Conclusion
Fig. 1 shows that all subjects showed improvement in their average distance from the centre (accuracy) after 3 weeks. From 3 weeks to 6 weeks all subjects’ accuracy decreased. At 6 weeks, subjects’ accuracy was approximately the same as the start. A Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was applied (subjects (6) by training period (2)), for both 3 week and 6 week training periods. The 3 week training period refers to a comparison of the start and after 3 weeks. The 6 week training period refers to a comparison of the start and after 6 weeks. For the 3 week training period, at 5 yards, the only source of variance that was significant (confidence interval of 99%) was the training period. For the 6 week training period, at 5 yards the only source of variance that was significant (confidence interval or 90%) was the subjects. This confidence interval is normally not accepted.
Fig. 2 shows that the control subject improved along with one of the two “throwing only” all subjects. The “weight training only” subjects’ accuracy worsened. The “weight training and throwing” subject along with the second of the two “throwing only” subjects’ accuracy remained approximately the same. Two-Way ANOVA was applied in the same way. For the 3 week training period, at 10 yards, none of the sources of variance were significant. For the 6 week training period, at 10 yards, none of the sources of variance were significant.
Fig. 3 shows that the control subject, both “throwing only” subjects and “weight training and throwing” subjects’ accuracy all worsened. The “weight training only” subjects’ accuracy generally improved. Two-Way ANOVA was applied in the same way. For the 3 week training period, at 15 yards, none of the sources of variance were significant. For the 6 week training period, at 15 yards, none of the sources of variance were significant.
Overall, the statistical analysis shows that one must reject the experimental hypothesis. Few of the Two-Way ANOVA results showed significant differences (Tables 1 to 6). The Mean Square within groups (MSWG) representing the variance of the population from which each sample came was very high therefore the effect of the weight training or throwing was not evident.
From the hypothesis it is expected that the control subject will have approximately the same accuracy at the start and after 3 weeks and 6 weeks. Figs. 1-3 show the control subject’s accuracy was highly variable which contributed to MSWG.
From the hypothesis it is expected that the subjects who practice throwing only would become more accurate in all distances. Figs. 1-3 show that only one of the subjects at 10 yards showed improvement. However, the Two-Way ANOVA did not show that the trends were significant.
From the hypothesis it is expected that the weight training subjects would become less accurate. Figs. 1-3 show that at 10 yards accuracy worsened. But at 15 yards accuracy generally got better. However, the Two-Way ANOVA did not show that the trends were significant.
From the hypothesis it is expected that the subject weight training and practicing throwing would become more accurate. Figs. 1-3 show that at 5 and 10 yards, the subject’s accuracy stayed the same and worsened at 15 yards. However, the Two-Way ANOVA did not show that the trends were significant.