Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article

Kinetic and kinematic analysis of three kicks in Sanda Wushu

  • Received: 13 October 2024 Revised: 16 March 2025 Accepted: 01 April 2025 Published: 11 April 2025
  • Sanda is a Chinese martial art derived from Wushu that incorporates various kicking techniques in combat, utilizing different training methods to enhance kicking skills. This study's goal was use kinetic and kinematic analysis to evaluate three Sanda kick techniques: the roundhouse kick, front kick, and side kick (referred to as Pian Tui, Dan Tui, and Ce Chuai Tui, respectively, in Wushu terminology). We examined the strength, speed, and effectiveness of these three kicks in our research. Nineteen volunteer Sanda players (i.e., 5 women and 14 men) from Tunisia's senior national squad participated in this study. Motion and performance analysis were conducted concurrently using 2D kinematic analysis with Kinovea freeware and kinetic analysis through inverse dynamics force computation. By using inverse dynamics to measure the three kicks, the results showed high absolute and relative reliability of kicking force. Additionally, repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) measurements indicated a significant difference between the techniques in kinetics (i.e., force, power, linear momentum, and inertia), linear kinematics (i.e., displacement, velocity, and acceleration), and angular kinematics (i.e., segment angles and angular velocity). We concluded that the front kick generated the optimal force and peak power, making it the most effective kick. In contrast, the roundhouse kick demonstrated the fastest execution, indicating that it is a high-velocity kick.

    Citation: Soumaya Eltifi-Ghanmi, Samiha Amara, Bessem Mkaouer. Kinetic and kinematic analysis of three kicks in Sanda Wushu[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(2): 174-196. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025011

    Related Papers:

    [1] Alireza Sarvestami, Madeline Smith, Arsha Moorthy, Patrick Kho, Lauren Talbo, Chamaree de Silva . Rigidity sensing by blood-borne leukocytes: Is it independent of internal signaling?. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 18-30. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024002
    [2] Marco Menale, Bruno Carbonaro . The mathematical analysis towards the dependence on the initial data for a discrete thermostatted kinetic framework for biological systems composed of interacting entities. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(3): 204-218. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020016
    [3] Raghvendra P Singh, Guillaume Brysbaert, Marc F Lensink, Fabrizio Cleri, Ralf Blossey . Kinetic proofreading of chromatin remodeling: from gene activation to gene repression and back. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 398-411. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.398
    [4] Nily Dan . Lipid-Nucleic Acid Supramolecular Complexes: Lipoplex Structure and the Kinetics of Formation. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 163-183. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.163
    [5] Ashwani Kumar Vashishtha, William H. Konigsberg . Effect of different divalent cations on the kinetics and fidelity of DNA polymerases. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(4): 272-289. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.4.272
    [6] Morteza Vaezi, G. Rezaei Behbehani, Nematollah Gheibi, Alireza Farasat . Thermodynamic, kinetic and docking studies of some unsaturated fatty acids-quercetin derivatives as inhibitors of mushroom tyrosinase. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(4): 393-410. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020027
    [7] Ashwani Kumar Vashishtha, William H. Konigsberg . The effect of different divalent cations on the kinetics and fidelity of Bacillus stearothermophilus DNA polymerase. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(2): 125-143. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.2.125
    [8] Yun Chen, Bin Liu, Lei Guo, Zhong Xiong, Gang Wei . Enzyme-instructed self-assembly of peptides: Process, dynamics, nanostructures, and biomedical applications. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(4): 411-428. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020028
    [9] Mohammed I. A. Ismail, Abdallah Barjas Qaswal, Mo'ath Bani Ali, Anas Hamdan, Ahmad Alghrabli, Mohamad Harb, Dina Ibrahim, Mohammad Nayel Al-Jbour, Ibrahim Almobaiden, Khadija Alrowwad, Esra'a Jaibat, Mira Alrousan, Mohammad Banifawaz, Mohammed A. M. Aldrini, Aya Daikh, Nour Aldarawish, Ahmad Alabedallat, Ismail M. I. Ismail, Lou'i Al-Husinat . Quantum mechanical aspects of cardiac arrhythmias: A mathematical model and pathophysiological implications. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(3): 401-439. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023024
    [10] Yu-Ting Huang, Hui-Fen Liao, Shun-Li Wang, Shan-Yang Lin . Glycation and secondary conformational changes of human serum albumin: study of the FTIR spectroscopic curve-fitting technique. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(2): 247-260. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.2.247
  • Sanda is a Chinese martial art derived from Wushu that incorporates various kicking techniques in combat, utilizing different training methods to enhance kicking skills. This study's goal was use kinetic and kinematic analysis to evaluate three Sanda kick techniques: the roundhouse kick, front kick, and side kick (referred to as Pian Tui, Dan Tui, and Ce Chuai Tui, respectively, in Wushu terminology). We examined the strength, speed, and effectiveness of these three kicks in our research. Nineteen volunteer Sanda players (i.e., 5 women and 14 men) from Tunisia's senior national squad participated in this study. Motion and performance analysis were conducted concurrently using 2D kinematic analysis with Kinovea freeware and kinetic analysis through inverse dynamics force computation. By using inverse dynamics to measure the three kicks, the results showed high absolute and relative reliability of kicking force. Additionally, repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) measurements indicated a significant difference between the techniques in kinetics (i.e., force, power, linear momentum, and inertia), linear kinematics (i.e., displacement, velocity, and acceleration), and angular kinematics (i.e., segment angles and angular velocity). We concluded that the front kick generated the optimal force and peak power, making it the most effective kick. In contrast, the roundhouse kick demonstrated the fastest execution, indicating that it is a high-velocity kick.



    Sanda is a combat sport derived from Wushu, where two competitors face off on a designated area, employing striking techniques (i.e., punches and kicks) and grappling methods (i.e., projections and wrestling) to secure victory in the fight. To succeed on the international stage, an athlete must use a variety of physical, technical, and mental attributes. Therefore, training optimization is crucial, encompassing various performance factors, including physiological, psychological, sociological, genetic, muscular, metabolic, biomechanical, etc.

    Limited research has been conducted in the field of Sanda biomechanics [1][4], with existing studies primarily focusing on specific parameters of performance capacity. Biomechanics, defined as the study of physics and mechanical systems in human movement, aims to identify the cognitive mechanisms that initiate and organize movement, the parameters of the produced movement, and the forces and constraints that act upon it [5].

    However, few studies [6][8] have investigated how combat sports percussionists' abilities are affected by the development of physical qualities, such as speed and strength. In combat sports, most previous research [9][14] has focused on studying mechanical, physiological, and motor aspects individually, rather than examining their interaction and impact on striking performance.

    In Sanda, multiple techniques are permitted, including punches, kicks, sweeping, seizures, and projections, all of which must be executed with sufficient force to be recognized by the referees. The distribution of scores depends on the technique employed; kicks to the body and head offer greater significance than punches delivered to the same regions. The execution of sweeping and projections gives the highest number of points when the fighter is in a standing position. Additionally, exiting from the combat zone, as well as counts and warnings issued to the opponent, contribute to the accumulation of points. Thus, kicks are considered the most challenging essential elements in combat. Conversely, they are regarded as a crucial element to employ in the pursuit of maximizing points during the competition.

    According to Le Camus and Le Camus [15] and the Sanda International Competition Arbitration Rules [16], two points are awarded to the fighter who performed a clean kick to the trunk, making kicks an essential component to earn maximum points during the fight.

    To be considered valid by referees, Sanda strikes must be executed with sufficient power, precise form, and a clearly defined height. Achieving such technical precision requires a high velocity of execution, which in turn necessitates a significant level of strength to accelerate and propel one's own body effectively. Furthermore, a high degree of motor automatism and gestural coordination is essential. Consequently, strength, speed, flexibility, and coordination emerge as key determinants of Sanda performance. As noted by Ouddak [17], motor coordination is the ability to execute precise and intentional gestures with speed (i.e., speed of execution), efficiency (i.e., achieving the goal), and reliability (i.e., high reproduction rate).

