ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND
LOSERS IN MALE SILAT OLAHRAGA CLASS E SEA GAMES 2015
Abstract
The
Purpose of this study was to describe and investigate the activity profile
between winners and losers in male Silat Olahraga SEA Games 2015. The category
of the silat olahraga that has been notated was from Men’s Class E and four
matches have been selected, which there were Men’s Class E Quarter Final, two
matches from Men’s Class E Semi Final and Men’s Class E Final. There were a lot
of skills and techniques that were used during the Silat Olahraga Sea Games
2015. As example, the common techniques that been used in this competition were
punch, kick, sweep, topple, block, catch, dodge and many more. All these motion
categories have been chose as it were used in order to analyze the performance
of the winner and losers in Men’s Class E Silat Olahraga. The data was collected and been analyzed by using IBM Statistic SPSS 20.The notational
analysis was used to record all the selected outcomes to compliment this study
such as hit target, hit elsewhere and miss opponent indicators.
Introduction
‘Silat’
is a term used to describe a form of martial art practiced throughout the Malay
Archipelago. Silat is known as one of the martial arts that originated from
Indonesia. It is called as a tradition practiced in southern Thailand,
Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Philippines and Malaysia. 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). 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). Pencak
Silat brings to light very different subjectivities, inter-subjectivities, and
ways of objectifying the body in regional- and national-level practice (Wilson,
2009). Silat is one of the sports that included in the Southeast Asian Games
and other region-wide competitions. Silat is a form of several factors such as
education from a tradition, self-defense, spiritual and ritual components and
now it has established as a sport around the world (Wilson, 2003). In the
modern era, Silat also has evolved on the African continent, Western countries
and other big countries. In the other word, Silat has been famous entire of the
world. It is widely implemented in the form of art and sport competitions such
as Southeast Asian Games and other region-wide competition.
Persekutuan
Pencak Silat Antarabangsa (PERSILAT) is the international organization of
Pencak Silat in the world. It founded in Jakarta on March 1980. While in
Malaysia, PESAKA is the National Silat Federation and was founded by Silat Seni
Gayong Malaysia, Silat Cekak Malaysia, Silat Lincah Malaysia and Seni Gayung
Fatani Malaysia. Other organisations of Silat are Persekutuan Silat Brunei
Darussalam (PERSIB) and Persekutuan Silat Singapura (PERSISI). On 23rd
to 24th September 1979, during the 14th SEA Games,
Indonesian Pencak Silat Federation (IPSI) has presented Silat Olahraga. The
first competition of Silat Olahraga has been held in Singapore at 1980. Silat
Olahraga is a popular combat sport, but less is known about the sports in terms
of sport science of physiological demands and characteristics (Shapie, 2011). In
order to develop the rules of Silat Olahraga event, pencak Silat procedures has
made an improvisation that are based on the karate, kempo and jujitsu moves for
perfection. In 1982, Pencak Silat has presented two new different categories
which are Silat Seni and Silat Olahraga (Aziz, Tan, and Teh, 2002). Afterward,
the term of the categories has changed into Tunggal, Ganda, Regu and Tanding
(Olahraga Pencak Silat/Silat Olahraga). Southeast Asean Games (SEA Games)
is a sport event among 11 countries of Southeast Asia included Brunei,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Timor-Leste and Vietnam (Seneviratne, 1993). This event will be held every two
year. There are three rounds in total of fighting. Two minutes for every round,
with 1 minute rest between each round. For the basic commands, the ‘wasit’
which is represent as referee will state the command 'Sedia', which is meaning 'ready'.
Next, when he shout 'Mulai', it is meaning 'begin'. Immediately the 'gong' will
be struck. When the wasit wants to stop the fight, he will shout 'Berhenti',
meaning 'stop'.
Sport
analysis technology is important because it will provide coach’s feedback
usually with video based evidence since people only can remember about 30% of
what they see (Stice, 2009). Knowing the nature of the sport is important
because formal game can be categorise into three which are net and wall games,
invasion games, and striking and fielding games.
Performance
indicator is a type of performance measurement. Performance measurement is the
process of collecting, analysing and reporting information regarding the
performance of an individual, group, organization, system or component.
Material and Methods
Match Analysis
The video has
been used to analyze the data collected in four matches from Men’s Class E
Quarter Final, Men’s Class E Semi Finals and Men’s Class E Final SEA Games 2015.
The video consumed from the YouTube Channel. Both winner and loser participants
in this Men’s Class E matches will be classified and notated. The outcomes data
used were hit target, hit elsewhere and miss opponent.
Motion Categories
Silat
exponent’s motions were coded into 14 different types of categories and were
defined as follows:
1.
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 (Anuar, 1992).
2.
Kick:
·
The
kick ‘tendang / terajang’ 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).
3.
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).
4.
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).
5.
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).
6.
Sweep:
·
Swiping
‘sapuan’ involves attacking an opponent’s leg which is 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).
7.
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).
8.
Self-Release:
·
Self-release
‘lepas tangkapan’ technique is a technique to unlock any clinch or catch from
an opponent (Anuar, 1993).
9.
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).
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. 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).
13. 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).
14. Others:
·
Both
silat exponents are either in posture position ‘sikap pasang’ or coming close
to each other using silat step pattern ‘pola langkah’. All the activities are
considered high intensity except for others which at that time both silat
exponents are in low intensity periods (Shapie et al., 2013).
Statistical Analysis
All
the notated data generated was exported into Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and
transferred into SPSS for more detailed analysis. Statistical analysis was
conducted using IBM Statistic Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS)
version 20. A descriptive analysis was used to determine the different of
performance between winners and losers in Silat matches.
Result
All
the matches from Men’s quarter Finals, Semi Final and Final Class E SEA Games
2015 have been notated and the results have been put in the table. Matches 1 to
4 represent the results of total frequencies of action and outcomes recorded
when analyzed the videos.
Match 1: Total frequency of outcomes recorded
during Men’s Class E Quarter Final between teams Singapore (Winner) and
Thailand (Loser).
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
|
Match 2: Total frequency of outcomes recorded
during Men’s Class E Quarter Final between teams Malaysia (Winner) and
Indonesia (Loser).
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
T
|
L
|
W
|
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
|
Match 3: Total frequency of outcomes recorded
during Men’s Class E Semi Final between teams Malaysia (Winner) and Singapore
(Loser).
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
|
|
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
8
|
Block and Kick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block and Punch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block and sweep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kick
|
8
|
5
|
13
|
8
|
|
8
|
3
|
16
|
19
|
|
40
|
Fake Kick
|
|
|
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
`1
|
1
|
|
4
|
Punch
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
|
4
|
4
|
|
13
|
Fake Punch
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
2
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
3
|
Self-Release
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topple
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Sweep
|
2
|
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
|
3
|
3
|
|
10
|
Catch
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
5
|
Dodge
|
|
|
|
11
|
1
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
18
|
Total
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
32
|
18
|
116
|
Match 4: Total frequency of outcomes recorded
during Men’s Class E Final between teams Malaysia (Winner) and Vietnam (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
|
Discussion
The
data above were collected by analyzed the matches from SEA Games 2015 which
included the videos from Men’s Class E Quarter Finals, Semi Final and Final.
From
the data collected above, for the match 1 Between Thailand and Singapore, it
shown that Singapore Silat athlete is mostly collects the points through the
punch and sweep. By collecting the higher points in these techniques, it can
give advantage to the athlete to winning the game. The statistic and frequency
table also has been stated in table 1, 2 and 3 by the mean shown that Thailand
Silat athlete was 1.91, slightly higher than Singapore Silat athlete. However,
athlete from Singapore still won the game. This is due to less accuracy in
kicking the hit target produced by Thailand athlete. The reliability also has
been taken to get the Cronbach’s Alpha value. The optimum Cronbach’s Alpha value
that reaches the reliability of study is ³ 0.8. Therefore, in this study, the
result from table 4 and 5 showed a positive and reliable value that higher than
0.8.
