スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

An analysis of performance evaluation criteria for hammer throwers:
A case study of Olympians
Yuka Murofushi 1), Fumio Mizuochi 2), Kanaka Yatabe 1), Hiroto Fujiya 1),
Haruki Musha 1)
1) Department of Sports Medicine, St. Marianna Univ. School of Medicine
2) Nihon University

Key words: hammer throw, achievement level, Olympic Games,
Pre-Olympic competitions, top condition[Abstract]
The objectives of the present study were to consider and examine variables valuablefor hammer throwers when preparing and conditioning for the Olympic Games. In orderto do so, results and data from the past 4 Olympic Games (2000–2012) and preOlympic competitions were collected to determine individual means (AVG) andstandard deviations (SD) for the pre-Olympic competition records, season best record(SB), and achievement rates (OG/SB) for Olympic game (OG) results. The differences
between each relationship and the OG for each year were examined for the categories
evaluated.
1) Although it was suggested that -4% from a Personal best record (PB) and/or SB are
the Top Condition for a throwing event, the mean value of OG/SB for the top
men/women finalists was significantly higher and exceeded the top condition value.
2) In comparing the results of PB, SB, pre-Olympic competition records, and eachindividual’s top 3 individual means and/or standard deviations for pre-Olympic
competitions, a moderate positive correlation was observed for both men andwomen in the following order: pre-competition AVG>TOP 3 AVG>SB>PB.
Because a strong association between the pre-competition individual means and the
OG was observed, it has been suggested that improving pre-competition AVG, as wellas aiming for high PB and SB, may lead to favorable and positive results at the Olympic
Games. Furthermore, compared to other indicators, PB had less relevance to the OG,
so it can be considered that as a performance evaluation method, other than making
a comparison with an PB, combining the -4% records for the SB and the actual SB
would be the best way to evaluate performance in preparing for the competitions.

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63，2016 年，受付日: 2015 年 7 月 29 日，受理日: 2016 年 3 月 2 日
責任著者: Yuka Murofushi, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki City, 211-8511

47

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

information_desk@marianna-u.ac.jp*****

オリンピック・ハンマー投選手におけるパフォーマンス評価基準に関する研究
室伏由佳 1) , 水落文夫 2), 谷田部かなか 1), 藤谷博人 1), 武者春樹 1)
1)

聖マリアンナ医科大学 スポーツ医学講座
2)

日本大学

キーワード: ハンマー投, パフォーマンス評価基準, オリンピック・ゲーム・リザルト，
オリンピック事前競技会, トップコンディション[要 旨]
本研究の目的は, 陸上競技ハンマー投選手が，オリンピックに向けて準備・調整を行う過程において有用なパフォーマンスの評価指標について検討することである. そのために，オリンピック 4 大会
（2000－2012 年）とオリンピック本番までに出場した当該シーズンの競技会（事前競技会）におけるリザ
ルトデータを収集した. オリンピックの記録（OG）とシーズンベスト（SB）に対する達成率（OG/SB）, 事
前競技会記録の個人内平均値(AVG)と標準偏差(SD)を求めた. これらの評価項目間の関係性ならびに, オリンピックの成績との関連性を検証した.
1) 投擲競技では, PB や SB を基準に-4%までの記録をトップコンディションと評価すべきと提案されている. 男女ともに決勝進出した上位群は下位群に対して, OG/SB の平均値が有意に高く, トップコ
ンディション値を超えていた.
2) OG に対する PB, SB, 事前競技会記録と事前競技会トップ 3 記録(TOP3)の各 AVG および SD の相関分析の結果, 男女ともに、事前競技会 AVG＞TOP3AVG＞SB＞PB, の順に中等度以上の正の相関が認められた.
以上より, 事前競技会 AVG と OG との間にもっとも強い関連性が認められたことから,

PB や SB を目指すことのみならず，事前競技会 AVG を高めるよう努めることが，オリンピックでの好ましい結果につながりうることが示唆された. 更に, PB は他の指標より OG との関連が低かったことから，PB との対比以外のパフォーマンス評価方法として, SB ならびに SB に対する-4%記録を併用することが，準備過程におけるパフォーマンスの適正評価という点において有用であると考えられる.

