CC BY
83ARMWRESTLING SKILLS RANKING MODEL STRENGTH TEST RATES FOR KEY MUSCLE GROUPS
UDC 796.012.11
I.A. Matyushenko1
PhD, Associate Professor I.N. Nikulin2 A.V. Antonov3 E.I. Nikulin2
1Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow 2Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod 3Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (National Research University), Dolgoprudny, Moscow Region
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Objective of the study was to find armwrestling-skills-ranking model strength test rates, with the 80kg weight class taken for the case study.
Methods and structure of the study. The study involved 29 armwrestlers (aged 20-41 years), who were divided into three groups depending on their level of expertise. Group I (n=5) was made of the winners and medalists of the World and European Championships, having the title World Class Master of Sport of Russia. Group II (n=12) included the winners and medalists of the All-Russian competitions, Moscow Championships and Moscow University Championships. Group III was made of the athletes with up to one year's experience (n=12). The athletes' maximum effort was registered in nine major anatomic movements of the topography of muscle strength using the tensodynamometry method. The indicators were recorded at the relevant point for making an effort with automatic estimation of the maximum strength.
Results and conclusions. The top-skilled group was tested with significantly higher strength test rates than the moderately-and low-skilled ones in 8 tests out of 9. The strength topography was found dependant not only on the skill rank but also on the technical specialization and genetic giftedness. The key armwrestling skills ranking model strength test rates were ranked as follows in descending order: (1) Hand and grip strength; (2) Shoulder pronator strength; (3) Sport-specific muscle group (forearm supinator and pronator) strengths; hand abductor strength; and (4) supine and neutral-point forearm flexor strength. It should be emphasized that the shoulder extensor strength was found less important for the armwrestling skills ranking purposes. The hand and shoulder pronators are recommended to be given a special priority as the key muscle groups for success in armwrestling, whilst the hand flexor strength was found the main limiting factor for the strength trainings and competitive progress in modern armwrestling.
Keywords: armwrestling, model strength test rates, strength topography, arm muscle strength, muscle group, hand flexors, forearm flexors.
Background. Modern armwrestling may be defined as the power combat sport that gives a special priority to the sport-specific strength topography, since the competitive success in this sport depends on the muscle group strength rates critical for the bio-kinematic chains claimed by specific armwrestling techniques [1, 2]. Armwrestlers' competitive fitness largely depends on the arm muscle group strength rates with a special priority to the forearm and hand muscle groups [3]. It has been found that
the muscle group strength test rates shall be in certain correlation with anthropometrics [4-6] i.e. the muscle groups sizes, body builds, provisional moments of strength in the limb segments - with such correlations widely used as the key competitive success predictors in modern armwrestling [7]. The muscle group strength topography for the key sport-specific anatomical movements is ranked among the main tools for the skills ranking model strength rates profiling purposes.
Objective of the study was to find armwrestling-skills-ranking model strength test rates, with the 80kg weight class taken for the case study.
Methods and structure of the study. We used the tensodinamometric test to rate the efforts claimed by different sport-specific physical exercises to test the top strength for the following nine main muscle groups and anatomical points to obtain the individual strength topography: shoulder pronator; hand flexors, hand abductor muscles, forearm supinators, neutralpoint forearm flexors, shoulder extensors, supine forearm flexors, forearm pronators, and finger (grip) flexors, with every test applied to the relevant strength focusing point.
To rate the hand flexors, forearm pronator and supinator strengths, we used the same test system with a special adjustable rest to fix and isolate the relevant muscle groups for the tests (see Figure 1). The hardware and software for this test method was developed by a research group headed by A.S. Margorin, and A.V. Antonova offered practical recommendations for the test method.
We sampled for the study the 20-41 year-old armwrestlers (n=29) trained at Bauman Moscow State Technical University (Moscow) and split them up into the following skill groups: Group I (n=5) of the World/ European Championships winners and runner-ups qualified World Class Masters of Sports; Group II (n=12) of the National, Moscow Municipal and Moscow University Championships winners and runner-ups; and Group III of beginners with less than 1 year training records (n=12).
Results and discussion. We found the top-skilled group leading in the maximal mean arithmetic strength test rates; plus found a direct correlation between strength topography and competitive accomplishments, with the differences between the top-skilled and low-skilled groups found significant in 8 tests out of 9 (p <0.05). The intergroup differences were tested insignificant only in the shoulder extensor strength test - probably due to the strength focusing point in this case being unimportant for competitive progress.
The following test rates were significantly different for the low- versus moderately-skilled and low- versus top-skilled groups and insignificantly different for the top- versus moderately-skilled groups: hand abductor, forearm supinator, forearm flexor ('hammer' and 'biceps' test versions), and forearm pronator strength test rates. These tests were found skills-sensitive as they are (1) highly sport-specific and (2) sensitive to the armwrestling technique/ specialty.
