Physical and Physiological Attributes of PDF

BRIEF REVIEW
PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF

WRESTLERS: AN UPDATE
HELMI CHAABENE,1 YASSINE NEGRA,2 RAJA BOUGUEZZI,2 BESSEM MKAOUER,3 EMERSON FRANCHINI,4
URSULA JULIO,4 AND YOUNÉS HACHANA2,3
1
Tunisian Research Laboratory “Sports Performance Optimization,” National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports
(CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia; 2Research Unit “Sport Performance, Health & Society,” Higher Institute of Sport and Physical
Education of Ksar Said, University of La Manouba, Tunis, Tunisia; 3Biological Science Department, Higher Institute of Sports
and Physical Education, Manouba University, Tunis, Tunisia; and 4Martial Arts and Combat Sports Research Group, School
of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
ABSTRACT capacity, aerobic power, maximal dynamic and isometric

Chaabene, H, Negra, Y, Bouguezzi, R, Mkaouer, strength, explosive strength, and strength endurance.
B, Franchini, E, Julio, U, and Hachana, Y. Physical and KEY WORDS combat sports, physiology, fitness attributes
physiological profile of wrestler athletes: a short review.
J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1411–1442, 2017—Wrestling INTRODUCTION
W
is one of the oldest combat sports, disputed since the
restling is one of the oldest combat sports
ancient Greek Olympic Games. This combat sport disci-
practices that come back to 708 BC in the
pline has caught the attention of scientists since 1943 ancient Greek Olympic Games (6,34,78).
which is the date that matches the appearance of the first Currently, Greco-Roman that is acknowl-
scientific research dealing with wrestling. The current short edged as the classic style and freestyle are the 2 internationally
review aimed to summarize and critically analyze the scien- recognized forms of competitive wrestling (19). Greco-Roman
tific literature related to wrestling’s physical and physiolog- wrestlers are permitted only to attack and to use their upper
ical attributes and to provide practical recommendations for body and, then, holds below the waist are forbidden, whereas
testing/training together with new perspective and areas of in freestyle they are permitted to use their whole body during
future scientific research. Regardless of sex and wrestling the competition (19). The main objective of each wrestler is to
styles, an optimal level of cardiorespiratory fitness is impor- physically dominate an opponent and to establish clear phys-
tant to help sustaining effort throughout the duration of the ical control over him/her. Wrestlers compete in a challenging
match and to stimulate the recovery process between peri- environment involving repetitive bouts of high-intensity ac-
tions (e.g., attacks and counterattacks) alternated by submax-
ods. With regard to the anaerobic power and capacity, the
imal work of low-intensity activity or pause (28,76). Wrestler’s
available studies were in agreement about their critical
physiological demands are complex, requiring athletes to have
importance toward reaching high-level wrestling success
highly developed capacities of maximal strength, power, mus-
since these variables have discriminated well between suc- cular endurance, maximal aerobic power, and anaerobic capa-
cessful and less-successful wrestlers regardless of age, bilities (28,76). The short quick bursts of maximal power
weight classes, and wrestling styles. Physical fitness pa- activities during the match are maintained by the anaerobic
rameters such as maximal dynamic strength, isometric system, whereas the aerobic system manages the wrestler’s
strength, explosive strength, and strength endurance are ability to maintain effort throughout the duration of the match
closely related to high-level wrestling performance. How- and accelerates the recovery process within and between suc-
ever, flexibility level seems not to be one of the key fitness cessive matches (9,33). As a result, modern wrestling taxes
variables that help to reach high-level wrestling success. both anaerobic and aerobic energy system with a different
Overall, to achieve high-level wrestling performance, train- level of intervention (9,44,51).
ing should be directed to develop anaerobic power and Review articles dealing with physical and physiological
characteristics of wrestlers have been published (28,76). The
most recent one was published in 2002 (76) and detailed only
Address correspondence to Dr. Yassine Negra, yassinenegr@hotmail.fr. physiological demands of elite-level male wrestlers without
31(5)/1411–1442 providing detailed information about the difference between
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research sex, age category, weight classes, and wrestling style. Though
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association the review of Horswill (28) was detailed and broadly
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2017 | 1411
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Wrestlers’ Physiology
The following search terms

were included: “wrestling,”
“wrestling AND physiology,”
“wrestling AND physical fit-
ness,” “wrestling AND power,”
“wrestling AND strength,”
“wrestling AND aerobic,” and
“wrestling AND anaerobic.”
Furthermore, the reference lists
of the included studies were
screened to identify additional
suitable studies for inclusion in
this review.
Selection Criteria
This study was achieved by
referring to the Meta-analysis
Of Observational Studies
in Epidemiology (MOOSE)
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the different phases of the search and study selection. approach (70). We included
studies using (1) elite and
amateur, male and female at
discussed several parameters related to wrestling perfor- any age category as participants, (2) detailing aspects of
mance, the latest article within this review was published in aerobic (maximal oxygen uptake [V_ O2max]), anaerobic
1991. However, since then many studies were published (blood lactate concentration [BLC], peak power [PP],
using more rigorous methodological procedures and materi- and mean power [MP]), and physical (maximal strength,
als. Moreover, the changes that occurred in the rules during strength endurance, isometric strength, muscular power,
the last decade (e.g., match duration; judging criteria; weight and flexibility) parameters of wrestlers. Additionally, all
categories in Olympic Games) may, certainly, influence the the selected studies should be original investigations writ-
physical and physiological demands of the match. For ten in English language and published in peer-reviewed
instance, female wrestling has largely grown in popularity journals after 1991. Studies not meeting with the afore-
since being enrolled into the Olympic Games in 2004 mentioned eligibility criteria were excluded.
(76,80). This may explain the particular attention made by
the scientific community to female wrestlers during the last RESULTS
decade (23,27,32,80). Particularly, establishing a clear under- Our systematic literature search identified 1,815 poten-
standing of the physical and physiological factors contribut- tially relevant studies. A screening of the titles excluded
ing to successful wrestling competition is one of the biggest 1,109 studies and then 462 duplicates were removed. The
challenges for coaches and sports scientists (41,44). Thus, remaining 244 studies were screened based on abstract,
providing an extensive up-to-date comprehensive review pro- and 86 of these were removed. One hundred fifty-eight
filing the physical and physiological attributes of male and papers were analyzed concerning the predefined eligibil-
female wrestlers in regard to their competitive level, age cat- ity criteria, and 87 of these were removed. Finally, 71
egory, wrestling style, weight classes, and match outcome studies with a total of 2,124 participants (mean sample
would help coaches, strength and conditioning professionals, size 30 subjects) were included in the quantitative
and sport scientists to optimize their training interventions by synthesis (Figure 1).
elaborating scientifically based training programs so as to
achieve high performance success. Therefore, the main pur- DISCUSSION
pose of the present review was to provide a comprehensive Aerobic Characteristics
synthesis of the literature and a critical appraisal of the main The aerobic energy system is critical to achieve high-level
physical and physiological characteristics of male and female wrestling performance (42,44,73,76). Specifically, the aer-
wrestlers from the latest scientific publications. obic system contributes to sustain effort throughout the
match and to stimulate the recovery process between
METHODS periods (9,28,56,76) (Table 1). The V_ O2max values re-
Literature Search Strategies ported extend from 37 to 67 ml$kg21$min21 and from
We performed a computerized systematic literature search in 39 to 52 ml$kg21$min21 for male and female senior wres-
PubMed and Google Scholar databases up to August 2016. tlers, respectively (Table 3). For female wrestlers, in
1412
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
TABLE 1. Maximum oxygen uptake of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Ergometer V_ O2max (ml$kg21$min21) [range] References
Males
French elite level (n = 15) FS (n = 10)/GR Treadmill 58.3 6 3.5 Passelergue and Lac (51)
(n = 5)
Egyptian national level (n = 30)
Small weight (n = 12) (50–60 kg) NR Cycle ergometer 4.56 6 0.59 (L$min21) Saad (60)
Medium weight (n = 18) (66–84 kg) 4.18 6 0.45 (L$min21)
Polish elite level (n = 10) FS Treadmill 59.8 6 8.6 Hübner-Woźniak et al. (31)
Turkish wrestlers (level = NR) (n = 126) Values predicted from the equation of
Leger and Gadoury [121]
AG15 (n = 25) NR Shuttle run 20-m 51.9 6 4.6 Demirkan (12)
AG16 (n = 41) test 49.6 6 5.7
AG17 (n = 60) 50.8 6 5.9
Iranian elite level
4 time world champion (n = 1) (55 kg) GR Treadmill 56 Mirzaei et al. (41)
Colombian elite level (n = 21) NR Cycle-ergometer 45.9 6 6.6 [42.8–48.9] Ramirez-Velez et al. (55)
American (level = NR) (n = 13)
Preseason NR Cycle-ergometer 42.01 6 1.60 Nemet et al. (47)
Midseason 44.37 6 2.24
Peakseason 46.95 6 2.46
Postseason 43.05 6 0.36
Turkish from different levels of practice Values predicted from the equation of
(n = 126) Léger and Gadoury [121]
Top elite (n = 13) FS (n = 70)/GR Shuttle run 20-m 53.3 6 5.9 Demirkan et al. (13)

54.4 6 5
the
Elite (n = 25) (n = 56) test
Amateur (n = 88) 48.9 6 5.3
Light weight
Elite (n = 12) 52.1 6 5.3
Amateur (n = 31) 49.5 6 5.1
Middle weight
Elite (n = 12) 57.6 6 2.0
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2017 |
Amateur (n = 32) 50.4 6 5.4

Heavy weight
Elite (n = 11) 52.7 6 5.9
Amateur (n = 25) 46.7 6 5.0
Spanish wrestlers (n = 62)
Elite (n = 28) FS/GR NR 54.0 6 8.2 Moran-Navarro et al. (46)
Subelite (n = 34) 47.8 6 3.6
(continued on next page)
TM
| www.nsca.com
1413
1414
Turkish club level (n = 55) Values predicted from the equation of
Leger and Lambert [126]
Light weight (n = 18) GR Shuttle run 20-m 47.16 6 4.74 Saygin (63)
47.77 6 5.43
the
Middle weight (n = 20) test

Heavy weight (n = 17) 43.16 6 4.92
Turkish (level = NR) (n = 126) Values predicted from the equation of
Leger and Gadoury [121]
Greco-Roman (n = 56) FS/GR Shuttle run 20-m 51.0 6 4.9 Demirkan et al. (15)
Freestyle (n = 70) test 50.1 6 6.3
Iranian elite-level (n = 44)
42 kg (n = 4) NR Treadmill 45.0 6 3.46 Mirzaei et al. (42)
46 kg (n = 4) 45.25 6 3.30
50 kg (n = 5) 47.0 6 2.34
54 kg (n = 3) 49.67 6 2.08
58 kg (n = 6) 49.50 6 4.08
63 kg (n = 5) 46.40 6 3.91
69 kg (n = 5) 46.20 6 5.16
76 kg (n = 4) 48.75 6 4.71
85 kg (n = 3) 47.0 6 2.0
TM
100 kg (n = 5) 44.0 6 3.0

Total 46.84 6 3.76
Japanese elite level (n = 22)
Light weight (n = 7) (59–65 kg) NR Cycle-ergometer 52.8 6 5.9 Ohya et al. (50)
Middle weight (n = 8) (71–88 kg) 48.0 6 6.7
Heavy weight (n = 7) (99–122 kg) 36.9 6 4.4
Iranian national level (n = 15) [values were
provided before and after the 4-wk sprint
interval program for the experimental group]
Experimental group (n = 8) FS Treadmill 49.3 6 4.4 (pre-test); 52.0 6 3.4 Farzad et al. (18)
(post-test)
Control group (n = 7) 51.2 6 6.1 (pre-test); 50.1 6 4.7
(post-test)
Caucasian elite level (n = 1)
Preseason FS Treadmill 55 (SD = NR) Utter et al. (73)
Midseason 57 (SD = NR)
Peakseason 55.8 (SD = NR)
Iranian elite level (n = 70)
50 kg (n = 6) FS Treadmill 52.0 6 4.8 [42–57] Mirzaei et al. (44)
55 kg (n = 6) 52.4 6 4.0 [48–57]
60 kg (n = 6) 52.9 6 3.9 [48–58]
66 kg (n = 10) 52.8 6 3.1 [48.5–56]
74 kg (n = 11) 51.2 6 4.1 [45–57]
84 kg (n = 11) 50.2 6 2.7 [46–54]
96 kg (n = 10) 46.7 6 2.3 [44–50]
120 kg (n = 7) 42.0 6 2.6 [38–45]
Total 50.5 6 4.7 [42–58]
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
particular, there exists limited research studies. When con-

sidering cadet male wrestlers, V_ O2max values vary between
42 and 58 ml$kg21$min21. The broad range of V_ O2max
Hübner-Woźniak et al. (31)

Arabaci and Çankaya (3)
values established in both men and women seems to be
Ghorbani et al. (24)
mainly due to the wrestler’s level of practice, training phase,
Zi-Hong et al. (80)

mode of testing (i.e., laboratory vs. field and treadmill vs.
Callan et al. (9)
cycle ergometer) and to the different weight categories.

Scientific evidences showed that a cycle ergometer resulted
in an 8–10% lower V_ O2max compared with the treadmill
test (4,61). The mean values of V_ O2max reported in wres-
tlers are comparable with those established in karate (47–61
ml$kg21$min21 for men) (10), taekwondo (44–63 and 40–
51 ml$kg21$min21 for men and women, respectively) (8),
judo (50–60 and 40–50 ml$kg21$min21 for men and
women, respectively) (20), and amateur boxing (49–65
and 44–52 ml$kg21$min21 for men and women, respec-
tively) (11). These findings mean that wrestling places
important demand on aerobic fitness level. Horswill (28)
reported V_ O2max values from 52 to 63 ml$kg21$min21,
1.83
1.82
2.31
4.17
3.33
similar to the results established in the current investiga-

tion. Yoon, (76) revealed that the V_ O2max values of national
54.6 6 2.0
41.2 6 6.1
55.2 6 3.4
47.5 6 3.0
47.7 6 3.9
49.7 6 2.7
6
6
6
6
6
and international wrestlers were approximately 53–56

52.43
51.28
50.20
46.48
50.58
ml$kg21$min21.
When looking for the difference between wrestlers of
various competitive levels, Horswill et al. (29) reported sim-
cycle-ergometer
*FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; NR = not reported; AG = age group.
ilar V_ O2max values between Olympic, collegiate, and scho-

Cycle-ergometer
Treadmill and
lastic athletes. However, the recent study of Demirkan et al.

(13) reported higher V_ O2max values (11.4–12.5%) in top-elite
Treadmill
Treadmill
and elite wrestlers compared with their amateur peers. Yoon

(76), Mirzaei et al. (42), and Utter et al. (73) suggested that
NR
aerobic metabolism is a basic requirement for elite wrestlers

to achieve good performance. Recently, Nikooie et al. (48)
reported that successful male wrestlers had higher V_ O2 val-
ues corresponding to the ventilatory threshold than their
less-successful peers. Altogether, these findings suggest that
high level of aerobic power and capacity are important fac-
NR
tors to achieve high wrestling performance level.

FS
FS
FS
FS
With respect to female wrestlers, Zi-Hong et al. (80) re-

vealed similar V_ O2max values between successful and less-
Values reported from treadmill test (n = 5)
successful wrestlers. When dealing with the difference

Values reported from cycle-ergometer
between freestyle and Greco-Roman styles, the available

research did not show any significant difference between
them (15,39). This is consistent with the previous review
Iranian university level (n = 8)
by Horswill et al. (29). This observation means that the

Chinese elite level (n = 23)
American elite-level (n = 8)
Turkish club level (n = 20)
Polish elite level (n = 10)
activity of both styles stimulates similarly the aerobic energy

system.
Taken together, results indicated that an optimal level of
Cadet (n = 10)
Junior (n = 10)
V_ O2max is one of the important factors toward achieving

48 kg (n = 8)
55 kg (n = 5)
63 kg (n = 5)
72 kg (n = 5)
a high wrestling performance level. In view of the paucity

of scientific data about female wrestlers, future works are
Total
(n = 3)
needed. It is worth noting that the activity profile of the

Females
presented V_ O2max test is not wrestling specific. For that

reason, conducting future studies assessing V_ O2max through
a protocol including the particular actions of wrestling are
highly recommended.
1416
TABLE 2. Lower-body Wingate anaerobic test in wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Legs
the
Athletes characteristics Peak power Mean power

(n) Wrestling style Protocol Peak power (W) (W$kg21) Mean power (W) (W$kg21) References
Males
French elite level (n = FS/GR Force-velocity 763.6 6 155.8 11.2 6 1.4; 555.4 6 106.1 8.4 6 1.2; Passelergue and
15) [Values were test, Wingate [4th wk]; 12.9 6 1.3 [4th wk]; 615.2 9.2 6 1.1 Lac (51)
provided at the 4th test 30 s 862.1 6 156.8 6 103.7 [15th
and 15th wk of [15th wk] wk]
general and specific
wrestling training
period]
Turkish wrestlers
(level = NR) (n =
126)
AG15 (n = 25) NR Wingate test 718 6 279 12.6 6 1.8 376 6 132 6.6 6 0.7 Demirkan (12)
AG16 (n = 41) 30 s 868 6 204 13.2 6 1.9 462 6 102 7.0 6 0.8
TM
AG17 (n = 60) 952 6 216 13.5 6 1.8 489 6 101 7.0 6 0.7
Polish club level
(n = 36)
AG16 (n = 12) GR Wingate test NR 10.58 6 0.46 NR NR Gierczuk and
AG17 (n = 12) 30 s 10.81 6 0.57 Długołe˛cka (25)
AG18 (n = 12) 11.03 6 0.57
Polish national level GR Wingate test NR 11.4 6 0.6; NR 9.2 6 0.8; Hübner-Woźniak
(n = 30) 30 s 13.6 6 0.5 11.9 6 0.6 et al. (30)
(W$kg21 FFM) (W$kg21
FFM)
Turkish elite level NR Wingate test 615.4 6 114.3 8.5 6 1.0 458.2 6 91.6 6.3 6 0.3 Vardar et al. (74)
(n = 8) 30 s
Turkish wrestlers
(n = 126)
Top elite (n = 13) FS (n = 70)/ Wingate test 946 6 242 14.3 6 1.7 483 6 105 7.3 6 0.6 Demirkan et al.
Elite (n = 25) GR (n = 56) 30 s 922 6 291 13.7 6 2.3 477 6 140 7.1 6 0.8 (13)
Amateur (n = 88) 887 6 207 13.1 6 1.7 464 6 99 6.8 6 0.7
Light weight
Elite (n = 15) 661 6 160 13.7 6 2.3 345 6 52 6.6 6 0.6
Amateur (n = 31) 701 6 100 13 6 1.4 367 6 53 6.8 6 0.6
Middle weight
Elite (n = 12) 1,026 6 79 15.3 6 1.2 518 6 32 7.7 6 0.3
Amateur (n = 32) 890 6 135 13.4 6 1.7 474 6 55 7.2 6 0.5
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 11) 1,191 6 190 14 6 1.5 619 6 74 7.3 6 0.7
Amateur (n = 25) 1,141 6 142 12.8 6 2.0 587 6 55 6.6 6 0.7
Polish (level = NR)

16 years old GR Wingate test NR 10.3 6 0.5 NR 8.1 6 0.3 Gierczuk et al.
17 years old 30 s 11.1 6 0.4 8.6 6 0.3 (26) [the same
18 years old 10.1 6 0.5 7.7 6 0.3 group was
19 years old 11.8 6 1 8.5 6 0.6 tested in 4
occasions for 4
consecutive
years]
American national level
(n = 18)
T1: Before the NR Wingate test Ratamess et al.
beginning of the 1 min (57)
preseason
training period
Total 739.9 6 100.2 9.95 6 2.04 451.1 6 70.8 6.08 6 1.42
Starters (n = 7) 743.3 6 81.7 10.02 6 2.35 462.9 6 58.6 6.23 6 1.46
Nonstarters 737.8 6 114.2 9.91 6 1.93 443.3 6 79.4 5.99 6 1.47
(n = 11)
T2: After preseason
training 3 d before
the first meet of
the season
Total 667.7 6 146.4 9.24 6 2.39 432.3 6 71.5 6.02 6 1.43
Starters 707.7 6 176.6 9.8 6 3.24 443.4 6 66.1 6.16 6 1.62
Nonstarters 642.2 6 126.1 8.88 6 1.74 425.2 6 77 5.93 6 1.37
T3: midseason

1 d before a meet
the
Total 680.7 6 138.5 9.37 6 2.32 445.6 6 67.8 6.17 6 1.40
Starters 701.6 6 167.9 9.85 6 3.16 444.3 6 61.9 6.24 6 1.44
Nonstarters 667.4 6 123.3 9.06 6 1.7 446.4 6 4.2 6.12 6 1.44
T4: end of the
season 2–3
d after the last
meet
Total 716.3 6 137.9 9.76 6 2.40 459.7 6 71.7 6.29 6 1.50
Starters 713.0 6 165.1 9.79 6 2.92 450.6 6 61.3 6.18 6 1.33
Nonstarters 718.4 6 126.3 9.74 6 2.17 465.5 6 79.9 6.35 6 1.67
Turkish wrestlers
(level = NR)
(n = 126)
Greco-Roman FS/GR Wingate test 906 6 250 13.5 6 1.6 478 6 119 7.1 6 0.6 Demirkan et al.
(n = 56) 30 s (15)
895 6 210 13.2 6 2 461 6 100 6.8 6 0.8
TM
Freestyle (n = 70)
| www.nsca.com
Serbian elite level NR Wingate test 765.53 6 9.76 6 1.8 516.11 6 89.98 6.63 6 1.14 Popadic Gacesa
(n = 17) 30 s 174.57 et al. (53)
1417

1418
Turkish elite level
(n = 126)
Light weight NR Wingate test 688.2 6 123 12.9 6 1.7 360 6 53 6.7 6 0.6 Demirkan et al.
the
(n = 46) 30 s (14)
Middle weight 927.3 6 136 14 6 1.8 486 6 53 7.3 6 0.6
(n = 44)
Heavy weight 1,158 6 159 13.2 6 1.9 598 6 63 6.8 6 0.8
(n = 36)
Japanese elite level
(n = 22)
Light weight (n = 7) NR Wingate test NR 9 6 0.4 NR 5.3 6 0.3 Ohya et al. (50)
Middle weight 1 min 9.3 6 0.4 5.3 6 0.4
(n = 8)
Heavy weight (n = 7) 9 6 0.5 4.5 6 0.5
Turkish elite level
(n = 48)
Selected (n = 11) GR Wingate test 1,206 6 258 15.3 6 2.3 611 6 144 7.4 6 0.7 Demirkan et al.
Nonselected 30 s 1,039 6 292 14 6 2.7 518 6 135 7 6 0.9 (16)
(n = 37)
TM
American high school NR Wingate test 700.3 6 123.8 NR 547 6 87.8 NR Zuniga et al. (81)
level (n = 103) 30 s [458.8– [358.8–788.2]
1,058.8]
Iranian elite level
(n = 70)
50 kg (n = 6) FS Wingate test 329.4 6 30.6 NR NR NR Mirzaei et al. (44)
8s [290–375]
55 kg (n = 6) 407.9 6 36.9
[350–445]
60 kg (n = 6) 400.9 6 52.3
[300–460]
66 kg (n = 10) 438.8 6 50.9
[370–530]
74 kg (n = 11) 486.1 6 48.2
[400–550]
84 kg (n = 11) 517.5 6 48.7
[430–580]
96 kg (n = 10) 541.4 6 39
[495–600]
120 kg (n = 7) 589.2 6 62.2
[550–620]
Total 455.5 6 87.6
[290–620]
Iranian elite level
(n = 28)
Junior (n = 14) GR Wingate test NR NR Nikooie et al. (48)

Successful 30 s 12.88 6 1.6 6.71 6 0.35 [All values are
(n = 5) expressed
Nonsuccessful 11.24 6 1.1 6.37 6 0.48 relative to body
(n = 9) FFM]
Senior (n = 12)
Successful NR NR
(n = 5)
Nonsuccessful
(n = 7)
Polish elite level FS Wingate test 859 6 171 11.4 6 0.5 660 6 133 8.7 6 0.5 Hübner-Wozniak
(n = 10) 30 s (13.2 6 1 (10.1 6 0.8 et al. (32)
W$kg21 FFM) W$kg21
FFM)
Females
Turkish elite level Wingate test 376.6 6 57.9 6.8 6 0.6 279.9 6 47.8 5 6 0.5 Vardar et al. (74)
(n = 8) 30 s
Collegiate level
Japanese (n = 10) Wingate test 550.6 6 100.4 8.6 6 0.5 463.8 6 78.1 7.2 6 0.4 Yoon (77)
Korean (n = 6) 30 s 434.8 6 71.4 7.7 6 1.2 364.5 6 60.4 6.5 6 1
Chine elite level
(n = 25)
48 kg (n = 8) Wingate test 416.72 6 35.68 8.11 6 0.59 243.27 6 51.83 4.74 6 1.04 Zi-Hong et al. (80)
55 kg (n = 5) 30 s 479.59 6 35.78 7.85 6 0.61 232.19 6 22.51 3.79 6 0.39
63 kg (n = 5) 540.99 6 4.84 8.04 6 0.5 273.77 6 19.79 4.07 6 0.28
72 kg (n = 7) 590.62 6 51.33 7.77 6 0.74 314.46 6 63.84 4.13 6 0.79

Total 495.21 6 79.13 7.96 6 0.59 262.97 6 52.39 4.25 6 0.81
the
Polish elite level FS Wingate test 530 6 98 8.6 6 0.8 (11.3 6 420 6 87 6.8 6 0.8 Hübner-Wozniak
(n = 12) 30 s 1.3 W$kg21 (9.0 6 1.2 et al. (32)
FFM) W$kg21
FFM)
*FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; NR = not reported; AG = age group.

TM
| www.nsca.com
1419
1420
TABLE 3. Upper-body Wingate anaerobic test in wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Arms
the
Peak power Peak power Mean power Mean power

Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Protocol (W) (W$kg21) (W) (W$kg21) References
Males
Turkish wrestlers (level =
NR) (n = 126)
AG15 (n = 25) NR Wingate test 458 6 149 8.2 6 1.2 247 6 86 4.4 6 0.6 Demirkan (12)
AG16 (n = 41) 30 s 616 6 193 9.3 6 2.2 315 6 96 4.7 6 0.9
AG17 (n = 60) 684 6 194 9.7 6 2.0 354 6 88 5.0 6 0.8
Polish national level (n = GR Wingate test NR 9.3 6 1.9; 11.1 6 NR 7.9 6 0.6; 9.4 6 Hübner-Woźniak et al.
30) 30 s 1.3 (W$kg21 0.4 (W$kg21 (30)
FFM) FFM)
Turkish wrestlers (n = 126)
Top elite (n = 13) FS (n = 70)/ Wingate test 635 6 187 9.6 6 2.0 331 6 92 5 6 0.9 Demirkan et al. (13)
Elite (n = 25) GR (n = 56) 30 s 676 6 237 10 6 2.2 344 6 112 5.1 6 0.9
Amateur (n = 88) 627 6 191 9.2 6 2.0 325 6 92 4.7 6 0.8
TM
Light weight
Elite (n = 15) 487 6 146 9.3 6 2.1 241 6 63 4.6 6 1
Amateur (n = 31) 476 6 134 8.8 6 2 240 6 60 4.4 6 0.9
Middle weight
Elite (n = 12) 717 6 121 10.7 6 1.7 367 6 46 5.5 6 0.5
Amateur (n = 32) 638 6 124 9.6 6 1.7 329 6 58 5.0 6 0.8
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 11) 840 6 217 9.9 6 2.3 444 6 74 5.2 6 0.9
Amateur (n = 25) 821 6 163 9.3 6 2.1 433 6 41 4.9 6 0.6
Olympic level wrestlers
from different countries (n =
36)
Greco-Roman FS/GR Wingate test Maria Lopez-Gullon
Light weight (n = 6) 30 s 668 6 78 12.1 6 1.7 414 6 35 7.5 6 1.07 et al. (39) [All
Middle weight (n = 6) 759 6 178 11.6 6 2.2 508.8 6 98 7.8 6 1.21 values are
Heavy weight (n = 6) 890 6 131 11.7 6 1.6 587 6 102 7.7 6 1.11 expressed relative
Freestyle to body FFM]
Light weight (n = 6) 628 6 108 11.6 6 1.6 429 6 38 7.95 6 1.08
Middle weight (n = 6) 793 6 146 12 6 1.7 518 6 67 7.84 6 0.73
Heavy weight (n = 6) 873 6 166 11.5 6 2.0 569 6 106 7.48 6 1.20
Polish (level = NR)
16 years old GR Wingate test NR 8 6 0.2 NR 6.7 6 0.2 Gierczuk et al. (26)
17 years old 30 s 8.8 6 0.6 7 6 0.4 [the same group
18 years old 8.6 6 0.6 7.1 6 0.5 was tested in 4
19 years old 9.3 6 0.6 7.3 6 0.4 occasions for 4
consecutive years]

92)
Light weight
Elite (n = 18) FS/GR Wingate test 630 6 86 NR NR 7.74 6 0.86 Garcia-Pallares et al.
Amateur (n = 15) 30 s 492 6 146 6.74 6 0.80 (22) [All values are
Middle weight expressed relative
Elite (n = 18) 781 6 154 8.07 6 1.40 to body FFM]
Amateur (n = 19) 643 6 140 7.95 6 1.08
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 10) 902 6 151 7.89 6 1.07
Amateur (n = 12) 750 6 113 6.62 6 0.67
Turkish elite level (n = 126)
Light weight (n = 46) NR Wingate test 479 6 136 8.9 6 2 241 6 60 4.5 6 0.9 Demirkan et al. (14)
Middle weight (n = 44) 30 s 660 6 127 9.9 6 1.8 340 6 57 5.1 6 0.8
Heavy weight (n = 36) 827 6 179 9.5 6 2.2 437 6 53 5 6 0.7
NR) (n = 126)
Greco-Roman (n = 56) FS/GR Wingate test 693 6 218 10.2 6 1.8 348 6 96 5.1 6 0.6 Demirkan et al. (15)
Freestyle (n = 70) 30 s 594 6 173 8.7 6 2 316 6 94 4.6 6 0.9
Polish elite level (n = 10) FS Wingate test 732 6 180 9.6 6 0.8 [11.2 6 516 6 108 6.9 6 0.5 [7.9 6 Hübner-Wozniak et al.
30 s 1.2 W$kg21 0.7 W$kg21 (32)
FFM] FFM]
Selected (n = 11) GR Wingate test 838 6 225 10.6 6 2.8 439 6 110 4.9 6 0.6 Demirkan et al. (16)
Nonselected (n = 37) 30 s 725 6 163 9.3 6 2.2 380 6 109 4.4 6 0.7

the
Junior (n = 14) GR Wingate test NR NR Nikooie et al. (48) [All
Successful (n = 5) 30 s 11.17 6 1.2 5.96 6 0.67 values are
Nonsuccessful (n = 9) 9.84 6 1.07 5.05 6 0.77 expressed relative
Senior (n = 12) to body FFM]
Successful (n = 5) 11.45 6 1.41 8.29 6 0.4
Nonsuccessful (n = 7) 10.48 6 1.19 7.45 6 0.74
Females
Spanish elite level (n = 13) Wingate test NR 8.16 6 1.55 NR 11.17 6 1.43 Garcia Pallares et al.
30 s W$kg20.92 W$kg276 (23)
Polish elite level (n = 12) Wingate test 367 6 63 5.9 6 0.5 [7.8 6 284 6 51 4.6 6 0.4 [6.1 6 Hübner-Wozniak et al.
30 s 0.8 W$kg21 0.7 W$kg21 (32)
FFM] FFM]
*NR = not reported; AG = age group; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; FS = freestyle wrestling; FFM = fat-free mass.
TM
| www.nsca.com
1421
Anaerobic Characteristics within elite wrestlers. When dealing with studies matching
Anaerobic energy level is critical for judging the final successful and less-successful wrestlers, Roemmich and
wrestling combat result (23,28,29,45). This is because the Frappier (59) reported that the successful wrestlers pre-
determinant moments of the match are mainly associated sented a greater relative anaerobic power (16.5 6 0.3
with the energy provided by the anaerobic energy systems W$kg21) compared with the less-successful ones (15.2 6
(32). Results of the wrestling mean duration of work and rest 0.4 W$kg21). The review of Horswill (28) demonstrated that
periods were 37.2 6 9.8 and 13.8 6 6.0 seconds, respectively the successful wrestlers presented high anaerobic power and
(;activity-to-rest ratio: 2.5:1) (49). The latter authors capacity in both upper and lower limbs. Recently, Nikooie
showed high level of BLC (14.8 6 2.8 mmol$L21 [6.9– et al. (48) revealed that the upper-limb MP was higher in
20.6 mmol$L21]) highlighting the important contribution successful elite-level male wrestlers compared with their
of the glycolytic system so as to appropriately meet the nonsuccessful counterparts. Authors admit that anaerobic
requirement of wrestling’s activity. Horswill (28) and Yoon metabolism should be developed as it is one of the most
(76) reported that successful wrestlers are characterized by important determinants to Greco-Roman performance
high-level anaerobic power and capacity in both legs and success.
arms. Mirzaei et al. (44) revealed that with the current Garcia Pallares et al. (23) compared female wrestlers of
change in the international competition rules (3 rounds of different competitive levels and revealed that the amateur
2 minutes with 30 seconds in-between), anaerobic metabo- wrestlers showed lower upper-limb MP and PP compared
lism would be engaged to a larger extent. They noted that with the elite ones (17.3–23%). The same observation was
the energy provided by anaerobic metabolism sources can be recorded when MP and PP values were expressed allometri-
judged as being more critical than the aerobic power and cally (17.8–22.3%). Overall, it seems that the level of anaero-
capacity for successful wrestling. To assess wrestlers’ anaer- bic power and capacity are critical indicators of achieving
obic characteristics, the Wingate anaerobic test has been high-level wrestling performance success.
widely used (13,22,23,39,41,51,57,77). The range of lower- As expected, heavier wrestlers presented higher absolute
limb PP and MP outputs expressed relatively to the total arms and leg PP and MP outputs in both genders
body-mass of senior/junior elite-level male wrestlers extends (13,14,22,39,44,80). However, when normalized to each
from 10 to 17 W$kg21 and from 4 to 9 W$kg21, respectively wrestler’s body mass, close values were recorded
(Table 2). For elite-level senior female wrestlers, the same (13,14,22,39,44). Garcia Pallares et al. (23) reported that
anaerobic parameters extend from 7 to 9 W$kg21 for PP upper-limb MP and PP outputs were higher in elite-level
and from 4 to 7 W$kg21 for MP. Results related to PP values middle-weight female wrestlers compared with light-
within elite-level male wrestlers seem to be higher compared weight ones (15.08–19.2%, respectively). However, when
with those established in judo (20), amateur boxing (11), and expressed allometrically, no significant differences were de-
karate (10). However, with respect to MP output, values tected between the 2 groups, highlighting the effectiveness of
recorded within elite-level wrestlers seem to be similar to this way of performance normalization.
those established in judo (20), amateur boxing (11), and Limited data are available detailing anaerobic level
karate (10). This observation may indicate that elite-level difference between wrestling styles. Demirkan et al. (15) re-
male wrestlers presented a similar anaerobic capacity but ported higher anaerobic power (14.7% for relative PP) and
a higher anaerobic power compared with the other combat capacity (9.8% for relative MP) in the upper limbs within
sports athletes. The upper-limb PP and MP outputs range elite-level Greco-Roman wrestlers compared with their free-
between 7 and 11 W$kg21 and between 4 and 7 W$kg21, style counterpart. They attributed this difference to the par-
respectively, for senior/junior elite-level male wrestlers ticular characteristics of the Greco-Roman wrestling style,
(Table 3). However, studies about the same parameters which requires, essentially, the use of upper-limb technical
within elite-level senior/junior female wrestlers are scarce. drills during contests against the opponent. However, Maria
Hübner-Wozniak et al. (32) revealed that upper-limb PP and Lopez-Gullon et al. (39) revealed that there was no signifi-
MP outputs of Polish elite-level female wrestlers were 5.9 6 cant difference in arms PP and MP outputs either expressed
0.5 and 4.6 6 0.4 W$kg21, respectively (Table 3). With re- absolutely or relatively between the 2 styles. This is in agree-
gard to cadet elite-level male wrestlers, lower-limb PP and ment with the study of Horswill (28) that reported similar
MP outputs extend from 8 to 15 W$kg21 and from 6 to upper-limb PP and MP between the 2 wrestling styles. In
7 W$kg21, respectively. The same parameters extend from view of the disagreement between the aforementioned stud-
8 to 11 W$kg21 and from 4 to 5 W$kg21 for upper-limb PP ies, further studies are needed.
and MP, respectively. In conclusion, anaerobic power and capacity are impor-
Regarding wrestlers of different competitive levels, results tant variables for achieving high-level wrestling perfor-
showed higher upper- and lower-limb PP and MP outputs in mance and accurately discriminate between successful and
elite male wrestlers compared with their amateur peers less-successful wrestlers regardless of their age category,
(1,13,16,22,29). Authors attributed this difference to the weight classes, and wrestling style. Future studies with female
higher lean body-mass and to the greater neural activation wrestlers are recommended. It is worth noting that there is
1422
the TM
TABLE 4. Maximal dynamic-strength of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Absolute 1RM score (kg) Relative 1RM score (kg per

Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Strength test [range] body mass) [range] References
Males
French elite level (n = 15) FS/GR Bench press 73.6 6 11.1 (4th wk) NR Passelergue and Lac
[Values were provided at the 77.8 6 10.0 (9th wk) (51)
4th, 9th, and 15th wk of 79.2 6 6.2 (15th wk)
general and specific Squat 87.5 6 12.3 (4th wk)
wrestling training period] 103.7 6 11.7 (9th wk)
99.8 6 13.8 (15th wk)
Power clean 72.1 6 11.2 (4th wk)
76.5 6 9.9 (9th wk)
82.3 6 8.5 (15th wk)
Iranian elite-level
4 time world champion (n GR Bench press 85 NR Mirzaei et al. (41)
= 1) (55 kg) Squat 112
Spanish wrestlers (n = 62)
Elite (n = 28)/Subelite (n FS/GR Bench press NR 1.1 6 0.2/0.9 6 0.2 Morán-Navarro et al. (45)
= 34) Squat 1.4 6 0.2/1.1 6 0.3
FS (n = 46)/GR (n = 61) FS/GR Bench press 107.68 6 23.27 (FS)/ NR Starosta et al. (66)
92.66 6 18.74 (GR)
Snatch 63.14 6 12.74 (FS)/
58.33 6 8.17 (GR)
Squat 117.44 6 30.15 (FS)/

the
111.71 6 21.58 (GR)
Maximum load 85.84 6 17.29 (FS)/
onto the chest 82.56 6 12.42 (GR)
American national level (n =
10)
Preseason NR Power clean 79.4 6 14.6 NR Schmidt et al. (64)
Midseason 75.9 6 15.2
Postseason 80.4 6 14.4

American NCAA Division III NR Bench press 105 6 19 NR McGuigan et al. (40)
(n = 8) Power clean 85 6 15
Squat 129 6 23
TM
| www.nsca.com
1423
1424
42 kg (n = 4) NR Bench press NR 1.02 6 0.08 Mirzaei et al. (42)
46 kg (n = 4) 1.03 6 0.10
50 kg (n = 5) 0.92 6 0.19
0.91 6 0.01
the
54 kg (n = 3)
58 kg (n = 6) 0.88 6 0.21
63 kg (n = 5) 0.93 6 0.06
69 kg (n = 5) 0.91 6 0.11
76 kg (n = 4) 0.81 6 0.14
85 kg (n = 3) 0.71 6 0.06
100 kg (n = 5) 0.71 6 0.18
Total 0.88 6 0.16
Iranian elite level (n = 70) All values are expressed
(W$kg21)
50 kg (n = 6) FS Bench press NR 1.47 6 0.12 [1.21–1.48] Mirzaei et al. (44)
55 kg (n = 6) 1.4 6 0.1 [1.25–1.60]
60 kg (n = 6) 1.6 6 0.2 [1.30–1.90]
66 kg (n = 10) 1.5 6 0.1 [1.35–1.60]
74 kg (n = 11) 1.42 6 0.1 [1.20–1.52]
84 kg (n = 11) 1.4 6 0.1 [1.28–1.50]
TM
96 kg (n = 10) 1.2 6 0.1 [1.15–1.42]

