ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS IN PENCAK SILAT TADING MALE CATEGORY CLASS E SILAT OLAHRAGA SEA GAMES 2015
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study
was investigated between winning and losing in silat 28th 2015 sea games
Singapore during competitive matches like quarterfinal, semi-final and final in
male category class E and profile of elite silat exponent of a pencak silat.
This study had been analysing between four different matched with 4 different
countries. Elite silat exponents’ physiological attributes were assessed and
characterised by their motion categories like punch, kick, block, catch,
topple, sweep, dodge, self-release, block and punch, block and kick, block and
sweep, fake punch, fake kick and others. Generally, sport of pencak silat is
same likes the others of martial art which used body posture and technique in
performance but only different in term of their motion categories.
INTRODUCTION
Silat can be described a form of
martial art practiced throughout the Malay Archipelago. Silat is one of the
martial arts that originated from Indonesia. According to (Shapie
& Elias, 2016) Olahraga means the ability for silat
exponents to perform their silat techniques in combat with striking and
defensive actions such as punching, kicking, throwing, catching, parrying
blocking and the other skill related to the silat techniques. It is called as a
tradition practiced in southern Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei,
Philippines and Malaysia. Silat is the Malay art of combat fighting art. Silat
can be divided into two categories or parts which are Silat Martial Arts and
Sports (Aziz, Tan, and Teh 2002). Sport martial arts are well adjusted to the
Philippines. For the real attack in silat, had an opponent with superior
strength can be solved because in Silat Sports has a several of techniques used
in defeating opponent with a stronger built. In addition, the minimum body movements
needed to maintain the strength of fighters to respond more effectively and
better attacks. The combination of the words Pencak and Silat into a compound
word was made for the first time when an organization of the unity of Pencak
schools and Silat schools in Indonesia was founded in Surakarta in 1948, which
called Ikatan Pencak Silat Indonesia (The Indonesian Pencak Silat Association),
abbreviated as IPSI (Kartomi, 2011). Silat is a fighting and survival art
combination. According to Wilson (2003).
The other source that defines
silat is from the word of kilat (lightning) (Shamsuddin,
2005). Thus, Pencak Silat brings to light very different
subjectivities, inter-subjectivities, and ways of objectifying the body in
regional- and national-level practice (Wilson, 2009). In the art of Silat
Sports, pesilat will learn special attacks, tactic and defensive techniques. In
fact, in self-defence, what matters is the person's response to the accuracy of
one's opponent using body movements to a minimum level. Other than that,
martial arts are the combat system of traditions and practices, which are made
for a variety of reasons like self-defense, spiritual development, competition,
physical health and fitness, mental and physical (Shapie,
Zenal, Parnabas, & Abdullah, 2016). To obtain timely and effective
responses to the attacks of the opponent, pesilat are taught specific
techniques that will allow them to develop his full potential. For the beginner
of pesilat, they do not use any weapons, martial arts practice. Then, they are
taught to use special weapons such as sticks, knives, and other weapons because
easy them to learn and know how to use when using the real weapons (Shapie,
2011)
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Match analysis
A publicly available video
recording for four silat matched with different country in 28th SEA
Games 2015 in Singapore were taken from Singapore Sports Council (YouTube) and
were used for the analysis. This four silat match was a men's class E (65kg to
70kg). Subsequent player motion analysis was carried out with repeated the
video sequences of the silat match. The video could be paused and played back
frame-by frame for ease of use. There were 14 types of indicators used to
analyse the matches. The frequency, mean, and standard deviation of the
performance were calculated subsequently. The method used for the analysis was
video analysis and hand notational.
MOTION
CATEGORIES
According to Shapie, Oliver, J.,
O’Donoghue, P., and Tong, R. (2013) Silat exponent’s motions were coded into 14
different types of categories and were defined as follows:
Punch:
The punch ‘tumbuk’ attack is done
by a hand with a 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 the exponent body’s (Latiff, 2012)
Kick:
The kick ‘tendang’ is an attacking
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:
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 attack (Anuar, 1992).
Catch:
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 exist to
protect the silat exponent’s (Anuar, 1992).
Topple:
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 bag or from the side, shove, hit, kick,
strike or punch to make the opponent lose his balance. Every fall is considered
valid as long as the silat exponent topples his opponent down without wrestling
or he is able to overpower the opponent whom he has brought down (Anuar, 1992).
