International Journal of Science

ISSN: 2161-5667 (Print) 2161-3524 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uijw20

Scoring Analysis of the 2015 World Wrestling Championships

Harold Tünnemann

To cite this article: Harold Tünnemann (2016) Scoring Analysis of the 2015 World Wrestling Championships, International Journal of Wrestling Science, 6:1, 39-52, DOI: 10.1080/21615667.2016.1197028 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21615667.2016.1197028

Published online: 15 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 29

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uijw20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WRESTLING SCIENCE, 6: 39–52, 2016 Copyright © The Curby Research Group, LLC ISSN: 2161-5667 print / 2161-3524 online DOI: 10.1080/21615667.2016.1197028

Scoring Analysis of the 2015 World Wrestling Championships

Harold Tünnemann1

ABSTRACT. The videos of all matches from the 2015 Senior World Championships were analyzed for scoring and technique. The in a pre-Olympic year, is also the first opportunity for the athletes to qualify the weight class (attained by finishing in the top 6) for their country for the . Countries and qualified weight classes are presented. Attack efficacy, represented by points scored per minute, is presented for the style as a whole, for the top countries and for the weight class champions. The technical structure of the champions, with scoring by type of technique, is also presented. This was done for all three styles-Men’s Freestyle, Women’s Freestyle and Greco-Roman. All three styles moved in a positive direction in regard to increased activity and scoring as a result of the most recent rules changes. However, Greco-Roman must explore ways to make larger strides in the variety of scoring, especially techniques from the standing position.

Keywords: competition, history, rules, scoring analysis

The fact that the 2015 World Wrestling Championships also Iran, with five qualifiers, was second best, and , served as the first qualifier for the 2016 Olympic Games was a Georgia, and Mongolia with four each, was a great achieve- reminder from a sport politics perspective of the return of the ment. These five countries reached 64% of the quota places sport to the Olympic program after being eliminated in 2013. available. In contrast with women’s freestyle and Greco- After an unprecedented fight of all concerned, the representa- Roman, we have in men’s a powerful tives of the International Olympic Committee were given first- concentration of performance in these few countries. Turkey hand evidence in Las Vegas, Nevada, that wrestling had learned and the United States reached two places, and one place its lesson and was willing and able to modernize Olympic went to Armenia, Bulgaria, France, India, , , wrestling. The athletes themselves contributed to this success North Korea, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. For the worldwide by providing the International Olympic Committee with specta- development of our sport, it is a very good message that 16 cular holds as a sign of the attractiveness of wrestling. The countries were able to win the 36 allocated quota places athletes in the world championships 2015 were under consider- (Table 1). As a comparison, during the first qualification for able pressure to qualify the weight class for their country in this London, England, in 2011, only nine countries could reach first qualification opportunity for the Olympic Games in Rio. the 42 available places. The basis for the country specific results is the technical- tactical quality of their wrestlers. This is also, among others, ANALYSIS OF MEN’S FREESTYLE the expression of the coaches’ philosophy. It is difficult to make wrestling measurable, but one can use the attack The Russian Federation reached the top-six qualifier status efficacy (WQ), defense efficacy (–WQ) and the complex in all six of the weight classes. The strong performance of performance (index) to describe the quality of wrestling. This index is shown for the performance of six top countries in Figure 1. 1United World Wrestling Scientific Commission The best qualitative values were reached by Russia with Correspondence should be addressed to Harold Tünnemann, United a performance index of 1.28, an attack efficacy of 1.68, and World Wrestling Scientific Commission, Corsier-sur-Vevey, Switzerland. a defense stability of 0.4. That means that the Russian team E-mail: [email protected] is dominating in the attack efficacy and in the defense fi Color versions of one or more of the gures in the article can be found efficacy. Azerbaijan, Iran, and Georgia had commendable online at www.tandfonline.com/uijw. 40 TÜNNEMANN

TABLE 1 Men’s Freestyle Quota Places Achieved in Las Vegas

Weight Class (kg)

