IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v5y2005i1p31-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition analysis Of World Greco-Roman and World free-style wrestling championships

Author

Listed:
  • Tülin Atan
  • O. İmamoğlu

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the competitions of the 46th World Greco-Roman and in the 35th World Free-Style Championships, and to examine the technique values of the National Turkish Team as a case study. The Greco-Roman Championship was in the city of Patras in Greece at 6-9 December 2001. The Free-Style Championship was in Sofia at 21-25 December 2001. 334 Greco-Roman and 311 free-style fights were recorded and the analysis was done on these recordings. The pattern of winning, the finishing times, the technique numbers, the points and the passivity numbers of the whole and the classifying matches; the techniques that the Turkish Team used and applied were determined. For statistical analysis, ratio for one competition (ROC) for each parameter was calculated.In these championships, most of the Greco-Roman and the free-style matches finished in official time and by points in all weight categories. Same status is validity for the Turkish team and the classifying matches. In the Greco-Roman wrestling, total 1317 techniques (R: 3.94) were applied and 2231 points (ROC: 6.67) were taken; 593 passivity (ROC: 1.77) and 114 tying salto (ROC: 0.34) were performed. In the free-style 1590 techniques (ROC: 5.11) were applied and 2376 points (ROC: 7.64) were taken; 296 passivity (ROC: 0.95) and 32 tying salto (ROC: 0.10) were performed. The Turkish Greco-Roman Wrestling Team applied 51 techniques (ROC: 2.42) took 84 points (ROC: 4.2) and exposed to 37 techniques (ROC: 1.76) gave 62 points (ROC: 3.1). The Turkish Free-Style Wrestling Team applied 70 techniques (ROC: 2.91) took 114 points (ROC: 4.75) and exposed to 53 techniques (ROC: 2.91) gave 73 points (ROC: 3.04). In the Greco-Roman and free-style classifying matches, respectively 54 (ROC: 3.37) and 66 (ROC: 4.12) techniques were applied; 88 points (ROC: 5.50) were taken in both style.The most executed techniques were: gut wrench (29.62 %), tying salto (14.81 %) and counter to gut wrench (9.25 %) in the classifying Greco-Roman; leg tackle (36.36 %), gut wrench (16.66 %) and head drug (12.12 %) in the classifying free-style wrestling. The Turkish Greco-Roman Wrestling Team executed mostly gut wrench (33.33 %) and warning point (11.76 %); mostly exposed to gut wrench (21.62 %) and throw back (16.21 %). The Turkish Free-Style Wrestling Team executed mostly leg tackle (24.3 %) and gut wrench (20 %); exposed to mostly leg tackle (28.30 %), gut wrench (13.20 %) and double leg tackle (13.20 %).Wrestlers chose to take points without risk, and to be successful it was necessary to take 8 points in Greco-Roman and 7 points in free-style for one competition. To win a competition it’s important to apply and not expose to a technique. The National Turkish Greco-Roman Team was unsuccessful to apply a technique. National Turkish Free-Style Team didn’t wrestle as offensively as their successful rivals. The case study enabled an analysis of the performanceof the team and recommendations to be made for improvements in future competitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tülin Atan & O. İmamoğlu, 2005. "Competition analysis Of World Greco-Roman and World free-style wrestling championships," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 31-40, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:5:y:2005:i:1:p:31-40
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2005.11868313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868313
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868313?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:5:y:2005:i:1:p:31-40. 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.