SPRINGFIELD COLLEGE LIBRARY MANUSCRIPT THESIS
The manuscript copies of master’s theses and doctoral dissertations deposited in the Library of Springfield College are avail¬ able for appropriate usage. If passages are copied, proper credit must be given to the author in any written or published work.
Extensive copying or publication of materials should be done only with the consent of the Director of the Division of Graduate
Studies.
or This thesis dissertation by . Arthur. .P.... .?j.egl$.r has been used accordingly by the persons listed below. (Librarians are asked to secure the signatiue of each user.)
Name and Address College Date SPRINGFIELD COLLEGE
DIVISION OF GRADUATE STUDIES
February. 1978
We recommend that the 1Vfaater*3 Thesis
prepared under our direction by
Arthur P. Ziegler
entitled The Relationship Between Takedowns and Success
in Scholastic Wrestling
be accepted as fulfilling the research requirement for the degree of Master of Science THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAKEDOWNS
AND SUCCESS IN SCHOLASTIC
WRESTLING
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of Springfield College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
by
Arthur P. Ziegler
February, 1978 To my wife, Nancy, and my two sons,
Peter and Jeff.
5.-
■>
V
Ur
V. -X.
VJ
cov^M PREFACE
The writer has been involved in the sport of wrestling as a wrestler and coach for many years. This
involvement has led the writer to believe that the out¬
come of a scholastic wrestling match is greatly influenced
by takedowns. This research was done to see if there is
a relationship between securing the initial first period
takedown and winning the match.
The writer wishes to express his thanks to the
coaches in Southeastern Connecticut who made their score-
books available for this research and to the Meet Director
of the 1977 Class "M" State Wrestling Tournament, Mr.
Larry Keating, for making the results of that tournament
available.
The writer also wishes to express his thanks to
Dr. William Sullivan, Mr. John Neumann and Mr. Douglas
Parker for their assistance in completing this research.
February 1978 APZ
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2
HYPOTHESIS 2
DEFINITIONS 2
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 3
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 4
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
3. PROCEDURES 10
SOURCE OF DATA 10
METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA 11
ORGANIZATION OF DATA 11
TREATMENT OF DATA 12
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA 14
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 22
SUMMARY 22
CONCLUSIONS 23
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY 24
iv V
APPENDICES Page
A. SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY 26
B. SCHOOLS COMPETING AGAINST THE NINE SCHOOLS IN
SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT IN DUAL MEETS ... 2?
C. SCHOOLS COMPETING IN THE 1977 GLASS "M" STATE WRESTLING TOURNAWIENT 28
D. DATA SHEET 29 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Chi-square Analysis of the Five Seasons Totals 15
2. Chi-square Analysis of the Lightweights From 1972-77 16
3. Chi-square Analysis of the Middleweights From 1972-77 17
4. Chi-square Analysis of the Heavyweights From 1972-77 18
5. Chi-square Data From the Five Year Study by Year and Weight Class I9
6. Chi-square Data From the 1977 Class ''M*' Tournament 20 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
It appears that wrestling is one of the fastest growing sports in the United States. The increased popularity of wrestling has been aided by the televising of the 1972 and 197^ Olympic Games in which the United
States wrestlers performed well. Wrestling has also been promoted by the televising of recent N.C.A.A. Champion¬ ships. Because of this rapid growth, there are many new and inexperienced men coaching scholastic wrestling.
These coaches may not be aware of the importance of take¬ downs in a scholastic wrestling match. Many successful coaches have expressed their feelings about the importance of takedowns. Ed Perry, head wrestling coach at the
United States Naval Academy, points out, . .to win you must have the takedown.” (1:9) The head wrestling coach at East Stroudsburg State College, Clyde Witman, feels
that, . .under existing rules, the takedown is the most
important single phase of wrestling.” (1:9) Arizona
State’s head wrestling coach, Bobby Douglas, believes that, ”. . .the wrestler with a superior knowledge of takedowns has a tremendous advantage.” (4:1) Although
takedowns are just one phase of wrestling, it seems apparent that many coaches feel that each wrestler, if he
1 2
is to be suocessfui, must be good with takedowns.
STATEftlENT OF THE PROBLEM
The purpose of this study is to determine the
effectiveness with which the initial first period take¬
down can be used to predict the outcome of a scholastic wrestling match.
HYPOTHESIS
This investigator believes that there was a direct
relationship between’securing the initial first period
takedown and winning the match, regardless of the wres¬
tler’s weight class. The wrestler who gains the initial
first period takedown will win a larger number of matches.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this study the following defini¬
tions will be used.
Takedown
“A takedown is when, from a neutral position, a
wrestler gains control over his opponent down on the mat
while the supporting points of either wrestler are in
bounds.” (Fagan, 6:16) 3
First Takedown
The first takedown is the initial takedown to occur in the first period of a wrestling match.
Lightweights
Lightweights are wrestlers in the 98, 105» 112, and 119 pound weight classes.
Middleweights
Middleweights are wrestlers in the 126, 132, 138» and 145 pound weight classes.
Heavyweights
Heavyweights are wrestlers in the 155» 16?, I85, and UNL pound weight classes.
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study is delimited in the following ways:
1. Only the scholastic wrestling matches in
Southeastern Connecticut were used.
2. Only matches for the dual meet seasons of the nine schools in Southeastern Connecticut from 1972-77 were used.
3. Only matches from the 1977 Class ''M"
Connecticut State //restling Tournament were used. 4
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The study is limited in the following ways:
1. The judgement of the referee determined a successful initial takedown. (Guided by the National vVrestling Federation Rule Book. )
2. The takedown philosophy of the coaches was not taken into consideration.
3. The schedule of the teams involved was not taken into consideration.
4. The accuracy of the scorekeepers was not taken into consideration.
5- The ability level of the wrestlers was not taken into consideration.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
It is hoped that this study will serve as a guide for young wrestlers, coaches, physical educators and spectators as to the importance of takedowns in scholastic wrestling. It is also hoped that this study will prove useful to coaches in planning practice time, to wrestlers in planning pre-match strategy and aid physical educators in teaching wrestling skills. This study may also serve as a guide for the teams involved in determining strengths and weaknesses in the area of takedowns. Chapter 2
REVIE'.V OF LITERATURE Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of the available literature reveals that
there has been a considerable amount of literature written
on wrestling. This literature deals with all aspects of
the sport of wrestling. In the last decade however,
several books and studies have been written that deal
specifically with the takedown. These books and studies have been prompted by the fact that many coaches feel that
the takedown has become the most important maneuver in wrestling. James Howard, head wrestling coach at Oswego
State University points out that, ”. . .the takedown has unquestionably become one of the most important factors in
successful wrestling." (1:9) Another former head coach,
Jerry Leeman of Lehigh University states that, ". . .today
the takedown is perhaps the most important phase of wres¬
tling. " (1:9) Art Keith, the head wrestling coach at
Central 'Washington State College points out that, . .the most important single maneuver in wrestling is the take¬
down. " (10:37)
There have been several books written dealing with
the takedown; of these books, the one by Bobby Douglas,
Wrestling: The Making of a Champion: The Takedown, has
5 6
probably been the most widely read. Douglas, in his book,
points out the importance of the takedown to a wrestler by
stating that, •*. . .dealing with takedowns is the first
step in becoming a champion." (4jXIII) Brown and Robert¬
son in their book state that, "A wrestler without any
takedown ability is like a football player in the Rose
Bowl with street clothes on." (1:15) The takedown is im¬
portant because in most cases the first points scored in
a match come from the takedown. The initial takedown pro¬ vides the wrestler with several advantages over his op¬
ponent. First, as Brown and Robertson point out, is that,
". . .the first takedown has a tremendous psychological im¬
pact on both wrestlers, the wrestler who executes the take¬
down realizes a great boost in confidence because he has
taken his opponent from a neutral position to a position
of control." (1:15) The second advantage as Brown and
Robertson point out is that, ". . .the man who is taken
down finds himself immediately on the defense and behind
in the score." (1:16) Brown and Robertson point out that
the third advantage comes from the defensive wrestler's,
". . .loss of confidence that may make him overcautious
for the rest of the match." (I:l6) Maertz points out in
his book that, ". . .the successful wrestlers are those
that get the takedown and thus keep the pressure on the
opponents." (11:13) 7
There have been many studies done dealing with all aspects of wrestling. Most of these studies deal with college level performers and usually deal with determining fimdaraental maneuvers or maneuvers that were most success¬ ful. Darneron did a study to determine the most frequent and successful maneuvers used on the college level. He studied the 1966-67 Springfield College team. He con¬ cluded that Springfield used the single leg takedown most often but were most successful with the duck under. He also found that opponents of Springfield used the single leg most often and with the greatest success. (2) Day, in his study, tried to determine which maneuvers should be included in a beginning wrestling course. He concluded that his observational survey was not a reliable method for selecting beginning maneuvers in wrestling. (3)
Gordon did a study to determine fundamental maneuvers in wrestling. His study was done by means of a question¬ naire. He determined from his survey that the single leg and double leg takedowns were the two most fundamental takedowns, the standup was the most fundamental escape- reversal, the tight-waist-near-arm-pull was the most fundamental breakdown-ride and the half nelson crotch was the most fundamental pinning combination. (9) Although these studies did not deal with determining the importance of takedowns, they did add to the body of knowledge about wrestling. The studies done concerning fundamental 8
maneuvers would be of value to a coach trying to determine which takedowns to teach. These studies also serve to show that, until recently, most writers did not consider the takedown an important enough subject for scientific study.
There have been, however, several studies done that deal directly with the importance of takedowns.
Gocella found that the wrestler who secured the initial takedown won 6l percent of the matches. (8) Gocella*s study included both high school and college wrestlers.
High school wrestlers who secured the initial takedown won
64 percent of the matches and on the college level the percentage of initial takedown success dropped to 59 per*-
cent. Gocella concluded that, . .the wrestler who won the initial takedown won a majority of his matches."
(8:l6) Gocella's study helps to show the importance of the initial takedown in relation to the outcome of a wrestling match. Another study concerning the importance of takedowns was done by Ellenberger. He studied the effects of takedowns and reversals on the outcome of wres¬ tling matches. His study was done using six N.C.A.A.
tournaments in 1971. He concluded that, ". . .points scored by means of takedowns are more significant in de¬ termining the outcome of a match than are points scored by means of reversals." (5:26) Keith also did a study dealing with takedowns. He studied a high school team 9 in Oregon and found that in one year takedowns accounted for 62.2 percent of all points scored. During the I965
Oregon State High School Championships, he observed
wrestlers from one team. He noted that, ". . .88.4 per¬ cent of the time the wrestler who gained the initial first round takedown won the match." (10:38) The writer found one study that has a great deal of similarity to his own.
In 1963, George did a study to determine the relationship between initial takedowns and the final outcome of scho¬ lastic wrestling matches. The study included 394 matches from district, sectional and state tournaments in Illinois
in 1963. From his data, George stated that, . .if one looks at the 291 matches involving initial takedowns, one can readily see that of the boys making the initial take¬ down, 248 or 85 percent won their matches." (7:17) In
order to find out if his data were statistically signifi¬
cant, George applied the chi-square formula. He found
that, based on the chi-square formula, the relationship between gaining the initial takedown and winning the match was significant at the .01 level. He concluded that,
". . .the high percentage of wrestlers who make the
initial takedown and go on to win the match is evidence
that takedowns are an important determining factor in the
success of a wrestler." (7:21) Chapter 3
PROCEDURES Chapter 3
PROCEDURES
SOURCE OF DATA
The data for this study were obtained from the scorebooks of the nine high schools in Southeastern Con¬ necticut (see Appendix A) that have wrestling teams and from the bout sheets of the 1977 Class "M" State Wres¬ tling Tournament. The writer contacted the wrestling coaches of the nine Southeastern Connecticut High Schools and asked to borrow their scorebooks for the five year
period, 1972-77- All of the coaches submitted their
scorebooks. Four coaches were not able to submit a com¬
plete five year set of scorebooks because two schools did not have wrestling in 1972 and two coaches had lost
the scorebooks for one or more years. In all, the writer
looked through 35 different scorebooks from the nine
schools. The writer also contacted the meet director of
the 1977 Class "M" State V/restling Tournament and asked
to borrow the bout sheets from that tournament. The writer received all of the bout sheets from the meet
director. The Class "M" Tournament includes all medium
sized schools in Connecticut. (See Appendix B)
10 11
METHOD OP COLLECTING DATA
The data for this study were collected by means of a survey. The writer obtained the scorebooks from the last five years, 1972-77, from the nine high schools in
Southeastern Connecticut and also the bout sheets from the
1977 Class "M” State Wrestling Tournament. Each scorebook and bout sheet was gleaned individually and the neces¬ sary data from each match were transferred onto a seperate data sheet. Because the schools in Southeastern Connecti¬ cut all wrestle each other, the writer used the dual meet results from only one team*s scorebook for each year's meeting in order to avoid duplication of data.
ORGANIZATION OF DATA
A data sheet (see Appendix D) was prepared so that all of the information concerning initial takedowns and the outcome of the matches could be recorded. The data sheet was constructed so that individual statistics could be recorded for each of the 12 weight classes. The weight classes were then divided into three groups, lightweights, middleweights and heavyweights. A data sheet divided this way enables the reader, at a glance, to see the sta¬ tistics for each seperate weight class and for each group of three weight classes. A space was also provided on the data sheet to record the following occurrences: 12
1. The wrestler who secured the first takedown and won the match.
2. The wrestler who secured the first takedown and lost the match.
3. The total number of matches wrestled.
The scorebooks from each of the nine Southeastern
Connecticut high schools were dealt with individually. A
record was made of the team and year involved on the bottom
of each sheet. After all the scorebooks for a given
year were recorded, a data sheet was compiled to give the
totals of all the schools for that year. All of the data
from the yearly data sheets were then compiled into one
data sheet encompassing the entire five year period. The
entire Class "M" Wrestling Tournament was compiled onto
one data sheet. The data from the five year dual meet
season and the State Class "M" Tournament was dealt with
seperately.
TREATMENT OF DATA
The study was undertaken to determine the impor¬
tance of the initial takedown in predicting the winner of
a scholastic wrestling match. The data compiled in this
study involved expected and observed frequencies. Chi-
square was the statistical tool chosen to analyze the data
because it allows one to make precise statements about the
differences between observed and expected frequencies. 13
The data were taken from the data sheets (see
Appendix D) and evaluated in the following groupst
1. Each year of the study.
2. Each weight class group (lightweights, middle- weights and heavyweights) by year.
3. The five year totals for all weight classes.
The five year total for each weight class group.
5. The totals from the Class ''M" State Wrestling
Tournament.
6. The State Class "M” Wrestling Tournament by weight class group.
The .01 probability level was used in all analyses for making statistical interpretations. Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
In order to obtain a large number of matches to determine the relationship between the initial takedown and the final outcome of a scholastic wrestling match, the writer recorded all the matches from the dual meets of the nine schools in Southeastern Connecticut for a five year period. Takedowns scored by both the wrestlers from
Southeastern Connecticut and their opponents were used in the study. The study also included the matches wrestled during the 1977 Class "M” State Wrestling Tournament. A total of 4,216 matches were wrestled during the five years of dual meets and 230 matches were wrestled in the 1977
Class "M" State Tournament.
The data from the study were analyzed by means of chi-square. In the five seasons, a total of 4,2l6 matches were wrestled. The wrestler who secured the first takedown won 3*142 and lost 632 of these matches.
Table 1 shows the organization of the data necessary for the chi-square analysis.
14 15
Table 1
Chi-square Analysis of the Five Seasons Totals
Won Lost
Observed Frequency 3,1^2 632 1,668.01* Expected Frequency 1,88? 1,887
*Signifleant at .01 level
In Table 1 the observed frequencies indicate the number of times the wrestler who secured the first take¬
down won (3*1^2) and the number of times he lost (632).
There were a total of 3*77^ matches wrestled in which the
initial takedown occurred in the first period. The other
442 matches which make up the total of 4,2l6 matches for
the five years come from matches where the first takedown
occurred in the second or third period and the wrestler
won the match (86 times), from matches with no takedown
(201 times), from matches where the first takedown occur¬
red in the second or third period and the wrestler lost
the match (18 times) and from matches that ended in a
tie (137 times). Because it is expected that when start¬
ing from a neutral position, as wrestlers do during the
first period, each wrestler has an equal chance of taking
his opponent down, the expected frequency is always half
the total number of matches involving the first takedown.
The obtained chi-square value of 1,668.01 was significant 16 beyond the .01 level causing the investigator to reject the hypothesis of no relationship between obtaining the first takedown and winning the match.
The five year totals were also analyzed by weight group classes. This enabled the writer to determine if there was a weight group that was more successful after securing the first takedown than the others. The follow¬ ing is a breakdown of the weight group classes for the five year totals.
The lightweights wrestled in l.^Ol matches. The wrestler who secured the first takedown won 1,090 and lost 190 of these matches. Table 2 shows the organiza¬ tion of the data necessary for the chi-square analysis.
Table 2
Chi-square Analysis of the Lightweights From 1972-77
Won Lost
Observed Frequencies 1,090 190 631.41* Expected Frequencies 640 64 0
♦Significant at .01 level
The obtained chi-square value of 631.41 was significant beyond the .01 level causing the investigator to reject the hypothesis of no relationship between ob¬ taining the first takedown and winning the match. 17
The middleweights wrestled in 1,452 matches from 1972-77. The wrestler who secured the first takedown won 1,042 and lost 250 of these matches. Table 3 shows
the organization of the data necessary for the chi-square analysis.
Table 3
Chi-square Analysis of the Middleweights From 1972-77
Won Lost x2
Observed Frequencies 1,042 250 484.27* Expected Frequencies 646 646
•“•Significant at . 01 level
The obtained chi-square value of 484.27 was
significant beyond the .01 level causing the investigator
to reject the hypothesis of no relationship between ob¬
taining the first takedown and winning the match.
The heavyweights wrestled in 1,363 matches from
1972-77. The wrestler who secured the first takedown
won 1,010 and lost 192 of these matches. Table 4 shows
the organization of the data necessary for the chi-square
analysis. 18
Table 4
Chi-square Analysis of the Heavyweights From 1972-77
v/on Lost
Observed Frequencies 1,010 192 555.32* Expected Frequencies 601 601
■“■Significant at . 01 level
The obtained chi-square value of 555-32 was
significant beyond the .01 level causing the investigator
to reject the hypothesis of no relationship between ob¬
taining the first takedown and winning the match.
Table 5 lists the data necessary to compute the
chi-square values for each year's total and for each weight group total by year. Listed in Table 5 are the
total matches wrestled in which a first period takedown
occurred, the number of matches won by the wrestler who
secured the first takedown (fo won), the number of matches
lost by the wrestler who secured the first takedown (fo
lost), and the expected frequency (fe) and the chi-square value (x ). The chi-square values in Table 5 all exceed
the necessary 6.64 for significance at the .01 level. 19
Table 5
Chi-square Data From the Five Year Study by Year and Weight Class
Total fo fo Matches* won lost fe x2
1972-73 Totals 553 461 92 276.5 244.89 Lightweights 185 157 28 92.5 88.56 Middleweights 189 148 41 94.5 59.^5 Heavyweights 179 156 23 89.5 97.34
1973-74 Totals 726 597 129 363 300.40 Lightweights 245 208 37 122.5 117.96 Middleweights 253 199 54 126.5 81.96 Heavyweights 228 190 38 114 100.00
1974-75 Totals 728 620 108 364 358.68 Lightweights 230 200 30 115 124.18 Middleweights 255 209 46 127.5 102.92 Heavyweights 243 211 32 121.5 130.39
1975-76 Totals 914 754 160 457 384. 74 Lightweights 310 256 54 155 130.33 Middleweights 311 263 48 155.5 147.25 Heavyweights 293 235 58 146.5 105.72
1976-77 Totals 853 710 143 426.5 375.56 Lightweights 310 269 41 155 166.22 Middleweights 285 223 62 142.5 89.82 Heavyweights 258 218 40 129 121.43
Five Year Totals 3»774 3,142 632 ]L,887 1 ,668.01 Lightweights 1,280 1,090 190 640 631.41 Middleweights 1,292 1,042 250 646 484.27 Heavyweights 1,202 1,010 192 601 555.32
^Matches in which there was a first period takedown.
