ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS IN SILAT
OLAHRAGA MALE CATEGORY CLASS E, SEA GAMES 2015.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to
investigate the performance indicator between winning and losing in silat
olahraga male category class E, sea games 2015. The data were collected from 4
matches which were first match quarterfinal Thailand vs Singapore, second match
quarterfinal Malaysia vs Indonesia, third match semifinal Singapore vs
Malaysia, and last match final Malaysia vs Vietnam. A total of 14 performance
indicators were selected as the variables in this study. Descriptive and
inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. The result showed
Malaysia had won in this match category that I choose and the motions that
Malaysia used in these each match was more higher than the opponent team.
Besides that, the result showed that Malaysia’s athlete that chosen in the
tournament were preferred to play more kick ‘tendang’ than the other actions
while less number of the actions that used in this match is dodge.
INTRODUCTION
Silat
has a mixed history as it was formed from headhunting skills by natives from
Indian, Chinese and Japanese martial arts. Silat bounds the martial arts of the
Malaysian Archipelago, Indonesia and surrounding Southeast Asian areas. There
are hundreds of different styles and schools but they tend to focus either on
strikes, joint manipulation, throws, weaponry, or some combination. There are
three types of Silat named as championship, showmanship and freestyle. Pencak
silat was included in the 14th SEA Games 1987 held in Jakarta, Indonesia when
IPSI presented it. The rules of silat olahraga have been arranged in the year
1973. The two opposing sides are corners at the points of the square arena
which are labelled in blue and red at diagonal ends, while the other two
corners, marked yellow, are neutral areas. Tunggal (single), Ganda (double),
and Regu (team) categories that use the 10 by 10 meter performance arena (Anuar, 1993)
Other
than that, this analysis also investigate the difference between the winners
and losers Malaysia team in silat olahraga matches in 28th SEA Games Singapore
2015. There are total of 14 indicators used to analyze the match which are
punch, kick, topple, sweep, block, block and kick, block and punch, block and
sweep, fake kick, punch, fake punch, self-release, catch, dodge, and others.
But there only 4 indicator been chosen to analyze the winning and losing
factor. The notational data will take and recorded. Then the data will put in
SPSS to find the mean, standard deviation and significant 2 tailed. The
observation are involve in this study is to frequency find the the specific
technique that need to analyze (Aziz, Tan, & Teh, 2002).
The notational data will be notated based on hit on target, hit elsewhere and
missing opponents.
Silat
olahraga brings to light very different subjectivities, inter-subjectivities,
and ways of objectifying the body in regional- and national-level practice
(Wilson, 2009). In Malay dictionary, silat can be defined as a combination if
art and intelligence to perform attack and defense with a beautiful form. The
other source that defines silat is from the word of kilat (lightning)
(Shamsuddin, 2005).
MATERIAL
AND METHOD
A
publicy available video from the 28th SEA Games 2015 competition in
Singapore were taken from Singapore Sports Council (Youtube) and used for this
analysis. The videos taken were of male matches from class E which person with
weight 65kg to 70kg. There were 14 types of indicators used to analyze the
matches. The frequency, mean and standard deviation of the performance were
calculated subsequently. The methods used for the analysis were video analysis
and hand notational.
MOTION
CATEGORIES
Punch
o The punch ‘tumbuk’ attack is done by a
hand with closed fist hitting the target. In silat, punching is often used to
fight the opponent. It can be a straight punch ‘tumbuk lurus’ or uppercut
‘sauk’ to exponent body’s (Anuar, 1992).
Kick
o The kick ‘tendang’ or ‘terajang’ is an
ataacking movement which is performed with one leg or two legs simultaneously.
A kick can be aimed at any target. It can be front kick ‘tendang depan’, side
kick ‘depak’ or semi-circular side kick ‘ tendang lengkar’(Anuar, 1992).
Block
o The blocking movements begin with the
posture position ‘sikap pasang’: the exponent stands straight with his hands
around his body or close to his chest. Blocking or parrying ‘tangkisan’ can be
done using arms, elbows and legs with the purpose to block off or striking back
at any attck (Anuar, 1992).