Country 57 65 74 86 97 125 Total Places

Armenia x1 Azerbaijan x x x x 4 Bulgaria x 1 France x 1 Georgia x x x x 4 India x 1 Iran x x x x x 5 Italy x 1 Kazakhstan x 1 Mongolia x x x x 4 North Korea x 1 Russia x x x x x x 6 Turkey x x 2 Ukraine x United States x x Uzbekistan x 1 Total: 16 Countries 66666 6

Wrestling efficacy certain nations' FS Men WC 2015 2

1.5

1

0.5

0 WQ and neg. (pts./min)

-0.5 RUS IRI AZE GEO MGL TUR USA WQ 1.68 1.38 1.46 1.37 0.93 1.42 0.81 neg. WQ 0.4 0.61 0.55 0.75 1.11 1.15 0.61 index 1.28 0.77 0.91 0.62 -0.18 0.26 0.2

WQ neg. WQ index

FIGURE 1 Wrestling efficacy of the best countries in men’s freestyle. performances. Mongolia, although with four places quali- 2012 that was reversed because of the complete rule fiers, could be more successful with a better defense effi- changes 2013 (Figure 2). cacy. Turkey, with acceptable values of the attack efficacy, With regard to the attack efficacy, the 2015 value of 1.6 also has reserves within the defense. In contrast, the U.S. points per minute is the third best value since 1986. This team has good defense values but problems in their attack value has been better 2014 with 1.8, but the special quali- efficacy. fication situation must be considered. It has also to take into the consideration that after the rule changes of 2013, the action points were increased. After the rules changes of May Technical-Tactical Developments and Technical 2013, one sees that in the World Championships of 2013 in Structure of the Champions , Hungary, there was an enormous and stable A long-term analysis of the quality of wrestling (attacking improvement in the activity increase and attack-oriented points per minute) shows a general downward trend until wrestling strategy (Figure 3). SCORING ANALYSIS 41

World top performance 1976 - 2015 winner in FS - Men World Championships and Olympic Games 2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8 WQ (pts./min) 0.6

0.4 change rules change rules 0.2

0 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 WQ - FS 11112211111111111111111111111222

WQ - FS

FIGURE 2 World top performance in men’s freestyle since 1976.

Wrestling performance winner comparison WC 2011, 2013 and 2015 FS 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8

WQ (pts./min) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 WC 11 WC 13 WC 15 WQ 1.18 1.53 1.55 neg. WQ 0.28 0.33 0.28 index 0.89 1.29 1.27

FIGURE 3 Development of the attack efficacy in men’s freestyle after rule changes.

Wrestling performance consists of attack and defense (Russia) 70 kg and (United States) 74 abilities. In Figure 4, one can see that the most powerful kg with 1.4 points per minute. athletes are the best attackers. Abdulrashid Sadulaev In general, there is a different pattern of development (ussian) in 86 kg with 2.2 technical points per minute and seen in the technical structure since 2011 (old rules) when Taha Akgül (Turkey) 130 kg with 2.1 points per minute are compared with 2015 (new rules). The technical-tactical pro- dominant among the 2015 champions. Very good perfor- file of the champions of 2015 is characterized by a clear mances also are demonstrated by Haji Aliev (Azerbaijan) 61 increase in leg attacks, take down, ankle lace, gut wrench, kg with 1.5, and both Magomedrasul Gazimagomedov throws, counters, and using the activity time. In contrast, 42 TÜNNEMANN

Attack efficacy winner WC 2015 FS 2.5

2

1.5

1 WQ (pts./min)

0.5

0 57 kg 61 kg 65 kg 70 kg 74 kg 86 kg 97 kg 125 kg WQ 1.31 1.45 0.97 1.38 1.4 2.22 0.93 2.08

FIGURE 4 Attack efficacy of the men’s freestyle world champions in 2015.

Technical structure / Attack efficacy FS (winner) WC 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 WQ (pts./min)

0.2

0.1

0 leg take gut turn ankle acitity throws counter out warning challenge attack down wrench over lace time WC 11 0.49 0.13 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.08 WC 13 0.64 0.29 0.02 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.07 0.02 0.04 WC 14 0.74 0.12 0.11 0.38 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.05 0.03 WC 15 0.74 0.19 0.05 0.1 0.02 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.1

FIGURE 5 Development of the technical structure in men’s freestyle since 2011. there is a decrease in turnover techniques, “out,” and warn- with leg attacks, take down, counter, gut wrench, and turn over. ings (Figure 5). Frank Chamizo (Italy), 65 kg likes leg attacks, take down, and To find and discuss some reasons for this development it is counters, and he is also very stable against leg attacks. necessary to look at more details of the technical structure of Magomedrasul Gazimagomedov (Russia), 58 kg wrestles the 2015 champions (Figure 6). In men’s freestyle, there is a almost with the same technical profile as Chamizo, using leg big technical versatility with leg attacks, take down, counter, attack, take down, counter, gut wrench, and activity time. ankle lace, gut wrench, and using the activity time in a tactical Jordan Burroughs (United States), 74 kg is extremely effective means. The champions are using different techniques as their with his very fast leg attacks, ankle lace, take down, turn over, individual winning strategy. Vladimir Khinchegashvili “out,” and use of activity time. Abdulrashid Sadulaev (Russia), (Georgia), 57 kg prefers leg attacks, take down, and counters. 86 kg is extremely versatile and effective with leg attack, take Haji Aliyev (Azerbaijan), 61 kg is versatile, having success down, throws, gut wrench, “out,” and counter. Kyle Snyder SCORING ANALYSIS 43

Technical structure / Attack efficacy WC 2015 FSwinner 1.2

1

0.8

0.6

WQ (pts./min) 0.4

0.2

0 total 57 kg 61 kg 65 kg 70 kg 74kg 86 kg 97 kg 125 kg leg attack 0.74 0.6 0.7 0.74 0.63 0.99 0.63 0.55 1.12 take downs 0.19 0.21 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.07 0.58 0.14 0.1 throws 0.05 0.1 0.39 gut wrench 0.1 0.07 0.4 0.08 0.39 turn over 0.02 0.07 0.07 ankle lace 0.11 0.21 0.81 counter 0.15 0.35 0.15 0.42 0.1 0.14 out 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.1 0.05 warning activity time 0.1 0.04 0.2 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.17 challenge

leg attack take downs throws gut wrench turn over ankle lace counter out warning activity time challenge

FIGURE 6 Technical structure of the men’s freestyle champions in 2015.

(United States), 97 kg is effective with leg attacks, counter, perspective of , it is a welcome sign take down, and “out.” Together with Haji Aliyev, he belongs to for the positive development of wrestling in South America, the most active champions, using the activity time. The tech- Africa, and northern European countries. Twenty-one coun- nical profile of Taha Akgül (Turkey), 125 kg is very clear. He is tries were able to win at least one of the 36 allocated quota the master of leg attacks and ankle lace, combining standing places (see Table 2). During the first qualification 2011 for and par terre positions. London, 16 countries could reach the 24 places. Men’s freestyle offered an attractive and offensive com- Country specific performance quality is shown in bat behavior. It reflects the work of the coaches’ in Russia, Figure 7. The best qualitative values by country were Azerbaijan, Iran, Georgia, Turkey, United States, Ukraine, achieved by Japan with a performance index of 1.14, an and others. attack efficacy of 1.63, and a defense stability of 0.49. Also excellent were the values of China, but there were some problems with their defense, followed by Mongolia and ANALYSIS OF WOMEN’S FREESTYLE Azerbaijan. The defensive skills of Mongolia also seem to be a problem. Sweden, with acceptable values for attack Although no country managed to reach all the quota of six efficacy has a negative performance index because of scores Olympic qualifying places, the strong performance of Japan given up by their defense. Columbia and Canada should with five, China with four, and Azerbaijan and Sweden with also examine their defensive problems. three, are particularly worthy of mention. They are followed by Canada, Columbia, Mongolia, and Russia with two qualifiers, Technical-Tactical Developments and Technical and a single qualifier each for Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Structure of the Winner Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Netherland, Nigeria, North Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United States. One A long-term analysis of the quality of wrestling (attack- should note the development of Colombia, Brazil, Nigeria, ing points per minute) shows the same pattern discussed Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and the Netherlands. From the in men’s freestyle, namely the downward trend, that 44 TÜNNEMANN

TABLE 2 Women’s Freestyle Quota Places Achieved in Las Vegas

Weight Class (kg)

Country 48 53 58 63 69 75 Total Places

Azerbaijan x x x 3 Belarus x1 Brazil x1 Bulgaria x 1 Canada x x 2 China x x x x 4 Colombia x x 2 Estonia x1 Finland x 1 Germany x1 Japan x x x x x 5 Latvia x 1 Mongolia x x 2 Netherlands x 1 Nigeria x 1 North Korea x 1 Russia x x 2 Sweden x x x 3 Turkey x 1 Ukraine x1 United States x1 Total: 21 Countries 666666

Wrestling efficacy certain nations' FS Women WC 2015

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

WQ and neg. (pts./min) -0.5

-1 JPN CHN AZE SWE MGL RUS COL CAN WQ 1.63 1.46 1.06 0.99 1.7 0.87 0.88 0.7 neg. WQ 0.49 0.98 0.88 1.07 1.35 0.85 1.44 1.32 index 1.14 0.48 0.18 -0.08 0.35 0.02 -0.56 -0.62

WQ neg. WQ index

FIGURE 7 Wrestling performance of the best countries in women’s freestyle. turned upwards in 2013, after the major rules changes take into the consideration that after rule changes of 2013 (Figure 8). the point value for a leg attack was increased to either 2 or 4 The attack efficacy for the women’s champions of 2.4 points. The improvement in scoring at the 2013 World points per minute is the best value since 2001. One has to Championships in Budapest was an enormous improvement SCORING ANALYSIS 45

World top performance 2001 - 2015 winner in FW World Championships and Olympic Games 3

2.5

2

1.5

1 WQ (pts./min) 0.5 change rules change rules 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 WQ - FW 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.3 2.4

WQ - FW

FIGURE 8 World top performance in women’s freestyle since 1976.

Wrestling performance winner comparison WC 2011, 2013 and 2015 FW 3

2.5

2

1.5

1 WQ (pts./min) 0.5

0 WC 11 WC 13 WC 15 WQ 1.58 1.92 2.4 neg. WQ 0.27 0.39 0.28 index 1.31 1.53 2.14

FIGURE 9 Development of the attack efficacy in women’s freestyle after rule changes. in the increase in activity and attack oriented wrestling of the 2015 champions (Figure 12). The champions are strategy (Figure 9). The adaptation to the new rules in using different techniques as their individual winning strat- 2015 also leads to an improvement of defense capabilities egy. Eri Tosaka (Japan), 48 kg prefers leg attacks and (–WQ 0:28). counter. Saori Yoshida (Japan), 53 kg is the leg attack The wrestling performance index consists of the attack champion. Helen Maroulis (United States), 55 kg likes leg and of the defense abilities. In Figure 10, one can see that attacks, take down, and counter. The technical profile of the most powerful athletes are also the best attackers. Kaori Icho (Japan), 58 kg is very versatile with leg attack, Battsetseg Soronzonboldyn (Mongolia) in 63 kg with ankle lace, counter, take down, and throws. Oksana Herhel 5.33 technical points per minute, Kaori Icho (Japan) in 58 (Ukraine), 60 kg is the counter and throw specialist. kg with 2.59, and Adeline Gray (United States) in 75 kg Battsetseg Soronzonboldyn (Mongolia), 63 kg is extremely with 2.22 are dominant. effective with throws, gut wrench, ankle lace, and counter. In general, the technical structure has changed between Natalja Vorobieva (Russia), 69 kg is effective with take 2011 (old rules) and 2015 (new rules). There is an increase down, leg attack, throws, and turn over. Adelin Gray of leg attacks, counter and ankle lace. In contrast, there is a (United States), 75 kg is the specialist of leg attack and decrease of turn-over techniques (Figure 11). combinations with ankle lace. To find and discuss some reasons for this development, it During the World Championships in Las Vegas, Nevada, is necessary to look at more details of the technical structure the female wrestlers demonstrated attractive combat behavior. 46 TÜNNEMANN

Attack efficacy winner WC 2015 FW

6

5

4

3

2 WQ (pts./min) 1

0 48 kg 53 kg 55 kg 58 kg 60 kg 63 kg 69 kg 75 kg WQ 1.52 2.13 2.09 2.59 1.88 5.33 1.76 2.22

FIGURE 10 Attack efficacy of the women’s freestyle World Champions 2015.

Technical structure/ attack efficacy FW winner WC 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 WQ (pts./min) 0.2 0.1 0 leg take gut turn ankle activity throws counter out warning challenge attack down wrench over lace time WC 11 0.46 0.27 0.15 0.1 0.29 0.2 0.07 WC 13 0.53 0.38 0.32 0.12 0.23 0.3 0.02 WC 14 0.72 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.22 0.01 0.03 0.01 WC 15 0.79 0.28 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.36 0.38 0.01 0.04 0.04

FIGURE 11 Development of the technical structure in women’s freestyle since 2011.

Established countries, such as Japan, China, Sweden, Russia, Twenty-two countries were able to win at least one of the the United States, Azerbaijan, and Mongolia demonstrated the 36 allocated quota places (see Table 3). During the first further development of women’s freestyle wrestling. However, qualification in 2011 for London, 22 countries qualified it was apparent that great progress has been made by the for the 42 places, which were then available. coaches’ in Finland, Nigeria, the Netherlands, and Columbia. Technical-Tactical Developments and Technical Structure of the Greco-Roman Champions ANALYSIS OF THE GRECO-ROMAN WRESTLING The quality of wrestling in Greco-Roman (attacking points Although no country managed to reach all six quota places, per minute) in a long-term analysis demonstrates a very the strong performance of Azerbaijan and Russia with four clear downward trend since 2005, being somewhat arrested each, and Iran and Ukraine with three places are particularly because of the complete rule changes 2013 (see Figure 13). noteworthy. They were followed by Armenia, , The negative peak in terms of attractiveness of the wrestling Kazakhstan, and the United States with two places; and especially in the Greco-Roman style was seen at the one place each by Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Denmark, Olympic Games in London in 2012, when the Olympic Finland, Germany, Hungary, Kirgizstan, North Korea, champions scored an average of less than one technical Romania, Serbia, South Korea, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. point per minute, and winning with defensive actions. SCORING ANALYSIS 47

Technical structure /Attack efficacy WC 2015 FW winner 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60

WQ (pts./min) 0.40 0.20 0.00 total 48 kg 53 kg 55 kg 58 kg 60 kg 63 kg 69 kg 75 kg leg attack 0.79 0.69 1.88 0.86 0.86 0.33 0.39 0.76 take downs 0.28 0.20 0.13 0.61 0.32 0.14 0.33 0.59 0.10 throws 0.20 0.22 0.58 1.33 0.39 gut wrench 0.10 0.12 0.11 1.33 turn over 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.39 0.29 ankle lace 0.36 0.10 0.65 1.33 1.05 counter 0.38 0.39 0.13 0.37 0.43 1.16 0.67 0.10 out 0.01 0.05 warning 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.33 0.10 activity time 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 challenge

FIGURE 12 Technical structure of the women’s freestyle champions in 2015.

