Securing university wrestlers' technical and tactical progress based on competitive performance quality rating data

Фотографии:

ˑ:

Associate Professor, PhD A.Y. Barkov
National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, Moscow

Keywords: freestyle wrestling, tactical and technical skills, quantitative characteristics, comparative analysis, technical benefits.

Background. Freestyle wrestling as a single combat sport discipline may be described as the high-coordination competitive activity regulated by the valid international rules of competitions. The rapidly growing freestyle wrestling mastery levels and increasingly dynamic competitive styles require a higher priority being given to the athletic training process so that it is improved in every aspect to guarantee due competitive progress. These aspects are undoubtedly dominated by the wrestlers’ physical fitness standards, including, among its key constituents, their tactical and tactical performance (TTP) standards.

Objective of the study was to improve the university freestyle athletes’ tactical and tactical performance (TTP) standards based on the competitive performance rating quantitative data.

Methods and structure of the study. The competitive performance rating quantitative data accumulated by the prior studies of 2013-15 including the National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (NRMSUCE) picked freestyle wrestlers’ competitive performance and TTP data versus those of the top-ranking wrestlers of the Moscow Student’s Sport Games (MSSG) gave us the means to make a comparative analysis of the competitive performance and progress rates of the leading NRMSUCE freestyle wrestlers versus the best university wrestlers of Moscow city [7].

Study results and discussion. As verified by the average technical scores per bout (Table 1), the leading MSSG freestyle wrestlers in 6 weight categories (6 subjects to the study) showed much better competitive performance than the leading NRMSUCE wrestlers in all the categories save for the heavyweight where the NRMSUCE wrestlers were better [1].

Table 1. Average technical results of the leading MSSG and NRMSUCE freestyle wrestlers for the period of 2013-15, team scoring points

Weight category Teams	55/57	55/61	60/ 61/ 65/	65/ 70/ 84/	70/ 74/ 96/	74/ 86/ 120/	86/ 86/ 120/	96/ 120/
Leading NRMSUCE athletes of 2013-15	17.7	16	16.3	17.3	16.7	15.7	10.3	10
For 2015	17	12	16	15	16	13	9	10
Leading MSSG athletes of 2013-15	6.7(-)	11.7(-)	10.3(-)	15(-)	12(-)	9.3(-)	11(+)	14(+)
For 2015	5	12(=)	12	12	16(=)	9	15(>)	17(>)

The year of 2015 is given separately for the reason that the NRMSUCE athletes won the 2015 Championship, and the Table 1 shows the notably higher results of the NRMSUCE athletes at that time, with 2 scorers showing better results, 2 scorers the same and 2 scorers slightly worse results than the best MSSG athletes, albeit the results anyway were higher than the average rates. There is an obvious correlation between the growth of the athletic performance rates and the win in the Championship.

Given hereunder in Tables 2 and 3 are the competitive performance rates and ranking data of the NRMSUCE freestyle wrestlers versus those of the best MSSG athletes (of Moscow city) in 2013-15. The data analysis shows that the formal sport qualifications of the NRMSUCE freestyle wrestlers were notably lower versus those of the MSSG winners. It should be noted in this context that the NRMSUCE team have won the Championships only twice (in 2014 and 2015) [2].

Masters of Sport (MS) in the formal line-up of the NRMSUCE team varied from 12.5 to 25% versus 38% to 50% in the MSSG leaders, whilst the total numbers of bouts were virtually the same for the subject university athletes for the reason that almost all of them have been runner-ups or semi-final competitors in the Games.

The average technical scores (total scoring points per one scoring athlete) of the best NRMSUCE and MSSG athletes were applied as the important and informative rate of the individual and team TTP indicative of the quality and quantity of the technical actions in the won bouts [6]. The individual bout times of the leading MSSG athletes were lower than those of the NRMSUCE athletes by 19% in 2013; 7% in 2014; and 28% in 2015.

