U.S. patent application number 13/682217 was filed with the patent office on 2013-03-28 for golf athleticism rating system.
The applicant listed for this patent is DAVID H ANNIS, KRISTOPHER L HOMSI. Invention is credited to DAVID H ANNIS, KRISTOPHER L HOMSI.
Application Number | 20130079907 13/682217 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 47912119 |
Filed Date | 2013-03-28 |
United States Patent
Application |
20130079907 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
HOMSI; KRISTOPHER L ; et
al. |
March 28, 2013 |
GOLF ATHLETICISM RATING SYSTEM
Abstract
Aspects of this disclosure relate to systems and methods for
rating the performance of an athlete, particularly a golf athlete.
The systems and method may include instructing the user to perform
multiple golf-relevant athleticism drills or tests such as a
stepping exercise, a broad jump, a wood-chop bounce, a
countermovement lateral hop and/or a side-sling object launch. One
or more drills or tests may be performed in a hip-neutral manner so
as to simulate a golfer's stance. The performance data collected
from each of these tests may be input into a processing system to
generate an athleticism rank and score for each test as well as an
overall, multi-factorial rating of golf athleticism.
Inventors: |
HOMSI; KRISTOPHER L;
(PORTLAND, OR) ; ANNIS; DAVID H; (CHARLOTTE,
NC) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
HOMSI; KRISTOPHER L
ANNIS; DAVID H |
PORTLAND
CHARLOTTE |
OR
NC |
US
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
47912119 |
Appl. No.: |
13/682217 |
Filed: |
November 20, 2012 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12559082 |
Sep 14, 2009 |
|
|
|
13682217 |
|
|
|
|
61096603 |
Sep 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
700/91 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A63B 24/00 20130101;
A61B 2562/0219 20130101; A61B 2505/09 20130101; G06Q 10/0639
20130101; A61B 5/11 20130101; A61B 5/1126 20130101; A61B 5/0002
20130101; G09B 19/0038 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
700/91 |
International
Class: |
A63B 24/00 20060101
A63B024/00 |
Claims
1. A method comprising: receiving, at a computing system having at
least one processor, athletic performance results from multiple
types of performance tests, the athletic performance results
including at least two selected from the following: a change in
pulse of an athlete measured during a stepping exercise, a broad
jump distance of an athlete, a lateral hop distance of an athlete,
a bounce distance of a ball when thrown by the athlete in a
downward direction toward a target, and a sling distance of a ball
when thrown by the athlete using a underhanded side sling; and
generating, by the computing system, a golf athleticism rating
based on the at least two athletic performance results.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the athletic performance results
includes the thrown distance of the ball, and wherein the method
further includes receiving, at the computing system, the sling
distance of the ball during an exercise in which the athlete holds
an object between the athlete's legs while performing the
underhanded side sling.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the stepping exercise includes
multiple rounds of stepping by the athlete, each round of stepping
followed by a rest period.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating an
athleticism score for each athleticism performance result, and
wherein generating the golf athleticism rating includes combining
each athleticism score.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein generating the athleticism score
for each athletic performance result includes normalizing the
athletic performance result data to a common scale.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the athletic
performance results is received from an athletic performance field
having one or more integrated sensors.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the athletic performance field
comprises a portable test field.
8. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and memory
operatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing
computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause the
apparatus to: receive athletic performance results corresponding to
an athlete's performance during multiple types of athletic
exercises, the athletic performance results including at least two
of: a change in pulse of an athlete measured during a stepping
exercise, a broad jump distance of an athlete, a lateral hop
distance of an athlete, a bounce distance of a ball when thrown by
the athlete in a downward direction toward a target, and a sling
distance of a ball when thrown by the athlete using a underhanded
side sling; and generate a golf athleticism rating based on the at
least two athletic performance results.
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the athletic performance
results includes the sling distance of the ball, and wherein the
method further includes receiving, at the computing system, the
sling distance of the ball during an exercise in which the athlete
holds an object between the athlete's legs while performing the
underhanded single-hand throw.
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the stepping exercise
includes multiple rounds of stepping by the athlete, each round of
stepping followed by a rest period.
11. The apparatus of claim 8, further comprising computer readable
instructions for generating an athleticism score for each athletic
performance result, and wherein generating the golf athleticism
rating includes combining the athleticism scores.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein generating each athleticism
score includes normalizing the athleticism result to a common
scale.
13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein at least one of the athletic
performance results is received from an athletic performance field
having one or more integrated sensors.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the athletic performance
field comprises a portable test field.
15. One or more non-transitory computer readable media having
computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that when
executed by a processor perform a method for evaluating the
athleticism of an athlete in golf, the method comprising: receiving
at least two results for the athlete's performance in at least two
different athletic performance tests related to golf; comparing
each of the at least two results to a corresponding distribution of
test results of athletic data for athletes similar to the athlete
and determining a percentile ranking for each of the at least two
results; transforming the percentile ranking for each of the at
least two results to a fractional event point number for each
result, wherein the percentile rankings for each of the at least
two results are progressive; and determining an athleticism rating
score for the athlete in golf based on the fractional event point
numbers.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim
15, further comprising determining an athleticism score includes
combining the fractional event point numbers to determine a
combined fractional event point number and applying a scaling
factor to the combined fractional event point number.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim
16, wherein transforming the percentile ranking for the at least
two results to the fractional event point number comprises applying
an inverse-Weibull transformation.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim
17, wherein the distribution of test results of athletic data for
athletes similar to the athlete is determined using the empirical
cumulative distribution function.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim
18, wherein the percentile ranking for each of the at least two
results is capped at a ceiling value.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim
15, wherein the athletic performance results including at least two
of: a change in pulse of an athlete measured during a stepping
exercise, a broad jump distance of an athlete, a lateral hop
distance of an athlete, a bounce distance of a ball when thrown by
the athlete in a downward direction toward a target, and a sling
distance of a ball when thrown by the athlete using a underhanded
side sling.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application, having attorney docket number NIKE.172005,
is a Continuation-in-Part of copending U.S. Nonprovisional
application having Ser. No. 12/559,082, attorney docket number
NIKE.170315, filed on Sep. 14, 2009, and entitled "Athletic
Performance Rating System," which claims the benefit of U.S.
Provisional Patent Application No. 61/096,603, filed on Sep. 12,
2008, entitled "Athletic Performance Rating System." The entireties
of the aforementioned applications are incorporated by reference
herein.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] Aspects described herein relate to athleticism ratings and
related performance measuring systems, methods, apparatuses and the
like. In particular, aspects are directed to athleticism ratings
and performance measuring systems for determining golf athleticism
for an individual or group.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Athletics contribute to the promotion of physical activity
and a healthy sense of competition. Commercially, athletics play a
significant role in providing entertainment to fans and generating
revenue for the various leagues and players. At any level of
athletics, teams, sponsors, coaches and the like seek out the best
athletes. However, evaluating an athlete's level of skill or
potential is often very subjective. For example, in some instances,
scouts or other evaluation personnel rely upon subjective and
individual-specific opinions and experiences regarding performance
and the relative importance of various attributes of
performance.
[0004] Some current systems attempt to use objective standards to
evaluate athletic potential. Oftentimes, the systems use the same
data and same athletic exercises or tests regardless of the type of
athletic activity for which the athlete is being evaluated.
[0005] The present invention seeks to overcome certain limitations
and other drawbacks, and to provide new features not heretofore
available.
BRIEF SUMMARY
[0006] The following presents a general summary of aspects of the
invention in order to provide a basic understanding of the
invention and various features of it. This summary is not intended
to limit the scope of the invention in any way, but it simply
provides a general overview and context for the more detailed
description that follows.
[0007] The present invention generally relates to systems and
methods for rating the performance of an athlete, particularly a
golf athlete using various types of exercises and tests. In some
arrangements, the tests or exercises may be specific to evaluating
golf athleticism. Additional or alternatively, aspects described
herein may include a portable test field or mat that may be used to
perform the various exercises or tests for determining athleticism
of an individual.
[0008] These and other features of the invention will become
apparent from the following detailed description.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] A more complete understanding of various aspects disclosed
herein and certain advantages thereof may be acquired by referring
to the following detailed description in consideration with the
accompanying drawings, in which:
[0010] FIG. 1 illustrates a general operating environment in which
one or more aspects described herein may be included.
