Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                211                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO WAYS  
OF PERFORMING THE BACK HANDSPRING – A CASE 
STUDY 
 
Jaroslaw Omorczyk1, Robert Staszkiewicz2, Ewa Puszczalowska-
Lizis3 
 
1Institute of Sport, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, University of 
Physical Education, Krakow, Poland 
2Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, University of Physical Education, 
Krakow, Poland 
3Medical College, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Rzeszow, 
Poland 
 
 
Case study                                                                                  DOI:10.52165/sgj.14.2.211-223 
Abstract 
The aim of the study was to compare selected kinematic variables of the back handspring from 
a standing position (Bh) with a back handspring performed in the movement sequence: round 
off – back handspring – backward stretched somersault (R BhS). The study included 4 gymnasts 
(mean age: 19.5 years). The athletes performed 6 repetitions of Bh and RBhS. All gymnastic 
elements were recorded on film. The artistic gymnastics judges selected the best Bh and the 
back handspring in the sequence (RBhS) for each competitor, which were then subjected to 
kinematic analysis. Based on the phase division of the recorded gymnastic elements, the 
analysis of the temporal structure of movement, changes in displacements and velocity of the 
athletes' centre of gravity (CG), as well as changes in the position of their trunk in relation to 
the ground were analysed. In Bh and RBhS, the competitors' horizontal CG velocity component 
(vx) decreased from the beginning of the first flight phase until the end of the support phase on 
the lower limbs. In Bh, the median values (Me) of vx decreased from 1.94m/s to 0.8m/s, and in 
RBhS, from 4.85m/s to 2.24m/s. In the case of the vertical component of velocity (vy), the highest 
values of Me for both back handsprings were recorded at the end of the support phase on the 
lower limbs (for Bh and RBhS: 3.27m/s and 4.79m/s, respectively). Both in Bh and RBhS, the 
value of CG velocity in the horizontal axis decreased from the beginning of the analysed 
movement until its completion. 
 
Keywords: kinematics, artistic gymnastics, back handspring, technique.
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
In artistic gymnastics, there are 
different types of sports preparation for 
athletes. One of them is technical 
preparation, during which gymnasts learn 
and improve many gymnastic elements 
characterised by a diverse motor structure 
and degree of difficulty. The initial stage of 
this training comes down to the 
development of a wide technical and motor 
base that has a significant impact on the 
athletes’ further sports development 
(Arkaev & Suchilin, 2004; Kochanowicz et 
al. 2015; Živčić Marković et al. 2015). A 
properly implemented sports training 
process should enable athletes to gradually 
learn increasingly more difficult elements 
and also planned movement sequences. In 
any situation, the priority of training 
gymnastic skills is to maintain a correct 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                212                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
movement technique, which is also 
important with regard to injury prevention 
in sports (Bradshaw & Hume, 2012). 
Therefore, the ability to introduce 
necessary modifications to the learned way 
of performing a task is as important as 
developing a repetitive movement 
technique. One of the basic gymnastic 
skills, performed initially as an independent 
element and later in different movement 
sequences, is the back handspring. Its 
learning begins when gymnasts already 
have several years of training experience. 
Most of them will perform it in various 
forms throughout their sports career. In its 
basic form, the back handspring begins and 
ends in a standing position. Another 
important skill in artistic gymnastics is 
mastering the handspring performed 
immediately after a round off. Ultimately, it 
is used by gymnasts as a transition skill 
preceding various acrobatic elements 
(Sands & McNeal, 2006; Potop, 2014), 
including those most difficult ones, such as 
the "Ljukin", or the "Ri Jong Song" (FIG, 
2017). In addition, by mastering the back 
handspring, a gymnast can also learn the 
"Yurchenko" vault (Diener & Aedo-
Muñoz, 2019). For female gymnasts, the 
back handspring is an element performed on 
a balance beam. It is also used in 
supplementary training carried out by 
athletes in other sports disciplines, such as 
rhythmic gymnastics or acrobatics (Huang 
& Hsu, 2009; Donovan & Spencer, 2019). 
The aforementioned multiple use of the 
back handspring probably contributed to 
scientific research devoted to this element. 
Koh et al. (1992) analysed the forces of 
ground reaction on the upper limbs during 
the support phase of this element. Davidson 
et al. (2005) undertook research aimed at 
estimating the stiffness and damping 
properties of the wrist and shoulder in 
children by examining wrist impact on the 
outstretched hand in the back handspring 
and dive-roll. These authors demonstrated 
that the back handspring involved greater 
impact velocity and force compared to the 
dive-roll, indicative of an activity in which 
the body's full weight is decelerated by the 
hands. Grassi et al. (2005) analysed the 
short-term consistency of body trajectories 
during the performance of the back 
handspring. 
When comparing the results achieved 
by male and female gymnasts, they found 
larger consistency between landmark 
trajectories in women than in men. Heinen 
et al. (2010) evaluated the effects of two 
manual guidance procedures on movement 
kinematics of a back handspring and a back 
tuck somersault following a round off on 
the floor. According to these authors, the 
sandwich-grip should be applied in the first 
instance if the coach's interest is to optimise 
the angular momentum of the somersault 
axis and the second flight phase in the back 
handspring. Mkaouer et al. (2013) 
compared kinetic and kinematic variables 
of the take-off between two acrobatic series 
leading to perform the backward stretched 
somersault (salto): round off, back 
handspring versus round off, tempo-salto. 
In these studies, it was shown that the 
combination of round off, tempo-salto to 
stretched salto allowed for greater 
horizontal displacement and momentum, 
while the combination of round off, back 
handspring to stretched salto allowed for 
better vertical displacement and velocity. 
Omorczyk et al. (2015) used reverse 
transfer to verify the usefulness of selected 
simple methods of recording and fast 
biomechanical analysis performed by 
judges of artistic gymnastics in assessing a 
gymnast's movement technique. Burton et 
al. (2017) presented the results of a study 
aimed at investigating the influence of hang 
position on the elbow and wrist joint 
coordination and variability during the 
performance of the back handspring in 
female gymnastics. Competitors performed 
this element with "inward", "parallel" and 
"outward" hand position. The authors 
concluded that lower variability within the 
parallel technique may be more suited to 
gymnastics performance, with the “inward” 
contributing more toward overuse injury 
reduction.  
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                213                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Other authors (Huang & Hsu, 2009; 
Penitente et al. 2011; Lovecchio et al. 2013) 
conducted biomechanical analyses of the 
back handspring, the results of which may 
also be helpful in the process of learning 
and improving this element by artistic 
gymnastics athletes, as well as in other 
sports. 
So far, however, no comparison has 
been made between the technique of 
performing a back handspring from 
standing position with a back handspring 
serving as a transition element. Therefore, 
research was undertaken to compare 
selected kinematic variables of the back 
handspring from standing position (Bh) 
with the back handspring performed in the 
motor sequence: round off – back 
handspring – backward stretched 
somersault (RBhS). 
 