    In this context, controlling gestures effectively is essential [15], asserts that gesture control involved executing movements in stages and managing each phase individually. Regarding Sanda performance, this idea highlights the importance of precise motor control [18][20]. Although limited research exists on Sanda [21],[22], it is comparable to other combat sports in terms of its technical aspects, including kick boxing [23], Taekwondo [24], Karate [25], and Muay-Thai and Jiu-Jitsu [26].

    Despite some regulatory differences, particularly regarding kicks, the most frequently used techniques in Sanda are the front kick (i.e., Dan Tui), the side kick (i.e., Ce Chuai Tui), and the roundhouse kick (i.e., Pian Tui). Each of these kicks plays a crucial role in scoring and executing strategic moves effectively. Indeed, the roundhouse kick, a key skills of Sanda athletes, is characterized by powerful impact and is one of the most frequently used and effective technique in competition [27]. However, few studies [28],[29] regarding this turning kick exist. Therefore, the roundhouse could be the fastest, strongest, and most effective kick among Sanda athletes [30].

    In this respect, we propose to study the qualities of strength, speed, and effectiveness of three kicks in Sanda in the present research. Our primary focus will be the kinematic analysis of these factors to determine the best kick. The purpose of this study is to examine three Sanda kick techniques, the roundhouse kick (RK), the front kick (FK), and the side kick (SK), through kinetic and kinematic analysis. These three techniques are known as Pian Tui, Dan Tui, and Ce Chuai Tui, respectively, in Wushu nomenclature. We hypothesized that the RK exhibits the optimal execution of speed and force, making it the most effective kick.

    G*Power software (Version 3.1, University of Dusseldorf, Germany [31]) was used to compute an a priori power analysis with a type I error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power. The research revealed that at least 19 participants are needed to detect a significant moderate effect size (f = 0.31, d = 0.62 and critical F = 3.259) for both kinetic variables (such as force, power, inertia, and momentum) and kinematic variables (i.e., velocity, joint angles, and segment angles) [32],[33].

    Nineteen Tunisian senior national team Sanda players volunteered to participate in this study. Of them, fourteen were male (age 21.79 ± 2.33 years; height 1.74 ± 6.25 m; body mass 70.06 ± 11.28 kg; training average 20 h/week; experience 10.36 ± 4.75 years of practice) and five were female (age 22.40 ± 3.36 years; height 1.63 ± 7.40 m; body mass 60.94 ± 7.37 kg; training average 20 h/week; experience 7.40 ± 2.70 years of practice). The subjects had no neurological, muscular, or tendon injuries, and they were in excellent health.

    After receiving comprehensive information about the study's protocols, methodologies, advantages, and potential hazards, each participant signed a permission form indicating their agreement to participate in the research. The National Observatory of Sport's Ethical Committee authorized the trial, which was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (ONS/UR/18JS01).

    This is a 2D kinematic analysis of three types of Sanda foot strikes, namely the RK (Figure 1a), FK (Figure 1b), and SK (Figure 1c), to study the variation in strength, speed, and power indices when performed on a punching bag. The experimental session began with each participant doing a 10-minute warm-up that comprised lower-limb and trunk stretching exercises.

    Figure 1.  The three studied Sanda Wushu kicks. (a) RK; (b) FK; (c) SK.

    Before testing, participants were be familiarized with the equipment and the experimental protocol. Throughout the experiment, standardized instructions were delivered to the subjects, and verbal encouragement were provided to encourage them to achieve their best performances.

    The participant placed themselves on the mat in front of the two cameras (e.g., one from the front and the other from the side 3m from the bag), carrying 20 low-mass retro-reflective markers stuck to their body. The dominant leg was tested at each test. The expert placed themself in front of a punching bag and performed each type of foot strike three times in a randomized manner (e.g., RK, FK, and SK) with a 30-second recovery between repetitions and two minutes between strike types for each session (e.g., 3 sessions, over 3 days from 2 PM to 4 PM) (Figure 2).

    Figure 2.  Experimental design.

    Before the test, each expert performed each kick three times on the punching bag, trying to calibrate their evolution to perform the kicks on a very specific point marked on the punching bag. The kinematic data were then captured using two cameras ACME Sports & Action Camera (VR301 4K; full HD; f / 2.2 lens; 120Hz). The video decoding will be done using the free software Virtual Dub version 1.10.4 [34]. Digitalization of data using free software SkillSpector® (Geeware, Version 1.3.2, Svendborg, Denmark. Copyright© 2007, [35][37]), (Figure 3).

    Figure 3.  Digitalization with SkillSpector software.

    The biomechanical model adopted was Hanavan [38], as updated by de Leva [39]. This basic model consists of 20 points and 14 segments distributed throughout the body. Curious Labs, Inc. Poser® 4.0.3 created 3D Kinograms and constructions of important key positions. The calculation of force through inverse dynamics used the formula of Harnois and Lavoie [40] (equation 1a and 1b; Figure 4).

    (a)I=mL²3+md²(b)F= 2IθTtd

    Where I is the inertia, F is the striking force, m is the mass of the punching bag, L is the length of the punching bag, d is the length between the hanging point and the centre of mass of the punching bag, θ is the rotating angle of the punching bag, T is the contact time with the punching bag, and t is the time of movement of the punching bag.

    Figure 4.  Calculation of force by inverse dynamics [40].

    The calculation of the angle and the distance of the punching bag displacement was carried out by the free software Kinovea [version 0.8.15, Copyright© 2006–2011, [41] (Figure 5).

    Figure 5.  Calculating angles with Kinovea software.

    As part of the statistical study, the data analysis was carried out using the SPSS 25 package (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are used to report data. G*POWER software was used to calculate effect size (d) (Faul et al., 2009). For the purpose of interpreting d, the following scale was employed: < 0.2 (trivial), 0.2–0.6 (small), 0.6–1.2 (moderate), 1.2–2.0 (large), and > 2.0 (very large) [42],[43]. To ensure that residuals (errors) are normally distributed, the Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted. Results indicated that all residuals were normally distributed. Therefore, repeated measures ANOVA was employed to examine the varied kicks in Sanda Wushu (i.e., RK, FK, and SK). The sphericity assumption was verified using Mauchly's test. The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied when sphericity was violated. Additionally, the data was visually checked for potential outliers using boxplots. Also, pairwise comparison was conducted using the Bonferroni test. Furthermore, the usual error of measurement (TEM), which is reported as the coefficient of variation (CV), and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess the absolute and relative reliability of kicking forces (i.e., in RK, FK, and SK). The smallest worthwhile change (SWC) was estimated by multiplying the between-subject SD by 0.2 (SWC0.2), showing the typical minor effect [42]. The test's ability to identify a change was classified as “good,” “OK,” or “marginal” depending on whether the TEM was below, similar to, or higher than SWC0.2, respectively [44]. The least detectable change (MDC95%), the 95% confidence interval for the difference in score between paired observations, was calculated as MDC95% = TEM 1.96 √ 2 [45]. In addition, to facilitate the estimation of the kicking force, estimated by inverse dynamics analysis, linear regression equations (i.e., stepwise regression) were derived to predict the kicking force through the kinetic measurement. The criterion of significance was fixed at p < 0.05.

    The absolute and relative reliability of kicking force assessed using inverse dynamics for RK, FK, and SK were very high (Table 1).

    Table 1.  Absolute and relative reliability of force measured for three kicks in Sanda.
    R1 vs. R2 Mean ± SD T-test (p) TEM TEM (%) MDC (95%) SWC (0.2) ICC (95% CI)
    Force (N/kg) RK R1
    RK R2
    11.51 ± 3.41
    11.23 ± 3.42
    0.281 0.19 1.654 0.521 2.021 0.972
    (0.928–0.989)
    FK R1
    FK R2
    16.65 ± 4.83
    16.92 ± 4.35
    0.423 0.23 1.349 0.628 2.723 0.975
    (0.935–0.990)
    SK R1
    SK R2
    13.94 ± 3.95
    13.90 ± 3.47
    0.938 0.53 3.773 1.456 2.199 0.927
    (0.809–0.972)

    (R1) First repetition; (R2) Second repetition.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The outcomes of the repeated measures in Table 2 show that ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in all kinetic parameters. Figure 6 provides a visual representation of the variation in power and force for the three kicking techniques. Table 3 presents the results of pairwise comparisons between the kicking techniques (i.e., RK, FK, and SK).

