4.6 Article

Effects of left- or right-hand preference on the success of boxers in Turkey

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 142-144

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.043547

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the role of left- or right-handedness on the success of the boxer. Methods: The study was based on a sample of 22 active, semi-professional or amateur men boxers attending National Road Sport Men Boxing Club in Erzurum, Turkey. The boxers had been actively boxing for 4 15 years (mean 9.87), were aged 17-46 years (mean 32.25), and weighed 65-101 kg (mean 81.06). They were divided into two groups according to the research protocol (left- and right-handed boxers). The status of left- or right-handedness of the boxer included in the research was determined using the Oldfield (Edinburgh Handedness Inventory) Index. Then the boxers were categorised into two groups (win and defeat). Success rates in both groups were expressed in percentages. The data obtained from both of the groups were compared statistically by means of significance test between proportions (t test). Results: Left-handed boxers had been involved in 75 800 fights (mean 120.6), with 5-79 lost (mean 19.32). A similar evaluation was made for the right-handed boxers. The right-handed boxers had been involved in 50-820 fights (mean 127.8), with 23-78 lost (mean 42.25). Left-handed boxers were found to be more successful than right-handed ones. The difference between them was found to be significant (p<0.01). Conclusions: It was concluded that left- handed people should never be forced to convert to right-handedness; instead they should be supported both verbally and in terms of equipment and they should be motivated, because the data obtained proved that left-handedness means success, especially in boxing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available