[0011] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for
collecting data for generating an athleticism rating of an athlete
based on a set of athletic exercises or tests according to one or
more aspects described herein.
[0012] FIG. 3 is an exemplary graph illustrating rankings of
performances in a particular type of exercise among an athlete pool
according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0013] FIG. 4 is an exemplary table illustrating scoring values for
an athlete along with possible scoring values according to one or
more aspects described herein.
[0014] FIG. 5 is a table illustrating an example set of athleticism
scores for various athleticism tests performed by an athlete
according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0015] FIG. 6 is a table illustrating an example set of athleticism
scores corresponding to ceiling values for various athleticism
tests according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0016] FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for
generating an athleticism rating according to one or more aspects
described herein.
[0017] FIG. 8 is a timeline and process flow illustrating a method
for performing a step test according to one or more aspects
described herein.
[0018] FIGS. 9A-9C illustrate an example athletic activity exercise
that may be used to determine a golf athleticism rating according
to one or more aspects described herein.
[0019] FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate another example athletic
activity exercise that may be used to determine a golf athleticism
rating according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0020] FIGS. 11A-11C illustrate another example athletic activity
exercise that may be used to determine a golf athleticism rating
according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0021] FIGS. 12A-12C illustrate another example athletic activity
exercise, a wood-chop bounce, that may be used to determine a golf
athleticism rating according to one or more aspects described
herein.
[0022] FIGS. 13A-13D illustrate another example athletic activity
exercise, a side-sling object launch, that may be used to determine
a golf athleticism rating according to one or more aspects
described herein.
[0023] FIGS. 14A and 14B illustrate an example exercise test field
that may be used to perform one or more athleticism exercises/tests
according to one or more aspects described herein.
[0024] The reader is advised that the attached drawings are not
necessarily drawn to scale.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0025] In the following description of various example structures
and methods in accordance with the invention, reference is made to
the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which
are shown by way of illustration various performance rating devices
and systems using performance ratings or measuring devices in
accordance with various embodiments of the invention. Additionally,
it is to be understood that other specific arrangements of parts
and structures may be utilized and structural and functional
modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the
invention.
[0026] A first aspect of the present invention is directed to a
system for performing a method, the method including receiving
athletic performance results from multiple types of performance
tests. In an exemplary aspect, the athletic performance results
including at least two selected from the following 1) a change in
pulse of an athlete measured during a stepping exercise, 2) a broad
jump distance of an athlete, 3) a lateral hop distance of an
athlete, 4) a bounce distance of a ball when thrown by the athlete
in a downward direction toward a target, and 5) a sling distance of
a ball when thrown by the athlete using a underhanded side sling.
It is understood that when it is stated herein that at least two
are selected from the following, it is intended that at least two
different performance test are selected from the listing of
possible performance tests. The method also comprised of
generating, by the computing system, a golf athleticism rating
based on the at least two athletic performance results.
[0027] A second aspect of the present invention is directed to
non-transitory computer readable media having computer-executable
instructions embodied thereon that when executed by a processor
perform a method for evaluating the athleticism of an athlete in
golf, The method comprises receiving at least two results for the
athlete's performance in at least two different athletic
performance tests related to golf. The method further comprises
comparing each of the at least two results to a corresponding
distribution of test results of athletic data for athletes similar
to the athlete and determining a percentile ranking for each of the
at least two results. The method is further comprised of
transforming the percentile ranking for each of the at least two
results to a fractional event point number for each result. The
percentile rankings for each of the at least two results are
progressive. The method further comprising determining an
athleticism rating score for the athlete in golf based on the
fractional event point numbers.
[0028] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an athleticism measurement
system 100 that includes a sensor 102 (e.g., an accelerometer,
compression sensor, inertial measurement system, etc.) that is
borne by an athlete during different athletic drills or tests to
generate data that are used to generate an athleticism rating, such
as a rating described in International patent application no.
PCT/US2005/040493 for Athleticism Rating and Performance Measuring
Systems and incorporated herein by reference. Sensor 102 may be any
type of sensor configured to detect a stimulus and provide a
resulting signal. In one embodiment, sensor 102 may be configured
to detect a force, such as an impact force from a person or object
striking another person or object. In certain embodiments, sensor
102 may be utilized to measure one or more parameters, such as, for
example, velocity, acceleration, pressure, location, energy
transfer, temperature, orientation, light, sound, magnetism, or a
particular motion along two or more axes. In one embodiment, sensor
102 may comprise an accelerometer module. In a particular example,
the accelerometer module may be implemented with a two-axis
accelerometer for measuring acceleration along two orthogonal axes.
In another embodiment, the accelerometer module may be implemented
with a three-axis accelerometer for measuring acceleration along
three orthogonal axes.
[0029] Further exemplary sensors include strain gauges, conductive
ink, piezo-electric devices and/or pressure transducers. In certain
embodiments, relative pressure applied to sensor 102 (e.g., versus
pressure detected by another sensor or by different components of
sensor 102) can be used to indicate weight distribution. In certain
embodiments, sensor 102 may comprise a camera. A camera may detect
or measure one or more properties of an athlete or other user,
before, during or after, any processes or routines disclosed
herein. Additionally, multiple sensors may be used in measuring an
athlete's performance during one or more athleticism exercises or
tests. The multiple sensors may be of the same type or may include
different types. In one example, the multiple sensors may
correspond to accelerometers placed at different locations on a
test field or on an athlete's body. In another example, a first
sensor may comprise an accelerometer while another sensor may
comprise a pulse measurement sensor. Multiple sensors may be
incorporated into the same physical device or may each be
physically separate from the others.
[0030] Acceleration sensor 102 may be positioned in a shoe, on top
of a shoe, fastened around the ankle or wrist, attached to waist
belts or incorporated into apparel on the body of the athlete, or
otherwise borne by the athlete. For example, sensor 102 may be worn
or attached to any other portion of an athlete's body and/or
incorporated into clothing as necessary or desired. For example, an
athlete may wear a sensor around his or her head to measure head
movement. In another example, an athlete may wear a shirt having a
heart rate monitor included therein.
[0031] In an embodiment, sensor 102 communicates over a link 104
with an athleticism rating processing device 106. In one
implementation, link 104 is a wireless, digital, low-power RF link
with 1-way or 2-way transmission. A wired link could alternatively
be employed in some applications. Athleticism rating processing
device 106 may include one or more of an athleticism timing system,
such as an electronic timing system, or a stopwatch, sport watch,
digital music player, mobile phone, wireless athleticism
measurement kiosk, etc. configured to communicate over link 104
with sensor 102.
[0032] According to one or more arrangements, athleticism rating
processing device 106 allows a user (e.g., an athlete, coach, etc.)
to select an athleticism measurement mode from among multiple
selectable athleticism measurement modes. During a measurement
mode, athleticism rating processing device 106 obtains and stores
acceleration data from sensor 102 and selected timing data. In
addition, athleticism rating processing device 106 may cue the
athlete to perform certain actions during an athleticism
measurement or may provide feedback during or after the
measurement.
[0033] In one implementation, athleticism rating processing device
106 delivers the acceleration data and the timing data by wired or
wireless communication to an athleticism rating computer system 108
that calculates an athleticism rating based in part on the sensed
data and/or timing data. Athleticism rating computer system 108 may
be disposed at the location where the athlete performs the athletic
drills or tests or may be located remotely and accessed over a
computer network (e.g., the Internet). In an alternative
implementation, athleticism rating processing device 106 may
calculate an athleticism rating directly. In some arrangements,
athleticism rating processing device 106 and/or athleticism rating
computer system 108 may be included as part of the same physical
device as sensor 102. For example, sensor 102 may include a
processor and memory storing instructions for processing the
athleticism data and subsequently calculating an athleticism
rating. In other arrangements, athleticism rating processing device
106, athleticism rating computer system 108 and sensor 102 may all
correspond to physically separate devices. In yet other
arrangements, processing device 106 and rating computer system 108
may correspond to a single physical computing device or system. Any
of the sensor 102, processing device 106 and computer system 108
may also be configured to operate in multiple modes, each mode
corresponding to a different sport, type of athletic activity, type
of athleticism rating being determined and the like. An example
multi-mode athleticism movement measurement system is described in
further detail in U.S. Application Pub. No. 2008/0249736 A1,
entitled "MULTI-MODE ACCELERATION-BASED ATHLETICISM MEASUREMENT
SYSTEM," and filed on Sep. 28, 2007, which is hereby incorporated
by reference in its entirety.
