The Effect of a Plyometrics Program Intervention on Skating Speed in Junior Hockey Players

Abstract

Few studies have been conducted to examine the effects of plyometrics on skating speed in junior hockey players. The present study was designed to look at the effects of a 4-week, eight session, plyometric training program intervention on skating speed. Six male subjects (18.8 ± .98 years) that engaged in the training program completed pre and post 40 meter on-ice sprinting tests. The training group showed significant time improvements (p<.05) in the 40 meter skating distance. The results suggested that plyometric training has a positive effect on skating speed in junior hockey players such that a reduction in on-ice sprinting times is evident.

(more…)

2016-10-24T11:45:30-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Effect of a Plyometrics Program Intervention on Skating Speed in Junior Hockey Players

Determinants of Success Among Amateur Golfers: An Examination of NCAA Division I Male Golfers

Abstract

An extensive body of research examines the importance of a golfer’s
shot-making skills to the player’s overall performance, where performance
is measured as either tournament money winnings or average score per round
of golf. Independent of the performance measure, existing studies find
that a player’s shot-making skills contribute significantly to explaining
the variability in a golfer’s performance. To date, this research
has focused exclusively on the professional golfer. This study attempts
to extend the findings in the literature by examining the performance
determinants of amateur golfers. Using a sample of NCAA Division I male
golfers, various shot-making skills are analyzed and correlated with average
score per round of golf. Overall, the findings validate those dealing
with professional golfers. In particular, the results suggest that, like
professional golfers, amateurs must possess a variety of shot-making skills
to be successful. Moreover, relative to driving ability, putting skills
and reaching greens in regulation contribute more to explaining the variability
in a player’s success.

Introduction

Davidson and Templin (1986) present one of the first statistical investigations
of the major determinants of a professional golfer’s success. Using
U.S. Professional Golf Association (PGA) data, these researchers find
that a player’s shot-making skills explain approximately 86 percent
of the variability in a player’s average score and about 59 percent
of the variance in a player’s earnings. Based on these results,
Davidson and Templin conclude that a professional golfer must possess
a variety of shot-making skills to be successful as a tournament player.
They further offer strong empirical support that hitting greens in regulation
and putting were the two most important factors in explaining scoring
average variability across players, with driving ability showing up as
a distant third.

Following Davidson and Templin (1986), a number of researchers have
continued to investigate the determinants of a professional golfer’s
overall performance. Examples include Jones (1990), Shmanske (1992), Belkin,
Gansneder, Pickens, Rotella, and Striegel (1994), Wiseman, Chatterjee,
Wiseman, and Chatterjee (1994), Engelhardt (1995, 1997), Moy and Liaw
(1998), and more recently Nero (2001), Dorsel and Rotunda (2001), and
Engelhardt (2002). Overall, these studies support the major conclusion
presented by Davidson and Templin (1986), which is that a professional
golfer must exhibit a variety of shot-making skills to be successful as
a touring professional. While the relative importance of these skills
to player performance is not uniform across these studies, there is a
developing consensus that shot-making skills like putting and hitting
greens in regulation are more important to a player’s success than
driving distance.

Interestingly, while there is an accumulating literature investigating
professional golfers, no analogous studies have examined the amateur player,
despite the fact that Davidson and Templin (1986) explicitly state that
this avenue of investigation would be a useful direction for future research.
More recently, Belkin, et al. (1994) specifically raise this point, suggesting
that:

“It would also be intriguing to examine whether the same
skills which differentiate successful professionals also contribute
in the same manner to the fortunes of amateurs of differing capabilities.”
(p. 1280).

By way of response, this study fills that particular void in the literature
by empirically estimating the relationship between an amateur golfer’s
overall performance and various shot-making skills. To facilitate direct
comparisons to the existing literature on the determinants of professional
golfers’ performance, we employ the basic approach used by Davidson
and Templin (1986) and Belkin, et al. (1994), among others.

Method

Sample

The sample used for this analysis is a subset of NCAA Division I male
golfers who participated in at least one tournament during the 2002–2003
season. Table 1 presents a listing of the colleges and universities represented
in the study and the number of players from each institution. The specific
data on these collegiate golfers are obtained from Golfstat, Inc. (2003)
(accessible on the Internet at www.golfstat.com), and/or from the respective
colleges and universities directly. The colleges and universities included
in the analysis are a subset of the college teams participating in National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men’s Golf. While
it would be preferable to examine all Division I teams, the individual
player statistics needed to perform the analysis are not available. However,
since it is reasonable to assume that the schools listed in Table 1 are
a representative sample of all Division I men’s teams, the data
sample is appropriate for this study.

TABLE 1
Sample of Schools Included in the Study

School
Number of Golfers
Conference
Golfweek/Sagarin Ranking
Clemson University
5
Atlantic Coast
1
University of Arizona
11
Pacific 10
7
University of Southern CA
9
Pacific 10
23
Duke University
8
Atlantic Coast
25
Vanderbilt University
7
Southeastern
31
California State -Fresno
9
Western Athletic
33
University of Kentucky
9
Southeastern
45
Georgia State University
8
Atlantic Sun
51
Texas A&M University
9
Big 12
60
Southeastern Louisiana Univ.
8
Southland
71
Coastal Carolina University
10
Big South
76

Sources: Golfstat, Inc. (2003) “Customized Team Pages-Men.”
www.golfstat.com/2003-2004/men/mstop10.htm, (accessed June 16, 2003),
various teams; Golfweek. (2003) “Golfweek/Sagarin Performance Index –
Men’s Team Ratings.” www.golfweek.com/college/mens1/teamrankings.asp,
(accessed July 1, 2003).

Measures

For the schools represented in this study, Golfstat, Inc. collects and
reports individual player statistics necessary to complete a performance
analysis. For this study we used statistics for the 2002 – 2003
NCAA Division I tournament season. Among the available data are the average
score per round (AS) for each amateur player in the sample. This statistic
provides the performance measure needed for the dependent variable in
this study, since earnings are not relevant to amateurs. Specifically,
according to the United States Golf Association (2003, p. 1) and the Royal
and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (2003, p.1), an amateur golfer is
defined as:

“…one who plays the game as a non-remunerative and
non-profit-making sport and who does not receive remuneration for teaching
golf or for other activities because of golf skill or reputation, except
as provided in the Rules.”

Although studies of professional golfers examine scoring average and/or
earnings as performance measures, Wiseman et al. (1994) argue that correlation
results are stronger when scoring average is used. Hence, the use of scoring
average for this study of amateurs is soundly supported by the literature
examining professional golfers.

Statistics for the primary shot-making skills typically used in the
literature are collected and reported by Golfstat, Inc. and by some colleges
and universities. These include measures of driving accuracy, greens in
regulation, putting average, sand saves, and short game.

To capture amateurs’ long game skills, we use one of the classic
measures, which is driving accuracy. Specifically, we use the variable
Fairways Hit, which is defined as the percentage of fairways hit on par
4 and par 5 holes during a round of golf. Data on driving distance for
the amateur sample are not available. However, Dorsel and Rotunda (2001)
present evidence suggesting that the number of eagles (i.e., two strokes
under par on any hole) a player makes is positively correlated with the
player’s average driving distance. Hence, we use the variable Eagles,
the total number of eagles a player makes during the season, to control
for each player’s average driving distance. Following the literature,
we also include the variable Greens in Regulation (GIR) to measure the
percentage of greens a player reaches in regulation for the season. This
is defined as one stroke for a par three, two strokes or less for a par
four, and three strokes or less for a par five. As discussed in Belkin
et al. (1994), this GIR variable captures a player’s iron play and
their success at reading a green within the regulation number of strokes.

With regard to the short game, several variables are used in the analysis.
In keeping with the literature, we use two measures of putting skill –
Putts per Round, defined as the average number of putts per round, and
GIR Putts, which is the average number of putts measured only on greens
reached in regulation. Belkin, et al. (1994) is one study that uses the
former measure, while Dorsel and Rotunda (2001) is an example of a study
using the latter. Interestingly, Shmanske (1992) argues that the latter
statistic, GIR Putts, is superior because it correctly accounts for the
longer putting distances associated with a player who achieves a higher
number of greens in regulation. By including one of these measures in
different regression models, we can assess the validity of that argument.
We also include the variable Sand Saves (SS), which measures the percentage
of time a golfer makes par or better when hitting from a sand bunker.
In certain specifications of our regression analysis, we experiment with
the variable Short Game as an alternative measure to Sand Saves. Short
Game measures the percentage of time a player makes par or better when
not reaching the green in the regulation number of strokes.

In addition to a player’s shot-making skills, Belkin, et al. (1994)
and others note the importance of experience in determining a player’s
success. To control for this factor, two experience measures are used.
First, we define the variable Rounds as the number of tournament rounds
completed by each player during the 2002–2003 season. In a sense,
this measure captures a player’s short-term experience, in that
it measures how each additional round played in a season increases the
experience that a player can call upon in subsequent rounds. Second, to
control for longer-term cumulative experience, we construct a set of dummy
variables to reflect the player’s academic age, (i.e., Freshman,
Sophomore, Junior, or Senior). It is hypothesized that the higher a player’s
academic age, the more collegiate golfing experience has been gained,
and therefore the lower the expected average score.

Finally, since golf at the collegiate level is a team sport, it is important
to capture any associated team effects. That is, a player’s performance
might be affected by the team with which they are associated. At least
two plausible explanations for this team effect are viable – one
relating to the team’s coach and the other relating to the courses
played. With regard to the former, each team’s coach is expected
to uniquely affect the success of each team member through mentoring,
leadership, instruction, and overall direction. In fact, Dirks (2000)
and Giacobbi, Roper, Whitney, and Butryn (2002) present evidence supporting
the importance of a coach’s influence on the performance of a collegiate
athlete. Primarily, the coach acts as the team leader and instructor.
As a leader, the coach is responsible for the overall team strategy and
for ultimately determining a player’s tournament participation.
As an instructor, the more experienced coach may be better able to teach
players and to motivate them to improve their play.

As for courses played, we expect a player’s scoring average to
be affected by the specific golf courses played, which in turn are not
consistent across collegiate teams. Indeed, it is highly plausible that
some teams might, for example, play easier courses throughout a given
tournament season, which may lower a team member’s score. To account
for these team effects, dummy variables are constructed, whereby each
dummy variable identifies the team to which each player belongs.

Procedure

Following the literature, multiple regression analysis is used to estimate
the relationship between an amateur golfer’s average score and various
shot-making skills. In addition, each regression model is specified to
control for player experience and team factors. Ordinary least squares
(OLS) is used to derive the regression estimates for four different models.
These models are distinguished by the selection of shot-making skill statistics
used for certain variables. Specifically, each model is distinguished
by its use of Sand Saves (SS) versus Short Game and Putts per Round versus
GIR putts. We also generate simple Pearson correlation coefficients between
the measure of player performance and each of the independent variables
in the study.

Results and Discussion

Basic descriptive statistics for the sample of 93 golfers are presented
in Table 2. At the collegiate level, most tournaments consist of three
rounds of golf, and, like the professionals, each round comprises eighteen
holes. The average NCAA Division I male golfer in the sample participated
in approximately nine tournaments, played slightly less than 26 rounds
of golf, and had an average score per round of approximately 75 strokes
during the 2002 – 2003 season.

