Different Methods of Winning, Losing, and Training in Combat Sports and Their Relationship with Overall Competitive Winningness

This study aimed to investigate how overall competitive winningness in combat sports depended on patterns of victory and loss, as well as training habits. Competitors (N = 280) from several combat sports participated in the study. The online survey included questions on self-reported patterns of victory (and loss), training habits, general demographics (e.g., age), and sport-specific information (e.g., stage of career and competitive style). Overall, it was found across four models that reflected diversity of winningness in combat sports that the most important predictors of competitive winningness were loss by points (negative), loss by submission (negative), loss (negative) or victory (positive) by throw or technical fall, and loss (negative) or victory (positive) by knockout. The findings applied to amateur and regional/state athletes, and rarely to karate or tae kwon do. Findings around demographics or training habits were largely unremarkable, outside of a relationship between higher training loads and less career winning in wrestlers. Results show that while winning via a finishing sequence (e.g., knockout or submission) is preferable to the judge's decision or points, the matter of victory is less important than the methods by which an athlete loses. In grappling-only sports, we observed a trend that more losses via finishing sequence were worse for careers than losing by points. In fact, having most of one's losses coming via judge's decision or points was beneficial in wrestling and judo, perhaps due to athletes taking less risks and having better defence. These findings may aid practitioners developing effective tactics and training programs.


Introduction
Combat sports include a range of sports involving oneon-one fghting under a specifc ruleset.However, combat sports vary between each other.Sports can include striking with the limbs (e.g., punches, kicks, knees, or elbows), or grappling actions (e.g., takedowns, joint manipulation, and chokes) [1].A wide range of demographics currently compete in combat sports across a wide range of competitive levels extending from amateur and/or regional, to professional and/or international [1].Unlike many team sports, while the full bout time can be completed and total points or a subjective judge's decision used to determine the winner, combat sports bouts can be won or lost prior to the completion of allocated match time.Bouts can conclude when a certain number of points are accrued or there is a significant points diferential (e.g., the 20 pt advantage rule in tae kwon do), an opponent is knocked unconscious or is deemed unable to continue by an ofcial, a specifc technique is executed (e.g., a pin in wrestling), or an athlete submits due to grappling attacks [2].Te ability to fnish bouts within the allocated bout time creates an interesting dynamic that has physical, physiological, and tactical implications.
Determining the factors that infuence overall winningness in combat sports is complicated due to their highly physical and tactical nature.Te current body of research has typically approached this area in one of two ways.First, investigating physical and physiological profles in varying combat sports and typically found that more winning athletes are stronger and ftter than their contemporaries [3][4][5][6][7].Second, previous research has reviewed footage of competitions to identify strategies related to overall winningness.Such studies have been completed in MMA [8], boxing [9], judo [10], and wrestling [11].For example, research by James et al. (2017) observed that landing strikes on the ground and completing takedowns was a successful strategy to winning bouts in MMA.While such methods provide important information on overall winningness in combat sports, there are certain areas that remain relatively unexplored.
Tere are a range of factors that could potentially infuence winning in combat sports in combat sports such as competitive patterns (specifc methods of victory and loss) and training habits (training volume and type of training) [1].It is unclear how difering competitive patterns infuence overall competitive winningness in combat sports.It is plausible that general trends of winning and losing are related to overall competitive performance.For example, it is unclear if athletes who acquire most of their wins via points will have a more winning record than those athletes who acquire most of their wins via other methods such as submissions or pin.
Previous research has reported that physical conditioning is important for combat sports success [3][4][5][6][7], yet there are minimal data within combat sports investigating how diferent training habits may relate to competitive success (i.e., winningness).Tere are some data that have investigated general training habits in combat sports athletes [1,12,13], including how many sport specifc and nonspecifc sessions are completed weekly.However, this research has not examined such habits relative to overall competitive winningness, despite the obvious importance of how training is conducted in competitive athletes.
Te purpose of this study was to examine how overall competitive winningness in combat sports depended on patterns of victory and loss as well as habits of combat and noncombat training that athletes engage in.We controlled personal demographic measures such as age and body mass index (BMI), as such factors may infuence experience in a sport, as well as their viability for fghting at diferent weight classes [14,15].We also took into account sportspecifc demographic factors such as career stage and competitive style in the models because experience and aggression are plausible factors to infuence the competitive record [16,17].Given there are several diferent combat sports with many diferent competitive levels (e.g., amateurs, regional, and elite), this study will aim to examine how such factors outlined impact on competitive performance across diferent combat sports, and competitive levels.Examining overall trends of athlete's competitive careers and determining relationships with more winning records may provide valuable insights into the best training and competing strategies for winning across combat sports.

