Temporal Structure of Bouts in Men’s Olympic Boxing: Featherweight, Lightweight, Welterweight, Light Heavyweight, and Heavyweight Categories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your study, which offers a unique perspective on the temporal structure of combat in men’s Olympic boxing. The manuscript provides valuable insights, and I have a few suggestions that I hope will be useful.

Line 173. It is noted that both parametric and non-parametric tests were applied based on normality. Please consider providing more detailed reasoning for the choice of specific tests.

Line 232-316. The results section is informative, but effect sizes are absent. Reporting effect sizes, which is highly recommended and sometimes required, would greatly enhance the interpretability of findings. Additionally, with over 150 F/H tests conducted, the risk of Type I error is a concern. To address this issue, it would be valuable to know how the authors control for Type I error.  

Furthermore, are there any covariates that might impact the analysis outcomes? If so, incorporating them as control variables a priori could enhance the rigor of the statistical analysis and the interpretability of findings.

Lastly, a minor suggestion would be to simplify technical jargon and ensure consistency in terms. This would help clarify complex concepts for a broader audience, including readers who may be less familiar with the nuances of Olympic boxing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study does a temporal analysis, from the first to the third (lats) round, from Olympic boxers assessing events of fatigue and technical and fundaments. This can add information, in fact, to direct training design. However, the study presents serious flaws that need to be justified and, if possible, corrected.  

 

 

 

The authors published an article before [1], doing the same analysis of this study, of the final octaves, in round 16, now they do in round 8. The authors are doing salami science? Why don't the authors make the analysis of round 16 and round 8 in the same study, thus increasing the statistical power of the analyses? The proof that should have joined R16 and R8 is in the discussion, in which several times this study has cited the discussion showing that it found similar results, that is, it is the same analysis, from the same authors, for practically the same sample data, of course, the results will be similar. Adding the samples would increase the statistical power, in fact.  Please justify this separate analysis in the methodology and in the discussion.

In this way, was the sample size calculation conducting at priori? If not, it is necessary to do the calculation at the posterior.

 

Also, in the introduction, in the methodology, and in the discussion, make explicit your previous studies that were cited, citing as their own and not as those of other authors.

 

 

1-      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24748668.2023.2207370

 

 

 

Method

 

L190- Please justify why specifically choose the quarter-finals, what is different from round 16 and round 4, why not do it all together?

 

 

 

Minor review

 

L22- The following information did not add relevant information. “Various statistical tests were employed using SPSS for data analysis, including descriptive analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov/Shapiro-Wilk tests, one-way ANOVA (Tukey- b post hoc test), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests. The significance level was set at p<0.05. ”  Please remove.

 

L211- Add the measurement unit in the first column of Table 4.

L213- In Table 4, put the abbreviations in alphabetical order. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered satisfactorily all the questions and made the necessary adjustments requested by the reviewer. In my opinion, the article must be accepted in the present form.