Introduction
Karate is quite possibly the most mainstream combative techniques, and it is recognized into two cutthroat disciplines: Kata and Kumite. Customized structure is a battle against imaginary rivals, though Kumite is a genuine match against one rival where the two contenders, under severe standards, are allowed to move, kick and punch in guarded and hostile manners. (1)
Procedure is the 'legitimate example of developments to do a particular game ability'. As to adequacy, it is characterized as the ability to create an outcome (chose, conclusive, or wanted impact). As such, a development is viable if the execution accomplishes the objective(s) of the development (for example exactness, scoring, power, extending the body as far or as high as could be expected, and so on) (2)
In a non-contact karate battle, punches and kicks should be controlled (without injury to the rival) or halted before contact with the adversary's body. (3) with regards to kumite, punching (zuki) and kicking (geri) methods are permitted at the head (jodan) and mid-region (chudan). Kumite rivalry is isolated into group matches and individual matches. Kumite's scoring framework contains: 3 focuses (Ippon) are granted for leg kicks to the head and the strategies of cleaning and tossing, which bring about a last fall of the rival or a last punch, 2 focuses (Waza-Ari) are settled for kicks to the storage compartment and punches to the back, including the rear of the head and neck. At long last, 1 point (Yuko) is granted for single arm punches to the head and body. (4)
To accomplish injury counteraction, new standards are stricter about denied conduct for contenders, incorporating exorbitant power utilized in managing hits to allowed regions, to the illegal regions (throat, arms, legs, crotch, joints, and instep), hits to the face with open hand procedures, and perilous or disallowed tossing methods. Any illicit conduct brings about a notice or punishment. (5)
Contemporary match examination frameworks, regardless of whether dependent on regular video coding of matches or player following innovation, give a rich wellspring of quantitative information on how well abilities are performed during rivalry. The assortment of such information empowers key execution markers for a solitary player or the group all in all to be distinguished. The exhibition markers might identify with biomechanical, specialized, strategic or conduct proportions of execution. (6) (For instance in Kumite while missing point(s): wrong footwork, wrong weight-moving, mistake of separating, and so forth)
Hughes and Bartlett have proposed that KPI's are "a choice, or mix, of activity factors that plans to characterize a few or all parts of an exhibition". (7) knowing and having a decent and reasonable comprehension of fruitful methods and KPIs in significant level karatekas will help superior mentors, specialized specialists, logical scientists and the competitors to work on their arranging and preparing programs which can prompt an improved execution. Along these lines, the points of the current investigation were to unveil the effective procedures and point losing KPIs in conclusive rivalry of Karate World Championships - Austria 2016 to help mentors and high level competitors in this recently Olympic included battle sport.
Philosophy:
Every one of the ten last contests of male (Individual male weight classifications: >84 kg,
Result
An aggregate of 345 focuses were granted to the point winning contenders. Among them Oi Zuki (jump punch) was the most utilized method in the 2016 karate big showdowns finals with 90 all out recurrence for the two champs and washouts, in regards to 15 for winning sides and 75 for fruitless attempts; it implies that roughly 83% of performed oi zuki by contenders were ineffective while just about 17% of them were effective. Then again the runner up is for Kizami zuki with 87 all out recurrence for the two champs and failures, in regards to 22 for fruitful attempts and 65 for ineffective ones. It is a great idea to be notice that around 75% of the all out Kizami zuki performed by contenders were pointless and 25% of them were acknowledged by the arbitrators.
It's worth to be notice that 7 out of 15 fruitful oi zuki exhibitions happened in group matches and 8 out of 15 in singular finals. The pace of ineffective oi zuki exhibitions has a place with individual matches with 52 attempts while in group matches there were 23 misses by contenders.
