accepted - montana tech · pdf fileinvestigations interested in match demands of mma have...

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of PrintDOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001287

ACCEPTED

Copyright © 201 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.5

COMPARISONS TECHNICAL-TACTICAL AND TIME-MOTION ANALYSIS

OF MIXED MARTIAL ARTS BY OUTCOMES

Running title: Comparison between outcomes in Mixed Martial Arts

Corresponding author: Bianca Miarka1

1. Superior School of Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas, Luiz de

Camões, 625 – Três Vendas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul ZIP: 96055-630, Brazil.

Postal address: [email protected]

Telephone: (++55) 11 4668-1814

Co-authors: Fabrício B.D. Vecchio1, Suzi Camey2, John Amtmann3

1. Superior School of Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas

2. Statistic Department, Mathematic Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do

Sul

3. Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene Department, University of Montana

Respective postal address: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]

ACCEPTED


1

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare time-motion and technical-tactical analysis between

paired outcomes and rounds of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) matches. The sample consisted of

645 rounds of MMA competition paired by outcomes (1st round, winners n=215 and losers

n=215; 2nd round, winners n=215 and losers n=215; 3rd round, winners n=215 and losers

n=215). The time-motion variables were categorized into low or high intensity, stand-up or

groundwork situations. Stand-up techniques were analyzed by observing total strikes to the

head and body, and takedowns. The actions on the ground were analyzed by observing

submission activity, including successful choking and joint locking actions, as well as

positional improvements, including advances to the mount, half guard, side and back

positions. Chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests were conducted with a significance level of

p≤0.05. Results showed that winners had higher values for total strikes and submissions in all

rounds, as well as positional improvements, over losers. The standing combat with low

intensity comparisons presented differences between the rounds 1st, with a median of

2:33.5(P25%-P75%: 1:20-3:56) min, 2nd, with 2:37(1:24; 3:59) min, and 3rd, with 2:07 (1:06;

3:39.2) min. The present data suggest a focus on the intermittent demand presented in combat

phases with a special attention to the strike and ground technical-tactical skills, strength and

conditioning coaches could emphasize the effort pause ratios for both standing and ground

combat that mimic the requirements of MMA especially during the third round.

Keywords: Time and Motion Studies, Statistical analysis, Task Performance and Analysis,

Martial Arts.

ACCEPTED


2

INTRODUCTION

The requirement to produce an accurate recording of an event and then to analyze and diag-

nose it, providing feedback to an athletes and coaches is not new in sports combats (6-11,

24). However, a comprehensive review of the literature found scarce performance analyses of

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) (11). This combat sport is intermittent in nature, consisting of

four to five minutes per round with open tasks, involving full contact striking skills (punches,

kicks, knees and elbow attacks), grappling actions (throws and takedowns) as well as submis-

sions during grappling, including chokes/strangles and joint locking techniques (15, 29). Dur-

ing MMA bouts, motor control relies on anticipation of subsequent events as well as concur-

rent and quick adaptation to spatiotemporal changes (11). A schematic model of analysis for

MMA fighters may be helpful and could be applied to observe competitive demands, as

showed in other combat sports (6-11, 20-24). Further, time-motion and technical-tactical data

of championships can offer essential information to improve contextualized training plans

with potentially unknown key factors (1-2, 29). However, it is not clear whether the techni-

cal-tactical aspects would modify by outcomes in MMA.

The interest about MMA has grown massively, especially after 1993, with the begin of the

Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC®) (11). During UFC® matches, action selection is

an important component in the process of decision making of fighters, as it may be associated

with consequent actions by an opponent (4), and could potentially affect judging consistency

and, consequently, the outcomes (22). Previous reports have displayed specific circumstantial

observations, which affect MMA performance and determine competitive success, such as

the effort: pause ratio (11), stand up and groundwork phases (11, 15), strike attacks (15),

takedowns (15), and submission attempts (15). However, whether technical-tactical outcome

patterns could be actively altered in order to increase the possibility of victory in MMA

ACCEPTED


3

championship is currently unknown. Additionally, the knowledge about time-motion and

technical-tactical patterns could improve the specificity of training on anticipation of subse-

quent events as well as concurrent and quick precise actions in response to spatiotemporal

changes of each round (18).

Obtaining accurate performance analysis information about MMA outcomes is of interest to

coaches and high-level support fighters because of the potencial to relate tactics

characteristics, and to assist in the design of better training programs (1, 29). Due to

complications in conducting physiological measurements during MMA combat, numerous

investigations interested in match demands of MMA have focused on evaluations of time-

motion characteristics, heart rate demand and gas analysis in training and fight simulations

(1, 7, 15, 16, 17, 26). Amtmann and colleagues measured lactate levels and rate of perceive

exertion (RPE) responses during training sessions, match simulations, and following actual

MMA bouts (2). The study showed lactate measurements of the training sessions ranged from

8.1 to 19.7 mmol.L-1, and the post-bout lactate measurements ranged from 10.2 to 20.7

mmol.L-1 and the RPE ranged from 13 to 19 for all three groups (2). Some studies attempted

to identify the fitness profile of MMA competitors, and found the profiles were similar to

elite judokas and wrestlers (3, 26).

Recently, Kirk and associates conducted a study that simulated three MMA rounds to obtain a

better understanding of the physiological profile and of the performance responses to the

subjects, and measured workload using accelerometers, time-motion and lactate analyses

(15). The post match simulation blood lactate values reached 9.25 ± 2.96 mmol.L-1 and there

were significant differences in lactate levels across all six sampling points studied (15).

