ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS IN MALE SILAT OLAHRAGA CLASS E SEA GAMES 2015
ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS IN MALE SILAT OLAHRAGA
CLASS E SEA GAMES 2015
Abstract
The purpose of
this study is 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. In that class category, four
matches have been selected, which were quarterfinal pool B (Thailand vs.
Singapore), quarterfinal pool B (Malaysia vs. Indonesia), semifinal pool B
(Singapore vs. Malaysia), and final match Malaysia vs. Vietnam. There were a
lot of skills and techniques that were used during the silat olahraga SEA Games
2015. As example, the common techniques or motion categories 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 winners and losers in men’s Class E silat olahraga.
The data was collected and 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. Silat is one of the
sports that included in the Southeast Asian Games and other region-wide
competitions. Silat is a fighting and survival art combination. 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.
Nowadays, 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 (Shapie & Elias, 2016).
According to Apsif (2013), Persekutuan Pencak Silat Antarabangsa (PERSILAT) is the only
international organization of Pencak Silat in the world. It was established 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. In
order to develop the rules of Silat Olahraga event, more pencak Silat
procedures are based on the karate, kempo and jujitsu moves for perfection.
In 1982, Pencak
Silat has presented two new categories which are Silat Seni and Silat Olahraga.
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. 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
referee will state the command 'Sedia', meaning 'ready'. Then, he will shout
'Mulai', meaning 'begin'. Immediately the 'gong' will be struck. When the wasit
wants to stop the fight, he will shout 'Berhenti', meaning 'stop' ("The silat olahraga ",
2013).
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
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie, Oliver, O'donoghue,
& Tong, 2013).
2.
Kick
a.
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’
(Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
3.
Block
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
4.
Catch
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
5.
Topple
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
6.
Sweep
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
7.
Evade/Dodge
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
8.
Self-Release
a.
Self-release ‘lepas
tangkapan’ technique is a technique to unlock any clinch or catch from an opponent
(Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
9.
Block and Punch
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
10. Block and Kick
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
11. Block and Sweep
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
12. Fake Punch
a.
An action which a
silat exponent intends to confuse the opponent using a fake punch to break his
opponent’s defensive posture (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
13. Fake Kick
a.
An action which a
silat exponent intends to confuse the opponent using a fake kick to break his
opponent defensive posture (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
14. Others
a.
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 (Mohamed Shapie et al., 2013).
Statistical Analysis
All the notated data
were 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 difference
of performance between winners and losers in silat matches.
Result
Quarterfinal THA (Loser) vs SIN (Winner)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
2
|
2
|
9
|
2
|
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
|
12
|
19
|
31
|
4
|
8
|
12
|
4
|
13
|
17
|
60
|
|
Fake Kick
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
16
|
|||
Punch
|
19
|
10
|
29
|
19
|
6
|
25
|
9
|
9
|
18
|
72
|
|
Fake Punch
|
|||||||||||
Self-Release
|
2
|
7
|
9
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
15
|
||||
Topple
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
7
|
|
Sweep
|
8
|
1
|
9
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
20
|
||
Catch
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
9
|
2
|
11
|
22
|
|
Dodge
|
1
|
1
|
16
|
5
|
21
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
26
|
||
Others
|
34
|
34
|
|||||||||
Total
|
87
|
96
|
77
|
34
|
294
|
||||||
Table 1
*Note: W – Winner. L – Loser. T
– Total.
Quarterfinal MAS (Winner) vs INA (Loser)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
||||
Block and Kick
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||
Block and Punch
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||
Block and sweep
|
|||||||||||
Kick
|
9
|
1
|
10
|
11
|
4
|
15
|
3
|
14
|
17
|
42
|
|
Fake Kick
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
1
|
1
|
8
|
|||||
Punch
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
|||||
Fake Punch
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
7
|
5
|
12
|
2
|
8
|
10
|
24
|
|
Self-Release
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
|||||||
Topple
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
8
|
|||||
Sweep
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|||||
Catch
|
4
|
9
|
13
|
1
|
1
|
14
|
|||||
Dodge
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
||||||||
Others
|
14
|
14
|
|||||||||
Total
|
12
|
70
|
45
|
14
|
141
|
||||||
Table 2
*Note: W – Winner. L – Loser. T
– Total.
Semifinal SIN (Loser) vs MAS (Winner)
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
|
98
|
||||||
Table 3
*Note: W – Winner. L – Loser. T
– Total.
Final MAS (Winner) vs VIE (Loser)
Action
|
Outcome
|
||||||||||
Hit Elsewhere
|
Hit Target
|
Miss Opponent
|
Not Available*
|
Total
|
|||||||
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
W
|
L
|
T
|
|||
Block
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
2
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
20
|
||
Block and Kick
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
||
Block and Punch
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||
Block and sweep
|
|||||||||||
Kick
|
5
|
11
|
16
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
1
|
7
|
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
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
10
|
10
|
15
|
||
Topple
|
1
|
1
|
10
|
10
|
4
|
4
|
15
|
||||
Sweep
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
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
|
||||||
Table 4
*Note: W – Winner. L – Loser. T
– Total.
Discussion
From the four
videos that has been analyzed, the results has been keyed into IBM SPSS
Statistics 20 to get the descriptive statistics of frequencies. Table 1
is the frequencies of the motion categories notated onto quarterfinal game of class
E, which was Thailand vs. Singapore game. Singapore won the game with the best
results of hit target on punching value, which is 19 to be compared to Thailand
which only committed 6 punches on the targeted area. The total frequencies of
overall motion categories in the game is 294. However, based on the mean that
has been calculated and has shown in Table a in appendices, Singapore
scored 1.78 while Thailand has scored 1.91. This is due to the frequencies of miss
opponent of the outcomes from the Thailand athlete were very high in value
to be compared to Singapore athlete. To add this reason, Singapore has won the
game with less amount of the mean value to be compared to Thailand due to the
accuracy of the motion categories were higher. This can be referred to Table
1, it showed that the results that has been obtained from the Hit Target –
dodge, Singapore has higher value than Thailand and Thailand has low accuracy
in kicking.
To seek for the
reliability in notating this video, another notation results of the same video
from other researcher has been taken to get the Cronbach's Alpha value. The
optimum Cronbach's Alpha value that will reach the reliability of the study is
≥ 0.8. Therefore, in this study, the results from table d and table e
in appendices showed a positive value that remain optimum and
reliable.
The second video
notated was quarterfinal match, Malaysia vs. Indonesia. In this match, Malaysia
has won the game with the total score of 5:0 from the Jurors. In this analysis,
the frequencies of the winner are likely high and more accurate than the loser.
This can be seen in table 2 that showed the frequencies of all notated
motion categories. The overall total that has been obtained in the analysis was
141. The mean score of the Malaysia team was higher than the loser due to the
loser’s attacking contact in the match was really low. In this analysis, it
shown that the winner has a lot advantages in winning than the loser. The
reliability in the analysis showed in table i and table j give
the positive value which the Cronbach's Alpha value for the winner was 1.0 and loser analysis
was 0.98 which were very reliable.
The third notation
analysis was the semifinal match of Singapore vs. Malaysia. Singapore was
pathetically lost to Malaysia with the mean value of 1.94 against 2.39. This
was shown in table f in appendices which made it rational that Malaysia
was likely being outstanding in the match. The frequencies value of the winner
for the hit target outcomes that are shown in table 3 are all higher
than the loser’s outcome of hit target. The reliability of this study were also
positive in achieving the optimum value of Cronbach's Alpha that has shown in table n and
table o.
The last notation of class E SEA Games 2015 silat
olahraga match was the final match, which was Malaysia against Vietnam. Still,
Malaysia has won the match and made him the winner of this class category.
Therefore, the final results of the performance shown that the winner was very
consistent in maintaining his best performance. This can be seen in table 4,
the frequencies of the motion categories that contributed in the match. The
winner was accurate to hit the target so well that he can achieve so high in
value of topple and catch the opponent. As for the mean value of both winner
and loser were 2.65 and 1.94 respectively. The reliability of the study has
been analyzed and it shown that the winner’s reliability achieved 0.928 and the
loser’s achieved 0.929 which made this study very reliable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the
accuracy of motion categories to the targeted area leads to best performance of
an athlete. This study has shown that the Malaysian athlete is consistently
accurate in every movement he did in each game. Therefore, it has made him
gained the game point and also won with best performance and better results.
The losers are much likely losing the accuracy in targeting the target area of
their opponent. Losers are also tend to have high frequencies in missing the
target to the opponents. The best example to prove that the winners’ activity
profile are better than the losers’ are the results of the Malaysian athlete in
this Class E categories.
Recommendation
Overall, it is
recommended for pesilat either winner or loser to improve their motion skill to
expertise. Coaches need to emphasize the skill related fitness of and athlete
to enhance their performance. There is a limitation of this case study as the
findings here only represent only four silat match, so the findings cannot be
generalized to all silat competition. However, the purpose of this study was to
analyze the winners’ and losers’ in Class E motion skill in silat match.
Furthermore, the system developed is useful in future study in silat. This was
the first study to provide descriptive detailed information of a silat match,
increasing the knowledge base and providing a methodology that can be used in
future research and by coaches.
References
Anuar, A. W.
(1992). Teknik dalam seni silat melayu
[in malay] (technique in silat melayu). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka.
Anuar, A. W.
(1993). Silat olahraga: The art,
technique and regulations. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Gibson, T. H.
(2015). Silat 101. Black Belt, 53(2),
53-53.
Mohamed Shapie,
M. N., Oliver, J., O'Donoghue, P., & Tong, R. (2013). Activity profile
during action time in national silat competition. Journal of Combat Sports & Martial Arts, 4(1), 81-85.
Parnabas, V.,
Shapie, M. N. M., & Parnabas, J. (2015). Motives of taking part in malay
silat, karate-do and taekwondo. / motywy uprawiania malezyjskiego silatu,
karate i taekwondo. Ido Movement for
Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 15(3), 22-26.
Shapie, M. N.
M., & Elias, M. S. (2016). Silat: The curriculum of seni silat malaysia. Revista de Artes Marciales Asiaticas, 11,
122-125.
Singapore, S.
(Producer). (2015a). Pencak silat (day 9) | 28th sea games singapore 2015.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEyyTGRaOd8
Singapore, S.
(Producer). (2015). Pencak silat tanding class e-f quarter finals (day 7) |
28th sea games singapore 2015. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVRSn_Vq68
Singapore, S.
(Producer). (2015b). Pencak silat tanding class semi-final (day 8) | 28th sea
games singapore 2015. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP91oJ2epiM
The silat olahraga
(2013). Retrieved from https://malaymartialarts-silat.blogspot.my/2013/05/the-silat-olahraga.html
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 a
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 b
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 c
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 d
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 e
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 f
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 g
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 h
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 i
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 j
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 k
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 l
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 m
Reliability Statistics of
Winner on Semifinal SIN vs MAS
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.937
|
.940
|
2
|
Table n
Reliability Statistics
|
||
Cronbach's Alpha
|
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
|
N of Items
|
.991
|
.991
|
2
|
Table o
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 p
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 q
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 r
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 s
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 t
posted by Zaimah Nassir @ December 20, 2017
1 Comments
