ACTIVITY PROFILE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS IN SILAT OLAHRAGA IN MALE CLASS E 70 KG SEA GAMES 2015

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to analyse the winning and losing factor on Silat Olahraga 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015. This notational data been taken from the match that been selected which are Silat Olahraga Men’s class E Quarter final between Thailand and Singapore, Quarter final between Malaysia and Indonesia, Semifinal between Singapore and Malaysia and final match between Malaysia Vietnam. Therefore, there are total of 4 match been analyze to find the winning and losing factor. There are total of 14 indicators used to analyze the match which are punch, kick, topple, sweep, block, block and kick, block and punch, block and sweep, fake kick, punch, fake punch, self-release, catch, dodge, and others. But there only 4 indicator been chosen to analyze the winning and losing factor (Shapie, M. N. M., 2011). These techniques been chosen to analyse the winning and losing factor in Class E SEA Games Singapore 2015 final match. These analysis will be more focusing in indicators and will be notated based on hit on target, hit elsewhere and missing opponents (Shapie, M., Nizam, Oliver, O'donoghue, & Tong, 2013). The result show that the winner seems to have more frequently of 4 indicator to gain more points and winning the match.

INTRODUCTION

Silat has a mixed history as it was formed from headhunting skills by natives from Indian, Chinese and Japanese martial arts. Silat bounds the martial arts of the Malaysian Archipelago, Indonesia and surrounding Southeast Asian areas. There are hundreds of different styles and schools but they tend to focus either on strikes, joint manipulation, throws, weaponry, or some combination. There are three types of Silat named as championship, showmanship and freestyle. Pencak silat was included in the 14th SEA Games 1987 held in Jakarta, Indonesia when IPSI presented it. The rules of silat olahraga have been arranged in the year 1973. The two opposing sides are corners at the points of the square arena which are labelled in blue and red at diagonal ends, while the other two corners, marked yellow, are neutral areas. Tunggal (single), Ganda (double), and Regu (team) categories that use the 10 by 10 meter performance arena (Anuar, 1993)

Other than that, this analysis also investigate the difference between the winners and losers Malaysia team in silat olahraga matches in 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015. There are total of 14 indicators used to analyze the match which are punch, kick, topple, sweep, block, block and kick, block and punch, block and sweep, fake kick, punch, fake punch, self-release, catch, dodge, and others. But there only 4 indicator been chosen to analyze the winning and losing factor. The notational data will take and recorded. Then the data will put in SPSS to find the mean, standard deviation and significant 2 tailed. The observation are involve in this study is to frequency find the the specific technique that need to analyze (Aziz, Tan, & Teh, 2002). The notational data will be notated based on hit on target, hit elsewhere and missing opponents.

Silat Olahraga brings to light very different subjectivities, inter-subjectivities, and ways of objectifying the body in regional- and national-level practice (Wilson, 2009). In Malay dictionary, silat can be defined as a combination if art and intelligence to perform attack and defense with a beautiful form. The other source that defines silat is from the word of kilat (Shamsuddin, 2005).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A publicly available video of four male silat matches from the 28th SEA Games 2015 competition in Singapore was taken and used for this analysis. The videos taken were of male matches from class E (65kg to 70kg). There were 14 types of indicators used to analyse the matches. The frequency, mean and standard deviation of the performance were calculated subsequently. The methods used for the analysis were video analysis and hand notational.

MOTION CATEGORIES

Silat motion were divided into 14 different types of categories and were defined as the technique that will influence the winning and losing factor:

Punch:

The hit 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 or uppercut to hit the opponent. If the punch hit the vest that will called as hit target, if the punch not hit opponent will be called miss opponent and if the punch hit other body part that will be called hit somewhere (Anuar, 1993).

Kick:

The kick 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, side-kick or semi-circular side kick. If the kick hit the vest that will called as hit target, if the kick not hit opponent will be called miss opponent and if the kick hit other body part that will be called hit somewhere (Anuar, 1993).