METHODS 
 
The study comprised 4 (n = 4), elite 
male gymnasts at the mean age of 19.5 ± 3.0 
years, body height: 172.5 ± 2.5 cm, body 
mass: 65.8 ± 3.6 kg, and training 
experience: 14.3 ± 2.5 years. The inclusion 
criteria were: master class in artistic 
gymnastics; participation in the Polish 
Championships in Artistic Gymnastics; 
training for at least 10 years; no injuries to 
the musculoskeletal system, and the ability 
to safely perform a back handspring and the 
round off – back handspring – backward 
stretched somersault (confirmed by a 
coach). 
The subjects participated in the 
research voluntarily. The study was 
approved by the Bioethics Committee at the 
Regional Medical Chamber in Krakow, 
Poland (Approval Ref. No. 
42/KBL/OIL/2017). 
Before initiating the tests, the 
competitors performed a general and 
acrobatic warm-up (series of forward rolls, 
backward rolls; handstand; cartwheel; 
round off; front handspring; forward and 
backward tucked somersaults). All 
exercises, both performed during the warm-
up and the subject of research proper, were 
executed on the spring floor of the AWF 
Krakow gymnasium. 
After the warm-up, the proper part of 
the research began. All tested men were 
asked to perform 6 back handspring 
repetitions as well as possible, followed by 
the same number of movement sequences 
including round off – back handspring – 
backward stretched somersault. The 
athletes performed their exercises in a fixed 
order, one after another. As a result, the 
duration of the interval between 
consecutive exercises performed by the 
same person was similar. A 5-minute 
resting interval was introduced between the 
Bh and RBhS. Bh was performed by all 
gymnasts from the same starting position: 
stance with the arms elevated, while the 
take-off was preceded by an arm swing. 
After Bh, the athletes performed a rebound 
and landed in standing position. RBhS 
began with the gymnasts performing a run-
up, with no interference in its length, 
number of steps or speed. All 6 Bh and 
RBhS attempts were filmed with a digital 
camera (Sony DSC RX100 M4) at 120 Hz. 
The recording device was placed next to the 
spring floor, on a levelled, stable tripod, so 
that the optical axis of the lens was 
perpendicular to the direction of the 
subject's movement. In the described 
manner, 12 videos were recorded for each 
competitor. 
Before beginning the recording, on the 
left side of the body (from the camera side), 
markers made of white, flexible adhesive 
tape were fixed to the subjects’ skin, in the 
places corresponding to the rotation axis of 
the joints: shoulder, elbow, radiocarpal, hip, 
knee and shin-ankle. This was carried out 
on all athletes by the same person with 
appropriate anatomical knowledge. 
Exercises recorded on the film were 
evaluated by a judge to select the best 
performance of Bh and RBhS for each 
competitor. This evaluation was made 
independently by 3 judges licensed by the 
Polish Gymnastics Association. The films 
selected by the judges (2 for each athlete) 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                214                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
formed the basis for the subsequent 
kinematic analysis carried out with the use 
of the Skill Spector v.1.3.2 computer 
program, implementing a 10-point 
mathematical model of the body, created by 
the developers of this software. Thanks to 
this, on the basis of changes in the position 
of the centre of the previously marked main 
joints of the limbs (upper and lower), as 
well as the chin, forehead (glabella point) 
and the ends of the distal phalanges of the 
big toe and middle finger, the values of a 
number of kinematic indicators of 
movement were determined. Based on the 
phase division of the registered gymnastic 
elements (Bh and RBhS), an analysis was 
performed looking at the temporal structure 
of movement, changes in displacements and 
velocities of the gymnasts’ centre of gravity 
(CG) and changes in the position of their 
trunk in relation to the ground. 
Both analysed gymnastic elements 
were divided into phases. This was carried 
out by identifying the beginning and the end 
of the flight and support phases. As a 
consequence, nodal division points were 
determined: 
A - beginning of analysis, initiation of 
the first flight phase, 
B - completion of the first flight phase, 
C - beginning of the second flight 
phase, 
D - completion of the second flight 
phase, 
E - end of analysis, end of the support 
phase on the lower limbs. 