2.1.
Procedures.Te study's procedures were approved by our institution's Human Ethics Committee (Research ethics identifcation: 2019-00278-Barley).With permission, several combat sport organisations, gyms, and message boards from around the world promoted the survey.Participants followed a link to the survey after being emailed it or accessing it directly from promotional material.Participants competed the survey online using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, August to October 2019, Qualtrics, Provo, Utah, USA).Prior to data collection, participants indicated their consent by accepting the terms and conditions on the frst page of the survey.
Participants completed a section focused on questions that were demographic and general in nature, such as country of residence as well as age and biological sex.Additionally, questions on some physical attributes, such as height and weight (to calculate BMI), were included.Participants were allowed to enter the results in a range of units of measurements which were later converted to the metric system.Four demographic questions were sport-specifc in nature.Participants were asked to rate their competitive style (VAS: 0 � "defensive"; 100 � "aggressive"); stage of career (VAS: 0 � "start of career"; 50 � "middle of career"; 100 � "end of career"); primary combat sport in the previous twelve months; and highest level of competition (amateur, regional/state, or elite).Tese questions were adapted from previous research [18,19].Participants answered questions about current training habits such as typical frequency of combat and noncombat training (e.g., strength training) each week without and with a competition in the near term.
Participants were questioned about their competitive record as well as typical methods of victory or loss.Participants reported competitive results over their career including estimated number of victories, losses, and number of competitions, so that at winning (i.e., ratio of victories to competitions, expressed as a percentage) and losing (i.e., ratio of victories to competitions, expressed as a percentage), a record could be calculated.Participants also reported, on a fve-point Likert scale (1 � none; 5 � all), their typical frequency for methods of victory or loss (as appropriate to their primary sport): points or judge's decision; knockout, technical knockout, or corner/doctor's stoppage; submission or pin; disqualifcation; or Ippon, Wazari-ari, or technical fall.

Subjects.
A total of 298 combat sport athletes aged 18 years and over actively involved in combat sport associations or gyms and had a competitive record were participated in the study.As noted by Barley  Initial analysis focused on examining association between the two measures of performance in competition-winning and losing record.If the correlation between winning and losing record was very large, then fndings relating to winning record were reported.
Te main analysis focused on regressing competition performance on a set of predictors-personal (age, gender, and BMI) as well as sport-specifc demographic (career stage and competitive style) measures, current training habits (combat and noncombat; with or without a competition in the near term), and methods of victory and loss.
Given the heterogeneity of combat sports regarding methods of victory or loss, four models-based on commonality of methods of victory and loss across combat sports-were examined.In model one, which applied to all participants, the methods of victory included were points or judge's decision or by disqualifcation.In model two, which applied to MMA, MT/KB, boxing, and K & T, the methods of victory or loss included were points or judge's decision, disqualifcation, and knockout.In model three, which applied to MMA, BJJ, wrestling, and judo, the methods of victory or loss included were points or judge's decision, disqualifcation, and submission or pin.In model four, which applied to wrestling, and judo, the methods of victory or loss included were points or judge's decision, disqualifcation, and submission or pin, and throws or TF.To reduce the number of predictors in each model, preliminary analysis (which occurred in steps, as described in separate appendices for each model) was used to establish which measures were making a nonsignifcant contribution to competition performance.In all models, competition performance was regressed on personal as well as sport-specifc demographic measures and current training habits.
As the number of predictor variables in each model was large (e.g., 14 predictors for Model 1) such that the models were underpowered with only a sample of 298 (and only 280 had a competitive record), it was decided to conduct an initial standard regression analysis to identify predictors that made a statistically signifcant contribution to competitive performance.Multigroup analysis-by level of competition and by primary sport-was conducted for all bivariate associations to identify any variables to be retained for the fnal analysis.Once the fnal set or predictors was determined, a fnal regression analysis was conducted, with multigroup analysis also conducted for each model to examine efects according to competition level as well as the competitors primary combat sport.
Descriptive data and regression analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 25).Alpha (α) was set at 0.05 for all tests because the overall fndings were exploratory in nature.Cohen's criterion [20] was used to evaluate efect size for all parametric analyses such that d < 0.20 indicates a small effect, d = 0.21-0.50indicates a medium efect, and d > 0.80 indicates a large efect.Values for d are reported in the tables, with description of those efects reported in text.Multigroup analyses were conducted in Mplus Version 8.3 [21].