Block:

The blocking movements begin with the posture position the exponent stands straight with his hands around his body or close to his chest. Blocking or parrying can be done using arms, elbows and legs with the purpose to block off or striking back at any attack (Anuar, 1993).

Catch:

The catch is done by using the hand to hold the opponent from carrying out an attack. The silat opponent 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 (Anuar, 1993).

Topple:

There are various ways of toppling down one’s opponent. For example, a silat opponent 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 (Anuar, 1993).

Sweep:

Swiping involves attacking an opponent’s leg which are 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, front sweep is done by swinging the leg to the front to push an opponent’s front leg, while back sweep carried out by swinging the leg backward to hit the back leg (Anuar, 1993).

Dodge:

The evade 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, retreat, evasion to the side, bending, jumping , ducking and etc (Anuar, 1993).

Self-Release:

Self-release technique is a technique to unlock any clinch or topple from an opponent (Anuar, 1993).

Block and Punch:

The blocking technique used to block any hand or leg attack from the opponent and followed by a counter attack using the hand to punch the opponent (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

Block and Kick:

The blocking technique used to block any hand or leg attack from the opponent followed by a counter attack using the leg to kick the opponent (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

Block and Sweep:

The blocking technique used to block any hand or leg attack from the opponent followed by a counter attack using the sweeping technique towards the opponent (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

Fake Punch:

An action which a silat exponent intends to confuse the opponent using a fake punch to break their opponent’s defensive posture (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

Fake Kick:

An action which a silat exponent intends to confuse the opponent using a fake kick to break their opponent’s defensive posture (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

Others:

Both silat exponents are either in the ready position or coming close to each other using the silat step pattern (Shapie, M. et al., 2013).

RELIABILITY OF OBSERVATION

The author analyzed all the motion and simultaneously classified each changes of motion in a match. Two time observation were done separately by 48 hours. It requires experienced from silat athlete or practitioners to analyze the motion and data. The classification of movement was classified according to the referee decisions.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A descriptive analysis was used to determine the difference of performance between the winners and losers in the silat matches. The observation generated data will be frequency counted. Mean and standard deviation (SD) for all the marker has been computed to locate the measurable factors that separated winning and losing group. Statistical analysis was conducted by using statistical package for social scientist (SPSS).

RESULTS

The tables below show the actions performed during competitions and their outcomes in the match, the frequency profile of actions for all 4 matches of all 8 contestants from Class E. These notational data will consist mean and standard deviation for all matches.

Table 1. Frequency of actions and outcomes for Quarterfinal THA (Loser) vs SIN  (Winner).

Action	Outcome
	Hit Elsewhere			Hit Target			Miss Opponent			Not Available*	Total
	L	W	T	L	W	T	L	W	T
Block		2	2	2	9	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	19	12	31	8	4	12	13	4	17		60
Fake Kick		5	5	4	1	5	6		6		16
Punch	10	19	29	6	19	25	9	9	18		72
Fake Punch
Self-Release				7	2	9	4	2	6		15
Topple	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	3		7
Sweep	1	8	9		3	3	6	2	8		20
Catch	1	4	5	1	5	6	2	9	11		22
Dodge		1	1	5	16	21	2	2	4		26
Others										34	34
Total			87			96			77	34	294

*Note: L – Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.

Opponent	Sweep	Kick	Punch	Topple	Total
Thailand (Loser)	7	40	25	4	76
Singapore (Winner)	13	20	47	3	80

Table 2. Frequency of actions and outcomes for Quarterfinal MAS (Winner) vs INA (Looser)

Action	Outcome
	Hit Elsewhere			Hit Target			Miss Opponent			Not Available*	Total
	W	L	T	W	L	T	W	L	T
Block				5	1	6	2	2	4		10
Block and Kick							1		1		1
Block and Punch							1		1		1
Block and sweep
Kick	1	9	10	4	11	15	14	3	17		42
Fake Kick				3	4	7		1	1		8
Punch				2	2	4	1		1		5
Fake Punch	1	1	2	5	7	12	8	2	10		24
Self-Release				1	3	4					4
Topple					2	2	5	1	6		8
Sweep					1	1	1	2	3		4
Catch				9	4	13		1	1		14
Dodge					6	6					6
Others										14	14
Total			12			70			45	14	141

*Note: L – Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.

Opponent	Sweep	Kick	Punch	Topple	Total
Malaysia (Winner)	1	19	3	7	30
Indonesia (Loser)	3	23	2	3	31

  

Table 3. Frequency of actions and outcomes for 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	5	5	10								10
Block and Kick
Block and Punch
Block and sweep
Kick	6	6	12	13	8	21	17	5	22		55
Fake Kick	4	1	5				1		1		6
Punch	8	2	10	3		3	2	1	3		16
Fake Punch	2	2	4								4
Self-Release
Topple	1	1	2								2
Sweep	4	3	7	3	3	6	3		3		16
Catch	4	3	7				1	1	2		9
Dodge	2	2	4								4
Others										18	18
Total			61			30			31	18	140

*Note: L – Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.

Opponent	Sweep	Kick	Punch	Topple	Total
Malaysia (Winner)	7	36	13	1	57
Singapore (Loser)	6	19	3	1	29

Table 4. Frequency of actions and outcomes for final MAS (Winner) vs Vietnam (Loser)

Action	Outcome
	Hit Elsewhere			Hit Target			Miss Opponent			Not Available*	Total
	L	W	T	L	W	T	L	W	T
Block	4		4	2	6	8	5	3	8		20
Block and Kick	1	1	2	1	2	3		1	1		6
Block and Punch		1	1								1
Block and sweep
Kick	11	5	16	5	3	8	7	1	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	1	2	3	10		10		15
Topple		1	1		10	10	4		4		15
Sweep					1	1	1	3	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

*Note: L – Loser. W – Winner. T – Total.

Opponent	Sweep	Kick	Punch	Topple	Total
Vietnam (Loser)	1	23	8	0	32
Malaysia (Winner)	4	9	2	11	26

DISCUSSION

The data above were all collected by author to analyze the matches from the 28th SEA Games 2015, Men’s Class E Quarter final, Semifinal, and final match. Based on the results above, the overall action in 4 selected motion shown that mostly the frequently will be the winner.

The first match analyzed was men class E between Thailand and Singapore. In this match, it shows that the Singapore player is more aggressive than his opponent. However, his opponent does not seem to attack much and waits for counter-attack to perform the topple action. We can also see that the Thailand player is not physically strong enough to counter or release from his opponents topple. Singapore player frequently using sweep technique than a Thailand player thus be a winner.

In the second match was men class E Quarter Final between Malaysia and Indonesia. Indonesia player was very confident with his actions and his tactical were very good seeming that his timing was on point to be able to kick his opponent more. Unfortunately, he kick more to miss opponent than hit the target. Malaysia player seems very strong and frequently used his topple technique to gain more points thus be declared as a winner.

The third match was Men Class E semifinal match between Singapore and Malaysia, the Singapore pesilat is very active in attacking. He often tries to kick his opponent but hits elsewhere or misses his opponents. Furthermore, Malaysian pesilat is familiar with the pesilat’s tactic of kicking by attacking, therefore he uses the opportunity to have won the match make sweep as many as he can.

         The fourth and last match was Men’s Class E Final match between Malaysia and Vietnam. Vietnam’s pesilat mistake was also the same as the third match. He attacks by kicking and his opponent familiar with the attacking pattern thus grabs his leg and topples him down. Although his actions were more than his opponent in the frequency profile unfortunately the game is winning by Malaysia.

CONCLUSION

Based on the observation, the winning team used a lot of technique or skill that involve the higher point such as topple down and sweep. The competitor should improve their skill especially on topple and sweep. Besides, all the four video matches that I observed and what can I saw the weakness are the competitor had lack of speed and power on kicking, punching, topple down and sweep. They should improve their fitness level especially on speed and power to make better movement and very fast during match (Wilson, 2003). If an athlete is able to increase the effectiveness of mass of their training skills, they will produce a great momentum of their skills during competition. Overall, there are 4 video matches that I got and observed from the YouTube and all this video are not same category. There are 3 categories from this 4 video which are Malaysia Player Men’s Class E category. From all the video that I observed, Malaysia winning 3 game including the final and won the gold medal. Malaysia athlete frequently used topple technique to gain more points and won the match. The losing pesilat has more frequently kicking but their kicking mostly hits elsewhere or misses his opponents.

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 winner’s motion skill during a 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. The other sports where the frequency and duration of high intensity activity periods fail to provide sufficient information to fully characterize the minds of the sport.

REFERENCES

Sport Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men's Class E Final VIE vs MAS 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved November 10, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGK1CSVk0qs&list=PLqAmVfhsW7xNxMAyka2XKKbmUHvAPLqv2&index=7

Sport Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men’s Class E Semi-Final on Day 8 of 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved November 12, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L62CI3MJ-8A

Sport Singapore (2015). Pencak Silat Tanding Men’s Class E-F Quarter Finals (Day 7) | 28th SEA Games Singapore 2015, Retrieved November 13, 2017, from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVRSn_Vq68

Anuar, A. (1993). Silat olahraga (2nd edn.). The art, technique and regulations: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.

Aziz, A. R., Tan, B., & Teh, K. C. (2002). Physiological responses during matches and profile of elite pencak silat exponents. Journal of sports science & medicine, 1(4), 147.

Shapie, M., Nizam, M., 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).

Shapie, M. N. M. (2011). Influence of age and maturation on fitness development, trainability and competitive performance in youth silat. Cardiff Metropolitan University.  

Wilson, I. D. (2003). The politics of inner power: The practice of pencak silat in west java. Murdoch University.  

HTML

APPENDICES

Table 1: Mean and Deviation of Quarterfinal THA (Loser) vs SIN (Winner).

Statistics
		Winner	Looser
N	Valid	83	76
	Missing	0	7
Mean		1.78	1.91
Std. Error of Mean		.120	.099
Std. Deviation		1.094	.867

Winner
		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

Looser
		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 2: Mean and Deviation of Quarterfinal MAS (Winner) vs INA (Looser).

Statistics
		Winner	Loser
N	Valid	31	28
	Missing	0	3
Mean		2.23	2.14
Std. Error of Mean		.129	.123
Std. Deviation		.717	.651

Winner
		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

Loser
		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 3: Mean and Deviation of Semifinal SIN (Loser) vs MAS (Winner)

		Loser	Winner
N	Valid	29	60
	Missing	31	0
Mean		2.34	2.13
Std. Error of Mean		.174	.122
Std. Deviation		.936	.947

Winner
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Punch	3	5.0	10.3	10.3
	Kick	19	31.7	65.5	75.9
	Topple	1	1.7	3.4	79.3
	Sweep	6	10.0	20.7	100.0
	Total	29	48.3	100.0
Missing	System	31	51.7
Total		60	100.0

                                                    

Loser
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Punch	13	21.7	21.7	21.7
	Kick	36	60.0	60.0	81.7
	Topple	1	1.7	1.7	83.3
	Sweep	10	16.7	16.7	100.0
	Total	60	100.0	100.0

Table 4: Mean and Deviation of MAS (Winner) vs Vietnam (Loser)

Statistics
		Winner	Loser
N	Valid	26	36
	Missing	10	0
Mean		2.65	1.94
Std. Error of Mean		.166	.112
Std. Deviation		.846	.674

Winner
		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

Loser
		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