Sweep:
Swiping ‘sapuan’ involves
attacking an opponent’s leg which are on the ground to unstabilise him and
bring 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 front leg, while back sweep
‘sapuan belakang’ is carried out by swinging the leg backward to hit the back
leg (Anuar, 1992).
Evade/Dodge:
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:
Self-release ‘lepas tangkapan’
technique is a technique to unlock any clinch or catch from an opponent (Anuar,
1993).
Block
and Punch:
The blocking technique is used to block any
hand or leg attack from the opponent and followed by counter attack using the
hand to punch the opponent (Shapie, Oliver, O’Donoghue, & Tong, 2013).
Block
and Kick:
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 et al., 2013)
Block
and Sweep:
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:
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:
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)
RELIABILITY OF OBSERVATION
The author analysed 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 analyse 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
referred.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The observation generated data will
be frequency counted, a method of recording in observational research in which
the researcher records each occurrence clearly defined behaviour within a
certain time frame. All the raw data generated into SPSS for more detailed
analysis (Shapie, et al. 2013). Statistical analysis was conducted using
Statistical Package for Social Scientists, version 20.
RESULTS
The tables below show the actions
performed during the competitions and their outcomesin the match, the frequency
profile of actions for all 4 matches of all 8 contestants from class E. these
notational data will consist mean and standard deviation for all matches.
Table 1. Frequency of actions and
outcomes recorded during a silat match Quarterfinal THA (L) vs SIN (W)
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
|
||||||
*Noted: W- Winner L – Loser
T- Total
Opponent
|
Sweep
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Total
|
Thailand (Loser)
|
2
|
40
|
25
|
4
|
76
|
Singapore (Winner)
|
11
|
20
|
47
|
3
|
80
|
Table 1. Frequency of actions and
outcomes recorded during a silat match Quarterfinal MAS (W) vs INA (L)
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
|
||||||
*Noted: W- Winner L – Loser
T- Total
Opponent
|
Sweep
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Total
|
Malaysia (Winner)
|
1
|
19
|
3
|
7
|
30
|
Indonesia (Loser)
|
3
|
23
|
2
|
3
|
31
|
Table 1. Frequency of actions and
outcomes recorded during a silat match Semi-final SIN (L) vs MAS (W)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
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
|
||||||
*Noted: W- Winner L – Loser
T- Total
Opponent
|
Sweep
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Total
|
Malaysia (W)
|
7
|
36
|
13
|
1
|
57
|
Singapore (L)
|
6
|
19
|
3
|
1
|
29
|
Table 1. Frequency of actions and
outcomes recorded during a silat match Final MAS (W) vs VIE (L)
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
|
||||||
*Noted: W- Winner L –
Loser T- Total
Opponent
|
Sweep
|
Kick
|
Punch
|
Topple
|
Total
|
Vietnam (Loser)
|
1
|
23
|
8
|
0
|
32
|
Malaysia (Winner)
|
4
|
9
|
2
|
11
|
26
|
DISCUSSION
The data above were all
collected by analysing the matches from the 28th SEA Games 2015, male class E
from quarter to final. Based on the results above, the overall dominant action
in team Malaysia is kick whereas the less dominant action is toppled.
The first match analysed
was men class E quater-final between Thailand and Singapore which the game won
by Singapore. In this game, it shows that the Thailand player is more
aggressive than his opponent. However, his opponent does not seem to attack
much and waits for counter-attack to perform the sweep action. We can also see
that the Thailand player is not physically strong enough to counter or release
from his opponents sweep.
In the second match was men
class E quater-final between Malaysia vs Indonesia which this match won by
Malaysia. Indonesia athlete was very confident with his actions and his
tactical very good seemed that his timing was on point to be able to kick his
opponent more. Unfortunately, he lost the match by getting missed a lot during toppled.
The third match was men
class E semi-final between Singapore vs Malaysia which this math won by
Malaysia. Based on the frequency of actions table, the Singapore pesilat is
very least in attacking. He often tries to kick his opponent but hits elsewhere
or misses his opponents. Furthermore, it is suspected that his opponent is
familiar with the Singapore pesilat’s tactic of kicking, therefore he uses the
opportunity to have won the match by timing the right time to kick the Singapore
pesilat’s.
