ACCURACY IN TENNIS:

THE "SHORTY" RACKET VERSUS THE REGULAR RACKET

IN TEACHING BEGINNERS

by

Molly A. Leabo
//

A thesis

submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in the Department of Physical Education

Fresno State College

July, 1969

Kl j K 'O 1 1 /•'! L- V OLLI.'UL"

! in; aky
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer of this thesis wishes to express her appreciation

to Miss R. Elaine Mason for her guidance as thesis committee chairman.

Her appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Pat Thomson and Mr. Robert C.

Burgess for their assistance as thesis committee members.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED ......... 1

The Problem . . . 2

Statement of the problem ............... 2

Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Delimitations of the study ......... 2

Definition of Terms Used ........ 3

Regular tennis racket ................ 3

"Shorty" tennis racket ..... ...... 3

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 5

III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES ................... 9

Selection of Test ................... 9

Selection of Subjects ........... . 9

Procedures for the Study ............... 10

Instructional procedures ............... 10

Testing procedures ................... 10

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................. 12

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . ........ 16

Summary ........ 16

Conclusions ............... 1/

Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY 20
 V

PAGE

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A. "Shorty" Racket Group - Raw Test Scores, Forehand .... 23

B. Regular Racket Group - Saw Scores, Forehand . 24

C. "Shorty" Racket Group - Raw Scores, Backhand 25

D. Regular Racket Group - Raw Scores, Backhand ....... 26

 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I. Analysis of the Dimensions of the "Shorty" and the

Regular Racket ..................... 3

II. Comparison of the Mean Differences between the "Shorty"

Racket Group and the Regular Racket Group, for the

Forehand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. Comparison of the Mean Differences between the "Shorty"

Racket Group and the Regular Racket Group, for the

 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

A device which would afford greater control and earlier suc­

cess would help considerably in increasing the motivation of begin­

ners in tennis. From the investigator's experience in teaching tennis

to young people, many beginning tennis students tend to lose interest

in playing the game if they do not experience early success. Early

accomplishment might serve to stimulate the beginner toward greater

effort and increase the amount of enjoyment gained from the exper­

ience.

Research is an important ingredient for improving teaching

methods and materials. The critical evaluation of experience, use

of factual data and objective research in pursuit of technological

advances in the use of improved instruments and methods of teaching,

also provide the basis for advancement in physical education.1

For those instructors who are concerned with teaching tennis

skills, the knowledge of the benefits and shortcomings of various

teaching aids, as well as teaching methods, is essential. Tennis

teachers continually strive to discover and utilize new, improved

tennis equipment, in an effort to speed the acquisition of proper

tennis skills.

*11 Gladys Scott, Research Methods in Physical Education.

Health Recreation (Washington D.C.: American Association for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation, 1959), p. 351.
 2

I. THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this study

to determine the possible advantages of using the "Shorty" tennis

racket in the place of a regular tennis racket in teaching the fore­

hand and backhand drive of tennis to beginning students of elementary

school age.

Hypothesis. The "Shorty" tennis racket is a shorter lever than

the regular tennis racket; thus, it should permit greater control in

executing the strokes used in tennis. It was hypothesized, therefore,

that those girls in elementary school who used the "Shorty" racket

for learning the forehand and backhand drive would experience greater

control and achieve a higher degree of accuracy than would those girls

who used the regular racket.

Delimitations of the study. Obtaining and analyzing information

pertaining to the advantages of using the "Shorty" tennis racket over a

regular tennis racket in learning the forehand and backhand drives of

tennis by beginning students in elementary school was the only objec­

tive of this study. No attempt was made to determine the effectiveness

of various teaching methods or techniques which are applicable to

tennis.

This investigation focused upon two groups of girls, aged from

ten to twelve, who volunteered to participate in the study. They were

randomly selected from ninety students desiring to participate in the

 3

study from three elementary schools in Fresno, California. The sub­

jects that were selected had had no previous tennis experience.

II. DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

For the purposes of this study, the following terms are

defined:

Regular tennis racket. Although there are no specific legal

dimensions which govern the construction of a tennis racket, the

majority of rackets are made of laminated wood, steel, or aluminum,

according to the dimensions recorded in Table 1.