120 kg (n = 7) 1.3 6 0.09 [1.20–1.38]
Total 1.4 6 0.15 [1.15–1.90]
50 kg (n = 6) Squat 1.8 6 0.2 [1.49–2.20]
55 kg (n = 6) 1.9 6 0.1 [1.70–2.20]
60 kg (n = 6) 1.9 6 0.2 [1.70–2.20]
66 kg (n = 10) 1.8 6 0.2 [1.60–2.00]
74 kg (n = 11) 1.5 6 0.1 [1.27–1.80]
84 kg (n = 11) 1.6 6 0.1 [1.40–1.80]
96 kg (n = 10) 1.7 6 0.1 [1.65–1.82]
120 kg (n = 7) 1.4 6 0.1 [1.29–1.50]
Total 1.7 6 0.2 [1.27–2.20]
Polish elite level (n = 45) NR Bench press NR 1.24 6 0.79 [1.61–0.17] Starosta and Rynkiewicz
Squat 1.45 6 1.15 [1.72–0.13] (67)
Clean 1.12 6 0.84 [1.34–0.12]
Barbell clean and 0.79 6 0.59 [0.93–0.08]
jerk
Polish national level (n =
107)
GR (n = 61)/FS (n = 46) GR/FS Bench press 92.66 6 18.74 (GR)/ NR Baić et al. (5)
107.68 6 23.27 (FS)
Snatch 58.33 6 8.17 (GR)/
63.14 6 12.74 (FS)
Lifting maximum 82.56 6 12.42 (GR)/
load onto the 85.84 6 17.29 (FS)
chest
Back squats 111.71 6 21.58 (GR)/
117.44 6 30.15 (FS)
Females
Chine elite level (n = 25)
48 kg (n = 8) Deadlift 109 6 9 [100–120] 2.19 6 017 [1.95–2.31] Zi-Hong et al. (80)
55 kg (n = 5) 126 6 9 [120–140] 2.11 6 0.15 [1.98–2.33]
63 kg (n = 5) 123 6 23 [90–165] 1.81 6 0.37 [1.34–2.50]
72 kg (n = 7) 150 6 17 [140–170] 1.98 6 0.25 [1.75–2.33]
Total 124 6 19 [90–170] 2.03 6 0.26 [1.34–2.50]
48 kg (n = 8) Squat 90 6 4 [85–95] 1.77 6 0.1 [1.70–1.83]
55 kg (n = 5) 100 6 12 [80–110] 1.67 6 0.2 [1.33–1.85]
63 kg (n = 5) 99 6 17 [80–115] 1.46 6 0.2 [1.19–1.69]
72 kg (n = 7) 106 6 8 [95–120] 1.36 6 0.1 [1.27–1.75]
Total 98 6 11 [80–115] 1.59 6 0.2 [1.19–1.85]
48 kg (n = 8) Prone rowing 64 6 4 [60–70] 1.28 6 0.1 [1.20–1.37]
55 kg (n = 5) 74 6 5 [65–80] 1.24 6 0.1 [1.08–1.34]
63 kg (n = 5) 76 6 1 [65–90] 1.16 6 0.1 [1.04–1.23]
72 kg (n = 7) 78 6 5 [75–85] 1.02 6 0.1 [0.94–1.23]
Total 72 6 8 [60–90] 1.18 6 0.1 [0.94–1.37]

48 kg (n = 8) Power clean 74 6 7 [65–85] 1.45 6 0.18 [1.30–1.70]
the
55 kg (n = 5) 75 6 11 [65–90] 1.25 6 0.17 [1.08–1.50]
63 kg (n = 5) 77 6 18 [60–95] 1.12 6 0.21 [0.90–1.30]
72 kg (n = 7) 82 6 21 [65–105] 1.06 6 0.29 [0.81–1.38]
Total 76 6 12 [60–105] 1.24 6 0.24 [0.81–1.70]
48 kg (n = 8) Hold and squat 104 6 4 [100–110] 2.07 6 0.1 [2.00–2.15]
55 kg (n = 5) 104 6 21 [75–130] 1.74 6 0.3 [1.25–2.18]
110 6 18 [85–150] 1.62 6 0.3 [1.27–2.27]
63 kg (n = 5)
72 kg (n = 7) 125 6 22 [110–150] 1.63 6 0.3 [1.44–1.97]
Total 109 6 17 [75–150] 1.77 6 0.3 [1.25–2.27]
Spanish elite level (n = 13) Bench press NR 2.7 6 0.42 (kg$kg20.67) Garcia Pallares et al.
Squat 3.28 6 0.42 (kg$kg20.67) (23)
*FS = freestyle wrestlers; GR = Greco-Roman wrestlers; NR = not reported; AG = age group; 1RM = one-repetition maximal.
TM
| www.nsca.com
1425
1426
TABLE 5. Maximal isometric strength of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Handgrip strength performance

Lower-back
(kgf) [range]
the
strength Leg strength Measurement

Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Right hand Left hand performance (kgf) (kgf) equipment References
Males
NR) (n = 126)
AG15 (n = 25) NR 36.4 6 10.7 34.9 6 10 135 6 32 176 6 36 Dynamometer (Takei Demirkan
AG16 (n = 41) 43.9 6 8.4 42.5 6 7.8 150 6 32 189 6 40 A5001 Hand Grip (12)
AG17 (n = 60) 46.6 6 8.7 46.4 6 8.4 153 6 35 194 6 38 Dynamometer;
Takei, Tokyo,
Japan)
Turkish from different levels
of practice (n = 126)
Top elite (n = 13) FS (n = 70)/ 45.1 6 9.8 44.8 6 8.9 147.3 6 30 188 6 40 Dynamometer (Takei Demirkan
GR (n = 56) A5001 Hand Grip et al. (13)
Dynamometer;
TM
Takei)
Elite (n = 25) 45.0 6 10.4 43.9 6 10.8 154 6 34 194 6 40
Amateur (n = 88) 44.5 6 8.9 43.8 6 8.4 150 6 35 190 6 38
Light weight
Elite (n = 12) 36.6 6 7.2 35.2 6 7.7 122 6 18.8 165 6 29
Amateur (n = 31) 37.4 6 6.8 37.2 6 7.0 123 6 30 170 6 32
Middle weight
Elite (n = 12) 47.2 6 5.6 46.8 6 5.6 157 6 16 192 6 24
Amateur (n = 32) 44.7 6 6.2 43.8 6 5.5 151 6 20 185 6 32 Dynamometer (Takei
A5002 Back and
Leg
Dynamometer;
Takei)
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 11) 54.1 6 8.2 53.5 6 5.7 185 6 20 228 6 40
Amateur (n = 25) 53.1 6 5.9 52.0 6 5.4 184 6 29 226 6 34
Turkish elite level (n = 10) NR Double grip strength: 81.9 6 NR NR Hand grip Taskiran (71)
17.65 dynamometer
Dominant hand: 43.8 6 9.78
Nondominant hand: 38.1 6 8.41
Turkish national level (n =
81)
Light weight FS/GR NR NR Back and leg Basar et al.

FS (n = 13) 114.4 6 16.7 169.7 6 34.0 dynamometer (7)
GR (n = 15) 126.8 6 21.8 181.9 6 24.1 (model T.K.K.5402;
Middle weight Takei)
FS (n = 10) 129.4 6 17.7 193.1 6 31.2
GR (n = 17) 138.1 6 9.9 203.2 6 22.9
Heavy weight
FS (n = 12) 148.3 6 21.5 222.6 6 20.7
GR (n = 14) 162.4 6 19.3 272.0 6 19.0
American national level (n =
18)
T1: Before beginning of NR NR NR JAMAR hand Ratamess
the preseason training dynamometer et al. (57)
period (model number
Total 58.0 6 13.2 55.1 6 12.0 10513404;
Starters (n = 7) 63.3 6 14.3 59.5 6 12.3 JAMAR, Clifton,
Nonstarters (n = 11) 54.7 6 11.9 52.3 6 11.4 NJ, USA)
Light weight (n = 18) GR 31.44 6 5.54 NR NR Handgrip Saygin (63)
Middle weight (n = 20) 41.70 6 8.57 dynamometer
Heavy weight (n = 17) 45.53 6 10.94 (Takei)
[Only values of the
dominant hand were
reported]

36)
the
Greco-Roman FS/GR NR Baseline Hydraulic Maria Lopez-
Dynamometer Gullon et al.
(Country (45)
Technology Inc.,
Gays Mills, WI,
USA)
47.5 6 4.8 (D)/45.3 6 8.0 (ND) 126.0 6 16.1
Light weight (n = 6)
Middle weight (n = 6) 51.9 6 11.2/47.9 6 11.9 134.0 6 9.5
Heavy weight (n = 6) 56.4 6 6.5/55.7 6 2.0 138 6 9.5
Freestyle Back muscle
dynamometer
(model T.K.
K.5402; Takei)
Light weight (n = 6) 43.6 6 5.5 (D)/44.7 6 6.3 (ND) 120.3 6 12.2
Middle weight (n = 6) 55.1 6 8.5/50.0 6 10.0 133.5 6 8.8
52.4 6 9.3/52.6 6 8.7 141.5 6 10.3
TM
Heavy weight (n = 6)
| www.nsca.com
1427
1428
92)
the
Light weight
Elite (n = 18) FS/GR 45.0 6 6.5 (D)/44.9 6 7.3 (ND) 123.6 6 14.6 Baseline Hydraulic Garcia-
Dynamometer Pallares
(Country et al. (22)
Technology Inc.)
Amateur (n = 15) 39.7 6 8.0/36.4 6 7.0 98.3 6 17.6
Middle weight
Elite (n = 18) 53.1 6 7.8 (D)/49.1 6 8.8 (ND) 136.3 6 14.6
Amateur (n = 19) 46.5 6 8.0/43.4 6 7.9 121.8 6 15.3 Back muscle
dynamometer
(model T.K.
K.5402; Takei)
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 10) 55.6 6 8.9 (D)/55.9 6 6.7 (ND) 148.1 6 11.2
Amateur (n = 12) 52.1 6 9.5/49.3 6 11.1 134.4 6 10.4
TM
NR) (n = 126)
Greco-Roman (n = 56) FS/GR 45.7 6 9.3 44.6 6 9.0 154 6 26 204 6 32 Dynamometer (Takei Demirkan
A5001 Hand Grip et al. (15)
Dynamometer;
Takei)
Freestyle (n = 70) 43.9 6 9.1 43.4 6 8.8 148 6 39 180 6 40 Takei A5002 Back
and Leg
Dynamometer;
Takei
Elite level
American amateur level Leg-back strength
(n = 74)
Successful (n = 17) NR 53.2 6 2.4 52.8 6 2.2 109.8 6 6.3 Handgrip Roemmich
dynamometer and
Less successful (n = 56) 47.2 6 1.8 45.8 6 2.1 109.9 6 7.1 Back muscle Frappier
dynamometer (59)
Iranian elite level (n = 70) All values are expressed (kg21)
50 kg (n = 6) FS 1.07 6 0.17 [0.87–1.18] NR NR Hand-grip Mirzaei et al.
55 kg (n = 6) 0.92 6 0.15 [0.68–1.12] dynamometer (44)
60 kg (n = 6) 0.95 6 0.13 [0.70–1.13] (Smedley 7810;
66 kg (n = 10) 0.95 6 0.16 [0.64–1.20] Takei)
74 kg (n = 11) 0.88 6 0.1 [0.79–1.01]
84 kg (n = 11) 0.85 6 0.1 [0.68–1.00]
96 kg (n = 10) 0.83 6 0.12 [0.68–1.00]
120 kg (n = 7) 0.69 6 0.1 [0.63–0.81]
Total 0.89 6 0.13 [0.63–1.20]
Iranian elite level (n = 28) Dominant hand

Junior (n = 14) GR NR NR Hand-grip Nikooie et al.
Successful (n = 5) 0.57 6 0.06 (kg$kg21) dynamometer (48)
Nonsuccessful (n = 9) 0.49 6 0.05 (kg$kg21)
Senior (n = 12)
Successful (n = 5) 51.3 6 3.7 (0.59 6 0.04
kg$kg21)
Nonsuccessful (n = 7) 46.1 6 3.1 (0.52 6 0.059
kg$kg21)
Selected (n = 11) GR 54 6 8.0 53 6 7.8 163 6 22 171 6 23 Takei hand grip Demirkan
(Takei A5001 et al. (16)
Hand Grip
Dynamometer;
Takei)
Nonselected (n = 37) 49 6 8.0 48 6 7.9 144 6 22 160 6 22 Takei back and leg
dynamometer
(Takei A5002
Back and Leg
Dynamometer;
Takei)
Turkish club level
Cadet (n = 10) NR 39.9 6 6.1 38.6 6 7.5 106 6 21.9 NR NR Arabaci and
Junior (n = 10) 54.4 6 5.6 53.5 6 7.5 149.5 6 19.9 Çankaya (3)
Females
Spanish elite level (n = 35)

Light weight NR NR Hydraulic Garcia
the
Elite (n = 6) 30.9 6 5.2 (D) 97.5 6 10.5 Dynamometer Pallares
Amateur (n = 12) 26.9 6 5.4 (ND) 84.6 6 15.3 (Country et al. (23)
Technology Inc.)
Middle weight Back muscle
Elite (n = 7) 34.7 6 6.3 (D) 116.0 6 10.2 dynamometer
Amateur (n = 10) 32.9 6 3.7 (ND) 104.1 6 7.5 (model T.K.
K.5402; Takei)
*n = number; NR = not reported; FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; D = dominant hand; ND = nondominant hand; AG = age group.
TM
| www.nsca.com
1429
no specific anaerobic test designated to wrestlers as the case detailed physical attributes between male wrestlers of differ-
of judo (e.g., Special-Judo Fitness Test and Uchi-komi with ent competitive levels and revealed that elite wrestlers ex-
load test) (2,21,68). Therefore, future investigations studying hibited higher maximal strength expressed either absolutely
specific wrestling assessment protocol respecting the activity or relatively (8–25%). The same trend was observed between
pattern of the discipline are highly needed. elite-level and amateur female wrestlers with the former pre-
senting higher (13.4–33.1%) absolute and allometrically
Strength scaled values of 1RM strength (23). They refer this outcome
Maximal Dynamic Strength. Wrestler’s offensive and defensive to the higher lean body mass within elite-level female
maneuvers need high level of maximal strength wrestlers compared with their amateur counterparts.
(42,44,51,77). Studies presented in Table 4 have shown that Morán-Navarro et al. (46) reported that elite-level male
the range of the one-repetition maximal (1RM) values re- wrestlers demonstrated higher maximal strength (bench
corded in the squat, bench press, and power-clean exercises press: 20% and squat: 22%) normalized to body mass com-
extend from 87 to 150 kg, 74–130 kg, and 72–140 kg, respec- pared with their subelite peers. Zi-Hong et al. (80) reported
tively, for elite-level male wrestlers. The wide range of values higher relative and absolute maximal isokinetic torque as
established may be explained by the different competitive well as maximal dynamic strength within the successful
level of wrestlers and the weight category’s diversity. compared with less-successful elite-level Chinese female
Wrestling 1RM values seem to be higher than those recorded wrestlers. Similarly, Zhang et al. (79) reported that maximal
in taekwondo (8) and karate (10) and similar to the values strength and isokinetic torque discriminate between female
established in judo (20). This observation denotes higher max- wrestlers of different competitive successes. The training
imal strength requirement of grappling (i.e., wrestling and background has been evidenced to be one of the ultimate
judo) combat sports compared with striking ones (i.e., karate aspects for attaining success in both male and female wres-
and taekwondo). The available research about women (23,80) tling (22,23,33,65). All these findings are similar to the pre-
showed that elite-level wrestlers are stronger than their peers vious study of Horswill et al. (29) who reported that
practicing striking combat sports (8). successful male wrestlers showed higher dynamic and iso-
With regard to the difference between wrestling styles, the kinetic strength than their less-successful counterparts. Yoon
available studies showed that elite-level freestyle wrestlers (76) noted that successful male wrestlers presented higher
presented higher absolute maximal strength of arm and dynamic and isokinetic strength than unsuccessful wrestlers.
trunk extensors compared with Greco-Roman wrestlers Collectively, findings from the above-mentioned research
(5,66). This observation needs to be reinforced in future generally indicated that successful wrestlers are stronger in
research studies. terms of maximal dynamic strength level than unsuccessful
Mirzaei et al. (42) revealed that elite-level cadet wrestlers of wrestlers regardless of sex. In view of the fact that the ability
42 and 46 kg presented a higher relative strength than the of wrestler to lift and resist opponent’s attack is fundamental
other classes. However, Mirzaei et al. (44) studied the phys- to perform well in wrestling, wrestlers’ maximal strength
iological profile of elite Iranian junior male wrestlers and re- should be strictly developed as it is a precondition for the
vealed that when expressed relatively to body mass, maximal development of the other fitness qualities by including a vari-
strength values in both bench press and squat exercises were ety of upper- and lower-limb exercises (37).
very close between various weight categories. Zi-Hong et al.
(80) reported that knee and back absolute isokinetic torque as Isometric Strength. Studies that investigated isometric strength
well as absolute maximal strength were higher for heavier results of wrestlers are in agreements about its critical
weight classes compared with lighter ones. However, once importance toward achieving high-level wrestling success
expressed relative to body mass, this trend was reversed for (Table 5) as it represents one of the most critical components
maximal strength indices with no significant difference for of several wrestling holds (7,23,26,37,39,40,49,59). Values of
isokinetic exercises. Garcia Pallares et al. (23) reported that handgrip strength performance of elite-level male senior/
1RM strength was higher in middle-weight elite female group junior wrestlers ranged between 38 and 63 kgf. For cadet
than in light-weight ones (18.3 and 20.1% for squat and bench male wrestlers, the same performance extends from 31 to
press, respectively). However, when values of 1RM strength 53 kgf. For elite-level female wrestlers, only one study (23)
were normalized allometrically, no significant difference was showed that values extend between 27 and 35 kgf. However,
detected between the 2 weight classes. This observation future investigations are required to establish more insight
draws attention to the importance of expressing strength per- about women’s hand-grip isometric strength. For lower-
formance allometrically. back–strength and leg-strength performance, results extend
Upper- and lower-limb maximal strength level is a pre- from 114 to 213 kgf and 168 to 272 kgf for elite-level male
requisite to succeed wrestling performance (28,41,76). This is junior/senior wrestlers, respectively. Results from the avail-
based on the fact that the major determinant wrestling tech- able investigations ranged from 122 to 185 kgf and from 165
nical skills intended to lift opponent and to do it, high level to 228 kgf for lower-back and leg-strength performance,
of maximal strength is required. Garcia-Pallares et al. (22) respectively, within cadet male wrestlers. For female
1430
the TM
TABLE 6. Vertical and horizontal jump performance of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Wrestling
Athletes characteristics (n) style Test details Measurement equipment Height/distance (cm) References
Males
FS (n = 46)/GR (n = 61) FS/GR Vertical jump NR 57.41 6 7.68 (FS)/53.93 6 Starosta et al. (66)
5.63 (GR)
Olympic level wrestlers from
different countries (n = 36)
Greco-Roman FS/GR CMJ Vertical jump mat Maria Lopez-
Light weight (n = 6) (Ergojump, Rome, 34.5 6 5.6 Gullon et al. (45)
Middle weight (n = 6) Bolzano, Italy) 33.6 6 3.5
Heavy weight (n = 6) 35.1 6 6.4
Freestyle
Light weight (n = 6) 35.0 6 1.6
Middle weight (n = 6) 36.5 6 2.9
Heavy weight (n = 6) 35.2 6 7.5
Olympic level wrestlers from
different countries (n = 92)
Light weight FS/GR CMJ Vertical jump mat Garcia-Pallares
Elite (n = 18) (Ergojump) 35.4 6 6.7 et al. (22)
Amateur (n = 15) 31.0 6 3.3
Middle weight
Elite (n = 18) 35.0 6 3.5
Amateur (n = 19) 31.9 6 3.8

the
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 10) 35.5 6 4.4
Amateur (n = 12) 29.6 6 3.8
American NCAA Division III (n = 8) NR Squat jump Quattro Force plate (Kistler 45 6 4 McGuigan et al.
Instrumente AG, (40)
Winterthur, Switzerland)
42 kg (n = 4) NR Standing long jump Tape measure 208.75 6 15.47 Mirzaei et al. (42)
46 kg (n = 4) 202.50 6 9.57
50 kg (n = 5) 222.00 6 8.36
54 kg (n = 3) 218.33 6 16.07
58 kg (n = 6) 228.33 6 10.32
63 kg (n = 5) 243.40 6 13.12
69 kg (n = 5) 231.60 6 39.62
76 kg (n = 4) 249.50 6 3.31
85 kg (n = 3) 235.00 6 21.79
TM
100 kg (n = 5) 230.00 6 12.74
| www.nsca.com
Total 227.45 6 20.86
1431
1432
Polish national level (n = 61)
Age GR Vertical jump NR Sterkowicz and
Younger (up to 17 y) (n = 10) 50.90 6 5.17 Starosta (43)
54.13 6 6.34
the
Intermediate (18–21 y) (n =
40)
Older (above 21 y) (n = 11) 59.77 6 8.86
Total 54.61 6 7.11
Training experience
Shorter (up to 6 y) (n = 10) 52.82 6 6.23
Average (7–9 y) (n = 23) 53.78 6 6.28
Longer (above 9 y) (n = 28) 61.5 6 7.73
Successful (n = 5) GR CMJ Sargent test 58.6 6 6.5 Nikooie et al. (48)
Nonsuccessful (n = 9) 55.3 6 4.2
GR (n = 61)/FS (n = 46) GR/FS Vertical jump NR 53.93 6 5.63 (GR)/ Baić et al. (5)
57.41 6 7.68 (FS)
Females
TM
Light weight NR CMJ Jump platform (Ergojump) Garcia Pallares

Elite (n = 6) 23.0 6 2.1 et al. (23)
Amateur (12) 22.5 6 3.8
Middle weight
Elite (n = 7) 26.5 6 2.4
Amateur (n = 10) 24.0 6 2.7
*FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; NR = not reported; CMJ = countermovement jump.
TABLE 7. Muscular endurance of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Performance (number of repetitions)

Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Test details [range] References
Iranian elite level

4 time world champion (n = 1) GR Sit-ups (n$min21) 77 Mirzaei et al. (41)
(55 kg) Pull-ups (n) 50
42 kg (n = 4) NR Push-ups (n$min21) 60.50 6 12.50 Mirzaei et al. (42)
46 kg (n = 4) 60.50 6 11.12
50 kg (n = 5) 52.00 6 9.74
54 kg (n = 3) 57.67 6 2.08
58 kg (n = 6) 50.50 6 6.26
63 kg (n = 5) 56.80 6 8.46
69 kg (n = 5) 58.40 6 2.70
76 kg (n = 4) 54.25 6 8.22
85 kg (n = 3) 47.00 6 4.58
100 kg (n = 5) 39.80 6 12.29
Total 53.48 6 10.04
42 kg (n = 4) Pull-ups (n) 16.00 6 4.89
46 kg (n = 4) 20.75 6 6.70
50 kg (n = 5) 18.60 6 7.76
54 kg (n = 3) 27.67 6 14.57
58 kg (n = 6) 17.33 6 5.50
63 kg (n = 5) 21.80 6 5.40
69 kg (n = 5) 14.80 6 5.35

the
76 kg (n = 4) 15.00 6 3.46
85 kg (n = 3) 8.00 6 2.00
100 kg (n = 5) 4.80 6 2.16
Total 16.32 6 8.14
42 kg (n = 4) Sit-ups (n$min21) 56.25 6 8.01
46 kg (n = 4) 56.25 6 10.59
50 kg (n = 5) 52.00 6 9.74
54 kg (n = 3) 61.00 6 7.81
58 kg (n = 6) 50.50 6 6.25
63 kg (n = 5) 56.80 6 8.46
69 kg (n = 5) 57.20 6 4.32
76 kg (n = 4) 54.25 6 8.22
85 kg (n = 3) 51.00 6 11.35
100 kg (n = 5) 42.80 6 16.51
Total 53.41 6 9.82
TM
FS (n = 13)/GR (n = 20) FS/GR Sit-ups (n$min21) 76.0 6 9.29/68.30 6 5.71 Mirzaei et al. (43)
| www.nsca.com
Pull-ups (n) 30.77 6 9.65/33.95 6 11.73
1433
1434
50 kg (n = 6) FS Sit-ups (n$min21) 67.2 6 4.6 [59–73] Mirzaei et al. (44)
55 kg (n = 6) 68.4 6 5.8 [59–75]
68.6 6 3.9 [60–73]

the
60 kg (n = 6)
66 kg (n = 10) 64.7 6 7.2 [55–75]
74 kg (n = 11) 71.4 6 4.8 [65–79]
84 kg (n = 11) 60.9 6 11.8 [45–78]
96 kg (n = 10) 65.6 6 7.3 [55–75]
120 kg (n = 7) 53.5 6 5.9 [45–60]
Total 66.5 6 8 [45–79]
50 kg (n = 6) Push-ups (n$min21) 69.3 6 7 [60–80]
55 kg (n = 6) 70.4 6 7 [60–80]
60 kg (n = 6) 68 6 5.1 [59–75]
66 kg (n = 10) 69.6 6 6.7 [59–78]
74 kg (n = 11) 67 6 6.7 [59–78]
84 kg (n = 11) 64.9 6 7.3 [55–75]
96 kg (n = 10) 67.6 6 7.3 [59–78]
120 kg (n = 7) 54.2 6 4.6 [48–60]
Total 66.9 6 7.6 [48–80]
TM
50 kg (n = 6) Pull-ups (n) 40.7 6 9.6 [28–57]

55 kg (n = 6) 34.7 6 6.3 [25–42]
60 kg (n = 6) 34.6 6 9.3 [24–50]
66 kg (n = 10) 34.2 6 6.8 [24–41]
74 kg (n = 11) 32.3 6 6.1 [23–40]
84 kg (n = 11) 29.1 6 11 [15–43]
96 kg (n = 10) 21 6 3 [17–25]
120 kg (n = 7) 19.5 6 3.6 [15–25]
Total 31.6 6 9.7 [15–57]
FS (n = 46)/GR (n = 61) FS/GR Sit-ups with side twist 30.13 6 11.41 (FS)/18.45 6 9.92 Starosta et al. (66)
and load (n) (GR)
Pull-ups (n) 22.14 6 8.26 (FS)/14.83 6 8.84
(GR)
Dips (n) 36.80 6 11.18 (FS)/26.27 6 10.21
(GR)
American amateur level (n = 74)
Successful (n = 17) NR Push-ups (n) 48.3 6 2.2 Roemmich and Frappier (59)
Less successful (n = 56) 36.9 6 2.7
Successful (n = 17) Pull-ups (n) 18.2 6 1.2
Successful (n = 17) Sit-ups (n$min21) 39.2 6 1.1
Junior (n = 14) GR Nikooie et al. (48)

Successful (n = 5) Pull-ups (n) 23 6 7
Senior (n = 12)
Successful (n = 5) Pull-ups (n)/sit-ups (n) 31.8 6 4.9/58.2 6 3.9
Nonsuccessful (n = 7) 26.1 6 4.8/52.4 6 6.4
Turkish club level
Cadet (n = 10) NR Push-ups (n$30 s21) 26.8 6 4.4 Arabaci and Çankaya (3)
Junior (n = 10) 28.3 6 4.2
Age GR Pull-ups (n)/push-ups (n) 9.1 6 3.78/17.30 6 5.68 Sterkowicz and Starosta (43)
Younger (up to 17 y) (n = 10) 14.73 6 7.75/28.68 6 9.49
Intermediate (18–21 y) (n = 40) 29.91 6 9.71/37.91 6 15.80
Older (above 21 y) (n = 11) 16.54 6 10.05/28.48 6 11.93
Total Training experience
Longer (up to 6 y) (n = 10) 29.60 6 6.08/40.80 6 13.07
Average (7–9 y) (n = 23) 16.17 6 8.53/28.43 6 10.72
Shorter (above 9 y) (n = 28) 12.18 6 8.37/24.11 6 9.46
Sport level
First class (n = 34) 11.41 6 3.81/25.12 6 9.19
National class (n = 20) 22.00 6 12.36/31.45 6 13.84
International class (n = 7) 25.86 6 9.86/36.29 6 13.67
Weight category
Heavier (n = 16) NR/22.75 6 11.16
Medium (n = 23) NR/32.17 6 12.46
Lighter (n = 22) NR/28.77 6 10.72

the
GR (n = 61)/FS (n = 46) GR/FS Pull-ups (n) 14.83 6 8.84 (GR)/22.14 6 8.26 Baić et al. (5)
(FS)
Parallel bars dips (n) 26.271 6 10.21 (GR)/36.80 6
11.18 (FS)
Sit-ups with side twists 18.45 6 9.92 (GR)/30.13 6 11.41
and load (n) (FS)
*n = number; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; FS = freestyle wrestling; NR = not reported.
TM
| www.nsca.com
1435
wrestlers, the available investigation (22) revealed values strated a greater performance in both tests compared with
from 85 to 116 kgf across different 8 classes for the lower- Greco-Roman wrestlers. The different competition-related
back strength. demands and the difference in the applied training program
Roemmich and Frappier (59) revealed higher absolute and may be some of the main reason for isometric strength dif-
relative grip strength of the left (13.3 and 11.1%, respectively) ference between the 2 styles. In addition, Demirkan et al.
and right (11.3 and 13.6%, respectively) hand in successful (15) reported similar grip- and back-strength results between
wrestlers and concluded that grip strength is one of the most freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestlers. However, leg strength
important fitness variables that accurately predict wrestling’s presented a significant difference between the 2 wrestling
performance success as long as it is required to grasp the styles in favor of the classical style. This may be due to the
contestant’s lower- and upper-extremities forcefully and physical training program difference between the 2 styles.
manage his/her movement. Garcia-Pallares et al. (22) re- Collectively, it seems that there is no major difference
ported that grip-strength performance of the dominant and regarding isometric strength performance between both
nondominant hand indicated higher performance (from 11.6 wrestling styles.
to 18.6%) for the elite groups compared with the amateur In wrestling, athlete’s cervical muscles are strongly
ones in light-, middle-, and heavy-weight classes. Further- involved (58,72,75). Essentially, wrestlers need well-
more, elite-level group demonstrated higher relative and developed cervical extensor muscles to counter the oppo-
absolute back-strength performance (from 9.3 to 20.5%) nent’s offensive and defensive actions and to maintain the
compared with their lower-level peers. Authors associated neck and the head in a fixed position against the contestant’s
this difference with the greater fitness performance, techni- force (58). For that reason, many researchers consider
cal, and competitive experience of elite wrestlers compared improving cervical muscles performance of substantial value
with nonelite ones. Likewise, the difference in lean mass in for wrestlers (58,72,75). Tsuyama et al. (72) reported that
favor of elite group seems to explain, in some measure, the elite wrestlers had higher isometric cervical extension
higher strength performance level compared with the lower- strength at different flexion angles (19–72%) compared with
level wrestlers. Gierczuk et al. (26) stated that high isometric judo athletes. This may be attributed to the higher
strength level is important to reach high wrestling perfor- competition-related demands of wrestlers particularly on
mance. Demirkan et al. (16) extended previous findings and their cervical zone when wrestlers, often, try to keep their
put forward that a significant difference exists between necks extended to withdraw shoulders from touching the
selected and nonselected male wrestlers (12%) in the back- mat. The same observation was recorded for the cross-
strength performance. Nikooie et al. (48) reinforced previous sectional area of neck extensor muscles, which was also
findings and stated that both senior and junior successful greater in wrestlers compared with judo athletes. Ylinen
wrestlers presented a higher grip-strength performance et al. (75) reported higher isometric cervical extension and
(11.2%) than less-successful wrestlers. The same trend was flexion strength in Greco-Roman wrestlers compared with
kept when expressing performance per-kilogram of body nonathletes. Authors revealed, also, a significantly higher
mass (13.7%). With the participation of elite-level female isometric flexion strength and rotation strength in senior
wrestlers, Garcia-Pallares et al. (22) extended earlier findings wrestlers compared with junior wrestlers. This seems to be
with male wrestlers and reported a greater grip-strength per- due to the longer physical training and competition experi-
formance in the dominant and nondominant side for the ence of senior wrestlers compared with their junior counter-
elite groups compared with the amateur one. Similarly, for parts (75). In another study detailing the strength of cervical
back-strength performance, elite groups demonstrated high- muscle difference between elite wrestlers and nonathletes,
er values than amateur groups. Authors attributed these dif- Rezasoltani et al. (58) noted that wrestlers presented higher
ferences to the higher physical training background for elite isometric cervical extension and flexion strength than non-
wrestlers. Moreover, the greater lean mass within elite-level athletes. The long-term specific training and competition
groups may lead to a higher strength-level production com- background of wrestlers compared with nonathletes seems
pared with the lower-level groups. In conclusion, it seems to be the main reason for that result. When comparing
that isometric strength level discriminate well between suc- wrestling styles, authors revealed that Greco-Roman wres-
cessful and less-successful wrestlers. tlers presented a higher cervical muscles strength per kilo-
Results from the study of Maria Lopez-Gullon et al. (39) gram of body mass compared with their freestyle
demonstrated that Olympic wrestlers from both styles counterparts. Authors attributed this observation to the dif-
showed similar handgrip strength performance. Similarly, ferent training- and competition-related demands between
absolute and relative (per-kilogram of fat-free-mass) back- the 2 styles. For instance, Greco-Roman maneuvers and
strength values were comparable between Greco-Roman technical skills such as salto (i.e., lifting, returning, and taking
and freestyle wrestlers. Basar et al. (7) reported similar results down an opponent to the mat from a rear standing position)
in both back- and leg-strength between Greco-Roman and require a high level of cervical strength. Furthermore, a mas-
freestyle wrestlers. However, when values were normalized sive cervical muscles extension force is needed by the wres-
per kilogram of lean body mass, freestyle wrestlers demon- tler when tacked down to avoid touching the mat by his/her
1436
the TM
the TM
shoulders. Overall, it can be claimed that isometric strength less-successful counterparts; however the small sample size
level is one of the most critical factors leading to reach (48). In a study conducted with the participation of elite-
a high-level performance success in wrestling. level female wrestlers, Garcia Pallares et al. (23) demonstrated
higher CMJ height in the elite group (2–9%) in comparison
Muscle Power. Wrestling match is characterized by sudden with the amateur group. Generally, explosive power is of great
explosive attacks and counterattacks to lift opponent pow- importance to be winner in wrestling. Further investigations
erfully, to bring him/her to the mat and to escape from are required to emphasize the current findings.
bottom positions. Such an activity pattern requires a high
level of muscular power (13,28,37). Wrestler’s muscular Strength Endurance. One of the challenges confronting
power was determined through the use of vertical (i.e., coun- wrestlers is to maintain high density of competitive actions
termovement jump [CMJ]) and horizontal jump (i.e., stand- for an extended period that match the duration of the entire
ing long jump [SLJ]) (Table 6). The mean CMJ values of wrestling match (48,69). Such an activity requires high
senior elite-level male wrestlers established in the literature strength-endurance level (36,49,59,69,76). The maximum
ranged between 47 and 61 cm. The same test performance number of push-ups and sit-ups values per minute ranged
extends from 33 to 59 cm for junior elite-level male between 54 and 70 repetitions and 52 and 77 repetitions for
wrestlers. The mean SLJ values for cadet male wrestlers senior/junior elite-level male wrestlers, respectively (Table
ranged between 196 and 250 cm. For elite-level female wres- 7). For pull-ups, the maximum number of repetitions extends
tlers, the available data (22) suggested similar values com- from 15 to 50 for senior/junior elite-level male wrestlers.
pared with other international-level combat sport athletes Several studies reported that high muscular endurance is
(8). Male wrestler’s performances seem to be higher than one of the key fitness factors leading to wrestling’s perfor-
those reported in male elite-level taekwondo (8) and karate mance success (28). Sterkowicz and Starosta (69) noted that
practitioners (10) and similar to the values recorded within training experience significantly influenced performance
elite-level judo practitioners (20). Furthermore, these values achievements in the strength-endurance test as higher values
seem to be, even, higher compared with a wide range of were observed in wrestlers of longer training experience
sports that count on explosive actions (35,38). (above 9 years) compared with those of average (7–9 years)
Starosta et al. (66) and Baić et al. (5) compared wrestling and shorter training experience (up to 6 years). This finding
styles and reported a higher explosive-strength, quantified via highlights the importance of the training background on
CMJ, for the freestyle wrestlers. Authors attributed this differ- wrestler’s muscular endurance level. Likewise, the same au-
ence to the greater complexity of freestyle wrestling in terms thors revealed that the level of expertise (i.e., first class,
of using both legs and arms in all techniques used besides the national class, and international class) affected the
dynamic nature of the activity (i.e., attack-oriented goal) com- strength-endurance performance of arm and trunk muscles,
pared to the passive wrestling activity pattern that character- with greater values for the international group compared
izes the classical style (66). In contrast, Maria Lopez-Gullon with the 2 others. Roemmich and Frappier (59) compared
et al. (39) revealed no significant difference either in CMJ successful and less-successful wrestlers and demonstrated
height and power between the 2 wrestling styles across dif- higher strength-endurance achievement in successful ath-
ferent weight classes. They concluded that wrestlers from letes. Nikooie et al. (48) reported that successful junior wres-
both styles presented similar muscle power level. The differ- tlers performed approximately 29% more pull-ups than
ence between the 2 above-mentioned studies seems to be due nonsuccessful ones. The same observation was recorded in
to the particular fitness features of wrestlers enrolled in each senior wrestlers with higher sit-up and pull-up results in
study as well to the difference between wrestling schools (66). successful compared with less-successful wrestlers.
However, further investigations are strictly needed to eluci- Few studies examined the strength-endurance difference
date the difference between both wrestling styles using a more between wrestling styles. For instance, Starosta et al. (66) and
rigorous methodological approach. Baić et al. (5) noted that top-level junior freestyle wrestlers
Garcia-Pallares et al. (22) compared male wrestlers of dif- expressed significantly higher strength endurance of the trunk
ferent competitive levels and reported that elite-level group and arms muscles compared with Greco-Roman wrestlers. Ac-
in the 3 weight categories (i.e., light, middle, and heavy cording to the same authors, this difference may be explained
weight) showed higher CMJ height and power compared by the specific features of each wrestling style. Notably, free-
with the amateur wrestlers (7.6%–16.6%). Authors associated style wrestling contains higher range of techniques involving
this difference, in part, to the greater lean mass and neural both upper and lower extremities compared with the classical
drive pattern in elite group compared with the amateur one style that includes only upper-limb techniques. These particular
(22). They added, also, that the strength and conditioning features of freestyle wrestling require adequate preparation of
training program difference between the 2 groups may the trunk and arms muscles that can be developed through
explain in some measure this difference. In addition, success- long-term physical and technical-tactical wrestling training
ful elite-level Greco-Roman male wrestlers showed greater besides competitions. Unlike the previous studies, Mirzaei
muscle power results (5.6%; insignificant) compared with their et al. (43) reported a better pull-up performance in elite-level
TABLE 8. Flexibility of wrestler athletes as measured by the sit-and-reach test (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*
Athletes characteristics (n) Wrestling style Sit-and-reach (cm) [range] References
Males
Turkish wrestlers (level = NR) (n = 126)
AG15 (n = 25) NR 30.6 6 6.3 Demirkan (12)
AG16 (n = 41) 32.0 6 7.5
AG17 (n = 60) 33.6 6 5.9
Iranian elite-level
4 time world champion (n = 1) (55 kg) GR 45 Mirzaei et al. (41)
Turkish from different levels of practice
(n = 126)
Top elite (n = 13) 36 6 6 Demirkan et al.
Elite (n = 25) 33 6 7 (13)
Amateur (n = 88) 32 6 7
Light weight
Elite (n = 12) 29.8 6 5.6
Amateur (n = 31) 29.8 6 4.9
Middle weight
Elite (n = 12) 37.1 6 6.7
Amateur (n = 32) 33.5 6 7.5
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 11) 35.4 6 5.4
Amateur (n = 25) 33.5 6 6.4
FS (n = 13)/GR (n = 20) FS/GR 39.77 6 5.68/40.25 6 5.41 Mirzaei et al. (43)
Turkish national level (n = 81)
Light weight FS/GR Basar et al. (7)
FS (n = 13) 24.4 6 10.9 (R)/25.2 6 10.5 (L)
GR (n = 15) 22.4 6 10.5 (R)/21.1 6 10.7 (L)
Middle weight
FS (n = 10) 28.1 6 8.5 (R)/25.6 6 8.6 (L)
GR (n = 17) 26.5 6 7.1 (R)/25.3 6 7.1 (L)
Heavy weight
FS (n = 12) 21.4 6 11.9 (R)/20.3 6 10.6 (L)
GR (n = 14) 27.2 6 11.1 (R)/27.4 6 12.9 (L)
Light weight (n = 18) GR 35.05 6 4.13 Saygin (63)
Middle weight (n = 20) 38.37 6 8.76
Heavy weight (n = 17) 39.72 6 5.99
Olympic level wrestlers from different
countries (n = 36)
Greco-Roman FS/GR Maria Lopez-
Light weight (n = 6) 21.1 6 10.3 Gullon et al.
Middle weight (n = 6) 18.1 6 10.7 (45)
Heavy weight (n = 6) 18.3 6 9.8
Freestyle
Light weight (n = 6) 24.1 6 7.4
Middle weight (n = 6) 20.3 6 5.7
Heavy weight (n = 6) 22.4 6 10.7
Olympic level wrestlers from different
countries (n = 92)
Light weight FS/GR Garcia-Pallares
Elite (n = 18) 21.6 6 11.6 et al. (22)
Amateur (n = 15) 16.9 6 7.5
Middle weight
Elite (n = 18) 20.7 6 7.2
Amateur (n = 19) 24.4 6 7.1
Heavy weight
Elite (n = 10) 22.4 6 9.1
Amateur (n = 12) 18.0 6 9.5
1438
the TM
the TM
Turkish wrestlers (level = NR) (n = 126)