In
the match 2, the game was between Malaysia and Indonesia. The table has shown
that Malaysian Silat athlete frequently gained the points from the kick. Besides,
Malaysian Silat athlete also gained point from topple and sweep which this
techniques provided higher point. The statistic has shown the higher overall
mean of Malaysian athlete than to Indonesian athlete. As it has been stated
before, which the Malaysian athlete gained point from kick, topple and sweep,
as these affect the mean, 2.23 for Malaysia team and 2.14 for Indonesia team.
Table 6, 7 and 8 provided the statistic of this game. For this match, the
reliability showed the result 1 and 0.98, in table 9 and 10, which it means the
value were reliable.
In
third match, between Malaysia and Singapore for Men’s Class E Semi Final, shows
that Malaysian Silat athlete was likely to gain points in kicking, topple and
sweep. The frequencies of the outcome hit target for kick, topple and sweep of Malaysian
Silat athlete were higher than Singapore Silat athlete. Based on statistic, it
shown that the mean of the frequencies also higher than his opponent from
Singapore. In this study, the result from table 14 and 15 also showed a
reliable Cronbach’s Alpha value that remain optimum, which were 0.94 and 0.99.
For
the final match between Malaysia and Vietnam, Malaysian Silat athlete was most
likely to score point from topple. The frequency outcomes for the techniques
also show a little better from Malaysian Silat athlete even though this final
game was given great opposition from Vietnam Silat athlete. The statistic also
has shown the mean of Malaysian Silat athlete higher than Vietnam Silat athlete.
For this final match, the reliability also showed a positive value, which was
0.93 for both winner and loser.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, this study has highlights a great differences between winners and
loser on their activity profile for the SEA Games 2015. There a lot of winning
factors that influenced the winners to gain more points during the games. From
the observation, athlete who is more in gaining the hit target is more likely
has the chance to win the game. This is because the accuracy on hitting the
target and also have the quality in performing the techniques in Silat like
kick, topple and many more is the important element to ensure the athlete to
win the game. Besides, from the video that has been analyzed, all the athletes
show a good sportsmanship. This proved that correct and effective technical and
tactical are the main factor to win the match.
Recommendation
It
is recommended that both attacking and defensive skills should be balanced
during their training programs. Both of these skills require diligence and
focus to master the skills. Attacking skills must be focus on hitting the
target to get points, but at the same time they have to increase their
defensive play such as blocking in order to avoid the opponents gain their
points. The skills development for both attacking and defending need to be precise
at time to time based on training programs that has been structured by the
coaches. Coaches play the important role by leveling up their athletes to
master the skills. Based on the result, also the main factor to win the game is
by punching and kicking the hit target, because these skills give opportunity
to hit their opponent as much as they can to get more point from punch and
kick.
Meanwhile,
the participant should reduce the punch and kick the hit elsewhere because this
will give disadvantage and no point will be given. For the sweep skill, in
order to decrease the missed target, the fighter needs to focus, while in good
position and try to estimate opponent’s next movement. Topple that hit the
target is so important because it will gives extra points. So, the
recommendation here is the fighter must keep improving their technical and
tactical and maintaining the fitness and also sharpen the attacking and
defending aspect in order to win the match.
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.
Kartomi, M. (2011). Traditional and modern forms of pencak
silat in indonesia: The suku mamak in riau. Musicology Australia, 33(1),
47-68. doi: 10.1080/08145857.2011.580716
Latiff, Z. A. (2012b). Revisiting pencak silat: The malay
martial arts in theatre practice and actor training. Asian Theatre
Journal, 29(2), 379-401.
Parnabas, V., Shapie, M. N. M., & Parnabas, J. (2015).
Level of Drugs Usage and Sport Performance in Malay Silat. Ido Movement for Culture. Journal
of Martial Arts Anthropology, 15(2),
45-51.
Shamsuddin, S. (2005). The malay art of self-defense:
Silat seni gayong: North Atlantic Books.
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. (2011). Influence of age and
maturation on fitness development, trainability and competitive performance in
youth silat. Cardiff Metropolitan University.
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.