"Shorty" tennis racket. The "Shorty" racket was designed by

Elaine Mason of Fresno State College and is constructed in the same

manner as is the regular tennis racket, except that it is approxi­

mately five inches shorter between the end of the handle and the

racket head, as is shown in Table I.

TABLE I

ANALYSIS OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE "SHORTY" AND

THE REGULAR RACKET

Regular Racket "Shorty Racket

Pimensio"?

Total length 27" 22k"

Distance between end of handle and head 10V'

Width of racket face 9"

The regular rackets and the "Shorty" rackets used in this

study were strung at moderate tension with nylon strings. Grip sizes

of both types of racket ranged from four and one-fourth to four and

five-eighths inches. The "Shorty" racket was slightly lighter in

weight than the regular racket because of its decreased length.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement of

accuracy between one group of girls in elementary school using a

"Shorty" tennis racket in learning the forehand and backhand drives

in beginning tennis and that of another group of girls in elementary

school using a regular tennis racket, A test designed to measure accu­

racy in executing the forehand and backhand drives at the beginning level

was needed to evaluate the hypothesis that the "Shorty" racket would

afford greater accuracy. This chapter will review the literature rela­

ted to tests which have been used to measure tennis skills,

2
1935, Dyer constructed a backboard test of tennis ability.

Even with It. revision in 1938, this test did not analyse the various

strokes of the game.3 It has been used as a classification device and

also a. a tool for measuring progress and achlevenent in the game of

tennis as a whole.
Foa conducted a study which was designed to reveal statistical

data from the subjective analytical ratings of four Judge, of the tennis

2, „ Thaver Dyer, "The Backboard lest of Tennis Ability,"

TT ^%lv 6-63-74, March, 1933, Supplement.
The Res earc h Q u a r t e r l y , o-o-
3 *

3 .m. v nver "Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis

•Joanna Thayer Dyer, kev Marchi 1938.
Ability," n»«a*rch Quarterly,
playing ability of beginning college students as compared to the scores

obtained by the same subjects on the Dyer test of playing ability,* The

investigation showed that the test could be used with a fair degree of

confidence as a measure of beginner's ability to use the forehand

drive, the backhand drive, and serve in a game situation.-* Thorpe

also reported the test-retest reliability coefficient of the Dyer

backboard test as a measure of tennis playing ability.**

Hewitt found validity coefficients for his revision of the

Dyer test in which he added a twenty foot restraining line forcing the

subjects to use only the serve and ground strokes within a thirty second

limit.7 As a result of this revision, he eliminated the volley, which

is not considered a skill exhibited by beginning players; however, the

test remained as a measure of tennis playing ability.0

Koski also modified the Dyer test, using a restraining line of

twenty-eight feet from the backboard, and he correlated the results of

9
the wall rally test and tournament play among college men. The test

again remained a measure of tennis playing ability.

* Katharine Fox, "A Study of the Validity of the Dyer Backboard

Test and the Miller Forehand-Backhand Test for Beginning Tennis Players,"
The Research Quarterly. 24:1-7, March, 1953.
5Ibid., p. 7.
6JoAnne
Thorpe, "Intelligence and Skill in Relation to Success
in Singles Competition in Badminton and Tennis," The Researqh Quarterly,
38:119-25, 1967.
7Jack
E. Hewitt, "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Tennis Test,"
The Research Quarterly, 36:153-57, May, 1965.
8Ibid,, p. 154.
9Arthur Koski, "A Tennis Wall Rally Test for College Men," in
H Hiii i in jn ci nrl"- % • Application of Measurement to Health and Phy-

Jral Education. 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1967, p. 329.
 7

As a method of classifying students into rough homogenous

groups, Hewitt devised two classification tests which consisted of (1)

bouncing a ball on the tennis court for thirty seconds, and (2) hit­

t i n g a t e n n i s b a l l above s h o u l d e r l e v e l f or t hi r t y s e c o n d s . T h e

specific strokes which make up the game of tennis were not tested,

Kemp and Vincent constructed a Rally Test of Tennis Skill, in an effort

to measure playing ability under game conditions, but did not test

isolated skills.*1

Broer and Miller designed a test to measure the ability of

the college woman to place the forehand and backhand drive into the

back-court area after bouncing the ball to herself.

