INTERLIMB ASYMMETRY OF MAXIMAL HANDGRIP STRENGTH AND WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE IN ELITE INTERNATIONAL MALE BOXERS

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine interlimb maximal handgrip strength asymmetry and wrist circumference asymmetry in amateur boxing across three weight classes and two different stances. Materials and methods. The study sample comprised 12 (flyweight: 4; bantamweight: 4; featherweight: 4) amateur elite international boxers of India. Both limbs were tested for maximal handgrip strength and wrist circumference. For both tests, interlimb asymmetry was calculated using the interlimb asymmetry equation validated by Bishop et al. (2018). One-way ANOVA was used to compare asymmetries in three different weight classes, and an independent samples t-test was used to compare asymmetries in two different boxing stances. Results. The average wrist circumference asymmetry in different weight classes was 2.85±1.97 for flyweight, 1.29±0.75 for bantamweight, and 2.44±1.23 for featherweight, whereas the average maximal handgrip strength asymmetry was 4.91±3.75 for flyweight, 7.69±1.89 for bantamweight, and 5.80±2.89 for featherweight. Non-significant differences in interlimb asymmetry for wrist circumference and maximal handgrip strength in three different weight classes and two different stances were obtained (p > 0.05). Conclusions. The maximal handgrip strength asymmetry and wrist circumference asymmetry in elite international boxers were found to be less than 10 percent and observed non-significant differences in weight classes as well as stances indicate elite amateur international boxers to be less prone to interlimb asymmetry-related injuries and have favourable conditions for high performance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kumar, S., & Rajput, Y. S. (2023). INTERLIMB ASYMMETRY OF MAXIMAL HANDGRIP STRENGTH AND WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE IN ELITE INTERNATIONAL MALE BOXERS. Physical Education Theory and Methodology, 23(5), 732–738. https://doi.org/10.17309/tmfv.2023.5.11

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free