## 3 Results
### Inter-Limb Asymmetry
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Condition** & **EXP\_PRE** & **EXP\_POST** & **ES** & \multirow{2}{*}{**CTRL\_PRE**} & **CTRL\_POST** & **ES** & \multirow{2}{*}{**(Pre vs.**} & **Ofference [N]** \\
**Time Point** & **(Mean, SD, **95\% CD**) & **(Mean, SD, **95\% CD**)** & & & **(Mean, SD, **95\% CD**) & **(Mean, SD, 95\% CD**)** & **(Pre vs.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Delta\) [\%] \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{U16 (\(n\) = 20)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(769.0\pm 182.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(772.0\pm 158.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-0.05\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.39\pm 13.19\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(809.0\pm 179.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(815.0\pm 185.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.02\pm 10.74\pm 3.35\)} \\  & (689.0 to 849.0) & (702.0 to 841.0) & & & & (730.0 to 887.0) & (734.0 to 896) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{U18 (\(n\) = 19)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(891.0\pm 231.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(848.0\pm 166.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.31\pm 6.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(28.14\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(870.0\pm 192.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(861.0\pm 224.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.08\pm 1.03\pm 16.67\)} \\  & (787.0 to 995.0) & (773.0 to 923.0) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sen (\(n\) = 22)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(926.0\pm 218.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(893.0\pm 212.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.35\pm 1\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(-3.56\pm 2.75\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(921.0\pm 232.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(897.0\pm 210.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(897.0\pm 210.0\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(0.31\pm 16.0\)} \\  & (834.0 to 1017.0) & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) statistical significance within the group; \(\Delta\)—delta; \(\dagger\)—[PERSON]’s d effect size; \(\ddagger\)—[PERSON]’s rank effect size; CI—confidence interval for the mean; \(\ddagger\)—control condition; ES—effects size; EXP—experimental condition; \(n\)—number of study participants; POST—post-test; PRE—pre-test; PVF—peak vertical force.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: A comparison of the PVF [N] in the non-dominant (back) lower limb with different conditions (EXP; CTRL) and time points (pre-test; post-test) in the study participants of different WKF age categories. condition for the pre-test. Moreover, the results of the CTRL condition (post-test) were significantly higher in comparison with the EXP condition (post-test) (\(p=0.002\); ES = 0.41). Figure 5 presents the frequency and diversity of the incidence of inter-limb PVF [N] asymmetries in athletes of different WKF age categories under varied conditions (EXP; CTRL) and time points (pre-test; post-test). The above-mentioned evaluation was performed based on the following criteria: inter-limb asymmetry (a) over fifteen percent (>15%) and (b) under fifteen percent (<15%). It was found that in the pre-tests, the incidence of a bilateral asymmetry over fifteen percent (>15%) was observed in the athletes from all the studied groups. However, the frequency was not high, excluding the athletes from the U18 category (47%). Moreover, the analysis of the qualitative data showed that the frequency of the above-mentioned asymmetry (>15%) increased after the simulated WKF komite bout in the Seniors and decreased in the athletes from the U16 (10% of the athletes) and U18 (21% of the athletes) categories. Simultaneously, in the CTRL condition, the inter-limb asymmetry (>15%) significantly increased in the majority of the athletes, i.e., U16 (50%), U18 (47%), and Seniors (36%).