As it is obvious from measurements, there is an incredible propensity among individual counterparts for oi zuki execution which is altogether (group fruitful and ineffective attempts) 60 assaults by this procedure while group rivalries the contenders will in general utilize Kizami zuki more than some other methods (complete 48 effective and fruitless attempts). On the off chance that we contrast these rates with the pace of a similar exploration in 2009 by Laird and McLeod we will comprehend that there is a major change from Gyaku Zuki (in Laird and McLeod research) to oi zuki and Kizami zuki in this 2016 last rivalries. Laird and McLeod (2009) expressed that the most every now and again scored strategy for every one of the warriors was Gyaku-Zuki to the body with 43.28% rate. Notwithstanding; in this new exploration on 2016 last contests we came to oi zuki and Kizami zuki as the most much of the time scored and utilized method, as you can see in above table, there is no Gyaku-Zuki strategy as the most scored or oftentimes utilized procedure.
O'Donoghue's (2010) meaning of execution markers is an extraordinary beginning stage 'An exhibition pointer should address some significant and significant part of play'. (8). KPI addresses key execution markers.
In the (table 1) underneath table you can see precursors' (N, N-1, N-2, and... ) KPIs. Indeed, what happens that a karateka lose a point (the interaction) and are the principle reasons. So the point losing KPIs are put into the predecessors' KPIs. All in all to get what are the principle explanations behind losing a point we ought to unmistakably know what where the cycle and what occurred in this dyadic (battle sport 1 versus 1) framework. Having a decent information about precursors' KPIs can lead us to an outcome that why a point is lost.
Table 1: Antecedents' KPIs
NO. Forerunners' KPIs
1 PL begins an assault
2 PO begins an assault
3 Closeness for incitement by PL
4 Closeness for incitement by PO
5 PL draws nearer
6 PO draws nearer
7 Good footwork
8 Good weight-moving
9 Wrong footwork
10 Wrong weight-moving
11 Deceiving
12 Deceived
13 Good square
14 Good strategy counteraction
15 Incomplete strategy execution
16 Complete disarray
17 Making PO imbalanced
18 Getting imbalanced by PO
19 Inappropriate position
20 Good Stance
21 PL begins a counter-assault
22 PO begins a counter-assault
23 Error of timing
24 Error of separating
25 Uncovered watchman
26 Forced mistake
27 Wrong procedure determination
28 Good procedure execution
29 Delay in procedure execution
30 Performing pre-scoring procedure
31 Haste
An aggregate of 222 point losing KPIs' cases have been extricated dependent on the forerunners' KPIs. Among them 25 out of 222 were the most point losing KPI which distributed to "Point Loser (PL) begins an assault", it implies that the karateka who lost the fact of the matter was the one who began the assault. Then again and the subsequent top (23 out of 222) was "Point Obtainer (PO) begins an assault", it implies that by the triumphant side assault the point failure got given up. In the (table 2) beneath you can see the five top point losing KPIs and their frequencies.
Table 2: Top 5 point losing KPIs
Point Losing KPI Name Frequency
Point Loser (PL) begins an assault 25
Point Obtainer (PO) begins an assault 23
Blunder of Distancing 20
Wrong Technique Selection 20
Postponement in Technique Performance 13
Conversation and Conclusion:
In group last among Iran and Japan, there were 5 matches, thusly as you see from Table 6; for instance, in "wrong procedure determination" in 5 matches there were 5 instances of this kind; in any case, a similar KPI (wrong Technique Selection) in - 60 kg kumite among Iran and Netherlands happened multiple times which means equivalent to all the five group matches. So it shows that the higher speed rivalry causes the contenders commit error in appropriate strategy choice. As you see again in this weight (- 60 kg) there was no (zero) "Deferral in Technique Performance" which shows that in light weight a karateka ought to choose quickly what to do or respond against his rival; so anyway there is no "Postponement in Technique Performance" yet there are a ton of "Wrong Technique Selection" equivalent to each of the five group matches. What's more, our investigation showed that in group last contests 7 "wrong footwork" (wrong removal of foot) occurred in five matches and it is a lot in contrast with singular last matches in +84 kg and - 67kg which no "off-base footwork" happened. Indeed, even in contrast with any remaining three individual last matches in - 84kg, - 75kg and - 60 kg, the pace of group last rivalries are high as opposed to 3 in any remaining three previously mentioned weight division (one for every); it shows the overall fairness of gauge causes less "wrong footwork" and in the other hand the dissimilarity of loads can prompt more "Wrong Footwork".