12 Each subject was

required to stand behind the baseline, bounce the ball to herself, and

attempt to hit it between the top of the net and a restraining rope

placed four feet above the top of the net into the back nine feet of

the opposite court. Each ball was scored according to how close it

struck within the back nine feet of the court.

Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test requires the subjects to

return approaching balls to certain zoned areas of the opposite court

13
as a measure of accuracy in executing the forehand and backhand drives.

10Jaek
E. Hewitt, "Classification Tests in Tennis," The Research
Quarterly. 39, no. 3:552-55, October, 1968.
llJoann
Kemp and Marilyn P. Vincent, "Kemp-Vincent Rally Test of
Tennis Skill," The Research Quarterly. 39: no. 4:1000-4, December, 1968.
12Marion
R. Broer and Donna Mae Miller, "Achievement Test for
Beginning and Intermediate Tennis," The Research Quarterly, 21:303,
October, 1950.
13JackE. Hewitt, 'Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test," The
Quarterly, 37:231-40, May, 1966.
 3

The Dyer test and its revisions could not be used for this

study simply because they were designed to measure tennis playing abil­

ity and not the isolated strokes (forehand and backhand). Hewitt's

Classification Tests and Kemp and Vincent's Rally Test of Tennis Skill

also do not measure the isolated strokes.

It was felt that the subjects who used the "Shorty" rackets in

the present study would be penalized by the scoring system of the Broer

and Miller test for the following reason. Since the "Shorty" racket is

a shorter lever than the regular racket, the same application of force

to the "Shorty" racket as to the regular racket would send the ball a

lesser distance. Consequently, the subjects using the regular rackets

would have had an advantage over the subjects using the "Shorty" rackets.

For the same reason, Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test, which requires

the subject to return approaching balls to certain zoned areas of the

opposite court, was not selected as a tool to measure the accuracy of

the forehand and backhand drives.

The Review of Literature did not reveal a test which satisfied

the requirements of the present study. The purpose of this study was

not to test the overall playing ability of the subjects or to test the

distance the ball could be hit by the two rackets, but to measure the

degree of accuracy attained by the students at their particular age

level when executing the forehand and backhand drives by using the

regular racket or the 'Shorty' racket.

 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

I. SELECTION OF TEST

Since the current tennis skill tests as reviewed in Chapter II

did not meet the requirements of the present study, the following test

was designed and used to measure the accuracy of the forehand and back­

hand drives.

A target three feet high and three feet wide was marked on a

backboard six inches above net level. The test measured the total num­

ber of hits striking the target area from twenty successive trials at

a distance of thirty feet from the wall. This researcher assumed face

validity of the test as a measure of accuracy.

II. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS

The subjects for the study were elementary school girls between

the ages of ten and twelve. They were randomly selected from a list of

ninety volunteers obtained from Del Mar Elementary School, Thomas

Elementary School, and Vinland Elementary School, all of Fresno,

California,

The subjects selected for the study were randomly placed into

two groups which were both taught by this researcher. Group I consisted

of eighteen subjects who used the "Shorty" racket while learning the

forehand and backhand drives. Group II also contained eighteen subjects,

 10

and used the regular racket for learning the forehand and backhand

drives. Each group met for an hour, five days a week, for three and

one-half weeks.

III. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY

Instructional procedures.. Both groups were given identical

instruction according to a modified version of the hand-progression

method used by Elaine Mason of Fresno State College. The subjects in

each group were taught the hand-progression skills of the forehand

drive. They practiced these skills with a modified or shortened grip

on the racket and then practiced with the regular grip. The instruc -

tional period for the forehand drive extended for seven days, with two

days immediately following devoted to testing. The backhand drive was

then taught according to a similar progression for a period of seven

days, with the experimental phase concluded by two days of testing

of the backhand drive.

Testing procedures. Each subject in each group completed three

repetitions of the test on each day of the testing periods. This

amounted to a total of six tests for the forehand drive and six tests

for the backhand drive. To take the test, the subject was instructed

to stand behind a restraining line thirty feet from the backboard, to

drop the ball to herself, and to step to hit it in an attempt to drive

it straight into the target area marked on the backboard directly in

front of her. She then was to catch the rebounding ball and to repeat
the same attempt. This procedure was to continue until twenty suc­

cessive tries had been completed. The score for one test was the

number of times the ball struck any part of the target area during

the twenty attempts.

 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data presented in this chapter were based upon two groups

of elementary school girls who were measured according to accuracy in

executing the forehand and backhand drives. Due to absences, three

subjects were dropped from each group. Therefore, each group even­

tually contained fifteen subjects.

Group I used the "Shorty" racket while learning the forehand

and backhand drives of tennis for a period of three and one-half weeks,

Group II used the regular tennis racket for the same purpose and length

of time.

A test designed by the researcher to measure accuracy in execu­

ting the forehand and backhand drives was given to both groups over a

period of two days for each stroke. The testing occurred after seven

days of instruction on the forehand drive and again after seven days of

instruction on the backhand drive.

Comparisons were made between the two groups by testing the

significance of the differences between the scores achieved on the iso­

lated skill test for accuracy. The formula for determining the dif­

ference between uncorrected samples was used in comparing the achieve­

ment of accuracy by the two groups. The five percent level of confidence

was selected for use in this study,

 13

Table II presents data regarding the differences between the

two groups for the forehand drive; it includes the mean, standard

deviation, standard error of the means and the critical-ratio. The

shorty racket group mean was greater in every trial than was that of

the regular racket group, except for trials 4, 5, and 6. However, the

mean difference was not significant at the.05 level of confidence for

any one of the six trials.

Table III presents data regarding the differences between the

two groups for the backhand drive and includes a comparison of the

mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean and the critical-

ratio for each trial. The "Shorty" racket group mean was greater in

every trial except trial 2. The mean difference was significant in

trial 4, with a critical-ratio of 2.33, and in trial 5, with a

critical-ratio of 2.45 at the .05 level of confidence. The mean dif­

ference in trials 1, 2, 3, and 6 was not significant.

 14

TABLE II

COMPARISON OF THE MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE

SHORTY" RACKET GROUP AND THE REGULAR
RACKET GROUP FOR THE FOREHAND

Trial 1
MEAN STANDARD STANDARD ERROR CRITICAL-RATIO
DEVIATION

"Shorty" 5.27 3.00

CO
.17
*
Regular 4.67 3.18 .82

Trial 2
"Shorty" 5.60 3.42 .89
.23
Regular 5.33 3.14 .81

Trial 3
"Shorty" 7.33 3.09 ,80
.73
Regular 6.47 3.32 .86

Trial 4
"Shorty" 6,67 3.11 .80
.94
Regular 8.00 4.50 1.16

Trial 5
"Shorty" 7.96 3.15 .81
.03
Regular 8.00 4.24 1.10

Trial 6
"Shorty" 6.67 2.59 ,67
.73
Regular 7,73 4.99 1.29
 15

TABLE HI

COMPARISON OF THE MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE

"SHORTY8' RACKET GRODP AND THE REGULAR
RACKET GROUP FOR THE BACKHAND

STANDARD STANDARD ERROR CRITICAL-RATIO

MEAN DEVIATION
Trial 1
"Shorty'' 8.80 3.68 95 .11

Regular 8.60 4.58 1 44

Trial 2
"Shorty" 8.67 4.04 1 04
.46
Regular 9.40 4.67 1 21

Trial 3
"Shorty" 9.40 4.69 1 21
.11
Regular 9.20 5.48 1 42

Trial 4
"Shorty" 9.07 4.55 1 18
2,33*
Regular 5.53 4.08 1 03

Trial 5
"Shorty" 9.27 4,01 1 04
2.45*
Regular 5.33 4,51 1 17

Trial 6
"Shorty" 9.27 5.03 1 29
1.58
Regular 6.73 3.74 97

•^significant at the .05 level of confidence.

 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It was the purpose of this study to determine the possible

advantages of using the "Shorty" tennis racket in the place of a

regular tennis racket in teaching the forehand and backhand drives

to beginning students of elementary school age. Beginning progressions

for the forehand and backhand drive were used for the instructional

phase of the experimental period.

I. SUMMARY

Two groups of girls with no previous tennis experience, ages

ten to twelve, were taught the forehand and backhand drive of tennis

for three and one-half weeks. Group I used the "Shorty" tennis racket

and Group II used the regular tennis racket throughout the entire

experimental period. A review of pertinent literature indicated the

lack of a skill test in tennis which would measure the accuracy of

an isolated stroke. Therefore, both groups were given a skill test

which was designed by the researcher to measure accuracy in executing

the forehand and backhand drive, Comparisions were made between the

two groups of subjects concerning the degree of accuracy attained with

their particular implement. Analysis of the data revealed no signifi­

cant difference between the two groups for execution of the forehand

drive. There was a significant difference revealed on two of the six

trials for the execution of the backhand drive,

 17

XX. CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions

seemed tenable:

1. The uhorty racket group and the regular racket group showed

no significant difference in accuracy in executing the fore­

hand drive, with critical-ratios of ,17, .23, .73, .94, .03

and .73, well below the 2.14 critical-ratio required at the

.05 level of confidence.

2. The "Shorty" racket group and the regular racket group showed

no significant difference in accuracy in executing the back­

hand drive in four of the six trials, with critical-ratios of

.11, .46, .11 and 1.58.

3. In two of the six trials, the "Shorty" racket group showed a

significant difference in accuracy in executing the backhand

drive. The critical-ratios were 2.33 and 2.45, well beyond

the 2.14 required at the .05 level of confidence.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

During the instructional phase of the experimental period,

prior to tests and the evaluation of statistical results, the researcher

noted that the subjects using the "Shorty" rackets did appear to have

significantly better form than the subjects using the regular rackets,

A possible conclusion could be that the "Shorty" racket does lend

itself to increased control for students of elementary school age.

 18

Another contrast between the groups appeared concerning the

duration of practice periods. The regular racket subjects were not

able to practice as long as the "'Shorty" racket subjects without showing

signs of fatigue. This perhaps indicates that the use of the "Shorty"

racket could extend practice sessions, which in turn would Increase

the length of instructional time and perhaps speed acquisition of

skill. Thus the problem of motivation might be reduced somewhat by

an earlier experiencing of success.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first study in which the

use of the "Shorty" racket has been experimentally investigated. Recom­

mendations for further study are:

1. Design and establish the reliability and validity of a skill

test suitable for measuring strokes executed with the "Shorty"

racket as well as with the regular racket.

2. Conduct a similar study extending the length of the experi­

mental period.

3. Conduct similar studies including boys as well as girls at

the elementary school, junior high school, high school and

college levels.
4. Conduct similar studies measuring the accuracy attained at

various age levels in executing the volley and the serve with

the "Shorty" racket.

5. Correlate measures of grip strength with measures of sccuracy

attained In executing strokes „lth the "Shorty" and regular

rackets.
 19

6, Conduct a similar study including a rating of success as deter­

mined by selected tennis experts observing subjects in an

actual game experience.

 bi '$k:me$ikwwi

****** *»•»« *» »W«r. "A»Miw»t tmt* for

a", .3'' X" *" *•*#."

&•* §»c;s^««t 'ftot of ?4MtuMU fba

i'sH4(;i«afes iflf^ Swffi*

tovtolcn ct Ifte" fcelisppri ri'#st #f ftawlt Jlgg

-31, KMrofc,, WMP

•i < «4y &• tiki Validly «f efe# %«t i,!#»t

&«gte*s'l»|j "fetmeti* pjutjpAfft«''* • 'ftiji,

' C H 0 * h X f U * > t ± m 1 m m U t f w r n t # / * .tM . I*i,e«,;fel|t

BIBLIOGRAPHY
St * fw«WU ft»t»

»1inaont tolly ttwf; «f

sr«Ei».jut iuu," JQMU&:MalL 9wiKli£lt> *»* •fpflP"**

KMfcft« t*
^ u . - . f . . j f JiifcL • . " t r » r ibtjf l u m p !
i.rtfe ttitvlp«* J»g|>^w4 Cliffs,

B,(„r ;•:••• -. tee sufferl,*$tt fsw

mm! S'tt&li fed t« ©«««!#«

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broer, Marion R. and Donna Mae Miller. "Achievement Tests for

® Inte«nediate Tennis," The Research Quarterly.
21:303, October, 1950. 1

Dyer, Joanna Thayer. "The Backboard Test of Tennis Ability " The
Research Qyiarterly, 6:63-74, March, 1935, Supplement, "

. Revision of the Backboard Test of Tennis Ability," The

Research Quarterly. 9:25-31, March, 1938.

Pox, Katharine. "A Study of the Validity of the Dyer Backboard Test
and the Miller Test for Beginning Tennis Players," The Research
Quarterly. 24:1-7, March, 1953.

Hewitt, Jack E. "Classification Tests in Tennis," The Research

Quarterly. 39, no. 3:552-55, October, 1968.

. "Hewitt's Tennis Achievement Test," The Research Quarterly.

37:231-40, May, 1966.

. "Revision of the Dyer Backboard Tennis Test," The Research

Quarterly. 36, no. 2:153-57, May, 1965.

Kemp, Joann, and Marilyn F. Vincent. "Kemp-Vincent Rally Test of

Tennis Skill," The Research Quarterly. 39, no, 4:1000-4, December,
1968.

Koski, Arthur. "A Tennis Wall Rally Test for College Men," In H.
Harrison Clarke (ed.), Application of Measurement to Health and
Physical Education. Fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs, New J ersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1967,

Scott, M. Gladys. Research Methods in Health. Physical Education.

Recreation. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1959.

Thorpe, JoAnne. "Intelligence and Skill in Relation to Success in

Singles Competition in Badminton and Tennis," The Research Quarterly,
38:119-25, 1967.
 " p ' .

w •

I I

APPENDIXES

m
 APPENDIX A

"SHORTY" RACKET GROUP - RAW TE ST SCORES, FORWARD

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

I 1 1 6 1 4 3

2 7 5 8 8 10 9

3 3 3 7 2 9 6

4 7 5 4 8 11 8

5 14 11 10 11 5 9

6 6 9 9 12 12 9

3 1 6 6 5 3
7

6 7 3 7 9
8 3

9 12 7 11 8
9 5

5 8 8 3
10 7 9

3 3 5 3
11 2 1

4 9 6 5
12 2 2

8 9 5 10
13 6 4
6 6 9
6 10 15
14
7 15 6
8 6
7
 24

APPENDIX B

REGULAR RACKET GROUP - RAW SCORES,

FOREHAND

Trial I Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6

4 4 7 6 8 4
3 6 7 4 8 9
3 3 10 7 8 4 8
4 3 0 6 1 2 1
5 2 3 3 5 6 4
6 5 6 6 9 8 8

7 4 10 4 11 14 16

8 8 6 3 13 7 5

9 15 11 16 16 12 16

10 4 5 10 8 9 9

11 4 5 6 8 8 5

12 4 3 4 2 6 4

13 3 1 4 5 2 3

14 7 6 10 17 19 18

15 4 2 4 7 7 6
 APPENDIX C

"SHORTY" RACKET GROUP - RAW SCORES, BACKHAND

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

1 6 6 6 5 3 2

2 13 6 11 10 10 13

3 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 5 4 4 4 5 2

5 12 13 15 13 13 13

6 12 14 15 15 11 12

7 10 8 12 10 12 7

8 10 9 11 12 8 12

9 11 11 16 12 13 17

10 15 16 15 18 15 14

10 3 5 7 4
11 7

10 8 6 10 11
12 7

9 8 10 11 13
13 9

7 6 8 7
14 5 4

10 10 13 12
15 10 10
 APPENDIX D

REGULAR RACKET GROUP - RAW SCORES , BACKHAND

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

1 4 9 5 5 2 8

2 6 9 7 6 5 8
3 8 7 11 4 5 4

4 4 3 2 5 0 1

5 6 5 3 6 4 7

6 14 18 17 4 8 6

7 5 4 4 4 0 2

8 15 16 19 16 16 .7

9 4 8 6 7 6 .1

10 9 6 7 4 2 4

11 6 8 8 1 4 4

12 4 5 4 1 3 6

13 16 16 17 14 15 8

14 14 14 2 6 7
15

13 14 4 4 8
13