48

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

Ⅰ Introduction
1. History of hammer throw in Olympic GamesThe men’s hammer throw has been an official Olympic event since the Paris Gamesin 1900. The women’s hammer throw, however, only became an official event 100 years
later, at the Sydney Games in 2000. Therefore, it has only been performed four times,
the most recent competition being at the London Games in 2012. The men’s World
Record has not been broken since 1986, while the women’s World Record has been
improved upon nine times up until 2015 since the 2000 Sydney (iaaf.org, Hammer
throw). Since the women’s hammer throw has such a short history, consistentimprovements in records at international level may be presumed and women hammer
throwers need to consciously and constantly develop and improve their records for the
future.
The thrower usually makes three or four spins before releasing the hammer(Murofushi, 1994) and attempts to land it inside a 34.92°-wide sector *1 , competing
against other athletes to throw the hammer the farthest distance (iaaf.org, Rules &Regulations). It is believed that the throwing distance is determined by the instant of
release (Sakurai, 2004).
2. Rules for the Olympic qualification in hammer throw
To qualify for the Olympic Games, it is necessary to fulfill the qualification
requirements set by the IAAF (International Athletics Federation).
These are as follows: (1) surpass a certain qualifying mark within the designatedthree throws; (2) rank in the top 12 candidates. The final, which is held on a different
day, begins with each thrower making three throws each, and each athlete’s longest
throw is recorded. Then, the eight athletes who have thrown the farthest receive three
more throws. In this round, the longest single throw wins. Even if each athlete, who
are at different competition levels, have different steps and strategies to qualify for eachlevel of competition, there is no doubt that each participant will strive to accomplish
their best possible performance.
3. Performance indices of track and field events
Muraki (1989, 1994) analyzed all of the track and field participants from two separate
Olympic Games in order to determine the renewal rates of their records (i.e., theirability to replicate or improve upon their personal bests). From these results, it was
found that the probability of improving upon a personal best record is approximately
35% for track events, 20% for jumping events, and 10% for throwing events. Since it
is possible to evaluate performance as a common indicator for track events and the49スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

marathon but, for field events, each discipline has a noticeable characteristic difference,so each discipline requires an appropriate evaluation index. In regard to the hammer
throw, the degree of difficulty to perform at the best level is higher and it is considereda difficult event for which to condition and train. *2
4. Peaking and conditioning for the major competitions
In order to perform at their highest level, the athlete must adjust the periods at which
they peak during their conditioning process. To successfully peak at the right times,
they will also condition and train for pre-Olympic competitions. The peaking process
is based on a repetitive cycle of changes in conditioning, however, even if theconditioning is based on a training program, it does not guarantee good results atcompetition (Muraki, 1994). Matveyev (1964) stated that only 15–25% of track and fieldathletes achieve their season best record (SB) at large-scale competitions such as the
Olympics and World Championships. Considering the difficulty of improving records
in throwing events, it can be said that the probability of a hammer thrower achieving
a personal best at the Olympics is considerably low. Since producing a personal bestat a targeted competition is difficult (Suslov, 2010; Aoyama, 2013), and peaking is
especially difficult, this means that this is an important issue for hammer throwersthat can affect Olympic results. Therefore, it can be surmised that SB and pre-Olympic
Games competition results affect Olympic results. If this relationship can be better
clarified, it may provide clues to finding accurate peaking methods that accommodate
the characteristics of the hammer throw.
To achieve peak performance at important competitions, planned training programs
designed for peaking at particular times have been implemented and their effectivenesshas been clearly demonstrated (Matveyev, 1964; Gamble, 2006; Bompa & Haff, 2009;
Issurin, 2010; Suslov, 2010; Turner, 2011; Aoyama, 2013).
5. Producing Top Conditions
For a process by which appropriate training is conducted to enhance performance
that, in turn, results in athletic development, Matveyev (1964) defines the highest stateobtained for each stage of development as the “Top Condition” (Muraki, 1994). To
determine the standard criteria for achieving Top Condition in track and field events,
a value of up to -2% of the athlete’s personal best or SB has been suggested. However,
because this standard value is mainly based on track events, a study has been
conducted on values that match the criteria for the characteristics of each athletic
event (Muraki, 1998; Fujikawa, 2007; Sakuma, 2007). For throwing events, it has been
proposed that a standard value be set for best results obtained during a training period50

