The role of skill in animal contests: a neglected component of fighting ability

Abstract

What attributes make some individuals more likely to win a fight than others? A range of morphological and physiological traits have been studied intensely but far less focus has been placed on the actual agonistic behaviours used. Current studies of agonistic behaviour focus on contest duration and the vigour of fighting. It also seems obvious that individuals that fight more skilfully should have a greater chance of winning a fight. Here, we discuss the meaning of skill in animal fights. As the activities of each opponent can be disrupted by the behaviour of their rival, we differentiate among ability, technique and skill itself. In addition to efficient, accurate and sometimes precise movement, skilful fighting also requires rapid decision-making, so that appropriate tactics and strategies are selected. We consider how these different components of skill could be acquired, through genes, experiences of play-fighting and of real fights. Skilful fighting can enhance resource holding potential (RHP) by allowing for sustained vigour, by inflicting greater costs on opponents and by minimizing the chance of damage. Therefore, we argue that skill is a neglected but important component of RHP that could be readily studied to provide new insights into the evolution of agonistic behaviour.

Using knowledge from human research to improve understanding of contest theory and contest dynamics

“…These considerations are of particular relevance to a recently introduced concept in contest theory, skill. Skill is the notion that individuals vary in their ability to accurately and efficiently perform particular displays or attacks during a contest [20]. This differs from RHP and ability in that these two aspects are associated with particular traits rather than how traits are displayed.…”

Skill not athleticism predicts individual variation in match performance of soccer players

“…Studies of animal performance show that success in complex activities-such as fighting conspecifics or escaping predators-depend on differences in speed [8,16], size [17], strength [18][19][20] and physiology [21]. Still, these studies have almost exclusively focused on quantifying extreme capacities of animals, such as maximal strength, speed or endurance [22,23], disregarding traits such as agility and skill (but see [23][24][25][26][27]). Because agility and skill may be compromised at high speeds or forces [23,25,28], evolutionary biologists have missed an important aspect of animal performance that shapes natural selection.…”

Perceived and actual fighting ability: determinants of success by decision, knockout or submission in human combat sports

“…These fights involved 599 different fighters (110 women, 489 men), who fought an average of 1.83 times each (range = 1–6 fights per athlete). For the purposes of this study, the following data were collated from each fight: (1) per cent significant strikes landed—described as a measure of accuracy by UFC and used in our analyses as our measure of this component of skill (as defined in [ 1 ]); (2) number of strikes attempted per second (calculated as the total number of strikes attempted divided by fight duration), our measure of vigour (as defined in [ 1 ]); (3) outcome (win or lose); (4) method of resolution—outcome decided by the judges' scored assessments (hereafter ‘decision'), as a result of a knockout or technical knockout (hereafter ‘KO/TKO') (UFC does not discriminate between knockouts and technical knockouts on ufcstats.com) or a submission. In order to analyse the method of resolution at different levels, for half of the analyses KO/TKO and submission were grouped together as fights ending in ‘defeat'; (5) sex (male or female); (6) fighter ID.…”