Ph.D., Associate Professor P.I. Krivoshapkin
Postgraduate student E.P. Kudrin
N.S. Filippov
Ph.D., Associate Professor V.G. Starostin
Institute of Physical Culture and Sport of North-Eastern Federal University named after M.K. Ammosov, Yakutsk

Keywords: mas-wrestling, lumbar spine, thoracic spine, angle characteristics, mas-wrestling "low row" exercise machine.

Introduction

Fast progress of mas-wrestling sport on the global arenas in terms of both the growing sport skills and sport dynamics calls for more attention being focused on the efforts to improve every aspect of the training process to secure further growth of accomplishments in the sport. Top priority will be given, among other things, to studies of biomechanics, technique and tactics of mas-wrestling and to special practices to balance the musculoskeletal elements on a more efficient basis to help fully employ strength abilities of the athletes [1-2].

The purpose of the study was to select the most effective strength exercises to develop special pulling qualities in mas-wrestlers.

Materials and methods

The study was carried out at the premises of the Institute of Physical Culture and Sport under North-Eastern Federal University, at its Olympic and National Sport Disciplines Research and Education Centre. The study team used a modern computerized movement biomechanics analysis technology “Qualisys Medical” with the video capturing system rated at 100 framers per sec for convenience. Subject to the experiment were athletes qualified as Candidates for Master of Sport of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic from among the students of the Institute of Physical Culture and Sport under North-Eastern Federal University named after M.K. Ammosov. The parameters subject to analysis included angle variation factors of a few exercises including deadlift, toe-based weight lifts, pulls on a low row machine applied by mas-wrestlers and counteraction pulls in couples. Weights in the weight lift practices and loads on the low row machine were rated at 80% of the maximum individual strength of the subject athlete.

Study results and discussion

Presented on Figure 1 hereunder are the test results for the variety of pulling practices. The counteraction pulls (with opponent) were designed as alternating yielding-and-overcoming workloads lasting for about 0.5 seconds, and the other practices were rated as follows:

1) Counteraction pulls with opponent: 50 frames of 0.5 s;

2) Pulls on the low row machine for mas-wrestling:  1.14 s;

3) Standing rows on the low row machine: 1.2 s;

4) Deadlifts: 1.5 s;

5) Toes-based weight lifts: 1.85 s.

It is the starting phase of every pulling practice that was found to be the most specific in terms of both the timing and angular factors. Let us highlight and analyse the starting phase of the pulling workloads (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Lumbar angle variation curves for the practices

As seen from Figure 1, the counteraction pulls with opponent are shorter in time and designed as short-amplitude alternating yielding-and-overcoming workloads resisted by the opponent. It should be mentioned that the competitive amplitudes of lumbar spine angles are known to vary within 3-4 degrees only.

Angular factors of the straight rows and standing rows on the low row mas-wrestling machine are generally the same as those of the deadlifts and toes-based weight lifts and also designed as alternative yielding-and-overcoming workloads. This is one of the reasons to consider the low row machine an ideal tool for special pull strength development by the mas-wrestling athletes since its workloads are well matched with the competitive workloads on the lumbar muscle group.

Lumbar spine is found straighter in the deadlift practices with only the starting phase (0.2 s long) of the movement being close to the competitive pattern. For this reason the deadlift practice may be considered the least suitable (compared to the other practices) for the special strength development purposes. The starting phase (taking 0.5 s) of the toes-based weight lift is close to the counteraction pulls with opponent in terms of the angle variation factors; and is characterized by short amplitudes and isometric workloads on the lumbar muscle group; that means that in the weight-lifting practices preference must be given to the toes-based weight lifts to the knee level rather than deadlifts.

Figure 2. Thoracic spine angle variation curves for the practices

According to Figure 2, in the counteraction sparring practices with opponent workloads on the thoracic spine are dominated by the yielding phase of the practice; and this practice is most closely matched with the first half phase of the seated rows on the low row machine in terms of amplitudes, muscle group workloads and yielding phase time. Standing rows on the low row machine are longer in time and more isometric in workloads compared to seated rows. As far as the deadlift practice is considered, despite the workloads being fairly yielding in its starting phase, the movement generally starts from too straight lumbar spine position with the movement later on dominated by the overcoming workload. The toes-based weightlifting pulls are specific enough only in the starting phase of 0.2-0.3 s, and later on are dominated by active extension in the thoracic spine with the overcoming workloads.

Figure 3 hereunder gives (on the right side) angle variation curves for the lumbar and thoracic spine sections and the left knee and hip joints.

Extension movements in the knee and hip joints are perfectly simultaneous, and Figure 3 shows that the main effort is performed by simultaneous active contraction of the quadriceps muscle of thigh (musculus quadriceps femoris) and the hip extension muscles including musculus gluteus maximus, musculus semitendinosus femoris, musculus semimembranosus femoris and musculus biceps femoris.

Figure 3. Competitive pulls

Thoracic spine works totally in the yielding phase of the practices with the shoulder girdle and thoracic spine being “overpowered” and the lumbar spine working in slightly overcoming mode at short amplitudes of 7-8 degrees under mostly isometric workloads followed (at the moment of the highest stress) by the yielding workloads.

Conclusion

Having analyzed the angle variations in the key sections of the body, we would offer the following conclusions:

• Workloads on the low row machine are dominated by the yielding-and-overcoming movements that are most closely matched with actual competitive workloads on the lumbar muscles;
• In the weight lifting practices, mas-wrestlers are recommended to give preference to the toes-based weigh lifts rather than deadlift;
• To achieve the maximum special strength development effects, the athletes are to perform pulls (regardless of the applied tool) to the knee-level only and at short amplitudes, with the practice being focused on the simultaneous work of the hip and knee joints; and
• The thoracic section in the competitive pulls and in pulls on the low row machine works in the totally yielding mode with the shoulder girdle and thoracic section being “overpowered” that is typical for mas-wrestling practices.

References

1. Zakharov, A.A. Uglovye kharakteristiki sustavov pri vypolnenii priema «stoyka» v mas-restlinge (Angle joint characteristics in "stand" in mas-wrestling) / A.A. Zakharov, N.S. Filippov, P.I. Krivoshapkin // Osnovy razvitiya i puti sovershenstvovaniya mas-restlinga: mater. Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. (Development basics and ways of improving mas-wrestling: Proc. of Intern. res.-pract. conf.) – Yakutsk: Dani-Almas, 2014. – P. 106–108.
2. Krivoshapkin, P.I. Mas-restling. Biomekhanicheskie osnovy tekhniki, taktiki i metodiki (Mas-wrestling. Biomechanical basics of technique, tactics and technology) / A.I. Krivoshapkin. – Yakutsk, 2014, – 144 P., il.

           Corresponding author: nocentr@mail.ru