Catch
o The catch ‘tangkapan’ is done by using the
hand to obstruct the opponent from carrying out an attack. The silat exponent
is able to prevent himself from being attacked by pointing the attack which he
has caught to another direction. A catch which twists or drags the opponent is
forbidden. Also, a catch which could break the part which is being held such as
the leg and waist is also forbidden. These regulations exit to protect the
silat exponent’s (Anuar, 1992).
Topple:
o There are various ways of toppling down
one’s opponent. For example, a silat exponent ‘pesilat’ can either push, shove
the opponent’s back leg from the bad or from the side, shove, hit, kick, strike
or punch to make the opponent lose his balance. Every falls is considered valid
as long as the sila exponent topples his opponent down without wresting or he
is able to overpower the opponent whom he has brought down (Anuar, 1992).
Sweep
o Swiping ‘sapuan’ involves attacking an
opponent’s leg which is on the ground to unstable him and brings down to the
ground. A silat exponent can perform this attacking movement either with his
right or left leg. Hence, front sweep ‘sapuan depan’ is done by swinging the
leg to the front to push an opponent’s leg, while back sweep ‘sapuan belakang’
is carried out by swinging the leg backward to hit the back leg (Anuar, 1992).
Evade/Dodge
o The evade ‘elakan’ technique is carried
out by silat exponent when he tries to evade an attack. This technique does not
require the silat exponent to touch the opponent in fending off the attack.
They are many ways of carrying out his defensive movement such as dodging
‘gelek’, retreat ‘mundur’, evasion to the side ‘elak sisi’, bending ‘elak
serung’, jumping ‘lonjak’ ducking ‘susup’ and etc. (Anuar, 1992).
Self-Release
o Self-release ‘lepas tangkapan’ technique
is a technique to unlock any clinch or catch from an opponent (Anuar, 1993).
Block and Punch
o The blocking technique is used to block
any hand or leg attack from the opponent and followed by counter attack using
the leg to kick the opponent (Shapie, Oliver, O’Donoghue, & Tong, 2013).
Block and Kick
o The blocking technique is used to block
any hand or leg attack from the opponent and followed by counter attack using
sweeping technique to the opponent (Shapie et al., 2013).
Block and Sweep
o The blocking technique is used to block
any hand or leg attack from the opponent and followed by counter attack using
sweeping technique to the opponent (Shapie et al., 2013).
Fake Punch
o An action which a silat exponent intends
to confuse the opponent using a fake punch to break his opponent’s defensive posture
(Shapie et al., 2013).
Fake Kick:
o An action which a silat exponent intends
to confuse the opponent using a fake kick to break his opponent defensive
posture (Shapie et al., 2013).
Others
o Is the basic commands. The referee will
say ‘Mulai’ meaning ‘Begin’ to start the game and ‘Berhenti’ also known as
‘Stop’ to stop the fight. (Shapie et al., 2013).
RELIABILITY
OF OBSERVATION
The
author analyzed all the activities and simultaneously classified each change of
motion in a single match. Two observations were done separated by 48 hours. It
requires experienced silat practitioners to analyze the data as the movement of
both exponents is fast, needing close inspection. The classification of
movement was subjective with work being classified according to the instruction
given by the referee.
STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
The
observation generated data will be frequency counted. Mean and Standard
Deviation (SD) for all the marker has been computed to locate the measurable
factors that separated between winning and losing group. All the statistical
data was conducted using (SPSS), Statistical Package Social Science version 21.
RESULTS
The
result has been showed in the table below. For the first table, it concludes
all the result from the 14 motion categories that combine the winners and
losers group. For the second table, it shows the specific skills that exponents
used such as blocking, kicking, punching and also topple. There are four
outcomes that will be used for the observation of the video matches which are
hit target, miss opponent and hit elsewhere.
Table 1. Frequency of
actions for Quarterfinal THA (Loser) vs SIN (Winner)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
9
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Block and Kick
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Block and Punch
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
5
|
Block and sweep
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Kick
|
19
|
12
|
31
|
8
|
4
|
12
|
13
|
4
|
17
|
|
60
|
Fake Kick
|
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
|
6
|
|
16
|
Punch
|
10
|
19
|
29
|
6
|
19
|
25
|
9
|
9
|
18
|
|
72
|
Fake Punch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-Release
|
|
|
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
4
|
2
|
6
|
|
15
|
Topple
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
7
|
Sweep
|
1
|
8
|
9
|
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
2
|
8
|
|
20
|
Catch
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
9
|
11
|
|
22
|
Dodge
|
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
16
|
21
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
26
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
34
|
Total
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
77
|
34
|
294
|
*Note: W – Winner. L – Blue. T – Total.
