©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2014) 13, 223-231

http://www.jssm.org

Review article

Biomechanical Analysis of the Swim-Start: A Review

Julien Vantorre , Didier Chollet and Ludovic Seifert

Laboratoire CETAPS, Université de Rouen, Rouen, France

were screened, and all relevant studies were retrieved. A

Abstract standardized form was used to select the studies eligible
This review updates the swim-start state of the art from a bio- for inclusion. Ultimately, 45 references and eight books
mechanical standpoint. We review the contribution of the swim- were selected from the previously selected articles and
start to overall swimming performance, the effects of various books from the MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and Google
swim-start strategies, and skill effects across the range of swim- Scholar searches; an additional 17 references were re-
start strategies identified in the literature. The main objective is trieved from the proceedings of sport sciences congresses.
to determine the techniques to focus on in swimming training in
the contemporary context of the sport. The phases leading to key
Disagreement was resolved by achieving consensus
temporal events of the swim-start, like water entry, require among the authors, who took into account the size of the
adaptations to the swimmer’s chosen technique over the course population studied and the swimming skill level for inclu-
of a performance; we thus define the swim-start as the moment sion.
when preparation for take-off begins to the moment when the
swimming pattern begins. A secondary objective is to determine The start in a swimming event
the role of adaptive variability as it emerges during the swim-
start. Variability is contextualized as having a functional role Recently, interest in swimming-specific research has
and operating across multiple levels of analysis: inter-subject
(expert versus non-expert), inter-trial or intra-subject (through
begun to accelerate (Pelayo and Alberty, 2011). Indeed,
repetitions of the same movement), and inter-preference (pre- Vilas-Boas (2010) noted that swimming is now one of the
ferred versus non-preferred technique). Regarding skill effects, most investigated physical activities, based on the number
we assume that swim-start expertise is distinct from swim stroke of published research articles and the number of countries
expertise. Highly skilled swim-starts are distinguished in terms represented at international meetings. Part of this rise in
of several factors: reaction time from the start signal to the interest may be related to the ongoing modifications in the
impulse on the block, including the control and regulation of swimming rules, driven by changes in swimming tech-
foot force and foot orientation during take-off; appropriate niques and technologies, all of which have inspired new
amount of glide time before leg kicking commences; effective research directions. This includes the swim-start (SW 7 of
transition from leg kicking to break-out of full swimming with
arm stroking; overall maximal leg and arm propulsion and
the FINA rules), which has undergone several changes
minimal water resistance; and minimized energy expenditure from a regulatory point of view. For example, on January
through streamlined body position. Swimmers who are less 1, 2010, a new kick-start block was authorized, with a
expert at the swim-start spend more time in this phase and raised rear section to assist the track start technique
would benefit from training designed to reduce: (i) the time (Omega OSB11). Competition analysis has provided
between reaction to the start signal and impulse on the block, information on the start time (to 15-m), turn times (7.5-m
and (ii) the time in transition (i.e., between gliding and leg kick- into and out of the wall), and finish time (5-m into the
ing, and between leg-kicking and full swimming). wall), as well as the stroke length, stroke rate and veloc-
ity, for each 25-m section of free swimming (Mason and
Key words: Biomechanics, expertise, performance, techniques,
variability.
Cossor, 2000). Moreover, the start time has been quantita-
tively evaluated in relation to the swimming, turn and
finish times in order to assess its contribution to overall
Literature search methodology performance (Arellano et al., 1996; Costill et al., 1992;
Lyttle and Benjanuvatra, 2005; Mills and Gehlsen, 1996;
MEDLINE and ScienceDirect were searched for primary Vilas Boas et al., 2003). The results indicate that the start
sources using six keywords: expertise, performance, tech- time to 15-m can account for anywhere between 0.8% and
nique, variability, swimming and start. These were pooled 26.1% of the total race time, depending on the event
(via Boolean operation “OR”) and combined (via Boolean (Lyttle and Benjanuvatra, 2005) (i.e., the latter percentage
operation “AND”) with similarly pooled keywords related reflecting the percentage in sprint events). Moreover,
to swimming biomechanics. The proceedings of interna- contrary to the block starts in long-distance events, in
tional congresses on biomechanics and swimming data- which the athlete has to accelerate from zero to full run-
bases were also searched, from their earliest available ning speed, dive swim-starts enable swimmers to enter
records up to November 2012. Relevant articles were into the water faster than average swimming speed, which
sought on Google Scholar, and the cited articles and ref- further underlines the great importance of the swim-start
erence lists of all included studies were carefully scruti- in sprints. Effective diving techniques enable swimmers
nized. The articles analyzing swim-starts were restricted to exploit the speed generated during the dive and are in
to those written in English. Full publications and abstracts line with the principle of efficiency that drives every

Received: 18 December 2012 / Accepted: 27 January 2014 / Published (online): 01 May 2014
224 Biomechanics of the swim start

