FILA Coaches Clinic
October 2013
LAS VEGAS
Analysis of the World Championships 2013 Freestyle Men
1. Introduction
2. Analysis of the Freestyle World Championships in Budapest under the aspect of the new rules
3. Country-specific aspects of performance in Budapest
4. Qualitative analysis of combat behaviour 4.1 Bout results of all participants 4.2 Combat behaviour of the nations 4.3 Combat behaviour of the winner
5. Technical structure of the Champions
6. Summery
7. Individual world top performances under technical-tactical aspects (video show)
Professor Dr. Harold Tünnemann FILA Scientific Commission
2
1. Introduction
The World Championships in Budapest in 2013 were marked by some outstanding features.
The extraordinary efforts of the FILA for the resumption of our sport in the program of the Olympic Games in 2024 by the decision of the General Assembly of the IOC in Buenos Aires were crowned with success
Against this background, the Hungarian Wrestling Federation has this perfect World championship organized perfectly and set new trends in the Presentation of World Championships.
The rule changes were new challenges for coaches, athletes and officials, and they led to overall increases in activity of the athletes and interesting and dynamic bouts.
At the beginning of the new Olympic Cycle the coaches are looking for the new Olympic hopes and they send mixed teams with experienced and new talents.
From a technological point of view the Presentation of the bouts online (live stream- ing) has been broken new ground.
2. Analysis of the Freestyle World Championships in Budapest under the aspect of the new rules
The complex influence of competition rules to the individual technical and tactical competi- tion behavior is obvious and therefore also constantly the subject of discussions and debates. Rule changes have been the subject of several studies in the past. In 1994 the impact of rule changes on the training and competition design of the seventies, eighties and nineties were shown in a scientific paper. Rule changes and their influence on the competition strategy were also studied in the annual Coaches Clinics of FILA. The negative peak in terms of attractiveness wrestling especially in the Greco Roman style we have seen at the Olympic Games in London in 2012, when we have had Olympic champions with an average of less than one technical point per minute and this ensured the win with de- fense actions.
The Figure 1 shows the negative development of the Greco -Roman wrestling while in the freestyle disciplines (men and women) this trend were not as evident. 3
World top performance 2001 - 2012 Winner in Freestyle Women, Men and Greco-Roman World Championships and Olympic Games
WQ (Pts./min) 2,5
2 1,5 1
0,5
change rules 0 WC 2001 WC 2002 WC 2003 OG 2004 WC 2005 WC 2006 WC 2007 OG 2008 WC 2009 WC 2010 WC2011 OG 2012 LF 1,5 1,2 1,5 1,4 1,7 1,9 1,6 1,7 1,4 1,7 1,6 1,2 GR 1,2 0,9 0,9 0,9 2,4 1,7 1,7 1,6 1,1 0,9 0,7 0,8 FS 1,1 1 1,2 1 1,2 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,1 LF GR FS
FILA-Competence Centre
Figure 1 Development of the three wrestling disciplines since 2001 as far as attractiveness concerned
Given this situation, in 2013 extensive rule changes were made in May, accompanied in the aftermath of other adjustments and suggestions for improvement ( Sjdziedzic, Cicioglu and others). Competition rules with the complex effect on competition and training strategies require more extensive and in-depth analysis in order to generate long-term positive effects. Scale assessing the effectiveness of the new rules is the objective to make the bouts with at- tractive technical- tactical actions dynamically. It is necessary to enforce a combat attack - oriented behavior and simplify the rules for a better understanding for the spectators. It is also necessary to prepare the using of new media (apps, tablets and mobile phones) to present spe- cially for the young generation wrestling heroes with attractive and spectacular techniques. The new rules had been introduced for the first time at the Asian Junior Championships fol- lowed by the Universiade in Kazan and the Junior World Championships in Sofia 2013. We analyzed these competitions to show the effect of the rule chances and we found a success in principle. In fact, there have been numerous spectacular bouts as video examples show. At the Asian Junior Championships scored the wrestlers from KAZ and IRI together 29 technical points (13:16 ) (clip 1). One positive effect was the technical one if we look at the following video clip (clip 2, 3). We can see this wonderful remake of the Jordanov technique from the eighties by the Russian Champion Goigereev, who was also the Senior World Champion in Budapest. Sensational were the performances of the junior world champions of 2013. The Iranian wrestler 55 kg FS realized 42 pts. in four bouts in a total time of 7 minutes (clip 4)
Other findings bring detailed statistical analyzes. We have compared for this purpose the first competitions of Phuket, Kazan and Sofia, which were carried out under the new rules with the Junior World Championships in 2011. We are aware of the fact that it is possible to compare these competitions due to their differences in performance is limited. Therefore, a comprehen- sive comparative analysis of the World Championships 2013 in Budapest with the World Championships 2011 is necessary. 4
The new rules lead in Freestyle Wrestling to a significant increase of victories with technical superiority (ST, SP) at the expense of point victories.
Quality of bout results
comparison JWC 2011(old rules) and Phuket, Kazan and JWC 2013 (new rules)FS
bouts 100% 12 29 19 27 18 80% 78 99 58 60% VT ST SP 209 23 40% 50 PP/PO 25
20% 69 32 67
0% JW C 2011 Phuket 2013 Kazan 2013 JW C 2013
Figure 2 Bout results in Freestyle Wrestling Men
A very important criterion for assessing the performance and the quality of wrestling are the performance index and the quotient of effect (realized number of points per minute) as a measure of the attack strategy .These factors we have put together since 1976, and we never find such positive values so far.
Wrestling performance Winner comparison JWC 2011 and 2013 Pts./min 4 GR FS FW
3 WQ 2 neg. WQ index 1
0 JWC 2011 JWC 2013 JWC 2011 JWC 2013 JWC 2011 JWC 2013 WQ 1,1 3,1 2,09 2,64 2,04 1,75 neg. WQ 0,13 0,35 0,3 0,52 0,42 0,43 index 0,97 2,75 1,78 2,12 1,62 1,32
FILA-Competence Centre
Figure 3 Wrestling performance JWC 2011 and JWC 2013 5
Same time, this is a reference to an enormous improvement in the activity increase and attack oriented wrestling strategy (fig. 3). We can see the same positive sign if we are taking into account the technical points per bout. In all three styles we have an increase of the technical points per bouts after the new rules especially in Greco-Roman wrestling (fig. 4).
Technical points per bout
comparison JWC 2011(old rules) and Phuket, Kazan and JWC 2013 (new rules)
pts. 10
8
6
4
2
0 GR FS FW pts/bt JWC 11 5,9 8 7,5 pts/bt Phuket 8,2 8,7 8,7 pts/bt Kazan 7 9,1 8,3 pts/bt JWC 13 7,7 9,5 8,5
Figure 4 Technical points per bout in all three styles
An interesting development trend in connection with the rule changes is reflected in the anal- ysis of the quality of technical points (Fig. 5). The evaluation of the all technical points from all occupied bouts shows the decline in 1-point votes in favor of the increase of 2-point ratings, due to the formal upgrading of 1-point tech- niques with 2 points .Given the fact that the rule changes have to lead to not any increase in the attractive 3 - point and 5-point techniques (a very significant increase in the attractiveness of wrestling) gives rise to further considerations to rule changes by the senior world champi- onships.
6
Quality of Points (all bouts)
comparison JWC 2011(old rules) and Phuket, Kazan and JWC 2013 (new rules)FS Pts. 100% 0 1 3 2 114 60 81 128
80% 339
60% 5 Pts. 635 781 373 3 Pts. 2 Pts. 40% 1 Pt. 957
20% 360 153 190
0% JW C 2011 Phuket 2013 Kazan 2013 JW C 2013 bts: 247 pts.:1977 bts:132 pts.:1147 bts:182 pts.:1655 bts:243 pts.:2316 pts./bt: 8,0 t/bt: 4,0 min pts./bt:: 8,7 t/bt: 2,9 min pts./bt: 9,1 t/bt: 4,0 min pts./bt: 9,5 t/bt: 3,7 min
Figure 5 Quality of points in Freestyle wrestling Men
A devaluation of attractive techniques in training and competition with respect to the attrac- tiveness of wrestling makes no sense. As a first approach for further discussions, we have therefore realized an analysis of the technical structure of Junior World Champions 2013 (Fig. 6).
Technical structure/Attack efficacy JWC 2013 FS (winner)
WQ [Pts./min] 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 total 50 kg 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg leg attack 1 0,29 3,01 0,84 0,59 0,6 0,81 0,69 1,77 take downs 0,54 0,22 0,21 1,17 0,6 1,08 0,3 0,46 throws 0,03 0,82 0,16 gut wrench 0,29 0,22 0,82 0,21 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,62 turn over 0,16 1,17 0,55 0,16 0,68 0,15 counter 0,48 0,44 0,55 1,26 0,39 0,25 0,34 0,2 0,31 out 0,09 0,29 0,15 0,23
FILA-Competence Centre
Figure 6 Technical structure of the winner in Freestyle wrestling Men 7
Leg attacks, Take downs and counter were the most used techniques of the Winner JWC 2013. These techniques scored after the old rules 1-point and in the new rules 2 –points. Throws almost disappeared and most of the counter we could see against leg attacks. But we never should forget that 3-and 5-point techniques are the basic for attractive wrestling.
As a result of the application of the new rules can be stated that the introduction of the new rules were crowned principle of success:
• The new rules lead in all three disciplines in a significant increase in victories with technical superiority (ST , SP) at the expense of point victories.
• You caused an improvement of the performance index and the effectiveness of attack which is reflected in the increase in activity and an enormous improvement in the attack oriented combat behavior.
• The number of realized technical points per bout increased in all three disciplines of rule changes. The formal appreciation of 2-point ratings leads to a reduction of 1-point ratings but not to increase the 3 - and 5 - point votes values or to an in crease of the pins what cannot be seen as an increase of attractiveness. This is also a occasion for further reflection and for an extensive evaluation of the Senior World Championships 2013.
Under this background we can start to the analysis of the Senior World Championships 2013 in Budapest. The positive tendency of the Rule changes becomes clear right now if we look at the world top performance in Freestyle since 1976 on the basic of the realized points per mi- nute. World top performance 1976 - 2013 Winner in Freestyle World Championships and Olympic Games
WQ (Pts./min) 2 1,5 1
0,5
change rules change rules change rules change rules change rules
0 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 OO O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 10 11 12 13 FS 1,3 0,9 1,2 1,2 1,7 1,9 1,3 1,3 1,2 0,9 1,1 1,1 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,1 0,9 1,1 1 1,2 1 1,2 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,1 1,5 FS
Figure 7 World top performance in Freestyle wrestling men since 1976
With 1.5 points per minute we reached 2013 almost the top values from 1984 and1986!! 8
3. Country-specific aspects of performance in Budapest
The best Nations FS WC 2013
50
40
30
20
10
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR WC 2013 46 44 29 27 25 23 19 19 18 18 15 15
Nat.Pts sorted by FILA ranking (place 1-10 Pts.;place 10-1 Pt)
Fig. 8 Best nations of Budapest
Iran and Russia have been the most powerful countries in 2013 with distance followed by Georgia, Ukraine, USA and India (Fig 8). Iran won the team Championships last time in 2002 and congratulation to the Iranian winning team of Budapest. The most successful Iranian wrestlers are coming from the region of Mazandaran with the small town of Joybar. This tem- porarily concentration of Wrestling heroes is typical also for other countries for instance for the Caucasus region of Russia or for the former GDR where the clubs had been responsible for special weight categories. One reason for this development is for sure besides a traditional background the concentration of very successful coaches in those regions. The best Nations FS Comparison WC 2013 and WC 2011 50
40
30
20
10
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR WC 2013 46 44 29 27 25 23 19 19 18 18 15 15 WC 2011 41 43 34 11 38 0 12 7 6 13 37 22 Nat.Pts sorted by FILA ranking (place 1-10 Pts.;place 10-1 Pt)
Fig. 9 Best nations of Budapest 2013 in comparison to Istanbul 2011
9
Remarkable is the increase of Ukraine, India, Cuba, Mongolia and Armenia in comparison to 2011. Azerbaijan, USA, Belarus and Georgia had suffered losses (Fig. 9).
4. Qualitative analysis of combat behaviour 4.1 Bout results of all participants
Quality of bout results
comparison WC 2011(old rules) and WC 2013 (new rules) FS
bouts 100% 28 26 132 80% 90
60% VT ST 53 297 SP 40% PP/PO
20% 114
0% W C 2011 W C 2013
Figure 10 Bout results of all participants in Freestyle wrestling men
As already seen during the Junior World Championships in Sofia also in Budapest the new rules lead in Freestyle Wrestling to a significant increase of victories with technical superiori- ty (ST, SP) at the expense of point victories. We had 90% victory of points in 2011 with the old rules and 2013 only 40%. Summary time per bout
comparison WC 2011(old rules) and WC 2013 (new rules)
min 5
4
3
2
1
0 GR FS FW time/bt WC 11 4,6 4,2 4 time/bt WC 13 4,6 4,4 3,8
Figure11 Time per bout (old and new rules in all three styles) 10
In general the new rules did not lead to an average time reduction of the bouts.
Technical points per bout
comparison WC 2011(old rules) and WC 2013 (new rules)
pts. 12
10
8
6
4
2
0 GR FS FW pts/bt WC 11 5 7,03 4,9 pts/bt WC 13 6,5 10 8,3
Figure12 Technical points per bout (old and new rules in all three styles)
We have 2013 an improvement of the technical points per bout especially in Freestyle wrestling men.
Quality of Points (all bouts)
comparison WC 2011(old rules) and WC 2013 (new rules)FS Pts. 100% 5 0 128 101
80% 375
60% 927 5 Pts. 3 Pts. 2 Pts. 40% 1 Pt. 1230
20% 364
0% W C 2011 W C 2013 bts: 340 pts.:2389 bts:283 pts.:2821 pts./bt: 7,03 t/bt: 4,2 min pts./bt: 10,0 t/bt: 4,4 min
Figure 13 Quality of points (all bouts in Freestyle men) 11
The evaluation of the all technical points from all occupied bouts shows as already seen dur- ing the Junior Worlds 2013 the decline in 1-point votes in favor of the increase of 2-point rat- ings, due to the formal upgrading of 1-point techniques with 2 points. An increase of 3-point and 5-point techniques did not take place.
4.2 Combat behaviour of the nations
The power of nations is also reflected in the quality of their combat behavior.
The best Nations FS
performance index WC 2013
[WQ] - [neg. WQ] 1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR ind. 13 0,73 0,81 0,43 0,59 0,64 0,47 0,43 0,28 0,13 0,44 0,07 0,29
Figure 14 Performance index Freestyle men
Concerning the performance index, the measurement of the quality of wrestling, we can see the best values for the wrestler of Russia, Iran, USA, Ukraine, Turkey and India. In this con- nection the teams of Azerbaijan and Armenia are far behind (Fig. 14), (clip 5-8)
A comparison of quality values, such as the performance index, is to consider the automatic growth by increasing the technical evaluation of the past 1 point to 2 points. Even taking into account this fact, the improvement is remarkable of the teams from India, Ukraine, Armenia and Mongolia. Very clear is the drastic decrease of quality of the team from Azerbaijan (Fig. 15).
12
The best Nations FS
comparison performance index WC 2011 to WC 2013
[WQ] - [neg. WQ] 1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR ind. 13 0,73 0,81 0,43 0,59 0,64 0,47 0,43 0,28 0,13 0,44 0,07 0,29 ind. 11 0,52 0,56 0,48 0,2 0,41 -0,27 0,45 -0,22 -0,35 0,29 0,79 0,39
Figure 15 Performance index 2013 (new rules) in comparison to 2011(old rules) Freestyle men
The attractiveness of wrestling lives from the attacking strategy. Therefore the attack efficacy is also a measurement of the quality of wrestling and the quality of training concepts. It is not a surprise that the teams of Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, Iran and India are in front in this connection as the best six (Fig. 16).
Attack efficacy of the best nations FS
WC 2013 [WQ] 2
1,5
WQ total 1,02 1
0,5
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR WQ 13 1,25 1,68 1,3 1,37 1,16 1,24 1,1 0,96 1,16 1,35 0,82 1,03
Figure 16 Attack efficacies of the best teams 2013 Freestyle men
In comparison to 2011 we consider an improvement concerning the attack efficacy for the teams of Russia, India, Ukraine, Turkey, Armenia and Mongolia. The decrease of Azerbaijan is obviously. 13
Attack efficacy of the best nations FS
comparison WC 2013 and WC 2011 [WQ] 2
1,5
WQ total 1,02 1
0,5
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR WQ 13 1,25 1,68 1,3 1,37 1,16 1,24 1,1 0,96 1,16 1,35 0,82 1,03 WQ 11 0,93 0,86 1,01 0,82 1,12 0,68 1,19 0,63 0,72 0,84 1,31 0,8
Figure 17 Comparison of the attack efficacy of the best teams 2013 and 2011 Freestyle men
Very strong in the defense had been in Budapest the teams of Iran and USA followed by Cuba and Mongolia.
Defence efficacy best nations FS
WC 2013 [-WQ] 0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1
-1,2 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR neg. WQ 13 -0,52 -0,87 -0,87 -0,78 -0,52 -0,77 -0,67 -0,69 -1,04 -0,92 -0,75 -0,73
Figure 18 Defence efficacies of the best teams 2013 Freestyle men
If we compare the defense efficacies of the teams 2013 to 2011 are the noticeable bad values of Armenia 2013 as well as 2011. Noticeable is also in this point the improvement of the wrestlers from USA, India and Mongolia. On the other hand the decrease of the Russian wres- tlers can be a hint to the rejuvenation of the team (Fig. 19). 14
Defence efficacy best nations FS
comparison WC 2013 to WC 2011 [-WQ] 0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1
-1,2 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR neg. WQ 13 -0,52 -0,87 -0,87 -0,78 -0,52 -0,77 -0,67 -0,69 -1,04 -0,92 -0,75 -0,73 neg. WQ 11 -0,41 -0,3 -0,53 -0,52 -0,71 -0,95 -0,73 -0,85 -1,07 -0,55 -0,51 -0,41
Figure 19 Comparison of defence efficacy of the best teams 2013 and 2011 Freestyle men
In a summary we put together all three quality factors of the most successful teams of Buda- pest and the various reasons for the total performance become clear if we compare the attack efficacies to the defence efficacies of the teams.
Wrestling efficacy certain nations
WC 2013 FS [WQ] a. [-WQ] 2
1,5
1
0,5
0 IRI RUS GEO UKR USA IND CUB MGL ARM TUR AZE BLR WQ 13 1,25 1,68 1,3 1,37 1,16 1,24 1,1 0,96 1,16 1,35 0,82 1,03 - WQ 13 0,52 0,87 0,87 0,78 0,52 0,77 0,67 0,69 1,04 0,92 0,75 0,73 ind. 13 0,73 0,81 0,43 0,59 0,64 0,47 0,43 0,28 0,13 0,44 0,07 0,29
Figure 20 Wrestling efficacies of the successful teams 2013 Freestyle men
15
4.3 Combat behavior of the winner
A look at the champions shows the upgrade of the wrestling quality in all three styles in com- parison to 2011. That means we do have an improvement even if we are taking in to account the upgrade from 1-point techniques to 2- point values (Fig.21).
Wrestling performance Winner comparison WC 2011 and WC 2013 Pts./min 3
2,5 GR FS FW 2 WQ 1,5 neg. WQ index 1 0,5
0 WC 2011 WC 2013 WC 2011 WC 2013 WC 2011 WC 2013 WQ 0,81 1,38 1,18 1,53 1,58 1,92 neg. WQ 0,23 0,18 0,28 0,33 0,27 0,39 index 0,57 1,2 0,89 1,29 1,31 1,53
Figure 21 Wrestling performance of the champions in all three styles
Quality of Points (winner) comparison WC 2011(old rules) and WC 2013 (new rules)FS Pts. 100% 1 0 11 9
80% 26
60% 95 5 Pts. 3 Pts. 2 Pts. 40% 98 1 Pt.
20% 37
0% W C 2011 W C 2013
bts: 37 Pts.: 188 bouts: 36 Pts.: 254 Pts./bt: 5,1 t/bt: 4,3 min Pts./bt: 7,4 t/bt: 4,7 min WQ(pts./min) 1,2 WQ(pts./min) 1,53
Figure 22 Quality of points of the champions in comparison 2011 and 2013 Freestyle men 16
It is not a surprise that the champions realized almost the same quality of points as all partici- pants. We have an upgrade of the points per bout and points per minute in 2013. The 2-point actions increased at the expense of 1-point actions (Fig.22).
We consider a different picture concerning the wrestling performance of the World Champi- ons 2013 in Budapest (fig. 23).
Performance index winner
WC 2013 FS
[WQ] -[neg.WQ] 2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg index 13 1,59 2,39 0,37 1,19 0,89 1 1,51
Figure 23 Wrestling performance of the champions in Budapest
Of course the World Champions are demonstrating the best quality of wrestling. With realiz- ing 2.39 (performance index) was the best wrestler Bekhan Goigereev RUS followed by Has- san Rahimi IRI (1.59) and Kadshimourad Gatsalov RUS (.1.51 ). Outstanding the perfor- mance of Bekan Goigereev (RUS) which techniques we have already seen before and his coach has honoured as the best Coach of the year here in Las Vegas. By the way this is a very good distinguishing feature for an attack oriented strategy (clip 9-11).
If we compare the performance values from 2013 to 2011 it is interesting the upgrade of the performance values of Jorden Burroughs (USA) and the decrease of Reza Yazdani (IRI). In- teresting the fact that in 66kg weight class both champions Medhi Taghavi Kermani (IRI) 2011and David Safaryan (ARM) 2013 had the worst values of all champions (Fig. 24).
17
Performance index winner
comparison WC 2013 to WC 2011 FS [WQ] -[neg.WQ] 2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg index 13 1,59 2,39 0,37 1,19 0,89 1 1,51 ind. 11 1,59 0,92 0,57 0,5 1,22 1,2 0,53
Figure 24 Wrestling performance of the champions in comparison 2011 and 2013
The wrestling performance consists of the attack and of the defense abilities. In figure 25 we can see that the most powerful athletes are the best attacker.
Attack efficacy winner
WC 2013 FS
[WQ] 3
2,5
2 WQ winner 1,53
1,5
1
0,5
0 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg WQ 13 1,75 2,89 0,82 1,3 1,31 1,31 1,74
Figure 25 Attack efficacy of the champions in Budapest
The best Defender were in Budapest Jorden Burroughs (USA), Hassan Rahimi (IRI) and Kad- shimourad Gatsalov (RUS). Bekan Goigereev (RUS) as the best attacker is also the worst defender. This is a very good sign for the activity and carelessness of the youth. 18
Defence efficacy winner
WC 2013 FS
[neg.WQ] 0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg - WQ 13 -0,15 -0,59 -0,45 -0,11 -0,42 -0,31 -0,23
Figure 26 Defense efficacy of the champions in Budapest
The Carelessness of the youth and the stability of the experienced champions we can see in the comparison of these values 2011 and 2013 (figure 27). Here the weakness of defence of the youngster Bekan Goigereev (RUS) and there the increase of defence from Jorden Bur- roughs (USA).
Defence efficacy winner
comparison WC 2013 to WC 2011 FS
[neg.WQ] 0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg - WQ 13 -0,15 -0,59 -0,45 -0,11 -0,42 -0,31 -0,23 - WQ 11 -0,11 -0,1 -0,18 -0,71 -0,35 -0,32 -0,16
Figure 27 Defense abilities of the champions in comparison 2011 and 2013
19
In summary we see the outstanding performance of the three champions Bekan Goigereev (RUS), Hassan Rahimi (IRI) and Kadshimourad Gatsalov (RUS) (Fig. 28).
Wrestling efficacy winner
WC 2013 FS
[WQ] a. [-WQ] 3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg WQ 13 1,75 2,89 0,82 1,3 1,31 1,31 1,74 - WQ 13 0,15 0,59 0,45 0,11 0,42 0,31 0,23 index 13 1,59 2,39 0,37 1,19 0,89 1 1,51
Figure 28 Wrestling efficacy of the champions in Budapest
5. Technical structure of the Champions
It is for the coaches very important to analyze the technical-tactical structure of the winner. It is important for the analysis of the technical capacity of their athletes to compare this with the top athletes of the weight class. It is also very important for the planning of the technical training process as well as for the training concepts of the promising young talents. We see in Istanbul 2011 leg attacks as the absolute dominating techniques followed by clinch! Counter and take downs (Fig 29). Together with the totally decrease of throws this is a sign for the decline of attractive techniques.
20
Technical structure/Attack efficacy WC 2011 FS (winner)
WQ [Pts./min] 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 total 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg leg attack 0,49 0,55 0,39 0,33 0,79 0,7 0,75 take downs 0,13 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,43 0,28 0,08 throws 0,02 0,16 gut wrench 0,08 0,66 turn over 0,08 0,11 0,1 0,09 0,28 counter 0,13 0,16 0,1 0,08 0,13 0,17 0,19 0,08 out 0,08 0,08 0,21 0,17 0,04 clinch 0,15 0,44 0,29 0,05 0,29
FILA-Competence Centre
Figure 29 Technical structure and efficacy of the World Champions 2011
It would be interesting to look at the technical structure after the rule changes 2013.
Technical structure/Attack efficacy WC 2013 FS (winner)
WQ [Pts./min] 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 total 55 kg 60 kg 66 kg 74 kg 84 kg 96 kg 120 kg leg attack 0,64 1,08 0,34 0,71 0,31 0,88 0,54 0,63 take downs 0,29 0,1 1,37 0,19 0,07 0,35 0,11 throws 0,02 0,17 gut wrench 0,07 0,15 0,29 0,11 turn over 0,16 0,1 0,29 0,07 0,15 0,32 0,12 counter 0,24 0,1 0,44 0,38 0,14 0,15 0,27 out 0,07 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,15 0,15 warning 0,02 0,05 0,04 0,04 activity t. 0,04 0,1 0,05 0,08 0,06
Figure 30 Technical structure and efficacy of the World Champions 2013 in Budapest
21
And indeed the picture shows different results. Still in front are the leg attacks followed by the take downs. But the second place from 2011- the unattractive clinch- has removed by the take downs and this is really a good message. Space for thinking about gives the third place of counter (mostly against leg attacks and gut wrench) and the reduction of the throws especially the disappearing of 5-point actions also in all bouts of the championships. An evidence for more activity after the rule changes is also the successful using of the activity time by Hassan Rahimi (IRI), Jorden Burroughs (USA) and Bekan Goigereev (RUS)). More information we can get if we compare the development of the technical structure of the world champions in Freestyle since 2009.
Technical structure/Attack efficacy WC 2013, WC 2011, WC 2010 and WC 2009 FS (winner)
WQ [Pts./min] 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 leg attack take downs throws gut wrench turn over counter out clinch warning activity time WC 13 0,64 0,29 0,02 0,07 0,16 0,24 0,07 0 0,02 0,04 WC 11 0,49 0,13 0,02 0,08 0,08 0,13 0,08 0,15 WC 10 0,34 0,21 0,02 0,18 0,3 0,08 0,06 0,07 WC 09 0,27 0,16 0,1 0,13 0,15 0,02 0,15 0,11
Figure 31 Comparison of the technical structure in Freestyle wrestling 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013
If we compare the technical structure of 2009 to 2013 we can see some interesting develop- ments (fig. 31). Low-risk techniques (as leg attacks, take downs and counter) increasing while attractive throws are almost gone since 2009.
6. Summery
Rule changes had been necessary after the decline of the attractiveness of Wrestling during the last years. The aims of the rule changes 2013 were to cancel unattractive elements of the rules, to encourage the athletes to more activities and offensive wrestling strategies and to more understanding of wrestling to the audience. After analysing four Championships 2013 carried out with new rules we found out a successful implementation of the new rules. 22
Boring 1:1 periods and unattractive clinches disappeared and it took place an increase of technical-tactical actions, more offensive wrestling and activity, more scorings and more spectacular bout for the audience and media. There is space for Coaches and athletes to input more throws in their trainings- and competi- tion concepts.
7. Individual world top performances under technical-tactical aspects (video show)