    ANOVA testing showed that the sphericity is assumed for all variables and revealed significant differences in force, linear moment, and inertia (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant difference in power (p < 0.01) and angular moment (p < 0.050). However, when comparing the kicking techniques pairwise, a highly significant difference was observed in force and inertia between the three kicks (RK vs. FK, RK vs. SK, and FK vs. SK). Regarding linear momentum, a significant difference was found between RK vs. FK and RK vs. SK. Lastly, a significant difference was shown in power and angular moment only between RK vs. FK.

    Table 2.  Repeated measures ANOVA of kicking kinetics parameters in Sanda.
    Source df Mean Square F Sig. Effect Size Power
    Ft 2 101.489 17.422 0.000** 1.968 1.000
    Pt 2 569.139 5.215 0.010** 1.077 0.798
    LM 2 1988.672 18.195 0.000** 2.012 1.000
    AM 2 115092.560 4.208 0.023* 0.967 0.702
    MI 2 13.370 20.774 0.000** 2.149 1.000

    (Ft) Force; (Pt) Power; (LM) Linear momentum; (AM) Angular momentum; (MI) Moment of inertia; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Bonferroni pairwise comparison of kicking kinetics parameters in Sanda.
    Source Mean Diff. Std. Err. Diff. 95% CI LB 95% CI UB Sig. Effect Size
    Ft RK vs. FK −4.610 0.874 −6.917 −2.303 0.000** 1.209
    RK vs. SK −2.013 0.592 −3.576 −0.450 0.010** 0.780
    FK vs. SK 2.597 0.851 0.350 4.844 0.021* 0.699
    Pt RK vs. FK −10.758 3.662 −20.421 −1.094 0.026* 0.673
    RK vs. SK −3.626 3.374 −12.530 5.278 0.890 0.246
    FK vs. SK 7.131 3.110 −1.077 15.340 0.102 0.478
    LM RK vs. FK −19.029 3.456 −28.149 −9.909 0.000** 1.263
    RK vs. SK −16.027 2.737 −23.251 −8.803 0.000** 1.343
    FK vs. SK 3.002 3.883 −7.247 13.251 1.000 0.177
    AM RK vs. FK 151.830 57.386 0.379 303.280 0.049* 0.657
    RK vs. SK 105.635 62.803 −60.112 271.381 0.330 0.472
    FK vs. SK −46.195 37.407 −144.917 52.526 0.698 0.283
    MI RK vs. FK 1.666 0.289 0.902 2.430 0.000** 1.320
    RK vs. SK 1.003 0.287 0.247 1.759 0.008** 0.803
    FK vs. SK −0.663 0.193 −1.173 −0.153 0.009** 0.786

    (Ft) Force; (Pt) Power; (LM) Linear momentum; (AM) Angular momentum; (MI) Moment of inertia; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Also, the results of the repeated measures ANOVA showed that the sphericity is assumed for most linear kinematic variables except vertical, horizontal, and total velocity of the toe, and horizontal velocity of the ankle. In these cases, Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used. In addition, ANOVA testing revealed significant differences in most linear kinematic parameters, except for execution time, COM horizontal velocity, ankle horizontal and total velocity, and hip vertical velocity (Table 4). Table 5 provides pairwise comparisons between the kicking techniques (i.e., RK, FK, and SK).

    Table 4.  Repeated measures ANOVA of kicking linear kinematics parameters in Sanda.
    Source df Mean Square F Sig. Effect Size Power
    Imptime 2 0.009 24.565 0.000** 2.336 1.000
    Exetime 2 0.034 2.720 0.079 0.777 0.504
    dxCOM 2 0.056 6.030 0.006** 1.157 0.855
    dyCOM 2 0.029 37.783 0.000** 2.897 1.000
    VxCOM 2 0.062 2.951 0.065 0.809 0.539
    VyCOM 2 0.358 18.832 0.000** 2.044 1.000
    VtCOM 2 0.294 19.282 0.000** 2.045 1.000
    VxTo 1.121 6.296 5.158 0.031* 1.071 0.609
    VyTo 1.403 17.549 16.256 0.000** 1.834 0.992
    VtTo 1.522 20.972 16.940 0.000** 1.940 0.996
    VxAk 1.376 1.115 1.846 0.186 0.640 0.294
    VyAk 2 2.732 5.297 0.010* 1.083 0.804
    VtAk 2 0.703 1.264 0.295 0.531 0.257
    AxAk 2 1569.668 9.022 0.001** 1.416 0.963
    AyAk 2 797.650 11.422 0.000** 1.592 0.989
    AtAk 2 2397.994 16.582 0.000** 1.917 0.999
    VxKn 2 8.511 41.919 0.000** 3.055 1.000
    VyKn 2 0.527 3.290 0.049* 0.856 0.588
    VtKn 2 3.507 16.534 0.000** 1.917 0.999
    VxHp 2 2.442 67.694 0.000** 3.879 1.000
    VyHp 2 0.018 0.470 0.629 0.320 0.121
    VtHp 2 1.851 53.059 0.000** 3.436 1.000

    (Imptime) Impact time ; (Exetime) Execution time; (COM) Center of mass; (dxCOM) Horizontal displacement; (dyCOM) Vertical displacement; (VxCOM) Horizontal velocity; (VyCOM) Vertical velocity; (VtCOM) Total velocity; (VxTo) Horizontal velocity of the toe; (VyTo) Vertical velocity of the toe; (VtTo) Total velocity of the toe; (VxAk) Horizontal velocity of the ankle; (VyAk) Vertical velocity of the ankle; (VtAk) Total velocity of the ankle; (AxAk) Horizontal acceleration of the ankle; (AyAk) Vertical acceleration of the ankle; (AtAk) Total acceleration of the ankle; (VxHp) Horizontal velocity of the hip; (VyHp) Vertical velocity of the hip; (VtHp) Total velocity of the hip; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The tabulated data reveals notable variations in several variables, such as impact time (Imptime), COM displacement (dxCOM and dyCOM), COM velocity (VyCOM and VtCOM), toe velocity (VxTo, VyTo, VtTo), ankle velocity (VyAk) and acceleration (AxAk, AyAk, AtAk), knee velocity (VxKn, VyKn, VtKn), and hip velocity (VxHp, VtHp).

    In the same way, repeated measures ANOVA results demonstrate that the sphericity is assumed for most angular kinematic variables except angular velocity of ankle, knee, hip, calf, and thigh. In these cases, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. Also, ANOVA testing showed significant differences in all angular kinematic parameters (refer to Table 6). A Bonferroni pairwise comparison between kicking techniques (i.e., RK, FK, and SK) is presented in Table 7.