[0034] Processing device 106 (and/or computer system 108 and sensor
102) may include one or more computing devices and components. For
example, processing device 106 may include a computing unit 113.
The computing unit 113 includes a processing unit 115 and a system
memory 117. The processing unit 115 may be any type of processing
device for executing software instructions, but will conventionally
be a microprocessor device. In some arrangements, processing unit
115 may be single-core or multi-core. The system memory 117 may
include both a read-only memory (ROM) 119 and a random access
memory (RAM) 121. As will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill
in the art, both the read-only memory (ROM) 119 and the random
access memory (RAM) 121 may store software instructions for
execution by the processing unit 115. Further, it is contemplated
that one or more forms of memory may be non-transitory computer
readable media.
[0035] The processing unit 115 and the system memory 117 are
connected, either directly or indirectly, through a bus 123 or
alternate communication structure to one or more peripheral
devices. For example, the processing unit 115 or the system memory
117 may be directly or indirectly connected to additional memory
storage, such as the hard disk drive 127 and the optical disk drive
129. Other types of memory may also be used, including flash memory
and removable magnetic drives. The processing unit 115 and the
system memory 117 also may be directly or indirectly connected to
one or more input devices 131 and one or more output devices 133.
The input devices 131 may include, for example, a keyboard, touch
screen, a remote control pad, a pointing device (such as a mouse,
touchpad, stylus, trackball, or joystick), a scanner, a camera or a
microphone. The output devices 133 may include, for example, a
monitor display, television, printer, stereo, or speakers.
[0036] Still further, the computing unit 113 will be directly or
indirectly connected to one or more network interfaces 125 for
communicating with a network. This type of network interface 125,
also sometimes referred to as a network adapter or network
interface card (NIC), translates data and control signals from the
computing unit 113 into network messages according to one or more
communication protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP), the Internet Protocol (IP), and the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP). Network adapters may be wireless or wired or combinations
thereof. These protocols are well known in the art, and thus will
not be discussed here in more detail. A network interface 125 may
employ any suitable connection agent for connecting to a network,
including, for example, a wireless transceiver, a power line
adapter, a modem, or an Ethernet connection. Connection agents may
similarly be wireless or wired or a combination thereof.
[0037] Using the system 100, a golf athleticism rating may be
determined based on a battery of tests and exercises that may, in
one or more arrangements, be specific to potential in the golfing
arena. For example, a user's performance during the tests and
exercises may be measured using sensors such as sensor 102,
collected by a processing device such as processing 106 and used to
generate an athleticism rating by a computing device such as
computing system 108. In embodiments, one or more of the
performance results may be measured manually and entered, for
instance, into input device 131 of processing device 106.
Additionally, it is contemplated that one or more performance
results may be measured automatically and provided to the
processing device 106, in an exemplary aspect.
[0038] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method 200 whereby a
computing device may detect and/or receive data corresponding to an
athlete's performance for one or more golf exercises and tests and
generate an athleticism rating based thereon. In step 202, for
example, athlete information may be received by the computing
system. The athlete information may include name, gender, age,
height, weight, left/right-handedness, shoe size, wingspan, and the
like. This information may be used in calculating performance in a
particular test or exercise. For example, if a computing system
seeks to determine an athlete's leg strength, the computing system
may use the athlete's weight in combination with the athlete's
vertical jump height to determine leg strength or power. In another
example, shoe size may be used to insure proper foot placement for
a particular test or exercise. In a particular example, if a test
requires that one foot is placed behind the other without overlap,
a system may determine if this condition has been satisfied by
detecting a heel edge of a user's foot wear and determining, using
the athlete's shoe size, whether the toe point of the foot overlaps
the heel edge of the user's other foot. An athlete's information
may also be used to categorize the data. For example, the athlete's
gender may be used to determine a pool of data in which to store
the athlete's performance data. The various pools of data may be
used as the basis for generating athleticism ratings. Thus,
athleticism ratings for male and female athletes may correspond to
different scales and athlete pools and thus, might not be directly
comparable.
[0039] In step 205, the computing system may determine a series of
one or more tests or exercises for the athlete. The series of tests
or exercises may be selected based on the athlete information. For
example, some exercises or tests might not be age-appropriate for
younger athletes. In a particular example, a dunking test for
basketball might not be appropriate or valuable for athletes under
the age of 14 due to height, muscular development and other issues.
Tests and exercises might also be sport-specific or athletic
activity-specific. In a present embodiment, for instance, tests and
exercises might be specific to golf. Example tests and exercises
for evaluating golf athleticism are described in further detail
below. In other arrangements, some exercises may be generic to
multiple sports, but a set of exercises or tests are specific or
unique to a given sport or athletic activity. Moreover, tests and
exercises or sets of tests or exercises may be gender specific.
[0040] In step 210, the computing system may provide instructions
on when and how to perform each exercise. In some examples, the
computing system may provide audible, visual or haptic cues to
indicate times at which a particular movement or action is
expected. In a particular example, an audible and/or visible cue
may be provided when a user is expected to jump or throw an object.
Instructions may further include an animation illustrating the type
of movement expected for the test. The computing system may
progress through the set of exercises and tests, instructing the
athlete through each one. In step 215, the computing may
concurrently and/or subsequently request and receive performance
data. For example, the computing system may, based on the
determined exercise or set of exercises, generate requests for
particular types of data such as a number of steps taken, a top
speed, a distance an object was thrown, a distance the athlete
moved, or an impact force (e.g., force of the athlete hitting the
ground or another object, of an object being thrown or otherwise
propelled by the athlete and the like). In one particular example,
the computing system may generate an interface including a data
entry form. The data entry form may include fields for particular
types of performance data based on the types of exercises and tests
performed. Thus, if an exercise or a set of exercises is unique to
a type of sport or athletic activity, the data requested by the
computer system (and, in some examples, the data entry form) may
also be unique to the sport or athletic activity. Various types of
data are described in additional detail below.
[0041] Upon receiving the athletic performance data, the computer
system may, in step 220, generate an athleticism score or value for
each test/exercise by comparing the athlete's performance data with
data from a pool of other athletes for the particular
test/exercise. Based on the athlete's athleticism score for each
test/exercise, an overall athleticism rating for an athletic
activity or sport such as golf may be determined in step 225. In
one example, a number of points may be determined for each exercise
or test and the points later combined. Either the overall
athleticism rating or the exercise-specific scores or both may also
be scaled. The athleticism rating may thus represent a level of
potential or skill in a particular athletic activity (e.g.,
sport-specific athleticism rating) relative to an athlete pool.
Accordingly, athleticism ratings may be comparable within the
athlete pool, but might not be comparable outside of the pool. In
some arrangements, the athleticism ratings may be comparable
between multiple or all athlete pools.
[0042] According to one or more configurations, determining an
athleticism rating may include two general steps: 1) normalization
of raw scores (e.g., test data) and 2) converting normalized scores
to accumulated points. Normalization may be a prerequisite for
comparing data from different tests. Step 1 ensures that subsequent
comparisons are meaningful while step 2 determines the specific
facets of the scoring system (e.g., is extreme performance rewarded
progressively or are returns diminishing). Because the mapping
developed in step 2 converts normalized test results to (fractional
event) points in a standardized fashion, this scoring method can be
applied universally to all tests, regardless of sport and/or
measurement scale. Prudent choice of normalization and
transformation functions provides a consistent rating to value
performance according to predetermined properties.
[0043] In order to compare results of different tests comprising
the set or battery of tests for a particular sport such as golf,
the results may be standardized on a common scale. If data is
normal, a common standardization is the z-score, which represents
the (signed) number of standard deviations between the observation
and the mean value. However, when data are non-normal, z-scores are
no longer appropriate as they do not have consistent interpretation
for data from different distributions. A more robust
standardization is the percentile of the empirical cumulative
distribution function (ECDF), u, defined as follows:
u = 1 n + 1 [ j ( II { y j < x } + 1 2 II { y j = x } ) + 1 2 ]
, ##EQU00001##
[0044] In the above equation, x is the raw measurement to be
standardized; y.sub.1, y.sub.2, . . . y.sub.n are the data used to
calibrate the event and II{A} is an indicator function equal to 1
if the event A occurs and 0 otherwise. Note that u depends on both
the raw measurement of interest, x, and the raw measurements of
peers, y.
[0045] The addition of 1/2 to the summation in square brackets and
the use of (n+1) in the denominator ensures that u.epsilon.(0, 1)
with strict inequality. Although the definition is cumbersome, u is
calculated easily by ordering and counting the combined data set
consisting of all calibration data (y.sub.1, y.sub.2, . . . ,
y.sub.n) and the raw score to be standardized, x.
u = [ # of y ' s less than x ] + 0.5 [ ( # of y ' s equal to x ) +
1 ] # of y ' s + 1 = [ # of ( y ' s and x ) less than x ] + 0.5 [ #
of ( y ' s and x ) equal to x ] # of ( y ' s and x )
##EQU00002##
[0046] Note that this definition still applies to binned data
(though raw data may be used whenever possible).
[0047] Although the ECDFs calculated in step 1 provide a common
scale by which to compare results from disparate tests, the ECDFs
may be inappropriate for scoring performance because they do not
award points consistently with progressive rewards and percentile
"anchors" (sanity checks). Therefore, it is necessary to transform
(via a monotonic, 1-to-1 mapping) the computed percentiles into an
appropriate point scale.
[0048] An inverse Weibull transformation provides such a
transformation and is given by
w = 1 .lamda. [ - ln ( 1 - u ) ] 1 / .alpha. , where .alpha. =
1.610 and .lamda. = 2.512 . ##EQU00003##
[0049] The above function relies on two parameters .alpha. and
.lamda. and produces scoring curves that are qualitatively similar
to the two-parameter power-law applied to raw scores. The
parameters .alpha. and .lamda. were chosen to satisfy approximately
the following four rules governing the relationship between
percentile of performance and points awarded: [0050] 1. The 10th
percentile should achieve roughly ten percent of the nominal
maximum. [0051] 2. The 50th percentile should achieve roughly
thirty percent of the nominal maximum. [0052] 3. The 97.7th
percentile should achieve roughly one hundred percent of the
nominal maximum. [0053] 4. The 99.9th percentile should achieve
roughly one hundred twenty-five percent of the nominal maximum.
[0054] Because, in general, four constraints cannot be satisfied
simultaneously by a two-parameter model, parameters were chosen to
minimize some measure of discrepancy (in this case the sum of
squared log-errors). However, estimation was relatively insensitive
to the specific choice of discrepancy metric.
[0055] To illustrate the method when raw (unbinned) data is
available, consider scoring three performances, 12, 16, and 30,
using a calibration data set consisting of nine observations: 16,
20, 25, 27, 19, 18, 26, 27, and 15.
[0056] For x=16, there is one observation in the calibration data
(15) that is less than x and one that is equal. Therefore,
u = 1 9 + 1 [ j ( II { y j < 16 } + 1 2 II { y j = 16 } ) + 1 2
] = 1 10 [ 1 + 1 2 + 1 2 ] = 0.20 . ##EQU00004##
[0057] A summary of calculations is given in the following
table.
TABLE-US-00001 x .SIGMA..sub.j .PI.(y.sub.j < x) .SIGMA..sub.j
.PI.(y.sub.j = x) u w 12 0 0 [0 + (0.5)(0) + 0.5]/(9 + 1) = 0.063
0.05 16 1 1 [1 + (0.5)(1) + 0.5]/(9 + 1) = 0.157 0.20 30 9 0 [9 +
(0.5)(0) + 0.5]/(9 + 1) = 0.787 0.95
[0058] For backward compatibility, it may be necessary to score
athletes based on binned data. Consider scoring four performances,
40, 120, 135, and 180, using a calibration data set binned as
follows. Here, the bin label corresponds to the lower bound, e.g.,
the bin labeled 90 contains measurements from the interval (90,
100).
TABLE-US-00002 Bin Count <50 0 50 2 60 19 70 33 80 63 90 39 100
20 110 17 120 26 130 14 140 4 150 3 160 1 170 4 Total 245
[0059] For x=135, there are 0+2++17+26=219 observations that are in
bins less than the one that contains x and 14 that fall in the same
bin. Therefore,
u = 1 245 + 1 [ j ( II { y j < bin containing 135 } + 1 2 II { y
j in bin containing 135 } ) + 1 2 ] = 1 246 [ 219 + 7 + 1 2 ] =
0.921 . ##EQU00005##
[0060] A summary of calculations is given in the following
table.
TABLE-US-00003 x .SIGMA..sub.j .PI.{y.sub.j < x} .SIGMA..sub.j
.PI.{y.sub.j = x} u w 40 0 0 0.002 0.008 120 193 26 0.839 0.579 135
219 14 0.921 0.709 180 241 4 0.990 1.026
[0061] The standardization and transformation processes are
performed exactly as in the raw data example; however, care must be
taken to ensure consistent treatment of bins. All raw values
contained in the same bin will result in the same standardized
value and thus the same score. In short, scoring based on binned
data simplifies data collection and storage at the expense of
resolution (only a range, not a precise value, is recorded) and
complexity (consistent treatment of bin labels).
[0062] In rare circumstances, only summary statistics (such as the
mean and standard deviation) of the calibration data are available.
If an assumption of normal data is made, then raw data can be
standardized in Microsoft.RTM. Excel.RTM., available from the
Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., using the normsdist( )
function.
[0063] The above method relies heavily on the assumption of
normality. Therefore if data are not normal it will, naturally,
perform poorly. Due to the assumed normality, this method does not
enjoy the robustness of the ECDF method based on raw or binned data
and should be avoided unless there is no other alternative.
[0064] To illustrate this technique, assume that the mean and
standard deviation of a normally distributed calibration data set
are 98.48 and 24.71, respectively, and it is desirable to score
x=150. In this case, u=normsdist((150-98.48)/24.71)=0.981.
[0065] As before,
.omega. = 1 .lamda. [ - ln ( 1 - u ) ] 1 / .alpha. = 1 2.512 [ - ln
( 1 - 0.981 ) ] 1 / 1.610 = 0.924 . ##EQU00006##
[0066] Once the norm data has been collected and sorted in a
manner, as set forth above for a given test, its ECDF is scatter
plotted to reveal the Performance Curve. For example, non-standing
vertical jump data observed in the field for 288 girls are shown as
indicated in FIG. 3. For those results not observed, e.g., 26.6
inches, that value's rank (99.37 percentile) is assigned by
interpolation; the unobserved points requiring assigned ranks are
shown as indicated in FIG. 3.
[0067] For each test, a "ceiling" and a "floor" value is
determined, which represent the boundaries of scoring for each
test. Any test value at or above the ceiling earns the same number
of event points. Likewise, any test value at or below the floor
earns the same number of event points. These boundaries serve to
keep the rating scale intact. The ceiling limits the chance of a
single exceptional test result skewing an athlete's rating, thereby
masking mediocre performance in other tests.
[0068] Each rank is transformed to fractional event points using a
statistical function, as set forth above with respect to the
inverse Weibull Transformation. The scoring curve of event points
is shown for girls' no-step vertical jump in FIG. 3, as indicated
therein, where the points are displayed as percentages, i.e., 0.50
points (awarded for a jump of 18.1 inches) are shown as fifty
percent. These fractional event points are also referred to as the
w-score ("w" for Weibull).
[0069] The inverse Weibull Transformation can process non-normal
(skewed) distributions of test data, as described above. The
transformation also allows for progressive scoring at the upper end
of the performance range. Progressive scoring assigns points
progressively (more generously) for test results that are more
exceptional. Progressive scoring allows for accentuation of elite
performance, thus making the rating more useful as a tool for
talent identification.
[0070] FIG. 4 identifies a sample athlete, "Andrea White" who
jumped 26.5 inches during a no-step vertical jump. This value
corresponds to w-score of 1.078. The w-scores for all of her tests
are found by referencing those tests' respective look-up tables.
These w-scores are shown in FIG. 5.