Although these reports have provided important information for athletes and coaches, MMA

fighters require technical-tactical expertise to gain competitive success, which involves a


4

diverse skillset including varied strike variations (15), takedowns (15), and groundwork

actions (11, 15), while the relationship amongst these skills represent the primary aspects of

MMA attacking systems (15).

The use of statistical comparisons by outcomes and rounds highlight how the technical-

tactical process changes amongst a series of situations in continuous analyses during the

combat phases (11, 15). This procedure may be useful for studying a wide range of

contextualized optimization in strength and conditioning program problems (1), solved via

dynamic time-motion and technical-tactical analysis by improving contextual accuracy in

particular exercises (19). A comprehensive understanding of the time structure of MMA bouts

may positively influence success rate and may also improve training efficiency (1, 19, 27). In

this regard, a number of studies conducted time-motion analyses of various grappling sports,

such as wrestling (4, 24), judo ( 3, 22, 23) and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (3) as well as striking

combat sports, such as taekwondo (18), kickboxing and muay thai (27), boxing (30) and

karate (9, 28).

Del Vecchio and associates conducted a time-motion analysis of MMA, analyzing work rates

in stand-up and ground grappling situations in different rounds and classified the effort of

MMA action as low or high intensity. The authors showed a statistically significant difference

between rounds in the groundwork time spent in low intensity and groundwork time spent in

high intensity (11). Also, MMA trained participants presented significant differences in

combat simulations, when comparing successful takedown rates between winners and losers

(15). Tactically, despite the agreement that striking and grappling are the main techniques

used by MMA athletes, the knockout seems to be less common in modern MMA bouts, in

which the most part of the fights is ending by referee decisions in the final round (10).

Certainty about the frequency and duration of actions in MMA combats, knowledge of

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED


5

outcome differences between rounds, stand up and groundwork combat phases resulting in

success opportunities (11, 15), and technical-tactical skills have all been associated with

athletes expertise in sports combats (14) .

A well-established experimental paradigm to precisely investigate MMA performance

analysis, according combat phases during sequential actions, requires a large database (19).

Tactical aspects of MMA fights may be affected by the outcome (such as at the round) which

may interfere with technical-tactical patterns (11). Identification of outcomes differences as a

potential mediator of success could help to anticipate key tournaments and understand how

winners organize technical-tactical actions in order to quickly adapt to spatial-temporal

changes during the rounds (15). Therefore, the purpose of the study was to realize a

objectivity performance analysis based on time-motion and technical-tactical analysis and to

determine the extent to which differences occur between rounds and outcomes (winners

versus losers).

METHODS

Study design

This comparative and descriptive applied research study, using time-motion analysis, allowed

us to determine the techniques and tactics used by athletes participating in elite level MMA

bouts. The study was divided into three stages. First, the protocol was identified in preceding

reports and in time-motion (11), technical variables in sports combat analysis (3, 9, 11, 15,

23, 27, 28), which were incorporated in a conceptual model. Afterward, in the second stage, a

validation of the protocol was conducted with a randomized selection of the UFC fights (18)

and, in the last, then a variance analysis and paired comparisons between outcomes and

rounds were done.


6

Sample

The present study carried out 351 bouts and 824 rounds of MMA in 2014 from all combats

during the 2014 UFC™ events. From this amount, 215 bouts (Table 1) and 645 rounds were

paired by outcomes (1st round, winners n=215 and losers n=215; 2nd round, winners n=215

and losers n=215; 3rd round, winners n=215 and losers n=215) to be analyzed.

***Please, insert Table 1 near here***

The criteria of inclusion of the paired matches was to have three rounds, while exclusion cri-

teria were concerning combats with less or more than three rounds and/or with characteristics

that disqualified prospective outcomes comparisons - fights which finished in “draw” or “no

contest”. In order to guarantee ecological validity and facility to acquire high level perform-

ances, the combats were documented by different cameras with sufficient quality (standard

definition 480/60i) and taken from a landscape view of the entire combat area, following pre-

ceding research indications (18-24). The present study ensured anonymity and confidentiality

by replacing the athletes’ personal identification, there are no ethical issues in analyzing or

interpreting data obtained at public events, as predisposed by previous protocols (9, 11, 19,

27, 28) and the study was previously approved by the local Ethics and Research Committee.

Procedures

Protocol of time-motion analysis, intra and inter-rater validation

The bouts were analyzed by five analysts, according to frequency of actions and time of the

Standing and Groundwork situations, separated by low or high intensity (Table 2), following

preceding protocol (11).


ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED


7

The standing techniques were quantified in total strikes (15) to the head and/or the body (30),

takedowns (15), submissions on the ground, including chokes and joint locks (3, 15, 20).

Following previously established protocols, comparisons of analysis were conducted to de-

termine possible differences between the intra and inter-rater measurement of the combat

phases using the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test, and no differences were observed (23, 30).

The correlation between measurements obtained for each model was verified by interclass

correlation (ICC) (12,18, 30), and the results can be observed in the table 3.


Statistical Analysis

The descriptive data is presented as median (first quartile, third quartile) or as percentage by

occurrence. For the frequencies/non-parametric data, were conducted the Chi-squared and the

Wilcoxon test to compare winners and losers, and to examine winner-loser intra-comparisons

between rounds. Afterwards, the effect size measure for non-parametric analysis was calcu-

lated, defined as ES = Z/√N, where ES represents the effect size, Z is derived from the con-

version of the Wilcoxon test, and N is the total number of observations. This analysis consid-

ers ES-values as: to small effect size (ES<0.10), medium effect size (ES<0.30) or large effect

size (ES<0.50). The significance level of p≤0.05 was used. All analyses were conducted us-

ing SPSS 20.0 for Windows.

