View Single Post
Old 10-22-2017, 05:28 PM   #29
Reach
FFR Simfile Author
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Reach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 7,471
Send a message via AIM to Reach Send a message via MSN to Reach
Default Re: interesting punch force comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx View Post
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.
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.
__________________

Last edited by Reach; 10-22-2017 at 05:34 PM..
Reach is offline   Reply With Quote