For example, hand abductors, forearm pronators and forearm flexors (in 'hammer' test version) were tested critical for success in the Toproll armwrestling technique; whilst the forearm flexors (in 'biceps' test version) and forearm supinators are dominant in the Hook technique [1, 2, 6]. This means that a moderately-skilled athlete may still be tested even higher in his special/ habitual muscle groups / moves than a top-skilled athlete specialized in a different wrestling technique. Since the above test rates are not always dependable, they may unlikely be recommended as model test rates - albeit may be highly sensitive in the wrestling-technique-specific test domains. We may presume that these movements are limited by the hand flexor strength.
The finger flexor (grip) strength test rates were significantly different only for the top- versus low-skilled groups. It may be due to the fact that the grip strength, unlike the other muscle groups strengths, is not that trainable being largely genetically predetermined. The higher finger flexor strength test rates in the top-skilled group may be indicative both of the high physical fitness and the genetically predetermined gifts in the group. Therefore, this model test may be beneficial for the primary selections, although the relatively weak grip may be countered by the hands with tied up with a special belt in practical bouts when the grip is broken.
The shoulder pronator and hand flexor tests produced the most beneficial, significantly different group test arrays - since these muscle groups are critical for success in modern armwrestling. The highest intergroup (top- versus low-skill group) differences were
Muscle group strength Starting position for the test Strength focusing/ test point
Hand flexors Bout start-up posture, with the forearm kept tight to the special rest for the hand isolation
Figure 1. Tensodinamometric test version for the hand flexors and forearm pronator/supinator muscle group strength tests
ww.teoriya.ru
21
found by the forearm supinator (77.9%), forearm pronator (52.4%), hand flexors (51.2%), shoulder pronator ( 44.3%), hand abductor (37.3%), supine forearm flexors (34.0%), grip (32.1%), neutral-point forearm flexors (29.0%) and the shoulder extensor ('back' test version) strength tests. The high intergroup (top- versus low-skill group) differences in these muscle group strength tests show that these muscle groups are sport-specific i.e. important for success in armwres-tling. Based on the test data and analysis, we made a topographic map of the armwrestling-skills-specific model strength test rates: see Figure 2.
Shoulder pronator
tes t version) lest version}
Figure 2. Armwrestling skills-specific model strength test rates (kg): topographic map
Conclusion. The top-skilled group was tested with significantly higher strength test rates than the moderately-and low-skilled ones in 8 tests out of 9. The strength topography was found dependant not only on the skill rank but also on the technical specialization and genetic giftedness. The key armwrestling skills ranking model strength test rates were ranked as follows in descending order: (1) Hand and grip strength; (2) Shoulder pronator strength; (3) Sport-specific muscle group (forearm supinator and prona-
tor) strengths; hand abductor strength; and (4) supine and neutral-point forearm flexor strength. It should be emphasized that the shoulder extensor strength was found less important for the armwrestling skills ranking purposes. The hand and shoulder pronators are recommended to be given a special priority as the key muscle groups for success in armwrestling, whilst the hand flexor strength was found the main limiting factor for the strength trainings and competitive progress in modern armwrestling.
References
1. Antonov A.V. Armwrestling alphabet. Part 1. Zhe-lezny mir. 2013. No. 10. pp. 132-136.
2. Antonov A.V. Armwrestling alphabet. Part 2. Zhe-lezny mir. 2014. No. 8. pp. 140-144.
3. Voronkov A.V., Nikulin I.N., Sobyanin F.I. On monitoring of improvement of strength training of students involved in armwrestling. Fiziches-koe vospitanie studentov. 2014. No. 2. p. 49-52.
4. Nikulin I.N., Voronkov A.V., Trikolich B.G., Filatov M.S. Software and methodological support in armwrestling. Teaching aid. Belgorod: BelSU publ., 2013. 160 p.
5. Podrigalo L.V., Galashko N.I., Galashko M.N. Er-gonomic approaches to increase effectiveness of training in armwrestling. Fizicheskoe vospita-nie studentov. 2012. No. 1. pp. 87-90.
6. Posokhov A.V., Nikulin I.N., Kadutskaya L.A., Malakhov V.A. Armwrestlers' anthropometric analysis in different weight classes for success in national competitions. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2018. No. 7. pp. 69-71.
7. Rovnaya, O., Podrigalo, L., lermakov, S., Yerma-kova, T., Potop, V. The Application of the Index Method to Assess the Condition of Armwrestling Athletes with Different Levels of Sports Mastery. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensional. 2019;11(4 Supl. 1): 242-256. doi:10.18662/rrem/187