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

and SB at competition, and that -4% from these results be set as the Top Condition(Muraki, 1987, 1989). In order to break a personal best record, an essential goal is tocomparatively evaluate that record. For athletes who are still young and can be
expected for further growth, there is a higher possibility for them to break their own
personal best. On the other hand, for veteran athletes, their personal best record is far
from their present level so there is a need to take into account that a comparativeevaluation may not be adequate evaluation for comparison.
It has been estimated that producing a Top Condition performance that is close to aseason best can only be achieved between one and three times per year and such as
performance is, therefore, difficult to repeat numerous times within a single season(Suslov, 2001). However, there have been reports that top athletes in field events haveproduced Top Condition records on numerous occasions during a season (Issurin,
2010). Using such examples of top-class athletes to research their abilities to performat Top Condition at the Olympic Games, it is necessary to research the importance of
not just improving the SB, which is an athlete’s estimated competition level, but also
to achieve and stabilize Top Condition results at pre-Olympic competitions. However,in the hammer throw, no known research has been conducted specifically on therelationship between Olympic results, SB, and pre-Olympic competition records.
In order to exhibit peak performance at the Olympics and to finish in the top group,
it is necessary for an athlete competing in the hammer throw to produce a throwing
record that is close to a PB and/or SB. To realize this, one of the conditions for thethrower is that they must stabilize their pre-Olympic competition records at a highlevel.
6. Purpose of the study
The objective of this research is to consider what the most valuable evaluation
indicator is for a hammer thrower when preparing and training for the Olympics. This
research is composed of three phases. In Study 1, in order to obtain basic informationon the men’s and women’s hammer throw, the results from the past four Olympics,
Sydney 2000 to London 2012, are analyzed and the degree of maturity of thecompetition over time is examined. Study 2 analyzes the relationship between an
achievement rate of -4% SD, which is considered Top Condition, Olympic results, andapproximate and renewal rates of Olympic results in relation to SB. Then, the influenceof this relationship on Olympic results achievement levels is examined. In Study 3, therelationship between Olympic results and SBs, which are proximate to Olympic results
and Personal best record, Mean Values (AVG) and Standard Deviations (SD) of resultsfrom pre-Olympic competitions, are analyzed and their effects on the level on pre51

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

Olympic competition records and their stability with Olympic achievement levels is
examined.
Ⅱ Study 1: Analysis of trends in the level of competition in men’s and women’s
hammer throw at past four Olympic Games.
1 Method(1) Analytic Items
1) Qualifying standard record: Standards A and B must be met for eligibility toparticipate in the Olympic Games2) Qualifying record (cut-off point): The qualifying standard for each Olympic Games3) Qualifying round record: An athlete’s highest performance at a qualifying round for
the Olympic Games
4) Final round record: An athlete’s highest performance at the final round of the
Olympic Games
5) Olympic Games result (OG): For all athletes who advanced to the finals, this is theirbest performance at those finals. For all athletes who did not advance to the finals,
this is their best performance in the qualifying round6) SB: An athlete’s best performance at any competition prior to the Olympics in an
Olympic year(2) Data Processing
The total number of participants from all four Olympic Games was 151 men and 163
women. Of these, the following were excluded from the analysis: disqualified for doping
violations: 2 men; 1 woman; No Mark (athletes who failed to take part): 9 men (9qualified), 9 women (1 finalist, 8 qualified); Outlier testing: 1 woman (qualified) whose
OG was significantly lower than her SB [It should be noted that based on the excluded
woman’s OG, the outlier value was confirmed by an outliers value test using
interquartile range (IQR)]. Therefore, the total number of participants analyzed was
142 men and 152 women. For those who participated in multiple Olympic Games, theirdata were handled independently per game. Duplicative number for more than 2
Games was, 38 Men (2 Games: n=18, 3 Games: n=13, 4Games:n=7), and 48 Women (2Games=37, 3Games: n=10, 4 Games: n=1). The target numbers for each game were as
follows: Sydney: Men, n = 43, Women. n = 26; Athens: Men, n = 31, Women, n = 45;
Beijing: Men, n = 30, Women, n = 45; London: Men, n = 38, Women, n = 34.
Each competition’s qualifying round records, final round records, and OG average
median values were calculated.

52

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015(3) Statistical Analysis
An independent sample test was performed to determine if there was a significant
difference between the OG data from the four Games. In doing so, the study was unable
to postulate homoscedasticity (equal variance) for the four games, so the KruskalWallis H Test was used to test for non-parametric. If significance was confirmed for the
median value, it was subjected to the Mann-Whiteny U Test with Bonferroni corrections
for multiple comparisons. The significance level for all tests was set to no less than 5%.
For statistical analysis, the SPSS Statistics 18 software program was used.
2 Results
Tables 1 and 2 show the Olympic participation standard record, qualifying record forfinal, qualification round, final round, and the overall results (median value). For themen, no difference was found between the competitions in any of the fields and, in all
four Olympic Games, the records remained stable and no particular change wasobserved. On the other hand, the women’s records showed an increase in all areas ineach successive Olympic Games. Additionally, the men’s qualifying standard record
was set to the same level as the participation standard record A, but the women’s
standards were set higher the participation standard record A.
Table 1. Median value of the men’s participation standard, qualifying record for final, qualification
round, final round, and overall results from the past four Olympic Games. (unit = m).
Olympic Games Men’s event (N = 142)