TABLE 2
Basic Descriptive Statistics

MEASURES
Mean Std. Dev
Tournaments
8.72043
4.22818
Rounds
25.78495
12.62318
Average Score (AS)
75.04548
2.20730
Fairways Hit
0.68033
0.08356
Greens in Regulation (GIR)
0.60471
0.07985
Putts per round
31.02602
1.23018
GIR Putts
1.87653
0.07043
Sand Saves (SS)
0.41998
0.12239
Short Game
0.51377
0.08947
Eagles
1.50538
1.80352
Academic Age Dummy Variable
Mean Std. Dev
Senior
0.19355
0.39722
Junior
0.23656
0.42727
Sophomore
0.31183
0.46575
Freshman
0.25806
0.43994
Team Dummy Variables
Mean Std. Dev
University of Arizona
0.11828
0.32469
Clemson University
0.05376
0.22677
Duke University
0.08602
0.28192
California State -Fresno
0.09677
0.29725
Georgia State University
0.08602
0.28192
University of Kentucky
0.09677
0.29725
Southeastern Louisiana University
0.08602
0.28192
University of Southern CA
0.09677
0.29725
Texas A& M University
0.09677
0.29725
Vanderbilt University
0.07527
0.26525
Coastal Carolina University
0.10753
0.31146

With regard to specific shot-making skills, the average amateur hits
approximately 68 percent of the fairways and reaches the green in the
regulation number of strokes 60 percent of the time. Of the greens reached
in regulation, the average player needs 1.88 putts to finish a hole, and
over the course of a round, each needs to take slightly more than 31 putts.
On average, an amateur golfer makes par or better when hitting from a
sand bunker 42 percent of the time and makes par or better when not on
a green in regulation 51 percent of the time. Over the course of the 2002
– 2003 season, the average player made 1.5 eagles.

Table 3 presents the results of the correlation analysis among an amateur’s
average score (AS) and various shot-making skills, experience, and team
effects. Notice that all shot-making skills are significantly correlated
with a player’s average score. Somewhat predictably, GIR is the
variable that is most highly correlated with an amateur golfer’s
average score. This finding is analogous to what has been found for professional
golfers by Davidson and Templin (1986) and others. We also find that the
Short Game variable and GIR Putts rank second and third respectively in
terms of the strength of correlation among shot-making skills. Notice
that across the two putting measures – GIR Putts and Putts per Round,
the correlation for GIR Putts is higher, which may support Shmanske’s
(1992) assertion that this is a more accurate measure of putting skill.
We also find that both the short-term and long-term experience measures
are statistically correlated with a player’s performance. With regard
to the Rounds variable, the correlation shows a significant negative relationship
with a player’s average score, which follows our expectations. Also,
as anticipated, the dummy variable for academic age is positively correlated
with the player’s average score for freshmen and negatively correlated
for seniors. Lastly, for certain colleges and universities, there is a
significant correlation between a team effect and a player’s average
score.

TABLE 3
Pearson Correlation Coefficients

MEASURES Correlation with Average Score (AS)
Fairways Hit
-0.42884***
Greens in Regulation (GIR)
-0.77499***
Putts per Round
0.35983***
GIR Putts
0.58234***
Sand Saves (SS)
-0.32141***
Short Game
-0.61039***
Eagles
-0.48784***
Rounds
-0.68418***
Academic Age Dummy Variables
Senior
-0.22301**
Junior
-0.12563
Sophomore
0.07899
Freshman
0.23974**
Team Dummy Variables
University of Arizona
-0.14242
Clemson University
-0.29896***
Duke University
-0.02609
California State – Fresno
-0.01887
Georgia State University
-0.02679
University of Kentucky
0.15855
Southeastern Louisiana University
-0.10522
University of Southern CA
-0.10022
Texas A& M University
0.18837*
Vanderbilt University
-0.03283
Coastal Carolina University
0.31977***

* significant at the 0.10 level
** significant at the 0.05 level
*** significant at the 0.01 level

In Table 4, we present the multiple regression results for four alternative
models. As previously noted, these models vary by which putting statistic
is used and by whether Short Game or Sand Saves is used in the estimation.
Model 1 uses Putts per Round and Sand Saves (SS), Model 2 uses Putts per
Round and Short Game, Model 3 uses GIR Putts and Sand Saves (SS), and
Model 4 uses GIR Putts and Short Game.

TABLE 4
Regression Analysis (Standardized Beta Coefficients in parentheses)

MEASURE
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Fairways Hit -0.28 -0.43 -0.99 -0.53
(-0.01) (-0.02) (-0.04) (-0.02)
Greens in Regulation (GIR) -22.34*** -21.60*** -15.73*** -14.97***
(-0.81) (-0.78) (-0.57) (-0.54)
Putts per Round 1.00*** 0.94*** —– ——
(0.56) (0.52)
GIR Putts —– —– 13.27*** 8.92***
(0.42) (0.28)
Sand Saves (SS) 0.67 —– -0.32 —–
(0.04) (-0.02)
Short Game —- -0.70 —– -7.09***
(-0.03) (-0.29)
Eagles 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.02
(0.01) (0.01) (-0.01) (-0.02)
Rounds -0.01 -0.01 -0.02** -0.01
(-0.04) (-0.04) (-0.12) (-0.07)
Academic Age Dummy Variables
Senior -0.40* -0.42* -0.20 -0.19
Junior -0.33* -0.36* -0.22 -0.20
Sophomore -0.48** -0.50** -0.46* -0.51**
Team Dummy Variables
University of Arizona -0.02 0.01 -0.23 -0.11
Duke University -0.06 -0.01 -0.33 -0.17
California State -Fresno -0.11 -0.10 -0.11 0.00
Georgia State University -0.79** -0.71* -1.25** -0.66
University of Kentucky 1.44*** 1.43*** 0.85* 1.18**
Southeastern Louisiana University -0.11 0.04 -0.50 0.40
University of Southern CA -0.13 -0.15 -0.45 -0.29
Texas A& M University -0.26 -0.20 -0.49 -0.14
Vanderbilt University 0.28 0.25 -0.37 -0.27
Coastal Carolina University 0.78** 0.79** 0.42 0.84*
F-Statistic 46.73*** 46.23*** 21.78*** 32.09***
R-Square 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.89
Adjusted R-Square 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.87
F-Statistic (full versus reduced) 4.38*** 4.16*** 1.93** 2.78***

* significant at the 0.10 level, assuming a one-tailed
test of hypothesis
** significant at the 0.05 level, assuming a one-tailed test of hypothesis
*** significant at the 0.01 level, assuming a one-tailed test of hypothesis

Overall, we observe that shot-making skills, player experience, and
team effects collectively explain a large proportion of the variability
in an amateur’s scoring average independent of the model specified.
Specifically, the adjusted R2 statistics across the four models range
from 0.81 to 0.90, values that are similar to those reported in Davidson
and Templin (1986) and Belkin, et al. (1994).

Of the specific shot-making skills, GIR and putting (either Putts per
Round or GIR Putts), are the most consistent predictors of an amateur’s
average score across the four models. In each case, GIR is significant
at the 1 percent level, as are both putting variables. However, the standardized
beta coefficients show that GIR is the most important predictor, as was
the case for the models estimated by Davidson and Templin (1986) and Belkin,
et al. (1994). Both putting variables also are significant at the 1 percent
level, though the standardized beta coefficients suggest that Putts per
Round might be a superior measure of amateur putting, which runs counter
to Shmanske’s (1992) view of these variable definitions, as noted
previously.

Interestingly, Short Game is a significant predictor of average score,
but only when the variable GIR Putts is included in the model, which is
Model 4 specifically. With regard to Sand Saves (SS), we find that it
is not a significant factor in predicting a player’s performance
in either Model 1 or Model 3. Davidson and Templin (1986) and, more recently,
Moy and Liaw (1998) find analogous results for their respective samples
of professional golfers. One explanation put forth by Moy and Liaw is
that all golfers have similar abilities in this skill category. Another
more likely justification is one presented by Dorsal and Rotunda (2001),
which is that bunker play is less frequent and, as a result, has a negligible
effect on a player’s overall performance.

To the extent that the number of eagles over the season captures driving
distance, the results indicate that driving distance is not a major factor
in determining a player’s performance. In general, this conclusion
agrees with the findings of Davidson and Templin (1986), Belkin, et al.
(1994), and Dorsel and Rotunda (2001). Hence, this finding seems to be
independent of whether the golfer is an NCAA amateur or a professional
player. However, such an assertion has to be made with caution, since
no direct measure of driving distance was available to include in this
amateur study.

In addition to a player’s shot-making skills, experience and team
effects appear to have an influence on an NCAA golfer’s performance.
With regard to the experience measures, the total number of rounds played
in the 2002-2003 season improves a player’s overall performance.
This assertion is based on the consistently negative coefficient on Rounds
across models, though the result is statistically significant only in
Model 3. As for longer-term experience, sophomore players consistently
achieve a lower average score than their freshman counterparts, and this
effect is statistically significant across the four models. Juniors and
seniors are found to enjoy the same performance effect linked to experience,
but the influence is found to be statistically significant only in Models
1 and 2.

As for individual team effects, the results suggest that a statistically
significant influence exists for certain collegiate programs. For example,
holding all else constant, all four models indicate that players on the
University of Kentucky team have higher and statistically significant
average scores relative to players on the Clemson team (the suppressed
dummy variable), who are the 2002-2003 NCAA Division I Champions. Conversely,
players at Georgia State University achieve lower average scores than
players at Clemson, independent of individual shot-making skills or experience,
and three of the four models show this finding to be statistically significant.
The absence of statistical significance for the other teams might be attributable
to limited variability of team effects within a single NCAA division.

Finally, an F-test comparing the full model to a reduced version was
conducted across each model specification, where the reduced model assumes
that the academic age and team effects are jointly zero. As noted in Table
4, the null hypothesis was rejected across all four models, indicating
that these two experience variables collectively help to explain the variability
of an amateur player’s performance. This outcome validates the belief
of other researchers, including Belkin et al. (1994) and Shmanske (1992).

Conclusions

The importance of shot-making skills to a professional golfer’s
success has been well documented in the literature. In general, research
studies point to the fact that a variety of shot-making skills are important
to a player’s overall performance. More specifically, four shot-making
skills – GIR, putting, driving accuracy, and driving distance –
are responsible for the majority of variation in a professional golfer’s
scoring performance. Of these four, GIR and putting have consistently
been found to be the more important factors. On occasion, driving accuracy
and driving distance have been found to statistically impact a professional
golfer’s average score, but typically the influence is weaker than
for GIR and putting skills.

Despite an accumulating literature seeking to validate or refine these
results, we know of no study that has extended this analysis beyond the
realm of professional golfers. To that end, we attempt to fill this void
in the literature by empirically identifying performance determinants
for amateur golfers. Using a sample of NCAA Division I male golfers, we
hypothesize that a variety of shot-making skills along with player experience
and team membership are expected to influence an amateur golfer’s
performance measured as average score per round. Using multiple regression
analysis, our results indicate that all these factors collectively explain
a large percentage of the variability in an NCAA golfer’s average
score. This is evidenced by R-squared values ranging from 0.81 to 0.90
across four different models distinguished by varying variable definitions.

We further find that the amateur golfer’s shot-making skills measured
through GIR and putting are the most important factors to explaining average
score per round. These findings offer an important contribution to the
growing literature on professional golfer performance in that they validate
and extend much of what has been shown in existing studies. Future research
should attempt to further extend these findings to other amateur data,
as they become available.

References

  1. Belkin, D.S., Gansneder, B., Pickens, M., Rotella, R.J., & Striegel,
    D. (1994) “Predictability and Stability of Professional Golf Association
    Tour Statistics.” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1275-1280.
  2. Davidson, J. D. & Templin, T. J. (1986) “Determinants of
    Success Among Professional Golfers.” Research Quarterly for Exercise
    and Sport, 57, 60-67.
  3. Dirks, K. T. (2000) “Trust in Leadership and Team Performance:
    Evidence from NCAA Basketball.” Journal of Applied Psychology,
    85, 1004-1012.
  4. Dorsel, T. N. & Rotunda, R. J. (2001) “Low Scores, Top 10
    Finishes, and Big Money: An Analysis of Professional Golf Association
    Tour Statistics and How These Relate to Overall Performance.”
    Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 575-585.
  5. Engelhardt, G. M. (1995) “‘It’s Not How You Drive,
    It’s How You Arrive’: The Myth.” Perceptual and Motor
    Skills, 80, 1135-1138.
  6. Engelhardt, G. M. (1997) “Differences in Shot-Making Skills
    among High and Low Money Winners on the PGA Tour.” Perceptual
    and Motor Skills, 84, 1314.
  7. Engelhardt, G. M. (2002) “Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy
    Equals Total Driving: Reply to Dorsel and Rotunda.” Perceptual
    and Motor Skills, 95, 423-424.
  8. Giacobbi, P.R., Roper, E., Whitney, J. and Butryn, T. (2002) “College
    Coaches’ Views About the Development of Successful Athletes: A
    Descriptive Exploratory Investigation.” Journal of Sport Behavior,
    25, 164-180.
  9. Golfstat, Inc. (2003) “Customized Team Pages-Men.” www.golfstat.com/2003-2004/men/mstop10.htm
    (accessed June 16, 2003), various teams.
  10. Golfweek. (2003) “Golfweek/Sagarin Performance Index- Men’s
    Team Ratings” www.golfweek.com/college/mens1/teamrankings.asp,
    (accessed July 1, 2003).
  11. Jones, R.E. (1990) “A Correlation Analysis of the Professional
    Golf Association (PGA) Statistical Ranking for 1988.” In A.J.
    Cochran (Ed.), Science and Golf: Proceedings of the First World Scientific
    Conference of Golf. London: E & FN Spon. 165-167.
  12. Moy, R. L. and Liaw, T. (1998) “Determinants of Professional
    Golf Tournament Earnings.” The American Economist, 42, 65-70.
  13. Nero, P. (2001) “Relative Salary Efficiency of PGA Tour Golfers.”
    The American Economist, 45, 51-56.
  14. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2003) “Sports Sponsorship
    Summary.”
  15. www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/sponssummary, (accessed
    July 1, 2003).
  16. Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (2003) “Amateur Status.”
    www.randa.org/index.cfm?cfid=1066700&cftoken=78999628&action=rules.amateur.home,
    (accessed August 16, 2003)
  17. Shmanske, S. (1992) “Human Capital Formation in Professional
    Sports: Evidence from the PGA Tour.” Atlantic Economic Journal,
    20, 66-80.
  18. United States Golf Association. (2003) “Rules of Amateur Status
    and the Decisions on the Rules of Amateur Status.” www.usga.org/rules/am_status/,
    (accessed August 16, 2003).
  19. Wiseman, F., Chatterjee, S. Wiseman, D. and Chatterjee, N. (1994)
    “An Analysis of 1992 Performance Statistics for Players on the
    U.S. PGA, Senior PGA, and LPGA Tours.” In A. J. Cochran and M.
    R. Farrally (Eds.), Science and Golf: II. Proceedings of the World Scientific
    Congress of Golf. London: E & FN Spon. 199-204.
2015-10-30T13:26:19-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Determinants of Success Among Amateur Golfers: An Examination of NCAA Division I Male Golfers

Sport in Turkey: the Post-Islamic Republican Period

A Brief Evaluation of Development of Turkish Sport from 1839 to 1923

Although the modern Turkish Republic was officially established in 1923,
the liberalization, secularization and the democratization process of
the Republic was initiated in 1839. All of these three phases occurred
in conjunction with the Tanzimat reforms, which granted partial constitutional
rights to the Turkish people.

After the Tanzimat, the Turkish people reorganized their lives and established
organizations on voluntary and constitutional principles. The formation
of such organizations also provided leadership for sports activities within
the country. Eventually, the sport movement gained momentum. According
to Fisek, “Despite the discouragement of government, the popularity
and enthusiasm for sports were manifested” (p. 270). However, Turkish
sport had not yet set national objectives nor defined goals.

Prior to the Republican Period, between the 1650’s and the 1920’s, the
Ottoman Empire was constantly at war with one or more of her enemies,
weakening the economic and political strength of the nation. During this
period of crisis, it was only natural that the issue of sport escaped
the attention of officials. Nevertheless, it was also “…handed
over to the protection of a few rich individuals called Agas, and of sport
Tekkes (an ancient form of sport clubs) which provided shelter and management
for sport” (Fisek, 251). According to Fisek, “The largest of
all tekkes was in Istanbul and sheltered approximately 300 athletes, mostly
wrestlers” (p. 257). In some instances, services for the sports were
also provided by the Sultan’s Palace.

In the history of Turkish sport this period is remembered as the “Period
of Protectionism” (Fisek, 250). Furthermore, under the protectionist
system, entire services enhanced the athletic performance of Turkish athletes,
yet no effort was advanced for the development of the institution of sport
per se. According to Hicyilmaz, “…there was not any attempt or
any suitable approach to the problems connected with the issues of sport”
(P. 55).

Specific issues regarding sport in Turkiye gained some attention only
around the beginning of the twentieth century when some European-educated
Turkish sportsmen returned with a Western view of sports. With the help
and the experience of these sportsmen “…the system of sport began
to organize and a few national objectives” were stated (Atabeyoglu,
11).

Around the turn of the century, the Ottoman Empire had been suffering
from severe economic and political conditions and was on the verge of
collapse. Finally, soon after WWI, the Empire was invaded and occupied
by the Allied nations of Europe. During this period of invasion, several
“Anglo-Saxon” sports entered into Turkiye.

According to Fisek, “In the cities of Izmir and Istanbul, by using
their diplomatic immunity, the staff of Embassies of England
and France were organizing athletic competitions: cricket, rugby, hockey
and soccer” (p. 249). Ertug reported that, “In 1913, in Istanbul,
the staff of the British Embassy organized a soccer tournament for the
honor of the British commander General Harrington” (p. 8). Moreover,
according to Hicyilmaz, “…by using their diplomatic privileges,
the British merchants and the staff of the British Embassy not only organized
sports competitions but also formed several sports clubs and societies”
(p. 29). It is very important to point out that prior to this period the
occurrence of such events would have been immediately banned by the government.
However, due to prevailing conditions of the occupation, the Ottoman government
was forced to remove the restrictions that blocked the formation of athletic
clubs or associations in the country. According to Howard, “Under
the terms of the Istanbul treaty, during the invasion, the Allied nations
were taking no orders from the Ottoman government” (pp. 136-137).
Taking advantage of the Ottoman government’s vulnerability, a significant
number of athletic clubs were formed, especially by the British. We cannot
interpret England’s initiative as a favor to the Turks, however, England
was not ever concerned with the physical health of the Turkish youth.
Rather, it was a very common British policy that had been used successfully,
in India and in some African nations, to develop sports facilities in
order to restrict nationalism and curb political activity. In fact, in
the early years of the occupation, the British established two soccer
clubs., “The Strugglers” and the “The Progress.” Although
there is no clear evidence, the meanings of the names of the clubs exactly
coincided with the political conditions of both England, which was “progressive,”
and the Ottoman Empire, which was “struggling” at the time.
According to Fisek, “The purpose of the formation and the orchestration
of sport clubs in Turkiye by England were entirely imperialistic”
(p. 268).

It is relevant to stress how external factors influenced the internal
creativity in every area of life in the country. In this regard, the condition
and the subsequent development of sport was not different-from, and were
heavily influenced by, the existing cultural systems in Western Europe
and America. For instance, programs in physical education were modeled
after the calisthenics of Germany and the Scandinavian countries and resembled
the sports and games from England and America. The military and civil
colleges also promoted other gymnastics programs. The first sport clubs
and societies to be organized in Turkiye, however, were those overseen
by the British in soccer and rugby.

British influence on Turkish sport was noticeable, specifically in soccer.
According to Ertug, “The first soccer and rugby club (Moda Futbol
ve Ragby Kulubu) was formed in Moda, Istanbul in 1896′ (p. 6). Although
the British introduced the majority of modern sports such as soccer, rugby,
and hockey, the Americans introduced the game of basketball. During the
occupation “…several nationalist groups were seeking an American
Mandate to protect the country from an English occupation” (Hicyilmaz,
9). According to Fisek, “In 1919, with the financial and technical
assistance of the American government via the Chester Project in Istanbul,
a branch of the YMCA was opened and basketball was introduced to the Turkish
youth” (p. 249).

In the 1890’s Turks were not permitted to participate in modern sport
events against the newly formed British sports clubs, yet some Turks hoped
to have their own sport clubs and club memberships. At the turn of the
century, the Turks’ persistence paid off and they organized their own
athletic clubs. The first clubs to be organized were “The Black Stockings
in 1899, Besiktas in 1903, Galatasaray in 1905 and Fenerbahce in 1907”
(Fisek 256). Despite the fact that the sports clubs were formed back to
back, however, their actual organized athletics were not begun until after
the declaration of the second Mesrutiyet (adoption of constitution) in
1908, which granted more personal freedoms to citizens.

For a while, however, participation in sport activities evolved rather
slowly because, “Most of the societies and clubs were initially concerned
with merely the game of soccer. Sports such as athletics or track and
field, wrestling and basketball, that attracted more attention from the
public, were added only later” (Haluk San, 12).

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, participation in sport
activities increased overwhelmingly, “…and at one point there were
so many sports clubs that for the first time the Turkish sport felt the
need for federation” (Aksin, 316). From 1903 to 1914 patterned along
the British style, a few soccer leagues such as Istanbul Futbol Birligi
(IFB) and Istanbul Futbol-Kulupleri Ligi (IFKL) were organized. Under
the British authority and with the participation of such clubs as the
Moda, Union Club, Elips and the Imogene Club, the IFB was formed in 1903.

After a series of problems the IFB dissolved in 1910 however; but In
the same year by adding a couple of Turkish clubs the former members
of the IFB reformed the IFB and established the IFKL which was dissolved
in 1914 (Fisek 284).

The objectives of the IFB and the IFKL were: scheduling and officiating
the league games according to the British system.

Since 1839, after the declaration of Tanzimat, strong nationalistic sentiments
were evoked, and Turks aspired toward increased participation in political,
cultural and educational fields. Unfortunately, such developments, including
participation in sports, were frequently discouraged and suppressed by
the Ottoman Sultans. During the reign of A. Hamit II (1876-1906) “…most
of the cultural and intellectual organizations were shut down” (Eliot,
124). According to San, Unsi and Var, “The Black Stockings club was
closed because the club organized a soccer tournament which gathered an
unexpected number of spectators” (p. 67).

Despite the fact that the Sultan A. Hamit II was determined to dismantle
the functions of most of the social, cultural and intellectual societies
or clubs, “There were a few privileged athletic clubs that functioned
regularly and freely with the help of their members who were either high-ranked
military generals or rich friends of the Sultan” (San, et. all, 30).
The Besiktas Gymnastic Club (Besiktas Jimnastik Kulubu) was one of these
privileged clubs that was formed by the special decree of the Sultan in
1903.

The Turkish sport system was never completely able to free itself from
the outmoded, pan-Islamic political views of the Ottoman Sultans. It is
important to remember that during the pre-Republican period, most people
were barred from joining sport clubs or any other type of social and intellectual
organizations. Fortunately, with the support of the nationalistic movements,
and by the turn of the twentieth century, the sport movement gradually
gained momentum and became the main source of recreation and pastime for
the Turkish youth. The enthusiasm for sports was especially manifested
by outdoor events such as soccer, grease-wrestling and running, and by
indoor calisthenics. According to Apak, “Whereas the game of soccer
was practiced during the weekends, running and wrestling competitions
were conducted at public gatherings and at festivals” (p. 352).

Such recreationally innocent gatherings actually played a decisive role
in the rise and development of Turkish nationalism in the 1910’s. Initially,
sport crowds gathered solely for the sporting event, but such gatherings
soon became a symbolic protest against the Sultanate. Sporting events
contributed to the politization of many people, and eventually the sporting
events served as a political arena.

The Connection of Sports with Physical Education

Turkiye’s sporting and physical education heritage owes a great deal
to the reformists of Tanzimat who “…adopted and applied the general
principles of the French revolution in Turkiye” (Fisek, 262). Modern
sports were completely unknown in Turkiye prior to 1860, but by 1863 school
gymnastics were an esteemed component of urban high school student life.
In almost all of these educational institutions, the “French system
of physical education and sport was practiced and instructed” (Okan,6).
According to Fisek, “The first recorded reference to a person teaching
track and field was a French gymnastics teacher, Curel, at Istanbul’s
Mekteb-i Sultani High School in 1870” (p. 262).