phase of the competitive event (Kilduff et al., 2011; Lyttle need to last long enough to maximize the swimmer’s
and Blanksby, 2011). impulse to achieve high horizontal velocity (Breed and
Young, 2003). In other words, a compromise needs to be
Analysis of swimming start kinematics struck between spending too much time on the block to
create more force and spending too little time on the block
Methodology to minimize the time deficit and avoid being “left at the
The studies on the swim-start have analyzed several pa- start” (Lyttle et al., 1999).
rameters. Kinematic analyses of swim-start behavior and
performance, for example, have usually compartmental- Flight and entry phases
ized the start into distinct phases, such as block time, Breaking down a swim-start into its component parts can
flight time and underwater time (Arellano et al., 1996; be challenging as the phases are not always clear cut.
Cossor and Mason, 2001; Vilas-Boas et al., 2003). More Maglischo (2003) defined water entry as the moment
recent studies have assumed that the start actually begins when the hand enters the water. This definition is widely
with the reaction to the start signal and the push from the used to determine the end of the flight phase, during
block (Benjanuvatra et al., 2007; Bishop et al., 2009; De which swimmers need to jump as far as possible and
la Fuentes et al., 2003; Slawson et al., 2012). These trials travel the maximum distance at the high velocity devel-
were recorded at 50 Hz with a digital video camera placed oped during the block phase (Hubert et al., 2006; Sanders
perpendicularly to the direction of movement. Vantorre et and Byatt-Smith, 2001). Ruschel et al. (2007) reported
al. (2010a) used both fixed cameras (placed at 5-m and that flight duration is not correlated with start time but
15-m) to determine phase limits and underwater mobile that flight distance is one of the variables that determine
cameras on a trolley to analyze qualitative variables and starting performance (r = -0.482). Maglischo (2003) noted
stroking parameters like stroke length or frequency. The that the block phase strongly influences the flight phase
forces applied during the push from the starting block by imposing a compromise between the pike and flat
were analyzed via custom-built, instrumented starting styles for the aerial trajectory (Maglischo, 2003). The pike
blocks. Force curves measured the impulse in the start has a longer start time, greater take-off and entry
horizontal and vertical axes (in N·kg-1) (Benjanuvatra et angles, and a shorter distance to head entry into the water
al., 2007; Blanksby et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2001; Slawson than the flat start (Counsilman et al., 1988). Wilson and
et al., 2012; Vantorre et al., 2010b, 2010c; Vilas-Boas et Marino (1983) showed a shorter 10-m start time, greater
al., 2003; West et al., 2011). The kinetic analysis of the entry angle, shorter distance to water entry, and greater
block phase quantified the impulse and described its hip angle at entry for the pike start than for the flat start.
direction relative to the direction of movement However, after five training sessions, Kirner et al. (1989)
(Benjanuvatra et al., 2007; Blanksby et al., 2002; Lee et reported that the grab start/flat entry showed a shorter 8-m
al., 2001; Slawson et al., 2012; Vantorre et al., 2010b, start time and a smaller entry angle than the grab
2010c; Vilas-Boas et al., 2003). start/pike entry. Thus, the flat start aims for a quick entry
into the water using a flatter body position and earlier
Block Phase stroking. The pike start creates a smaller hole for water
Several studies of swim-start phase kinetics, particularly entry (i.e., angle of entry more vertical to the water sur-
the reaction time on the starting block and the flight and face) with higher velocity due to the influence of gravity,
entry phases, have drawn parallels with the start in track but it requires a horizontal (body position from the sur-
and field (Ayalon et al., 1975; De la Fuentes et al., 2003; face) then vertical(until break out the water surface) un-
Issurin and Verbitsky, 2003; Krüger et al. 2003; Miller et derwater recovery, which causes higher resistance.
al., 2003; Vilas-Boas et al., 2003; Zatsiorsky et al., 1979). Vantorre et al. (2010a) studied swim-starts and found that
However, from a biomechanical point of view, these starts strategies differ even among elite swimmers. These au-
differ in many ways. Moreover, among swimmers, the thors observed that the swim-start profiles included dif-
starts also differ according to specialty. Sprint swimmers ferences in how the limbs were used to achieve specific
need to rotate backwards to bring themselves upright, trajectory styles, such as the Volkov start, with the arms
whereas longer-distance swimmers need to focus on the back during the leg impulse, or the flight style start, with
distance covered while in the air and the body orientation the arms directly in front of the head (Vantorre et al.,
at water entry. Here, breaking down the swim-start is not 2010a). However, the swimmer’s task during the flight
only a spatial matter, but also a matter of motor changes phase is not merely to go as far as possible. Mclean et al.
during the overall start movement. From this perspective, (2000) and Vantorre et al. (2010a; 2010b) showed that
studies on the block phase (Benjanuvatra et al., 2007; swimmers must also generate enough angular momentum
Vantorre et al., 2010a) have shown that two distinct ac- to make a clean entry into the water, which means that
tions must be optimized: a rapid reaction to the start sig- they need sufficient time to rotate while in flight in order
nal and high impulse generated over the starting block. to enter the water through a small hole. Arm movements
The studies on the block phase have usually been kinetic influence angular momentum and during the forward
analyses focused on the force applied to the block or on rotations of the swim-start, a forward arm swing
training programs designed to improve the start (Bishop et decreases rotation and, inversely, backward rotations
al., 2009; Breed and Young, 2003; De la Fuentes et al., increase body rotation (Bartlett, 2007). Therefore, to
2003; Lee et al., 2001). The reaction time needs to be as manage the angular momentum generated during the
brief as possible, while the movement phases on the block block phase, swimmers can make a flat start (less angular
Vantorre et al. 225