Model 1. Winning record based on victory and loss by points as well as disqualifcation-for all sports
After preliminary analysis for this model (Supplementary File B), winning record was regressed on competitive style, frequency of noncombat training sessions each week without a competition in the near term, frequency of noncombat training with a competition in the near term, and loss by points or judge's decision (Table 1).Findings for frequency of noncombat training sessions each week with a competition in the near-term were not reported in this table due to a lack of impact for explaining variance in winning record for this model (Supplementary File B).
Te overall model explained a statistically signifcant but small amount variance in winning record.Findings from the moderation analyses indicated that the model explained a statistically signifcant amount of variance in winning record for regional/state (moderate) and amateur (large) athletes only for boxing, BJJ, and wrestling (moderate), as well as MMA (large).
Two broad unique efects were observed for this model.Athletes with a better winning record reported a more aggressive style (small efect), with this efect being limited to amateur and regional/state athletes as well as for BJJ athletes (small efects).
Athletes who reported a better winning record also reported fewer losses by points, with this efect specifcally limited to amateurs and MT/KB and boxing (moderate to large efects).In contrast, athletes who reported a better winning record in wrestling reported more losses by points (moderate efect).
One specifc unique efect was observed for this model.BJJ athletes who had a better winning record also reported a greater frequency of noncombat training sessions each week without a competition in the near term (large efect).

Translational Sports Medicine
Model 2. Winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and knock-out-for MMA, MT/KB, Boxing, and K & T After the preliminary analysis for this model (see Supplementary File C), winning record was regressed on career stage, competitive style, loss by points or judge's decision, and victory as well as loss by knock-out.Te results for this model appear in Table 2. Findings for career stage and competitive style were not reported in this table due to a lack of impact for explaining variance in winning record for this model (Supplementary File C).
Te overall model explained a statistically signifcant and moderate amount of the variance in winning record.Te fndings from the moderation analyses indicated that the model explained a statistically signifcant amount of variance in winning record for regional/state (moderate) and amateur (large) athletes only and for following combat sports retained in the model-MMA, MT/KB, and boxing (moderate efects)-and large-for amateurs-amount of variance in winning record for two of the three levels of athletes; and explained a non-signifcant amount of the variance in winning record for elite athletes.Te model explained a large amount of variance in winning record for three of the primary sports-MMA, MT/KB, and boxing-but explained a non-signifcant portion of the variance in winning record for K & T.
Tree broad unique efects were observed in this model.Overall, athletes who had a better record reported fewer losses by points or judge's decision (large efect), with this statistically signifcant negative efect restricted to regional/ state athletes (moderate efect) and amateurs (large efect) athletes as well as the following combat sports-MMA (moderate efect) and MT/KB as well as boxing (large effects).Overall, athletes with a better record reported more victories by knockout, with this efect limited to MMA (moderate efect).Overall, athletes with a better record reported fewer losses by knockout (moderate efect), with moderate efects noted for amateur and regional/state athletes only; and for the following sports-MT/KB (small efect), boxing (moderate efect), and MMA (large efect).