The birth of nationally oriented school sports was a natural result of
the introduction of western physical educational systems in Turkiye. In
addition, Turkiye’s first taste of contemporary sports was made possible
by the practice of French calisthenics on school campuses. According to
Somali, “The first high school to practice calisthenics was Istanbul’s
Kuleli Idadisi in 1863” (p. 10). At that time, the French gymnastics
program was a combination of “fencing, free-style or floor gymnastics
and shot put (Okan, 6). According to San, “By 1869 there were several
schools interested in physical education programs in their curriculum”
(p. 12). Those schools were “Kuleli Idadisi, Mekteb-i Sultani or
Galatasaray Lisesi, Mektebi Bahriye and Mektebi Harbiye’ (San, 12), the
last two of which were military academies.

The physical education classes were not designed to enhance or improve
the physical well-being of students. Rather the PE classes were designed
with such difficult program figures that allowed only the students who
had skills to perform. Therefore) most of the students were discouraged
and did not participate In physical education classes any more (P. 263).

Around the turn of the twentieth century, physical education was not
designed to teach the basic fundamentals of physical and mental health.
Even though sports in Turkish schools were electives, the more prestigious
schools gained much status by offering them, since sports instruction
was not available elsewhere, and its “Western” nature was fashionable,
generating new excitement among the students. It is not surprising that,
from the beginning, the formation and development of modern sports clubs
were initiated on the high school campuses.

Concurrently, there was a growth of in-service teaching in physical education
and coaching from Europe. “Sports and gymnastics became expensive
yet popular” (Okan, 10). Athletic clubs and associations sprung up
all over campuses with a subsequent increase in journalistic coverage
of sports, fired by readers interest at a time when sports events made
even headlines news. Fisek indicates that, “For over forty years
from 1860 to 1903 the development of Turkish sport was affected negatively
by various economic and political conditions” (p. 262). Despite the
fact that most of the modern sports in Turkiye are over a century-old,
very few of them fully developed and reached the level of their European
counterparts, nor were the standards of physical education for students
satisfactory. Basically an elitist system, it remained geared for the
physically gifted.

Development of Sport in Turkiye since 1923

After the war of independence in 1923, through the restoration of full
national and political independence and under the leadership of Ataturk,
the founder of the Republic of Turkiye, the Turks eagerly decided to liberate
themselves from any form of out-moded, pan-Islamic Ottomanist concepts.
Ataturk introduced several reforms ranging from education to religion.
The fundamental aim of these reforms was to break the centuries-old traditions,
to modernize and to elevate Turkiye to the level of Western nations. Ataturk’s
liberal and far-reaching reforms also created expanding opportunities
for the young and mostly European-educated sportsmen to revolutionize
and revive Turkish sport.

After 1923, opportunities for sports participation were broadened through
leadership provided by the formation of numerous non-government sponsored
sports clubs and associations such as the TICI, (the United Sport Clubs
Association), making possible mass participation. According to Caglar,
“There was a gradual increase in the numbers of people involved in
various sports clubs and organizations on both the competitive and the
recreational level” (p. 3).

Prior to the Republican period, there were no stated national objectives
for Turkish sport. Most of the organized sports activities, even if not
forbidden, were realistically out of the common citizen’s reach. In this
respect, the status quo of Turkish sport greatly differed from sport as
it was overtly focused in the industrialized world. During the Ottoman
Empire, sport was basically a form of amusement for the Sultan’s palace.
However, with the establishment of the new, democratic and politically
more stable Republic of Turkiye, a new organizational framework for sport
was formulated. With its theoretical premises geared toward mass participation,
the envisioned programs promised renewed popular interest and vitality.
This situation, along with the prospects of a revolutionary and improved
way of life, prompted a number of sportsmen to emphasize now aspects of
sport.

Modern Turkiye’s sporting legacy owes a great deal to those European
educated sportsmen: Selim Sirri Tarcan, Ali Sami Yen, Burhanettin Felek,
Nasuhi Baydar and Yusuf Ziya Onis who are considered the “…pioneers
of modern Turkish sport” (Sumer, 26). With their help, “Sport
and physical activity has undergone continuous expansion throughout this
half of the century’ (San, et al, 69-70). The establishment of numerous
athletic clubs, the formation of sport leagues such as ‘Cuma Ligi’, and
the development of voluntary sport associations like the United Sports
Clubs Association were all efforts of these far-sighted men.

A number of trends were occurring simultaneously in Turkish sport during
the early years of the Republic. On one hand, while most of the major,
modern sports were spreading throughout the nation, major national sports
federations were continuously expanding the number and the type of sporting
events held, including long range goals for energizing efforts and further
plans. There was also a growing awareness of the political importance
of sport so that sport started to be used to foster national pride.

On the other hand, and, “…due to the lack of sufficient finances,
there was great difficulty in improving the existing conditions of sport”
(Fisek, 310). Moreover, and perhaps most importantly of all, the traditional,
indigenous Turkish sports such as Cirit, Grease-Wrestling, Archery and
other activities were declining and becoming part of “history.’ These
traditional Turkish sports declined for several reasons; cirit, for example,
were expensive to maintain. But a more significant fact was that they
were seen as old-fashioned and not progressive, partly due to specific
British propaganda that presented Western sports to the younger Turks.

As the modern Turkish Republic was developing rapidly, the traditional
life styles of the Turkish people were also changing. According to Ceki,
“Many young people were

looking around for things to do and to replace traditional ways of living”
(p. 9). It was during this transition that modern sports received the
most ardent attention.

The young generations spent their free time playing various ball games
such as basketball; volleyball and soccer, and running or doing calisthenics.
The noblemen and the townspeople had other sporting activities such
as chess; backgammon, and various card games (Lewis, 89).

The “Halk Evleri” (folk or public houses) were formed and financed
by the government in order to fulfill the great hunger for sports and
to gratify the general public’s desire for intramural sports.

Development of Institutional Sport (1922-1992)

The organizational and administrative development of Turkish sport in
the Republican period can be divided into four periods.

I- Turkiye Idman Cemiyetleri Ittifak 1922-1936
II-Turk Spor Kurumu 1936-1936
III-Beden Terbiyesi Genel Mudurlugu 1938-1992
IV-Genclik ve Spor Bakanligi 1969-1992

I- (Turkiye Idman Cemiyetleri Ittifaki)

After the war of independence a national central organization of sport,
the TICI (Turkiye Idman Cemiyetleri Ittifaki) was formed in 1922 in order
to improve the chaotic, unsatisfactory state of Turkish sport and the
poor performance of Turkish athletes. By the joint efforts of “Selim
Sirri Tarcan, Ali Sami Yen, Burhanettin Felek and Yusuf Ziya Onis, the
major figures of Turkish sport movement, the first congress of TICI took
place” (Fisek, 255 and Sumer, 25). The TICI was the very first independently
organized, volunteer, multi-sports association, which represented Turkish
sport both nationally and internationally. The basic principles of TICI
were adopted from the Swiss sport model, the “Reglements Sportifs
de l’Union Suisse’ (Sumer, 30). The purposes of TICI were:

to direct, coordinate and advance the activities of all sport organizations;
to represent Turkish sport In international events; to Identify and
stabilize the principles of amateur and professional sport; to organize
sport competitions on a national scale; to canalize the free time of
youth for sport and to discover the new athletes, coaches and officials;
to Identify and direct the qualifications for the Olympic Games in accordance
with the National Olympic Committee; to establish and register the national
sport federations to the International sport federations, to make sport
publications (Fisek, 354-365).

For sixteen years, the Turkish sport movement was directed and controlled
by this truly democratic sport institution. Because of its populist status,
the TICI was able to develop and grow at a very fast pace. Sport clubs,
federations and societies were assembled within the various individual
national sport federations that became forming members of TICI Individual
sport federations assembled under TICI. Examples are:

  • Track & Field Federation 1922
  • Soccer Federation 1922
  • Bicycle Federation 1923
  • Fencing Federation 1923
  • Weight Lifting Federation 1923
  • Swimming & Water Sports Federation 1924
  • Skiing & Winter Sports Federation 1924
  • Horse Riding and Trap & Shooting Federation 1926
  • Basketball Federation 1934
  • Volleyball Federation 1934

Prior to the TICI, no sport organization was completely independent
and almost all of them had some political or religious linkage. With the
development of TICI, the issue of sport was temporarily freed from the
touch of politics and religion. In TIOX every form of ethnic and religious
discrimination, divisive politics and religious activities were strictly
prohibited. TICI became the sole representative and defender of Turkish
sport at every level of athletics. TICI was also “…an official
office for the National Olympic Committee [NOCI” (Ertug, 68). Fisek
reported that, “When Selim Sirri Tarcan officially established the
NOC in 1924, he was also an executive member of the TICI’ (pp. 361-362).
In fact, “In the 1924 Paris Olympic Games, the national teams were
financed and represented by TICI” (San, 6).

The 1930’s were a period of reforms, opportunities, freedom, and national
development. During this renaissance it was possible to introduce innovations,
now ideas and various experiments. On the other hand, it was also a period
of economic difficulties left over from the Great Depression. This situation
negatively affected the financial status of TICI.

During the mid-1930’s, there was a general scarcity of financial support
for TICI. Due to this lack of finances, there was great difficulty in
improving the existing conditions of Turkish sport. In 1936, in a congressional
meeting of TICI, the members and the administrative leaders of the association
voted that “The total movement of sport and physical culture should
be government supported, and made a state program” (Fisek, 266-269).
It followed that, “…the Turkish government was pushed to involve
(itself) in the issues of Turkish sport more actively” (Hicyilmaz,
22).

The aim of this decision was to prepare for life both the athletes in
clubs and the students in classrooms. Clearly this could not have been
accomplished without the permanent financial support of the government.
During those years of financial concerns, the TICI was also suffering
politically and there were several disputes among the members of the TICI
that practically forced the organization to seek government support. “In
1936 at its eighth and final congress, the TICI first changed its name
and status and then dissolved itself forever” (Sumer, 28). With this
decision, the semi-government controlled organ of sport, known as Department
of Sport (Turk Spor Kurumu [TSK] was officially established in 1936.

2- (Turk Spor Kurumu) 1936-1938)

Due to the general economic situation, during the era of TICI, the efforts
to improve the overall status of sport and the general fitness of the
population in Turkiye met with limited success because of the lack of
sufficient resources, such as inadequate sport and recreational facilities
and expertise. Hence, in addition to the lack of resources, “The
main objectives of TICI’s member clubs were beyond the development of
mass athletics” (Fisek, 374).

Apak reports that, “‘The sport authorities of ‘TICI were making
a visible effort to maintain a certain balance between competitive sports
and mass participation” (p. 229). However, the former was frequently
sacrificed for the latter. Pressure to obtain and improve the success
level of Turkish sport in international arenas, especially in soccer where
the national team suffered heavy defeats, was one of the key factors in
placing the competitive sports ahead of mass sports. In the 1930’s, this
situation surfaced as a riveting concern for proponents of the nation’s
only political party of Republican Populist Party (RPP). A close relationship
was temporarily established between sport and party leaders. According
to Fisek, “The politicians promised to rescue Turkish sport from
its present conditions, by offering the invaluable goods and services
of RPP’ (p. 373).

Such promises created a working relationship between sport leaders and
the leaders of the RPP. Eventually, in order to alleviate the existing
conditions of sport, in 1936 in the eighth and last general congress of
TICI, the delegates voted convincingly and overwhelmingly, to abolish
itself and to establish the TSK [Turk Spor Kurumu (National Sport Association)].
In this transaction, a system parallel to the Soviet organization of sport
was created. The TSK was registered under the jurisdiction and the office
of the General Secretary of the (RPP). Sumer writes that, “With the
establishment of TSK the Turkish government began to directly and officially
involve itself in the matters of Turkish sport” (p. 29).

The TSK was presented as a hope and as a long awaited cure for the ills
of Turkish sport. According to Fisek, “It was this hope and the assurances
from the media and sport analysts that made the TICI close its doors and
hand over the association and sports to the control of the government
(p. 376).

This was the beginning of an autocratic, centrally administrated, government
controlled sport management period in Turkish sport. There were living
examples of this model in Stalin’s Soviet Union and in Hitler’s Germany,
both of which were working successfully. In fact, “The government
hired a German sport planner and organizer to help Turkish sport develop”
(Fisek, 377). For a time, this arrangement appeared to be successful.
For instance, the TSK was able to use and benefit from the various resources
of RPP such as the youth clubs, camps, folk houses, dormitories, hostels,
etc.