The proposed points were the basis for 
distinguishing the following successive 
phases of movement: 
A-B - first flight phase (FI), 
B-C - support on upper limbs (SUl), 
C-D - second flight phase (FII), 
D-E - support on lower limbs (SLl). 
Based on the applied mathematical 
model, the following kinematic variables 
were determined: 
tt - total time [s], 
tFI - time of first flight phase [s], 
tSUl - support time on upper limbs [s], 
tFII - time of second flight phase [s], 
tSLl - support time on lower limbs [s], 
vA - resultant, initial CG velocity of 
gymnast at time of A [m/s], 
vAx - gymnast’s horizontal CG velocity 
at the beginning of movement (A) [m/s], 
vAy - gymnast’s CG vertical velocity at 
the beginning of movement (A) [m/s], 
vB, vBx, vBy - resultant, horizontal and 
vertical velocity CG at time of B [m/s], 
vC, vCx, vCy - resultant, horizontal and 
vertical velocity of CG at time of C [m/s], 
vD, vDx, vDy - resultant, horizontal and 
vertical velocity CG at time of D [m/s], 
vE, vEx, vEy - gymnast’s final CG 
velocity (resultant, horizontal and vertical) 
(E) [m/s], 
hACG - height of the CG position at 
initial period (A) [m], 
hBCG, hCCG, hDCG - altitude of CG at 
times B, C and D [m], 
hECG - final height of CG position (E) 
[m], 
LFI - displacement in the first flight 
phase (horizontal distance between the 
location where the feet are removed from 
the ground and where the hands are placed; 
A-B) [m], 
LFII - displacement in the second flight 
phase (horizontal distance between the 
location where the hands are lifted off the 
ground and where the feet are placed; C-D) 
[m]. 
It should be noted that the vertical 
component of the CG velocity vector in the 
athletes (vy) during their performance of the 
Bh and RBhS could change its turn. 
Therefore, the values of this variable 
marked with the sign "-" (minus) mean a 
turn towards the spring floor. 
It is also worth noting that the linear 
displacements in the flight phase (LFI, LFII) 
comprise the value of the shortest horizontal 
distance between the take-off and the 
landing site. 
The analysis of the collected footage 
also helped to distinguish the characteristics 
of changes in the angular position of the 
athletes’ trunk in relation to the ground 
during the performance of both gymnastic 
elements: Bh and RBhS. The arms of that 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                215                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
angle were two intersecting rays. The first 
was marked by the section connecting the 
athlete’s shoulder and hip joints (trunk), and 
the second - the ground (spring floor). In 
this paper, it was decided to present only the 
instantaneous values of such an angle in 
relation to the boundaries of the 
distinguished phases. 
Therefore, at the nodal points: A, B, C, 
D and E, the following variables were 
defined: αA, αB, αC, αD, αE. The method of 
determining the angles and their vertices is 
presented in Fig. 1. This also enables the 
identification of the adopted phase division.  
It was decided to reduce the statistical 
analysis of the results to determine the 
median (Me) as well as the minimum (min) 
and the maximum (max) values for all 
variables. 
 
 
RESULTS 
 
In Fig. 2, the total time to perform both 
analysed back handsprings is presented. As 
it can be seen, in the case of RBhS, the 
duration was shorter. The median values 
noted for Bh and RBhS differed by more 
than 0.2s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A - beginning of first flight phase 
 
B - completion of first  
flight phase 
 
C - beginning of second flight phase 
 
D - completion of second flight phase 
 
E - completion of support phase on 
lower limbs 
Figure 1. Method of determining instantaneous value of the trunk angle at nodal points 
separating individual phases of movement. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                216                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 Median 
 25%-75% 
 Range Bh RBhS
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
[s
]
0,796
0,588
 
Figure 2. Total time (tt) to perform a back handspring from standing position (Bh) and back 
handspring in the movement sequence (RBhS); [s]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 
Duration of successive phases of back handspring from standing position (Bh) and back 
handspring in the movement sequence (RBhS) (tFI - first phase of flight; tSUl - support on the 
upper limbs; tFII - second phase of flight; tSLl - support on lower limbs). 
 
