TAEKWONDO COACH–ATHLETE INTERACTION AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO TAEKWONDO STYLES, GYEORUGI AND POOMSAE

Main Article Content

Seyong Jang
Wi-Young So

Keywords

Taekwondo, Gyeorugi, Poomsae, Coach–athlete interaction, Perceived performance

Abstract

Background and Objective


This study aims to provide fundamental knowledge on approaches to enhance the performance of Taekwondo players by validating how the coach–athlete interaction affects perceived performance, and how its effect varies between gyeorugi (sparring) and poomsae.


Materials and Methods


A survey was conducted on 394 Taekwondo players from universities located in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon, and Chungnam, all of which are official members of the Korea Taekwondo Association as of 2016. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, a type of non-probability sampling. Subsequently, 382 of 394 respondents, excluding 12 respondents who did not return the questionnaires, were selected for data collection (gyeorugi: n=180 and poomsae: n= 202; 230 [60.2%] men and 152 [39.8%] women).


Results


Coach–athlete interaction had a statistically positive influence on perceived performance of University Taekwondo players (p < 0.05). Furthermore, coach–athlete interaction showed a greater impact on perceived performance in a  group of gyeorugi players than in their poomsae counterparts (19.6%  vs.  6.5%).  The result of pairwise parameter comparison exceeded the critical value (±1.96: α = 0.05; ±2.58: α = 0.01), suggesting that the effect of coach–athlete interaction was statistically significant at a 99% confidence level.


Conclusion


These results indicated that in Taekwondo training, coach–athlete interactions including instruction on technique, faith, encouragement, and passing on know-how were more effective in enhancing the performance of gyeorugi players than Poomsae players.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 429 | pdf Downloads 363

References

1. Jowett S, Poczwardowski A. Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics; 2007.
2. Jowett S, Cockerill IM. Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychol SportExercise 2003;4:313–31.
3. Jowett S, Ntoumanis N. The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004;14(4):245–57.
4. Jowett S, Timson-Katchis M. Social networks in sport: Parental influence on the coach-athlete relationship.Sport Psychologist 2005;19(3):267–89.
5. Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Manual for the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press; 1990.
6. Burke M. Obeying until it hurts: Coach-athlete relation-ship. J Psychol Sport 2001;28:227–34.
7. Drewe SB. The coach-athlete relationship: How close is too close? J Phil Sport 2002;29:174–81.
8. Arslan F, Erkmen N, Taşkın H, et al. Ankle joint position sense in male Taekwondo athletes after wobble board training. Arch Budo 2011;7:197–201.
9. Estevan I, Falco C, Elvira JLL, et al. Trunk and lower limb muscle activation in linear, circular and spin back kicks. Arch Budo 2015;11:243–50.
10. Jung HC, Lee S, Kang HJ, et al. Taekwondo training improves CVD risk factors in obese male adolescents. Arch Budo 2016;12:85–92.
11. Moreira PVS, Crozara LF, Goethe MF, et al. Talent detection in taekwondo: which factors are associated with the longitudinal competitive success? Arch Budo 2014;10:295–306.
12. Ramazanoglu N. Effectiveness of foot protectors and forearm guards in Taekwondo. Arch Budo 2012;8:207–11.
13. Sadowski J, Gierczuk D, Miller J, Cieśliński I. Success factors in elite WTF taekwondo competitors. Arch Budo 2012;8:141–6.
14. Kim MS, Chung JH. Development of coach athlete relationship questionnaire perceived by athletes: multi-group factor analysis & latent means of decisive factors. Korean J Sport Psychol 2011;22(2):171–86.
15. Mamassis G, Doganis G. The effects of a mental training program on juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. J Appl Sport Psychol 2004;16(2):118–37.
16. Poczwardowski A, Henschen KP, Barott JE. The athlete and coach: their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study. Int Sport Psychol 2002;33:116–40.
17. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Phys Inquir 2000;11:227–68.
18. Smith RE, Smoll FL, Curtis B, Hunt E. Toward a mediational model of coach-player relationships. Res Quarter 1978;49(4):528–41.