However, soon it was understood that the TSK was very far from being
a cure for Turkish sport. In fact, with the TSK, Turkish sport lost its
most important heritage, its legacy from the TICI as an independent, democratic
volunteer sport organization whose officers, unlike the TSK, “…were
not appointed by a higher authority but were elected’ (Sumer, 29). The
TSK could not guard the independent democratic sporting heritage of TICI,
and the further development of modern competitive sport program in Turkiye
was unsuccessfully cultivated.

Despite the slow progress under TICI, there had been indications of
growing interest among the Turkish leaders concerning the possible significance
of physical activities and sport within the context of national development.
Yet during the TSK, this essential concern was vanquished by political
ambitions of the TSK leaders. With power politics of key interest, sport
and physical education were regarded as highly valuable tools for underlining
both national health and national defense programs. Despite the fact that
these uses of sport were praiseworthy, and possibly because of politization,
Turkish sports stagnated. According to Sumer, “The battle for leadership
was the most important factor that paralyzed the functioning capacity
of the system of sport in the nation” (p. 33). Therefore, the period
of TSK “…was no more than a period of transition of sport from
an independent volunteer system to a completely controlled and centralized
system of sport administration” (Fisek, 373). The primary goal of
TSK was: “To enhance the mental and the physical health of the citizens
through organizing and developing sports and physical activities in revolutionary
and nationalistic directions” (Records of BTGM, p. 657).

3-(Beden Terbiyesi Genel Mudurlugu 1938-1992)

The attempts of TSK to centralize sport were unsuccessful. In 1938 a
special law (3530) the “Beden Terbiyesi Kanunu,” was established
in order to “…assist and promote culture and national development
in Turkiye by creating a militant youth with a nationalistic spirit to
defend Turkiye’s national sovereignty” (Fisek, 367-386). With this
law, the centralization of Turkish sport was accomplished.

Sport and physical education were considered by the government as capable
of supporting the political struggle through disciplined training of the
masses. They were further regarded as vehicles through which national
unity and national integration and national defense might be strengthened.
It was this idea that led to the establishment of the The National General
Directorate of Sport (Beden Terbiyesi Genel Mudurlugu) (BTGM) in 1936.
The directorate subsidized the hiring of coaches, the formation of sport
federations, the building and equipping of sport facilities, and the opening
of regional administration offices in the major cities. Fostering the
development of sport in general the BTGM has both major and minor departments
for all areas of athletic endeavor, as well as departments which “…plan,
conduct and supervise the training of specialists in the building of sport
facilities, international sport relations, sport politics, budgeting,
Sport Lottery’ (TBMM Zabit Ceridesi, in Fisek, pp 2-3).

The BTGM was originally signed under the authority of the Prime Ministry
but, as the governments were changed, the responsibilities and the official
administrative location of the BTGM were changed and registered under
the authority of various sport ministries. For instance, in 1969, when
the Ministry of Youth and Sport was established, the BTGM was automatically
located under this ministry:

When sport became an Issue of education, the BTGM was located under
the authority of Ministry of Education. When It became an issue of youth
then the BTGM was located under the administration of Ministry of Youth
and Sport, and when sport became a national issue then the office of
the BTGM was registered under the authority of the Prime Ministry (Fisek,
418).

BTGM was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport.

The BTGM was responsible for the development of sport in Turkiye and
“…worked in close co-operation with the various sport federations
and practically supervised their work” (Beden Terbiyesi Kanunu, madde
14, in Fisek, 367).

Since 1936 the Turkish system of sport has been a highly centralized
and controlled bureaucracy that is administrated by the supervision and
guidance of BTGM which currently uses the title or the name Genclik Spor
Genel Mudurlugu (GSGM) or the Directorate of Youth and Sport. The objectives
of the GSGM are:

to develop a bodily and mentally fit, united) revolutionist, nationalist
youth; to fertilize and spread out the sport and physical education
nation- wide; to free the citizens of Turkiye from habits of drinking
alcohol, smoking, and gambling; to develop strong and able-bodied citizens
and national soldiers for the national defense; to open new horizons
for the national youth, to organize, administer and prepare sport competitions
and represent the Turkish sport Internationally; to create opportunities
for both amateur and professional athletes to go abroad and compete
and represent the Turkish Republic In International arenas (Fisek, 386).

The underlying, nationalistic principles of sport policy of GSGM have
been centered in the principle of a sound mind in a sound body (“Saglam
Kafa Saglam Vucutta Olur”), a slogan adopted by Ataturk. A holistic
physical, mental and social development of the individual is emphasized
to prepare people for personal well-being and for potential defense of
the nation. The strengthening of the masses is considered to be of central
importance for the regime. From its inception, the most important concern
of the GSGM has been to use sport for the demonstration of national pride.
The achievements of Turkish athletes in international competitions have
provided an impetus for the rise of Turkish sport and to bring international
recognition to the nation.

4-(Genclik Spor Bakanlinligi)

The Ministry of Youth and Sport (Genclik ve Spor Bakanligi) was established
in 1969, during the government of the late Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel,
in order to bring the state and Turkish sport closer together and to give
the governing body of sport more political authority. The GSB was an attempt
to reshape Turkish sport and reemphasize its role in national development
by fostering and equipping children and youth organizations, by contributing
both to physical fitness and sport-for-all programs and by contributing
to competitive sports. The duties of GSB were to “…direct sport
in the country, to work out a legislative policy, put sport programs into
effect, and to coordinate the practical and theoretical connections or
works of federations and different physical cultural organizations”
(Fisek 413).

However, several critics reported that the objectives of GSB were part
of the objectives and the duties of several other ministries such as the
ministry of education, ministry of health and social services, ministry
of labor, ministry of village affairs, ministry of tourism and the ministry
of culture. But there was little co-operation among these various ministries
for sharing authority and responsibility. Although the GSB was granted
official responsibility, this ministry gained very little respect governmental
role in sport.

For instance, starting in 1963 Turkiye entered into the period of a five-year
development plan. According to Sumer, “In the first five-year development
plan (1963-1968) the topic of sport was not taken up” (p.106). In
the second five-year plan, sport was mentioned in but a single line, the
“Sport-for-all program should be encouraged” (Sumer, 106-107).

Moreover, during the GSB no effort was generated to close the gap between
the opportunities for city and rural youth in sport. Contrary to the objectives
and the expectations of both GSGM and GSB, sport and physical education
had been considered to be of little value in national and economic development.
Consequently, the expectations and the objectives of both the GSB and
the GSGM have not been accomplished.

As a final forfeiture, the dissolution of the GSB cost Turkish sport
a drastic budget reduction from the government. Turkish sport was left
with a low priority and sought “…technical assistance and aid from
the private sectors.” Another blow, along with the dissolution of
GSB, was the loss of the country’s best sport science and education institutions
such as the sport academies.