One of our point losing KPI which shows the posh and level of karatekas is "Finished Confusion". In - 75 kg kumite among Azerbaijan and Egypt, the Azerbaijan karateka acted such that his Egyptian finalist confronted total disarray for multiple times. This shows the ability and talent of this Azerbaijani warrior and this happened one time in - 84 kg last among Japan and Azerbaijan and the Japanese karateka caused his rival face a "Complete Confusion" and indeed in - 60 kg last among Iran and Netherlands, the Iranian Karateka totally befuddled his Dutch adversary. In other matches (either group or individual ones) there happened no "Complete Confusion" which shows that Azerbaijani (- 75 kg), Japanese (- 84kg) and Iranian (- 60 kg) singular finalist made the distinctions.
This investigation showed that there is large shift from Gyaku-Zuki (turn around punch) in 2009 to Oi-Zuki and furthermore Kizami Zuki in 2016 which send this message that karate is turning out to be more quicker than earlier years. Truth be told, Jovanovic (9) revealed that the time expected to execute kizami-zuki was 0.11s, which is more limited than the time needed for the gyaku-zuki execution (around 0.15s). (9) And the motivation behind why karatekas are not more effective in foot stroke in contrast with clench hand stroke (as indicated by Table 1: 35 fruitless Chudan Mawashi Geri and 0 fruitful) and furthermore they utilized them a ton (Chudan Mawashi Geri the third most regularly utilized strategy), may Hafmann (2008) answer about greater intricacy of foot stroke in contrast with clench hand stroke be somewhat right; anyway with regards to annihilation and breaking, perhaps the most quick and incredible one is Chudan Mawashi Geri. The recurrence is the third among every single assaulting strategy however right now the karate trainers haven't tracked down a decent way in this method execution or might be their attention on this procedure was sufficiently not. Indeed, from these insights we can infer that might be in not so distant future Chudan Mawashi Geri turns into the top utilized and scoring method. Further examination should have been done on this case.
References:
1-(Invernizzi, P.L.; Longo, S. and Scurati, R. (2008). Investigation of pulse and lactate fixations during coordinative undertakings: pilot concentrate in karate customized structure title holders. Game Sci Health, 3, 41-46. doi: 10.1007/s11332-008-0053-7).
2-(McGarry, Tim; O'Donoghue, Peter; and Sampaio, Jaime (2013). Routledge Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis. New York: Routledge, 213)
3-(Macan, J.; Bundalo-Vrbanac, D. and Romic, G. (2006). Impacts of the new karate rules on the frequency and appropriation of wounds. Br J Sports Med, 40:326-330. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.022459).
4-(Chaabene, Helmi, and Franchini, Emerson. (2015). Karate Kumite: How To Optimize Performance. OMICS Group eBooks: CA. doi: 10.4172/978-1-63278-062-1-063).
5-(Macan, J.; Bundalo-Vrbanac, D. and Romic, G. (2006). Impacts of the new karate rules on the occurrence and conveyance of wounds. Br J Sports Med, 40:326-330. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.022459).
6-(Carling, Christopher; Reilly, Thomas; and Williams, Mark (2009). Execution appraisal for field sports. Oxon and New York: Routledge, 33)
7-(Ryan Groom, Neil (2012). Towards a comprehension of the utilization of video-based execution investigation in the training system. Distributed doctoral exposition, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK.)
8-(O'Donoghue, P.G. (2010). Examination techniques for sports execution investigation. Routledge: London)
9-(Chaabene, Helmi. (2015). Karate Kumite: How To Optimize Performance. OMICS Group eBooks: CA. doi: 10.4172/978-1-63278-062-1-063).
10-Hofmann M, Witte K, Emmermacher P, 2008. Biomechanical examination of clench hand punches gyaku-zuki in karate. ISBS meeting. July Seoul; (3), pp: 14-18
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment