Galley Proof 30/11/2018; 8:28 File: bmr–1-bmr181173.tex; BOKCTP/xjm p. 1 Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation -1 (2018) 1–10 1 DOI 10.3233/BMR-181173 IOS Press The physical features suitable for classical ballet training Ay¸ se Gül Kabakci a,∗ , Sema Polat a , Seda Ayvazo˘ glu b and Ahmet Hilmi Yücel a a Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Sarıçam, Adana, Turkey b Department of Performing Arts, State Conservatory, Dokuz Eylül University, ˙ Izmir, Turkey Abstract. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prerequisite physical features of classical ballet education. METHODS: Students who enrolled and were rejected for the applications of State Conservatory Ballet Main Art Branch in the academic year 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 were compared with their exam results. This study involves defining the physical ability and determining physical fitness by using Eurofit tests including the Flamingo Balance test (FB), Plate Tapping (PT), Sit and Reach (SITR), Standing Broad Jump (SBJ), Handgrip test (HG), Sit Up in 30 Seconds (SU) and Shuttle Run 10 × 5 meter (SR), Heath-Carter somatotyping method and anthropometric measurements which determine ballet students’ body type and physical abilities. Sixty-nine girls between 8–11 years old who applied for ballet education at the State Conservatory Ballet Main Art Branch were included in the study. While the average of age, height and weight measurements of enrolled students were 9.40 ± 0.74 year, 1.38 ± 0.08 m and 30.03 ± 4.73 kg respectively, the same dimensions were found in rejected students, i.e. 9.79 ± 0.94 year, 1.40 ± 0.10 m and 35.59 ± 7.31 kg respectively. RESULTS: Measurements of diameter, circumference and subcutaneous fat were lower (p< 0.05) for enrolled students. The major body type of enrolled students was identified as mesomorphy, whereas the major body type of rejected students was identified as endomorphy. All dimensions of the Eurofit tests, except the strength test, were significantly different in enrolled students (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These parameters used in this study can be convenient in objectively evaluating classical ballet education. Keywords: Ballet, Eurofit test, somatotype, physical features, physical fitness 1. Introduction 1 The candidates for ballet education should be se- 2 lected at a young age. Traditionally, the classical bal- 3 let performance scoring done by judges is not guided 4 by a net set of objective criteria. Instead, each judge 5 relies on his/her own personal knowledge to generate 6 a subjective score. The spacing between the static and 7 dynamic elements that create every movement in clas- 8 sical ballet are complicated and sudden and because 9 it is speechlessly understood, judges score according 10 * Corresponding author: Ay¸ se Gül Kabakci, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Sarıçam, Adana, Turkey. Tel.: +90 0322 338 6060; Fex: +90 0531 937 4028; E-mail: aysegulll-88@hotmail.com. to the component of movement that they are concen- 11 trating on. Hence, there can be important changes in 12 scoring results. The development of an objective and 13 reasonable scoring assist tool may help judges to more 14 objectively score ballet performances. For this pur- 15 pose, some previous studies exploited motions con- 16 quer and statistics to set up a reasonable classical bal- 17 let scoring support approach model [1]. Classical bal- 18 let is similar to sports like ice skating and gymnas- 19 tics, in that it requires volunteers to have large ranges 20 of movement [2], associated with adequate muscular 21 strength, power and endurance to keep these ranges of 22 motion [2,3], along with performing jumps and other 23 impermanent movements at a range of densities [4]. 24 Understanding the physical properties of classical bal- 25 let first involves understanding of the human anatomy 26 and physiology, which supports these requirements. 27 ISSN 1053-8127/18/$35.00 c  2018 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved uncorrected proof version