[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by Reach

Well, as a fellow martial artist, I would like to clarify the point I think you're trying to make; the difference between pure strength of the punch in terms of newtons of force vs how much the punch hurt. These studies only measure pure force, but technique can make two punches of the exact same force feel radically different, which is probably why the line gets quite blurry.

As for the common strength factor, it was just a guess I haven't done the factor analysis myself, but I would suspect that yes it's muscle fibre size. Given that measuring strength is an indirect measure of muscle fibre size and any given exercise will measure this to some extent, it would explain the data.

And I would argue it's actually a very interesting finding, even though it's obvious.

I would argue though that it's very interesting because of the size of the correlations. They're so significant that if the general factor between them is muscle fiber size (which I suspect it is), it would mean that if you wanted to improve athletic performance in any sport where force of impact is relevant, the single most important variable of the athlete you could improve would be muscle fiber size. Which is extraordinarily relevant in modern sports given the overwhelming amount of steroid abuse (or even...necessity?) happening among elite athletes. This is question at the core of many new sports e.g. crossfit, or MMA etc.

I can agree with this. Thx for taking the time to elaborate