IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v18y2018i4p545-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shooting efficiency for winners of World Cup and World Championship races in men’s and women’s biathlon: where is the cut-off?

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn Björklund

Abstract

The shooting profile of the biathlete is presented as the mean shooting percentage, which lacks valuable information for performance profiling. Hence, the aim of the study was to present a way of profiling biathlete shooting efficiency and profiling the men’s and women’s winners in the IBU World Cup and World Championships to clarify the fewest hits necessary to win races. Data from 106 competitions from two seasons were analysed and dichotomised. The proportions (p) (miss/hit) and 90% confidence interval were estimated, and binominal distributions for overall, standing and prone shooting. The women’s winners showed higher overall shooting efficiency than the men’s winners (−5.4 to −0.4 90%CI) season 2015/2016, due to lower prone shooting efficiency for the men. The men increased their overall shooting efficiency for the 2016/2017 season, compared to 2015/2016, due to increased prone shooting accuracy (−6.9 to −0.2 90%CI). The likelihood of winners missing three targets went from 14.7% to 3.7% and 3.5% to 4.3% for the 2015/2016 to 2016/2017 season for men and women, respectively. Overall, the men varied more than women between seasons due to reduced prone shooting efficiency, while the third miss appeared most critical for performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn Björklund, 2018. "Shooting efficiency for winners of World Cup and World Championship races in men’s and women’s biathlon: where is the cut-off?," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 545-553, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:18:y:2018:i:4:p:545-553
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1497920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2018.1497920
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2018.1497920?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:18:y:2018:i:4:p:545-553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.