RESULTS

Table 4 shows the median (first and third quartiles) of each combat phase time by round of

2014 UFC™.

ACCEPTED


8


The ratio of total high and low intensity was 1:5 in the 1st round, 1:4 in the 2nd round and 1:4

in the 3rd round without differences between them. Descriptive analysis showed that about

64.6% of the bouts ended from unanimous decision, 20.7% split decision, 8.1% KO/TKO and

6.1% ended from a submission during the 3rd round. Statistical effects were observed when

comparing all rounds the standing with low intensity phase between the 1st round and the 3rd

round (Z=-2.96, p=0.003, ES=0.11) and the 2nd and 3rd rounds (Z=-2.826, p=0.005, ES=-

0.11). Similar differences were found when compared the total low intensity phase between

the 1st round and the 3rd round (Z=-2.88, p=0.004, ES=0.11) and the 2nd and 3rd rounds (Z=-

2.749, p=0.006, ES=-0.11). Table 5 shows the median (first and third quartiles) of the total

strike attempts, total head strike attempts, total body strike attempts, and total takedowns at-

tempted each round of 2014 UFC™.


Statistical analysis intra-rounds showed that losers in the 1st round had higher values than the

2nd round in total strikes attempts (Z=-3.325, p<0.001, ES=-0.13) and total takedowns at-

tempted (Z=-2.988, p=0.003, ES=-0.12). The intra-comparison indicated that losers in the 1st

round had higher values than the 3rd round in total strikes attempts (Z=-3.615, p<0.001, ES=-

0.14), total headstrikes attempts (Z=-2.404, p=0.016, ES=-0.09) and total takedowns at-

tempted (Z=-2.074, p=0.038, ES=-0.08). Analysis demonstrated that losers in the 2nd round

had higher values than the 3rd round in total body strikes attempts (Z=-2.535, p=0.011, ES=-

0.11). Intra-rounds results demonstrated that winners in the 1st round had higher values than

the 3rd round in total body strikes attempts (Z=-2.11, p=0.035, ES=-0.08), no effects were

observed in other variables in intra-rounds comparisons of winner. Table 6 shows the per-

centage of occurrence and frequency of the total submission attempts, including chokes and

ACCEPTED


9

locks, total advances to half guard, total advances to side, total advances to mount, and total

advances to back by each round.


During the 3rd round, descriptive analysis showed that 6.1% of the bouts ended due to

submission method. The most frequent submission technique used was the rear naked choke

with 2.5% of the total wins, followed by guillotine choke (1.5% of wins), triangle choke

(1.0% of wins), arm triangle (0.5% of wins) and cross-body armlock (0.5% of wins). The

comparisons by rounds indicated higher values of submission attempted by winners

(χ2=34.592, p=0.014) and losers, respectivly, in the 3rd round when compared with the 1st

round. The analysis showed higher values of total chokes attempts by winners in the 3rd round

when compared with the 1st round (χ2=19.486, p<0.001). Effect of round was found when

compared the half guard of winners, which was higher in the 2nd round than in the 3rd round

(χ2=70.011, p<0.001). The comparison showed higher values of advances to the mount by

losers in the 2nd round when compared with the 3rd round (χ2=48.396, p=0.009).

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of the present study was to describe the time-motion and technical-

tactical demands of MMA rounds with comparisons between outcomes (winners versus

losers). The main results showed near from 1:4 ratio of high: low intensities. Comparisons

indicated differences in the number of offensive attacks/maneuvers, and changes in the lower

intensity time of standing combat between rounds intra-comparisons, with lower values of for

the 3rd round, and this result can be associated with the fact that last round is decisive to the

outcome. Independently of outcomes, the periods of standing and groundwork combat time

with high intensity did not show intra-round differences. The loser group showed a reduction

in the total strike and takedowns attempts in intra-round comparisons, while winners

ACCEPTED


10

demonstrated mechanisms involved time-motion and technical-tactical self-regulation over

the course of the bout, maintaining the time-motion ratio and the number of technical-tactical

determinant actions, increasing submission and chokes attempts during the last round.

Previous studies with time-motion observations showed similar results with only one

significant difference between rounds of the time in ground with low intensity, which was

longer in the 2nd round compared to the 3rd round (11, 15). The low intensity moment during

the bout has the interference of strategic developments, as athletes use this period for

recovery and to receive feedbacks of the coaches and from previous actions during the

tournament (22,23,26,27). The ratio of high: low intensity plus pauses work was 1:4 by

round, which is in agreement with preceding authors, who showed an EP ratio (between high-

intensity effort to low-intensity effort plus pauses), from 1:2 to 1:4 (11, 15). This range is

similar to other combat sports such as judo (20, 23), wrestling (4, 24), kickboxing (27), karate

(9, 28), and taekwondo (18).

Researchers investigating specific combat sports have suggested that preparation should

consider not only the time-motion patterns, but also technical-tactical variations and

frequencies used with vastly different bout demands (1-4, 8, 9, 18, 20, 23). In the present

study, during the same time-motion ratio, comparisons demonstrated higher number of total

strike attempts, oriented to the opponent’s head or body, takedowns, advances to the half

guard, to side, to the mount and back for winners, there an increase in differences when

compared in the 3rd round (Table 5), probably due to the need to impress the judges, or try to

knockdown or knockout the opponent (10), as of the 215 bouts in this study, 8% ended in

KO/TKO, 6% in submission and about 85% ended in decisions. With this in mind, coaches

can develop strength and conditioning sessions, as well as the MMA training sessions, to

mimic the metabolic profile seen during the third round. Understanding that the athlete may


11

have to outwork their opponent in the third round may be a tactical-technical approach and

can be positively affected with proper training. This research showed that the overall time

increased progressively from round one to round three. The fact that about 85% of all fights

finished in the 3rd round is further evidence that MMA athletes must develop high physical

fitness in order to grapple and strike intensely through all three rounds (10).