SydneyAthensBeijing

LondonOlympic participation

A

75.50

78.65

78.50

78.00

standard

B

72.20

74.35

74.00

74.00

Qualifying record

Pre-set

77.50

78.00

78.00

78.00

for Final

Rank 12

76.61

76.69

75.34

74.69

Under rank 13 median

71.90

73.54

72.19

71.95

N

31

21

18

26

Gold

80.02

82.91

82.02

82.28

Rank 8

77.32

76.22

78.65

76.07

Finalists median

77.94

78.05

79.57

77.14

N

12

10

12

12

Median

74.22

75.08

74.46

72.86

N

43

31

30

38

Qualification round

Final round

Overall results

Table 2. Median value of the women’s participation standard, qualifying record for final, qualification53

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

round, final round, and overall results from the past four Olympic Games. (unit = m).
Olympic Games Women’s event (N = 152)

SydneyAthensBeijing

LondonOlympic participation

A

65.00

67.50

69.50

71.50

standard

B

63.50

64.00

67.00

69.00

Qualifying record

Pre-set

65.50

68.50

71.50

73.00

for Final

Rank 12

63.29

68.27

69.36

70.48

Under rank 13 median

60.20

64.99

66.29

67.58

N

14

34

35

23

Gold

71.16

75.02

76.34

78.18

Rank 8

66.15

70.40

71.00

73.06

Finalists median

66.94

72.15

71.56

74.60

N

12

12

11

11

Median

62.12

65.91

67.32

68.51

N

26

46

46

34

Qualification round

Final round

Overall results

After using the Kruskal-Wallis H Test to find the difference in average value between
all of the Olympic Games events, the results were as follows: Men: no significant
difference was observed for each of the games (χ2(3, 142) = 7.61, p = 0.055); Women:
Significant differences were observed (χ2(3, 152) = 30.95, p = 0.000). Following
performance of a multiple comparison test, the results from Sydney were found to besignificantly lower than those of Athens (p = 0.008), Beijing (p = 0.001), and London (p= 0.000). Moreover, the results from London were found to be significantly higher thanthose of Athens (p = 0.000) and Beijing (p = 0.005). No significant differences were
found between Athens and Beijing.
Ⅲ Study 2: Analysis of relationship between OG and SB and/or pre-competition
results
1 Method(1) Analysis Category1) SB renewal rate: the percentage of athletes whose OG performance was an
improvement on their SB2) Achievement level (OG/SB): OG achievement rate compared to SB (OG/SB  100 100)
3) Pre-Olympic competition results (Overall, Top 3): Individual M and SD results frompre-Olympic competitions (participants in three or more pre-Olympic competitions)① Overall: All targeted pre-Olympic competition results.
② Top 3: Since Top Condition can be achieved one to three times a year (Suslov,
2001), the top three SB from the pre-competition results were analyzed.

54

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

(2) Data Processing
The top 12 men’s and women’s finalists at several competitions were grouped asfollows: Top finalist group (TFG) (medalists); Middle finalist group (MFG) (ranked 4th to8th); Bottom finalist group (BFG) (ranked 9th to 12th); and Non-qualifier group (NQG)(those ranked under 13th place who did not qualify). From these groups, 134 men (TFG:
9; MFG: 20; BFG: 14, NQG: 91) and 151 women (TFG: 12; MFG: 20; BFG: 14, NQG:
105) who competed in pre-Olympic competitions were analyzed. Then, both the men
and women were separated into four groups to calculate the M and SD. To determine
the number of athletes who participated in pre-Olympic competitions, the average
number of all athletes in all four groups shows calculated.
(3) Statistical Analysis
First, using an unpaired one-way ANOVA analysis of variance, the average values
from two categories (Overall and Top 3) in SB, OG, OG/SB, and pre-competition results
were verified (assayed) to find the difference between the four groups. If a significant
effect was observed through the variance analysis, a multiple comparison test was
conducted. Since the sample size of each group was different, the Hochberg method
was used for the multiple comparison tests.
The frequency data was classified in a 2  2 contingency table for the two groups
classified by Olympic rankings and the existing or non-existing renewal rate based on
the SB renewal rates (TFG + MFG, BFG + NQG). However, as there were numbers under
5 in the expected value, Fisher’s exact test was used to test the differences between
the two groups for both men and women.
(4) Results
Tables 3 and 4 show the average values for the four groups and the M and SD forthe pre-competition participation numbers, OG, SB, OG/SB, and the two items (Overall
and Top 3) for pre-competition results. The M from each factor was verified to find thedifference between the four groups using an unpaired one-way ANOVA of variance.