momentum and a flat trajectory) or a Volkov start with a tify the quality of gliding with drag coefficients using
backward arm swing (more angular momentum and a pike computational fluid dynamics analysis (Naemi et al.,
trajectory) (Seifert et al., 2010; Vantorre et al., 2010d). 2010; Naemi and Sanders, 2008; Vilas-Boas et al., 2010).
Swimmers enter the water at an angle maintained during Bixler et al. (2007) validated this tool for swimming stud-
the descent phase of flight. ies. The glide factor is the measure of glide efficiency that
accounts for the combined effects of resistive forces and
Glide phase added mass. The quality of gliding is thus measured in
After the aerial phases (block, flight and entry phases), terms of the adopted posture and the flow characteristics
swimmers have to manage the transition from air to water around the swimmer’s body. The glide factor (expressed
(Maglischo, 2003), with the glide beginning when the in meters) is attained when a gliding body (the swimmer)
head enters the water and ending when the head breaks has an initial velocity of 2 m·s-1 and decelerates to 1 m·s-1
out (Counsilman et al., 1988). After water entry, the in half a second. Naemi and Sanders (2008) showed that
swimmer remains in a streamlined position for as long as this is linked to the swimmer’s size and shape. The iner-
possible to maintain the velocity acquired in previous tial and resistive characteristics of a streamlined body
phases and progressively assumes a horizontal position: affect the glide efficiency. A study of the breaststroke
this is the glide phase. Cossor and Mason (2001) and start found that for the same average gliding velocity
Sanders (2004) indicated that finish performances are (1.37 ± 0.124 m·s-1) during the swim-start, the values for
highly correlated with the swim-start time spent the first glide position before the first arm pull were sig-
underwater during the glide phase. However, few studies nificantly lower than the values for the second glide posi-
have actually measured this, with most focusing on the tion of the underwater breaststroke stroke (Vilas-Boas et
aerial phase. De Jesus et al. (2011) showed the al., 2010). These findings supported those of Seifert et al.
importance of the compromise between underwater (2007), who found that breaststroke swimmers tended to
velocity and backstroke start performance. Guimaraes and spend too much time gliding while in the second glide
Hay (1985) and Hay (1988) concluded that glide time is position of the breaststroke start.
more important to the start phase than either block time or
flight time (explaining 95% of the variance of the starting Underwater propulsion
time for r = 0.97). Maintaining a streamlined body posi- Swimmers must manage the glide, underwater kicking
tion after water entry is vital to slowing the loss of veloc- and the break-out to start swim stroking (Elipot et al.,
ity. Clear evidence of this is shown when swimmers are 2009; 2010; Maglischo, 2003; Vantorre et al., 2010a).
being towed, as they produce greater hydrodynamic resis- Thus, the swim-start is not just limited to the block and
tance in the supine position than in the prone position aerial phases, but continues until the swimmer re-surfaces
(Clarys and Jiskoot, 1975; Counsilman, 1955). These and commences swim stroking up to the 15-m mark in all
observations indicate that body shape, rather than surface strokes except the breaststroke, according to FINA rules.
area, is the decisive component when determining the Few studies have analyzed the underwater phase of the
proportion of the total resistance. For example, placing start even though it contributes considerable distance at
one hand on top of the other, as opposed to positioning the beginning of a race, particularly in the breaststroke
the hands in shoulder alignment, caused a 7% decrease in (Arellano et al., 1996; Cossor and Mason, 2001;
resistance (Bulgakova and Makarenko, 1966) (Figure 1). Guimaraes and Hay, 1985; Vilas-Boas et al., 2003).
Given the importance of this phase for starting per- Cossor and Mason (2001) found a negative correlation (r
formance, some authors have developed methods to quan- = -0.734) between the underwater velocity and the 15-m

Figure 1. Impact of body shape on flow resistance when the body is pulled (proportion of resistance in relation
to total resistance in gliding position corresponding to 100%) (Bulgakova and Makarenko, 1996).
226 Biomechanics of the swim start

start time in 100-m backstroke and 100-m breaststroke challenging transitions with regard to the respective pa-
events, thereby suggesting the value of high velocity rameters. The leg kicking phase was calculated as the
during the underwater phase to achieve high swim time between the beginning of leg propulsion and arm
velocity. Some authors have underlined the importance of propulsion: when kicking and stroking started at the same
quantifying the underwater phase of the start (Sanders, time, it was equal to 0 seconds; when the swimmer
2002), but few have focused on doing so, or on started kicking before stroking, it was >0 seconds; and
underwater leg propulsion (Blanksby et al., 1996; Clothier when the swimmer started stroking before kicking, it was
et al., 2000; Elipot et al., 2010; Lyttle et al., 1998, 2000; <0 seconds.
Takeda et al., 2009). Indeed, despite a paucity of data,
authors acknowledge that the underwater phase time is Kinematic profiling
fundamental to achieving an effective swim-start Vantorre et al. (2010a) segmented the start into six phases
(Sanders, 2004; Vilas-Boas et al., 2003; Vilas-Boas et al., (see Figure 2): (i) block phase (the time between the sig-
2000). This conviction was expressed in the study of nal and the instant the swimmer’s toes leave the block),
Pereira et al. (2003), who suggested that the time between (ii) flight phase (the time between the instant the toes
water entry and the 15-m mark is the most important leave the block and hand entry), (iii) entry phase (the
variable in swim-start performance. For all strokes other time between hand entry and toe immersion), (iv) glide
than breaststroke, only the legs are used during the un- phase (the time between toe immersion and the beginning
derwater phase. The underwater phase in breaststroke is of the underwater propulsion of the legs), (v) leg kicking
specifically defined by the FINA rules as follows: “after phase (the time between the beginning of leg propulsion
the start and after each turn, the swimmer may take one and arm propulsion), and (vi) swimming phase (the time
arm stroke completely back to the legs during which the between the beginning of the first stroke and the arrival of
swimmer may be submerged. A single butterfly kick is the head at the 15-m mark).
permitted during the first arm stroke, followed by a The main objective of swim-start research has been
breaststroke kick” (SW 7.1 FINA). This specification has to identify the most effective start technique in terms of
led some authors to analyze the propulsive and gliding performance. Tools like stepwise regressions can be used
actions, and the velocity during this part of the start to analyze various parts of the start with a focus on
(Seifert et al., 2007; Vilas-Boas et al., 2010). These qualitative aspects. For example, Vantorre et al. (2010a)
authors showed that both national and international investigated what expert swimmers do during the
swimmers often demonstrate a similar problem: a underwater phase up to the 15-m mark, analyzing
negative superposition of leg propulsion with arm behavioral parameters such as leg kicking, number of leg
recovery at the pull-out phase, which is resolved at the undulations, number of arm strokes, and arm coordination
first swim stroke. Furthermore, these authors showed that to 15-m. These authors assessed the time spent in each
the difficulty in achieving optimal arm-leg coordination is phase and attempted to determine the most effective
due to an increase in velocity that limits the scope for profiles for start performances. Using these qualitative
adaptive variability. In freestyle, swimmers generally parameters, cluster analysis determined whether the
begin stroking too early, which generates more drag than expert swimmers employed the same strategies to achieve
if they had continued gliding for an extended period an optimal start. The profiles that emerged were in line
(Sanders and Byatt-Smith, 2001). Elipot et al. (2010) also with the two main attributes of an effective start: knowing
emphasized the importance of the relationship between when to stop gliding and begin leg kicking, and knowing
gliding and underwater kicking to maintain the velocity when to begin the transition from leg undulation to full
acquired by the diving start. Houel et al. (2012) stated that swimming.
swimmers should ideally start dolphin kicks after
approximately 6-m of glide and need to be efficient, with Expertise in the swimming start
a high rate of kicking. Motor organization during the
underwater phase should be optimized in relationship to Definition
these parameters. A study of expert and non-expert Swimming federations often define swimming levels
swimmers described the underwater phase as including a using qualification grids. For maximal facility and
leg kicking phase and actually counted the number of leg standardization, performances during swimming studies
undulations (Vantorre et al., 2010c). This allowed the are expressed as trial times and expertise can be
authors to distinguish gliding from leg propulsion in characterized as a percentage of the world record (WR).
terms of relative duration and quantity and pointed to the Performances greater than or equal to 90% of WR are

Figure 2. Start phases to 15-m (Vantorre et al., 2010a).

