1. 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
Impulse
(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
Impulse
(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.