Gymnastic 
element 
tFI tSUl tFII tSLl 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[s] [s] [s] [s] 
Bh 0.21 (0.15 – 0.23) 0.27 (0.22 – 0.30) 0.18 (0.17 – 0.24) 0.15 (0.13 – 0.17) 
RBhS 0.16 (0.14 – 0.17) 0.17 (0.15 – 0.18) 0.11 (0.10 – 0.13) 0.14 (0.13 – 0.14) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                217                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
Table 2  
Competitors' instantaneous CG velocity (x - horizontal, y - vertical and resultant) at the nodal 
points of the back handspring from standing position (Bh) and back handspring in the 
movement sequence (RBhS) (A, B - beginning and end of the first flight phase; C, D - beginning 
and end of the second flight phase, E - completion of the lower limb support phase). 
 
G
y
m
n
as
ti
c 
el
em
en
t 
A B C D E 
vAx vBx vCx vDx vEx 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] 
Bh 1.94 (1.57 – 2.04) 1.67 (1.20 – 1.85) 1.62 (1.31 – 2.28) 1.53 (1.16 – 1.75) 0.80 (0.36 – 2.01) 
RBhS 4.85 (4.48 – 5.82) 4.43 (4.07 – 4.61) 4.32 (3.81 – 4.98) 4.29 (3.70 – 5.40) 2.24 (1.94 – 2.82) 
 
 
vAy vBy vCy vDy vEy 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] 
Bh 0.68 (0.49 – 1.53) -0.62 (-0.74 – 0.38) 0.11 (-0.08 – 0.38) -1.73 (-1.55 – -1.88) 3.27 (2.65 – 3.66) 
RBhS 0.78 (0.23 – 1.47) -0.36 (-0.46 – -0.19) -0.48 (-0.63 – -0.28) -1.41 (-1.12 – -1.98) 4.79 (3.10 – 5.09) 
 
 
vA vB vC vD vE 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] 
Bh 2.06 (1.64 – 2.55) 1.73 (1.41 – 1.98) 1.62 (1.36 – 2.29) 2.27 (2.21 – 2.40) 3.57 (2.69 – 3.82) 
RBhS 4.90 (4.51 – 6.00) 4.44 (4.09 – 4.62) 4.34 (3.86 – 4.99) 4.61 (3.87 – 5.60) 5.36 (3.90 – 5.51) 
 
 
Table 3 
Height of gymnasts’ centre of gravity (hCG) at the boundaries of movement phases during the 
back handspring from standing position (Bh) and back handspring in the movement sequence 
(RBhS); adopted symbols - as in Tab. 2. 
 
G
y
m
n
as
ti
c 
el
em
en
t 
A B C D E 
hACG hBCG hCCG hDCG hECG 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[m] [m] [m] [m] [m] 
Bh 0.86 (0.79 – 0.91) 0.91 (0.85 – 0.98) 0.98 (0.97 – 1.01) 0.82 (0.81 – 0.82) 1.03 (1.00 – 1.07) 
RBhS 0.91 (0.87 – 0.94) 0.95 (0.92 – 0.99) 0.92 (0.88 – 0.92) 0.80 (0.75 – 0.82) 1.09 (1.06 – 1.13) 
 
 
Table 4  
Displacement in the first (LFI) and second (LFII) flight phase during back handspring from 
standing position (Bh) and back handspring in the movement sequence (RBhS). 
 
Gymnastic  
element 
LFI LFII 
Me (min-max) Me (min-max) 
[m] [m] 
Bh 1.06 (0.83 – 1.19) 0.90 (0.64 – 1.11) 
RBhS 1.40 (1.10 – 1.61) 1.49 (1.35 – 1.74) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                218                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
Table 5 
Values of angle between trunk and ground (αA, αB, αC, αD, αE) during back handspring from 
standing position (Bh) and back handspring in the movement sequence (RBhS) recorded at the 
boundaries of the movement phases; adopted symbols - as in Tab. 2. 
 
Gymnastic 
element 
A B C D E 
αA αB αC αD αE 
Me 
(min-
max) 
Me 
(min-
max) 
Me 
(min-
max) 
Me 
(min-
max) 
Me 
(min-
max) 
[deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] 
Bh 28 (21 – 30) 63 (58 – 89) 64 (48 – 86) 21 (15 – 23) 53 (47 – 56) 
RBhS 34 (28 – 36) 65 (63 – 75) 50 (44 – 51) 18 (16 – 28) 81 (78 – 98) 
 