Vantorre et al. 227

considered to be elite. Thus, the swimming level is Few studies have directly compared expert and non-
usually based on chronometric performance. However, expert swimmers to characterize performance using all
chronometric performance is an overly gross measure and the start variables. Benjanuvatra et al. (2007) showed
may be insufficient to define expertise, especially for significantly higher block values for horizontal impulse
practical purposes. For example, high performance has (3.60 ± 0.23 versus 3.17 ± 0.30 N/kg) and lower take-off
been linked to the ability to start well, yet a swimmer can angles (27.45 ± 5.99° versus 39.62 ± 13.19°) for elite
be an expert for the 50-m or 100-m event (sprint events) swimmers. This indicated the greater efficiency in the
but not be within the performance range commensurate a impulse of the expert swimmers (better orientation of
start expert. As previously noted, the swim-start is one of forces compared with the overall direction of the
several parts of an event and deserves to be considered as movement). Furthermore, the expert swimmers tried to go
a distinct skill. Seifert et al. (2007) and Vantorre et al. as fast and far as possible when starting, whereas the non-
(2010c) found that the swim-start influences coordination experts had other aims: they tried to organize their limbs
during the first strokes after break-out into swimming in with regard to gravity by managing the translation-
both breaststroke and freestyle. This is due to the high rotation compromise during the push on the block, or they
velocity acquired at the start and the glide plus tried to be hydrodynamic during the air-water transition of
movements generated during the underwater propulsion water entry.
period (Seifert et al., 2007; Vantorre et al., 2010c). Each Expertise can also be assessed in terms of adapta-
phase of the swim-start must be carefully coordinated to bility (Warren, 2006), as when a swimmer performs a
maximize the contribution to overall performance. start with a non-preferred technique. Bartlett et al. noted
Tremblay and Fielder (2001) observed that that sport biomechanists consider movement variability to
swimmers try to obtain the highest explosive power from be an important element for analysis (Bartlett, 2004,
the block, which requires a compromise between the 2007; 2007). These authors showed that movement vari-
optimal movement time and the time taken to push off ability has a functional role and can be analyzed at three
from the block. To optimize the block phase, Mason et al. levels (Bartlett et al., 2004; 2007).
(2006) found that expert swimmers, regardless of the start The first level of analysis is between trials using
technique, generated higher average acceleration on the same technique (i.e., inter-trial and intra-individual
leaving the block and that take-off angles were important variability). By assessing multiple repetitions of the same
discriminating parameters of performance. Wilson and skill, researchers determine the phases during which vari-
Marino (1983) specifically studied the influential factors ability occurs and then seek to understand how the task
in the aerial phase and reported low take-off angles by performance may have been altered (Bartlett et al., 2004).
elite swimmers (21.25 ± 5.59°) and a flight time phase of For example, in a study based on only three trials for
0.30 ± 0.04 s. Tremblay and Fielder (2001) reported that expert and non-expert swimmers, no significant differ-
the best swim-starts were achieved by leaving the block ences were found in the intra-class correlations (ICC) for
quickly, traveling a great distance in the air, and making a each swimmer of the two groups, nor did the expert
clean entry into the water with powerful underwater leg swimmers show better reproducibility than the non-
propulsion. The importance of a clean entry and a experts (Vantorre et al., 2010c).
streamlined glide position to maintain the velocity The second level of analysis is between the per-
acquired during the aerial phase was emphasized, as was formances of swimmers with the same or different levels
the need for swimmers to delay the moment when they of expertise (i.e., inter-subject variability). Vantorre et al.
begin stroking (i.e., a velocity greater than the (2010c) also compared elite and non-elite swimmers per-
instantaneous average swimming velocity) (Sanders and forming swim-starts using ICCs. The experts showed
Byatt-Smith, 2001). Zatsiorsky et al. (1979) found shorter impulse times but higher impulse values in the
correlations between the glide phase and the 5.5-m time (r horizontal and vertical axes than the non-expert swim-
= 0.60 and r = 0.94 at p < 0.05). Pereira et al. (2006) mers. The data indicated that the expert and non-expert
investigated the underwater phase and showed significant swimmers used different strategies for the start and that
correlations between the maximum depth reached during each group approached the task in a qualitatively different
the glide and the average velocity of the phase with the manner. For the non-expert swimmers, the main goal was
15-m time (r = 0.515 and r = -0.645). Less skilled to not to lose too much time on the start, especially be-
swimmers showed strong significant correlations (r = 0.98 tween the reaction to the starting signal and the impulse
at p < 0.05) between the underwater phase and the start on the block. In contrast, the expert swimmers sought to
time (Arellano et al., 1996). Bloom et al. (1978) showed find a compromise between a short block phase and a
that leaving the block quickly was important, but that powerful and well-oriented impulse. A second goal for
sufficient time on the block was also important to the non-expert swimmers was to manage the transitions
generate force and maximize initial velocity. Another between gliding, leg kicking and full swimming, while the
study of underwater phases (Sanders, 2004) showed that expert swimmers tried to conserve velocity by adopting a
expert swimmers maximize propulsion and minimize more streamlined body position in order to start full
resistance notably by adopting a streamlined position and swimming as late as possible.
selecting appropriate glide times and underwater Vantorre et al. (2010a) and Seifert et al. (2010)
propulsion times before commencing free stroking. used cluster analysis as an additional technique for inter-
subject analysis to evaluate the role of variability. Seifert
Skill level comparison et al. (2010) showed that expert swimmers organized
228 Biomechanics of the swim start

