Who was the better athlete? Which was the better team?

Hämäläinen, Mika

doi:10.14712/23366052.2016.1

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…281-283). A good example of a failed athletic contest which failed in terms of the Athletic Superiority Ideal but which did not fail in terms of the Just Results Ideal is 1 On Hämäläinen's (2014;2015) earlier models of failed athletic contests, see Hämäläinen (2016) and Pakaslahti (2016). On Nicholas Dixon's (2003) model of failed athletic contests, see Hämäläinen (2014;2015) and Pakaslahti (2016).…”

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hämäläinen (2016, p. 12) calls his model of failed athletic contests 'the four criteria account' and 'the fourcriterion account'. According to Hämäläinen (2016), the four items which his model consists of are also criteria of betterness or athletic superiority of athletes or teams. I believe that this view is implausible, but I cannot discuss it in this paper.…”

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These items are display of athletic skills, official results, written-rules-based results and ethos-rules-based results (see Hämäläinen, 2016). 4 Hämäläinen (2015, pp.…”

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such cases, a sports contest may be called a failed athletic contest. The two most sophisticated models of failed athletic contests in the philosophy of sport literature are Arvi Pakaslahti's (2016) model and Mika Hämäläinen's (2016) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these four items, the first two are included also in Hämäläinen's (2014;2015) Hämäläinen, 2016;Pakaslahti, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Three models of failed athletic contests

Pakaslahti¹

2018

Auc Kinanthropologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arvi Pakaslahti's model of failed athletic contests (the Two Ideals Model) and Mika Hämäläinen's most recent model of failed athletic contests (the Four Items Model) are the two most sophisticated models of failed athletic contests in the philosophy of sport literature. In this paper, I argue that the Two Ideals Model is a more plausible model of failed athletic contests than the Four Items Model. However, I also argue that the Two Ideals Model is an incomplete model of failed athletic contests. I suggest that instead of accepting the Two Ideals Model, it would be better to endorse what I call 'the Three Ideals Model' .

show abstract

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These items are display of athletic skills, official results, written-rules-based results and ethos-rules-based results (see Hämäläinen, 2016). 4 Hämäläinen (2015, pp.…”

Section: Descriptions Of the Two Ideals Model And The Four Items Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these four items, the first two are included also in Hämäläinen's (2014;2015) Hämäläinen, 2016;Pakaslahti, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Three models of failed athletic contests

Pakaslahti¹

2018

Auc Kinanthropologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Real Winners in Sports Contests

Pakaslahti

2022

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance and Kinematic Differences in Putting Between Healthy and Disabled Elite Golfers

Gryc

Šťastný

Zahálka

et al. 2017

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Golfers with disability are limited in the execution of the full golf swing, but their performance in putting may be comparable because this stroke does not demand significant strength, balance and range of motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare putting performance, kinetic and kinematic consistency between golfers with different disabilities and healthy athletes. The participants consisted of three disabled athletes (perinatal cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, below knee lower limb amputee) and three healthy golfers (age 34 ± 4.5 years, body height 178 ± 3.3 cm, body mass 83 ± 6.2 kg). The golfers’ movements were recorded by active 3D markers for kinematic analyses; the subjects performed 10 trials of a 6 m putting task while standing on separate force platforms placed under each lower limb. Putting performance was measured by the distance of the final ball position to the centre of the hole. ANOVA analyses did not show any differences in clubhead speed and total ball distance from the hole. The consistency of those two parameters expressed by the coefficient of variation (CV) was CV = 0.5% or better in both groups for clubhead speed and ranged from CV = 0.40 to 0.61% in healthy and CV = 0.21 to 0.55% in disabled athletes for total error distance. The main effect ANOVA showed differences in weight shift, hip and shoulder kinematics (p < 0.05) between healthy players and all players with disability. All disabled athletes shifted their weight toward the healthy side (towards the healthy lower limb) and alternated the end of the swing. The player with below knee amputation had the lowest range of motion in the shoulder joint during the putting stroke. The players with perinatal cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis had the largest range of motion in the hips. Putting performance of disabled golfers was similar to healthy athletes. During training of disabled players, coaches should pay attention to the specificity of a particular disability when focused on putting performance. However, individual technique should achieve the same consistency as observed in healthy players.

show abstract

Who was the better athlete? Which was the better team?

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

Three models of failed athletic contests

Three models of failed athletic contests

Real Winners in Sports Contests

Performance and Kinematic Differences in Putting Between Healthy and Disabled Elite Golfers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About