Background  retrieved  from:  h4p://mmafanmade.tumblr.com/post/28859424206/suplay-­‐adobe-­‐illustrator-­‐2012-­‐artwork-­‐by  

EXAMINING THE SUPLEX: A COMPARISON OF LOWER EXTREMITY FORCE CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN WRESTLERS AND WEIGHTLIFTERS.

Jeffrey Ashton, Joshua Himanen, & Henry T’o Dr. Derek Kivi (Faculty Supervisor)

School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University

In wrestling, the suplex is a complex and physically demanding move that, when performed correctly, can provide the athlete five points and ends the match (International Olympic Committee, 2013). It is a takedown maneuver that involves a throw of great power, amplitude and force. A move of such influence during a wrestling match is an important skill to master, and wrestlers practice the suplex extensively. It is important for wrestlers to know techniques to improve their skills in order to gain advantages over their opponents. The most common type of suplex, “belly-to-back”, is performed by the wrestler locking his/her arms around the midsection of his/her opponent facing his/her back, lifts the opponent off of the mat and controls him/her so that his/her feet are lifted directly above the wrestler’s head. The wrestler continues this motion until the opponent has landed on the ground (iSport, 2013). While the suplex is a full-body motion, the lower extremity plays a pivotal role in executing the move. A comparable movement to performing the suplex would be the power clean. The power clean is a competitive weightlifting technique that is performed in competition and can be used by wrestlers to develop specific lower extremity strength and power (Storey & Smith, 2012). There is a lack of information on the suplex in current literature, and more specifically, on the ground reaction forces that are produced during the skill. Similarly, there has been no research comparing the ground reaction forces produced during the suplex and the power clean. Coaching manuals can only provide a limited amount of information regarding technique and training, and this study will attempt to supply a resource for wrestlers to improve their training and suplex performance. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of overall peak force, average force, force-time profile and rate of force development between varsity wrestlers and experienced weightlifters while performing the suplex and power clean, respectively, and to determine the effectiveness of using weightlifting as a training technique to improve the performance of the suplex.

Ten male participants (n=10) were recruited for this study: five competitive varsity wrestlers and five experienced weightlifters. Data was collected using the Advanced Mechanical Technology Inc. (AMTI) Force Platform at Lakehead University in room SB 1028 of the C.J. Sanders Fieldhouse. Participants completed an individual warm-up as well and three warm-up trials of their respective skills. The varsity wrestlers were asked to perform three belly-to-back suplex trials on a teammate in same weight class. Weightlifters performed three power clean repetitions lifting 90% of their body weight. Using the AMTI force platforms, ground reaction forces (GRF) were measured in the X, Y, and Z directions. With these data, vertical and anterior/posterior GRF were analyzed for each action and were also used to determine impulse, rate of force development (RFD), peak force, and average force. Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS statistics software. Peak force was determined through examining the data output from the AMTI force platforms. Average force was calculated through determining the mean of all vertical forces throughout the movements during the trials. The force-time profile is simply a graph of the forces generated over time (in seconds) of the movement. RFD was determined through dividing peak force by the duration from the start of the movement to peak force. For further analysis, video was recorded to determine the degree of hip and knee flexion and extension during peak force. One video camera was placed perpendicular to the plane of movement and was used to record each trial. The videos were analyzed using Dartfish software to quantify the various key body positions and joint angles for each of the two skills being analyzed.

InternaGonal   Olympic   Commi4ee,   (2013).  Wrestling   Freestyle:   Equipment   and   History.   Retrieved  from    h4p://www.olympic.org/wrestling-­‐freestyle-­‐equipment-­‐and-­‐history?tab=history    Sport,  (2013).  How  to  Suplex.  Retrieved  from  h4p://wrestling.isport.com/wrestling-­‐guides/how-­‐to-­‐suplex    Storey,  A.,  &  Smith,  H.  (2012).  Unique  Aspects  of  CompeGGve  WeightliYing:  Performance,  Training,  and  Physiology.  Sports  Medicine,  42(9),  769-­‐790.  

Peak GRFz: Determined through the maximum amount of vertical force (Fz) during the positive acceleration phase of the movement, peak GRFz is observed in Figure 3 and Figure 4. These values represent the mean peak GRFz between the three trials performed by each subject.

0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

Subject  5  0.36   0.73   1.1   1.47   1.84   2.21   2.58   2.95   3.32   3.69   4.06   4.43   4.8  

Force  (N)  

Power  Clean  –  Subject  5,  Trial2,  PlaDorm  2  

2  

1  

Figure  1.  Power  Clean  –  Subject  5,  Trial  2,  PlaDorm  2.  This  figure  illustrates  the  typical  GRFz,  force-­‐Qme  profile  of  a  power  clean.      

0  

100  

200  

300  

400  

500  

600  

700  

800  

900  

Subject  10  

0.19   0.39   0.59   0.79   0.99   1.19   1.39   1.59   1.79  

Force  (N)  

Suplex  -­‐  Subject  10,  Trial  1,  PlaDorm  2  

1  

2  

Figure   2.   Suplex   –   Subject   10,   Trial   1,   PlaDorm   2.   This   figure  illustrates  the  typical  GRFz,  force-­‐Qme  profile  of  a  suplex.      

Samples of vertical ground reaction force (GRFz) data collected is represented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. These force-time profiles illustrate the typical GRFz data for both wrestlers and weightlifters in this study. Each image has labels on it’s graph to show movement initiation (1) and peak GRFz (2). The duration between the moments of 1 and 2 represent the RFD of each skill. The area between points 1 and 3 represent impulse (force * time).

Subject  1   Subject  2   Subject  3   Subject  4   Subject  5  Series1   2452.917667   2377.027667   2778.569   2828.317667   2606.581667  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

1800  

2000  

2200  

2400  

2600  

2800  

3000  

Force  (N)  

Power  Clean  -­‐  Peak  GRFz  

Figure   3.   Power   Clean   –   Peak   GRFz.   This   figure   illustrates   the  mean  peak  GRFz  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

Subject  6   Subject  7   Subject  8   Subject  9   Subject  10  Series1   1441.757333   1461.656667   1749.724   1663.256333   1649.042667  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

1800  

2000  

2200  

2400  

2600  

2800  

3000  

Force  (N)  

Suplex  -­‐  Peak  GRFz  

Figure   4.   Suplex–   Peak   GRFz.   This   figure   illustrates   the   mean  peak  GRFz  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

Average Force: Calculated through determining the mean of all vertical forces throughout the movement, average force was used to further expand on the existing or non-existing relationships between the suplex and the power clean. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the average force of each subject throughout their three trials.

Due to the weight of the subjects and the relative mass being lifted, peak GRF varies for each participant. Overall, the average weight of the power clean subjects was 834.82N, whereas the average weight of the suplex subjects were 703.8N. This variation is a limitation and a threatens the validity of using peak GRFz data for the purposes of determining a relationship between the power clean and the suplex.

Figure  5.  Power  Clean  –  Average  Force.  This  figure  illustrates  the  average  force  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

Subject  1   Subject  2   Subject  3   Subject  4   Subject  5  Series1   1210.7056   1378.7672   1576.1179   1448.3554   1427.2371  

0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

Force  (N)  

Power  Clean  -­‐  Average  Force  

Subject  6   Subject  7   Subject  8   Subject  9   Subject  10  Series1   443.9923   537.1665   667.2201   742.9241   729.4057  

0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

Force  (N)  

Suplex  -­‐  Average  Force  

Figure   6.   Suplex   –   Average   Force.   This   figure   illustrates   the  average  force  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

By examining the data represented in Figure 5 and Figure 6, it is clear that the power clean requires more total GRFz than the suplex. With a mean average of 1408N among subjects, weightlifters exert 784N more than the suplex, with a mean average fore of 624N. This is understandable because the suplex does not solely rely on vertical forces. Rather, the movement is dynamic in a way that the wrestler is throwing his opponent posterior to himself, where X plane forces are exerted. Due to this limitation, X plane forces will be analyzed at a later date. Rate of Force Development (RFD): Determined through dividing peak GRFz by the time taken to achieve peak GRFz, RFD is used to measure the speed of muscle force development of both wrestlers and weightlifters. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the average RFD among the three trials each subject performed.

Subject  1   Subject  2   Subject  3   Subject  4   Subject  5  Series1   3988.484   3008.8957   6615.6404   2970.6127   2028.4682  

0  

1000  

2000  

3000  

4000  

5000  

6000  

7000  

RFD  (N/s)  

Power  Clean  -­‐  RFD  

Figure  7.  Power  Clean  -­‐  RFD.  This  figure   illustrates  the  average  RFD  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.      

Subject  6   Subject  7   Subject  8   Subject  9   Subject  10  Series1   3100.5534   4872.1889   6480.4593   2843.1732   5073.9774  

0  

1000  

2000  

3000  

4000  

5000  

6000  

7000  

RFD  (N/s)  

Suplex  -­‐  RFD  

Figure   8.   Suplex   -­‐   RFD.   This   figure   illustrates   the   average   RFD  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.      

Among the wrestlers, the average RFD was 4474.07N/s; a result 765N/s above the average RFD of the weightlifters. The wrestlers were also an average of 0.39s faster in reaching peak GRFz compared to the weightlifters. These results show that, though the weightlifters have significantly higher peak GRFz, the suplex is a faster and more explosive movement than the power clean. Impulse: As mentioned previously, impulse is the total force of the movement multiplied by the time (Tf-Ti). Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the impulse for each subject throughout their three trials.

3  3  

Impulse results show the relationship between the length of the movement and amount of force produced in that time. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that though there is a relationship between time and impulse in their own respective movements, the skills are not similar with regards to impulse. As mentioned previously, the suplex is a faster and more explosive movement compared to the power clean, which is a slower and more controlled skill. Video Analysis: Each subject was recorded on video for each trial. Angles were measured at maximum hip flexion/extension and knee flexion/extension as shown in Table 1.

    Suplex   Power  Clean  

Max.  Knee  Flexion   80.54   81.1  

Max.  Hip  Flexion   91.62   51.5  

Max.  Knee  Extension   116.84   149.3  

Max.  Hip  Extension   216.12   173  

Peak force is produced at maximum extension of the hip and knee for both wrestlers and Olympic Weightlifters. Therefore, at 116.8 degrees of knee extension and 216.12 degrees of hip extension, the belly-to-back suplex is most optimal for peak force. Where at 149.3 degrees of knee extension and 173.0 degrees of hip extension, the weightlifters would reach peak force. The average degree of max extension for the weightlifters are higher than the average wrestlers at max extension. Therefore, by having the wrestlers practice the power clean movement, it can benefit tem in generating greater force within that range of knee and hip extension.

Figure   10.   Suplex–   Impulse.   This   figure   illustrates   the   mean  impulse  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

Subject  6   Subject  7   Subject  8   Subject  9   S  10  Impulse   215548.606   101257.88   170772.137   352881.229   247222.354  Time  (s)   1.2   0.62   0.72   1.11   0.97  

0  

0.2  

0.4  

0.6  

0.8  

1  

1.2  

1.4  

0  

50000  

100000  

150000  

200000  

250000  

300000  

350000  

400000  

Impu

lse  (N*s)  

Suplex  -­‐  Impulse  

Subject  1   Subject  2   Subject  3   Subject  4   Subject  5  Impulse   250400.539   267190.753   248976.62   363418.049   326253.09  Time  (s)   1.51   1.48   1.21   1.63   1.49  

0  

0.2  

0.4  

0.6  

0.8  

1  

1.2  

1.4  

1.6  

1.8  

0  

50000  

100000  

150000  

200000  

250000  

300000  

350000  

400000  

Impu

lse  (N*s)  

Power  Clean  -­‐  Impulse  

Figure  9.  Power  Clean  –  Impulse.  This  figure  illustrates  the  mean  impulse  among  the  trials  for  each  subject.  

Table   1.  Maximum   Lower   Extremity   Angles.   This   table   shows  the  maximum  angles  determined  for  each  movement.