Model 3.
Winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and submission or pin-for MMA, BJJ, Wrestling, and Judo After the preliminary analysis for this model (Supplementary File D), winning record was regressed on career stage, competitive style, frequency of non-combat training sessions each week without a competition in the near term, frequency of non-combat training sessions each week with a competition in the near term, loss by points or judge's decision, and loss by submission or pin (Table 3).Findings for frequency of noncombat training sessions with a competition in the near term were not reported in this table due to a lack of impact for explaining variance in winning record for this model (Supplementary File D).
Te overall model explained a statistically signifcant but small amount of variance in winning record.Te moderation analyses indicated that the model explained a statistically signifcant amount of variance in winning record for amateurs and regional/state athletes (moderate) and for some of the combat sports retained in the model-BJJ (moderate) and wrestling (large).
Tree broad unique efects were observed.Athletes who reported a better winning record also reported being at a later stage of their career (small efect).Tis efect was observed for regional/state (small efect) and amateur (moderate efect) athletes; and for BJJ athletes only (small efect).
Athletes with a better record also reported a more aggressive competitive style (small efect).No moderation efects were noted for this efect across competitive levels or combat sport.Note.* While some statistically signifcant fndings for specifc predictors for these groups were observed, they were not reported in this table because the variance explained by the model as applied to these groups was not statistically signifcant.4 Translational Sports Medicine Athletes with a better record also reported fewer losses by submission or pin (moderate efect).Tis efect was limited to amateurs and regional/state athletes (moderate efects) and to BJJ as well as wrestling athletes.
Two unique fndings were noted for this model.Amateurs (moderate efect) and wrestlers (moderate efect) with a better winning record also reported fewer losses by points or judge's decision.BJJ athletes who reported a better winning record also reported a greater frequency of noncombat training sessions each week without a competition in the near term.

Model 4. Winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and throws and TF-for Wrestling and Judo
After the preliminary analysis for this model (Supplementary File E), winning record was regressed on frequency of non-combat training sessions each week with a competition in the near-term, victory by throws or TF, loss by throws or TF, loss by points or judge's decision, and loss by submission or pin (Table 4).Note that either (but not both) frequency of non-combat training sessions each week with or without a competition in the near-term could have used as a predictor in this model.
Te overall model explained a statistically signifcant and moderate amount of variance in winning record.Te moderation analyses indicated no diferences in fndings across the diferent levels of combat sport participation.When examined separately, it was found that the model explained a statistically signifcant amount of variance in winning record for both wrestling and judo (large).
Four broad unique efects were observed.Athletes with better records reported fewer losses by points or judge's decisions.Athletes with a better record also reported more wins by throws or TF (moderate efect), with the size of the efect (moderate) consistent for both wrestling and judo.Athletes with a better record also reported and fewer losses by throws or TF (moderate efect), with a negative efect of loss by throws or TF reported in judo (large efect).Athletes who reported a better record also reported more losses by points or judge's decision.Athletes with a better winning record also reported fewer losses by submission or pin (small efect), with the size of the efect (small) consistent for wrestling and judo.
One specifc fnding was observed for this model.While wrestlers who reported a better winning record reported doing less non-combat training sessions each week with a competition in the near-term, this efect was reversed in judo.