TABLE 3 Greco-Roman Quota Places Achieved in Las Vegas

Weight Class (kg)

Country 59 66 75 85 98 139 Total Places

Algeria x 1 Armenia x x 2 Azerbaijan x x x x 4 Belarus x 1 Bulgaria x1 Cuba x x2 Denmark x 1 Finland x 1 Germany x 1 Hungary x 1 Iran x x x 3 Kazakhstan x x 2 Kyrgyzstan x 1 North Korea x 1 Romania x1 Russia x x x x 4 Serbia x 1 South Korea x 1 Turkey x1 Ukraine x x x 3 United States x x 2 Uzbekistan x 1 Total: 22 Countries 66666 6

After rule changes in May 2013, there was an enormous The Borrero (Cuba) 59 kg and Chunayev (Azerbaijan) 71 improvement in increased activity and attack-oriented wres- kg reached the best quality values with regard to the attack tling strategy during the World Championships 2013 in efficacy among the champions in Greco-Roman (see Budapest (see Figure 14). Figure 15). 48 TÜNNEMANN

3 World top performance 1976 -2015 Winner in Greco-Roman World Championships and Olympic Games 2.5

2

1.5 WQ (pts./min) 1

0.5

change rules change rules

0 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 WQ - GR 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.1 1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1 1.3

FIGURE 13 World top performance in Greco-Roman since 1976.

Wrestling performance winner comparison WC 2011, 2013 and 2015 GR 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 WQ (pts./min) 0.4 0.2 0 WC 11 WC 13 WC 15 WQ 0.81 1.38 1.28 neg. WQ 0.23 0.18 0.16 index 0.57 1.2 1.1

FIGURE 14 Development of the attack efficacy in Greco-Roman after rule changes.

In general, we can see an increase of the quality of role. Of the technical points, 67% are coming out of the par wrestling in 2015 after intensive rule changes. Compared terre situation, and only 33% from standing position (see with the world championships in 2014 there were fewer Figure 16). head butts, less grasping of fingers, and a closer and more upright body position. Time of the First Technical Point Scored To determine the general strategy of activity, all bouts of the Relation Between Standing and Par Terre Wrestling champions were analyzed. It is obvious that the Greco- This relation has always been of great interest. Even with Roman wrestlers are concentrating on obtaining a “warning the current rule discussions, this aspect plays an important behavior” on their opponent during the first 2 min (see SCORING ANALYSIS 49 Attack efficacy winner WC 2015 GR 2.5

2

1.5

1 WQ (pts./min)

0.5

0 total 59 kg 66 kg 71 kg 75 kg 80 kg 85 kg 98 kg 130 kg WQ 1.28 1.76 0.98 1.99 1.15 0.97 0.64 1.57 1.16

FIGURE 15 Attack efficacy of the Greco-Roman world champions 2015.

Comparison of standing and parterre wrestling WC 2015 GR

76, 33% stand. Pts part. Pts 157, 67%

FIGURE 16 Comparison of standing and par terre wrestling in in Greco-Roman.

Figure 17). They want to impress the referee and have their analyzed all final matches for medals (1/2 and 3/5) because opponents put into the par terre position. The average time they are the face for our sport. for they scoring of the first technical points is at 2:10, and if One can see that more than 50% of the points are con- not for the Cuban Borrero (59 kg), one could see that the nected with cautions and warnings which result in ordered value would be worse. par terre position. This creates a big influence on the tech- nical-tactical quality of the bouts, when 35% of the points are coming from the par terre position. This leads to the Caution Strategy situation that special “non-attractive throws” and gut The caution strategy used during the first period leads one to wrenches are the most important techniques. If we take a question the relation between caution points and technical look at the gold medal finals, the importance of the points of points. Therefore, we analyzed the relation between caution the ordered par terre position is increased (see Figure 19). points awarded, points scored after ordered par terre posi- The points after ordered par terre position increased at the tion and normal technical points scored (see Figure 18). We expense of caution points. 50 TÜNNEMANN

Moment of the first realized technical point winner WC 2015 GR all bouts 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 time (min) 1.00

0.50

0.00 total 59 kg 66 kg 71 kg 75 kg 80 kg 85 kg 98 kg 130 kg time 1. t.pt 2.14 1.03 2.4 2.74 2 2.32 2.06 2.26 2.3

FIGURE 17 Time of the first technical point scored in Greco-Roman.

COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL POINTS AND CAUTION POINTS ALL FINALS WC 2015 GR caution pts., 21, 17%

techn. Pts, 58, 48%

techn. Pts ordered pos., 43, 35%

FIGURE 18 Relation between technical points and caution points in Greco-Roman (all final bouts).

COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL POINTS AND CAUTION POINTS ALL FINALS 1/2 WC 2015 GR caution pts., 3, 8%

techn. Pts, 17, 47%

techn. Pts ordered pos., 16, 45%

FIGURE 19 Relation between technical points scored and caution points in in Greco-Roman (Gold medals finals). SCORING ANALYSIS 51

Technical structure / Attack efficacy GR winner WC 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 WQ (pts./min) 0.10 0.05 0.00 lifts take down throws gut wrench turn over counter warn./caut. out

WC 11 0.00 0.12 0.21 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.14 WC 13 0.03 0.39 0.29 0.37 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 WC 14 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.37 0.02 0.09 0.06 WC 15 0.02 0.13 0.47 0.44 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.05

FIGURE 20 Development of the technical structure in Greco-Roman since 2011.

Technical structure / Attack efficacy GR winner WC 2015

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 WQ (pts./min) 0.2 0 total 59 kg 66 kg 71 kg 75 kg 80 kg 85 kg 98 kg 130 kg take down 0.13 0.41 0.29 0.23 0.09 0.09 throws 0.47 0.81 0.43 1.25 0.92 0.20 0.09 0.19 gut wrench 0.44 1.52 0.07 0.58 0.08 0.33 0.92 0.56 turn over 0.03 0.16 0.09 lifts 0.02 0.16 counter 0.04 0.1 0.08 0.18 out 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.14 warn./caut. 0.11 0.18 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.09 0.19 chall. 0.03 0.03

take down throws gut wrench turn over lifts counter out warn./caut. chall.

FIGURE 21 Technical structure of the in Greco-Roman champions 2015.

Technical Structure To find and discuss some reasons for this development it is necessary to look at more details of the technical As in the other two styles, Greco-Roman also shows a structure 2015 (see Figure 21). As already mentioned the different development of the technical structure between most frequently used techniques in Greco-Roman in 2015 2011 (old rules) and 2015 (new rules). There is an increase were throws, gut wrench, take down, and cautions. Of in the number of throws, gut wrench and cautions. On the course, cautions do not result from techniques but behind other hand there is a decrease in take down and push out these values there is a strategic factor of wrestling techniques (see Figure 20). behavior. 52 TÜNNEMANN

Throws and gut wrench as the dominating techniques

techn. Pts without throw pts 73, 31% and gut wrench pts throw and gut wrench pts in 113, 47% 113, 47% dynamic situations

53, 22% throws and gut wrench pts after warning

FIGURE 22 Throws and gut wrench as the dominating techniques in Greco-Roman.

Throws and gut wrench techniques WC 2015 in comparison to WC 2014 60 50 40 30 pts. 20 10 0 pts throws in dyn, throw pts after pts. gut wrench in pts. gut wrench sit. warning dyn. Sit. after warning WC 14 38 6 30 47 WC 15 37 52 36 52

FIGURE 23 Throws and gut wrench techniques in Greco-Roman World Championship 2015 in comparison with World Championship 2014.

The significant increase in throws and gut wrench as What was seen is the huge increase in the number of dominant techniques in 2015 requiring a deeper analysis. throws after the ordered par terre position. This became the Of the technical-tactical actions, 78% are throws and gut predominant Greco-Roman technique of the 2015 world wrench (see Figure 22). Most throws and gut-wrench championships. actions are coming after warnings. This means that they are executed from the par terre position (47%), and only 31% of the technical points are originating from dynamic situations from on the feet in standing position. Put this SUMMARY together with the fact that only 22% of the techniques are not throws and gut wrench seems to indicate a problem of All three styles moved in a positive direction in regard to low technical-tactical versatility. increased activity and scoring as a result of the most To find out whether the coaches have changed their recent rules changes. However, Greco-Roman must training strategy since 2014, the values of 2014 and 2015 explore ways to make larger strides in the variety of were compared (see Figure 23). scoring, especially techniques from the standing position.