    Table 5.  Bonferroni pairwise comparison of kicking linear kinematics parameters in Sanda.
    Source Mean Diff. Std. Err. Diff. 95% CI LB 95% CI UB Sig. Effect Size
    Imptime RK vs. FK −0.041 0.006 −0.057 −0.025 0.000** 1.631
    RK vs. SK −0.034 0.007 −0.052 −0.017 0.000** 1.191
    FK vs. SK 0.007 0.006 −0.009 0.023 0.807 0.262
    dxCOM RK vs. FK −0.092 0.039 −0.195 0.010 0.085 0.668
    RK vs. SK 0.003 0.028 −0.070 0.076 1.000 0.025
    FK vs. SK 0.095 0.026 0.028 0.163 0.005** 0.863
    dyCOM RK vs. FK 0.000 0.009 −0.023 0.023 1.000 0.000
    RK vs. SK 0.067 0.009 0.043 0.092 0.000** 1.716
    FK vs. SK 0.068 0.009 0.044 0.092 0.000** 1.714
    VyCOM RK vs. FK −0.273 0.047 −0.397 −0.148 0.000** 1.421
    RK vs. SK −0.163 0.034 −0.254 −0.073 0.000** 1.097
    FK vs. SK 0.109 0.051 −0.025 0.244 0.136 0.594
    VtCOM RK vs. FK −0.247 0.043 −0.360 −0.134 0.000** 1.542
    RK vs. SK −0.146 0.034 −0.235 −0.057 0.001** 0.997
    FK vs. SK 0.101 0.043 −0.012 0.214 0.090 0.541
    VyTo RK vs. FK 0.822 0.344 −0.087 1.731 0.085 0.789
    RK vs. SK 1.610 0.174 1.149 2.070 0.000** 2.116
    FK vs. SK 0.788 0.300 −0.004 1.580 0.050* 0.675
    VtTo RK vs. FK 1.166 0.393 0.127 2.204 0.025* 0.932
    RK vs. SK 1.808 0.268 1.102 2.514 0.000** 1.550
    FK vs. SK 0.642 0.267 −0.062 1.346 0.081 0.724
    VyAk RK vs. FK 0.716 0.199 0.191 1.241 0.006** 0.826
    RK vs. SK 0.574 0.253 −0.095 1.243 0.108 0.519
    FK vs. SK −0.142 0.243 −0.784 0.499 1.000 0.143
    AxAk RK vs. FK 16.223 5.118 2.715 29.731 0.016* 0.902
    RK vs. SK 15.214 4.359 3.709 26.719 0.008** 0.800
    FK vs. SK −1.009 3.120 −9.244 7.226 1.000 0.074
    AyAk RK vs. FK 10.325 2.573 3.534 17.116 0.002** 0.920
    RK vs. SK 11.944 2.714 4.782 19.106 0.001** 1.010
    FK vs. SK 1.619 2.840 −5.877 9.115 1.000 0.130
    AtAk RK vs. FK 19.432 4.584 7.333 31.530 0.001** 1.102
    RK vs. SK 19.485 4.224 8.338 30.633 0.001** 1.058
    FK vs. SK 0.054 2.610 −6.833 6.941 1.000 0.004
    VxKn RK vs. FK −1.041 0.137 −1.402 −0.680 0.000** 2.417
    RK vs. SK −1.249 0.176 −1.712 −0.786 0.000** 2.305
    FK vs. SK −0.208 0.121 −0.526 0.111 0.308 0.395
    VtKn RK vs. FK −0.692 0.133 −1.042 −0.342 0.000** 1.550
    RK vs. SK −0.787 0.174 −1.247 −0.327 0.001** 1.282
    FK vs. SK −0.095 0.138 −0.459 0.269 1.000 0.158
    VxHp RK vs. FK −0.717 0.052 −0.854 −0.579 0.000** 3.157
    RK vs. SK −0.335 0.056 −0.484 −0.186 0.000** 1.380
    FK vs. SK 0.381 0.074 0.186 0.577 0.000** 1.350
    VtHp RK vs. FK −0.620 0.056 −0.768 −0.472 0.000** 2.533
    RK vs. SK −0.250 0.063 −0.416 −0.085 0.003** 1.492
    FK vs. SK 0.370 0.063 0.205 0.535 0.000** 1.354

    (Imptime) Impact time; (dxCOM) Horizontal displacement; (dyCOM) Vertical displacement; (VxCOM) Horizontal velocity; (VtCOM) Total velocity; (VyTo) Vertical velocity of the toe; (VtTo) Total velocity of the toe; (VyAk) Vertical velocity of the ankle; (VyAk) Vertical velocity of the ankle; (AxAk) Horizontal acceleration of the ankle; (AyAk) Vertical acceleration of the ankle; (AtAk) Total acceleration of the ankle; (VxKn)Vertical velocity of the knee; (VtKn) Total velocity of the knee ; (VxHp) Horizontal velocity of the hip; (VtHp) Total velocity of the hip; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The following is an explanation of angular kinematics parameters that show a highly significant difference for various joint angles and angular velocities. These parameters include the angle of knee (AngKn), hip (AngHp), calf (AngCf), thigh (AngTg), and angular velocity of the ankle (AngVAk), knee (AngVKn), hip (AngVHp), calf (AngVCf), thigh (AngVTg), and foot sole (AngVFs).

    Figure 6.  Variation of force and power of the three Sanda Wushu kicks (FK, FK, and SK).
    Table 6.  Repeated ANOVA measures of kicking angular kinematics parameters in Sanda.
    Source df Mean Square F Sig. Effect Size Power
    AngKn 2 7345.344 65.856 0.000** 3.821 1.000
    AngHp 2 30343.870 211.035 0.000** 6.828 1.000
    AngCF 2 245.516 4.474 0.018* 0.996 0.730
    AngTg 2 7245.846 135.873 0.000** 5.494 1.000
    AngVAk 1.475 2451419.619 16.425 0.000** 1.964 0.994
    AngVKn 1.079 22149840.315 49.315 0.000àà 3.409 1.000
    AngVHp 1.362 448906.979 10.962 0.001** 1.605 0.941
    AngVCF 1.386 12311240.798 482.900 0.000** 10.660 1.000
    AngVTg 1.450 676819.876 114.421 0.000** 5.196 1.000
    AngVFs 2 362431.339 45.363 0.000** 3.175 1.000

    (AngKn) Knee angle; (AngHp) Hip angle; (AngCF) Calf angle; (AngTg) Thig angle; (AngVAk) Knee angular velocity; (AngVAk) Ankle angular velocity; (AngVHp) Hip angular velocity; (AngVCF) Calf angular velocity; (AngVTg) thig angular velocity; (AngVFs) Foot sole angular velocity; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Bonferroni pairwise comparison of kicking angular kinematics parameters in Sanda.
    Source Mean Diff. Std. Err. Diff. 95% CI LB 95% CI UB Sig. Effect Size
    AngKn RK vs. FK 35.487 3.661 25.824 45.149 0.000** 2.223
    RK vs. SK 3.070 3.027 −4.918 11.057 0.972 0.232
    FK vs. SK −32.417 3.558 −41.806 −23.028 0.000** 2.089
    AngHp RK vs. FK 60.755 2.895 53.113 68.396 0.000** 4.814
    RK vs. SK −14.598 3.900 −24.889 −4.307 0.004** 0.858
    FK vs. SK −75.353 4.671 −87.680 −63.026 0.000** 3.701
    AngCF RK vs. FK −6.161 2.835 −13.644 1.323 0.130 0.498
    RK vs. SK 0.129 2.059 −5.306 5.564 1.000 0.014
    FK vs. SK 6.290 2.247 0.360 12.220 0.036* 0.641
    AngTg RK vs. FK 38.227 2.705 31.088 45.365 0.000** 4.968
    RK vs. SK 12.176 2.391 5.865 18.486 0.000** 1.618
    FK vs. SK −26.051 1.951 −31.200 −20.902 0.000** 3.931
    AngVAk RK vs. FK 780.813 128.060 442.845 1118.781 0.000** 1.418
    RK vs. SK 241.835 124.940 −87.900 571.570 0.206 0.444
    FK vs. SK −538.978 67.621 −717.440 −360.517 0.000** 1.908
    AngVKn RK vs. FK 1639.699 197.263 1119.095 2160.304 0.000** 1.906
    RK vs. SK 1704.018 190.730 1200.653 2207.382 0.000** 2.049
    FK vs. SK 64.319 43.492 −50.464 179.102 0.469 0.339
    AngVHp RK vs. FK −235.912 68.924 −417.812 −54.013 0.009** 1.492
    RK vs. SK −34.067 36.746 −131.045 62.911 1.000 0.212
    FK vs. SK 201.845 50.322 69.039 334.652 0.002** 0.920
    AngVCF RK vs. FK 1210.256 48.327 1082.715 1337.796 0.000** 5.744
    RK vs. SK 1429.969 49.413 1299.561 1560.377 0.000** 6.638
    FK vs. SK 219.713 24.283 155.627 283.799 0.000** 2.076
    AngVTg RK vs. FK 278.810 26.347 209.277 348.342 0.000** 2.844
    RK vs. SK 348.850 18.848 299.106 398.594 0.000** 4.246
    FK vs. SK 70.040 15.893 28.097 111.984 0.001** 1.102
    AngVFs RK vs. FK 276.130 24.482 211.518 340.741 0.000** 2.588
    RK vs. SK 131.716 30.915 50.127 213.305 0.001** 0.977
    FK vs. SK −144.414 31.112 −226.522 −62.306 0.001** 1.064

    (AngKn) Knee angle; (AngHp) Hip angle; (AngCF) Calf angle; (AngTg) Thig angle; (AngVAk) Knee angular velocity; (AngVAk) Ankle angular velocity; (AngVHp) Hip angular velocity; (AngVCF) Calf angular velocity; (AngVTg) thig angular velocity; (AngVFs) Foot sole angular velocity; (*) significant at p < 0.050; (**) significant at p < 0.010.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    To facilitate the estimation of the kicking force, estimated by inverse dynamics analysis, linear regression equations (i.e., stepwise regression) were derived to predict the kicking force, through the kinetic variables, for the three Sanda Wushu kicks (i.e., RK, FK, and SK) (Equation 2a, 2b, and 2d).