The fourth and last match
was between Vietnam vs Malaysia which in this match Malaysia won the game. Vietnam
pesilat are more aggressive on attacking, he attacks by kicking and punch his
opponent. He often tries to punch and kick his opponent but hits elsewhere or
misses his opponent, and this opportunity used by Malaysia pesilat to toppled
down their opponent.
CONCLUSION
Post-event analysis of hand notation indicates that the prototype system
developed for this study can be used to record and evaluate a silat match. The
current study has provided a great understanding of information for the silat
by looking at the activity involved in competition. Both of the exponents
performed more high intensity actions than low intensity actions (i.e. the
frequency count). However it is important to understand that high intensity
actions will contribute more in the score points (i.e. outcome that count)
rather than low intensity actions. There is also a range of frequency in
attacking and defensive activities used by both of the exponents. The winner
(blue exponent) used more kicks than the loser which may reflect greater skill
or fitness or both. However, it is still doubtful that these are the only
factors that influence the match. It is recommended that future studies
determine the full range of activities performed with movement classifications
and the variation of strikes that contribute to losing and winning 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 an 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
AW. Teknik dalam seni silat melayu [In Malay] (Technique in Silat Melayu).
Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka; 1992.
Anuar,
A. W. (1993). Silat Olahraga (2nd edn.). The art, technique and regulations.
Aziz, A. R., Tan, B., & Teh, K. C. (2002).
Physiological responses during matches and profile of elite pencak silat
exponents. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 1, 147-155.
Latiff, Z. A. (2012). Revisiting pencak silat: The
malay martial arts in theatre practice and actor training. Asian Theatre
Journal, 29(2), 379-401.
Shamsuddin, S. (2005). The malay art of self-defense: Silat seni
gayong: North Atlantic Books.
Shapie,
M. N. M. (2011). Influence of age and
maturation on fitness development, trainability and competitive performance in
youth silat. Cardiff Metropolitan University.
Shapie,
M. M., Oliver, J., O’Donoghue, P., & Tong, R. (2013). Activity profile
during action time in national silat competition. Journal of Combat Sports and
Martial Arts., 1(2), 81-86.
Shapie,
M. N. M., Oliver, J., O’Donoghue, P., & Tong, R. (2013). Activity profile
during action time in national silat competition. Journal of Combat Sports and
Martial Arts, 4(1), 75-79.
Shapie,
M. N. M., & Elias, M. S. (2016). Silat: The curriculum of seni silat
malaysia. Revista de Artes Marciales
Asiáticas, 11(2s), 122-125.
Shapie,
M. N. M., Zenal, Z., Parnabas, V., & Abdullah, N. M. (2016). The
correlation between leadership coaching style and satisfaction among university
silat olahraga athletes. Ido Movement for
Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 3(16), 34-39.
Wilson,
L. (2009). Jurus, jazz riffs and the constitution of a national martial art in
indonesia. Body & Society, 15(3), 93-119. doi: 10.1177/1357034X09339103
Wilson,
I. D. (2003). The politics of inner power: The practice of pencak silat in west
java. Murdoch University.
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
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of quarterfinal game between Thailand
(L) vs Singapore (W):
|
Statistics
|
|||
|
|
W
|
L
|
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
83
|
76
|
|
Missing
|
0
|
7
|
|
|
Mean
|
1.78
|
1.91
|
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.120
|
.099
|
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
1.094
|
.867
|
|
|
W
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
L
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of quarterfinal game between Malaysia
(W) vs Indonesia (L):
|
Statistics
|
|||
|
|
L
|
W
|
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
31
|
28
|
|
Missing
|
0
|
3
|
|
|
Mean
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.129
|
.123
|
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.717
|
.651
|
|
|
L
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
W
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of semi-final game between Malaysia (W)
vs Singapore (L):
Mean and Standard Deviation:
|
Statistics
|
|||
|
|
L
|
W
|
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
29
|
60
|
|
Missing
|
31
|
0
|
|
|
Mean
|
2.34
|
2.13
|
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.174
|
.122
|
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.936
|
.947
|
|
|
L
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
W
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of final game between Malaysia (W) vs
Vietnam (L):
Mean and Standard Deviation:
|
Statistics
|
|||
|
|
W
|
L
|
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
26
|
36
|
|
Missing
|
10
|
0
|
|
|
Mean
|
2.65
|
1.94
|
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.166
|
.112
|
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.846
|
.674
|
|
|
W
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
L
|
|||||
|
|
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
|
|
|
Comments
Post a Comment