Backstroke start performance: the impact of using the Omega OBL2 backstroke ledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FINA recently approved the backstroke ledge (Omega OBL2) to improve backstroke start performance in competition, but its performance has not been thoroughly evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanics of starts performed with and without the OBL2. Ten high-level backstroke swimmers performed three starts with, and three starts without, the OBL2. A wall-mounted force plate measured the lower limb horizontal impulse, vertical impulse, take-off velocity and take-off angle. Entry distance, time to 10 m and start of hip and knee extension were recorded using video cameras. Starts performed with the OBL2 had a 0.13 s lower time to 10 m, 2.5% less variability in time to 10 m and 0.14 m greater head entry distance. The OBL2 provides a performance advantage by allowing an increased head entry distance rather than larger horizontal impulse on the wall. This may be due to the swimmers assuming different body positions during the start manoeuvre. Additional studies are needed to evaluate factors that contribute to improved performance when using the OBL2. Swimmers should train with the OBL2 and use it in competition to ensure optimal start performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".