REFERENCES

  1. Adedeji, A. J. “Social and Cultural Conflict in Sport and Games
    in Developing Countries,” International Review of Sport Sociology.
    14, 1, pp. 81-88, 1979.
  2. Adivar, Halide Edip. Turkey Faces West: A Turkish View of Recent
    Changes and Their Origin
    . New Haven, Yale University Press, 1930.
  3. Aksin, Sina. Istanbul Hukumetleri ve Milli Mucadele. Cem Yayinevi,
    Istanbul, 1976.
  4. And, Metin. Culture, Performance and Communication in Turkiye.
    Performance in Culture, #4, Institute for the Study of Languages and
    Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1987.
  5. Andrews, John C. “Problems of Physical Education in the Third-World.”
    FIEP Bulletin, Vol. 52. No. l, p.7, 1982.
  6. Andrews, John C. “Physical Education, Sport and Recreation in
    Developing Countries.” FIEP Bulletin. Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.
    5-15, 1985.
  7. Apak, Rahmi “Turk Sporunun Yeni Hukumleri.” Ulku
    No. 11166, Agustos, pp. 229-348, 1936.
  8. Armstrong, C. Harold. Gray Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study
    of a Dictator.
    14th edition, London, 1947.
  9. Ayda, Alide. “‘Turk’ Kelimesinin Mensei Hakkinda Bir Nazariye.”
    Belleten, Sayi, 40, pp. 239-247, 1982.
  10. Baker, B. Granville. The Passing of the Turkish Empire in Europe.
    Seeley Service and Corporation Limited, London, 1913.
  11. Baker, James. Turkey. Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1877.
  12. Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. McGill
    University Press, Montreal, 1964.
  13. Blaug, Mark. North South: A Programme for Survival. Pan, London
    and Sidney, 1970.
  14. Blocking, John. Games and Sport in Pre-Colonial African Societies.
    In Baker, J. William and Mangan, A.J (Eds.), Sport in Africa pp. 3-23.
    Africana Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1987.
  15. Caglar, B. Kemal. “Sekizinci Spor Kongresi.” Acik Soz,
    26 Nisan, pp. 3-7, 1936.
  16. Cahen, Claude. Pre-Ottoman Turkey: 1071-1330. Taplinger Publishing
    Company, Incorporated, New York, 1968.
  17. Calhoun, Donald B. Sport Culture and Personality. Human Kinetics,
    Campaign, Illinois. pp. 157-161, 1986.
  18. Ceki, Gultekin. “Devlet Butunlugu ve Spor Yonetimi Uzerine.”
    Bayrak, Cilt 23, No. 746, Mart, 1976.
  19. Celebi, Evliya. Evliya Celebi Seyahatnamesi. Ucdal Nesriyat,
    Ankara, 1987.
  20. Cheska, Alyce. Revival, Survival and Revisal: Ethnic Identity Through
    Traditional Games
    . Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL, 1987.
  21. Coghlan, F. John. “Sport-for-all in Developing Countries.”
    FIEP Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 27-31, 1985.
  22. Cumhuriyet, Subat, 28. p. 13, 1992.
  23. Cumhuriyet, Nisan, 27. p. 16, 1992.
  24. Davison, H. Roderic. Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876.
    Gordion Press, New York, 1973.
  25. DeTott, Baron. Memories of Baron De Tott. G. G. and Robinson,
    London, 1785. 1.
  26. Dubberke, Harold. Critical Remarks Regarding Sports aid for Developina
    Countries
    .
  27. Jordanhill Collage of Education. London, 1966.
  28. Eichberg, Henning. Force Againist Force: Configurations
    of Martial Art in Europe and in Indonesian Cultures.” Interternational
    Review of Sport, Sociology.
    “18: 2., pp.33-66, 1963.
  29. Eichberg, Henning. “Olympic Sport-Neocolonization and Alternatives.”
    International Review of Sociology of Sport. 19:2., pp. 96-105,
    1964.
  30. Eliot, Charles. Turkey in Europe. London, 1662. Encyclopedia Americana.
    Vol.26, 1968.
  31. Ertug, Ali Riza. “Turkiye Futbol Tarihi.” BTGM Ankara
    Bolge Mudurluqu ‘Yayini, Ankara, 1973.
  32. Eton, Williams. A Survey of the Turkish Empire. Luke Hansard,
    Great Turnstile, Lincoln’s-Inn Field, London, 1801.
  33. Ferriman, Z. Duckett. Turkey and the Turks. Mills and Boon,
    Limited, London, 1911.
  34. Fisek, Kurthan. Devlet Politikasi ve Toplumsal Yapiyla Iliskileri
    Acisindan
    ;
  35. Spor Yonetimi-Dunyada ve Turkiyede.’Siyasal Bilgiler Facultesi,
    Ankara, Turkiye, 1963.
  36. Freeman, M. William. Physical Education in a Changing Society.
    Houghtan Mifflin Company, Boston, London, 1977.
  37. Fu, Frank H. “A Comparison of Athletes from Different Regions
    of China.”
  38. Journal of Comparative Physical Education and Sport. 9 (2):
    pp.17-16, 1987.
  39. Funakoshi, Gichin. Karete-Do My Way of Life. Kodansha International,
    Tokyo and New ‘York, 1990.
  40. Galbraith, John K. The Nature of Mass Poverty. Penguin, Harmondsworth,
    1979.
  41. Garnett, M. J. Lucy. Turkish Life in Town and Country. William
    Clowes and Sons, Limited, London and Beccles, 1951.
  42. Geyikdagi, M. Yazar. Political Parties in Turkey: The Role of Islam.
    Preager Publishers, New York, 1964.
  43. Gokalp, Ziya. Turk Medeniyeti Tarihi: Islamiyetten Evvel Turk Medeniyeti,
    Islamiyetten Evvel
    Turk Dini. Turk Kultur Yayini, Beyazit,
    Istanbul, Turkiye, 1974.
  44. Grimm, J. William. “The Third World.” America. May
    5, Vol. 162, No. 17, pp. 449-451, 1990.
  45. Gurun, Kamuran. Turkler ve Turk Devletleri. Karacan Yayinlari,
    Birinci Cilt, 1981.
  46. Harrison, Paul. The Third-World Tomorrow. Penguin, Harmondsworth,
    1960.
  47. Heinemann, Klaus. “Sport and Sociology of Body.” International
    Review of Sport Sociology
    . 14, 1, pp. 41-53, 1979.
  48. Heinila, Kalevi. “Sport and International Understanding a Contradiction
    in Terms.” Sociology of Sport Journal. 2, pp. 240-246, 1985.
  49. Hicyilmaz, Ergun. Turk Spor Tarihi. Demet Ofset, Istanbul,
    1984.
  50. Hietanen, Aki. “Towards a New International Sport Order.”
    Current Research on Peace and Violance. Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 159-175,
    1982.
  51. Hoberman, John M. “Sport and Social Change: The Transformation
    of Maoist Sport.” Sociology of Sport Journal. 4 (2): pp.
    156-170, 1988.
  52. Howard, Harry N. The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History;
    1913-1923. Howard Fertig Inc. The University of Oklahoma Press. NY,
    1966.
  53. Huddleston, John. The Search for a Just Society. George Ronald,
    Publisher, Oxford, 1989.
  54. Huizinga, John. (1944) Homo Ludens, published in German, in
    Swiss F.C. Hull trans., London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949.
  55. Hubbart, G.E. The Day of the Crescent: Glimpses of Old Turkey
    University Press, Cambridge, 1820.
  56. Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600.
    Ebenezer Baylis and Son Limited. Worchoster and London, 1973.
  57. Kafesoglu, Ibrahim. Tarihte Turk Adi #. 2. Arastirma Enstitusu,
    Ankara, 1966.
  58. Keyder, Caglar. The Political Economy of Turkish Democracy: Turkey
    in Transition.
    Editor’s Irvin C. Schick and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak.
    Oxford University Press, NY. Oxford, 1987.
  59. Kibsy, Russ. ‘Sport-for-All and the working population.” FIEP
    Bulletin
    . Vol. 51, No.3, pp. 27-31, 1986.
  60. Kiyokowa, Masaji. “The International Olympic Committee and International
    Co-operation.” FIEP Bulletin. Vol. 52, No.3/4, pp. 17-21,
    1982.
  61. Krotee, March L. ‘The Rise and Demise of Sport: A Reflection of Uruguayan
    Society.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
    Sciences
    . 445: pp. 141-154, 1979.
  62. Landes, David. “Rich Country Poor Country, How Do Nations Develop?”
    Current. March, 11-16, 1990.
  63. Lengyel, Emil. Turkey. Random House, H. Wolff. Inc., Now York,
    1941.
  64. Lewis, Gooffery. Modern Turkey. Praeger Publishers, Inc., New
    York, 1974.
  65. Lewis, Raphasla. Everyday Life in Ottoman Turkey. Batsford
    Limited. London, 1971.
  66. Lister, R.P. Turkey Observed. Eyre and Spottiswoode Publishers Ltd.
    London, 1967.
  67. Mardin Sherif. Din ve Ideoloji. Ankara Universitesi Siyasal
    Bilgiler Fakultesi Yayinlari. No. 275. Sevinc Matbaasi, Ankara, Turkiye,
    1969.
  68. Mathys, A.Micheal. “The Next Generation: Who Invented The Third
    World ?” National Review, September 3., p.1087, 1982.
  69. McHenry, E. Dean. “The Use of Sport in Policy Implementation:
    The Case of Tanzania.” The Journal of Modern African Studies.
    18 (2): pp. 237-256 1980.
  70. McIntyre, Thomas Duano.”Sport in German Democratic Republic and
    the People’s Republic of China: A Socio-political Analysis.” Journal
    of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
    , 56 (1): pp. 108-111,
    1985.
  71. Menzies, Sutherland. Turkey Old and New. Vol. 1, W.H.Allen
    and Corporation, London, 1882.
  72. Menzies, Sutherland. Turkey Old and New. Vol. 2, W.H.Allon
    and Corporation, London, 1882.
  73. Monroe, W.S. Turkey and the Turks. Colonial Press. Boston,
    1907.
  74. Newman, Barnard. Turkey and the Turks. Herbert Jenkins Ltd.,
    London, 1968.
  75. New Columbia Encyclopedia. (4976).
  76. Nalle, Wilfreid. “Turkistan Tarihinin Yaziminda Karsilasilan
    Sorunlar.” Belleten, Cilt, 4411 Sayi, 184. pp. 347-369,
    1982.
  77. Ojeme, E. 0. “Problems in the Development of Sport in Nigerian
    Universities.”
  78. International Rowiev for the Sociology of Sport, 20 (3): pp.
    189-202, 1985.
  79. Okan Kenan. Turk Spor Tarihi. MOM yayini Ankara, Turkiye. pp.
    132-156, 1989.
  80. Orga, Irfan. Portait of a Turkish Family. The Macmillan Company,
    Now York, 1950.
  81. Pallis, Alexander. In the Days of the Janissaries. Hutchinson
    and Corporation. Publishers Ltd., Now York, 1951.
  82. Porter, James. Turkey its History and Progress. Hurts and Blackett,
    Publishers. London, 1854.
  83. Reid, John. Turkey and the Turks. Robert Tyas Publishing Inc.,
    London, 1840.
  84. Reinhart, Robert. Turkey a Country Study. Federal Research
    Division, Library of Congress. USA, 1986.
  85. Rice, Emmett A. A Brief History of Physical Education. 3rd
    Edition, London, 1962.
  86. Riiskjer, Soren. “Alterations in the Sport Involvement.”
    Scandinavian Journal of Sport Science. 8(3): pp. 117-122, 1966.
  87. Robinson, D. Richard. ‘The first Turkish Republic. Harvard
    University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1963.
  88. Ross, Saul. “Canadian Research Into Physical Education and Sport
    Development Assistance; A Pledging Enterprise.” Canadian Journal
    of Development Studies
    . Vol. 7, No.1 pp. 95-103, 1986.
  89. San, Haluk., Unsi, Tevfik., and Var, Samim. Futbol Ansiklopedisi,
    Ticaret Postasi Matbaasi, Istanbul, 1963
  90. Seppaenon, A. Paavo. Sport Achievement and Type of Culture. Proceeding
    of the First
    International Seminar on the History of Physical
    Education and Sport
    . Wignate Institute for Physical Education. Nethanya,
    Israel. April, 9,11, 1968.
  91. Seton, Lloyd. Ancient Turkey. Stevenson Publishers. London,
    1989.
  92. Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Cambridge
    University Press. London, NY, 1976.
  93. Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey.
    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, 1977.
  94. Sirman, Nukhet and Finkel,Andrew. Turkish State, Turkish Society.
    Billing and Sons Ltd. Worcester, England, 1990.
  95. Snyder, E. Eldon, and Spritzer, Elmer. ‘Social Aspect of Sport.
    Prentice-Hall Incorporation, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1978.
  96. Somali, Vala. Besiktas Tarihi, Istanbul, 1978.
  97. Soundrs, E. John. “Sport and Physical Education in the UNESCO
    Region of Asia and Pacific.” FIEP Bulletin. Vol.55, No.1,
    pp. 17-26, 1985.
  98. Speakman-Yerta, A. Moureen. “Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Physical
    Education Purposes.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
    6, pp. 252-268, 1987.
  99. Stoddart, Brian. “Sport in the Social Construct of the Lesser
    Developed World: A Contemporary.” Sociology of Sport Journal..
    6, pp.125-135, 1989.
  100. Sumer, Riza. Sporda Democrasi: Belgeler/Yorumlar. 2. Baski,
    Safak Matbaasi, Ankara, 1969.
  101. Tachau, Frank. Turkey, the Politics of Authority, Democracy, and
    Development
    . New York, 1984.
  102. Turkey a Country Study: Federal Research Division. Library
    of Congress, 1988.
  103. Vasquez, Felix Moya. “Solutions for Physical Education in Developing
    Countries: The Cuban Experience. FIEP Bulletin. Vol. 54, No.
    2, pp.19-27, 1984.
  104. Vucinich, S. Wayne. The Ottoman Empire Legacy. Shoe String
    Press Incorporated, Connecticut, 1910.
  105. Wagner, A. Eric. “Sport in Asia and Africa: Americanization or
    Mundialization ?” Sociology of Sport Journal. 7, pp. 399-402,
    1990.
  106. Ward, Barbara. Turkey. Oxford University Press, London, Great
    Britain, 1942.
  107. Williams, F. Jesse. “The Physical as Experience.” Journal
    of Higher Education
    . Vol.22, No.9, pp. 463-69. 603-604, 1939.
  108. Zachariah, Mathew. “Can the Rich and Poor Nations Co-operate
    to Internationalize the Curriculum?” Compare, Vol.9, No.
    1, pp. 65-69, 1979.
2013-11-26T20:19:26-06:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management|Comments Off on Sport in Turkey: the Post-Islamic Republican Period

The Usage of the Sports Image in Advertising Sector in Selected Turkish Television Channels

ABSTRACT

This research was made to assess the relationship between advertisements
on marketing sports products on Turkish television channels and sports
images on the basis of products, and to get information on the tendencies
of onlookers of sports products through strengthening onlookers’
sports images and remembering them later by analyzing advertisements.
This research was made to determine how often sports images are used in
the advertisement sector and the impact of sports in advertisements.

The universe of the research was the first four most watched television
channels according to the reports of AGB (Research Improvement and Information)
in June, 2001. These channels were Show TV, Channel D, Star TV, TRT 1
(Turkish Radio and Television). In this research, the books and researches
on sports management and advertising, the total durations of advertisements
on related channels and the ratios of sports images used in advertisements
were studied. All the advertisements broadcast between 09.00-21.00 hours
for one week on each of these four most watched channels were studied,
and the results were shown in graphics and tables.

Observation method was used to determine the results of the research.
‘SPSS’ statistics programmer was used for the statistical
analysis of this research. Frequency and percentage techniques were used
to determine the results.

In conclusion, this research showed that the advertisements including
sports image were broadcast more than the others, and advertisement producers
showed a great deal of interest in sports images. Sports concept is used
as on important tool in advertisement, marketing and image in advertisements
broadcast on Turkish television channels studied in this research.

INTRODUCTION

Sport is one of the most important social concepts. Many companies use
sports as tool to its popularity. The companies producing sports equipment
and private sports clubs are the examples using sports. They turn the
Professional sportsmen into stars and give the image that equipment used
by such sportsmen supports their success. As a result, the equipment produced
by them sells very easily. Today, many companies like banks, construction
companies not related to sports use sports as images (Zeki,1998). For
instance, a private bank can use marathon runners as an image to emphasize
that this bank is forward.

In our century, sports is in a process that interfered a lot in marketing
and its industrialization. Advertisements make sports more popular. All
the organizations hoping for profit use concepts like arts and sports
to introduce themselves (Ünsal,1994). This is the basic factor in sport
image. Sports image can be used in various types in society. The basic
objective of advertisements is to become part of success, and to be remembered
with this image (Zeki,1998). A winner in the Olympic Games in remembered
by the name of the sponsor company tries to become part of sportsmen’s
success. The objective is to remembered and to be well known.

The reason for the popularity of football and basketball is the popular
sport images. Companies can be popular using star sportsmen and sport
image. Sports equipment producers work with famous sportsmen. Sport images
often used in textile, food, transportation and popular sportsmen are
remembered with such companies(Kocabaş, 2001).