Table 2. Frequency
profile of Quarterfinal THA (Loser) vs SIN (Winner)
Exponent
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Sweep
|
Total
|
Thailand
(Loser)
|
7
|
40
|
25
|
4
|
76
|
Singapore
(Winner)
|
13
|
20
|
47
|
3
|
80
|
Table
3. Frequency of actions for Quarterfinal MAS (winner)
vs INA (loser)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
|
|
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
10
|
Block and Kick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
Block and Punch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
Block and sweep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kick
|
1
|
9
|
10
|
4
|
11
|
15
|
14
|
3
|
17
|
|
42
|
Fake Kick
|
|
|
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
8
|
Punch
|
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
5
|
Fake Punch
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
8
|
2
|
10
|
|
24
|
Self-Release
|
|
|
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Topple
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
|
8
|
Sweep
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
Catch
|
|
|
|
9
|
4
|
13
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
14
|
Dodge
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
14
|
Total
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
45
|
14
|
141
|
*Note: W – Winner. L – Loser. T – Total.
Table
4. Frequency profile of Quarterfinal MAS (Winner) vs
INA (Loser)
Exponent
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Sweep
|
Total
|
Malaysia
(Winner)
|
19
|
3
|
7
|
1
|
30
|
Indonesia
(Loser)
|
23
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
31
|
Table 5. Frequency of actions for Semifinal SIN (Loser) vs MAS (Winner)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Block and Kick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block and Punch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block and sweep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kick
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
13
|
8
|
21
|
17
|
5
|
22
|
|
55
|
Fake Kick
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
6
|
Punch
|
8
|
2
|
10
|
3
|
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
16
|
Fake Punch
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Self-Release
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topple
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Sweep
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
16
|
Catch
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
9
|
Dodge
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
18
|
Total
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
18
|
140
|
*Note: L –
Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.
Table
6. Frequency profile of Quarterfinal MAS (Winner) vs SIN (Loser)
Exponent
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Sweep
|
Total
|
Malaysia (Winner)
|
36
|
13
|
1
|
7
|
57
|
Singapore (Loser)
|
19
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
29
|
Table 7. Frequency of actions for Final MAS (Winner) vs VIE (Loser)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
4
|
|
4
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
8
|
|
20
|
Block and Kick
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
6
|
Block and Punch
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Block and sweep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kick
|
11
|
5
|
16
|
5
|
3
|
8
|
7
|
1
|
8
|
|
32
|
Fake Kick
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
Punch
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
|
5
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
10
|
Fake Punch
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
Self-Release
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
10
|
|
10
|
|
15
|
Topple
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
10
|
10
|
4
|
|
4
|
|
15
|
Sweep
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
Catch
|
4
|
|
4
|
|
11
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
Dodge
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
3
|
3
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
7
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
15
|
Total
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
41
|
15
|
133
|
*Note: L –
Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.
Table 8. Frequency profile Final MAS (Winner) vs VIE
(Loser) :
Exponent
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Sweep
|
Total
|
Vietnam
(Loser)
|
23
|
8
|
0
|
1
|
32
|
Malaysia
(Winner)
|
9
|
2
|
11
|
4
|
26
|
DISCUSSION
Silat olahraga is a popular Asian martial
art. This game is exceptionally intriguing in light of the fact that it
includes an ability that was a mix of hand to hand fighting aptitudes,
battling, and self-protection. The examination past is states that silat
competitors tought to be extraordinary in both kicking and punching yet
punching recurrence is lower than a kicking. However, silat competitors should
create punching ability speedier and precise in light of the fact that punching
is the high rate effective of hitting target contrast with kicking expertise in
rivalry ( Shapie et al., 2013). From the first match result which is Singapore
winning this match, Singapore is more used kicking skill than Thailand. That is
why Singapore have more point.
