Page 130 - Safe Wrestling

Rok Vatovec, Marina Dobnik, and Matej Plevnik

1. mobility and agility;
2. balance and coordination;
3. strength and stability.
Each of the 36 exercises includes three progressive difficulty levels (lev-
els 1–3), allowing training demands to be adapted according to the ath-
lete’s age, physical preparedness, and technical level (von Gerhardt et
al., 2020). In practical application, coaches typically select four exercis-
es from each block (12 exercises in total), creating an approximately 10-
minute warm-up performed at least twice weekly as part of regular train-
ing. Examples of exercises within each content block include (von Ger-
hardt et al., 2020):
1. Mobility and agility: dynamic lunges with trunk rotation, trunk and
shoulder circles performed in judogi guard position, and rapid di-
rectional changes in fighting stance.
2. Balance and coordination: single-leg stance tasks with partner per-
turbations, balance exercises in positions resembling throw prepa-
ration, and controlled landings following jumps.
3. Strength and stability: trunk-stabilisation exercises (e.g., plank and
side-plank variations), lunges and squats with emphasis on knee-
over-foot alignment, and ankle and hip stabilisation exercises per-
formed in positions characteristic of judo.
Exercises may be performed individually or in pairs. Partner-based
drills frequently incorporate partner resistance (e.g., gripping the judo-
gi, balance perturbations, and controlled falls), thereby increasing move-
ment specificity and transferability to actual combat situations. Coach-
es are encouraged to emphasise technically precise execution, control of
joint alignment – particularly at the knee, ankle, and shoulder – and con-
tinuous correction using externally focused coaching cues such as ‘keep
your knee over your foot’ or ‘stay low and stable in guard.’
The IPPON programme was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial
(von Gerhardt et al., 2023), in which judo clubs were allocated either to an
intervention group (IPPON integrated into the standard warm-up) or to
a control group performing their usual warm-up routines. Athletes in the
intervention group performed the programme twice weekly throughout
an entire season. Although the programme did not produce a statistically
significant reduction in overall injury prevalence compared with the con-
trol condition, coaches reported favourable feasibility, clarity of organi-
sation, and high athlete acceptance. Adherence was also relatively good,

130