    RK(Ft)=RK(Imptime)155.988+RK(VtKn)3.607+RK(AngKn)0.145+RK(VtHp)6.529+4.279 (r=0.857;R2=0.734; ESE=1.815)

    FK(Ft)=FK(Imptime)159.775+FK(VtAk)4.136+FK(VyHp)4.607+FK(VxCOM)7.095+25.446 (r=0.964;R2=0.929; ESE=1.009)

    SK(Ft)=SK(Imptime)66.274+FK(VtHp)9.392+13.865 (r=0.886;R2=0.784; ESE=1.331)

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic parameters of three distinct Sanda kick methods (i.e., RK, FK and SK), which are referred to as Pian Tui, Dan Tui, and Ce Chuai Tui, respectively, in Wushu terminology. A total of 19 Sanda players (i.e., 14 males and 5 females) from Tunisia's senior national team participated in this study.

    The main findings of this study indicated that the force measured via inverse dynamics was reproducible and reliable, independent of the kicking technique employed (i.e., RK, FK, or SK). The results clearly showed that the FK generated the highest absolute force compared to the other two techniques (i.e., RK and SK). Sanda athletes demonstrated an average force of 15.618 ± 3.337 N/kg for the FK, while the RK recorded 11.008 ± 3.106 N/kg, and the SK showed 13.021 ± 2.702 N/kg. Additionally, the FK demonstrated the highest peak power, achieving 51.030 ± 13.996 W/kg, while the RK and SK showed lower peak power values of 40.272 ± 15.613 W/kg and 43.899 ± 12.416 W/kg, respectively. The results demonstrate that the FK generated 42% more force than the RK (p < 0.01) and 20% more force than the SK, underscoring its superior power and effectiveness in Sanda kicking techniques.

    These results align with those of VagnerCleatherOlah et al. [46] who showed that the FK impact force was significantly higher than the RK, reinforcing our findings. The FK produced 47% (p < 0.01), 92% (p < 0.01), and 120% (p < 0.01) more force in novice, sub-elite, and elite groups, respectively, indicating significant gains in impact force across skill levels in our research. These findings further support the concept that the FK is particularly effective at generating high-impact kicks.

    Beyond technique, the effectiveness of the FK is not solely dependent on technique but also on the strength of specific muscle groups. According to VagnerCleatherKubový et al. [47] variations in static and dynamic strength of the lower extremity's external rotators influence kicking performance, with differences observed across experience levels. This highlights the importance of muscular conditioning and biomechanical optimization in mastering the FK, reinforcing the need for targeted training programs to enhance both velocity and overall striking efficiency.

    On the other hand, there were not significant variations in the strength of the internal rotators, extensors, or hip flexors. The results suggest that the strength of the external rotators is the primary factor that determines the capacity to maintain hip speed and orientation during a powerful kick.

    According to other studies [8],[48], the force produced during a kick may also be influenced by variables such the angular velocity of the knee and the isokinetic strength of the hip flexors and extensors . In order to optimize impact power from longer distances, combat athletes should concentrate on maximizing knee extension angular velocity during the precontact phase [34].

    In addition, this study emphasizes the significance of LM, AM, and MI in understanding the biomechanics of kicking techniques in martial arts. Also, our analysis revealed significant variations in both linear and angular kinematics, highlighting their essential role in kick execution. The results indicated a highly significant variation in LM and MI (p < 0.001), as well as a significant variation in AM (p < 0.01). These results align with recent research by HarionoRahayu and Ndayisenga [49] who highlighted the importance of maintaining a slightly bent front knee. They noted that excessive knee flexion could compromise stability and increase body inertia, leading to decreased overall kicking efficiency.

    Furthermore, the research of Wasik and Shan [50] indicated that the MI of the upper body plays a role in foot take-off, while the arms improve rotational force. The arms enhance movement during the sweeping motion by drawing the rebounding leg behind, consequently optimizing the technique's execution.

    In a related study, Sidthilaw [51] demonstrated that the typical swinging angle for a kick ranges between 10° and 25°. Additionally, regardless of whether the bag was heavier or lighter, it generated sufficient acceleration to be accurately measured above background noise. Notably, the bag's weight also contributed significantly to MI, effectively simulating the response of a human body upon impact. Furthermore, he emphasized the crucial role of the arms movement in kick execution. To optimize the force generated by the kick, there must be a compensatory motion to counterbalance the AM produced by the rotating leg. This interplay between limb coordination and momentum regulation plays a pivotal role in enhancing kicking efficiency and overall striking performance.

    In terms of linear kinematics including impact time, displacement, velocity, and acceleration, our study identified significant variations across these parameters. A comparison of the average velocity among the three kicking techniques revealed distinct differences in the kick velocity (i.e., SKs 3.835 ± 0.497 m/s, FKs 5.503 ± 0.906 m/s, and RKs at 7.042 ± 1.196 m/s). These findings indicate that the RK is the fastest among the three techniques, highlighting its classification as a high-velocity kick.

    With regard to linear kinematics, the findings of VagnerCleatherOlah et al. [46], demonstrated that the maximum foot velocity of the RK was significantly higher than that of the FK, with a 44% increase (p < 0.01) in the sub-elite group and a 48% increase (p < 0.01) in the elite group. The authors suggest that the RK possesses an inherent capacity for rapid execution, aligning with FalcoLandeoMenescardi et al. [52] indicating that circular kicks generate greater foot velocity at impact than linear kicks due to the rotation of segments in different planes. From a tactical standpoint, increased kicking velocity offers a significant advantage, since it can interrupt the opponent's defensive reaction and improve striking effectiveness. Consequently, the velocity of execution serves as a key indicator of a kick's efficiency. This study explored this characteristic by examining three different kicking techniques and evaluating velocity variations across different joint actions. So, velocity is essential in the kicking techniques used in martial arts, with kinematics being a critical element in performance evaluation. The execution of an FK may vary depending on the practitioner's skill and tactical objectives. Previous investigations by Wąsik and Shan [50] have established that FK velocity is influenced by several biomechanical parameters, such as knee velocity, kick duration, and foot take-off time.

    A higher maximal knee velocity is significantly correlated to higher FK velocity (r = 0.92). Furthermore, the total kick duration and foot take-off time demonstrate moderate correlations with FK velocity, with a correlation value of 0.73 and −0.61, respectively. The findings suggest that evaluating the kinematics of the ankle, knee, and hip can effectively evaluate performance levels. Notably, elite fighters typically exhibit greater peak knee angular velocity compared to their less experienced competitors. Our study determined that the mean maximum velocity of the FK was 5.503 ± 0.906 m/s. In comparison, research conducted by FeldMcNair and Wilk [53], on FK velocity among karate practitioners (without specifying the karate style) reported a velocity range of 9.9 to 14.4 m/s. These discrepancies suggest that kick velocity can vary significantly based on factors such as technical execution, training background, and biomechanical efficiency.