 
Data from Tab. 1 indicate that not only 
was the overall time to perform the back 
handspring in the RBhS movement 
sequence shorter than that of Bh but also 
that all corresponding phases of the 
compared gymnastic elements were shorter 
for the back handspring after the round off. 
Our analysis of Me value shows that the 
greatest differentiation was related to the 
support on the upper limbs (tSUl), and the 
smallest to the support on the lower limbs 
(tSLl). In the first case, the difference was 
0.1s, and in the second, 0.01s. The 
described differences for the first and the 
second flight phases ranged from 0.05s to 
0.07s. 
In Tab. 2, the characteristics of changes 
in the instantaneous CG velocity of the 
competitors at the nodal points Bh and 
RBhS are presented. These changes were 
described both in relation to all components 
of the velocity vector (horizontal and 
vertical) and the resultant vector. 
In Bh and RBhS, the horizontal 
component (vx) decreased in value from the 
beginning of the first flight phase (A) up to 
the end of the support phase on the lower 
limbs (E). For Bh, median vx values 
decreased from 1.94m/s to 0.8m/s, while for 
RBhS, this value fell from 4.85m/s to 
2.24m/s. As expected, the values of this 
variable were always higher in RBhS. 
A slightly different characteristic was found 
for the vertical component of velocity (vy). 
The obtained results indicate that it changed 
not only the value but also its return. 
Basically, with one exception (beginning of 
the second flight phase, C), the sense of the 
vertical component at the boundaries of the 
movement phases was identical for both Bh 
and RBhS. In the case of the absolute values 
of the discussed variable (vy), it turned out 
that both for Bh and RBhS, they were the 
highest at the end of the support phase on 
the lower limbs (E): 3.27m/s and 4.79m/s, 
respectively. Data from Tab. 2 additionally 
show that vy values exceeding 1m/s were 
also recorded at the end of the second flight 
phase (D). This indicates that the highest 
values of the vertical component of CG 
velocity were recorded in the final part of 
the analysed gymnastic elements (from the 
end of the second flight phase). In turn, the 
lowest values of this velocity component 
(vy) were recorded from the end of the first 
flight phase to the beginning of the second 
one (B and C), i.e., the middle part of the 
analysed elements (Bh and RBhS). The 
presented results demonstrate that the 
vertical CG velocity recorded at the 
beginning of the first flight phase (A) was 
0.1m/s higher during the round off – back 
handspring – backward stretched 
somersault. 
The resultant CG velocity of the 
athletes (v), recorded in the corresponding 
so-called nodal points of the back 
handspring, was always higher in RBhS 
than in Bh. The differences in the median 
values of this variable ranged from 1.8m/s 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                219                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
(end of movement, E) to about 2.8m/s 
(beginning of movement, A). Data 
presented in Tab. 2 indicate that in the case 
of Bh and RBhS, the nature of changes in 
the resultant velocity was similar. At the 
beginning of the first flight phase (A), it was 
slightly higher than the values recorded 
chronologically later (the end of the first 
flight phase and the beginning of the second 
one, B and C). Finally, from the end of the 
second flight phase (D), the resultant 
velocity of the athletes increased, reaching 
its maximum value at the end of the support 
phase on the lower limbs (E). 
In Tab. 3, information is provided on 
the athletes’ height of centre of gravity 
(hCG) at the boundary between the various 
phases of movement when performing back 
handsprings. Medians of this variable noted 
for Bh and RBhS varied from 2cm to 6cm. 
It can be noticed that the gymnasts 
performing RBhS in the initial and final 
phases (their limits - respectively: A, B and 
E) assumed a position in which the centre of 
gravity was higher than in the case of Bh. 
An opposite observation can be made in 
relation to the nodal points marking the 
beginning and end of the second flight 
phase (C and D) - in this case, higher hCG 
values were noted for Bh. 
In Tab. 4, the displacement of 
gymnasts was characterised in each of the 
two flight phases during the back 
handspring. As mentioned, this distance 
was marked by a horizontal line between 
the take-off and the landing site. The 
reported values indicate that the RBhS 
technique is different from Bh. For both 
indicators (LFI and LFII), the median values 
were higher for RBhS. Their absolute 
differences were 0.34m (LFI) and 0.59m 
(LFII). It is also worth adding that in the case 
of Bh, displacement in the second flight 
phase was smaller than in the first phase by 
0.16m. On the other hand, in RBhS, the 
displacement in the second flight phase was 
greater by 0.09m than in the first one. 
In accordance with the developed 
methodology, the values of the angle 
between the trunk and the ground were 
determined during the performance of Bh 
and RBhS. The effects of this part of the 
video recorded material analysis are 
presented in Tab. 5. The main differences 
concern the positioning of the gymnast’s 
body at the beginning of the second flight 
phase (αC) and at the end of the support 
phase on the lower limbs (αE). The 
accumulated values show that when the 
second flight phase (αC) began, higher 
values of the angle in question (by 14°) 
were recorded for Bh. At the end of the 
support phase on the lower limbs, the 
median values of αE were higher for RBhS 
by 28°. The value of 81° recorded in this 