In general terms, the first round involves standing exchanges with low intensity used

primarily to analyze the opponent, and to gauge distance that will be required to effectively

strike and execute clinch control or a take-down (11). Establishing this distance has been

shown to be one of the key factors in the outcome of the fight (11). Fighters at this time try to

attack and defend against the attempts of their opponents while controlling distance to create

an opportunity for a sequential punch attack, which was responsible for ending 5.9% of the

bouts. One study focusing on karate suggested that punching techniques appear to be more

efficient and have a greater chance of reaching the target compared to kicking techniques (9).

Similar results were observed in taekwondo athletes where it was found that 5 ± 1 tactical

movements and 4 ± 1 technical exchanges occurred (31). In the same study, was observed a

similar frequency of strike actions to the present study, with 42.4 ± 0.5% fight actions and

44.5 ± 0.7% of those actions with low intensity, and a ratio of 1:2 (32). In karate, Chaabéne et

al. (9) presented 22.8±8.4s of high intensity actions (i.e. fighting activity time) with no

difference between winners and defeated athletes, and the fighting moments with high

intensity were shorter than the findings in the present study. However, it is important to

highlight that MMA and karate matches have many differences in time-motion pattern, as

well as in the technical-tactical options.

In this study, about 9.2% of the bouts ended due to strikes from standing at a distance, with

low intensity, and 4.4 % ended due to strikes from standing at a distance, with high intensity.

ACCEPTED


12

Total strike attempts were about 40 strikes/round, which is similar to kickboxing averaging

approximately 45 strikes/round. This finding was higher than Muay Thai, with 32 strike

actions/round (27), and taekwondo with 28 ± 6 exchanges (6). However there is some

difficulty in making connections between MMA and some of the other striking sports

because of the differences in length of each round; five minutes per round in MMA and two

to three minutes per round in some of the other striking sports.

Kirk et al. (15) found that subjects participating in simulated MMA bouts presented similar

results of submission attempts, ~0 per round, and a slightly higher rate of takedowns, with

~2.5 + 3.21 successful takedowns; and this study did not observe other differences between

outcomes. In contrast to the simulated MMA bouts, the winners of the real matches also

obtained higher values of total strikes attempts while standing and on the ground, particularly

oriented to the opponent head, higher total submission attempts, advance to half guard, side

control, mount, and back positions. These actions can indicate improvement and progression

in positions and they are often associated with the controlling of an opponent (1), and

expected to win in MMA matches (2). Moreover, in the present study, the comparisons of

actions during the 3rd round showed that losers try to do more submission attempts than in the

other two rounds. This finding is supported by previously published research showing that

most of the fights analyzed ended in the third round and involved high-intensity actions,

predominantly executed during groundwork combat (11).

Regarding duration of groundwork combat, we found higher values than other grappling

sports with groundwork actions, and it is important to highlight that the duration of the MMA

matches is different from other grappling combat sports. For example, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

averaged 117 (65-150)s of effort (3), judo resulted in a maximal effort time of 30±33s (20,

23), and wrestling showed a maximal effort time of 37±10s (4, 24).

ACCEPTED


13

Often, an MMA athlete uses strategy and a variety of tactics to establish control during a

bout. Control can be achieved by using the strikes and specific positions that allow an MMA

athlete to control and strike while grappling. This study showed that the best positions for

ending a bout came from back control and side control, which accounted for the finishes in

6.9% and 1.2% of all bouts, respectively. Addtionally, transitioning from one position of

control into another is extremely important because MMA is a dynamic sport and the ability

to move from one position to another, while maintaining control of the opponent, is

paramount to success. When the athlete establishes control over the opponent, they are more

likely to win the round if a knock-out (KO), technical knock-out (TKO), or submission isn’t

scored. During the process of attempting to establish control, MMA athletes must prevent

their opponents from achieving this same control while identifying weak points that may be

capitalized on.

Previous research suggests that a higher number of technical-tactical transitions during

groundwork is associated with the ability to induce the opponent into a submission in judo

combat (22). Kirk and associates studied simulated MMA bouts and presented submission

attempts, successful submissions, submission defense, sweep, to standing, scramble, lockdown

and pass attempt (15), which reveals the importance of the knowledge about the contextual

actions during real tournaments, thus can be used to introduce specificity in the training session

(10). Preceding authors demonstrated similar considerations about the takedown differences

between outcomes, however with higher frequency than the present results, with a total of 7.5

(±6.53) takedowns attempts per match. Also, the information about technical actions in the

tournament can be used to prevent injuries during the training session, since previous studies

also pointed out that takedowns (25), strike techniques (13), defensive actions (5) and

groundwork techniques (14) were causes of injuries.