Furthermore, Singapore do less mistake that can deduct her point than Thailand.
Besides kicking, Singapore also do more block and kicking hit target to his
opponent. Thailand also do more skill such as kicking and punching hit target
but at the same time, Thailand do lot of mistake that deduct her point and
finally got less point because of his mistakes. This is one of the different
between winning and losing in silat olahraga. Competitor must wise to make
strategy plan and technique during match (Anuar, 1992).
For the second match result which is
Indonesia vs Malaysia category class E which Malaysia is winning this match,
what can researcher observed from the video is Malaysia do more attacking than
Indonesia. As researcher can see from the result, Indonesia makes a lot of miss
opponent kick and punch to his opponent. Researcher can see the sample paired
test at the table above show, there are totally different between winning and
losing. This observation for the winner while for the loser is Indonesia make
less attacking during match. Indonesia gives more opportunity to Malaysia to
make more attacking during match. Silat competitors must improve their fitness
level to improve the performance (Fong & Ng, 2011).
For the third match is Malaysia vs
Singapore category Class E. Malaysia is
winning this game. This is because player from Malaysia corner use more kicking
and sweep than the opponent from Singapore. Singapore player have low level of
fitness, have low reaction time, speed and not aggressive like player from
Malaysia .
CONCLUSION
Since the ultimate indicator for team
to success is by kicking and topple the other indicators seem to be superior
creating chance to win the game. Although the result may vary due to total
number of score given, this can be improved to the specific training especially
in kicking and punch to improve the chance of scoring. Every team is prefer to
more attacking than defending, this finding provide important information for
coaches developing their defences mechanism and also their offense strategies.
There is also a range of frequency in
attacking and defensive activities used by both of the exponents. The winning
player used more kicks and topples than the loser. It may reflect greater skill
or fitness or both but it is still doubtful that these are the only factors
that influence the match.
RECOMMENDATION
Overall, it is recommended for pesilat
either winner or loser to improve their motion skill to expertise. Coaches need
to emphasize the skill related fitness of and athlete to enhance their performance.
There is a limitation of this case study as the findings here only represent
only four silat match, so the findings cannot be generalised to all silat
competition. However, the purpose of this study was to analyse the winners
motion skill during a silat match. Furthermore, the system developed is useful
in future study in silat. This was the first study to provide descriptive
detailed information of a silat match, increasing the knowledge base and
providing a methodology that can be used in future research and by coaches.
Furthermore, the other sports where the frequency and duration of high
intensity activity periods fail to provide sufficient information to fully
characterise the de minds of the sport.
REFERENCES
Anuar, A. (1993). Silat olahraga (2nd
edn.). The art, technique and regulations: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala
Lumpur.
Aziz,
A. R., Tan, B., & Teh, K. C. (2002). Physiological responses during matches
and profile of elite pencak silat exponents. Journal of sports science & medicine, 1(4), 147.
Shapie,
M., Nizam, M., Oliver, J., O'Donoghue, P., & Tong, R. (2013). Activity
profile during action time in national silat competition. Journal of Combat Sports & Martial Arts, 4(1).
Shapie,
M. N. M. (2011). Influence of age and
maturation on fitness development, trainability and competitive performance in
youth silat. Cardiff Metropolitan University.
Wilson,
I. D. (2003). The politics of inner
power: The practice of pencak silat in west java. Murdoch University.
Vincent, P., Nizan, M. S. M., & Julinamary, P.
(2015). Motives of taking part in Malay Silat, Karate-Do and Taekwondo. Ido
Movement for Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 15(3),
22-26.
D. Farrer. (2009). Seni silat haqq melayu: A sufi
martial art Shadows of the prophet (pp. 3-42): Springer.
A. A. Wahab. (1989). Silat olahraga: The
art, techniques and regulations: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian
Pendidikan Malaysia.
Abidin, N. Z., & Adam, M. B. (2013).
Prediction of vertical jump height from anthropometric factors in male and
female martial arts athletes. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS,
20(1), 39.
Harris RA. A hand notation system designed to
record strike type and strike frequencies in Muay Thai (Thai boxing).
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff. Unpublished Thesis: 2005.
internet
Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding
Men's Class E Final VIE vs MAS 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved November
16, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGK1CSVk0qs&list=PLqAmVfhsW7xNxMAyka2XKKbmUHvAPLqv2&index=7
Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding
Men’s Class E Semi-Final on Day 8 of 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved
November 16, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L62CI3MJ-8A
Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men’s
Class E-F Quarter Finals (Day 7) | 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved
November 16, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVRSn_Vq68
APPENDICES
Mean and Standard Deviation for Quarterfinal THA
(Loser) vs SIN (Winner):
Statistics
|
|||
|
Loser
|
Winner
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
83
|
76
|
Missing
|
0
|
7
|
|
Mean
|
1.78
|
1.91
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.120
|
.099
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
1.094
|
.867
|
Loser
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
47
|
56.6
|
56.6
|
56.6
|
Kick
|
20
|
24.1
|
24.1
|
80.7
|
|
Topple
|
3
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
84.3
|
|
Sweep
|
13
|
15.7
|
15.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
83
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Winer
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
25
|
30.1
|
32.9
|
32.9
|
Kick
|
40
|
48.2
|
52.6
|
85.5
|
|
Topple
|
4
|
4.8
|
5.3
|
90.8
|
|
Sweep
|
7
|
8.4
|
9.2
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
76
|
91.6
|
100.0
|
|
|
Missing
|
System
|
7
|
8.4
|
|
|
Total
|
83
|
100.0
|
|
|
Mean and Standard Deviation for Quarterfinal MAS
(Winner) vs INA (Loser):
Statistics
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
31
|
28
|
Missing
|
0
|
3
|
|
Mean
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.129
|
.123
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.717
|
.651
|
Winner
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
2
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
Kick
|
23
|
74.2
|
74.2
|
80.6
|
|
Topple
|
3
|
9.7
|
9.7
|
90.3
|
|
Sweep
|
3
|
9.7
|
9.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
31
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Loser
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
3
|
9.7
|
10.7
|
10.7
|
Kick
|
19
|
61.3
|
67.9
|
78.6
|
|
Topple
|
5
|
16.1
|
17.9
|
96.4
|
|
Sweep
|
1
|
3.2
|
3.6
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
28
|
90.3
|
100.0
|
|
|
Missing
|
System
|
3
|
9.7
|
|
|
Total
|
31
|
100.0
|
|
|
Mean
and Standard Deviation for Semifinal SIN (Loser) vs MAS (Winner)
:
Statistics
|
|||
|
Loser
|
Winner
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
29
|
60
|
Missing
|
31
|
0
|
|
Mean
|
2.34
|
2.13
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.174
|
.122
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.936
|
.947
|
Loser
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
3
|
5.0
|
10.3
|
10.3
|
Kick
|
19
|
31.7
|
65.5
|
75.9
|
|
Topple
|
1
|
1.7
|
3.4
|
79.3
|
|
Sweep
|
6
|
10.0
|
20.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
29
|
48.3
|
100.0
|
|
|
Missing
|
System
|
31
|
51.7
|
|
|
Total
|
60
|
100.0
|
|
|
Winner
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
13
|
21.7
|
21.7
|
21.7
|
Kick
|
36
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
81.7
|
|
Topple
|
1
|
1.7
|
1.7
|
83.3
|
|
Sweep
|
10
|
16.7
|
16.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
60
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Mean and Standard Deviation for Final MAS (Winner) vs
VIE (Loser)
Statistics
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
26
|
36
|
Missing
|
10
|
0
|
|
Mean
|
2.65
|
1.94
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.166
|
.112
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.846
|
.674
|
Winner
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
2
|
5.6
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
Kick
|
9
|
25.0
|
34.6
|
42.3
|
|
Topple
|
11
|
30.6
|
42.3
|
84.6
|
|
Sweep
|
4
|
11.1
|
15.4
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
26
|
72.2
|
100.0
|
|
|
Missing
|
System
|
10
|
27.8
|
|
|
Total
|
36
|
100.0
|
|
|
Loser
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
8
|
22.2
|
22.2
|
22.2
|
Kick
|
23
|
63.9
|
63.9
|
86.1
|
|
Topple
|
4
|
11.1
|
11.1
|
97.2
|
|
Sweep
|
1
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
36
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|