View Single Post
Old 10-22-2017, 11:38 AM   #27
xXOpkillerXx
Forever OP
Simfile JudgeFFR Simfile AuthorD8 Godly KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
xXOpkillerXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada,Quebec
Age: 28
Posts: 4,168
Default Re: interesting punch force comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reach View Post
The average correlation between bench and punch force in that study is around .731, meaning that 53% of the variance in punch force can be accounted for by 1 RM Bench Press.

That is a very significant correlation in and of itself, you don't need to compare it to anything else to recognize that it is significant.

Though given that all of the correlations in that study are very large and in the same range, a simple interpretation is to assume a factor analysis would reveal a single underlying variable that accounts for the majority of the variance in all of those measurements. You could call that the general strength factor, which is just a statistical way of saying that if you take any reliable measurement of someones strength, it will be highly predictive of their punch force (and if those correlations are in any way accurate and reliable, strength would be the single largest predictive variable of punch force).
Solely based on experience (15years of martial arts) I have only rarely seen someone big throw a stronger punch than someone relatively smaller (talking about body and muscle size here) with better technique. That being said, the studies linked in this thread are only about raw strength and doesn't show how much punch training the people have.

Now your point; you say there'd be a common factor to strength... Like what, their muscle fibers size ? You'd probably be right. But thing is, if A, B and C have a common factor F, and D needs all three to happen, then there's nothing special about neither A, B or C. (Say A is bench press 1RM, B is squats and C is abs strength, F is your factor (w/e it is) and D is output punch force for example).

You can say all you want about how bench press has strong correlation, cause it's true, but that's pretty intuitive and the fact that many other things/exercise have a correlation as strong or stronger than it makes it totally uninteresting.
xXOpkillerXx is offline   Reply With Quote