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED


14

A potential limitation of performance analysis methods described so far is the reliability of

the data entry procedure, or the researcher's ability to reproduce the observed value when the

measure is repeated (6,7). Inter-observer consistency is considered crucial in establishing the

reliability of motion analysis systems where the total time, frequency and mean duration of

combat actions can exhibit large variations (19,21,22). In the present research, experts carried

observations in the same conditions, and performance analyses were substantially correlated,

with 94% of all variables classified as "strong" and 6% classified as "moderate". The results

highlighted the good reliability and validity of the present protocol for evaluation MMA per-

formance analysis. Observacional-descriptive approach implemented limits and extrapolation

of the current findings, which includes the fact that different technical-tactical actions and

professional athletes may also elicit different physical demands and physiological responses

for a specific action and/or combat phase (15, 18, 21-24). However, there are limited detailed

data on the match demands of MMA matches, and they are based on amateur level (11). Fur-

thermore, sport scientists, coaches and trainers can utilize such information to understand the

coordination dynamics of MMA athletes activity upon them time-motion and technical-

tactical characteristics during the rounds (1, 2).

Particularly, the present findings revealed crucial differences between outcomes, which

showed that losers where not able to maintain the number of technical-tactical actions over

the rounds, while winners had self-regulation actions, especially, in the last round with a sig-

nificantly increase in the number of submission and choke attempts. Another important ob-

servation about the present study is that, before the analysis, 17 fights were excluded. These

fights were finished in “draw” or “no contest” for various reasons, including failed drug tests

and illegal strikes such as head butts. It is important to note that winners obtained higher

frequencies of technical-tactical actions in 82% of all variables observed, which makes sense

because MMA athletes who dynamically control position to create submission and striking

ACCEPTED


15

opportunities throughout all three rounds will be more likely exhibit and demonstrate control

over their opponents and will have a higher probability of winning the bout.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The present technical-tactical and time-motion analysis of UFC® events provide a challenge

applied referential to the sport science and conditioning plains to all end users from strength

and conditioning specialists to coaches/athletes. This study reveals three important factors to

the success of MMA athletes, which can be considered by trainers.

First, it is important to develop technical proficiency and tactical approaches to provide bout

demands self-regulation and to control an opponent, as winners demonstrated a pattern of

time-motion and a self-adjustment in specific attack rates emerged when the fighter competed

at the bout with an increase in the submission and choke attempts during the last round. On

the other hand, losers presented a decrease of strike actions and ground attempts to control

the opponent, especially by the mount position.

Second, the change of winner’s data regarding advances on the ground and submission at-

tempts in response to the nature of the MMA bout likely reflects a transition from the reactive

mode, in the 1st round to the anticipatory mode in the other two last rounds, while losers

showed a reduction pattern of key actions after the 1st round. Specifically, decision-making

and timing skills should be enhanced through situational specific drilling, as significant out-

come differences were observed during the three rounds with higher values of multi-

directional strike attempts (specifically to the head and body orientations), takedowns and

attempts to control the opponent on the ground (advances to half guard, side, mount and back

position), promoting prompt identification of the end of an attack, and the consequent begin-

ACCEPTED


16

ning of the opponent’s reaction. This condition shows a technical proficiency and tactical

approaches of winners to defend against grappling and striking actions.

Third, developing the strength and endurance conditioning to be able to perform efficiently

and effectively throughout the entire five minutes of three rounds, with higher ranges of total

key actions by each round, which presented strike attacks (with 44 to 49 attempts), submis-

sions (22 to 28 attempts) and ground domains (28 to 50 half guard, 34 to 37 side, 13 to 27

mount and 27 to 36 back advances) of winners data.

From the outcome and rounds differences, strength and conditioning coaches should be aware

of the increase in the frequency of key actions, especially in the third round, and takedown

training should focus on high-speed attacks while in a fatigued state, simulating the metabolic

scenario and tactical necessities of the final round. On the ground, winners presented higher

values of total submissions and submission attempts, advances to half guard, side, back and

mount position than losers, so coaches should plan training sessions focusing on the devel-

opment of strength by positional control, transitional control, and submission skill profi-

ciency specific to MMA. In addition, strength and conditioning coaches could develop meta-

bolic training based specifically on the 1:4 ratio of high: low intensity work by round, calcu-

lated from this study that will develop the conditioning needed to perform at high intensities

in the third round.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To CAPES and to the Fightmetric Team.

REFERENCES

ACCEPTED


17

1. Amtmann, J. Training Volume and Methods of Athletes Competing at a Mixed Martial

Arts Events, Intermountain J Sci 16: 51-54, 2010.

2. Amtmann, JA, Amtmann, KA, Spath, WK. Lactate and rate of perceived exertion re-

sponses of athletes training for and competing in a mixed martial arts event. J Strength

Cond Res 22(2): 645-647, 2008.

3. Andreato, LV, Franchini, E, Moraes, SMF, Pastório, J, Silva, DF, Esteves, JVDC,

Branco, BHM, Romero, PV, Machado, FA. Physiological and Technical-tactical Analysis

in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu Competition. Asian J Sports Med 4: 137-143, 2013.

4. Barbas, I, Fatouros, I, Douroudos, I, Chatzinikolaou, A, Michailidis, Y, Draganidis, D,

Jamurtas, A, Nikolaidis, M, Parotsidis, C, Theodorou, A, Katrabasas, I, Margonis, K, Pa-

passotiriou, I, Taxildaris, K. Physiological and Performance Adaptations of Elite Greco-

Roman Wrestlers During a One-day Tournament. European J Appl Physiol 111:1421-

1436, 2011.

5. Bledsoe, GH, Hsu, EB, Grabowski, JG, Brill, JD, Li, G. Incidence of injury in professional

mixed martial arts competition. J Sports Sci Med CSSI: 136-142, 2006.

6. Bridge, CA, Jones, MA, Drust, B. The Activity Profile in International Taekwondo Com-

petition is Modulated by Weight Category. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 6: 344-357, 2011.

7. Buse, GJ. No hold barred sports fighting: a 10-year review of mixed martial arts competi-

tion. Br J Sports Med 40:169–72, 2006.

8. Calmet, M, Miarka, B, Franchini, E. Modeling of grasps in judo contests. Int J Perf Anal

Sport 10: 229–40, 2010.

ACCEPTED


18

9. Chaabène, H, Franchini, E, Miarka, B, Selmi, MA, Mkaouer, B, Chamari, K. Time-motion

analysis and physiological responses to karate official combat sessions: is there a differ-

ence between winners and defeated karatekas? Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 9(2):302-308,

2014.

10. Del Vecchio, FB, Franchini, E. Specificity of high-intensity intermittent action remains

important to MMA athletes’ physical conditioning: Response to Paillard (2011). Percept

Motor Skil 116: 233-234, 2013.

11. Del Vecchio, FB, Hirata, SM, Franchini, E. A review of time-motion analysis and combat

development in mixed martial arts matches at regional level tournaments. Percept Motor

Skil, 112: 639–648, 2011.

12. Hopkins, WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med, 30 (1),

1-15, 2000.

13. Hutchison, MG, Lawrence, DW, Cusimano, MD, Schweizer, TA. Head Trauma

in Mixed Martial Arts.Am J Sports Med 42(6):1352-1358, 2014.

14. Jensen, P, Roman, J, Barret, S, Wrisberg, C. In the Cage: MMA Fighters’Experience of

Competition. Sport Psychol, 27: 1-12, 2013.

15. Kirk, C, Hurst, H, Atkins, S. Measuring the Workload of Mixed Martial Arts using Acce-

lerometry, Time Motion Analysis annd Lactate. Int J Perf Anal Sport, 15: 359-370, 2015.

16. Lenetsky, S, Harris, N. The Mixed Martial Arts Athlete: A Physiological Profile, Strength

Cond J 34(1): 32-47, 2012.

17. Marinho, B, Del Vecchio, F, Franchini, E. Physical Fitness and Anthropometric Profile of

Mixed Martial Arts Athletes, Rev Artes Marciales Asiatic 6, 7-18, 2011.

ACCEPTED


19

18. Menescardi, C, Lopez-Lopez, JA, Falco, C, Hernandez-Mendo, A, Estevan, I. Tactical

aspects of a national university taekwondo championship in relation to round and match

outcome. J Strength Cond Res 29(2): 466-71, 2014.

19. Miarka, B, Branco, BH, Del Vecchio, FB, Camey, S, Franchini, E. Development and

validation of a time-motion judo combat model based on the Markovian Processes. Int J

Perf Anal Sport 15:315-325, 2015.

20. Miarka, B, Cury, R, Julianetti, R, Battazza, Julio, UF, Calmet, M, Franchini, E. A com-

parison of time-motion and technical-tactical variables between age groups of female judo

matches. J Sport Sci 2: 1–10, 2014.

21. Miarka, B, Hayashida, CR, Julio, UF, Calmet, M, Franchini, E. Objectivity of FRAMI-

software for judo match analysis. Int J Perf Anal Sport 11: 254–66, 2011.

22. Miarka, B, Julio, UF, Vecchio, FBD, Calmet, M, Franchini, E. Técnica y táctica en judo:

una revisión. Rev Artes Marc Asiátic, 5: 427-31, 2010.

23. Miarka, B, Panissa, V, Julio, UF, Vecchio, FBD, Calmet, M, Franchini, E. A comparison

of time-motion performance between age groups in judo matches. J Sport Sci 30: 899-05,

2012.

24. Nilsson, J, Csergö, S, Gullstrand, L, Tveit, P, Refsnes, P.E. Work-time profile, blood

lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion in the 1998 Greco-Roman Wrestling

Championship. J Sports Sci, 20, 939 – 945, 2002.

25. Pocecco, E, Ruedl, G, Stankovic, N, Sterkowicz, S, Del Vecchio, FB, Gutierrez-Garcia, C,

Rousseau, R, Koop, M, Miarka, B, Menz, V, Krusmann, P, Calmet, Malliaropoulos, N,

ACCEPTED


20

Burtsher, M. Injuries in judo: a systematic literature review including suggestions for pre-

vention. Br J Sports Med, 47: 1139-43, 2013.

26. Schick, M, Brown, L, Coburn, J, Beam, W, Schick, E, Dabbs, C. Physiological Profile of

Mixed Martial Artists. Med Sportiva 14(4): 182- 187, 2010.

27. Silva, J, Del Vecchio, F, Picanco, L, Takito, M, Franchini, E. Time Motion Analysis in

Muay-Thai and Kick-Boxing Amateur Matches. J Hum Sport Exerc 6(3), 490-496, 2011.

28. Tabben, M, Coquart, J, Chaabène H, Franchini E, Ghoul, N, Tourny, C. Time-motion,

tactical and technical analysis in top-level karatekas according to gender, match outcome

and weight categories. J Sports Sci 33(8):841:849, 2015.

29. Tack, C. Evidence-based guidelines for strength and conditioning in mixed martial arts.

Strength Cond J, 35(5), 79-92, 2013.

30. Thomson, E, Lamb, K, Nicholas, C. The development of a reliable amateur boxing per-

formance analysis template. J Sports Sci 31(5): 516-528, 2013.

31. Tornello, F, Capranica, L, Chiodo, S, Minganti, C, and Tessitore, A. Time-motion analysis

of youth Olympic Taekwondo combats. J Strength Cond Res 27: 223–8 228, 2013.

32. Tornello, F, Capranica, L, Minganti, C., Chiodo, S, Cibellis, G, and Tessitore, A. Techni-

cal-Tactical Analysis of Youth Olympic Taekwondo Combat. J Strength Cond Res 28:

1151-1157, 2014.

ACCEPTED


1

Table 1. Events of 2014 UFC™, which composed the sample.

Events of 2014 UFC™ and number of bouts

UFC - TUF 19 Finale n=6 UFC Fight Night 38: Shogun vs. Henderson n=6

UFC - TUF Brazil 3 Finale n=7 UFC Fight Night 39: Minotauro vs. Nelson n=5

UFC - TUF China Finale n=6 UFC Fight Night 40: Brown vs. Silva n=7

UFC - TUF Nations: Canada vs. Australia Finale n=8 UFC Fight Night 41: Munoz vs. Mousasi n=6

UFC 169: Barao vs. Faber 2 n=9 UFC Fight Night 42: Henderson vs. Khabilov n=6

UFC 170: Rousey vs. McMann n=7 UFC Fight Night 43: Te Huna vs. Marquardt n=5

UFC 171: Hendricks vs. Lawler n=9 UFC Fight Night 44: Swanson vs. Stephens n=6

UFC 172: Jones vs. Teixeira n=6 UFC Fight Night 45: Cerrone vs. Miller n=5

UFC 173: Barao vs. Dillashaw n=8 UFC Fight Night 46: McGregor vs. Brandão n=5

UFC 174: Johnson vs. Bagautinov n=7 UFC Fight Night 47: Bader vs. Saint Preux n=5

UFC 175: Weidman vs. Machida n=6 UFC Fight Night 48: Bisping vs. Le n=5

UFC 177: Dillashaw vs. Soto n=5 UFC Fight Night 49: Henderson vs. Dos Anjos n=5

UFC Fight Night 34: Saffiedine vs. Lim n=6 UFC Fight Night 50: Souza vs. Mousasi n=5

UFC Fight Night 35: Rockhold vs. Philippou n=9 UFC Fight Night 51: Silva vs. Arlovski n=6

UFC Fight Night 36: Machida vs. Mousasi n=10 UFC on Fox 10 n=6

UFC Fight Night 37: Gustafsson vs. Manuwa n=6 UFC on Fox 11 n=8

UFC on Fox 12 n=8


2

Table 2. Criteria used to conduct the analysis by each variable of 2014 UFC™ bouts.

Phases Criteria of analysis

Total effort time Effort temporal time, which includes low and high intensity moments in

standing up and groundwork and combat.

Standing up with low

intensity

Standing up combat, which includes displacements or stable positions and

movements without opposition or with isolated attack.

Standing up with high

intensity

Standing up combat, which includes offensive and defensive techniques,

exchanges between opponents.

Groundwork with low

intensity

Groundwork combat, which includes stable positions and movements without

opposition or with isolated attack.

Groundwork with high

intensity

Groundwork combat, which includes offensive and defensive techniques,

exchanges between opponents.

Phases Actions analyzed

Stand up techniques Stand-up technique was analyzed by observing total strikes to the head and

body, and takedowns

Groundwork techniques Ground was analyzed by observing submission activity, including successful

choking and joint locking actions, as well as positional improvements,

including advances to the mount, half guard, side and back positions

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED


3

Table 3. Intraclass coefficient of correlation (ICC) values of technical-tactical variables from each combat phase analyzed of 2014 UFC™.

95% Confidence Interval

Technical-tactical variables CCI Bound Bound

Sig. Classification

Total Strikes Attempts 0.998 0.996 0.999 0.007 Strong

Total of Head Strikes Attempts 0.998 0.995 0.999 <0.001 Strong

Total of Body Strikes Attempts 0.982 0.962 0.991 <0.001 Strong

Total of Takedowns Attempts 0.917 0.867 0.967 <0.001 Strong

Total of Submission Attempts 0.936 0.871 0.969 <0.001 Strong

Total of Locks Attempts 0.901 0.800 0.952 <0.001 Strong

Total of Chokes Attempts 0.829 0.675 0.915 <0.001 Strong

Total of Mount Advances 0.737 0.517 0.866 <0.001 Strong

Total of Back Advances 0.503 0.191 0.725 <0.001 Moderate

Total of Side Advances 0.800 0.624 0.899 <0.001 Strong

Groundwork with high intensity 0.999 0.998 1.000 <0.001 Strong

Standing up with high intensity 0.999 0.998 1.000 <0.001 Strong

Groundwork with low intesity 0.984 0.948 0.994 <0.001 Strong

Standing up with low intensity 0.957 0.912 0.980 <0.001 Strong

Total Effort with high intensity 0.999 0.998 1.000 <0.001 Strong

Total Effort with low intensity 0.962 0.922 0.982 <0.001 Strong

Total Effort Time 1.000 0.999 1.000 <0.001 Strong

Note.: The Half Guard Advance variable was not observed.

ACCEPTED


4

Table 4. Descriptive analysis of combat phase time by each round of 2014 UFC™.

Combat Phase N Median (1st Quartil; 3rd Quartil)

Round 1

Total Effort time 215 0:05:00.00 (0:04:48.50; 0:05:00.00)

Total high intensity 215 0:00:08.00 (0:00:00.00; 0:01:00.25)

Total low intensity 215 0:02:33.50 (0:01:20.75; 0:03:56.5)#

Groundwork with high intensity 215 0:00:00.00 (0:00:00.00; 0:00:23.25)

Groundwork with Low intensity 215 0:00:04.00 (0:00:01.00; 0:00:20.00)

Standing up with Low intensity 215 0:02:33.50 (0:01:20.00; 0:03:56.50)#

Standing up with high intensity 215 0:00:11.00 (0:00:00.00; 0:00:21.00)

Round 2

Total Effort time 215 0:05:00.00 (0:05:00.00; 0:05:00.00)


Total low intensity 215 0:02:37.00 (0:01:26.50; 0:03:59.00)



Standing up with Low intensity 215 0:02:37.00 (0:01:24.00; 0:03:59.00)


Round 3

Total Effort time 215 0:05:00.00 (0:05:00.00.; 0:05:00.00)


Total low intensity 215 0:02:07.00 (0:01:08.75; 0:03:49.00)*



Standing up with Low intensity 215 0:02:07.00 (0:01:06.99; 0:03:39.25)*


Note:# = Different from round 2nd and 3rd rounds; *Different from 2nd round, p<0.05.

ACCEPTED


5

Table 5. Descriptive analysis of the Total Strikes Attempts, Total Head Strikes Attempts, Total Body Strikes Attempts and Takedowns by each round of 2014 UFC™.

Round Outcome N Median (1st Quartil; 3rd Quartil) Z Sig ES

Total Strike Attempts

Winner 215 44.00 (32.75; 56.00) 1

Loser# 215 35.00 (23.00; 47.25) -5.170 <0.001 -0.20

Winner 215 49.00 (34.00; 65.50) 2

Loser 215 35.00 (24.50; 50.00) -6.353 <0.001 -0.25

Winner 215 49.00 (37.00; 65.00) 3

Loser 215 34.50 (21.00; 53.00) -5.538 <0.001 -0.21

Total Head Strike Attempts

Winner 215 23.50 (14.00; 34.00) 1

Loser* 215 19.00 (11.00; 31.00) -2.656 0.008 -0.10

Winner 215 27.00 (15.00; 42.00) 2

Loser 215 20.00 (12.00; 33.00) -3.250 <0.001 -0.12

Winner 215 26.50 (14.00; 41.00) 3

Loser 215 20,00 (10.00; 37.00) -2.749 0.006 -0.11

Total Body Strike Attempts

Winner* 215 4.00 (2.00; 7.00) 1

Loser 215 3.00 (1.00; 6.00) -2.807 0.005 -0.11

Winner 215 4.00 (2.00; 7.00) 2

Loser* 215 4.00 (1.00; 6.00) -2.217 0.027 -0.08

Winner 215 3.00 (2.00; 6.00) 3

Loser 215 2.00 (1.00; 5.00) -2.900 0.004 -0.11

Total Takedown Attempts

1 Winner 215 1.00 (0.00; 2.00) -2.072 0.038 -0.08

ACCEPTED


6

Loser# 215 1.00 (0.00; 2.00)

Winner 215 1.00 (0.00; 3.00) 2

Loser 215 1.00 (0.00; 2.00) -3.562 <0.001 -0.14

Winner 215 1.00 (1.00; 3.00) 3

Loser 215 1.00 (0.00; 2.00) -3.767 <0.001 -0.14

Note: # = within difference, when compared with the 3rd round and the 2nd round; * within difference, when

compared with the 3rd round, p<0.05.

ACCEPTED


7

Table 6. Percentage and total frequency of the submission, chokes, locks attempts, and of advances to half guard, side, mount, and back, by each round of 2014 UFC™.

Round Outcome N Percentage Frequency χ2 sig.

Total Submission Attempts

1 Loser 215 6.9% 15

Winner 215 11.5% 24* 3.451 0.098

2 Loser 215 10.5% 22

Winner 215 11% 22 5.803 0.219

3 Loser 215 11.6% 23

Winner 215 15.1% 28 4.472 0.682

Total Chokes Attempts

1 Loser 215 3.3% 7

Winner 215 8.7% 19* 6.351 0.013

2 Loser 215 7.5% 15

Winner 215 8.5% 17 3.335 0.289

3 Loser 215 6.1% 12

Winner 215 12.1% 24 8.013 0.078

Total Locks Attempts

1 Loser 215 4.2% 9

Winner 215 3.5% 7 2.828 0.419

2 Loser 215 3% 6

Winner 215 3.5% 7 2.093 0.485

3 Loser 215 6% 12

Winner 215 2.5% 5 3.263 0.072

Total Advances to Half Guard

ACCEPTED


8

1 Loser 215 8.7% 19

Winner 215 27.6% 50 26.828 <0.001

2 Loser 215 6.5% 13

Winner 215 15.2% 33* 30.829 <0.001

3 Loser 215 5% 10

Winner 215 12.8% 28 35.349 <0.001

Total Advances to Side

1 Loser 215 3.7% 8

Winner 215 18% 37 25.429 <0.001

2 Loser 215 4% 8

Winner 215 18.3% 37 21.300 <0.001

3 Loser 215 5.5% 11

Winner 215 17.1% 34 12.810 <0.001

Total Advances to Mount

1 Loser 215 2.3% 5

Winner 215 6% 13 4.403 0.221

2 Loser 215 2% 4*

Winner 215 8.5% 17 8.812 0.003

3 Loser 215 1.5% 3

Winner 215 13.6% 27 21.014 <0.001

Total Advances to Back

1 Loser 215 3.2% 7

Winner 215 12.4% 27 13.955 <0.001

2 Loser 215 4.5% 9

Winner 215 16.9% 34 19.006 <0.001

ACCEPTED


9

3 Loser 215 6% 13

Winner 215 18.2% 36 21.969 <0.001

Note:* within difference, when compared with the 3rd round, p<0.05.

accepted - montana tech · pdf fileinvestigations interested in match demands of mma have...

Documents