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

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 aff ects perceived performance, and how its eff ect 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 offi cial members of the Korea Taekwondo Association as of 2016. Partici-pants 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 infl uence on perceived performance of University Tae-kwondo 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 eff ect of coach–athlete interaction was statistically signifi cant at a 99% confi dence level.

Conclusion

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

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

1. Jowett S, Poczwardowski A. Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.

2. Jowett S, Cockerill IM. Olympic medalists’ perspec-tive of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychol Sport Exercise 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. Eff ectiveness 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 eff ects of a mental training program on juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confi dence, and tennis performance. JAppl 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.