Advertisement etiquettes used in sports and product introduction are
(Bir,1988);

  • Advertisement is a guide for consumers. It gives information on new
    products.
  • Advertisement decreases distribution costs and helps retail sellers.
  • Advertisement encourage competition, and increases the amount and
    quality of production.
  • Increases in production and sale amounts helps prices go down.
  • Advertisement makes communication tools independent.

In this study, the visage type, frequency, and effect of sports image
in product presentations in advertisements on Turkish Television is analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The universe of this research is the Turkish Television channels. These
channels are Show TV, Channel D, Star TV, TRT 1, the most watched 4 channels
according to the reports of AGB (Research, improvement and information:
AGB Group,2001). All the advertisements on these channels were watched
and studied for one week between 09:00-21:00 hrs. And the results are
shown in table as 1. Pre-program watching 2. During program watching.

Pre-program advertisement are 7-10 minutes and this variation is due
to Prime Time programs. During programs advertisements last 3-4 minutes.
The intervals of programs can change 2 or 3 times. The duration of advertisement
within the programs is 6-9 minutes. According to AGB reports the total
advertisement duration is 28 hrs. a week and 4 hrs a day in Show TV, Channel
D, Star TV, TRT 1. the first for channels in june 2001 and their percentages
are as shown:

Show TV 21%
Channel D 20%
Star TV 19%
TRT 1 17%
Others 23%

While collecting data, necessary information were found in documents.
Each of the four most watched channels were studied for one week and the
results were sown in graphics.

The reason to watch every channel separately is that advertisements start
and finish at the same hours.

The ratio and distribution of advertisements containing sports image
were shown in percentages. SPPS statistics program was used for the statistical
analysis of this research.

FINDING AND COMMENTS

The results and comments on the relationship between advertisement and
sports image in the most watched channels in June according to AGB reports
are shown below.

Table-1: Daily and weekly amount of all the advertisements broadcast in
all the channels.

Duration Total broadcast Time (hrs) Total broadcast Time (hrs) Advertisement Time (hrs) Total advertisement percentage
Daily 48 100 4 12
Weekly 336 100 28 12

These tables show total weekly and daily broadcasts of television channels
and the amount of advertisement in these broadcasts. The total amount
of hours is very high. However, this amount shows that companies made
big investments in advertisements.

Graphic-1: The frequency of subjects in all the
advertisements broadcast in all channels
Graphic 1
The reason for the high ratio of food, textile and bank advertisements
is that they are the basic necessities sports image is used in all the
advertisements for them to be remembered.

Table -2 : Daily and weekly advertisement ratio of sports image used in advertisement in all the channels.

Duration Total broadcast minutes Total advertisement percentage Advertisement broadcast minutes Sports İmage percentage used
Daily 175 100 65 37
Weekly 1225 100 455 37

According to these graphics and tables, the ratio of advertisements containing
sports image is very high among the other advertisements. In this table,
the high amount of advertisements containing sports image in other advertisements
are shown. The high frequency of the usage of sports image shows that
advertisement companies prefer it to affect people.

DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

According to our research, the advertisements containing sports image
are very high. Sport concepts affects a lot of people and sports ımage
can be used everywhere. The high number of products are variety in advertisement
sector lead to usage of sports image . advertisement companies combine
every event and concept with sport.

Advertisement producers prefer sports image according to this research.
Sport image is the highest among the other images. Advertisements makers
use sports image because it is a concept affecting people. Sports image
has become a tool to affect people. Advertisements makers use Professional
sportsmen to affect young people so that they can sell their products
easily.

Sport image can be used frequently in advertisements because sport affect
people in various directions. Sports can be the symbol of many subjects
(Ünsal, 1994).

People may like sports more through sport image. Production companies
use sports image to sell their products, however, they let people like
sport more. Companies should employ people who enough information on sports.

Sports influences many people. It is observed that advertisements containing
sports image has been increasing. Company owners prefer using sports image
more (Zeki,1998).

In this research, popular sports branches and popular sportsmen are
preferred in advertisements containing sport image. For instance, football
image is used many advertisements. Because football is a very popular
branch of sport. Either a famous footballer is used or popular brand is
used with football image in advertisements. If other branches become popular,
advertisement subjects can be more various.

The images of less popular sports branches can be used so people can
be interested in various sport branches.

REFERENCES

  1. AGB Group, (2001),(TAM- Television Audience Measurement) Haziran,
    2001 kayıtları.
  2. Bir, A.; (1988), Reklamın Gücü, Bilgi Basım, İstanbul,
  3. Kocabaş, F; Elden, M., (2001), Reklamlar, Kavramlar, Kararlar,
    Kurumlar, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul,
  4. Ünsal; Y. ; (1984), Bilimsel Reklam ve Pazarlamadaki Yeri,
    TİVİ; Basımevi, İstanbul,
  5. Zeki, A.; (1998), Reklam ve İmajları, Bilişim
    Yayınları, Ankara,
2016-10-14T11:42:27-05:00March 9th, 2004|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Usage of the Sports Image in Advertising Sector in Selected Turkish Television Channels

What Type of Character Do Athletes Possess?

Abstract

The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil
instrument that measures two types of character: moral versus social;
(2) to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes
support social character over moral character as a result of the way character
may be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society.
To test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character
over moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called
the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Participants in the study were N=595
college students from a variety of colleges/universities (National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics). More specifically, there were n=293 team sport
athletes, n= 76 individual sport athletes and n=225 non athletes (and
1 subject that did not indicate their status). College athletes were compared
to college non athletes in order to understand the effects of sport participation
on moral and social character.

Saliently, results showed that on average, team sport athletes’ social
character index scores were higher than their moral character index scores.
Also of salience, non-athletes scored significantly higher than team sport
athletes on the moral character index whereas team sport athletes scored
significantly higher than non-athletes on the social character index.
Reasons for why there were differences between team sport athletes and
non-athletes on the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory are discussed as well
as other findings.

Introduction

Since the early part of the 20th century, participation in American sport
has been widely and strongly viewed as a vehicle for developing character
(Armstrong, 1984; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Sage, 1988, 1998; Shields
& Bredemeier, 1995). In response to this claim, researchers from a
variety of disciplines have empirically tested the popular notion that
sport builds character (see for example, Beller & Stoll, 1992, 1995;
Hodge, 1989; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1971; Penny
& Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997; Shields & Bredemeier,
1995). Contrary to what many may believe, results from these studies have
suggested that sport does not build character.

From the numerous studies, character development research that has used
an instrument called the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) may
be the most profound because of the sizeable, accumulative database and
replication (Belier & Stoll, 1992, 1995; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll,
1989; Penny & Priest, 1990; Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997). With
a database of over 60,000 athletes and non-athletes and over 250 university
studies, the HBVCI has consistently found that the majority of athletes
will not support the moral ideal in competition, i.e., moral character.
However, despite the well-published and disseminated research, we have
continued to hear from coaches, parents, and the media that sport builds
character or that athletes frequently display character (Browit, 1999;
Docheff, 1997; Herman, 2000; Zimmerman, 2001). As a result, we began to
wonder if there is another way to define character, which might explain
why athletes do not support the notion of moral character.

From the character development literature, newspapers, media, and personal
communications with coaches, parents, and the general populace we discovered
that many individuals appear to define character from a social perspective
rather than a moral perspective. Thus, many define character in terms
of social values such as teamwork, loyalty, self-sacrifice, work ethic,
and perseverance which may be considered as “social character” as
opposed to “moral character” which has been denoted by moral values
such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility (see for example, Arnold,
1999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). The purpose of this study then
was two-fold: (1) to develop a paper and pencil instrument that measures
two types of character in the sport context: moral versus social; (2)
to determine if college athletes, particularly team sport athletes support
social character over moral character as a result of the way character
may be defined and fostered by many coaches, parents, and general society.
To test our hypothesis that athletes support the practice of social character
over moral character we developed a paper and pencil instrument called
the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm Value Judgment Inventory. This article will
present the findings from our instrument and general study.

Method

Participants

A sample of N=595 college students from a variety of colleges/universities
(National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, III and National
Association for Intercollegiate Athletics) participated in the study.
More specifically, there were n=223 non-athletes, n=290 team sport athletes,
and n=76 individual sport athletes that responded to all of the questions
on the social character index (first 10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment
Inventory). There were also n=296 males and n=293 females that responded
to all of the questions on the social character index. The number of subjects
that responded to all of the questions on the moral character index (last
10 questions of RSBH Value Judgment Inventory) were n=221 non-athletes,
n=289 team sport athletes, and n=76 individual sport athletes. Lastly,
there were n=294 females and n=292 males that responded to all of the
questions on the moral character index.

Definition of the Non Athlete

For the purpose of this study, non-athletes were defined as any student
who was not currently participating in college athletics at the time of
the administration of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. In most cases
this means that a non-athlete was someone who had never been involved
in athletics or someone who had been involved in athletics but not at
the college level. There was also the possibility that there could have
been non-athletes in the sample who were collegiate competitors at one
time.

Although there may be non athletes in the sample that in the past competed
at one level or another, because they no longer compete at a high level,
we hypothesized that their competitive values that relate to character
in the sport context would not be the same as the sample of athletes that
currently compete. Thus, we would have some indication of how sport participation
affects athletes who compete versus those that do not in terms of moral
and social character.

Procedure

College non-athletes were administered the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory
while in their respective academic classes. College team sport athletes
and college individual sport athletes were administered the RSBH Value
Judgment Inventory also in academic classes or at practice or in an athletic
training room. With every administration of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory,
both college athletes and college non-athletes were told that their participation
in the study was anonymous and that there participation was voluntary.

Design

A retrospective causal-comparative design in which college athletes were
compared to college non-athletes was used to understand the effects of
sport participation on moral and social character (see Gay & Airasian,
2002 for causal-comparative designs).

Instrumentation

In 1998, the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm (RSBH) Value Judgment Inventory was
developed to measure moral and social character (Rudd, 1998). To do so,
the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory is comprised of two indices: a social
character index and a moral character index. The social character index
consists of ten sport context scenarios that mostly take place outside
the lines of competition. Concomitantly, these scenarios are infused with
the social values of teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. Subjects are
asked to respond to each scenario via a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly
Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree).

The moral character index is comprised of ten gamesmanship scenarios
that were selected from the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI).
These 10 questions were selected based on their high internal reliability
ranging from .81 to .88 over six different studies (see for example, Beller
& Stoll, 1992, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Bunnell, & Cole, 1996; Hahm,
Beller, & Stoll, 1989). In sum, subjects receive two scores: a social
character index score and a moral character index score.

The more frequently subjects agree with the social character scenarios,
the higher one scores on the social character index. The higher the score,
the more it is suggested that individuals are believed to support social
values and more generally social character in the sport milieu. Concurrently,
for the moral character index, the more frequently subjects “disagree”
with the various gamesmanship practices, the higher one’s score and the
more one is believed to support moral character in sport.

Four pilot studies were conducted to establish the reliability and validity
of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. Specifically, for the fourth pilot
study, the sample contained n=149 non-athletes, n=169 team sport athletes
and n=36 individual sport athletes. There were also n=182 males and n=172
females. An internal reliability analysis indicated a Cronbach alpha of
.72 for the social character index and a Cronbach alpha of .86 for the
moral character index. The internal reliability for the current sample
used in this study showed a Cronbach Alpha of .87 for the moral character
index and a Cronbach Alpha of .73 for the social character index.