[0071] The fractional event points are summed for each ratings test
variable to arrive at the athlete's total w-score (5.520 in FIG. 5,
for example). This total is multiplied by an event scaling factor
to produce a rating. For a girls' basketball rating, for example,
this scaling factor is 18, and so Andrea White's overall
athleticism rating is 99.36 (=5.520.times.18).
[0072] The "event scaling factor" is determined for each rating by
the number of rated events and desired rating range. Ratings should
generally fall within a range of 10 to 110. A boys' scaling factor
is 25, for example, as the rating comprises four variables: Peak
Power, Max Touch, Lane Agility, and three-quarter Court Sprint.
[0073] Were a female athlete to "hit the ceiling" on all six tests
(shown in FIG. 6), her w-score total would yield a rating of almost
130 (129.85).
[0074] Assessing each of the various scores for each test provides
the athlete with an overall athleticism rating, which may be used
by the athlete in comparing their ability and/or performance to
other athletes within their age group. Furthermore, the athlete may
use such information to compare their skill set with those of other
athletes in a particular sport (e.g., basketball, golf, etc.) to
determine how their skill set compares with that of a professional
athlete in the sport. While the above described tests and data may
relate more to basketball or other similar activities, the same or
similar algorithms, formulas, calculations and processes may be
used to develop ratings for tests and exercises relating to other
sports such as golf.
[0075] FIG. 7 illustrates a method 700 for generating an
athleticism rating based on performance data collected in multiple
athletic exercises or tests. Initially, as indicated at step 702,
athletic performance data related to a particular sport are
collected for a group of athletes. As described herein, the
performance data may correspond to multiple different athletic
tests or exercises. In some arrangements, those tests or exercises
may be specific or unique to a particular sport or type of athletic
activity/movement. Athletic performance data might include, by way
of example, and not limitation, a no-step vertical jump height, an
approach jump reach height, a sprint time for a predetermined
distance, a cycle time around a predetermined course, or the like.
Athletic performance data can be recorded for multiple athletes
(e.g., a group of hundreds or thousands of athletes).
[0076] In step 705, the collected athletic performance data, such
as athletic performance test results, may be normalized.
Accordingly, athletic performance test results (e.g., raw test
results) for each athletic test performed by an athlete in
association with a defined sport are normalized. That is, raw test
results for each athlete can be standardized in accordance with a
common scale. Normalization enables a comparison of data
corresponding with different athletic tests. In one embodiment, a
normalized athletic performance datum is a percentile of the
empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF). Any method can
be utilized to obtain normalized athletic performance data (i.e.,
athletic performance data that has been normalized).
[0077] In step 710, the normalized athletic performance data is
utilized to generate a set of ranks. The set of ranks includes an
assigned rank for each athletic performance test result included
within a scoring table. A scoring table (e.g., a lookup table)
includes a set of athletic performance test results, or
possibilities (e.g., potential test values or results) thereof.
Each athletic performance test result within a scoring table
corresponds with an assigned rank and/or a fractional event point
number. In one embodiment, the athletic performance data is sorted
and a percentile of the empirical cumulative distribution function
(ECDF) is calculated for each value. As such, the percentile of the
empirical cumulative distribution function represents a rank for a
specific athletic performance test result included in the scoring
table. In this regard, each athletic performance test result is
assigned a ranking number based on that test result's percentile
among the normal distribution of test results. As such, the rank
(e.g., percentile) may depend on the raw test measurements and may
be a function of both the size of the data set and the component
test values. As can be appreciated, a scoring table might include
observed athletic performance test results and unobserved athletic
performance test results. A rank that corresponds with an
unobserved athletic performance test result can be assigned using
interpolation of the observed athletic performance test data.
[0078] In step 715, a fractional event point number is determined
for each athletic performance test result. A fractional event point
number for a particular athletic performance test result is
determined or calculated based on the corresponding assigned rank.
That is, the set of assigned ranks, or percentiles, is transformed
into an appropriate point scale. In one embodiment, a statistical
function, such as an inverse Weibull transformation, provides such
a transformation.
[0079] In step 720, one or more scoring tables are generated. As
previously mentioned, a scoring table (e.g., a lookup table)
includes a set of athletic performance test results, or
possibilities thereof. Each athletic performance test result within
a scoring table corresponds with an assigned rank and/or a
fractional event point number. In some cases, a single scoring
table that includes data associated with multiple tests and/or
sports can be generated. Alternatively, multiple scoring tables can
be generated. For instance, a scoring table might be generated for
each sport or for each athletic performance test. One or more
scoring tables, or a portion thereof (e.g., athletic test results,
assigned ranks, fractional event point numbers, etc.) can be stored
in a database.
[0080] In step 725, athletic performance data in association with a
particular athlete is referenced (e.g., received, obtained,
retrieved, identified, or the like). That is, athletic performance
test results for a plurality of different athletic performance
tests are referenced. The set of athletic tests can be predefined
in accordance with a particular sport or other physical activity.
An athletic performance test is designed to assess the athletic
ability and/or performance of a given athlete and measures an
athletic performance skill related to a particular sport or type of
physical activity.
[0081] At step 730, a fractional event point number that
corresponds with each test result of the athlete is identified.
Using a scoring table, a fractional event point number can be
looked up, determined, calculated, or recognized based on the
athletic performance test result for the athlete. In some
arrangements, the best result from each test is translated into a
fractional event point number by referencing the test result in the
lookup table for each test. Although the above described process
includes generating a scoring table having a rank and a fractional
event point number that corresponds with each test result to use to
lookup a fractional event point number for a specific athletic
performance test result, alternative methods can be utilized to
identify or determine a fractional event point number for a test
result. For instance, in some cases, upon receiving an athlete's
test results, a rank and/or a fractional event point number could
be determined. In this regard, an algorithm can be performed in
real time to calculate a fractional event point number for a
specific athletic performance test result. By way of example only,
an athletic performance test result for a particular athlete can be
compared to a distribution of test results of athletic data for
athletes similar to the athlete, and a percentile ranking for the
test result can be determined. Thereafter, the percentile ranking
for the test result can be transformed to a fractional event point
number.
[0082] In step 735, the fractional event point number for each
relevant test result for the athlete is combined or aggregated to
arrive at a total point score. That is, the fractional event point
number for each test result for the athlete is summed to calculate
the athlete's total point score. At step 740, the total point score
is multiplied by an event scaling factor to produce an overall
athleticism rating. An event scaling factor can be determined using
the number of rated events and/or desired rating range. Athletic
data associated with a particular athlete, such as athletic test
results, ranks, fractional event point numbers, total point values,
overall athleticism rating, or the like, can be stored in a
database.
[0083] While athleticism ratings may be developed for a variety of
different athletic activities, sports and movements, athleticism
ratings for each type of athletic activity, sport and/or movement
may be based on different metrics, tests and athleticism exercises.
In determining an athleticism rating for golf, for instance, a
computing system may request and/or receive input relating to
endurance (e.g., using a par 5 step test), leg power (e.g., through
a broad jump exercise and/or a countermovement lateral hop test),
rotational and throwing force (e.g., based on a wood-chop bounce
exercise and/or a side-sling launch exercise). The noted golf
athleticism rating exercises or tests may more accurately measure
an athlete's golf athleticism versus using other types of tests or
exercises. In other arrangements, additional exercises or tests may
be added to the battery or set of golf athleticism exercises as
desired.
[0084] FIG. 8 illustrates a process 800 for performing an
endurance-based par 5 step test. The test is intended to simulate
the amount of exercise or physical exertion involved in completing
a par 5 hole on a golf course. In step 802, for example, a
computing system may instruct a user to perform a pulse find over a
predefined amount of time. That is, the user may be asked, within a
30-second period, for example, to practice or attempt to find an
athlete's pulse. The athlete may be the user or may be another
individual. This find period may also be used to allow an athlete's
pulse to lower from peaks before taking a reading.
[0085] Upon expiration of the initial 30-second find period or
other time period, the computing system may subsequently instruct
the user to perform a read of the subject athlete's pulse for a
predefined pulse read time period in step 804. In one example, the
predefined time period may be 30 seconds and a number of heart
beats may be counted or detected over the 30-second period and
multiplied by 2 to result in a beats per minute (bpm) value.
Alternatively, the counted value over the 30 second period may be
used for athleticism rating calculation purposes. Heart beats may
be determined through manual user counting/determination or using
electromechanical systems.
[0086] FIG. 9A illustrates an example process by which a pulse may
be read. For example, an athlete 901 may measure the pulse of a
subject athlete 903 by placing their fingers along a wrist area of
the subject athlete 903. The measuring athlete 901 may then count
the number of beats over the predefined time period. As
illustrated, athletes 901 and 903 may simultaneously or
concurrently measure the pulse of the other athlete 903 and 901,
respectively. As previously provided, an electromechanical heart
rate monitor may be utilized as an alternative or in addition to
other methods provided herein.
[0087] Referring again to FIG. 8, in step 806, after determining
the subject athlete's pulse (e.g., at the one minute mark from the
start of the exercise), the computing system may instruct the user
to record the data determined in step 806 and to begin practicing
an athletic movement such as stepping. In a particular example, the
athletic movement may include walking up and down a set of steps.
Step 806 may last a total of 30 seconds (or other predefined
amount) of exercise time. Various time periods may be used and the
time periods described herein with respect to each process step
(e.g., read, find, rest, report, step, etc.) may be different or
equal to the time periods for each of the other process steps. In
some instances, the predefined amount of time corresponding to step
806 may correspond to twice the predefined period of step 804.
Alternatively, the predefined time period of step 806 may be three
times, four times, ten times, (or any multiple, whole or
fractional) etc. of the predefined period of step 804. Reporting
may include recording the data manually (e.g., on paper or other
physical writing medium) or entry into the computing system or a
combination thereof.
[0088] The step test may include the setting or generation of a
periodic or aperiodic beat (e.g., audible or visual) with which the
user is to follow with steps. In one example, the computing system
may generate and produce a periodic beat (audible, visual and/or
haptic) having a frequency of 60 beats per minute. In another
example, a metronome may be used to set the beat (the computing
system may also provide instructions to this effect). Other
mechanical, electromechanical and manual methods (e.g., manually
timing and counting out the beats) and systems may also be used to
setting and/or cuing a user to a particular beat. Other beat
frequencies may also be used including 30 beats per minute, 25
beats per minute, 45 beats per minute, 120 beats per minute and the
like. In some arrangements, the beat may be aperiodic. For example,
the beat may include a first beat at time 0, followed by a second
beat at time 1 second and a third beat at time 4 seconds and a
fourth beat at time 10 seconds.
[0089] During the practice phase, the computing system may further
provide instructions on the type of movement expected at each beat
or cue. For example, the computing system may instruct the athlete
to step up with the left foot at the first beat, to step up with
the right foot at the second beat, to step down with the left foot
at the third beat and to step down with the right foot at the
fourth beat and so on (repeating with same set of steps or with
other sets of step movements). Accordingly, the par 5 step test may
require performance with or on a physical structure having multiple
elevations (e.g., a set of steps). In some instances, only two
levels or elevations are necessary while in other examples, more
than two levels or elevations may be required. Other arrangements
of step movements may also be used. For example, the athlete may be
asked to perform right up, left up, right up, left up, right down,
left down, right up, left up, right up, left up and so on. The
instructions might also depend on the dominant foot of the athlete.
For example, the athlete may be instructed to start with the
dominant foot first followed by the non-dominant foot.
[0090] Once the practice and report phase is completed (e.g., from
step 806), the computing system may subsequently instruct the
athlete to perform actual steps (in contrast to practice steps) for
a predefined amount of time in step 808. In this arrangement, the
predefined amount of step time may be 3 minutes. As with the
practice phase, the computing system may provide or instruct a user
or other device such as a metronome to provide an audible, visual
(e.g., on a display) or haptic cue (e.g., a beat). In one example,
the instructions may include an instruction for a user to activate
a metronome or other beat generating device. The computing system
may further display or audibly convey the particular movement
required at each beat.
[0091] FIGS. 9B and 9C illustrate example stepping movements that
may be performed by athletes on a set of steps in conjunction with
the exercise/test described in FIG. 8.
[0092] Referring again to FIG. 8, upon expiration of the stepping
period in process step 808, the computing system may provide an
instruction for the subject athlete to stop the stepping movement
and to begin performing a pulse find in step 810. As described in
step 802 and FIG. 9A, a pulse find may include locating the
subject's pulse, allowing the subject's pulse to lower from a peak,
and/or to otherwise prepare for determining the subject athlete's
pulse. The pulse find process may be performed over a predefined
time period such as 30 seconds.
[0093] Once the pulse find time period has expired, the computing
system may subsequently instruct the user to read the subject
athlete's pulse in step 812 over another predefined time period
(e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 45 seconds, 10 seconds, 2 minutes, 5
minutes, etc.). In one or more arrangements, read time periods and
find time periods may be the same. In other arrangements, these
time periods may be different. In yet other arrangements, each read
time period and/or each find time period may different from one or
more of the other read time periods or find time periods,
respectively.
[0094] Next, the computing system may subsequently instruct the
user to again perform a stepping exercise for another predefined
amount of time in step 814. This second stepping phase may have a
duration that is less than the first stepping phase (step 808). In
one example, the first stepping phase may have a duration of three
minutes while the second stepping phase may have a duration of two
minutes. The relationship between the first stepping phase duration
and the second stepping phase duration may be defined in a number
of ways. For example, the first stepping phase duration may be
defined as one minute more than the second stepping phase duration.
In other examples, the first stepping phase duration may be defined
as twice, three times, 10 times, etc. the second stepping phase
duration. In yet other examples, the second stepping phase duration
may be defined as a fraction of the first stepping phase duration
(e.g., 1/2, 3/4, 2/3, 3/7, etc.).
[0095] The second stepping phase of step 814 may be followed by,
similar to the first stepping phase, a find phase of 30-seconds (or
another duration) at step 816, and a read phase of 30-seconds (or
another duration) at step 818. Next, a computing system may
instruct an athlete to perform a third stepping phase or round in
step 820 for a predefined duration. The duration of the third
stepping phase may be related to the durations of the second
stepping phase and the first stepping phase. For example, the
duration of the third stepping phase may be 1 minute less than the
duration of the second stepping phase (and two minutes less than
the duration of the first stepping phase). Alternatively or
additionally, the duration of the third stepping phase may be a
predefined percentage or fraction of the durations of the first
and/or second stepping phases. The movements required in the
stepping phases may be the same (just for different durations) or
may vary. For example, in the first stepping phase, the athlete may
be instructed to perform right step up, left step up, right step
up, left step up, right step down, etc. while in the second
stepping phase, the athlete may be instructed to perform right step
up, left step up, right step down, left step down. The third
stepping phase may further be different from the first and second
stepping phases.
[0096] The third (and final in some examples) stepping phase 820
may be followed a find phase of 30-seconds (or another duration) at
step 816, and a read phase of 30-seconds (or another duration) at
step 818.
[0097] The final report may be provided based on a user interface
or electronic form generated by the computing system. The
electronic form may be specific to the par 5 test and request
various information including the various pulse readings at the
specified times. According to one or more arrangements, in addition
to or alternatively, the computing system may automatically take
the pulse measurements during the read phases. In other
arrangements, a user may perform the pulse reading process in a
manual fashion (e.g., either by manually counting or using a device
to measure the subject's pulse). By measuring the subject's pulse
and change in the subject's pulse after varying degrees (e.g., time
or amount) of exercise (e.g. stepping) and rest, a computing system
may determine the subject's endurance or ability to recover (e.g.,
based on the changes or differences in pulse readings at the
specified times). This information may be relevant to how well an
athlete would perform (e.g., endurance-wise) in golf games since
golf games tend to last multiple hours and require a significant
amount of walking.
[0098] The data recorded during the above par 5 step test may be
requested and received by the computing system in conjunction with
a corresponding instruction or may be requested and received at the
end of the entire test. Alternatively, data may be collected at
various intervals or points during the test (e.g., during rest
periods and the like). Additionally or alternatively, any number of
stepping rounds may be performed or required.
[0099] FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate an example process for
performing a broad jump test/exercise for evaluating golf
athleticism. The broad jump exercise may begin with an athlete 1001
being positioned with feet 1003 parallel and toes (or tip of the
athlete's shoe) placed at a predefined point such as a baseline
1005 as illustrated in FIG. 10A. The athlete 1001 may further be
required to start in a crouched position in preparation for
launching himself or herself as far as possible in a specified
direction (e.g., direction A). In one or more arrangements, a
sensor system (not shown) may be deployed along baseline 1005 to
insure that the athlete's feet are properly aligned. For example,
if the athlete 1001 crosses baseline 1005, the sensor may sound an
alarm or other type of visual, audio or haptic alert/feedback cue.
Additionally or alternatively, if the athlete's toes are not
touching baseline 1005, a test administrator and/or the athlete may
be notified.
[0100] A computing system may further cue the athlete 1001 to begin
the exercise. For example, the computing system may provide an
audible, visual and/or haptic cue to begin a jump. Upon generating
the cue, athlete 1001 may perform a broad jump. FIG. 10B
illustrates athlete 1001 mid-jump. Upon landing, the athlete 1001
may be required to remain upright with feet stationary so as to
permit accurate measurement. The measurement may be taken from the
baseline to the heel of athlete 1001 closest to the baseline. In
one example, the measurement may be taken through a manual process.
In other examples, electronic sensors (e.g., RFID, weight sensors,
etc.) may be used to detect the position of athlete 1001's feet. By
determining the position of the athlete's feet, a system may
determine a heel point of the athlete's back foot (e.g., based on
knowing the athlete's shoe size). This measurement may then be used
to determine a broad jump athleticism score as described
herein.
[0101] An athlete's jump may be disqualified, not recorded or not
counted for a variety of reasons. For example, if the athlete steps
into the jump, the athlete's jump may be disqualified. In another
example, the athlete's jump may be disqualified if the athlete's
toes cross the baseline prior to the jump. In yet another example,
disqualification may be based on the athlete taking a step, hopping
or landing any other body part other than his feet on the jumping
surface within a 5-second period after landing and/or prior to
confirmed measurement. In one or more arrangements, the athlete may
be required to perform two qualified jumps. An average may then be
taken as the final recorded jump value and score. In other
examples, the athlete might only be allowed to use a single jump
score. Accordingly, if the user's first or second jump is
disqualified, the athlete might be required to base his or her
athleticism score for the broad jump on the other jump.
[0102] Another exercise or test that may be used to evaluate golf
athleticism is a countermovement lateral hop test designed to
measure leg power with weight transfer and stabilization upon
landing. This test may be used for determining golf athleticism
since FIGS. 11A-11C illustrate an example countermovement lateral
hop movement. A countermovement lateral hop corresponds to an
athlete dominant-leg lateral hop to the opposite leg, covering the
greatest distance possible. In FIG. 11A, for instance, a user
positions him or herself in an initial stance. The initial stance
may involve the athlete placing the lateral outside edge of his or
her dominant foot 1103 along a baseline 1105 while standing with
his or her shoulder line perpendicular to baseline 1105. The
athlete's foot and/or body position may be verified using various
types of sensors such as laser sensors, weight sensors, and/or
computing systems to perform visual analysis of the athlete's
position and the like.
[0103] Once the athlete has established his or her initial stance
and the initial stance has been verified as proper, the athlete may
then be cued or otherwise instructed to hop, leading with the
non-dominant foot, as far as possible in direction B. FIG. 11B
illustrates an athlete initiating a hop. The user may be encouraged
or instructed to shift his or her weight to the dominant foot
before launching into the hop. The athlete may be permitted to move
either foot prior to the jump, but may be required to touch the
baseline 1105 with his or her dominant foot 1103 just prior to
initiating the jump/hop. Initiation of the hop may be defined by
the lifting of the dominant foot while the non-dominant foot is in
mid-air (i.e., not in contact with the test surface).
[0104] FIG. 11C illustrates an athlete's landing upon completing
the countermovement lateral hop. Once the athlete has landed, a
measurement may be taken between the baseline 1105 and an inside
lateral edge 1107 of the athlete's non-dominant foot (i.e.,
front/lead foot). Again, this measurement may be taken manually or
through electronic means and systems.
[0105] A trial of the hop test may be disqualified under certain
circumstances. For example, the test and measurement may be
disqualified if the athlete does not begin in the proscribed
initial stance as described herein. The stance may be confirmed by
another individual, by sensors, and/or based on visual image
analysis performed by a computing system. Disqualification may also
result from the athlete failing to touch the baseline with the
dominant/back foot immediately prior to initiating the hop/jump,
the athlete's non-dominant/lead foot landing in an orientation that
is not substantially parallel to the baseline, and/or failing to
stabilize the landing leg/foot for a measurement time period (e.g.,
5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120 seconds, etc.). As with the broad jump, the
countermovement lateral hop test may require the athlete to perform
two successful hops. The average of the distance measurements may
then be used to determine the athlete's final score or value (e.g.,
per the methods and algorithms discussed herein) for the
countermovement lateral hop test. In other arrangements, only a
single successful exercise/measurement may be required. In yet
other arrangements, any number of measurements may be required
(e.g., 3, 5, 10, 12, etc.).
[0106] A further measure of golf athleticism may include a
wood-chop bounce exercise/test. A wood-chop bounce may include an
athlete performing a cross-body rotational throw or slam. The throw
or slam may be performed diagonally downwards (e.g., cross-body)
with both hands on a thrown object (e.g., a ball). FIGS. 12A-12C
illustrate an example motion for performing the wood-chop bounce.
In FIG. 12A, for example, the athlete 1201 assumes an initial
stance and position along a baseline 1203. As with the
countermovement lateral hop, the athlete may be required to place
his or her dominant foot on the baseline 1203 with the width of his
or her body perpendicular to the baseline 1203. Again, various
sensors and computing systems or devices may be used to confirm
that the athlete 1201 is in the correct stance and position. For
example, ball 1205 may include sensors to detect whether the
athlete is touching two points on the ball 1205 (e.g., representing
that the user is using both hands to grasp the ball).
[0107] The athlete may next be instructed to draw the ball up and
back (e.g., just above head level) and to slam or throw the ball
cross-body downward and toward the ground as shown in FIG. 12B. The
goal of throwing the ball in this manner may be to achieve a
maximum bounce and farthest second bounce or touch point. In the
illustrated example, the athlete may be instructed to throw the
ball 1205 toward a designated point 1207. In a particular
arrangement, point 1207 may be five feet from the baseline (in a
widthwise direction of the athlete when in the initial stance). In
some examples, ball 1205 may be required to take the initial bounce
within a testing field. In a particular example, the testing field
may be 10 feet wide (e.g., baseline 1203 may be 10 feet wide).
[0108] FIG. 12C illustrates ball 1205 and athlete 1201 after the
ball 1205 has made an initial bounce (e.g., near or at the
predefined point 1207). On the second bounce of ball 1205, a marker
may be placed or the position may be recorded. In one example, an
electronic detection system may use weight sensors or RFID tags to
determine a second bounce landing point. RFID tags may be
incorporated into the ball 1205 or other thrown object. The second
bounce point might also be required to be within the testing field
(e.g., within an area that is ten feet wide). A distance between
the baseline 1203 and the second bounce landing point may be
measured and recorded. The measured distance may then be used as a
basis for determining a user's score or athleticism rating in the
wood-chop bounce exercise or test.
[0109] The wood-chop bounce test includes various situations in
which a test/measurement may be disqualified and the test results
not recorded. For example, if the ball fails to land within the
test field, the trial may be disqualified. In other examples,
disqualification may result if the athlete does not begin the test
in a golf stance with the dominant/back foot touching the baseline,
the athlete does not throw the ball with two hands cross-body
(e.g., the athlete might not be permitted to turn, open and square
to the fairway when throwing), and/or the ball is bounced beyond
the predefined first bounce point (e.g., striking the ground
further than five feet or other predefined distance from the
baseline). Various other disqualification rules may also be used in
addition or as an alternative to any of the above noted
disqualification criteria.