    Considering the biomechanical characteristics of elite practitioners, VagnerCleatherKubový et al. [47] cautiously recommend aiming for a maximum hip velocity exceeding 2.2 m/s, which is substantially higher than the 1.04 m/s recorded in our study. This significant difference highlights how important it is to improve hip mechanics to improve kicking performance, especially in highly skilled athletes.

    Regarding the velocity of the RK, numerous studies [46],[54],[55] have utilized a training shield as the target for measurement. In our study, the mean velocity of the RK was recorded at 7.042 ± 1.196 m/s. Comparatively, Hsieh Huaang and Huang [56] reported a maximum foot velocity ranging between 13.2 and 14.4 m/s. Similarly, research by Gavagan and Sayers [57] recorded a velocity of 14.66 m/s, while AandahlHeimburg and Tillaar [58] observed peak velocities reaching 17.35 m/s. These variations highlight the potential influence of measurement methods, training intensity, and biomechanical factors on RK execution speed across different studies. In the case of the SK, our study recorded a velocity of 3.835 ± 0.497 m/s. In contrast, research by FeldMcNair and Wilk [53] on karate athletes reported SK velocities ranging from 9.9–14.4 m/s. Similarly, a study by Pieter and Pieter [30], on elite American Taekwondo athletes found SK velocities between 5.20 and 6.87 m/s, with an average maximum velocity of 5.347 m/s. These findings highlight a notable disparity between the velocities achieved by Taekwondo and Karate practitioners. The differences may be attributed to variations in technical execution, training methodologies, and biomechanical strategies specific to each martial art. This suggests that the mechanics of the SK can vary significantly depending on the discipline, ultimately influencing its speed and effectiveness in combat scenarios.

    In our study, the final ankle velocity during the execution of the RK was recorded at 3.6 ± 0.8 m/s. However, findings from Sidthilaw [51] indicate that impact velocity varies depending on the kicking height. Specifically, low-level kicks reached an impact velocity of 6.9 ± 0.8 m/s, mid-level kicks recorded 7.1 ± 1.1 m/s, and high-level kicks measured 6.8 ± 1.2 m/s. Additionally, the maximum ankle velocity was reported as 10.2 ± 0.5 m/s for low-level kicks, 10.3 ± 0.6 m/s for mid-level kicks, and 10.0 ± 0.8 m/s for high-level kicks. It is noteworthy that these values remain lower than the maximum foot velocity (11.0–11.3 m/s) recorded for three types of Taekwondo FKs in the study by Park [59]. These variations suggest that differences in kicking technique, biomechanics, and martial arts discipline may significantly influence velocity outputs at both the ankle and foot levels.

    By our study, the analysis of knee velocity across the three kicking techniques revealed that the SK exhibited the highest velocity at 1.77 ± 0.6 m/s, closely followed by the FK at 1.67 ± 0.4 m/s. In contrast, the RK demonstrated the lowest knee velocity at 0.98 ± 0.4 m/s. These findings contrast with those of VagnerCleatherOlah et al. [46], who reported significantly higher knee velocities for the RK (6.73 ± 0.56 m/s) compared to the FK (5.32 ± 0.62 m/s) during middle-level kicks. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in experimental protocols, participant skill levels, or methodological approaches.

    In a related study, Siddhartha and Krishnendu [2] reported a knee velocity of 5.25 m/s for the SK at the medium level, while Wąsik [60] observed a knee velocity of 3.04 ± 0.79 m/s for the same technique. When compared to the findings of Vagner et al., these results suggest that the SK generally exhibits lower knee velocities, which contrasts with our observations. However, our analysis of hip velocity across the three kicks revealed that the FK achieved the highest velocity at 1.04 ± 0.2 m/s, followed by the SK (0.67 ± 0.2 m/s) and the RK (0.4 ± 0.2 m/s). These findings are consistent with those of VagnerCleatherOlah et al. [46] who also reported higher hip velocities for the FK (2.4 ± 0.49 m/s) compared to the RK (2.36 ± 0.31 m/s). This alignment underscores the importance of hip kinematics in differentiating the biomechanical profiles of these kicking techniques.

    Another critical kinematic parameter is the impact time, defined as the duration of contact between the striking foot and the target. In our study, the shortest impact time was recorded for the RK at 0.07 ± 0.01 s, followed by the SK at 0.10 ± 0.02 s and the FK at 0.11 ± 0.02 s. These findings are consistent with previous research. For instance EstevanAlvarezFalco et al. [58] reported an impact time of 0.02 ± 0.0001 s for the RK, while VagnerCleatherKubový et al. [47] observed an impact time of 0.166 ± 0.063 s for the FK, further validating our results.

    Additionally, angular velocity plays a pivotal role in determining the effectiveness of a kick. The speed of execution is a crucial factor, as it often exceeds the opponent's reaction time. Kicking speed is influenced by several variables, including acceleration, linear velocity, and the angular velocity of the hip and knee [61],[62], These factors collectively contribute to the overall efficiency and force generation of the kick.

    In terms of maximum angular velocity, the RK exhibited the highest value for the knee at 40.14 rad/s, highlighting the critical role of knee movement and extension in generating speed and power during this technique. Conversely, the FK demonstrated a higher maximum angular velocity for hip extension (13.76 rad/s) compared to the RK. These findings align with the work of VagnerStastnyCleather et al. [8] who emphasized the significance of hip movement in executing the FK with both speed and efficiency. This suggests that hip kinematics significantly influence kicking speed and interaction forces, underscoring the need for sub-elite athletes to prioritize hip movement training to enhance performance.

    Further supporting these observations, Sidthilaw [51], reported angular velocities (AngV) of 12.6 ± 3.9 rad/s, 11.8 ± 1.9 rad/s, and 12.1 ± 2.8 rad/s for low-, middle-, and high-level kicks, respectively. The angular velocity of the knee at impact was measured at 7.1 ± 1.5 rad/s, 7.7 ± 3.6 rad/s, and 9.5 ± 3.0 rad/s for the same kick levels. Additionally, VagnerCleatherKubový et al. [47] demonstrated that synchronizing hip acceleration with knee speed accounted for 59% of the variability in maximum force, leading to an increase in the knee's angular velocity. These findings collectively emphasize the interplay between hip and knee kinematics in optimizing kicking performance. The ankle angle is a critical factor influencing the effectiveness of a kick. In our study, the average ankle angle was measured at 133°. This finding aligns with Nakayama [63] who emphasized the importance of proper foot angulation for accurate technique execution and target impact, particularly involving the plantar region of the metatarsus phalangeal.

    Similarly, PortelaBarbosaCavazzotto et al. [64], identified an optimal ankle angle of 130° approximately for efficient kicks, with non-impact kicks achieving satisfactory results at an average angle of 134°. It is important to note that the kinematic effects on the target may vary depending on the skill level of the athletes [65],[66]. Which is why our study focused exclusively on elite competitors.

    Further analysis of existing literature suggests that athletes should prioritize increasing the speed at which the knee approaches the target to maximize foot velocity during kicks [61]. Additionally, research into optimal kicking mechanics such as the placement of the supporting leg, the flexion angles of the hip and knee, and the coordination of joint movements could provide valuable insights into enhancing foot speed and overall kicking performance.

    The FK is typically executed with the rear leg from a guard stance. As described by Singh [67] the knee is lifted to form an angle of approximately 90° between the thigh and calf, a position referred to as the chamber. The leg is then extended to strike the target while maintaining the elevated knee position. Similarly, the SK is often performed with the rear leg, beginning with the knee raised to a 90° angle between the thigh and knee.

    In contrast, Sidthilaw [51] demonstrated that during the RK, the angular velocities of the thigh and shank are positively correlated until the knee angle reaches 90°. Beyond this point, the angular velocity of the thigh decreases, while the shank's angular velocity continues to increase, reaching its maximum at the moment of foot contact with the target.

    Even though the publications on kick biomechanics provide insightful information, it's critical to recognize the limitations of this research. In the first hand, the study's potential to have missed pertinent research due to certain criteria, such as linguistic restrictions or differences in nomenclature between FKs, RKs, and SKs, is one of its weaknesses. This could introduce bias and limit how far the results can be applied. Additionally, while front, side, and roundhouse kicks were the focus of this study, martial arts and combat sports employ a variety of kicks. It would be interesting to study/analyse and/or compare other kicking techniques in Sanda Wushu.

    Nonetheless, although these kinematic variations are well documented, their exact impact on the efficacy and striking force of the FK remains largely unexplored. A further investigation is needed to determine how variations in kinematic parameters influence the general performance and tactical efficiency of the FK in combat situations.

    On the other hand, this study conducted basic kinetic analyses; however, the exact mechanism linking muscle forces to kick forces is still not well understood. Future studies could enhance our understanding of this relationship through using musculoskeletal modeling, enabling a more thorough investigation of the biomechanical roles of individual muscles in kicking motions.

    Additionally, the analysis system utilized in this study is semi-automatic. This approach provides valuable insights; however, future research may gain from the implementation of real-time analysis systems that incorporate force sensors. These systems would allow for a more accurate evaluation of muscle activation patterns and their direct influence on kick forces. Integrating real-time force measurements with musculoskeletal models allows researchers to more accurately characterize the coordination and efficiency of technical gestures.

    To sum up, musculoskeletal modeling offers a valuable approach to understanding the complex interplay between muscle forces and kick dynamics. Integrating this method with real-time data collection could enhance future research, providing a deeper insight into the biomechanical and neuromuscular factors that affect kicking performance. This method will strengthen the evidence supporting training and performance optimization while also advancing our knowledge of kick biomechanics.

    In summary, this study provides valuable insights into the biomechanical differences between the FK, SK, and RK in terms of impact force, peak velocity, and maximum angular velocity. These findings enhance our understanding of the kinematic and kinetic factors that influence the efficiency and effectiveness of these techniques in Sanda.

    The results and subsequent discussion highlight that the FK stands out as the most effective kick due to its optimal balance of force production and execution speed. By analyzing the kinematic and kinetic parameters of these techniques in elite athletes, we can better evaluate and refine technical movements in Sanda and other combat sports.

    Key recommendations for training include focusing on knee speed during the FK and knee extension rate during the RK to minimize kick execution time. Additionally, athletes should prioritize performance-based exercises that enhance core stability and hip mobility, as these factors significantly contribute to increasing hip angular velocity and overall kicking performance.

    A comprehensive analysis of the three kicking techniques suggests that evaluating movement patterns and employing time-motion analysis can lead to improved technical execution. Future research should explore additional parameters across various Sanda techniques to further identify factors that can optimize performance and inform evidence-based training strategies.

    The writers of this article affirm that they did not create it using artificial intelligence (AI) methods.


    Acknowledgments



    The authors are very grateful to the athletes and the members of the technical direction of the Tunisian Federation of Wushu Kung Fu, whose participation made this work possible.

    Conflict of interest



    No conflicts of interest are disclosed by the authors.

    Author contributions



    Conceptualization, S.E. and B.M.; methodology, S.E. and B.M.; software, B.M.; validation, B.M.; formal analysis, B.M.; investigation, S.E. and B.M.; resources, S.E. and B.M.; data curation, B.M.; writing original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, B.M. and S.A.; visualization, S.E., and S.A.; supervision, B.M. and S.A.; project administration, B.M. All authors have read and agreed with the published version of the manuscript.