Table 6 lists the data necessary to compute the
chi-square values for the 1977 Class "M" State Wrestling
Tournament. The same items listed in Table 5 will be
listed in Table 6. The chi-square values in Table 6 are
all above the necessary 6.64 value for significance at the 20
.01 level.
Table 6
Chi-square Data From the 1977 Glass "M” Tournament
Total fo fo Matches* won lost fe
Glass ''M" Totals 182 144 38 91 6o. 56 Lightweights 58 47 11 29 21.12 Middleweights 62 48 14 31 17.56 Heavyweights 62 49 13 31 19.76
^Matches in which there was a first period takedown.
This study was concerned with the relationship between securing the initial first period takedown and winning a scholastic wrestling match. Data for this study were collected over a five year period from dual meets and
the 1977 Class "M" State Wrestling Tournament. The data were broken down according to weight class groups to see
if takedown success was greater for one weight class group more than others. The data did not take into consider¬ ation the caliber of the wrestlers involved; it’s diffi¬
cult for one to say whether the wrestler won because of
the takedown or simply because he was a better wrestler.
The results of this study show that all of the chi-square values exceed the 6. 64- value necessary for significance at the .01 level. These chi-square values show that there
is a direct relationship between securing the initial
first period takedown and winning a scholastic wrestling 21
match. A further look at the results shows that neither the weight class of the wrestler nor the level of competi¬ tion made any difference on the outcome of the study.
Other studies done, also dealing with takedowns, have produced results which are similar to this study. Gocella used both high school and college wrestlers in his study.
He concluded from his study that high school wrestlers who secured the initial first period takedown won 64 per¬ cent of the matches and college wrestlers who secured the initial first period takedown won 59 percent of the matches. Another study, done by Keith, discovered that during the I965 Oregon State Wrestling Championships the wrestler who secured the initial first period takedown won 88.4 percent of the matches. In another study,
George found that the wrestler who gained the initial takedown won 85 percent of their matches.
Most of the other studies have dealt with either college wrestlers or high school wrestlers during championship competition. All of the results show that the wrestlers who get the initial first period takedown have a much greater probability of winning. Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
This study was done to determine if there is a relationship between securing the initial takedown and winning a scholastic wrestling match. The scorebooks from the nine high schools in Southeastern Connecticut were reviewed for a five year period from 1972-77. The data collected included the number of times the wrestler who secured the first takedown won and the number of times he lost. A total of kf2l6 matches were recorded on data sheets and analyzed by years and by weight group classes.
Records from the 1977 Class ”M" State v/restling Tourna¬ ment were also reviewed and recorded on data sheets. A total of 230 matches were wrestled in the Class ”M" State
Tournament. The data were analyzed by means of Chi-square with all of the values exceeding the 6.64 value which is necessary for significance at the .01 level of probability.
The findings of this study show that there is a direct relationship between securing the first takedown and win¬ ning a scholastic wrestling match in all weight classes and levels of competition. The study also shows that the success of a wrestler is directly related to his ability
22 23
to secure takedowns.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study the following conclusion is drawn: takedowns play an important part in predicting the outcome of a scholastic wrestling match.