Table 2. Competitive performance rates and ranking data of the leading NRMSUCE athletes in the MSSG competitions of 2013–15

SScorer’s number and weight

Scorer’s name

Class

Places won, year

Bouts/ technical scores, year

Bout time, s, year

Scoring points

TT actions

year

1 – 55

1 – 57

R. Salakhov

D. Akopyan

CMS

4/11

3/4

2/5

840

780

380

2 – 55

2 – 61

G. Shakurov

U. Batyrov

A. Nazranov

CMS

4/15

3/8

4/12

690

600

540

3 – 61

3 – 65

N. Koren’kov

A. Nazranov

A. Kamalyan

4/11

4/8

4/12

1080

960

990

4 – 84

4 – 65

4 – 70

R. Jalilov

A. Kamalian

A. Ondar

CMS

5/15

3/8

4/12

1350

730

780

5 – 96

5 – 70

5 – 74

K. Mamaev

A. Ondar

A. Abakarov

CMS

3/8

5/12

5/16

510

960

1305

6 – 96

6 – 74

6 – 86

S. Sedanov

A. Abakarov

A. Khutezhev

CMS

3/8

3/11

3/9

690

720

430

7 – 120

7 – 86

A. Kuchin

G. Tagiev

A. Balayev

CMS -

CMS

3/5

5/13

4/15

300

720

680

8 - -

8 – 125

8 – 96

S. Sedanov

K. Mamaev

CMS

3/11

4/17

780

600

∑

1/6

2/8

1/8

26/73

29/75

30/98

5460

6250

5705

109

200

214

100

104

Average

2,71

3,75

2,38

3,71/10,4

3,63/9,4

3,75/12,3

780

781

713

15,6

25,0

26,8

8,6

12,5

13,0

Table 3. Competitive performance rates and ranking data of the best MSSG competitors in freestyle wrestling for the years of 2013-15

Scorer’s number and weight

Scorer’s name

Class

Places won

Bouts/ technical result.

Bout time, s

Scoring points

TT actions

1-55

1-57

R. Karakhanov

M. Magomedov

CMS

4/18

4/17

845

355

760

2-60

2-61

M. Yegorochkin

B. Abakarov

R. Karakhanov

CMS

5/19

4/17

3/12

1130

930

540

3-66

3-65

M. Kachalov

R. Kerefov

M. Egorochkin

CMS

5/18

4/15

4/16

1160

1040

840

4-74

4-70

R. Archikhanov

R. Aliev

R. Kerefov

CMS

5/18

5/19

5/15

1020

1060

1800

5-84

5-74

N. Karahanov

T. Akaev

S. Arkelov

CMS

5/17

4/17

5/16

1140

730

1650

6-96

6-86

A. Yunaev

I. Sarkisian

R. Akhmethanov

CMS

3/10

5/24

4/13

720

430

1230

7-120

7-96

A. Kishev

S. Eltarov

K. Zhilin

CMS

MSС

3/11

3/9

690

750

260

8--

8-125

B. Simoniya

CMS

4/10

3/10

1440

840

∑

3/7

4/8

3/8

30/111

33/131

31/108

6705

6725

7920

216

300

233

129

161

105

Average

3,75/15,9

4,12/16,4

3,9/13,5

958

842

990

30,8

37,5

29,1

18,4

20,1

13,3

The scoring points per every TT action per scorer for the leading MSSG athletes were higher than for the NRMSUCE athletes as follows: 1.97 times higher in 2013; 1.5 times higher in 2014; and 1.09 times higher in 2015. The same picture was found for the average TT actions per scorer: the leading MSSG athletes scored better than the NRMSUCE athletes as follows: 2.13 times in 2013; 1.61 times in 2014; and only 0.96 times in 2015 i.e. virtually the same. The high average TT action scores of 2015 are due to the NRMSUCE team winning the champion title, with every team scorer winning some prize: 1 athlete won the first place, 3 athletes won the second place, and 4 athletes was the 4^th.

Given in Table 4 hereunder are the team standings of the university teams in the MSSG competitions in 2013-15, plus the individual accomplishments of the scorers from the best university teams of Moscow city. The team standings versus the individual scorers’ success rates may be analysed based on the average places of the scorers from every team: 7 in 2013 and 8 in 2014–15 [3].