55

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

Table 3. Mean Value (M) and SD for the four men’s groups’ OG, SB OG/SB, and the two precompetition results categories (Overall and Top 3) (units = m).
Pre-Olympic competition resultsGroup

CompetitionOGSB

frequency

OG/SB

Overall

(%)

M

SD

Top 3

SD

M

TFG

6.6

80.32

81.42

-1.3

78.86

1.69

80.32

0.81

MFG

10.9

78.21

80.05

-2.3

77.35

1.85

79.23

0.67

BFG

8.7

74.87

78.80

-5

76.36

1.63

77.93

0.58

NQG

8.8

72.63

77.90

-6.7

75.07

1.89

76.84

0.88

For SB, OG, and OG/SB, significant differences were found as of TFG>MFG>BFG>NQG in
subsequent tests. For overall M and top3, TFG>BFG>NQG and MFG>NQG were found to besignificant.
Table 4. Mean Value (M) and SD for the four women’s groups’ OG, SB OG/SB, and the two precompetition results categories (Overall and Top 3) (units = m).
Pre-Olympic competition resultsGroup

CompetitionOGSB

frequency

OG/SB

Overall

(%)

M

SD

Top 3

SD

M

TFG

9.7

74.21

74.72

-0.6

71.71

2.27

73.92

0.63

MFG

9.2

71.54

72.92

-1.8

69.87

2.09

71.88

0.87

BFG

9.9

67.62

70.69

-4.3

67.47

2.27

69.69

0.82

NQG

10.1

64.73

69.73

-7.2

66.37

2.34

68.64

0.83

For SB, OG/SB, overall M, and top3, significant differences were found as of TFG>BFG>NQG and
MFG>NQG in subsequent tests. For OG, TFG>MFG>BFG>NQG was found to be significant.

First, in relation to the men’s SBs, significant effectiveness was observed (F (3,130)= 13.091, p = 0.000). In the following tests, the relationship, TFG > MFG > BFG > NQG,
proved significant. For the women, the same effectiveness was also observed (F (3,147)= 14.275, p = 0.000). Following that test, the relationship TFG > BFG > NQG and MFG> NQG proved most effective.
For the OG, significant effectiveness was observed in relation to the men (F (3, 130)
= 71.024, p = 0.000) and the post test results proved TFG > MFG > BFG > NQG to beeffective. For the women, the same significant effectiveness was observed (F (3,147) =42.881, p = 0.000, and the post-tests also proved TFG > MFG > BFG > NQG to beeffective.
For the OG/SB, a significant effect was observed in relation to the men (F (3,130) =27.053, p = 0.000). In subsequent tests, the relationship TFG > MFG > BFG > NQG was
effective. For the women, the same significant effect was also observed (F (3,147) =24.632, p = 0.000). In subsequent tests, the relationships TFG > BFG > NQG and MFG> NQG also proved to be effective. No significant difference was observed between TFG
and MFG for either men or women, and both groups achieved a determination reference56

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

value of -4%, which is the Top Condition for throwing events. However, the average
BFG and NQG values did not exceed the determination reference value.
For the mean value of the Overall category, a significant effect was observed for themen (F (3,130) = 17, p = 0.000). In subsequent tests, the relationships TFG > BFG >NQG and MFG > NQG were found to be significant. A significant effect was also
observed for the women (F (3,147) = 16.096, p = 0.000). In subsequent tests, therelationship TFG > BFG > NQG and MFG > NQG was significant. No significant
difference between TFG and MFG was observed for either men or women. As regards
the Overall category results, no significant effects were observed for either men or
women.
For the mean of the Top 3 category, significant effect was observed for the men F(3,130) = 13.823, p = .001). In subsequent tests, the relationships TFG > BFG > NQG
and MFG > NQG were significant. A significant effect for (F (3,147) = 16.096, p = 0.000)
was also found to be effective for the women. In subsequent tests, the relationships
TFG > BFG > NQG and MFG > NQG were significant. No significant difference wasobserved for either men or women between TFG and MFG. As regards the SD of theTop 3, no significant effects were observed for either men or women.
The SB renewal rate for men was 4.9% (7 of 142 participants). By group, that of the
TFG was 3.5% (5 of 12), MFG was 1.4% (2 of 20), and those of the BFG and NQG were0%. For the women, the SB renewal rate was 7.9% (12 of 152 participants). By group,that of the TFG was 3.3% (5 of 12), MFG was 2.6% (4 of 20), BFG was 0.7% (1 of 14),and NQG was 0.7% (1 of 106).
The Fisher’s Exact Test, which was performed to test the two groups with/without
renewal (TFG + MFG, BFG + NQG) and the frequency of the 2  2 contingency tableshowed that both men and women who ranked in the top group (TFG + MFG) had
higher renewal rates than the athletes in the lower groups (BFG + NQG). Men: χ2 (1) =25.310, p = 0.000, women: χ2 (1) = 26.344, p = 0.000）