case indicates assuming a more straightened 
body in this position while performing 
RBhS. The angular values characterising 
the position of the trunk in relation to the 
ground at the beginning and end of the first 
flight phase (αA, αB) and at the end of the 
second flight phase (αD) were similar in 
both types of back handsprings (Bh and 
RBhS). 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
The obtained results showed 
differences between two techniques of 
performing the back handspring: one began 
from a standing position (Bh) while the 
other was performed in the motor sequence: 
round off – back handspring – backward 
stretched somersault (RBhS). Data was also 
obtained on the method of performing the 
back handspring following the round off, 
which allowed the gymnasts to safely 
perform the backward stretched somersault, 
along with a flawless landing on the lower 
limbs referred to as the "stick landing" 
(Marinsek & Cuk, 2010). 
As predicted, the RBhS demonstrated 
shorter durations of all movement phases 
(tFI, tSUl, tFII, tSLl) which also resulted in a 
shorter total time (tt). The greatest 
differences in duration of the individual Bh 
and RBhS phases were noted for support on 
the upper limbs (tSUl), while the smallest for 
support on the lower limbs (tSLl). The 
horizontal component of the velocity for all 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                220                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
athletes had direct impact on shorter 
execution times of all phases and the total 
time of movement in RBhS, which assumed 
higher values in the back handspring 
preceded by a run up and round off. The 
greatest differences between Bh and RBhS 
were noted at the beginning of the first 
flight phase (vAx). It was observed that in 
both variants of the back handspring, the 
value of CG velocity in the horizontal axis 
decreases from the beginning of the 
analysed movement until its completion 
(vAx – vEx). Penitente et al. (2011), 
analysing the back handspring performed 
after a round off by female artistic gymnasts 
at various levels of advancement, also noted 
the highest value for the horizontal CG 
velocity component during the take-off 
performed with the lower limbs (point A of 
this study). At the same time, however, they 
indicated a slightly higher value of this 
velocity in the examined competitors during 
the push-off performed with the arms 
preceding the second flight phase (point C 
in this work) compared to the beginning of 
the support phase on the upper limbs (point 
B in this paper). 
The smallest differences between the 
values of the horizontal velocity component 
for Bh and RBhS were obtained at the end 
of the support phase on the lower limbs 
(vEx). At the same time, at the end of this 
phase, the greatest differences were 
observed between values of the vertical 
component of athletes’ CG velocity (vEy) 
recorded for both back handsprings. Clearly 
smaller differences of this variable can be 
noted: at the beginning (vAy) and the end of 
the first flight phase (vBy), as well as and at 
the end of the second flight phase (vDy). In 
turn, at the beginning of the second flight 
phase, different returns regarding the vector 
of the vertical velocity component (vCy) 
were observed. This return was positive for 
Bh and negative for RBhS. This indicates 
that in Bh, at the beginning of this phase of 
flight, the competitors' CG moves up, and in 
RBhS, it goes down. Penitente et al. (2011) 
also observed different turns of the CG 
velocity vector in the vertical axis. 
However, the explanation for the various 
velocity turns in the vertical axis at this 
nodal point requires additional experiments. 
Nonetheless, it may be assumed that the 
negative return of this vector in RBhS 
results from higher rotational velocity in the 
flexion movement of the lower limbs in the 
hip joints. It is possible that this could also 
result in a smaller value of the angle 
between the trunk and the ground (αC) in 
this version of the back handspring. 
It is worth noting that the values of the 
velocity components obtained by the 
authors of this study at the end of the 
support phase on the lower limbs in RBhS 
(vEx and vEy, respectively: 2.24m/s and 
4.79m/s) guaranteed the athletes 
performance of the planned backward 
stretched somersault. However, the 
volatility of the values regarding these 
indicators may be significant, as evidenced 
by the data presented in Tab. 2 and the 
collected literature. Compared to the 
present study, in their analyses, Mkaouer et 
al. (2013) noted a much higher value of 
horizontal velocity (3.743m/s) and a 
slightly lower value of vertical velocity 
(4.500m/s). These differences may result 
from technical differences in the execution 
of the described movement. They may also 
be related to the fact that the athletes tested 
by Mkaouer et al. (2013) performed 
gymnastic elements on an acrobatic track 
which could have different (better) elastic 
properties. 
In both analysed gymnastic elements 
(Bh and RBhS), the general nature of 
changes in the resultant velocity and its 
vertical component were quite similar. 
Taking into account their absolute values 
(excluding the sense of vy), it can be seen 
that they increase from the beginning of the 
movement to its completion. Additionally, 
they adopt their local minimal values 
between the first and the second flight 
phase. The described similarity may result 
from the necessity to perform the back 
handspring in such a way that moving the 
body upwards above the spring floor does 
not excessively restrict movement along the 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                221                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
