If the athlete’s projection velocity increases with increasing projection angle then the optimum projection angle will be greater than 45°, and if the athlete’s projection velocity decreases with projection angle then the optimum projection angle will be less than 45°. Even a small dependence of projection velocity on projection angle is sufficient to produce a substantial shift in the optimum projection angle (Hubbard, 2000). For the optimum projection angle to be 45° the athlete’s projection velocity must be the same at all projection angles. In previous experimental studies of throwing and jumping the optimum projection angle was not 45° as is sometimes supposed. Sequence of movements in a soccer punt kick for maximum distance. This result is in contrast to throwing and jumping for maximum distance, where the projection velocity the athlete is able to achieve decreases substantially with increasing projection angle and so the optimum projection angle is well below 45°.
In the punt kicks studied here, the optimum projection angle was close to 45° because the projection velocity of the ball remained almost constant across all projection angles. In projectile sports even a small dependence of projection velocity on projection angle is sufficient to produce a substantial shift in the optimum projection angle away from 45°. The calculated optimum projection angles were in agreement with the player’s preferred projection angles (40° and 44°).
The player’s optimum projection angle was calculated by substituting mathematical equations for the relationships between the projection variables into the equations for the aerodynamic flight of a soccer ball. The kicks were recorded by a video camera at 100 Hz and a 2 D biomechanical analysis was conducted to obtain measures of the projection velocity, projection angle, projection height, ball spin rate, and foot velocity at impact. Two male players performed many maximum-effort kicks using projection angles of between 10° and 90°. Here, we investigated the optimum projection angle that maximises the distance attained in a punt kick by a soccer goalkeeper. The Dark Code is at least 2 boards stronger than the Trend.To produce the greatest horizontal distance in a punt kick the ball must be projected at an appropriate angle. The Trend has the R2S coverstock as well with a symmetric core but the Trend rolls very similar to an asymmetric core on how it changes direction very quick with the Piston core with a corkscrew type motion. The last ball in the comparison portion of the video is the Storm Trend. The big difference you will see is how much sooner the Dark Code reads the midlane verses the Code Black. The addition of the REX with R2S really shines here because you see how the Dark Code is stronger by 1 or 2 boards then the Code Black. Next is the Code Black, the Code Black and Dark Code have the same numbers, same core but the Dark Code has a different coverstock additive.
The Zen is 3 and 2 stronger than the Dark Code. I did a ball comparison to the 900 Global Zen, Storm Code Black and Strom Trend.įirst up is the 900 Global Zen, the Zen is the hottest ball on the market for Global right now and as you can see the Zen blends the midlane very well and reacts very strong off the spot for symmetric ball. The layout chosen was a 75 x 3 ¾ by 80 which will give the ball a medium entry angle to smooth out the wet/dry on a house shot that’s either seen right away on the fresh or in the transition games. It will allow you to get left to right very easily. The Dark Code is going to give you a very smooth roll very clean through the midlane and save all its energy for the backend. The NEX coverstock seen in the Axiom and Proton Physics and the R2S we have seen in the Astro Physics and IQ Emerald. To bring this all together, the REX coverstock is a combination of the popular NEX coverstock with R2S. The Dark Code has a low RG of 2.50 a high differential of 0.058 and a low intermediate differential of 0.020. The Dark Code features a brand new REX or (Reactor Extreme) Pearl reactive coverstock with the RAD4 Asymmetric Core.
0 kommentar(er)