IV

Study 3: Relationship analysis of consistency in pre-Olympic Games

competitions and Olympic results
1. Method
The PB (An athlete’s Personal best record prior to the each Olympics), SB and twoitems concerning pre-Olympic Games competition results relating to the OG wereanalyzed by gender for correlation. The items that were analyzed were the same as
those in study 2, i.e., athletes who had participated in three or more competitions. As
the sizes of each group differed, Pearson’s rank correlation coefficient was used and57

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

the significance level was set to less than 5%.
2. Results
The correlation results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. For both men and women, there
were strong relevance to high pre-competition average (r = 0.762, r = 0.836), and theresults confirmed that more than moderate to positive correlation was observed for the
top 3 average in the following order (r = 0.715, r = 0.824)，SB(r = 0.664, r = 0.802)，
PB(r = 0.635, r = 0.799). Also, only the men’s results showed that there was a weaknegative correlation between the top 3SD and OG (r = -0.279, p<.01).
Table 5. Correlation between the men’s PB, SB and two pre-Olympic Games competitions results
against the OG.
TFG=9overall

MFG=20PB

SB.635**.664**

BFG=14

top 3 records

mean

SD

mean

SD

.762**-.142.715**-.279**

QG=91
OG

Note. r: Pearson correlation coefficient.
Correlation is significant (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).
Table 6. Correlation between the women’s PB, SB and three pre-Olympic Games competitions results
against the OG.
TFG=12overall

MFG=20PB

SB.799**.802**

BFG=14

top 3 records

mean

SD

mean

SD

.836**.040.824**-.076

QG=105OG

Note. r: Pearson correlation coefficient.
Correlation is significant (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).

Ⅴ Discussion
1) Changes in hammer throw performance level at the Olympics
In Study 1, the transition of competition level was estimated by analyzing changes
in each result from the past four Olympic Games for both men and women. For themen, no significant difference was observed between the four sets of Games, and theresults remained stable. For the women, an increase in the OG, final round, andqualifying round results from the 2000 Sydney Games to the 2012 London Games wasobserved. In particular, an obvious improvement was evident between the Sydney andAthens Games and the Beijing and London Games.
Since the men’s hammer throw has a long history at the Olympics, it is considered58

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

to have developed more. However, as it was first introduced at the Sydney Games, thewomen’s hammer throw has a shorter history, therefore, a quicker improvement inrecord can be expected due to consistent improvements in the OG. In the future, therate of increase in the records will become more gradual as the record range of throwers
who have advanced to the finals narrow. It can be said that it is necessary that womenconstantly set goals with the estimation that the competition level will be higher in the
coming Olympic Games.
2) Relationship between achievement levels and performance at the Olympics
In Study 2, the competitors were divided into four different groups according to their
Olympic results. Then, the SB renewal rate was calculated based on each competitor’s
SB renewal rate percentage. In addition, to determine the Top Condition values, theachievement rate for OG compared to SB (OG/SB) was calculated. As a result, it was
found that both genders had low rates, as the SB renewal rates for men and women
were 4.9% and 7.9% for all participants, respectively. Additionally, the TFG and MFG
categories, which include both male and female winners, clearly showed a higher
renewal rate than the other two groups, which did not include any winners. In addition,
no significant difference was found in the OG/SB for both the men/women’s TFG and
MFG, but a clear difference was observed between these two groups and the BFG and
NQG. The group featuring the winners was capable of demonstrating a higher
achievement level in the SBs than the groups that did not include any winners.
To rank highly in a competition, it is important to not only raise one’s
competitiveness as estimated by the SB, but also to achieve and produce higher record
close to the SB. At an important competition such as the Olympics, both men andwomen have shown trends that conform to this hypothesis. In addition, the SB renewal
rate is 15–25% (Matveyev, 1964) in relation to SBs at important and large competitions,however, at the actual hammer throw event in the Olympics, the values for both men
and women were found to be lower. It is considered to be a difficult task for hammer
throwers to produce their best performance at important competitions.
3) Relationship between achievement levels and pre-Olympic Games competitions
results at the Olympics
In the Olympic hammer throw event, it was found that not only is the level ofcompetition as estimated by SBs, strongly influential, but also the achievement level
estimated by the OG achievement rate for SB. In other words, this suggests theimportance of peaking and conditioning. An examination of the relationship between
the results of pre-Olympic competitions and the Olympic Games showed that the59