floor. Therefore, until the completion of the 
second Bh and RBhS flight phases, the 
value of the horizontal velocity of the 
athletes was greater than the vertical 
velocity. And it is this component (vx) that 
more clearly influenced the resultant 
velocity. The situation changed at the end of 
the support phase on the lower limbs. At 
this point, the vertical velocity of 
competitors (vy) reached its maximum and 
was significantly higher than the horizontal 
velocity. 
Although the horizontal velocity of the 
athletes performing Bh and RBhS 
decreased from the beginning of the 
movement until its end, its value was 
sufficient for the effective movement of the 
gymnast. Until the completion of the 
support phase on the lower limbs, it had a 
major impact on the quality of technical 
performance of the back handspring, further 
enabling the performance of the round off – 
back handspring – backward stretched 
somersault. 
Characteristics of changes in the height 
of athletes’ CG position (hACG – hECG) 
during the back handspring from standing 
position and the back handspring in the 
movement sequence, were similar. 
The total range of vertical CG 
oscillations, however, was greater in RBhS. 
Comparing the two methods of performing 
the back handspring, it can be seen that the 
gymnasts obtained a higher CG position at 
the beginning (hCCG) and also at the end of 
the second flight phase (hDCG) in Bh. At the 
remaining nodal points (hACG, hBCG and 
hECG), CG was higher in RBhS. 
As it is known, in each of the two 
phases of flight during the back handspring, 
the horizontal displacement of the athletes 
is related to the height of the CG position 
and its horizontal velocity (vx). The results 
of the authors’ research indicate that the 
back handspring that fulfilled the transition 
skill (RBhS) was characterised by a longer 
second (LFII) and shorter first flight phase 
(LFI). In this handspring, greater 
displacements were also noticed in flight 
phases (LFI and LFII) than in Bh. In turn, Bh 
was performed by athletes with a longer 
first (LFI) and shorter second (LFII) flight 
phase. Opposite proportions to the results 
recorded for Bh were obtained by 
Lovecchio et al. (2013), who also 
performed a kinematic analysis of the back 
handspring from a standing position (the 
study including male and female gymnasts). 
In the opinion of these authors, the reasons 
for the shorter first flight phase can be seen 
in the use of greater spine hyperextension 
during this phase of movement. 
As already mentioned, the height of the 
CG position for both back handsprings was 
similar. At the same time, the values for the 
horizontal component of the velocity of 
movement in RBhS were higher than those 
recorded in Bh (even by 2.9 m/s). The 
results also show that at the beginning of the 
second flight phase, the velocity was lower 
(by 10 and 16%, respectively: RBhS and 
Bh) than that recorded at the beginning of 
the first flight phase. The combination of 
these facts can be the basis for the claim that 
the velocity value for the flight distance is 
the key, provided that the optimal CG 
altitude is maintained. 
In both types of back handsprings, at 
the beginning and the end of the first flight 
phase and at the end of the second flight 
phase (αA, αB, αD, respectively), the values 
of the angles between the trunk and the 
ground were similar. The angle αC 
determined for the beginning of the second 
flight phase indicates that in RBhS, the 
trunk of the gymnasts was more inclined 
toward the floor than in Bh. The greatest 
differences were observed at the end of the 
support phase on the lower limbs (αE), 
which was certainly related to various 
motor tasks performed immediately after 
Bh and RBhS. Smaller values of this angle 
were observed in Bh. It is worth noting that 
the take-off angle (αE), which allowed the 
gymnasts to do the backward stretched 
somersault (81°), was similar to the results 
obtained by other authors (Mkaouer et al. 
2013). 
In gymnastics training, it is possible to 
interfere with the technique of back 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                222                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
handspring initiated from a stance. This 
interference is implemented for the 
performance of this element in an acrobatic 
sequence (after a round-off). It is  effective 
to make use of the assistance of an 
experienced coach who can support and 
guide the gymnast during the movement. 
Performing the back handspring on 
equipment with greater elasticity (e.g., 
standard trampoline or tumble track) may 
also be helpful. The obtained results show 
that the exercises carried out independently 
or with coach’s assistance should enable 
athletes to gradually become used to the 
increased speed of movement (the shorter 
time of all phases of the back handspring) 
as well as longer first and second flight 
phases. Our analysis of the angular position 
of the trunk in relation to the ground led us 
to note that it is necessary to reduce the 
value of this angle at the beginning of the 
second flight phase. On the other hand, for 
the performance of the backward stretched 
somersault, the trunk must be positioned 
closer to the vertical axis during the final 
part of the support phase ending on the 
lower limbs. The obtained results also 
indicate other differences between the two 
methods of performing the back 
handspring. However, due to the small 
number of participants, the possibility of 
formulating unambiguous conclusions 
requires further research with a larger 
sample size. 
 
