Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026

Comparison of Kinetic Characteristics of Footwork during Stroke in Table Tennis: Cross-Step and Chasse Step
Published on: June 16, 2021
Do Pitching Biomechanics and Shoulder and Elbow Kinetics Differ Between Pitching on 2 Specific Dirt Surface and Turf
Rafael F Escamilla1, Jonathan S Slowik2, Rodney Imamura3
1Department of Physical Therapy, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, California, USA.
Background:
While most baseball fields have dirt pitching mounds, some fields have turf mounds. In addition, portable turf surface mounds are often used for bullpen or practice sessions, off-season training, or when assessing pitching mechanics in a biomechanics laboratory. Pitching on dirt surface mounds permits metal cleats to be worn, which are often discouraged on turf surface mounds because of potential damage to the turf.
Purpose:
To assess differences in shoulder and elbow kinetics and pitching kinematics in college pitchers between pitching on a dirt surface mound with metal cleats versus pitching on a turf surface mound with turf shoes.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
A total of 18 college pitchers pitched both on a dirt surface mound and on a turf surface mound. All pitchers were tested using a 240-Hz, 12-camera motion analysis system, and 28 kinematic and 7 kinetic parameters were calculated. Differences in kinematic and kinetic parameters between pitching on dirt surface and turf surface mounds were assessed with paired within-participant t tests employing the Benjamini-Hochberg method to correct for multiple comparisons (adjusted P < .05).
Results:
Two kinetic parameters showed significant differences, with maximal elbow varus torque (to resist valgus loading) and maximal shoulder internal rotation torque significantly greater when pitching on a dirt surface mound compared with pitching on a turf surface mound. Maximal lead knee height, elbow flexion, knee flexion, rotational separation between upper trunk and pelvis, maximal shoulder external rotation, and forward trunk tilt were significantly greater when pitching on a dirt surface than on a turf surface. Pelvic drift at maximal lead knee height and arm slot angle were significantly greater pitching on a turf surface than on a dirt surface.
Conclusion:
Of the 35 kinematic and kinetic comparisons, 10 of the comparisons (29%) were significantly different between pitching on a dirt surface mound and pitching on a turf surface mound. Kinematic differences only involved body segment and joint positions and not angular velocity magnitudes or timings. Kinetic differences demonstrated that elbow valgus and shoulder loading were slightly greater pitching on a dirt surface with metal cleats compared with pitching on a turf surface with turf shoes.
Clinical Relevance:
Compared to pitching on a dirt surface mound, pitching on a turf surface mound may decrease joint stress and injury risk for the throwing shoulder and elbow, although differences in kinematics between mounds should also be considered.
Related Concept Videos
Motion of a Projectile
Horizontal motion, governed by the initial kick, maintains a constant velocity throughout the flight of the soccer ball.
Impact: Problem Solving
By designating the launch point as the origin and utilizing kinematic equations, the vertical component of the projectile's velocity at the point of impact is...
Social Facilitation
Projectile Motion: Equations
Any projectile motion problem can be solved by using the following strategy:
Projectile Motion
When an object falls under gravity and has no...
Characteristics of Dry Friction
Before the wheelbarrow starts moving, the static frictional force acts tangentially to the contact surface, opposing the force that is about to induce the motion. This frictional force prevents the...