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015higher-ranked athletes in the Olympic Games were able to prove the high level
performance at the previous consecutive competitions in a respective season which
presumably reflects their ability to produce Top Condition prior to the most important
events at the Olympics.
The top condition criterion of -4% which was proposed by Muraki (1987, 1989) for
throwing events was achieved for both men and women in the OG/SB average for TFG
and MFG. This is suggested to be a valid standard in predicting hammer throw
performances in important competitions such as the Olympics. Therefore, in order topeak at important competitions when aiming for a PB and/or SB, the competitor can
set an adjustment goal that exceeds the Top Condition value of -4%, so that there is apossibility of performance enhancement.
In Study 3, a correlation analysis for OG, compared to PB, SB and pre-Olympic
Games competition results was conducted. A relatively strong association between 2
items in pre-competition results and Olympic results was found for both men andwomen, and followed by, in order, SB and PB. There were more than moderatecorrelations between PB but this was a weaker value when comparing it to SB andaverage values. From this, to achieve PB or SB, the competitor should try to raise thepre-competition results and top 3 results as much as possible for it is consideredeffective in preparing to perform well at the Olympics.
For men, since there was a low negative correlation for the Top 3 SD in precompetition events, this can be presumed to be a factor that leads to achieving Top
Condition at the Olympics. Hence, in order to peak at the Olympics and achieve Top
Condition, the competitor should aim to stabilize their performance and reduce
fluctuations not only at pre-competition events, but also at other competitions and,
consequently, to achieve higher results. This is an important element in the men’s
event, which is more developed.
For the women, no significant correlation for the SD for pre-Olympic Games
competition results was observed. Unlike the men, the clear improvement in overall
results of women's event at the last four Olympic Games have been shown. Therefore,
female athletes should constantly aim for throwing PB and/or SB in the process ofconditioning, rather than minimizing the fluctuation range at a series of pre-Olympic
Games events, which may lead them to peaking to the best condition and performanceat the Olympic Games.

It is important to produce better results, on average, highresults in all pre-Olympic Games competition events and to aim to stabilize resultswith little fluctuation; this will presumably lead to achievement of Top Condition.
The same performance evaluation of comparative evaluation of PB is the common forboth men and women hammer throwers, although, it is not easy to actually achieve a60

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

PB. There are many male veteran hammer throwers who have experienced the Olympic
Games a few times so that depending on the level of the competitor, there is apossibility that there are differences in the goal and conditioning methods. By
implementing performance assessment methods through conditioning to meet current
ability SB, and making a personal evaluation by appropriately using the -4% reference
value for PB and SB, the athlete can be properly evaluated at their current level and it
may also be effective in finding evaluation and modification points. In conjunction withthe evaluation, by providing an adjustable goal value with a guide to evaluation records,
it is considered that it can be a useful conditioning method for increasing ability.
Competition records are considered to be important elements in measuring theeffectiveness of peaking and can be influenced by daily training and conditioning. The
findings of this study suggest that the inclusion of Top Condition assessment methods
and adjusted goal values in everyday training can be considered to be a valid
performance enhancement technique for the hammer throw.
It must be noted that this study focused on analyzing competition results and was notintended to study performance from experimentally obtained data. Therefore, results
obtained from this study should set the directionality as follows: 1) Adjust goal values tomore than -4% from the SB, as suggested in this research; 2) The same survey methods
should be used to confirm if the efficacy suggested in this study holds true for otherthrowing events. In other words, whether they obtained knowledge is limited to thehammer throw or if it can also be adapted for other throwing events; 3) The results of thisstudy and future ones may likely recommend a more effective conditioning method forathletics events that require more difficult and advanced skills such as the hammer throw.
For example, in order to consistently set high records at pre-competitions, it is important
to conduct regular throwing practice in a competition-like format and increase the ability
to replicate the best performances achieved in daily training in competitions. It is also
important to explore a peaking method for achieving peak performance and empiricallyclarify its effectiveness.
Ⅵ Acknowledgments
The completion of this article would not have been possible without the guidanceand help of several individuals who offered and contributed their valuable assistancein the preparation and completion of this study. I would like to thank Dr. Yukito Muraki,
Professor of the Sports and Health Sciences Division at Hosei University, Ms. Kyoko
Imai, Waseda University, School of Sport Sciences, part-time lecturer, and Professor
Tomohiro Noguchi and the graduate students of the Nihon University Department of
Literature and Science for their support.
61

