Variability in coach assessment of technique in front crawl sprint swimming

Competitive swim performance is assessed by total race time and can be analysed to comprise of three components. The first is the start time, the second is the time spent free swimming and the third is the turn performance time. In competitive swimming, free swimming occupies the most time during an event. Improvements in free swimming performance can therefore have considerable influence on overall race time. The front crawl technique has evolved into the fastest of the four competitive styles of swimming and is made up of a right and left arm-stroke cycles with a varying number of kicks (Maglischo 2003). Seifert, Chollet and Chatard (2007) suggest that there are four main phases of an arm-stroke cycle which include: 1) entry and catch, 2) pull, 3) push, and 4) exit and recovery. Chollet, Chalis and Chatard (2000) also outlined that the phases which generate propulsion during the stroke are the pull and push phases. There has been much debate amongst scientists on what is the most correct or efficient technique in front crawl swimming (Rushall, Holt, Sprigings & Cappaert 1994). For instance, what path the hand should take through the water or how wide the hand should be relative to the shoulder during the pull and recovery phases. Most coaches have different views on what is considered good and poor front crawl technique. Furthermore, notable variations exist in front crawl swimming technique between competitors at the elite level. For example, different styles of front crawl swimming include a smooth and consistent stroke, a slight catch-up stroke pattern or a straighter arm pull technique. A search of the literature found no investigations which assessed the variability between elite coaches regarding their perception of good and poor front crawl swimming technique. In the absence of such data, a comparative study seemed warranted. Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to compare coach ratings of front crawl sprint swimmers to examine the degree of variability between their assessments of front crawl technique