themselves differently and used arm and leg movements relay races, where the increasing arm swing on the block
during the aerial phase to enter the water cleanly and as does not appear to influence the swimmer changeover
far as possible from the block. Vantorre et al. (2010a) execution time. Otherwise, it is rarely seen in competition
showed that expert swimmers developed different strate- today. For example, at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, no
gies from the start signal to the 15-m mark to achieve swimmer used this technique except in relays (Sanders,
their optimal performances. 2004).
The last level of analysis is inter-preference vari- As the start techniques evolved, the track start
ability (i.e., between a preferential technique and a non- appeared and was popularized by Rowdy Gaines, winner
preferential one), which is believed to be useful in deter- of the 100-m freestyle at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los
mining the adaptability of performers as they manage Angeles. This technique was borrowed from athletics
changes in conditions. Vantorre et al. (2011) studied elite (track and field), with swimmers putting one foot on the
swimmers who habitually used a grab start as they used front edge of the block (track start) instead of two (grab
both the grab start and the track start, the non-preferred start) (Krüger et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2003; Takeda and
skill. In line with previous work (Benjanuvatra et al. Nomura, 2006). With the track start, swimmers can place
2004; Hardt et al., 2009), this study showed less loss of the body weight on the front edge (front-weighted track
angular momentum in dimensions other than the direction start) or the back of the block (track start slingshot)
of movement when the swimmers used the preferred grab (Vilas-Boas et al., 2003, 2000; Welcher et al., 2008).
technique and lower efficiency using the non-preferred With the grab start, the hands grip the front edge of the
track start technique, in part due to a twisting effect of this block between the legs or the front outer edges of the
technique. block (Lewis, 1980).
Vantorre et al. (2010a) used cluster analysis and
showed that expert swimmers are distinguished by start Contemporary techniques
profiles, suggesting that a range of strategies can be used Some start styles combine several techniques, such as the
to achieve high start performance. This range of profiles bunch start, where swimmers place their feet for a track
confirmed that each constraint may have more than one start and the hands for a conventional start (Ayalon et al.,
solution and, thus, that expertise is not necessarily charac- 1975). Galbraith et al. (2008) studied the effect of arm
terized by decreased movement variability. Instead, vari- and hand positions with a modified one-handed track
ability may well reflect personal responses based on anat- start. Another example is the tuck start, in which the
omy, with each individual finding a different motor solu- forward movement of the center of gravity is used by
tion to achieve a “good start.” Indeed, in competition, one positioning the compact body while the swimmer grabs
observes different start techniques and variations of the the sides of the block (Woelber, 1983). The purpose of the
same technique existing side by side. tuck start is to reduce the time interval between the start
The analysis of variability suggests that practitio- signal and entry into the water (Woelber, 1983). A
ners can evaluate which start technique is best suited to a version of the tuck start, called the handle start, was
given swimmer from among the range of possible tech- developed to explore the effect of placing the center of
niques. This is a process that requires tracking perform- gravity in the most forward position (Blanksby et al.,
ance changes over time and at the individual scale. In the 2002; Pearson et al., 1998). This study followed the
final section, we review how swim-starts have evolved development of the Anti-Wave SuperBlock with handles
and provide practitioners with an overview of the on the sides that the swimmers can grab behind the body
strengths and weaknesses of the start techniques identified (Pearson et al., 1998). However, this type of starting
in the literature. One of the key points to emerge from this block − even if it was approved by FINA − is not the
review is that swim-start techniques have co-evolved (and norm in international competition. This is particularly true
will likely continue to do so) with such factors as rule since the last regulatory changes.
changes and starting block technology. In this respect,
variability analysis may be a promising method for re- Future of the start
maining up to date with changes in the sport. By adding an adjustable incline, the Omega kick-start
block has become the favored block for the track start
The start techniques (improving it by adding solid support for the rear foot)
(Takeda et al., 2012). Studies indicate a wide range of
Traditional start techniques behaviors from which swimmers can choose, which helps
Swim-start techniques have evolved. An early technique to explain some of the difficulty in determining a single
from 50-60 years ago is the conventional or arm swing “best” technique for optimal performance for various
start. Some years later, Zatsiorsky et al. (1979) identified strokes and body morphologies. In any case, few studies
two styles of the conventional start (with forward arm have sought to compare the techniques.
oscillation and complete oscillation), and Lewis (1980) Despite the lack of comparative data, it is
observed three types (with arms back, with arms swinging nevertheless reasonable to question whether a single ideal
back, and with circular oscillation of the arms). According start model exists. Individuals present with different
to Bowers and Cavanagh (1975) and Lewis (1980), the physical, physiological, and anthropometric
conventional start allows longer flight distances than the characteristics. Therefore, it is likely that several
grab start, largely due to the longer block phase. The techniques or combinations of techniques can be used to
conventional start is still sometimes recommended for achieve expertise in the swim-start, and research has
Vantorre et al. 229