CONCLUSIONS 
 
The conducted research indicated the 
differences between the selected kinematic 
variables of the back handspring from 
standing position and this movement  
throughout the transition. In the process of 
technical training, it should be noted that the 
back handspring performed in the 
movement sequence ending in a backward 
stretched somersault requires a higher 
resultant velocity of the gymnast than in the 
case of a back handspring started from a 
standing position and ending in a rebound 
and then landing. Obviously, decreasing the 
horizontal velocity component in both ways 
of performing the back handspring in the 
subsequent stages of movement should be 
considered. However, in RBhS, its value 
should be greater than in Bh. 
In advanced artistic gymnasts, the 
beginning of the second flight phase in Bh 
is characterised by a positive return of the 
vertical velocity vector CG (vCy). However, 
in RBhS, the sense of this vector may 
change. Therefore, in the handspring 
performed in the movement sequence 
(round off – back handspring – backward 
stretched somersault), there is no scientific 
justification for the competitors to try to 
achieve a positive return in vertical velocity 
during this phase. 
In RBhS, the greater horizontal 
velocity component contributed to the 
reduction in the duration of all specified 
phases of the back handspring, and thus, to 
obtain a shorter time of the total movement. 
The differences between the height of 
the gymnasts’ CG positioning (hCG) in Bh 
and RBhS seem to be insignificant. The 
authors’ own observations showed that in 
RBhS, the competitors' CG was slightly 
higher at the beginning (hACG) and at the end 
of the first flight phase (hBCG), as well as at 
the end of the support phase on the lower 
limbs (hECG). However, it was lower at the 
beginning (hCCG) and at the end of the 
second flight phase (hDCG). 
When comparing the two methods of 
performing the back handspring, it should 
be stated that RBhS requires longer both 
flight phases (LFI and LFII). Nevertheless, on 
the basis of the obtained results, it seems 
important to reverse the proportion of flight 
phases - in RBhS, the second flight phase 
(LFII) should be longer than the first one 
(LFI). 
In both types of the handspring, the 
position of the trunk in relation to the 
ground is similar at the beginning and the 
end of the first flight phase, and also at the 
end of the second flight phase (successively 
αA, αB, αD). In RBhS, at the beginning of the 
second flight phase, the trunk should be at a 
lower angle in relation to the ground (αC), 
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                223                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
and lower at the end of the support phase on 
the lower limbs (αE). 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Arkaev, L. I., & Suczilin, N. G. (2004). 
How to Create Champions. The Theory and 
Methodology of Training Top-Class 
Gymnasts. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport. 
Bradshaw, E. J., & Hume, P. A. (2012). 
Biomechanical approaches to identify and 
quantify injury mechanisms and risk factors 
in women’s artistic gymnastics. Sports 
Biomechanics, 11(3), 324-341. 
Burton, S., Needham, L., Exell, T., 
Farana, R., & Irwin, G. (2017). In: 
Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the 
International Society of Biomechanics in 
Sports, Colegne, Germany.   
Davidson, P. L., Mahar, B., Chalmers, 
D. J., & Wilson, B. D. (2005). Impact 
Modeling of Gymnastic Back-Handsprings 
and Dive-Rolls in Children. Journal of 
Applied Biomechanics, 21, 115-128.  
Diener, L., & Aedo-Muñoz, E. (2019). 
Systematic review of yurchenko vault 
kinetic and kinematic indicators. Science of 
Gymnastics Journal, 11(1), 115-123. 
Donovan, K., & Spencer, K. (2019). 
Fatigue, complexity and technical 
execution in cheerleading. Journal of 
Human Sport & Exercise, 14(3), 668-673. 
FIG. (2017). Code of Points. MAG. 
Lausanne: Fédération Internationale de 
Gymnastique. 
Grassi, G. P., Santini, T., Lovecchio, 
N., Turci, M., Ferrario, V. F., & Sforza, C. 
(2005). Spatiotemporal Consistency of 
Trajectories in Gymnastics: A Three-
Dimensional Analysis of Flic-Flac. 
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 
26(2), 134-138.  
Heinen, T., Vinken, P., & Ölsberg, P. 
(2010). Manual Guidance in Gymnastics: a 
case study. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 
2(3), 43-56. 
Huang, C., & Hsu, G. S. (2009). 
Biomechanical analysis of gymnastics back 
handspring. In: Proceedings of the 27th 
International Conference on Biomechanics 
in Sports. 
Kochanowicz, A., Kochanowicz, K., 
Niespodziński, B., Mieszkowski, J., & 
Biskup, L. (2015). The level of body 
balance in a handstand and the effectiveness 
of sports training in gymnastics. Baltic 
Journal of  Health and Physical Activity, 
7(4), 117-124. 
Koh, T. J., Grabiner, M. D., & Weiker, 
G. G. (1992). Technique and ground 
reaction forces in the back handspring. 
American Journal of Sports Medicine, 
20(1), 61-66. 
Lovecchio, N., Grassi, G., Shirai, Y. F., 
Galante, D., Grandi, G., Ferrario, V. F., & 
Sforza, C. (2013). Kinematics of key 
technique variables in the backward 
handsprings of elite gymnasts. Revista 
Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 19(4), 
292-296. 
Marinsek, M., & Cuk, I. (2010). 
Landing errors in the men’s floor exercise 
are caused by flight characteristics. Biology 
of Sport, 27(2), 123-128.  
Mkaouer, B., Jemni, M., Amara, S., 
Chaabène, H., & Tabka, Z. (2013). 
Kinematic and kinetic analysis of two 
gymnastics acrobatic series to performing 
the backward stretched somersault. Journal 
of Human Kinetics, 37, 17-26.  
Omorczyk, J., Nosiadek, L., Ambroży, 
T., & Nosiadek, A. (2015). High-frequency 
video capture and a computer program with 
frame-by-frame angle determination 
functionality as tools that support judging in 
artistic gymnastics. Acta of Bioengineering 
and Biomechanics, 17(3), 85-93.  
Penitente, G., Merni, F., & Sands, W. 
A. (2011). Kinematic Analysis of the Centre 
of Mass in the Back Handspring: A case 
study. Gym Coach, 4, 1-11. 
Potop, V. (2014). Technology of 
Transfer in Floor Acrobatic Routines 
Learning per Different Structural Groups in 
Women’s Artistic Gymnastics. Procedia - 
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 759 – 
764.  
Omorczyk J., Staszkiewicz R., Poszcalowska-Lizis E.: KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF TWO…       Vol. 14, Issue 2: 211 - 223 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                224                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Sands, W. A., & McNeal, J. R. (2006). 
Hand position in a back handspring (flic-
flac). Technique, 26, 8-9. 
Živčić Marković, K., Krističević, T., & 
Aleksić-Veljković, A. (2015). A suggested 
model of handstand teaching method. 
Physical Culture, 69(2), 138-149. 
  
 
Corresponding author: 
 
Jaroslaw Omorczyk 
University of Physical Education 
AI. Jana Pawla II 78, 31-571 Krakow 
(Poland) 
Tel.: +608365069 
E mail: jaroslaw.omorczyk@awf.krakow.pl 
 
 
Article received: 17.11.2020 
Article accepted: 11.2.2022