Greco-Roman (n = 56) FS/GR 30 6 6.2 Demirkan et al.
Freestyle (n = 70) 34 6 7.0 (15)
American amateur level (n = 74)
Successful (n = 17) NR 39.9 6 1.9 Roemmich and
Less successful (n = 56) 32.6 6 1.8 Frappier (59)
Turkish club level
Cadet (n = 10) NR 20.2 6 3.9 Arabaci and
Junior (n = 10) 17.7 6 3.7 Çankaya (3)
50 kg (n = 6) FS 39 6 4.5 [30 to 45] Mirzaei et al. (44)
55 kg (n = 6) 37.2 6 4.3 [29 to 42]
60 kg (n = 6) 38.1 6 4.1 [29 to 42]
66 kg (n = 10) 38.7 6 4.3 [30 to 44]
74 kg (n = 11) 39 6 3.3 [32 to 43]
84 kg (n = 11) 38.5 6 4 [32 to 44]
96 kg (n = 10) 37.1 6 2.9 [32 to 40]
120 kg (n = 7) 35.8 6 4.2 [30 to 40]
Total 38.2 6 3.94 [29 to 45]
American elite level (n = 8) FS 3.8 6 5.8 [25.7 to 12.7] Callan et al. (8)
Junior (n = 14) GR Nikooie et al.
Successful (n = 5) 37.5 6 9.9 (48)
Senior (n = 12)
Successful (n = 5) 32.6 6 3.5
Iranian elite level (n = 22) GR 39.59 6 5.61 Mirzaei et al. (45)
Females
Light weight Garcia Pallares
Elite (n = 6) 24.7 6 10.4 et al.(23)
Amateur (n = 12) 22.0 6 14.0
Middle weight
Elite (n = 7) 23.4 6 11.5
Amateur (n = 10) 27.1 6 7.9
*N = number; NR = not reported; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; FS = freestyle wrestling; R = right; L = left; AG = age group.
Greco-Roman wrestlers compared with the freestyle ones. during defensive position, slip out of disabling and harmful
Although the clear reasons behind the controversial results positions, bridge stance, and belly-to-back souple technique
between the 2 cited studies are hard to establish, it seems that in freestyle wrestling) (17,45,54,56,76). The range of sit-and-
the training background of wrestlers, tests used, muscles groups reach test values extends from 18 to 45 cm for senior/junior
engaged, and the number of wrestlers involved may contribute elite-level male wrestlers (Table 8). For cadet male wrestlers,
to explain these divergent findings. values ranged between 20 and 40 cm. For female wrestlers,
It is worth noting that studies dealing with strength the available research (23) showed that elite-level Spanish
endurance within female wrestlers are missing. Overall, athletes from light- and middle-weight categories demon-
wrestler’s strength endurance is one of the key determinant strated values around 24 cm in the sit-and-reach test. The
physical components to achieve wrestling performance range of sit-and-reach test performance of elite-level male
success. Further studies detailing strength-endurance differ- wrestlers seems to be higher than that established with
ence between Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling are senior male international taekwondo athletes (36–36.9 cm)
highly recommended. (8). However, these values are similar to those recorded with
elite-level judo practitioners (52,62).
Flexibility Studies about the relationship between wrestling perfor-
Adequate level of flexibility, particularly that of the trunk and mance level and performance success raised mixed results.
legs, is highly needed to perform various wrestling offensive For instance, Roemmich and Frappier (59) compared suc-
and defensive maneuvers (e.g., lower the center of gravity cessful and less-successful male amateur-level wrestlers and
demonstrated higher flexibility of low-back and hamstrings sizes the critical importance of developing wrestlers’ anaer-
in the former group. Further, Yoon (76) has denoted that obic power and capacity. As aerobic power and anaerobic
top-level wrestlers showed greater flexibility than those of power and capacity are relevant physical abilities to improve
lower-level ones. However, Garcia-Pallares et al. (22) re- wrestling performance, the use of high-intensity interval
ported that elite and amateur wrestlers, regardless of their training seems to be a relevant approach as this kind of
weight categories, demonstrated similar performance in the training added to the wrestling routine resulted in improve-
sit-and-reach test and concluded that flexibility of the ments in all these parameters.
hamstring seems to be not related to wrestling performance Maximal dynamic strength, isometric strength with
level. Similarly, Mirzaei et al. (44) revealed similar flexibility a particular attention to the wrestler’s cervical muscle
performances between different weight classes. Nikooie et al. zone, explosive strength, and strength endurance are
(48) reported a similar flexibility level measured through the the most critical fitness factors leading to reach high-
sit-and-reach test in junior and senior successful and less- level performance success in wrestling. Wrestler’s flexibil-
successful elite-level male wrestlers. Garcia Pallares et al. ity seems not to be one of key physical determinant that
(23) studied the flexibility difference between elite and ama- help reaching high-level wrestling success. Coaches,
teur female wrestlers from different weight categories and strength and conditional specialists, and sport scientists
revealed no significant difference between them in accor- may consult these findings to build-up a comprehensive
dance with previous findings in male wrestlers (22,48). physical and physiological profile of wrestlers that would
According to Roemmich and Frappier (59), the discordance assist them in optimizing their training interventions. For
between the different studies’ results is due to some limita- an in-depth analysis, future studies should focus particu-
tions related to the sit-and-reach test. For instance, it seems larly on proposing sport-specific assessment leading to an
that anthropometric parameters (e.g., longer torso or arms) accurate overview of the physical and physiological at-
may influence flexibility performance by giving advantages tributes of wrestlers.
to some subjects. In addition, flexibility is joint specific, and
though successful wrestler presented higher flexibility level ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
in the low-back and hamstrings, this observation cannot be No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation
generalized to other articulations. of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that
The greater part of the available studies dealing with the are directly relevant to the content of this review.
flexibility difference using the sit-and-reach test between
wrestling styles revealed that there is no significant differ-
REFERENCES
ence between Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestlers
1. Abellán, A, Pallarés, J, Gullón, J, Otegui, X, Baños, V, and Moreno, A.
(7,22,39,43) regardless of their weight categories. However, Anaerobic factors to predict wrestling performance [in Spanish].
Demirkan et al. (15) reported higher flexibility measured Sports Psychology Notebooks 10: 17–23, 2010.
through the sit-and-reach test in freestyle wrestlers (11.8%) 2. Almansba, R, Franchini, E, and Sterkowicz, S. An Uchi-komi with
compared with their Greco-Roman peers. This difference load, a physiological approach of a new special judo test proposal.
Sci Sports 22: 216–223, 2007.
may be attributed to the particular fitness features of
wrestling schools. 3. Arabaci, R and Çankaya, C. The effect of seasonal training program
on some physiological parameters among cadet and junior
Collectively, it seems that flexibility is not a key physical wrestlers. Int J Hum Sci 5: 11, 2008.
determinant component that leads to reach high-level 4. Astrand, P and Rodahl, K. Evaluation of physical work capacity on
wrestling success. Future research studies about joint- the basis of tests. In: Textbook of Work Physiology. New York, NY:
specific flexibility difference between successful and less- McGraw-Hill, 1977. pp. 333–365.
successful wrestlers, elite vs. amateur and Greco-Roman vs. 5. Baić, M, Sertić, H, and Starosta, W. Differences in physical fitness
levels between the classical and the free style wrestlers. Kineziologija
freestyle wrestlers are quite needed. 39: 142–149, 2008.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 6. Barroso, BG, da Silva, JMA, Garcia, AdC, Ramos, NCdO, Martinelli,
MO, Resende, VR, Júnior, AD, and Santili, C. Musculoskeletal
From a physiological point of view, the general assessment injuries in wrestling athletes. Acta Ortop Bras 19: 98–101, 2011.
protocol used demonstrated that an optimal V_ O2max level is 7. Basar, S, Duzgun, I, Guzel, NA, Cicioğlu, I, and Çelik, B. Differences
in strength, flexibility and stability in freestyle and Greco-Roman
one of the important factors toward achieving high wrestling wrestlers. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 27: 321–330, 2014.
performance level. For that reason, elaborating training pro-
8. Bridge, CA, Ferreira da Silva Santos, J, Chaabene, H, Pieter, W, and
grams targeting the cardiorespiratory capacity of wrestlers is Franchini, E. Physical and physiological profiles of taekwondo
crucial. With regard to the wrestler’s anaerobic profile, re- athletes. Sports Med 44: 713–733, 2014.
sults revealed that anaerobic power and capacity are impor- 9. Callan, SD, Brunner, DM, Devolve, KL, Mulligan, SE, Hesson, J,
tant variables for achieving high-level wrestling performance Wilber, RL, and Kerney, JT. Physiological profiles of elite freestyle
wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 14: 162–169, 2000.
and accurately discriminating between successful and less-
10. Chaabene, H, Hachana, Y, Franchini, E, Mkaouer, B, and Chamari, K.
successful wrestlers regardless of their age category, weight Physical and physiological profile of elite karate athletes. Sports Med
classes, and wrestling style. This particular finding empha- 42: 829–843, 2012.
1440
the TM
the TM
11. Chaabene, H, Tabben, M, Mkaouer, B, Franchini, E, Negra, Y, 31. Hübner-Woźniak, E, Kosmol, A, and Gajewski, J. Aerobic fitness of
Hammami, M, Amara, S, Chaabene, RB, and Hachana, Y. Amateur elite female and male wrestlers. Biol Sport 26: 339–348, 2009.
boxing: Physical and physiological attributes. Sports Med 45: 337– 32. Hübner-Woźniak, E, Kosmol, A, Lutoslawska, G, and Bem, EZ.
352, 2015. Anaerobic performance of arms and legs in male and female free
12. Demirkan, E. Age-related patterns of physical and physiological style wrestlers. J Sci Med Sport 7: 473–480, 2004.
characteristics in adolescent wrestlers. Monten J Sports Sci Med 4: 13– 33. Karnincic, H, Tocilj, Z, Uljevic, O, and Erceg, M. Lactate profile
18, 2015. during Greco-Roman wrestling matchx. J Sports Sci Med 8: 17–19,
13. Demirkan, E, Koz, M, Kutlu, M, and Favre, M. Comparison of 2009.
physical and physiological profiles in elite and amateur young 34. Khalili-Borna, D and Honsik, K. Wrestling and sports medicine.
wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1876–1883, 2015. Curr Sports Med Reports 4: 144–149, 2005.
14. Demirkan, E, Koz, M, Kutlu, M, Özal, M, Güçlüöver, A, and Favre, M. 35. Kollias, I, Panoutsakopoulos, V, and Papaiakovou, G.
The investigation of relationship between the body composition and Comparing jumping ability among athletes of various sports:
arms-legs anaerobic performance in adolescent elite wrestlers. Med Vertical drop jumping from 60 centimeters. J Strength Cond Res
Sport 66: 513–521, 2013. 18: 546–550, 2004.
15. Demirkan, E, Kutlu, M, Koz, M, Özal, M, and Favre, M. Physical 36. Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Rubin, MR, Triplett-McBride, T, Gordon,
fitness differences between freestyle and Greco-Roman junior SE, Koziris, LP, Lynch, JM, Volek, JS, Meuffels, DE, Newton, RU,
wrestlers. J Hum Kinet 41: 245–251, 2014. and Fleck, SJ. Physiological and performance responses to
16. Demirkan, E, Ünver, R, Kutlu, M, and Koz, M. The comparison of tournament wrestling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1367–1378, 2001.
physical and physiological characteristics of junior elite wrestlers. 37. Kraemer, WJ, Vescovi, JD, and Dixon, P. The physiological basis of
Nig˘ de Univ J Phys Educ Sport Sci 6: 2, 2012. wrestling: Implications for conditioning programs. Strength Cond J
17. Evans, SA, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Beaird, J, Housh, DJ, and 26: 10–15, 2004.
Pepper, M. Age-specific differences in the flexibility of high school 38. Loturco, I, Pereira, LA, Cal Abad, CC, D’Angelo, RA, Fernandes,
wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 7: 39–42, 1993. V, Kitamura, K, Kobal, R, and Nakamura, FY. Vertical and
18. Farzad, B, Gharakhanlou, R, Agha-Alinejad, H, Curby, DG, horizontal jump tests are strongly associated with competitive
Bayati, M, Bahraminejad, M, and Mäestu, J. Physiological and performance in 100-m dash events. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1966–
performance changes from the addition of a sprint interval 1971, 2015.
program to wrestling training. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2392– 39. Maria Lopez-Gullon, J, Muriel, X, Dolores Torres-Bonete, M,
2399, 2011. Izquierdo, M, and Garcia-Pallares, J. Physical fitness differences
19. Féderation Internationale De Lutte Association (FILA). International between freestyle and Greco-Roman elite wrestlers. Arch Budo 7:
Wrestling Rules. Available at: https://unitedworldwrestling.org/ 217–225, 2011.
sites/default/files/media/document/wrestling_rules.pdf. Accessed 40. McGuigan, MR, Winchester, JB, and Erickson, T. The importance
March 2016. of isometric maximum strength in college wrestlers. J Sports Sci Med
20. Franchini, E, Del Vecchio, FB, Matsushigue, KA, and Artioli, GG. 5: 108–113, 2006.
Physiological profiles of elite judo athletes. Sports Med 41: 147–166, 41. Mirzaei, B, Curby, DG, Barbas, I, and Lotfi, N. Anthropometric and
2011. physical fitness traits of four-time world Greco-Roman wrestling
21. Franchini, E, Nakamura, F, Takito, M, Kiss, M, and Sterkowicz, S. champion in relation to national norms: A case study. J Hum Sport
Specific fitness test developed in Brazilian judoists. Biol Sport 15: Exerc 6: 2, 2010.
165–170, 1998. 42. Mirzaei, B, Curby, DG, Barbas, I, and Lotfi, N. Physical fitness
22. Garcia-Pallares, J, Lopez-Gullon, JM, Muriel, X, Diaz, A, and measures of cadet wrestlers. Int J Wrestling Sci 1: 63–66, 2011.
Izquierdo, M. Physical fitness factors to predict male Olympic 43. Mirzaei, B, Curby, DG, Barbas, I, and Lotfi, N. Differences in some
wrestling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 1747–1758, 2011. physical fitness and anthropometric measures between Greco-Roman
23. Garcia Pallares, J, Lopez-Gullon, JM, Torres-Bonete, MD, and and freestyle wrestlers. Int J Wrestling Sci 3: 94–102, 2013.
Izquierdo, M. Physical fitness factors to predict female Olympic 44. Mirzaei, B, Curby, DG, Rahmani-Nia, F, and Moghadasi, M.
wrestling performance and sex differences. J Strength Cond Res 26: Physiological profile of elite Iranian junior freestyle wrestlers.
794–803, 2012. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2339–2344, 2009.
24. Ghorbani, S, Mohebbi, H, Safarimosavi, S, and Ghasemikaram, M. 45. Mirzaei, B, Curby, DG, and Rahmani-Nia, LN. The relationship
The effect of different recovery methods on blood lactate removal in between flexibility, speed and agility measures of successful
wrestlers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 273–279, 2015. wrestlers. Kinaithropomety, 2011.
25. Gierczuk, D and Długołe˛cka, B. Anaerobic capacity of lower limb 46. Morán-Navarro, RVCA, López-Gullón, JM, De la Cruz-Sánchez, E,
muscles in juvenile wrestlers. Pol J Sport Tourism 16: 115–120, 2009. and Pallarés, JG. Can balance skills predict olympic wrestling
26. Gierczuk, D, Hübner-Wozniak, E, and Dlugolecka, B. Influence of performance? J Sport Health Res 7: 19–30, 2015.
training on anaerobic power and capacity of upper and lower limbs 47. Nemet, D, Pontello, AM, Rose-Gottron, C, and Cooper, DM.
in young Greco-Roman wrestlers. Biol Sport 29: 235, 2012. Cytokines and growth factors during and after a wrestling season in
27. Hamilton, LD, van Anders, SM, Cox, DN, and Watson, NV. The adolescent boys. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 794–800, 2004.
effect of competition on salivary testosterone in elite female athletes. 48. Nikooie, R, Cheraghi, M, and Mohamadipour, F. Physiological
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 538–542, 2009. determinants of wrestling success in elite Iranian senior and junior
28. Horswill, CA. Applied physiology of amateur wrestling. Sports Med Greco-Roman wrestlers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2015.
14: 114–143, 1992. 49. Nilsson, J, Csergo, S, Gullstrand, L, Tveit, P, and Refsnes, PE. Work-
29. Horswill, CA, Scott, JR, and Galea, P. Comparison of maximum time profile, blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived
aerobic power, maximum anaerobic power, and skinfold thickness exertion in the 1998 Greco-Roman Wrestling World Championship.
of elite and nonelite junior wrestlers. Int J Sports Med 10: 165–168, J Sports Sci 20: 939–945, 2002.
1989. 50. Ohya, T, Takashima, W, Hagiwara, M, Oriishi, M, Hoshikawa, M,
30. Hübner-Woźniak, E, Kosmol, A, and Błachnio, D. Anaerobic Nishiguchi, S, and Shijeki, N. Physical fitness profile and differences
capacity of upper and lower limbs muscles in combat sports between light, middle, and heavy weight-class groups of Japanese
contestants. J Combat Sports Martial Arts 24: 91–94, 2011. elite male wrestlers. Int J Wrestling Sci 5: 42–46, 2015.
51. Passelergue, PA and Lac, G. Salivary hormonal responses and 66. Starosta, W, Baić, M, Sertić, H, and Rynkiewicz, T. Comparison of
performance changes during 15 weeks of mixed aerobic and weight the motor abilities level of classical and free style wrestlers of Polish
training in elite junior wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3049–3058, Junior National Team. J Combat Sports Martial Arts 2: 77–83, 2010.
2012. 67. Starosta, W and Rynkiewicz, T. Test battery for the evaluation and
52. Pion, J, Segers, V, Fransen, J, Debuyck, G, Deprez, D, Haerens, L, assessment of movement abilities in elite polish wrestlers. Int J
Vaeyenes, L, Philippaerts, R, and Lenoir, M. Generic Wrestling Sci 4: 49–55, 2014.
anthropometric and performance characteristics among elite 68. Sterkowicz, S. In search of a new special judo fitness test [in Polish].
adolescent boys in nine different sports. Eur J Sport Sci 15: 357–366, JAMA 3: 46–60, 1996.
2015.
69. Sterkowicz, S and Starosta, W. Selected factors influencing the level
53. Popadic Gacesa, JZ, Barak, OF, and Grujic, NG. Maximal anaerobic of general fitness in elite Greco-Roman wrestlers. J Hum Kinet 14:
power test in athletes of different sport disciplines. J Strength Cond 93, 2005.
Res 23: 751–755, 2009.
70. Stroup, DF, Berlin, JA, Morton, SC, Olkin, I, Williamson, GD,
54. Rahmani-Nia, F, Mirzaei, B, and Nuri, R. Physiological profile of Rennie, D, Moher, D, Becker, BJ, Sipe, TA, and Thacker, SB. Meta-
elite Iranian junior Greco-Roman wrestlers. Int J Fit 3, 2007. analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for
55. Ramirez-Velez, R, Argothyd, R, Meneses-Echavez, JF, Beatriz reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
Sanchez-Puccini, M, Lopez-Alban, CA, and Cohen, DD. (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008–2012, 2000.
Anthropometric characteristics and physical performance of 71. Taskiran, C. Comparison of the physical and physiological
colombian elite male wrestlers. Asian J Sports Med 5: e23810, 2014. capacities of Elite Turkish Wrestlers and the Wrestlers of the US
56. Ratamess, NA. Strength and conditioning for grappling sports. National Wrestling Team. Int J Wrestling Sci 4: 11–14, 2014.
Strength Cond J 33: 18–24, 2011. 72. Tsuyama, K, Yamamoto, Y, Fujimoto, H, Adachi, T, Nakazato, K,
57. Ratamess, NA, Hoffman, JR, Kraemer, WJ, Ross, RE, Tranchina, CP, and Nakajima, H. Comparison of the isometric cervical extension
Rashti, SL, Kelly, NA, Vingren, JL, Kang, J, and Faigenbaum, D. strength and a cross-sectional area of neck extensor muscles in
Effects of a competitive wrestling season on body composition, college wrestlers and judo athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 84: 487–491,
endocrine markers, and anaerobic exercise performance in NCAA 2001.
collegiate wrestlers. Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 1157–1168, 2013. 73. Utter, AC, O’Bryant, HS, Haff, GG, and Trone, GA. Physiological
58. Rezasoltani, A, Ahmadi, A, Nehzate-Khoshroh, M, Forohideh, F, profile of an elite freestyle wrestler preparing for competition: A
and Ylinen, J. Cervical muscle strength measurement in two groups case study. J Strength Cond Res 16: 308–315, 2002.
of elite Greco-Roman and free style wrestlers and a group of non- 74. Vardar, SA, Tezel, S, Ozturk, L, and Kaya, O. The relationship
athletic subjects. Br J Sports Med 39: 440–443, 2005. between body composition and anaerobic performance of elite
59. Roemmich, JN and Frappier, JP. Physiological determinants of young wrestlers. J Sports Sci Med 6: 34–38, 2007.
wrestling success in high school athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci 5: 134, 75. Ylinen, JJ, Julin, M, Rezasoltani, A, Virtapohja, H, Kautiainen, H,
1993. Karila, T, and Malkia, E. Effect of training in Greco-Roman
60. Saad, AH. Physiological profile of the young Egyptian wrestlers. wrestling on neck strength at the elite level. J Strength Cond Res 17:
World J Sport Sci 6: 45–50, 2012. 755–759, 2003.
61. Saltin, B. Maximal oxygen uptake and heart rate in various types of 76. Yoon, J. Physiological profiles of elite senior wrestlers. Sports Med 32:
muscular activity. J Appl Physiol 16: 977–981, 1961. 225–233, 2002.
62. Saraiva, AR, Reis, VM, Costa, PB, Bentes, CM, Costa, ESGV, and 77. Yoon, JR. Comparisons of anaerobic performance and isokinetic
Novaes, JS. Chronic effects of different resistance training exercise strength in Korean and Japanese female collegiate wrestlers. Int J
orders on flexibility in elite judo athletes. J Hum Kinet 40: 129–137, Wrestling Sci 2: 86–92, 2012.
2014. 78. Zaccagni, L. Anthropometric characteristics and body composition
63. Saygin, O. Examination of some physical, hematological of Italian national wrestlers. Eur J Sport Sci 12: 145–151, 2012.
parameters and iron status of Greco-Roman wrestlers in the age 79. Zhang, CG, Xiu, ZT, He, Zh, Lu, DL, Tao, DL, Tang, TM, and Feng,
category of cadets by weight classes. Anthropologist 18: 325–334, LS. Investigation on sports injuries in chinese elite wrestlers. J
2014. Tianjin Inst Phys Educ 3: 022, 2005.
64. Schmidt, WD, Piencikowski, CL, and Vandervest, RE. Effects of 80. Zi-Hong, H, Lian-Shi, F, Hao-Jie, Z, Kui-Yuan, X, Feng-Tang, C, Da-
a competitive wrestling season on body composition, strength, and Lang, T, Ming-YI, L, Lucia, A, and Fleck, SJ. Physiological profile of
power in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III elite Chinese female wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2374–2395,
college wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 19: 505–508, 2005. 2013.
65. Song, T and Garvie, G. Anthropometric, flexibility, strength, and 81. Zuniga, J, Housh, TJ, Mielke, M, Camic, CL, Hendrix, CR, Johnson,
physiological measures of Canadian wrestlers and comparison of GO, Housh, DJ, and Richard, JS. Validity of fat-free weight
Canadian and Japanese Olympic wrestlers. Can J Appl Sport Sci 5: 1, equations for estimating mean and peak power in high school
1980. wrestlers. Pediatr Exerc Sci 21: 100–112, 2009.
1442
the TM