Wrestlers who secure the first takedown in the initial period of a match will win the match more often than they will lose.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
This study was concerned with the relationship between securing the initial first period takedown and winning a scholastic wrestling match. A future study might attempt to determine if a relationship exists be¬ tween securing reversals and winning scholastic wrestling matches. There has also been much discussion about the psychological advantage that the wrestler who secures the
initial first period takedown has over his opponent; therefore, a future study might try to discover what psychological effect the initial first period takedown has on each wrestler. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Brown, Robert L. and Thomas E. Robertson. Illustrated Guide to the Takedown. West Nyack, New rork: Parker Publishing Company Inc., 196?.
2. Darneron, H. Clifford Jr. "A Survey of vVrestling Maneuvers." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Spring- field College, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1971*
3. Day, Obed Owen. "An Elementary Wrestling Course Developed From a Study of Wrestling Maneuvers and Holds Used in the Nev/ England Intercollegiate Wrestling Tournament of 1949. " Unpublished blas¬ ter's Thesis, Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1949.
4. Douglas, Bob. Wrestling; The Making of a Champion; The Takedown. Ithaca, New York; Cornell Univer¬ sity Press, 1972.
5- Ellenberger, Timothy Roy. "The Effects of Takedowns and Reversals on the Outcome of Wrestling Matches." Unpublished li/laster's Thesis, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, 1972.
6. Fagan, Clifford B., ed. National Wrestling Federation Rulebook 1976-77 ed. Elgin, Illinois; National Federation Publications, 1975.
7. George, John Elias. "A Study of the Relationship of Initial Takedowns to the Final Outcome of Inter¬ scholastic Wrestling Ivlatches. " Unpublished lis¬ ter's Thesis, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, I962.
8. Gocella, Laurence R. "Initial Takedown Outcomes and Success With Academic Maturity Levels in Wrestling." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Glass- boro State College, Glassboro, New Jersey, 1973-
9. Gordon, Stephen L. "A Study to Determine the Funda¬ mental Maneuvers of Scholastic Wrestling." Un¬ published Master's Thesis, Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, I967.
24
A 25
10. Keith, Art. Complete Guide to Ghampionship V/restlingt Illustrated Coaching Methods and Techniques. vVest Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Company Inc., 1968.
11. rflaertz, Richard C. Wrestling Techniques: Takedowns. South Brunswick and New York: A.S. Barnes and Company, 1970. APPENDICES Appendix A
SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY
East Lyme High School
Pitch High School
Killingly High School
Ledyard High School
New London High School
Norwich Free Academy
Saint Bernard's High School
Stonington High School
Waterford High School
26 Appendix B
SCHOOLS COMPETING AGAINST THE NINE SCHOOLS IN SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT IN DUAL MEETS
Avon High School Jonathan Law High School
Bacon Academy Manchester High School
Brian McMahan High School Milford High School
Brookfield High School Morgan High School
Conard High School Newtown High School
Cranston East High School (R.I .) Old Saybrook High School
East Catholic High School Penny High School
Enfield High School Platt High School
Foran High School Pulaski High School
Gilbert High School RHAM High School
Glastonbury High School Rockville High School
Guilford High School South Kingston High School (R.I. ) Hall High School Staples High School Hand High School Valley Regional High Hartford Bulkeley High School School
Hartford Public High School Warwick High School (R.I. ) Hartford Weaver High School Weathersfield High School
Windham High School
2? Appendix C
SCHOOLS COMPETING IN THE 1977 CLASS ”M” STATE //RESTLING TOURNAMENT
Berlin High School
Bloomfield High School
East Catholic High School
East Lyme High School
Foran High School
Guilford High School
Killingly High School
Ledyard High School
Maloney High School
Milford High School
New London High School
Newtown High School
Plainville High School
Rippowam High School
Saint Bernard's High School
Stonington High School
Waterford High School
Windham High School
28 COMMENTS:
YEAR DAppendix DATASHEET LIGHT.VEIGHTS HEAVY//EIGHTSMIDDLEWEIGHTS 185HWT16?15514513813212611911210598
1stPeriod &TD v/on 2ndPeriod V/onTD& 3rdPeriod &TDV/on TieMatch TDNo 1stTD Lost& Forfeits SCHOOL
fvj VO