IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Human behaviours associated with dominance in elite amateur boxing bouts: A comparison of winners and losers under the Ten Point Must System

Author

Listed:
  • Emily C Dunn
  • Clare E Humberstone
  • K Fiona Iredale
  • David T Martin
  • Anthony J Blazevich

Abstract

Humans commonly ascertain physical dominance through non-lethal fighting by participating in combat sports. However, the behaviours that achieve fight dominance are not fully understood. Amateur boxing competition, which is judged using the subjective “Ten Point Must-System”, provides insight into fight dominance behaviours. Notational analysis was performed on 26 elite male competitors in a national boxing championship. Behavioural (guard-drop time; movement style [stepping/bouncing time]; clinch-time; interaction-time) and technical (total punches; punches landed [%Hit]; air punches [%Air]; defence) measures were recorded. Participants reported effort required (0–100%) and perceived effect of fatigue on their own performance (5-point Likert scale) following bouts. Differences between winners and losers, and changes across the duration of the bout were examined. Winners punched more accurately than losers (greater %Hit [33% vs. 23%] and lower %Air [17% vs. 27%]) but total punches, defence and interaction-time were similar. From rounds 1–2, clinch-time and guard drops increased whilst bouncing decreased. Perceived effect of fatigue increased throughout the bout while perceived effort increased only from rounds 2–3. %Hit and movement index together in regression analysis correctly classified 85% of bout outcomes, indicating that judges (subjectively) chose winning (dominant) boxers according to punch accuracy and style, rather than assertiveness (more punches thrown). Boxers appear to use tactical strategies throughout the bout to pace their effort and minimise fatigue (increased guard drops, reduced bouncing), but these did not influence perceived dominance or bout outcome. These results show that judges use several performance indicators not including the total number of successful punches thrown to assess fight dominance and superiority between fighters. These results provide valuable information as to how experienced fight observers subjectively rate superiority and dominance during one-on-one human fighting.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily C Dunn & Clare E Humberstone & K Fiona Iredale & David T Martin & Anthony J Blazevich, 2017. "Human behaviours associated with dominance in elite amateur boxing bouts: A comparison of winners and losers under the Ten Point Must System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188675
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188675
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188675&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188675?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Said El Ashker, 2011. "Technical and tactical aspects that differentiate winning and losing performances in boxing," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 356-364, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.