Discussion
Loss via points or judge's decision generally had a consistent impact on competitive performance (i.e., winning record) across the models.Loss by points or judge's decision had a negative efect on competitive performance overall in model one (small efect), and specifcally for amateurs, MMA, MT/KB, and boxing (moderate to large efects); for model two overall (moderate efect), and specifcally for amateurs, regional/state, MMA, MT/KB, and boxing (moderate to large efects).In model 3, the negative efect of loss of points or judge's decision on competitive performance was limited to amateurs.While fndings from moderation analyses indicate the negative impact of loss by points or judge's decision on overall competitive performance is not universal, taken together, these results reliably show that a greater proportion of losses by points or judge's decision is overall a negative for an athletes' career.Interestingly, perhaps unexpectedly, victories by points were not found to be signifcantly related to career winningness in any model.Also, surprisingly, a fnding inconsistent with our observed trends about losing by points or judge's decision was that for wrestling and judo, a consistent positive association was found in the model between loss by points or judge's decision and competitive performance.Given the questions in this study were framed about proportions of losses, a potential explanation is that grapplers who have more losses by points or judge's decision would have less losses by fnishing sequence (such as a pin or throw).Tus, wrestlers and judokas with a greater portion of their losses by decision or points may demonstrate greater defence to bout fnishing sequences, or perhaps take less risks that could have their bouts end via loss to fnishing sequence.Tese fndings overall may demonstrate for most combat sports  Translational Sports Medicine aiming to win via points or judge's decision is not an ideal strategy, as it is not as efective a path to career winningness but runs the risk of being detrimental to a career to lose by points or judge's decision.Instead, combat sport athletes should be prioritising and training on paths to victory that avoid judge's decision or points altogether.Loss via fnishing sequence was also a consistent predictor of poorer career winningness.Tese results were observed in models of loss by knockout (Table 2), loss by submission or pin (Tables 3 and 4), and loss by throws or TF (Table 4).In fact, in models including grappling only sports, losing via fnishing sequence was found to have a greater negative relationship to performance than losing via points or judge's decision (Tables 3 and 4).Tese results combined with the observed positive efect of a greater proportion of losses via points or judge's decision seem to support the proposition that defence to fnishing sequences in grappling sports is of paramount importance, and it is preferable to lose via points or judge's decision.Tough interestingly in model 2, loss by knock-out, while still signifcant, did not have as large a negative efect on career winningness than having a greater proportion of losses via points or judge's decision.However, when looking at individual sports, this did not seem to be the case for MMA.Te reasoning behind these fndings is currently unclear and would be an interesting topic for future research.
Our fndings indicate that, ofensively, a signifcant component of combat sports bouts is the potential for fnishing sequences such as by submissions or knock-outs.Victory by throws or TF was found to have a positive and moderately-sized association overall and for both wrestling, and judo (Table 4).Tese results do align with previous research outlining that athletes with greater ofensive output fnished higher within grappling tournaments [22], and within wrestling, at an emphasis on single leg takedown ofence [23].Victory by knock-out was found to have a positive but small association with career winningness overall, and a more pronounced afect in MMA (Table 2).Such a fnding fts within the fndings of previous research to show ofensive output to be related to increased winningness in striking sports [24,25].However, our fndings may suggest that beyond simple output alone, it is preferable to use such output to win via a fnishing sequence than points or judge's decision.Potentially due to the defnitive nature of a fnishing sequence, which could even steal a victory despite being signifcantly down on points.Te importance of fnishing sequences aligns with previous research outlining the signifcant strategies for winning in combat sports [8,26].However, generally methods of losing showed greater relationships to career winningness compared with methods of winning.Taken together, these results may be used to suggest that sound defence is more important than ofence within combat sports.Such results stand to reason as if an athlete demonstrates poor defence their bout can come to an immediate end, whereas solid defence allows them a continuing chance to win the bout via fnishing sequence or, points or judge's decision.
Regarding training habits, it is worth noting that frequency of combat sport training sessions each week with or without a competition in the near-term and frequency of non-combat training sessions each week with or without a competition in the near term were strongly correlated but not so strongly to be the source of multicollinearity issues in the models.Bearing this in mind, frequency of non-combat and combat training with or without a competition in the near term played a relatively small role in the modelling of competitive winningness as the measures did not make an overall notable contribution to the prediction of competitive winningness, which aligns with previous research in judo fnding training volume to not be a predictor of winningness [27], though there may be benefts of increased training outside of winning competitions such as greater bone mineral density which has been observed in wrestlers with higher training loads [28].Within our study, some specifc fndings were noted, with frequency of non-combat training sessions each week without a competition in the near term positively and at least moderately associated with competitive winningness for BJJ (Tables 1 and 3) and judo (Table 4).As previous research has reported BJJ to be on the lower end of the spectrum for frequency of non-combat