Sport Singapore. (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men's Class E
Semi-Final Singapore vs Malaysia; 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015. Retrieved at
November 16, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L62CI3MJ-8A
Sport Singapore. (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men's Class E
Final Malaysia vs Vietnam; 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015. Retrieved at November
16, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGK1CSVk0qs
Stice, J. (2009). A Refutation of the Percentages
Often Associated with Edgar Dale's" Cone of Learning". Paper
presented at the American Society for Engineering Education.
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.
Wilson, I. D. (2003). The politics of inner power: The practice of pencak silat in west java. Murdoch University.
Wilson, I. D. (2003). The politics of inner power: The practice of pencak silat in west java. Murdoch University.
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
Appendices
Statistics of Winner and
Loser in Quarterfinal THA vs SIN
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
83
|
76
|
Missing
|
0
|
7
|
|
Mean
|
1.78
|
1.91
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.120
|
.099
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
1.094
|
.867
|
Table 1
Winner of Quarterfinal
THA vs SIN
|
|||||
|
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
|
|
Table 2
Loser of Quarterfinal
THA vs SIN
|
|||||
|
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 3
Reliability Statistics
of Winner in Quarterfinal THA vs SIN
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.992
|
.992
|
2
|
Table 4
Reliability Statistics
of Loser in Quarterfinal THA vs SIN
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.991
|
.991
|
2
|
Table 5
Statistics of Winner and
Loser in Quarterfinal MAS vs INA
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
31
|
28
|
Missing
|
0
|
3
|
|
Mean
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.129
|
.123
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.717
|
.651
|
Table 6
Winner of Quarterfinal
MAS vs INA
|
|||||
|
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
|
|
Table 7
Loser of Quarterfinal
MAS vs INA
|
|||||
|
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 8
Reliability Statistics
of Winner in Quarterfinal MAS vs INA
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
1.000
|
1.000
|
2
|
Table 9
Reliability Statistics
of Loser in Quarterfinal MAS vs INA
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.980
|
.980
|
2
|
Table 10
Statistics of Winner and
Loser in Semifinal SIN vs MAS
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
31
|
35
|
Missing
|
4
|
0
|
|
Mean
|
2.39
|
1.94
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.165
|
.147
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.919
|
.873
|
Table 11
Winner of Semifinal SIN
vs MAS
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
3
|
8.6
|
9.7
|
9.7
|
Kick
|
19
|
54.3
|
61.3
|
71.0
|
|
Topple
|
3
|
8.6
|
9.7
|
80.6
|
|
Sweep
|
6
|
17.1
|
19.4
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
31
|
88.6
|
100.0
|
|
|
Missing
|
System
|
4
|
11.4
|
|
|
Total
|
35
|
100.0
|
|
|
Table 12
Loser of Semifinal SIN
vs MAS
|
|||||
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Valid
|
Punch
|
10
|
28.6
|
28.6
|
28.6
|
Kick
|
21
|
60.0
|
60.0
|
88.6
|
|
Sweep
|
4
|
11.4
|
11.4
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
35
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Table 13
Reliability Statistics
of Winner in Semifinal SIN vs MAS
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.937
|
.940
|
2
|
Table 14
Reliability Statistics
of Loser in Semifinal SIN VS MAS
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.991
|
.991
|
2
|
Table 15
Statistics of Winner and
Loser in Final MAS vs VIE
|
|||
|
Winner
|
Loser
|
|
N
|
Valid
|
26
|
36
|
Missing
|
10
|
0
|
|
Mean
|
2.65
|
1.94
|
|
Std. Error of Mean
|
.166
|
.112
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.846
|
.674
|
Table 16
Winner of Final MAS vs
VIE
|
|||||
|
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
|
|
|
Table 17
Loser of Final MAS vs
VIE
|
|||||
|
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
|
|
Table 18
Reliability Statistics
of Winner in Final MAS vs VIE
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.928
|
.929
|
2
|
Table 19
Reliability Statistics
of Loser in Final MAS vs VIE
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based
on Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.929
|
.943
|
2
|
Table 20
No comments:
Post a Comment