As part of establishing the validity of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory,
an exploratory factor analysis was conducted during the fourth pilot study
to seek evidence of construct validity. Results from the factor analysis
are somewhat difficult to interpret, however, the first factor does suggest
that there is a distinct contrast between social character (questions
1-10) and moral character (questions 11-20). Thus, there is evidence to
suggest that our instrument is measuring two distinct constructs; moral
character versus social character (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation
Factor Total % Variance Cumulative % Total % Variance Cumulative % Total
1 6.28 31.40 31.40 5.76 28.84 28.84 4.08
2 1.57 7.86 39.27 1.04 5.22 34.05 2.70
3 1.30 6.52 45.79 0.69 3.46 37.52 3.25
4 1.09 5.43 51.22 0.46 2.32 39.83 2.57
5 1.06 5.32 56.53 0.36 1.82 41.65 1.38
6 0.96 4.78 61.33
7 0.81 4.05 65.37
8 0.79 3.93 69.30
9 0.77 3.86 73.16
10 0.66 3.28 76.44
11 0.62 3.09 79.52
12 0.60 3.01 82.53
13 0.58 2.89 85.41
14 0.52 2.59 88.00
15 0.47 2.37 90.37
16 0.43 2.15 92.52
17 0.43 2.13 94.65
18 0.40 2.00 96.64
19 0.36 1.81 98.45
20 0.31 1.55 100.00

 

Table 2: Factor Matrix

Factors
1
2
3
4
5
Quest. 1 -0.23 0.15 0.19 -5.04E-02 0.26
Quest. 2 -0.55 0.31 0.19 -5.71 2.01E-03
Quest. 3 -0.53 0.39 -8.95E-02 -7.61E-02 -0.12
Quest. 4 -0.15 2.55E-02 0.17 0.15 -6.51E-02
Quest. 5 -0.49 0.35 0.22 0.10 0.20
Quest. 6 -0.46 0.24 0.17 6.74E-02 -0.28
Quest. 7 -0.38 0.28 -2.00 9.03E-02 7.40E-02
Quest. 8 -0.64 0.22 -0.16 0.15 -4.85E-02
Quest. 9 -0.24 8.21E-02 -0.13 0.14 0.24
Quest. 10 -0.34 1.56E-02 0.22 0.13 -0.09
Quest. 11 0.61 -7.83E-02 .6.14E-02 9.52E-02 0.14
Quest. 12 0.65 0.31 -9.39E-02 -0.25 2.19E-02
Quest. 13 0.61 9.18 0.31 9.12E-02 -1.19E-02
Quest. 14 0.61 0.15 0.27 -0.14 -0.18
Quest. 15 0.60 1.79E-02 0.31 0.15 8.08E-02
Quest. 16 0.62 0.41 -9.56E-02 -0.21 9.48E-02
Quest. 17 0.72 0.20 6.90E-02 2.10E-02 -0.10
Quest. 18 0.55 0.23 -0.38 0.28 -7.11
Quest. 19 0.67 0.26 -8.50E-02 0.14 3.07E-02
Quest. 20 0.61 1.19E-02 1.89E-02 0.30 8.04

 

Analysis

A 3×2 (teams sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and college non
athletes) x (males and females) univariate factorial analysis of variance
was used to compare differences between college team sport athletes, college
individual sport athletes, and college non athletes and to also compare
males and females on the moral and social character index. A Tukey Post
hoc test was used to detect specific group differences after a significant
F test was found.

For clarification, although comparing differences between gender on the
RSBH Value Judgment Inventory was not the focus of this study, gender
was introduced into the analysis as a result of previous studies with
the HBVCI that have shown that overall females score significantly higher
than males (Belier & Stoll, 1992, 1995., Penny & Priest, 1990;
Rudd, Stoll, & Beller, 1997). As well, a previous study by Rudd (1998)
showed that overall, males scored significantly higher than females on
the social character index part of the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory.
Thus, we were concerned with interaction effects.

Results

Results from the univariate factorial analysis of variance revealed that
there was a significant difference between team sport athletes, individual
sport athletes, and non athletes on the moral character index F (2, 580)
= 31.04, p<. 05. There was also a significant difference between team
sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and non athletes on the social
character index F (2, 583) = 22.86, p<. 05.

A significant difference between males and females on the moral character
index F (1, 580) = 87.23, p<. 05 was also found. There was also a significant
difference between males and females on the social character index F (1,
583) = 68.33, p<. 05 There was no gender interaction for either of
the two univariate analyses.

More specifically, a Tukey’s post hoc indicated that non-athletes scored
significantly higher (M=27.51, SD=7.13) than team sport athletes (M=20.75,
SD=6.41) on the moral character index. Further, individual sport athletes
scored significantly higher (M=26.02,

SD=6.87) than team sport athletes (M=20.75, SD=6.41) on the moral character
index. And non-athletes (M=27.51, SD=7.13) scored only slightly higher
than individual sport athletes (M=26.02, SD=6.87) on the moral character
index. Finally, overall there was a significant difference between males
and females in which females scored significantly higher (M=27.56, SD=6.81)
than males (M=20.42, SD=6.36) on the moral character index.

Dissimilarly, a Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that team sport athletes
scored significantly higher (M=28.47, SD=5.92) than non-athletes (M=23.30,
SD=5.35) on the social character index. Team sport athletes (M=28.47,
SD=5.92) also scored significantly higher than individual sport athletes
(M=25.46, SD=5.59) on the social character index.

And individual sport athletes (M=25.46, SD=5.59) scored significantly
higher than non-athletes (M=23.30, SD=5.35). Also on the social character
index, males scored significantly higher (M=28.87, SD=6.18) than females
(M=23.35, SD=4.72).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that could measure
two types of character: moral versus social and to then determine if college
athletes, team sport athletes in particular, support social character
over moral character. Concurrently, this study was aimed towards ascertaining
the effect of sport participation on moral and social character and therefore
we compared college athletes (team sport athletes and individual sport
athletes) to college non-athletes.

Team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes and
individual sport athletes on the social character index. And individual
sport athletes scored significantly higher than non-athletes on the social
character index. In contrast, team sport athletes scored significantly
lower than non-athletes and individual sport athletes on the moral character
index. Lastly, non-athletes scored only slightly higher than individual
sport athletes on the moral character index. All group differences on
moral and social character are consistent with previous studies using
the HBVCI to measure moral character (for example, Beller & Stoll,
1995, Beller, Stoll & Rudd, 1997; Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1997)
or a previous study using the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory to measure
moral and social character (Rudd, Stoll & Beller, 1999).

As for explanations of the group differences, page limitations do not
allow for a full explication of all the various differences. Instead,
we will briefly address differences between team sport athletes and non-athletes
given those were the comparisons of most interest.

The reason why team sport athletes scored significantly higher than non
athletes on the social character index may be as a result of the emphasis
that coaches, parents, and general society place on values such as teamwork,
loyalty, self-sacrifice, perseverance, and work ethic in team sports.
Why such values are emphasized may be related to our American ideology
that emphasizes capitalism and corporation. Those such as (Berlage, 1982;
Coakley, 1998; O’Hanlon, 1980; Sage, 1988, 1998) have maintained that
sport is used as a vehicle to instill the types of values among sport
participants that will allow them to go out into society and contribute
to corporate America.

As for why team sport athletes scored significantly lower than non athletes
on the moral character index, the reason may relate to the socialization
process in the sport milieu in which many team sport athletes learn that
winning takes precedence over the moral ideal (see for example, Dreyfuss,
2001; Eitzen, 1999; Hawes, 1998; “A Purpose,” 1999). Therefore,
many athletes have not been taught to appreciate moral idealism or the
notion of moral character in competition.

In conclusion, there is evidence from our study to suggest that sport
may build social character, e.g., teamwork, loyalty, and self-sacrifice
as a possible result of the emphasis that is placed on social character.
In opposition, there is little evidence to suggest sport builds moral
character when defining character from a moral idealistic standpoint.

References

  1. A purpose pitch. (1999, May 17). Sports Illustrated, 90, 24.
  2. Armstrong, C.F. (1984). The lessons of sports: Class socialization
    in British and American boarding schools. Sociology of Sport Journal,
    1, 314-331.
  3. Arnold, P. (1999). The virtues, moral education, and the practice
    of sport. Quest, 51 (1), 39-54.
  4. Beller, J.M. & Stoll, S.K. (Spring, 1992). A moral reasoning intervention
    program for Division I athletes. The Academic Athletic Journal, 43-57.
  5. Beller, J.M., & Stoll, S.K. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school
    student athletes and general students: An empirical study versus personal
    testimony. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7 (4), 352-363.
  6. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., Burwell, B., & Cole, J. (1996). The
    relationship of competition and a Christian liberal arts education on
    moral reasoning of college student athletes. Research on Christian Higher
    Education, 3, 99-114.
  7. Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., & Rudd, A. (1997). The “great
    character experience.”
  8. Assessing the effectiveness of a great books approach to teaching
    moral character with competitive populations. Research Quarterly, 68
    (Suppl.1), 72.
  9. Berlage, G.I. (1982). Are children’s competitive team sports teaching
    corporate values? Arena review, 6, 15-21.
  10. Browit, J. (1999, June 2). Character paves way for L-C. Lewiston Morning
    Tribune, pp. 1B, 3B.
  11. Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (sixth
    ed.). Boston: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.
  12. Docheff, D. (1997). Character in sport and physical education. Journal
    of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68 (9), 34, 37.
  13. Dreyfuss, I. (2001, June 17). Youth officials look for ways to stem
    adult violence.
  14. Statesman Journal, p. 7B.
  15. Eitzen, D.S. (1999). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes
    of sport. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
  16. Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P (2000). Educational research.. Competencies
    for analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  17. Hahm, C.H., Beller, J.M., & Stoll, Stoll, S.K. (1989). The Hahm-Beller
    Values Choice Inventory. (Available from C.H. Hahm, J.M. Beller, and
    S.K. Stoll, the Center for Ethics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844).
  18. Hawes, K. (1998). Sportsmanship: Why should anybody care? NCAA News,
    pp. 1, 18.
  19. Herman, J. (2000, May 22). They’re ‘good guys, good players.’ Statesman
    Journal, p.3B.
  20. Hodge, P. (1989). Character-building in sport: Fact or fiction. New
    Zealand Journal of Medicine, 17 (2), 23-25.
  21. Kleiber, D.A. & Roberts, G.C. (1981). The effects of sport experience
    in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation.
    Journal of Psychology 3, 114- 122.
  22. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Sport ethics.
    Applications for fair play.
  23. (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw Hill.
  24. Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, A. T. (1971). If you want to build character,
    try something else.
  25. Psychology Today, 5, 60-63.
  26. O’Hanlon, T. (1980). Interscholastic athletics, 1900-1940: Shaping
    citizens for unequal roles in the modern industrial state. Educational
    Theory, 30 (2), 89-103.
  27. Penny, W.J., & Priest, R.F. (1990). Deontological sport values
    choices of United States academy cadets and selected other college-aged
    populations. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Institutional Research,
    United State Military Academy.
  28. Rudd, A. (1998). Sport ‘s perceived ability to build character. Unpublished
    doctoral dissertation. University of idaho, Moscow.
  29. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (1997). Expressed coaching
    behavior and its effect on athlete moral development. Research Quarterly,
    68 (Supp1.1), 114-115.
  30. Rudd, A., Stoll, S.K. & Beller, J.M. (1999). Measuring moral and
    social character among a group of Division IA college athletes, non-athletes,
    and ROTC military cadets.
  31. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70 (Supp1.1), 127.
  32. Sage, G. (1988). Sport participation as a builder of character? The
    World and I, 3 (10), 629-641.
  33. Sage, G. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes?
    The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69 (1), 15-18.
  34. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and
    physical activity.
  35. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  36. Stoll, S.K., J.M. Beller, Cole, J., Burwell, B. (1995). A comparison
    of moral reasoning scores of student athletes in Division I and Division
    III NCAA member collegiate/ institutions. Research Quarterly for Exercise
    and Sport, 66 (suppl). 81.
  37. Zimmerman, P. (2001, September 3). New England Patriots. Sports Illustrated,
    95 (9) 162-163.

Footnotes

1. A study by Stoll, Beller, Cole, and Burwell (1995) revealed that there
was not a significant difference between Division I and Division III athletes
on the HBVCI.

Results suggest that athletes have similar competitive values regardless
of the competitive level of the university. Therefore, researchers felt
it was acceptable to use a sample of athletes from various university
levels and to then compare an aggregation of the athletes to the sample
of non-athletes.

2015-03-20T08:37:41-05:00March 8th, 2004|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on What Type of Character Do Athletes Possess?
Go to Top