sports training sessions compared to other sports [1], it is possible that our results indicate that better strength and conditioning gives a signifcant performance edge.Surprisingly, frequency of non-combat sessions was negatively associated (small efect) with competitive winningness for wrestling (Table 4).Considering previous research has reported wrestlers completing more non-combat sport training sessions than other combat sports, these results may indicate that such a high training volume puts them at higher risk of overtraining [1].Tis may also be related to a lack of periodisation within training loads, which previous research has observed in MMA [13].Indeed, future research should be conducted to examine training load planning within wrestling.Training load may also have a signifcant relationship to injury rate, for example, higher training load has been associated with more frequent injuries in taekwondo [29], though injuries were not assessed within the current study so no conclusion can be drawn in such areas with this data.Outside of these reported diferences, frequency of training had no infuence on competitive winningness in any combat sport.A potential explanation for this is the general uniformity of training habits across and within combat sports masking any potential benefts of the small percentage that might train diferently [1].Additionally, the nature of our questionnaire did not determine the specifcs of the sessions.As such, future research would do well to conduct more in-depth investigations around diferent approaches to conditioning and their infuences on competitive winningness.
Of the demographic measures, personal measures (age, gender, and BMI) were unrelated to competitive performance.However, some sport-specifc demographic measures were related to competitive performance.A more aggressive competitive stye had a small positive efect on a winning record where the efect of points and judge's decision was included in the model (Table 1) for amateurs, regional/states, and BJJ, and where submission or pin was possible method of victory or loss (Table 3).Tese results Translational Sports Medicine appear to align with previous research fnding a greater volume of strikes landed and takedowns (in MMA) executed were predictors of winningness in MMA and boxing [8,9].Possibly athletes who fght more aggressively are more likely to be looked at favourably by judges or put themselves in favourable positions to execute fnishing sequences.Being at a later stage of their competitive career had a positive impact on winning record where submission or pin was a possible method of victory or loss (Table 3) for amateurs, regional/ state, and BJJ, which likely is an indication that competitive experience is an essential part of competitive winningness.Future research should investigate further into how aggression and competitive experience may infuence winningness in combat sports in study designs that analyse the actual results of competitions.
While this study had strengths, such as the large sample size collected and in-depth questionnaire used, there are several limitations that must be considered.Tere are potential issues with relying on self-reported data, though we did attempt to mitigate this by recruiting a sufciently large sample.It is important to note that due to small sample sizes within certain groups, some sports needed to be combined for data analysis.Such combinations were done in situations where sports shared a lot of similarities but caution still needs to be used when trying to draw conclusions about specifc sports within a grouping.Due to sample size, we have more confdence in the overall fndings as well as fndings for amateurs and regional/state level, at least for models one to three, with the least confdence in fndings related to elite athletes, MMA, Judo and K & T. Also, victory or loss by disqualifcation was not examined due to insufcient sample size so no conclusions can be drawn in this area.Te precision of the competitive records would have varied across combat sports, certain sports like MMA would have found it easier to recall specifc records compared to grappling sports like judo where an athlete may have hundreds of bouts.Athletes were asked to give their best guess if they were unsure, but the results to need to be interpreted cautiously due to this.Finally, it is important to consider that simply because correlation was observed, does not mean that there is inherit causation.Combat sports are complicated with many factors that may infuence the results that we were unable to control for.Te results of this study should be used to make estimates of general trends and be utilised in conjunction with other research and practical experience in the feld.

Conclusion
Te purpose of this research was to investigate competitive records across a range of combat sports and try to determine the trends of more winning athletes.Te primary fndings outlined the importance of combat sport athletes focusing on developing styles that emphasize the ability to win bouts via fnishing sequence prior to the full match time concluding.However, it is important to balance the risk of such a style, given the large negative efect that large proportions of losses via fnishing sequences can have on a career.Future research would beneft from examining the records of combat sports athletes using collected data as opposed survey data to determine if the trends observed in this study remain important.Te results from this study can help inform athletes and coaching staf developing efective strategies for competitions across careers.

Table 1 :
Statistically signifcant fndings for Model 1: winning record based on victory and loss by points as well as disqualifcation-for all sports.

Table 2 :
Statistically signifcant fndings for Model 2: winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and knock-out-for MMA, MT/KB, boxing, and K and T.

Table 3 :
Statistically signifcant fndings for Model 3: winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and submission or pin-for MMA, BJJ, wrestling, and judo.While some statistically signifcant fndings for specifc predictors for this group were observed, they were not reported in this table as the R 2 Note. *

Table 4 :
Statistically signifcant fndings for Model 4: winning record based on victory and loss by points, disqualifcation and Ippon, Waza-ari-for wrestling and judo.