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

Commentary*1 Up until the 2000 Sydney games this sector was 40° degrees wide
*2 As a supplemental reference, it is difficult to differentiate conditioning and training,but each has its own concepts and definitions (Johnson, 1971). This research defines
training as an element of motor behavior that is conducted for the direct improvementof expertise and ability in the hammer throw. On the other hand, conditioning includes
training and has broader implications, such as adjusting and performing physical,
psychological and physiological elements to create a process that promotes
improvement of physiological functions.
Ⅶ References
・ Aoyama, A. and Suslov, F.P. (2013), On the structure (periodization) of yearlytraining cycles and fitness in modern sport. Research Quarterly for Athletics, 95(4),55-59.
・ Bompa, T. (2009), Periodization, Theory and Methodology of Training (5th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
・ Fujikawa, K., Sakuma, K., Tanigawa, S., Kawai, T. and Muraki, M. (2007),
Revaluation of the judgment of sports form in standard zone jumping and vaulting
athletics events. The Japan Society of Coaching Studies, 18th conference issue, 54.
・ Gamble, P. (2006), Periodization of Training for Team Sports Athletes. Strength &Conditioning Journal, 28(5), 56-66.
・ iaaf.org, “IAAF: Disciplines |Hammer throw | Official Documents | Iaaf.Org.” N.p.,
Web, Retrieved from http://www.iaaf.org/disciplines/throws/hammer-throw
・ iaaf.org, “IAAF: Rules & Regulations | Official Documents | Iaaf.Org.” N.p., Web, 4
May 2015, Retrieved from http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents
・ Issurin, V. B. (2010). New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training
periodization. Sports medicine, 40(3), 189-206.
・ Johnson P. and Stolberg D. (1971), Conditioning (pp. 8-9). Englewood Cliffs (NJ):
Prentice-Hall.
・ Matveyev, L.P. (1964), Problems of periodization in sport training. FiS Publisher:
Moscow. [In Russian]・ Matveyev, L.P. (1972), Periodisierung des sportlichen Trainings. Trans. Kruger A.
Berlin: Bartels & Wernitz. [In German]
・ Matveyev, L.P (2009), Problems of periodization in sport training Trans. Muraki, Y.
Privately printed book. [In Japanese]62

スポーツパフォーマンス研究, 8, 47-63, 2015

・ Muraki, Y. (1987), Comparing elite athlete data - Sprinters and jumpers in Athletics,
Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 37(2), 912-913.
・ Muraki, Y. (1989), Concerning training logicality for degrees of competitive
achievement in the Olympic Games, Japan Society of Physical Education, Healthand Sport, 40th Conference Issue, 584.
・ Muraki, Y. (1994),

Sports Training Theory. Cyclic development caracteristic ofSports Form, 5-3(65). Book House HD
・ Murofushi, S. editorial supervisor by Sasaki, S. and Chosa, H. (1994), New Athletics
Introduction Series 8, Hammer Throw (pp. 131-140). Tokyo: Baseball magazine co.
・ Perry Johnson and Donald Stolberg, (1971), Conditioning. Prentice Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, (pp.8-9), New Jersey.
・ Sakuma, K., Fujikawa, K., Tanigawa, S., Kawai, T. and Muraki, M.(2007),
Revaluation of the judgment of standard zone sport form in short-distance sprint
and hurdling athletics events. The Japan Society of Coaching Studies, 18th
Conference Issue, 53.
・ Sakurai, S. (2004), Science of the Hammer Throw; Koji Murofushi is aiming for botha gold medal and a world record (Special Issue: Sports Science for Victory). Iwanami
Science, 74(6), 729–733.
・ Suslov, F.P. (2001), Annual training programs and the sport specific fitness levelsof world-class athletes.
・ Suslov, F.P. (2010), On the structure (periodization) of the year training cycle andfitness in modern sport. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 4:11-15.
・ Turner, A. (2011), The Science and Practice of Periodization: A Brief Review. Strength& Conditioning Journal, 33(1): 34-46.
・ Tilastopaja.org. “Tilastopaja Oy Track And Field Statistics.” N.p., Retrieved 2015.
Web. 7 June 2015, from http://www.tilastopaja.org/

63