Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers
- 309 Downloads
While self-controlled practice has been shown to enhance motor learning with various populations and novel tasks, it remains unclear if such effects would be found with athletes completing familiar tasks. Study 1 used a single case-study design with a world-champion kickboxer. We investigated whether giving the athlete a choice over the order of punches would affect punching velocity and impact force. Separated by 1 min of rest, the athlete completed 2 rounds of 12 single, maximal effort punches (lead straight, rear straight, lead hook and rear hook) delivered to a punching integrator in a counterbalanced order over six testing days. In one round the punches were delivered in a predetermined order while in the second round the order was self-selected by the athlete. In the choice condition, the world champion punched with greater velocities (6–11 %) and impact forces (5–10 %). In Study 2, the same testing procedures were repeated with 13 amateur male kickboxers over 2 testing days. Similar to Study 1, the athletes punched with significantly greater velocities (6 %, p < 0.05) and normalised impact forces (2 %, p < 0.05) in the choice condition. These findings complement research on autonomy support in motor learning by demonstrating immediate advantages in force production and velocity with experienced athletes.
KeywordsImpact Force Elite Athlete Autonomy Support Choice Condition Motor Skill Learning
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was required for this study.
Conflict of interest
Israel Halperin declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dale Chapman declares that he has no conflict of interest. David Martin declares that he has no conflict of interest. Rebecca Lewthwaite declares that she has no conflict of interest. Gabriele Wulf declares that she has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3–33). New York: University Rochester Press.Google Scholar
- Foreman, K. B., Singer, M. L., Addison, O., Marcus, R. L., LaStayo, P. C., & Dibble, L. E. (2014). Effects of dopamine replacement therapy on lower extremity kinetics and kinematics during a rapid force production task in persons with Parkinson disease. Gait & Posture, 39, 638–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Halperin, I., Chapman, D. T., & Martin, D. T., Abbiss, C. (2016a). The effects of attentional feedback instructions on punching velocity and impact forces among trained combat athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Halperin, I., Hughes, S., & Chapman, D. T. (2016b). Physiological profile of a professional boxer preparing for Title Bout: a case study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Hopkins, W. G. (2004). How to interpret changes in an athletic performance test. Sportscience, 8, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Leotti, L. A., & Delgado, M. R. (2011). The inherent reward of choice. Psychological Science, 22, 1310–1318.Google Scholar
- Sanli, E., Patterson, J., & Bray, S. (2013). Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Frontiers in Movement Science and Sport Psychology, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning (5th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
- Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 158–164.Google Scholar