shown that a number of profiles do indeed exist. This Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming VII. Eds: Troup, J.P.,
Hollander, A.P., Strasse, D., Trappe, S.W., Cappaert, J.W. and
concept of inter-individual variability is particularly Trappe, T.A. London: E and FN Spon. 195-200.
relevant to understanding the nature of expertise, but it Ayalon, A., Van Gheluwe, B. and Kanitz, M. (1975) A comparaison of
complicates the job for coaches, who might very well four racing styles of racing strat in swimming. In: Biomechanics
prefer to have a single profile of a world champion swim- and Medicine in Swimming II. Eds: Lewillie, L. and Clarys, J.P.
233-241.
start that they can encourage their swimmers to work Bartlett, R. (2004) Is movement variability important for sports
toward. biomechanists? In: XXIIth International Symposium on
Importantly, in the few studies comparing start Biomechanics in Sports, Ottawa, Canada. Eds: Lamontagne,
techniques (the grab start and track start), a key limitation M., Robertson, G. and Sveistrup, H. 521-524.
Bartlett, R. (2007) Introduction to sports biomechanics: analysing
has been that in almost all cases the authors did not human movement patterns. Taylor and Francis e-Library.
consider the preferred technique of the swimmers Bartlett, R., Wheat, J. and Robins, M. (2007) Is movement variability
(Blanksby et al., 2002). Krüger et al. (2003) did so (the important for sports biomechanists? Sports Biomechanic 6, 224-
track start for 2 and grab start for 5), but this information 243.
Benjanuvatra, N., Edmunds, K. and Blanksby, B. (2007) Jumping
was not included in their analysis of the results. Yet it is Ability and swimming grab-start performance in elite and
quite likely that experience with a technique may have an recreational swimmers. International Journal of Aquatic
impact on start parameters and performance. Indeed, Research and Education 1, 231-241.
Vilas-Boas et al. (2003) and Vantorre et al. (2011) took Bishop, D., Smith, R., Smith, M. and Rigby, H. (2009) Effect of
plyometric training on swimming block start performance in
this into consideration by using a dual approach that adolescents. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
mixed the technical effect and the effect of preference. 23(7), 2137-2143.
This distinction between the "technical" and "preferential" Bixler, B., Pease, D. and Fairhurst, F. (2007) The accuracy of
effect is essential. computational fluid dynamics analysis of the passive drag of a
male swimmer. Sports Biomechanics 6(1), 81-98.
Blanksby, B., Gathercole, D. and Marshall, R. (1996) Force plate and
Conclusion video analysis of the tumble turn by age-group swimmers.
Journal of Swimming Research 11, 40-45.
This review has contextualized the analysis of the swim- Blanksby, B., Nicholson, L. and Elliott, B. (2002) Biomechanical
analysis of the grab, track and handles starts: an intervention
start in terms of its purpose: to balance arriving as quickly study. Sports Biomechanics 1(1), 11-24.
as possible at the end of the start with the added task of Bloom, J., Hosler, W. and Disch, J. (1978) Differences in flight, reaction
setting up the remaining portion of the swim. The various and movement time for the grab and conventional starts.
phases of the start can be described as a series of Swimming Technique, 34-36.
Bowers, J. and Cavanagh, P. (1975). A biomechanical comparison of the
compromises that have to be made. The block phase, for grab and conventional starts in competitive swimming.
example, requires a compromise between saving time by Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming II , 225-231.
leaving the block quickly and pushing off it for a Breed, R. and Young, W. (2003) The effect of a resistance training
relatively long time to generate a high enough impulse to programme on the grab, track and swing starts in swimming.
Journal of Sports Sciences 21, 213-220.
drive the swimmer as far as possible, thereby ensuring Bulgakova, N. and Makarenko, L. (1966) Sport Swimming. Physical
water entry at high velocity. The notion of compromise Culture, Education and Science. Moscow: Russian State
also applies to the aerial phase, with the possibility of Academy of Physical Education.
choosing a trajectory for water entry through a hole, a flat Clarys, J. and Jiskoot, J. (1975) Total resistance of selected body
positions in the front crawl. In: Swimming II. Eds: Lewillie, L.
trajectory and entry, or a trajectory that lies somewhere in and Clarys, J. Baltimore: University Park Press. Vol. 3, 110-
between. However, a common characteristic of these 117.
strategies is to achieve aerial phases with a segmental Clothier, P., McElroy, G., Blanksby, B. and Payne, W. (2000)
alignment when the body breaks the surface of the water. Traditional and modified exits following freestyle tumble turns
by skilled swimmers. South African Journal for Research In
The swimmer’s goal for the start also affects the choice of Sport Physical Education and Recreation 22, 41-55.
strategy to achieve a “good start.” Non-expert swimmers Cossor, J. and Mason, B. (2001).Swim start performances at the Sydney
prefer to begin stroking earlier than expert swimmers 2000 Olympic Games. In: XIXth International Symposium on
because they have not yet mastered the phases of the start Biomechanics in Sports, San Francisco. 70-74.
Costill, D., Maglischo, E. and Richardson, A. (1992) Handbook of
well enough for it to be a real advantage over beginning sports medicine and science. Swimming. Oxford: Blackwell
to stroke. Individual characteristics also influence how Scientific Publications. 214.
each swimmer optimizes the start phases: sprinters versus Counsilman, J. (1955) Forces in swimming two types of crawl stroke.
long-distance swimmers, high versus low vertical leaps, Research Quarterly 26, 127-139.
Counsilman, J., Counsilman, B., Nomura, T. and Endo, M. (1988) Three
large versus small body parts, and so on. In this sense, types of grab Starts for competitive swimming. In:
variability can be contextualized as functional and not an Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming V. Eds: Ungerechts,
error with regard to deviation from the “only way” to B., Wilke, K. and Reischle, K. Champaign, Illinois: Human
achieve the best start. The coexistence of several start Kinetics Books. 81-91.
De Jesus, K., Figueiredo, P., Gonçalves, P., Pereira, S., Vilas-Boas, J.
techniques – position of the feet on the block, arm and Fernandes, R. (2011) Biomechanical Analysis of
movement during the flight phase – confirms the Backstroke Swimming Starts. International Journal of Sports
assumption of compromise and adaptation as inherent Medicine 32, 546-551.
challenges for the swim-start. De la Fuentes, B., Garcia, F. and Arellano, R. (2003).Are the forces
applied in the vertical countermovement jump related to the
forces applied during swimming start? In: Biomechanics and
References Medicine in Swimming IX. Ed: Chatard, J. Saint Etienne:
University of Saint Etienne. 99-103.
Arellano, R., Moreno, F., Martinez, M. and Oña, A. (1996) A device for Elipot, M., Dietrich, G., Hellard, P. and Houel, N. (2010) High-level
quantitative measurement of starting time in swimming. In: swimmers’ kinetic efficiency during the underwater phase of a
230 Biomechanics of the swim start

