Execution effort rating biomechanics for push-out holds in greco-roman wrestling

A.A. Egizaryan1
Dr.Hab., Professor I.D. Svishchev2
A.V. Pavlova1
1Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow
2Russian State University of Physical Education, Sports, Youth and Tourism (SCOLIPE), Moscow

Keywords: ground response force (GRF), counter positions in wrestling, push-out hold, Greco-Roman wrestling, holds classification, hold energy cost.

Background. Wrestlers’ energy costs in every time moment of a bout may be categorized by the counter positions, goals and contact specifics for every competitor [1, 3]. The range of holds in modern Greco-Roman wrestling is very wide and, hence, their classification is only possible based on a set of very general identifiers [2], with different versions of the same hold being potentially widely diverse versus the competitors’ goals, contacts and specific efforts.

Objective of the study was to analyze and classify the push-out hold versions by the wrestlers’ primary counter positions.

Methods and structure of the study. We applied for the purposes of the study analyses of the available research literature on the holds in modern Greco-Roman wrestling and their classification systems [2, 4] and on the movement biomechanics in martial arts [1, 3, 5]. Tests under the study used a computerized AMTI strain gauge (‘tensometer’) test system to rate the ground response rates for a variety of contacts on a 60×60×8cm platform; with the strain gauge platform making it possible to rate and analyze a vertical and two horizontal components of the ground response impulse.

Study findings and discussion. It is a common knowledge that every hold including the push-out one may be executed in a wide variety of primary counter positions. We applied the symmetry theory to classify the push-out hold versions by the primary counter positions. Generally the ground response force (== was rated for the following counter positions: asymmetric counter positions (e.g. with one wrestler in the high posture and the other in the low); and symmetric counter positions provisionally grouped into the mirror and identical ones.

Success of a hold generally depends on how well the wrestler secures the contact with the ground/ mat and the opponent. With the total body mass moving upward, the wrestler takes full advantage of the own body mass and push impulse, with the inertial forces directed down, opposite to the body movement vector [1]. As provided by the third Newton’s law, the force vector is equal to the counterforce vector – that means that the ground response is equal to the wrestler’s push-up effort.

The ground response force in the test bouts was rated by the computerized AMTI strain gauge system. The ground response force tests of a lightweight bout showed the vertical push-out forces in case of the identical counter positions growing from around 640 N to 1150 N at the moment when one of the competitors succeeds in the push-out hold; with the ground response force, hence, tested to grow by 510 N (∆GRF = 510).

The ground response force test rates for the contact maximums versus the primary counter positions (∆GRF) are given in Table 1 hereunder.  

Table 1. Ground response force test rates for the contact maximums versus the primary counter positions for the push-out hold in Greco-Roman wrestling

Postural symmetry

Counter position

GRFмах, N

GRF, N

Symmetric

Identical

Primary counter position

640

0

High

1150

510

Semi-straight posture

1500

860

Low

2700

2060

Mirror

Low

840

200

High

720

80

Asymmetric

Semi-straight high

1300

660

Low to high

840

200

Note: N - Newton; GRFmах – maximal GRF; ∆GRF – difference between the primary and top ground response force rates

The study data and analyses showed that the highest ground response force rates are generated in the symmetrical/ identical primary counter positions, i.e. 2700 N low posture versus 1500 N semi-straight posture, with the push-out hold claiming the highest efforts from the opponents. The holds in the mirror/ asymmetric counter positions (with low versus high primary postures) were tested with much lower ground response force rates – that means that the push-out hold in the case claims much less effort. The test data may be beneficial for the push-out and off-balancing techniques excelling purposes in wrestling, with the opponent driven in the position most favorable and least energy costly for the hold execution.

Conclusion. The push-out hold ranked among the most simple and effective in the modern Greco-Roman wrestling toolkit may be executed in a wide variety of versions classifiable by symmetry of the primary counter positions. It was found that the symmetric/ identical counter positions claim much more energy for the hold execution than in the mirror/ asymmetric counter positions (high and low postures); and, hence, the push-out hold execution in bouts is simpler and claims less energy costs when the opponent is forced to the most favorable position. Therefore, the modern training systems shall give a high priority to the counter positions in the push-out hold excelling process, with the ground response force rates being highly beneficial for the special physical conditioning systems. The proposed ground response force rating tests and analyses may be beneficial for further studies to classify the popular Greco-Roman wrestling holds by the counter postural symmetry and find the most advantageous primary positions for success.  

References

  1. Zavyalov A.A. Biomekhanika nekotorykh taktiko-tekhnicheskikh deystviy v volnoy borbe [Biomechanics of some tactical and technical actions in freestyle wrestling]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 301, 2007, pp 167-169.
  2. Kuptsov A.P. Evolyutsiya i primenenie klassifikatsii, sistematiki i terminologii sportivnoy borby [Evolution and application of classification, systematics and terminology of wrestling]. Method. recom. for SCOLIPE students, Moscow, 1980, 70 p.
  3. Svishchev I.D., Igumenov V.M., Egiazaryan A.A. Sila reaktsii opory pri vypolnenii broskov v borbe i ee modelirovanie s ispolzovaniem vesa shtangi [Support reaction force during throws in wrestling and its modeling using barbell weight]. Ekstremalnaya deyatelnost cheloveka: nauchno-metodicheskiy zhurnal, no.4 (41), Moscow, 2016, pp. 12-15.
  4. Stadnik V.I. Simmetriya i asimmetriya broskov v edinoborstvakh (na primere dzyudo) [Symmetry and asymmetry of throws in martial arts (case study of judo)]. Zdorovye dlya vsekh, 2009, no. 1, pp. 29-33.
  5. Shalmanov A.A., Lukunina E.A., Medvedev V.G. Metody issledovaniya dvigatelnykh deystviy i tekhnicheskogo masterstva sportsmenov v sportivnoy biomekhanike [Methods for study of motor actions and technical skills of athletes in sports biomechanics].  Nauka o sporte: Entsiklopediya sistem zhiz­neobespecheniya [Sport Science: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems]. Moscow: UNESCO, 2011, pp. 165-178.

Corresponding author: egiaz-@mail.ru

Abstract

The study offers a classification of hold versions based on the theory of symmetry with application of a ground response force rate as the key hold execution effort rating criterion. Tests under the study found variations in the ground response force rates in the push-out hold versions versus the wrestlers’ counter positions; and demonstrated that the symmetric/ identical counter positions claim much lower energy costs for the hold execution than any other position. It was also found that the mirror/ asymmetric counter positions (for the high versus low postures) require less energy for the hold execution. The proposed ground response force rating tests and analyses may be beneficial for further studies to classify the popular Greco-Roman wrestling holds by the counter postural symmetry and find the most advantageous primary positions for the holds.