Table 4. Team standings in the MSSG competitions versus the individual scorers’ total places for the best university teams of Moscow city

	University	Ratio	2013	2014	2015
1	RSUPC	∑ places/ team standings	28/1	28/1	38/3
1	RSUPC	Average	4	3,5	4,75
2	MSSU	∑ places/ team standings	19/2	30/2	19/1
2	MSSU	Average	2,71	3,75	2,38
3	RSOGU	∑ places/ team standings	36/3	34/3	30/2
3	RSOGU	Average	5,14	4,25	3,75
4	MSU-2013 MSURE -2014 MAA -2015	∑ places/ team standings	39	46	42
4	MSU-2013 MSURE -2014 MAA -2015	Average	4,57	5,75	5,25

Note: RSUPC – Russian State University of Physical Culture; MSSU – Moscow State Sports University; RSOGU – Russian State Oil and Gas University; MSU - Moscow State University; MSURE – Moscow State University of Railway Engineering; MAA – Moscow Agricultural Academy

The above Table data shows that the average total places to the team standing ratio of the RSUPC dropped to 4.75 by 2015 that implies the 3^rd place in the team standings. The average ratio of 4.25 to 5.14 means the 3^rd team standing place; the 2^nd team standing place corresponds to the ratio of 3.5 to 4.0; and the 1^st team standing place implies the ratio being better than 3.5.

This kind of analysis makes it possible to find the most efficient methods for the MSSU athletes’ precompetitive training for the MSSG competitions with the timely adjustments made in the process; and the optimal technical and tactical performance rates needed to be achieved by the MSSU athletes [4, 5].

Conclusion. The study data and analyses gave the means to offer the following practical recommendations to the university wrestlers:

- Focus on the holds and inside-distance wins in bouts with equal opponents, i.e. cut down the average fight time;

- Expand the range of attacking actions to step up the average individual score to 30-35 points per scorer (for the MSSU athletes this rate was under 26.8 points for the 3 years under the study);

- Excel the quality of holds and completed techniques to the best possible level.

Due actions also need to be taken to improve the special and speed-strength endurance to keep high speeds throughout the bout and perform every tactical and technical action with the highest efficiency.

References

Barkov A.Y. Otsenka vystupleniy komand vedushchikh vuzov po analizu sorevnovaniy MSSI [Rating of performance of leading university teams based on ICCI competition analysis]. Mater. V mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. 28 fevralya 2016 «Problemy razvitiya fizicheskoy kultury i sporta v novom tysyacheletii» [Proc. V Intern. res.-practical conf. "Problems of development of physical culture and sport in the new millennium"], 2016, RSPPU publ., Yekaterinburg, 513 p.
Barkov A.Y. Analiz vystupleniy i issledovanie effektivnosti tekhnicheskikh deystviy komand MGSU po volnoy borbe [Performance rating and study of efficiency of technical actions of MSSU freestyle wrestling teams]. Scientific journal, Kharkov: Hoonoku, 2012, no. 6, 152 p.
Barkov A.Y. Sovershenstvovanie metodiki kontrolya taktiko-tekhnicheskoy podgotovki sportsmenov sbornoy komandy MGSU po volnoy borbe [Enhancement of tactical and technical skills monitoring methodology in application to MSSU freestyle wrestling team]. Sb. statey nauch.-prakt. konf., posvyaschennoy 60-letiyu pobedy v VOV «Nauchnye aspekty fizicheskoy kultury v vysshey shkole» [Proc. res.-pract. conf., dedicated to the 60th anniversary of victory in GPW "Research aspects of Physical Education in Higher School"]. no. 8, MISI-MGSU publ., 2015, 408 p.
Gozhin V.V., Malkov O.B. Teoreticheskie aspekty tekhniki i taktiki sportivnoy borby [Technique and tactics of wrestling: theoretical aspects]. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 2005, 168 p.

Corresponding author: pr-azdnik@yandex.ru

Abstract

The study gives an overview of National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (NRMSUCE) picked freestyle wrestlers’ technical and tactical progress (TTP) rating methodology based on the competitive performance rating data and analyses of the NRMSUCE athletes versus those of the top-ranking competitors in the Moscow Student’s Sport Games (MSSG) for the period of 2013-15. The study data and analyses gave the means to offer the following practical recommendations to the university wrestlers:

- Focus on the holds and inside-distance wins, i.e. cut down the average fight time;

- Expand the range of attacking actions to step up the average individual score to 30-35 points;

- Excel the quality of holds and completed techniques to the best possible level.

Teoriya.ru

Securing university wrestlers' technical and tactical progress based on competitive performance quality rating data

Фотографии:

ˑ:

Shopping cart

Newbies

Search form

Фотографии:

ˑ:

Shopping cart

User login

Newbies