grab start. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 26(4), 501-507. Mills, B. and Gehlsen, G. (1996) A multidisciplinary investigation of the
Elipot, M., Hellard, P., Taïar, R., Boissière, E., Rey, J. L., Lecat, S. and relation of state sport confidence with preference and velocity of
Houel, N. (2009) Analysis of swimmers’ velocity during the swimming starts. Perceptual and Motor Skills 83, 207-210.
underwater gliding motion following grab start. Journal of Naemi, R., Easson, W. and Sanders, R. (2010) Hydrodynamic glide
biomechanics 42(9), 1367-1370. efficiency in swimming. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Galbraith, H., Scurr, J., Hencken, C., Wood, L. and Graham-Smith, P. Sports 13(4), 444-451.
(2008) Biomechancial comparison of the track start and Naemi, R. and Sanders, R. (2008) A “hydrokinematic” method of
modified one-handed track start in competitive swimming: an measuring the glide efficiency of a human swimmer. Journal of
intervention study. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 24, 307- Biomechanical Engineering 130(6), 061016.
315. Pearson, C., McElroy, G., Blitvich, J., Subic, A. and Blanksby, B.
Guimaraes, A. and Hay, J. (1985) A mechanical analysis of the grab (1998). A comparison of the swimming start using traditional
starting technique in swimming. International Journal of Sport and modified starting blocks. Journal of Human Movement
Biomechanics 1, 25-35. Studies 34, 49-66.
Hay, J. (1988) The status of research on the biomechanics of swimming. Pelayo, P. and Alberty, M. (2011) The history of swimming research. In:
In: Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming V. Eds: World book of swimming: From Science to Performance. Eds:
Ungerechts, B.E., Wilke, K. and Reischle, K. Champaign, Ill.: Seifert, L, Chollet, D. and Mujika, I. New York: Nova Science
Human Kinetics Books. 3-14. publishers. xix–xxvi.
Houel, N., Elipot, M., Andrée, F. and Hellard, P. (2013) Influence of Pereira, S., Araùjo, L. and Roesler, H. (2003) The influence in height
angles of attack, frequency and kick amplitude on swimmer’s and slope of starting platforms on the starting time of speed
horizontal velocity during underwater phase of a grab start. swimmers. In: Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming IX.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics 29(1), 49-54. Saint Etienne: University of Saint Etienne. Ed: Chatard, J. 237-
Hubert, M., Silveira, G. A., Freitas, E., Pereira, S. and Roesler, H. 241.
(2006) Speed variation analysis before and after the stroke in Pereira, S., Ruschel, C. and Araùjo, L. (2006) Biomechanical analysis of
swimming starts. Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming, 44- the underwater phase in swimming start. Biomechanics and
45. Medicine in Swimming X, 79-81.
Issurin, V. and Verbitsky, O. (2003) Track Start vs Grab Start: evidence Ruschel, C., Araùjo, L., Pereira, S. and Roesler, H. (2007) Kinematical
from the Sydney Olympic Games. In: Biomechanics and analysis of the swimming start: block, flight and underwater
Medicine in Swimming IX. Ed: Chatard, J. Saint Etienne: phases. ISBS-Conference Proceedings 1, 385-388.
Université de Saint Etienne. 213-217. Sanders, R. (2002) New analysis procedures for giving feedback to
Kilduff, L., Cunningham, D., Owen, N., West, D., Bracken, R. and swimming coaches and swimmers. In: Proceedings of XX ISBS–
Cook, C. (2011) Effect of postactivation potentiation on Swimming, Applied Program Swimming. Caceres: University of
swimming starts in international sprint swimmers. The Journal Extremedura. 1–14.
of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(9), 2418-2423. Sanders, R. (2004) Start technique–recent findings. Available from
Krüger, T., Wick, D., Holmann, A., EL-Bahraw, i M. and Koth, A. URL:http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_cont
(2003) Biomechanics of the grab and track start technique. In: entandid=134andItemid=138
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming IX. Ed: Chatard, J. Sanders, R. and Byatt-Smith, J. (2001) Improving feedback on
Saint Etienne: University of Saint Etienne. 219-223. swimming turns and starts exponentially. In: XIXth
Lee, C., Huang, C., Wang, L. and Lin, D. (2001) Comparison of the International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports. San
dynamics of the swimming grab start, squat jump, and Francisco. 91-94.
countermovement jump of the lower extremity. In: XIXth Seifert, L., Vantorre, J. and Chollet, D. (2007) Biomechanical analysis
International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, San of the breaststroke start. International Journal of Sports 28(11),
Francisco. 243-246. 970-976.
Lewis, S. (1980) Comparison of five swimming starting techniques. Seifert, L., Vantorre, J., Lemaitre, F., Chollet, D., Toussaint, H. and
Swimming Technique 16(4), 124-128. Vilas-Boas, J. (2010) Different profiles of the aerial start phase
Lyttle, A. and Benjanuvatra, N. (2005) Start Right? A Biomechanical in front crawl. The Journal of Sstrength and Conditioning
Review of Dive Start Performance. Available from URL: Research 24(2), 507-516.
http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/swimming/321/. Slawson, S., Conway, P., Cossor, J., Chakravorti, N. and West, A.
Lyttle, A. and Blanksby, B. (2011) The world book of swimming. From (2013) The categorisation of swimming start performance with
science to performance. In: World book of swimming: From reference to force generation on the main block and footrest
Science to Performance. Eds: Seifert, L., Chollet, D. and components of the Omega OSB11 start blocks. Journal of
Mujika, I. New York: Nova Science publishers. 425-442. Sports Sciences 31(5), 468-478.
Lyttle, A., Blanksby, B., Elliot, B. and Lloyd, D. (1999) Optimal depth Takeda, T, Ichikawa, H., Takagi, H. and Tsubakimoto, S. (2009) Do
for streamlined gliding. In: Biomechanics and Medicine in differences in initial speed persist to the stroke phase in front-
Swimming VIII, Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. crawl swimming? Journal of Sports Sciences 27(13), 1449-
Eds: Keskinen, K.L., Komi, P.V. and Hollander, A.P. 165-170. 1454.
Lyttle, A., Blanksby, B., Elliott, B. and Lloyd, D. (1998) The role of Takeda, T. and Nomura, T. (2006) What are the differences between
drag in the streamlined glide. Journal of Swimming Research grab and track start? Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming
13, 15-22. X, 102-105.
Lyttle, A., Blanksby, B., Elliott, B. and Lloyd, D. (2000) Net forces Takeda, Tsuyoshi, Takagi, H. and Tsubakimoto, S. (2012) Effect of
during tethered simulation of underwater streamlined gliding inclination and position of new swimming starting block’s back
and kicking techniques of the freestyle turn. Journal of Sports plate on track-start performance. Sports Biomechanics 11(3),
Sciences 18, 801-807. 37–41.
Maglischo, E.W. (2003) Swimming Fastest. Champaign Ill.: Human Trembley, J. and Fielder, G. (2001) Starts, turns and finishes. The Swim
Kinetics. Coaching Bible, 189-206.
Mason, B., Alcock, A. and Fowlie, J. (2006) A kinetic analysis and Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Bideau, B., Nicolas, G., Fernandez, R., Vilas-
recommendations for elite swimmers performing the sprint start. Boas, J. and Chollet, D. (2010) Influence of swimming start
Medicine and Science in Swimming X 46(1998), 192-195. styles on biomechanics and angular momentum. In:
Mason, B. and Cossor, J. (2000) What can we learn from competition Biomechanics and Medecine in Swimming XI, Oslo
analysis at the 1999 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships? Nordbergtrykk. Eds: Kjendlie, P., Stallman, R. and Cabri, J.
ISBS-Conference Proceedings. 75-82. 180-182.
Mclean, S., Holthe, M., Vint, P., Beckett, K. and Hinrichs, R. (2000) Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Fernandes, R., Vilas Boas, J., and Chollet, D.
Addition of an approach to a swimming relay start. Journal of (2010). Comparison of grab start between elite and trained
Applied Biomechanics 16, 342-355. swimmers. International Journal of Sports Medicine 31(12),
Miller, M., Allen, D. and Pein, R. (2003) A kinetic and kinematic 887-893.
comparaison of the grab and track starts in swimming. In: Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Fernandes, R., Vilas-Boas, J. and Chollet, D.
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming IX. Saint Etienne: (2010a). Kinematical profiling of the front crawl start.
University of Saint Etienne. Ed: Chatard, J. 231-235. International Journal of Sport Medecine 31, 16-21.
Vantorre et al. 231

Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Fernandes, R., Vilas-Boas, J. and Chollet, D. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
(2010b) Biomechanical influence of start technique preference Julien VANTORRE
for elite track starters in front crawl. The Open Sports Sciences
Journal 3, 137-139.
Employment: Part-time lecturer at
Vantorre, J., Seifert, L., Vilas-boas, J., Fernandes, R., Bideau, B., Rouen University -Sport Sciences De-
Nicolas, G. and Chollet, D. (2011) Biomechanical analysis of partment.
starting preference for expert. Portuguese Journal of Sport Degree: PhD.
Sciences 11(2), 415-418. Research interests: Biomechanics,
Vilas-Boas, J. (2010) The leon Lewillie memorial lecture: biomechanics motor control, kinesiology applied to
and medecine in swimming, past, present and future. In: swimming.
Biomechanics and Medecine in Swimming XI. Oslo E-mail: [email protected]
Nordbergtrykk. Eds: Kjendlie, P., Stallman, R. and Cabri, J. 12-
19. Didier CHOLLET
Vilas-Boas, J., Costa, L., Fernandes, R., Ribeiro, J., Figueiredo, P., Employment Full professor, Head of the
Marinho, D., Silva, A., Rouboa, A. and Machado, L. (2010) Sport Science department at the Univer-
Determination of the drag coefficient during the first and second
sity Rouen and of the CETAPS labora-
gliding positions of the breaststroke underwater stroke. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics 26(3), 324-331. tory
Vilas-Boas, J., Cruz, J., Sousa, F., Conceição, F., Fernandez, R. and Degree Pr.
Carvalho, J. (2003) Biomechanical analysis of ventral Research interest Biomechanics, motor
swimming starts: comparaison of the grab-start with two track- control, exercise physiology applied to
start techniques. In: Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming swimming.
IX, Saint Etienne: University of Saint Etienne. Ed: Chatard, J. E-mail: [email protected]
249-253. Ludovic SEIFERT
Vilas-Boas, J., João Cruz, M., Sousa, F., Conceição, F. and Carvalho, J.
Employment Part-time lecturer at Rouen
(2000) Integrated kinematic and dynamic analysis of two track
start technique. In: ISBS-Conference Proceedings, Hong Kong. University -Sport Sciences Department.
113-117. Degree: PhD.
Warren, W. (2006) The dynamics of perception and action. Research interests: Biomechanics,
Psychological Review 113, 358-389. motor control, exercise physiology ap-
Welcher, R. L., Hinrichs, R. N. and George, T. R. (2008) Front- or rear- plied to swimming.
weighted track start or grab start: which is the best for female Degree PhD
swimmers? Sports Biomechanics 7(1), 100-113. Research interest Biomechanics, motor
West, D., Owen, N., Cunningham, D., Cook, C. and Kilduff, L. (2011)
control, exercise physiology applied to
Strength and power predictors of swimming starts in
international sprint swimmers. Journal of Strength and swimming.
Conditioning Research 25(4), 950-955. E-mail: [email protected]
Wilson, D. and Marino, G. (1983) Kinematic analysis of three starts.
Swimming Technique, 30-34. Julien Vantorre
Woelber, K. (1983) The tuck start: a mean lean. Swimming Technique Laboratoire CETAPS, Université de Rouen, Rouen, France
19(4), 35-38.
Zatsiorsky, V., Bulgakova, Nz. and Chaplinsky, N. (1979)
Biomechanical analysis of starting techniques in swimming.
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming III, 199-206.

Key points

• Swimmers meet two main constraints during the

start movement: travelling more distance in the air
(to get less resistance) and rotate to enter properly in
the water.
• Swim start is a sum of compromises in all parts of it,
and swim-start expertise is distinct from swim stroke
expertise corresponding to best ways to manage
these compromises.
• Variability found is contextualized as having a func-
tional role and operating across multiple levels of
analysis.