis about 8

members who have the ability to play tennis above

the average and considered homogeneous from 25

members of population.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Named distribution normality test with non-

parametric approach, this is done if the sample group

used in the research is assumed as small group. The

results of the test data can be seen in table 1 below.

Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of Normality Test with Lilliefors

Test Approach.

Group

L table

Conclusion

Head-heavy racket

0,1797

0,285

NORMAL

Head-light racket

0,1549

0,285

NORMAL

Based on table 1 above can be explained the

value of L table = 0,258. While the value of Lo

racket head-heavy = 1.1797. The test criterion is

"reject the null hypothesis if Lo obtained from the

data count is greater than L table (Ho> L table) and

accept the hypothesis if Ho is smaller than L table

(Ho <L table). In this case the hypothesis is

accepted. Thus the data from both groups is

normally distributed, so the hypothesis testing using

parametric approach.

Table 2: Homogeneity Test Result with Two Variances

Similarity Test Approach.

Group

F count

F table

Conclusion

Head-heavy and Head-

light rackets

3,25

3,79

Homogenous

The table 2 above homogeneity test criterion is

accept the hypothesis if F count is smaller than F

table (F <Fα) and reject the hypothesis if F count is

greater than F table (F> Fα). On the basis of the

results of testing the similarity of two variances in

table 4.3 above, it is known that F count = 3.25 is

smaller than F table = 3.79 at dk = (7,7) with the real

level = α = 0.05. Thus it can be concluded from the

test results similarity two variances is both groups

are homogeneous.

3.1 Hypothesis Test

After the data shows normal and homogeneous

distributions, the next step is to perform the

Significance Two-Tide Equality Test Results (Single

Party) using the distribution table t. Test results from

these data can be seen in table 3 below.

Table 3: Two-Tide Equality Test Results (Single Party).

Group

t count

t table

Conclusion

Head-heavy and Head-

light rackets

8,245

1,761

Significant

Based on the calculation in table 4.4 obtained t

count = 8.245 and t table = 1.761. Test criterion is

reject Ho if t count equals from t table (t count = t

table) at the real level = 0,05 with dk = 14. So the

conclusion is there is significant influence from the

use of the head-heavy racket of the result of

forehand groundstroke.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of data processing and data

analysis of the research that has been done on the

effect of the using head-heavy and head-light rackets

on forehand groundstroke results in tennis, it can be

taken conclusion as follows:

 The head-heavy racket gives a significant

effect on the forehand groundstroke result;

 The head-light racket gives a less significant

effect on forehand groundstroke results;

 There is a significant difference from head-

heavy and head-light rackets on forehand

groundstroke on tennis. Based on the data

obtained in the study, the head-heavy racket

provides significant results for forehand

groundstroke on tennis.

While doing forehand groundstroke, tennis

players generally use a racket that suits their needs.

However, based on the results of research that has

been carried out the head-heavy racket can produce

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

402

more accurate forehand groundstroke because the

head-heavy racket has a larger mass distribution to

the racket head.

REFERENCES

Barling, J., Abel, M., 1983. Self-efficacy beliefs and

tennis performance. Cognitive therapy and research.

7(3), pp.265-272.

Girard, O., Chevalier, R., Leveque, F., Micallef, J. P.,

Millet, G. P., 2006. Specific incremental field test for

aerobic fitness in tennis. British journal of sports

medicine. 40(9), pp.791-796.

Groppel, J. L., Nirschl, R. P., 1986. A mechanical and

electromyographical analysis of the effects of various

joint counterforce braces on the tennis player. The

American journal of sports medicine. 14(3), pp.195-

200.

Kovacs, M. S., 2006. Applied physiology of tennis

performance. British journal of sports medicine. 40(5),

pp.381-386.

McPherson, S. L., Thomas, J. R., 1989. Relation of

knowledge and performance in boys' tennis: Age and

expertise. Journal of experimental child psychology.

48(2), pp.190-211.

Miller, S., 2006. Modern tennis rackets, balls, and

surfaces. British journal of sports medicine. 40(5),

pp.401-405.

Scheibehenne, B., Bröder, A., 2007. Predicting

Wimbledon 2005 tennis results by mere player name

recognition. International Journal of Forecasting.

23(3), pp.415-426.

Schulz, R., Curnow, C., 1988. Peak performance and age

among superathletes: track and field, swimming,

baseball, tennis, and golf. Journal of Gerontology.

43(5), pp.P113-P120.

Sudjana, 2005. Metode Statistik, Tarsito. Bandung.

Sugiyono, 2012. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualtitatif

dan R&D, Alfabeta. Bandung.

Head-Heavy and Head-Light Rackets on Forehand Groundstroke Result

403