Physical and Physiological Attributes of PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical and Physiological Attributes of PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BRIEF REVIEW

PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF

ABSTRACT capacity, aerobic power, maximal dynamic and isometric

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2017 | 1411

The following search terms

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Amateur (n = 32) 50.4 6 5.4

Middle weight (n = 20) test

100 kg (n = 5) 44.0 6 3.0

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

particular, there exists limited research studies. When con-

Hübner-Woźniak et al. (31)

Zi-Hong et al. (80)

cycle ergometer) and to the different weight categories.

similar to the results established in the current investiga-

and international wrestlers were approximately 53–56

*FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; NR = not reported; AG = age group.

ilar V_ O2max values between Olympic, collegiate, and scho-

lastic athletes. However, the recent study of Demirkan et al.

and elite wrestlers compared with their amateur peers. Yoon

aerobic metabolism is a basic requirement for elite wrestlers

tors to achieve high wrestling performance level.

With respect to female wrestlers, Zi-Hong et al. (80) re-

successful wrestlers. When dealing with the difference

between freestyle and Greco-Roman styles, the available

by Horswill et al. (29). This observation means that the

Turkish club level (n = 20)

Polish elite level (n = 10)

activity of both styles stimulates similarly the aerobic energy

V_ O2max is one of the important factors toward achieving

a high wrestling performance level. In view of the paucity

needed. It is worth noting that the activity profile of the

presented V_ O2max test is not wrestling specific. For that

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2017 | 1415

Athletes characteristics Peak power Mean power

Polish (level = NR)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

(continued on next page)

Junior (n = 14) GR Wingate test NR NR Nikooie et al. (48)

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

*FS = freestyle wrestling; GR = Greco-Roman wrestling; NR = not reported; AG = age group.

Peak power Peak power Mean power Mean power

Olympic level wrestlers

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

TABLE 4. Maximal dynamic-strength of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*

Absolute 1RM score (kg) Relative 1RM score (kg per

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Postseason 80.4 6 14.4

96 kg (n = 10) 1.2 6 0.1 [1.15–1.42]

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Handgrip strength performance

strength Leg strength Measurement

Light weight FS/GR NR NR Back and leg Basar et al.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Iranian elite level (n = 28) Dominant hand

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Light weight NR CMJ Jump platform (Ergojump) Garcia Pallares

TABLE 7. Muscular endurance of wrestlers (data are presented as mean 6 SD).*

Performance (number of repetitions)