PhD Yu.S. Filippova¹
L.K. Matveyeva²
S.M. Lukina^3
1Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk
²Sports Aerobics Federation of Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk
³Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg

Keywords: sport aerobics, Difficult Elements Execution Rate, training camps, difficult elements, champions, runner-ups, competitors

Background Training camps are traditional for the national sports system as the key element of a precompetitive training and selection process [3], with the coaching teams assisted in the selection by the relevant theoretical provisions and study findings [2, 5] – although many would like to have reliable fitness marker(s) to effectively rate the precompetitive fitness and compose the picked teams for the sport aerobics events.

Objective of the study was to test benefits of a competitive success forecasting and precompetitive training system correction model with application of the Difficult Elements Execution Rates.

Methods and structure of the study. It was in 2008 that L.K. Matveyeva offered a Difficult Elements Execution Rate for application in the modern sport aerobics, particularly in the precompetitive trainings. The idea is that difficulty is the key factor for success in competitions when the competitors demonstrate mostly the same execution quality and artistry [1]. We have analyzed the Difficult Elements Execution Rate variations in the four-week precompetitive training cycles prior to different competitions – from the Russian regional events to the World championships. Sampled for the rating model testing experiment were the leading Novosibirsk Oblast athletes qualified for the Russian national team. Since 2008 we recorded the difficult elements for every nomination (solo, couple, trio and group) and routine in the precompetitive training camps, conditional on the routine meeting the basic requirements to the performance, with the execution difficulty rate added to the score [4]. We also analyzed percentages of the scoring difficult elements on a weekly basis as the successful difficult elements to the difficulty maximum (i.e. Difficult Elements Execution Rate =100% when every difficult element is successful in the routine). The four-week training cycles were planned on a uniform basis, with each athlete trained for 4 hours six times a week prior to competitions. The test data were classified based on the actual competitive rankings into the following groups: champions (1 place winners), runner-ups (places 2 and 3) and the lower-rankers (under the top three).

Results and discussion. Given in Table 1 hereunder are the ranked and meaningfully different competitive scores and groups versus their Difficult Elements Execution Rates. It should be mentioned that the champions’ and runner-ups’ precompetitive Difficult Elements Execution Rates were actually not that different.

Table 1. Precompetitive Difficult Elements Execution Rates versus the group competitive scores and ranks

In our efforts to find the core reasons for the competitive successes and failures we analyzed (see the Figure hereunder) the group precompetitive Difficult Elements Execution Rate variations on a weekly basis. We found that the champions kept the Difficult Elements Execution Rates at least high and stable and even persistently growing despite the hard trainings (, with weighted practices, many repetitions etc.) in the last 2-3 precompetitive weeks [3]. This is why they were so confident and successful in the competitions. The runner-ups were tested with some Difficult Elements Execution Rate sags on the peaks of the precompetitive training cycles i.e. yielded under pressure of the high-intensity trainings at sacrifice of the difficult elements performance quality – and this was the prime reason for their less confident performances in the competitions. They could be also less mentally fit than the winners to the high-intensity trainings and more sensitive to the precompetitive and competitive stressors.

Furthermore, the lower-rankers were generally tested meaningfully lower than the top three in the difficult elements performance quality. It was found that the coaches during the precompetitive training cycles usually solve this problem either by the efforts to improve the difficult elements execution or, when this tactics proved unsuccessful, by the routine difficulty level being reduced. On the whole, the competitive routine execution by the lower-rankers was tested to improve over the 4-week training cycle albeit was still lower than by the top three.

Figure 1. Group Difficult Elements Execution Rate variations in the precompetitive training cycles

Conclusion. The study found that the Difficult Elements Execution Rate offered by L.K. Matveeva may be successfully used as a competitive performance forecast marker in the modern sport aerobics. The athletes tested with the Difficult Elements Execution Rate sags on the peaks of the precompetitive training cycles need a special attention to find out the reasons for the regresses and help them solve the problems by the focused individualized medical and biological provisions and psychological service.

References

1. Ayzyatullova G.R. Components of competitive aerobics routines and their relationship as a factor of world sport leadership. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka. 2018. no. 2. pp. 36-39.
2. Kasatkina N.A., Nazarenko L.D. Structure and content of reliability of competitive activity in fitness aerobics.  Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2011. no.  9. pp. 77-82.
3. Kokarev B.V., Zhestkov S.G., Smirnova N.I. Methodical foundations of pre-competitive training of national sport aerobics team. Pedagogika, psikhologiya i mediko-biologicheskie problemy fizicheskogo vospitaniya i sporta. 2007. no. 6. pp. 141-144.
4. Sokolova I.V. Competitive composition performance rating criteria in sport aerobics. Problemy Sovremennogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya. 2016. no. 50-3. pp. 143-150.
5. Filippova Yu.S., Golovin M.S. Some data of biomedical selection of candidates for sport aerobics team of the Novosibirsk Region. International Journal of Experimental Education. 2014. no,  11-1. pp. 9-11.

Corresponding author: 3348691@gmail.com

Abstract

Training camps are traditional for the national sports system as the key element of a precompetitive training and selection process, with the coaching teams assisted in the selections by the relevant theoretical provisions and study findings – although many would like to have reliable fitness marker(s) to effectively rate the precompetitive fitness and compose the picked teams for the sport aerobics events. We would recommend for the competitive success forecasting purposes a Difficult Elements Execution Rate computed in the four-week precompetitive fitness tests at the training camps. The Difficult Elements Execution Rate would be computed for a competitive routine as the successfully executed difficult elements to the total elements ratio – compliant to the valid difficulty scales applied in competitions by referees, i.e. an ideal execution is ratable by Difficult Elements Execution Rate =100%. Sampled for the study in 2008 through 2018 were the Russian national team members. The champions were tested with the highest Difficult Elements Execution Rates and their growths over the 4-weekly trainings; whilst the runner-ups were tested with some Difficult Elements Execution Rate sags on training weeks 2-3. We believe that the Difficult Elements Execution Rate may be successfully applied for the competitive success forecasting and precompetitive training system correction purposes.