[0110] An alternate or additional version of the wood-chop bounce
may involve neutralizing hip movement so that an athlete does not
rely on hip movement in performing the test (e.g., throwing the
ball). In one example, the athlete may be required to place and
hold a ball or other object between his or her legs (e.g., above
the knees). When throwing, the athlete is required to maintain his
or her hold of the object between his or her legs. By having such a
requirement, the test may minimize the contribution of hip movement
during the throw. The ball held between the athlete's legs may be
different in size, shape, color, weight and the like from the ball
thrown. In another example, the ball held between the athlete's
legs may be the same in size, shape, color, weight and other
attributes as the ball to be thrown.
[0111] Another test that may be used to evaluate golf athleticism
is a side-sling object launch exercise. This test or exercise may
be used to evaluate an athlete's arm swing power while in a
particular stance or position. The side-sling object launch may be
performed in a hip-neutral manner as is further described below.
FIGS. 13A-13D illustrate the movements associated with the
side-sling object launch. In FIG. 13A, for example, the athlete
1301 may be instructed to take an initial position/stance similar
to a golf stance. For example, the user's dominant foot 1303 may be
positioned on a baseline 1305 of a test field 1311 and the
athlete's body may be positioned width-wise perpendicular to
baseline 1305. The athlete 1301 may further be required to hold an
object (such as a ball 1307) between his or her legs to reduce hip
movement contributions to the athlete's side-sling. In particular,
the athlete 1301 may be required to hold the object between his or
her legs (e.g., above the knees) through the entire exercise.
[0112] FIG. 13B illustrates athlete 1301 holding another object
(e.g., ball 1309) that is to be thrown down a test field 1311 in
direction C. In some arrangements, ball 1307 may be different in
size, shape, color, weight and the like from ball 1309. In another
example, ball 1307 may be identical to ball 1309. In FIG. 13C, the
athlete 1301 is shown slinging ball 1309 down the test field 1311.
The throw may be a single underhanded throw and may require the
user to start by swinging his or her arm 1313 ball directly back
and then slinging his or her arm 1313 forward, releasing the ball
out into the test field 1311. The athlete 1301 may be required to
follow through with the swing, ending upright as shown in FIG.
13D.
[0113] Upon completion of the throw, a distance between the
baseline 1305 and the initial landing/contact point of the thrown
object, e.g., ball 1309, may be measured. The distance may
correspond to the perpendicular distance between the baseline 1305
and the ball 1309. This distance may then be used to determine the
athlete's athleticism score or value for the side-sling object
launch exercise. Multiple trials may be performed and an average
may be taken in some arrangements. Disqualifications may be levied
if the athlete 1301 throws the ball 1309 and the ball 1309 does not
land within the test field 1311 (width-wise), the athlete 1301 does
not begin the test in the initial position (e.g., golf stance) with
his or her back foot 1303 touching baseline 1305, the athlete's
backswing carries his or her arm 1313 outside of his width-wise
body line (e.g., the arm 1313 crosses the plane created by the
athlete's shoulders and back in the initial stance, causing the
ball 1309 to deviate from the test field 1311), the athlete 1301
takes any kind of step with his front foot and/or if ball 1307 held
between the athlete's legs falls out during the throw.
[0114] In one or more of the above tests, RFID tags or other
sensors may also be worn by the user to detect various movements
and positions. For example, an RFID tag may be placed in heel
portion of a user's shoe to detect a landing position in the broad
jump test. In another example, RFID tags may be incorporated into a
lateral edge (inner and/or exterior) of a user's shoe to detect a
landing point in the countermovement lateral hop test. The RFID tag
in the lateral edge or in other portions of the shoe may also be
used to detect whether the user contacted or is contacting a
baseline.
[0115] As with the par 5 step test, a computing system such as
processing device 106 or computer system 108 may provide automated
instructions to the athletes for any of the above noted exercises
and movements, positions, measurements and data submissions
described herein. For example, the computing system may provide
audio, visual and/or haptic cues. Additionally or alternatively,
sensors may be used to determine if the athlete is in a correct
stance, determine one or more landing positions of a thrown object
or the athlete, positions of an athlete's body parts and the like.
The computing system may further generate a data input form
requesting recordation of trial data for each of the tests
described herein. Alternatively or additionally, the computing
system may generate a single form or a sequence of forms having
fields for the types of data to be recorded for each of the various
golf athleticism tests/exercises. Upon receipt of the data, the
computing system may determine the rating or score for each
exercise in addition to an overall golf athleticism rating that
takes into account all of the scores and results from all of the
tests/exercises performed. For example, as described herein, an
athlete's fractional event points (or other scoring value) for each
text/exercise may be summed to result in an overall rating. The
overall rating may also be subject to scaling factors (e.g.,
multiplying by a certain factor) to derive the scaled athleticism
rating.
[0116] FIGS. 14A and 14B illustrate an example test field
configuration that may be used for one or more of the golf
athleticism rating tests described herein. FIG. 14A illustrates a
front perspective view of test field 1400. Test field 1400 may
include multiple markers including 5-foot markers 1403 and
submarkers 1405. A baseline 1407 may be defined at the O-foot
marker 1403a with a staging area 1409 defined therebehind. The test
field 1400 may be divided width-wise into two sections 1411a and
1411b by a demarcation or dividing line 1413. Section 1411a may be
configured for throwing-oriented exercises while section 1411b may
be configured for jumping/hopping type tests/exercises. In one
arrangement, section 1411b might only extend length-wise for a
distance smaller than the length of section 1411a. In particular,
section 1411b might only have distance markers up to a first
distance while section 1411a may have distance markers up to a
second distance greater than the first distance. In a specific
example, section 1411a may be 50 feet long while section 1411b may
be 10 feet long. Other distances may be used to define each of
sections 1411a and 1411b. The widths of sections 1411a and 1411b
may be equal or one may be greater than the other. In one
particular example, the width of section 1411a may be 10 feet.
[0117] FIG. 14B illustrates test field 1400 from a top down view.
Test field 1400, as described, includes sections 1411a and 1411b
that are substantially rectangular. In section 1411a, a bounce line
for various tests such as the wood-chop bounce may be predefined at
the 5 foot marker 1403b. The remaining portion of section 1411a may
be labeled with a "FAIRWAY" mark to indicate the throwing region.
Section 1411b, on the other hand, may be labeled with a "JUMP ZONE"
label to identify section 1411b as a jumping or hopping test area.
Using these predefined sections 1411a and 1411b, athletes may
perform different tests at the same time.
[0118] In one or more arrangements, test field 1400 may be provided
as a mat that is portable. The portable mat may allow test
administrators and test takers to administer or take the tests in a
variety of locations (i.e., the tests would not be restricted to
one particular physical location). Additionally, using a portable
mat may provide consistency in the results that are produced. In
some arrangements, the mat may include one or more electronic
devices including sensors, LED displays, other visual displays,
haptic feedback devices and the like. For example, LED numbering
may be used instead of drawn numbering on the mat. In another
example, weight sensors may be used to detect the position and
weight distribution of athletes and test objects (e.g., balls). In
a particular example, a sensor may be placed at the borders of the
test sections 1411a and 1411b including the baseline 1407, end
lines 1405a and 1405b and dividing line 1413. In yet other
examples, infrared or laser sensors may be used to detect whether
an athlete or an object is touching (or not touching) or touches a
particular point on the mat such as the bounce line, the baseline
and the like. In still another example, a display device may
display instructions for performing a test. The mat may thus
further include data transmission devices (e.g., wireless adapters,
USB ports, serial ports and the like) to transmit detected
information to one or more computing systems such as processing
device 106 and/or computer system 108. The baseline, bounce line
and other demarcations on the mat may be provided in different
colors or patterns for visual differentiation. This may help the
athlete identify targets, position requirements and the like.
[0119] The mat or portable test field may be composed of various
materials and/or combinations of materials including plastic such
as artificial turf and/or, foams, metals and the like. The mat may,
in one particular example, be roughly 15 feet wide and 60 feet
long. Thus, in the example described above where section 1411a
(FIGS. 14A and 14B) is 10 feet wide, the other section, section
1411b, may be 5 feet wide or smaller. Other lengths and widths may
be used depending on the test criteria and requirements.
[0120] While the invention has been described in detail in terms of
specific examples including presently preferred modes of carrying
out the invention, those skilled in the art will appreciate that
there are numerous variations and permutations of the above
described systems and methods. Thus, the scope of the invention
should be construed broadly as set forth in the appended
claims.
* * * * *