    [1] Jiang C, Olson M, Li L (2013) Determination of biomechanical differences between elite and novice San Shou female athletes. J Exerc Sci Fit 11: 25-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2013.03.002
    [2] Siddhartha S, Krishnendu D (2018) Selected kinematic analysis of Side kick technique of elite Wushu player. J Phys Educ Res 5: 53-57.
    [3] Shouzheng F (2006) A biomechanical analysis of the Chinese Wushu Sanda Side-kick as performed by elite male Wushu Sanda Competitors. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive .
    [4] Ye DM, Qian BX (2003) Wushu Sanda Side Kick Structural and Technical Characteristics (Chinese). The Journal of the PLA Institute of Physical Education 22: 43-46.
    [5] Uchida TK, Delp SL (2021) Biomechanics of Movement: the Science of Sports, Robotics, and Rehabilitation. The Mit Press.
    [6] Corcoran D, Climstein M, Whitting J, et al. (2024) Impact force and velocities for kicking strikes in combat sports: a literature review. Sports (Basel) 12: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports12030074
    [7] Rydzik Ł, Ambroży T (2021) Physical fitness and the level of technical and tactical training of kickboxers. Int J Env Res Pub He 18: 3088. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063088
    [8] Vagner M, Stastny P, Cleather D, et al. (2021) Effect of strength training programs on front push kick dynamics and kinematics. Arch Budo .
    [9] Blais L, Trilles F (2004) Analyse mécanique comparative d'une même projection de judo: Seoi Nage, réalisée par cinq experts de la Fédération Française de Judo. (French). Mov Sport Sci 51: 49-68. https://doi.org/10.3917/sm.051.0049
    [10] James LP, Haff GG, Kelly VG, et al. (2016) Towards a determination of the physiological characteristics distinguishing successful mixed martial arts athletes: a systematic review of combat sport literature. Sports Med 46: 1525-1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0493-1
    [11] Schick M, Brown L, Coburn J, et al. (2010) Physiological profile of mixed martial artists. Medicina Sportiva 14: 182-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10036-010-0029-y
    [12] Tabben M, Chaouachi A, Mahfoudhi MH, et al. (2014) Physical and physiological characteristics of high-level combat sport athletes. J Combat Sports Martial Arts 5: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5604/20815735.1127445
    [13] Sadowski J (2004) Dominant coordination motor abilities in combat sports. J Hum Kinet 13: 61-72.
    [14] Stamenković S, Karničić H, Vlašić J, et al. (2025) Kicking, throwing, grappling: How combat sports shape muscular fitness and motor competence in children. J Funct Morphol Kinesiology 10: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10010076
    [15] Le Camus C, Le Camus C (1982) La Gymnastique Rythmique Sportive Et Sa Valeur Educative. (French): 44-48.
    [16] Wushu Sanda Competition Rules & Judging Method: International Wushu Federation, 2017. Available from: http://www.iwuf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/IWUF-Wushu-Sanda-Competition-Rules-Judging-Method-2017.pdf
    [17] Ouddak M (2015) Paramètres de développement de la coordination motrice pour une amélioration de la motricité et de la psychomotricité des jeunes sportifs. (French). MÂAREF 10: 03-29.
    [18] Kang YS (2023) The study on the improvement of performance of the 3rd International Competition Taolu in the 2023 Asian Junior Wushu Championships. Korean Society for Leisure Sciences 14: 139-148. https://doi.org/10.37408/kjls.2023.14.3.139
    [19] Huang L, Song J, Lin X, et al. (2022) Research on kick motion before Sanda based on 3D wireless sensor network image. Concurrency Computat Pract Exper 34: e5894. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5894
    [20] Wang X, Soh KG, Deng N, et al. (2024) Effects of functional training on muscle strength, jumping, and functional movement screen in Wushu athletes: a systematic review. Heliyon 10: e24087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24087
    [21] Lan Y, Sun J (2021) Research status and hot spots of whip kick technical movements in Sanda. Adv Phys Sci 9: 82-91. https://doi.org/10.12677/APS.2021.91012
    [22] Chen YM (2014) Kinematics and sEMG characteristics of excellent male Sanda athletes' side “Leg Kick” skill. Journal of Chengdu Sport University 40: 63-66. https://cdtyxb.cdsu.edu.cn/EN/Y2014/V40/I5/63
    [23] Hölbling D, Preuschl E, Hassmann M, et al. (2016) Kinematic analysis of the double Side kick in pointfighting, kickboxing. J Sports Sci 35: 317-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1164333
    [24] Park KD (2003) A kinematical analysis of Side kick motion in Taekwondo. Korean J Sport Biomech 13: 49-63. https://doi.org/10.5103/KJSB.2003.13.2.049
    [25] Jemili H, Mejri M, Sioud R, et al. (2016) Changes in muscle activity during karate guiaku-zuki-punch and kiza-mawashi-guiri-kick after specific training in elite athletes. Sci Sport 32: 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.11.002
    [26] Salerno R, Passos H, Maia M, et al. (2019) Hemodynamic subsequent responses between Muay Thai and wrestling Brazilian professional athletes after a high-intensity round. Arch Budo Sci Martial Arts Extreme Sports 13: 41-47. https://smaes.archbudo.com/view/abstract/id/11287
    [27] Wang X (2020) The kinematics and surface electromyography characteristics of Round kick of martial arts athletes. Mol Cell Biomech 17: 189-198. https://doi.org/10.32604/mcb.2020.011236
    [28] Heydari M, Nazari AZ, Tanbakoosaz A (2020) Comparison of kinematics coordination of lower extremity between Elit and Professional athletes during Roundhouse kick using modified vector coding technique. 27th National and 5th International Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering . Iran: Tehran 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBME51989.2020.9319422
    [29] Huang TY, Tang WT, Liu TT, et al. (2022) Kinematic and kinetic demands on better Roundhouse kick performances. Sport Biomech 26: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2022.2122862
    [30] Pieter F, Pieter W (1995) Speed and Force in Selected Taekwondo Techniques. Biol sport 12: 257-266.
    [31] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41: 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
    [32] Mkaouer B, Akkari-Ghazouani H, Amara S, et al. (2023) Kinetic and kinematic analysis of landing during standing back somersault using three technical arm swings in artistic gymnastics. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 8: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8010010
    [33] Mkaouer B, Jemni M, Amara S, et al. (2014) Effect of three technical arms swings on the elevation of the center of mass during a standing back somersault. J Hum Kinet 40: 37-48. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2014-0005
    [34] Kim JW, Kwon MS, Yenuga SS, et al. (2010) The effects of target distance on pivot hip, trunk, pelvis, and kicking leg kinematics in Taekwondo Roundhouse kicks. Sport Biomech 9: 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141003799459
    [35] Brønd J (2009) Biomechanics Made Simple. SkillSpector version 1.2.4 .
    [36] Brønd JC, Elbæk L (2013) Problem based learning and the use of digital tools, for improving use and understanding of biomechanics in practical sports subjects. Proceedings of the Abstract from Next Practice in Physical Education and Movement Science . Odense, Denmark: 24.
    [37] Sharifnezhad A, Abdollahzadekan M, Shafieian M, et al. (2021) C3D data based on 2-dimensional images from video camera. Ann Biomed Sci Eng 5: 001-005. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.abse.1001010
    [38] Hanavan EP (1964) A mathematical model of the human body. Ohio, USA: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Lab Wright-Patterson 1-149.
    [39] de Leva P (1996) Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's segment inertia parameters. J Biomech 29: 1223-1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00178-6
    [40] Harnois JS, Lavoie J (2017) De la biomécanique à la force de frappe. 43e Expo-Sciences au Cégep de Saint-Félicien. St-Félicien Canada. (French) .
    [41] Puig-Diví A, Escalona-Marfil C, Padullés-Riu JM, et al. (2019) Validity and reliability of the Kinovea program in obtaining angles and distances using coordinates in 4 perspectives. Plos One 14: e0216448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216448
    [42] Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, et al. (2009) Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
    [43] Scanlan AT, Dascombe BJ, Reaburn P, et al. (2012) The physiological and activity demands experienced by Australian female basketball players during competition. J Sci Med Sport 15: 341-347. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.12.008
    [44] Hopkins W (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001
    [45] Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C (2008) Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther 88: 652-663. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070255
    [46] Vagner M, Cleather DJ, Olah V, et al. (2023) A systematic review of dynamic forces and kinematic indicators of front and Roundhouse kicks across varied conditions and participant experience. Sports 11: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11080141
    [47] Vagner M, Cleather DJ, Kubový P, et al. (2022) Kinematic determinants of front kick dynamics across different loading conditions. Mil Med 187: e147-e153. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usaa542
    [48] Moreira PVS, Falco C, Menegaldo LL, et al. (2021) Are isokinetic leg torques and kick velocity reliable predictors of competitive level in Taekwondo athletes?. Plos One 16: e0235582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235582
    [49] Hariono A, Rahayu T, Ndayisenga J (2021) Motion analyis of the Front kick technique of pencak silat athlete motion analyis of the Front kick technique of pencak silat athlete. Turk Online J Qual Inq 12: 1881-1889.
    [50] Wąsik J, Shan G (2015) Kinematics of the Turning kick: measurements obtained in testing well-trained Taekwon-do athletes. Arch Budo 11: 61-67. https://archbudo.com/view/abstract/id/10479
    [51] Sidthilaw S (1997) Kinetic and kinematic analysis of Thai boxing Roundhouse kicks, Dissertation Theses. Oregon: Oregon State University.
    [52] Falco C, Landeo R, Menescardi C, et al. (2012) Match analysis in a University Taekwondo championship. Adv Phys Educ 2: 28-31. https://doi.org/10.4236/ape.2012.21005
    [53] Feld MS, McNair RE, Wilk SR (1979) The physics of karate. Sci Am 240: 150-161.
    [54] Wąsik J, Mosler D, Ortenburger D, et al. (2021) Kinematic effects of the target on the velocity of Taekwon-do Roundhouse kicks. J Hum Kinet 80: 61-69. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2021-0103
    [55] Estevan I, Alvarez O, Falco C, et al. (2011) Impact force and time analysis influenced by execution distance in a Roundhouse kick to the head in Taekwondo. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2851-2856. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318207ef72
    [56] Hsieh A, Huang CF, Huang CC (2012) The biomechanical analysis of Roundhouse kick in Taekwondo. 30 International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports . Australia: Melbourne. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/5386
    [57] Gavagan C, Sayers M (2017) A biomechanical analysis of the Roundhouse kicking technique of expert practitioners: a comparison between the martial arts disciplines of Muay Thai, Karate, and Taekwondo. Plos One 12: e0182645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182645
    [58] Aandahl HS, Von Heimburg E, Van den Tillaar R (2018) Effect of postactivation potentiation induced by elastic resistance on kinematics and performance in a Roundhouse kick of trained martial arts practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 32: 990-996. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001947
    [59] Park YJ (1989) A biomechanical analysis of Taekwondo front-kicks, Dissertation Theses. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
    [60] Wąsik J (2011) Kinematics and kinetics of Taekwon-do side kick. J Hum Kinet 30: 13-20. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-011-0068-z
    [61] Pozo J, Bastien G, Dierick F (2011) Execution time, kinetics, and kinematics of the mae-geri kick: Comparison of national and international standard karate athletes. J Sports Sci 29: 1553-1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.605164
    [62] Vagner M, Stastny P, Kubový P, et al. (2020) The carried military load increases the impulse and time of a Front kick but reduces the peak velocity of the knee, hip, and shoulder of the kicking leg. Arch Budo 16: 69-76. https://archbudo.com/view/abstract/id/13293
    [63] Nakayama M (1986) Dynamic Karate: Instruction by the Master. New York: Kodansha International.
    [64] Portela B, Barbosa M, Cavazzotto T, et al. (2014) Kinematics analysis of the Front kick with and without impact on traditional Karate. Arch Budo Sci Martial Arts Extreme Sports 10: 47-51. https://smaes.archbudo.com/view/abstract/id/10742
    [65] Falco C, Alvarez O, Castillo I, et al. (2009) Influence of the distance in a Roundhouse kicka's execution time and impact force in Taekwondo. J Biomech 42: 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.041
    [66] Quinzi F, Camomilla V, Felici F, et al. (2013) Differences in neuromuscular control between impact and no impact Roundhouse kick in athletes of different skill levels. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23: 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.09.006
    [67] Singh AA (2017) Analysis of force, time, energy, psychological demand and safety of common kicks in martial arts, Master of Science. Ames: Iowa State University.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(549) PDF downloads(33) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(6)  /  Tables(7)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog