A Qualitative Review Of Annual Progress In Powerlifting Disciplines And Total Score

José Alfredo Hernández Ugalde
{"title":"A Qualitative Review Of Annual Progress In Powerlifting Disciplines And Total Score","authors":"José Alfredo Hernández Ugalde","doi":"10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study drew on data mining from Powerlifting Championships recognized by the International Powerlifting Federation and compiled by the Openpowerlifting project. Analysis was made of the records of the best total score for each athlete by year from 2012 to 2021, evaluating the squat, bench press and deadlift disciplines. The annual progress (AP) of the athletes was then qualitatively codified using the difference between the results of consecutive years for each discipline and total. A positive difference was codified as 1 and a negative or equal result as 0, so obtaining 6 categories. AP was thus calculated for 32,539 men’s and 15,700 women’s samples from Classic powerlifting, and 14,181 men’s and 6,518 women’s samples from Equipped powerlifting. In order to evaluate these APs, decision tree analysis was generated using the CHAID growing method (Chi2 p<0.05), with AP as the dependent variable and Event, Age and Gender as factors. The most robust category was “Improvement of all disciplines and total” (IA), representing 46.1% of the global results. Age was the most relevant classification factor on the tree, with the youngest groups presenting the highest percentages of IA. Event was the next most significant factor, with Classic powerlifters showing higher percentages of IA than Equipped ones. Likewise, IA results within most weight classes were higher for Classic events than Equipped ones. The third important factor was Gender, with women attaining higher IAs than men, except for the 14–18-year-old group. Notably, the “No Improvements” category reflected a considerable percentage (11.7% of global results). The study suggests a sequence of annual outcomes in order of likelihood as follows: 1-Improvement of all disciplines and total, 2-Improvement of two disciplines and total, 3-No improvements, 4-Improvement of one discipline but not total, 5-Improvement of one discipline and total, and 6-Improvement of two disciplines but not total.","PeriodicalId":170948,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Strength and Conditioning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study drew on data mining from Powerlifting Championships recognized by the International Powerlifting Federation and compiled by the Openpowerlifting project. Analysis was made of the records of the best total score for each athlete by year from 2012 to 2021, evaluating the squat, bench press and deadlift disciplines. The annual progress (AP) of the athletes was then qualitatively codified using the difference between the results of consecutive years for each discipline and total. A positive difference was codified as 1 and a negative or equal result as 0, so obtaining 6 categories. AP was thus calculated for 32,539 men’s and 15,700 women’s samples from Classic powerlifting, and 14,181 men’s and 6,518 women’s samples from Equipped powerlifting. In order to evaluate these APs, decision tree analysis was generated using the CHAID growing method (Chi2 p<0.05), with AP as the dependent variable and Event, Age and Gender as factors. The most robust category was “Improvement of all disciplines and total” (IA), representing 46.1% of the global results. Age was the most relevant classification factor on the tree, with the youngest groups presenting the highest percentages of IA. Event was the next most significant factor, with Classic powerlifters showing higher percentages of IA than Equipped ones. Likewise, IA results within most weight classes were higher for Classic events than Equipped ones. The third important factor was Gender, with women attaining higher IAs than men, except for the 14–18-year-old group. Notably, the “No Improvements” category reflected a considerable percentage (11.7% of global results). The study suggests a sequence of annual outcomes in order of likelihood as follows: 1-Improvement of all disciplines and total, 2-Improvement of two disciplines and total, 3-No improvements, 4-Improvement of one discipline but not total, 5-Improvement of one discipline and total, and 6-Improvement of two disciplines but not total.
力量举项目和总分年度进展的定性回顾
这项研究利用了国际举重联合会认可的举重锦标赛的数据挖掘,并由Openpowerlifting项目编制。分析了2012年至2021年每位运动员的年度最佳总分记录,对深蹲、卧推和硬举项目进行了评估。运动员的年度进步(AP),然后使用连续几年的结果之间的差异,为每个学科和总数定性编纂。正差值记为1,负差值记为0,共6个类别。因此,计算了经典举重项目的32539名男子和15700名女子样本,装备举重项目的14181名男子和6518名女子样本的AP。为了评价这些AP,采用CHAID生长法生成决策树分析(ch2 p<0.05),以AP为因变量,Event、Age和Gender为影响因素。最强劲的类别是“所有学科和总体的改进”(IA),占全球结果的46.1%。年龄是树中最相关的分类因素,最年轻的群体表现出最高的IA百分比。事件是第二个最重要的因素,经典举重运动员的IA百分比高于装备举重运动员。同样,在大多数体重级别中,经典项目的IA结果高于装备项目。第三个重要因素是性别,除14 - 18岁年龄组外,妇女获得的国际评价指数高于男子。值得注意的是,“无改进”类别反映了相当大的比例(占全球结果的11.7%)。该研究提出了年度成果的可能性顺序:1-所有学科均有所改善,但总体有所改善;2-两个学科均有所改善,但总体有所改善;3-没有改善;4-一个学科均有所改善,但总体没有改善;5-一个学科均有所改善,但总体没有改善;6-两个学科均有所改善,但总体没有改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信