With my PhD completed, I thought it would be a good idea to have somewhere where all the research can be accessed so please see the links below if you’re interested in lightweight women’s judo.
With my PhD completed, I thought it would be a good idea to have somewhere where all the research can be accessed so please see the links below if you’re interested in lightweight women’s judo.
I asked this question previously, back in April, following the European championships and I am going to following a similar process here. I will look at world championships results all the way back to 2000 and compare them using a variety of methods. Firstly let us consider the team.
It should be noted that Alice Schlesinger is also a world bronze medallist and 4 times European medallist. Furthermore, Lucy Renshall was selected in u63kg but could not fight because of injury. She is the current European bronze medallist.
I think this is an outstanding team. Twelve athletes, five of them are current European, World or Olympic medallist. I don’t think anyone can criticise the strength of the team that went out to Baku. Maybe some would like to see more go and a less stringent selection process but that’s another issue.
So, is British judo getting better at a world level? Like previously I will go back to 2000 and consider results at the world championships.
The first criteria most would consider is the number of medals, crude but arguably fair. In this world championships we got one silver medal (Nekoda Smythe-Davis) and if we compare that back to 2000 we can see only last year we won two bronzes. Of course, you could argue 1 silver is better than two bronze, it certainly puts you higher on the medal table but then conversely it gives you less world ranking point. It’s neither here nor there to be honest. If you’re counting medals we got less.
Let us consider the results using world ranking points going back to 2000, this process kind of evens out the colour of the medals in my opinion.
I think it is fair to say that for a long period of time Great Britain was world-leading in judo. This has been less so since 1996 but even then British judo could expect 700+ points using this measure. There was then a period of time we went below this, even winning no medals for four world championships. People will cite many reasons for this, I think the break up of the Soviet Union certainly contributed to the break in our world-leading streak but what contributed to the drop from 2009-2017 is another question and is certainly not going to be answered here. If we’re asking about a rise in British judo you can clearly see us moving out of this dark period and starting to win medals again when using this points system, back to where we were between 1996 and 2007.
We can consider our performance against other nations too. If we look at our ranking in the medal table at world championships.
This table is a little harder to see a pattern in. You can certainly see we had better medal table positions in the first part (2000-2007) and that it is after 2007 the decline started. You can also see that 2018 ranks 7th in our overall performance when compared to other teams and that 2018 was our most successful year since the decline.
I think the other consideration is the retirement of Karina Bryant who would consistently win a medal, if not two at each world championships. I think Karina doesn’t get enough credit for her contribution to Great Britain performance over a very long period of time. When we talk about having a lot of funding, I think a large part of this is down to her.
The other question, of course, is world champions. Well, we haven’t had one of them since Craig Fallon in 2005 and this year was the closest we have come to one since 2009. Before that, it was Graham Randall in 1999 (we won 1750 points based on the above system in that worlds but it was on home ground).
So how do we conclude? Well, based upon medals we could have done better but let’s not forget we did have two 5th places and if both of these had won this would have given us over 1000 points making it our second most successful worlds this century. It’s also fair to say our two most consistent athletes did not have a great world championship, Sally and Natalie. This happens to everyone. A ‘normal’ result from them would have made this our second best worlds this century.
We should also consider the valiant efforts of Sarah Adlington who performed better than ever before and finished 5th as well as Jemima Yeats-Brown. Now, on the topic of Jemima. I’m a firm believer that when you make a mistake you should own up to it! I have always regarded Jemima as an athlete who would never perform and would also be injured for most of her career, and when I say always I mean I have voiced this concern for years. To be fair she has been injured a lot but in honesty, this weeks performance totally outshines that. She was outstanding. She fought with maturity, aggression, confidence and it was exciting judo! So I wholeheartedly apologise to Jemima and well done to those who supported her.
Last but not least, how could I end not mentioning Nekoda’s fantastic performance! What a great way to answer those who said last year was a fluke! She had a tough draw, she beat the current world champion and Olympic silver medallist in the semi-final, she beat Lien who although she is from Chinese Taipae trains at Komatsu and she beat the current European champion. She did great judo all day, was solid from the start and exciting to watch. Well done Nekoda!
So in conclusion, I think we actually had an unlucky world championships. I think this team could have produced more and therefore we are moving in the right direction in terms of world performance.
If you have any points or see a mistake please let me know in the comments below 🙂
With the fantastic results of the European championships this week there will be the inevitable response of how great British judo has become/is becoming since it moved to a centralised programme at Walsall but what do the numbers tell us?
First of all, this has been a valiant effort by the British team and I would like to congratulate all the athletes, in particular, the 5 that won medals.
Sally Conway – Silver
Ashley McKenzie – Bronze
Gemma Howell – Bronze
Lucy Renshall – Bronze
Natalie Powell – Bronze
So how do these results compare to previous years? I’ve decided to stick to this century and go back to 2000. It would be hard to compare going back much further and 2000 seems like a good break point to me. There are several ways to present this data, I could do what most people do and select the one that suits my agenda or what I want to say but I think that isn’t fair and to be honest, if I have an agenda its objectivity so I have decided to present the data in a number of ways and let the reader make up their own mind.
If we base performance solely on medal count then 2018 is our most successful performance this century (since 2000). Personally, I am not convinced medal count alone is a good measure but winning 5 medals, the most we’ve won in 19 European championships is great. Below I have broken our medal tally at the European championships down by year and equating medal colour to the current number of points awarded on the IJF world ranking list. I think this is a fairly good way of presenting the data.
If we ranked the results in order of points awarded then 2018 would be our joint 3rd most successful year. Table 1 shows all years ranked in points order.
Of course, there are the purists who would only like to count gold medals. Well, it is 12 years since we won a gold medal and in those 2006 European championships, we won two golds – Craig Fallon and Sarah Clarke. In fact, we have only won 5 European gold medals this century, the two above and Karina Bryant in 2005 and 2003, Georgina Singleton in 2002.
Of course, there are others ways to measure the performance, the number of fights won compared to the number of players competing (too much work for this post i’m afraid) and the quality of the fights are two examples. I did watch all the GB fights but I would want to watch them again without the emotion to judge that and give an opinion. My first impressions are that actually, our players are fighting very well at the moment. Natalie and Sally are extremely consistent and easily world class. This was Lucy’s first Europeans and she won a bronze, how Gemma has come through so many injuries and three weight groups to medal at this level is nothing short of miraculous and Ashley has achieved a second bronze despite fighting his opponents and the system simultaneously. If I was to pick one thing I find frustrating it would be this new habit of some British players to “beg for a score” or “beg for a score to be upgraded“. I don’t like this, I think they miss opportunities, particularly in transition to Ne-waza and arguing a score is arguably the coaches job, the athletes should focus on nothing but fighting. I don’t blame the players, there could be a number of reasons, lack of trust in the coaches, lack of faith in the referees, or the constant changes in rules (although not all athletes from all countries do it) to name a few.
So what do we conclude? Well based solely on medal count we’ve done very well, our best Europeans this century. I am sure most people would agree the medal tally of 2006 (2 golds and two bronze) is better than of 2018 (1 silver and 4 bronze) as we regularly see medal tables with gold medals taking up the top slots ie one gold medal would put you above teams with multiple medals (those pesky purists!).
I think the fairest way for me is the points system, its objective and based on this system we can also look at trends in more detail. There does seem to be a trend of improvement from 2016 onwards, in fact, may be looking in more detail we just had a number of ‘difficult years’ between 2007 – 2015 and really we’ve always been great in Great Britain!
Anyway, our best European championships since 2006 and a trend for continuous improvement over the last three European championships. We should be pleased with this and hope a similar trend is seen at world level in Baku 2018 and Tokyo 2019 over the next two years and of course at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games.
http://www.EJU.net (image source)
A recent research paper by Ritchie et al., (2017) entitled “Where science meets practice: Olympic coaches’ crafting of the taper process” has supported a long held belief of mine that performance coaching is about science being applied artistically; in other words we apply scientific principles and knowledge to situations that are complex and human in nature. Ritchie et al., (2017) discuss the taper process and acknowledge previous research in this area that considers different models such a linear, stepped etc. The basic concept is to maintain performance by lowering volume and maintaining intensity and frequency. Ritchie et al., interviewed seven performance coaches in track and field, one of the key findings was that these experienced coaches had developed the scientific principles to deliver a taper but there was much more to the taper than just applying the science. Adapting the plan constantly, monitoring the process and collaborating with the athletes were almost more important in the taper.
For this years British championships I worked closely with two athletes. These athletes had a three week overload period prior to a two week taper. The overload period was hard and included two competitions, one of which was international, a week long training camp and a weekend of national squad training embedded within their normal training programme. Coaches normally plan the taper prior and manage a linear, exponential or stepped type of decrease in performance. Based upon the work cited above I decided to choose a different approach.
We use a programme called athlete analyser to monitor the athletes training load. Athlete Analyser uses the work of Gabbett (2016) to monitor training load and the software produces a live graph. The aim of my taper was to increase performance by lowering fatigue without diminishing fitness, this means decreasing volume whilst maintaining intensity. Using the live graph and collaborating daily (sometimes twice daily) with the athletes I manipulated the taper. One of the graphs are shown below.
Both athletes reported feeling very well prepared for the competition and were confident going into the event.
This method is very time consuming, as a volunteer coach I would struggle to do this with more than 3-4 athletes. There is also the consideration of the athletes mental state in the overload period and the taper, coaches have to remember how the athletes are feeling and whilst listening to them sometimes be prepared to move on and complete the sessions you wanted to. Lastly, if you have set technical elements you want to cover in the taper, you may have to accept you cannot.
We should also remember there are some factors not recorded by the software yet, illness, fatigue from work, fatigue from travel etc
This is something I am going to be looking at in a lot more detail, any feedback is welcome! I think working closely with the athletes to apply this kind of science is the key to successful performance coaching.
Well it’s been a long time coming but I have finally completed my Ph.D! The thesis was handed in back in September (seems ages ago now) and was 200 pages long. I successfully defended it in my Viva on Friday and now I just have minor amendments to go!
So many people to thank, it is easier just to add the acknowledgements below.
The only people I think I have missed from here is Prof. Mike Lauder from Chichester University and Dr. Leonardo Mataruna-Dos-Santos from Coventry University.
Any questions please fire away! Once papers are published, minor amendments are done I will be able to share some of the data on this blog.
Following a Facebook discussion on the GB judo underground page I have decided to write a post about strength training for adolescents. There appears to be two common misconceptions, firstly that resistance training is bad for adolescence and secondly that they should be working on only judo skills. Hopefully I will dispel both of these.
Long-Term Athlete Development:
The LTAD model was introduced to British judo in 2006 and around this time to most sports in the UK. I am not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of this model in this post (although I am happy too in the future) but I will highlight what Balyi suggests in relation to strength training.
Balyi suggests there are “windows of trainability” based upon an athletes developmental age (where they are in relation to maturation and peak height velocity). There has been huge criticisms of this because there is very little evidence to show there is accelerated adaptation in these stages but much of this criticism is based upon a lack of evidence and not evidence to the contrary. Balyi’s work did do something great for sport in the UK though, it suggested children could do strength training younger than 16yo and there is a lot of evidence, and consensus statements to suggest this is fine.
Strength training is dangerous for adolescence:
There is a wealth of evidence that structured, progressive and guided strength training is hugely beneficial to children whether athletes or not. I work in an environment where we coach full-time athletes and to see “good judo players” come to us at 16-18yo who have never lifted is often difficult for us to comprehend (the judo is often very limited too but that’s another story!). Here are some of the consensus statements shared in the FB group with their conclusions underneath and these are just some of the many:
“A compelling body of scientific evidence supports participation in appropriately designed youth resistance training programmes that are supervised and instructed by qualified professionals. The current article has added to previous position statements from medical and fitness organisations, and has outlined the health, fitness and performance benefits associated with this training for children and adolescents.”
“With qualified instruction, competent supervision, and an appropriate progression of the volume and intensity of training, children and adolescents cannot only learn advanced strength training exercises but can feel good about their performances, and have fun. Additional clinical trails involving children and adolescents are needed to further explore the acute and chronic effects of strength training on a variety of anatomical, physiological, and psychological parameters.”
“Youth—athletes and nonathletes alike—can successfully and safely improve their strength and overall health by participating in a well-supervised program. Trained fitness professionals play an essential role in ensuring proper technique, form, progression of exercises, and safety in this age group.”
“Based on the scientific evidence and expert opinion, resistance exercise can be positive when part of a balanced activity programme. Providing that professionals who understand the key principles of child growth and development adequately screen and supervise participants, then the combination of low risk of injury and positive physiological, psychological and sociological benefits can promote health and perfor- mance in all groups.”
Common themes throughout these are –
You should focus on skills:
I would argue that for 10-12yo’s (just a guide because we’re talking about developmental age) skill training should be prioritised. They’re in What Balyi would describe the “learn to train stage” and I wouldn’t agree with this structure approach. This doesn’t mean they cannot do both and it doesn’t mean the coach cannot support the athlete in this. For example, how many coaches “walk around the mat” to “flush lactate” after a session, especially Randori? So with a young group why not practice unresisted squats or squats with a broom handle to “flush out the lactate” instead? Whether pre-adolescents need to flush out lactate or not is another questions but regardless wouldn’t this be a better way to end the session?
So what should you do?
I understand that this is an area that worries parents (and probably coaches) quite a lot and I am not trying to be flippant in this post. The real question is what should you do? Well, the answer is above really – structured/progressive and supervised. So how do we do this?
My honest opinion, and some won’t like it, is that I wouldn’t trust anyone to take my S&C classes without at least degree knowledge and if I was a parent paying I’d want an S&C MSc and UKSCA qualifications. The days of trusting someone who is a “personal trainer” who has probably done a two week YMCA course is gone I am afraid. If you get the right person then the structure and progression should look after itself.
There is a wealth of evidence to support the use of strength training in children and adolescent, the general consensus suggests this should be structured, progressive and supervised in order to be safe.
I think it would be good to have some sort of coach education and parent education in this area because judo is a demanding and often brutal sport, strength training will help athletes throughout he tough transition stages and help prevent injury.
A new research project I am embarking on is considering the use of training load in judo. I am working with one of Comberton judo clubs coaches/athletes who is a student at Anglia Ruskin University where I lecture.
What is training load?
In it’s most simple form training load is the amount (volume) and the intensity (how hard you work) of training in a given period, often a day, week, or month. It has been suggested that training load monitored well can help predict injury (Gabbett, 2016; Gabbett & Domrow, 2007) but other reasons include appropriate planning and ‘peaking’ for an event.
For a few years now I have monitored athletes training load and in recent years I have considered training load in terms of fatigue (chronic/28days) and fitness (acute/current daily load). I started doing this using dropbox and excel, then moved to google docs and I am currently using Athlete Analyser. The numbers we get from the athlete are basic, number of hours training and intensity (RPE), this worked in google docs and excel pretty well but now that we’re collaborating with Athlete Analyser it is much easier and we can collect a lot more data.
Reading the data…
The numbers produce a graph and this allows us to consider training status and likelihood of injury. Once we have collected more data I will write a blog post showing how we use the graphs to predict injury and plan a taper.
What is our research looking at?
Myself and Holly have been working with the team at Athlete Analyser to develop these training insights because one of the issues we faced with dropbox and google docs was athlete adherence, they’d constantly need chasing up to fill in the documents whereas now the Athlete Analyser app alerts them on any smart phone and reminds them to record their data.
Our research project, which is part of Holly’s final year project at Anglia Ruskin university, is considering training load as a predictor of injury and a variety of other assessments that might help us predict or avoid injury such as strength, functional movement, percentage body fat, flexibility and cardiovascular fitness. We also work closely with our club physio Ben Whybrow in terms of injury prevention, I am closely monitoring the taper to see if we can develop research on this and I am working with a masters student on some periodisation research that I will write about in another post. Our participants in the study are full-time athletes and AASE athletes at Comberton Judo Club.
I’ll be posting more about this research and other work we’re doing in due course! Please ask any questions int he comments below.