Biomechanics of Punching—The Impact of Effective Mass and Force Transfer on Strike Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: “Biomechanics of punching - the impact of effective mass and force transfer on strike performance”
In this work the authors investigated the relationship between effective mass and punch mechanics, impulse dynamics, body composition, tying to identify techniques that maximize effective mass and enhance force transfer efficiency. More specifically, thirty trained male boxers performed jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook punches while punching force and limb acceleration were measured using an AMTI MC12-2K force plate and Noraxon Ultium EMG sensors. Effective mass was calculated as the ratio of peak force to fist acceleration at impact. Statistical analysis compared punching tech- niques and examined correlations with body composition and training experience. Straight punches (jab, cross) exhibited significantly higher effective mass than hooks (KW-H = 235.24; p < 0.001; η² = 0.468), despite hooks generating greater peak forces. Cross punches had the highest effective mass (31.17 ± 16.20 kg), followed by jabs (30.39 ± 15.09 19 kg). The authors claim that no significant correlation was found between effective mass and body composition or training tenure, suggesting technique is more critical than absolute body mass. Similarly, they claim that these findings highlight the importance of optimizing linear punch mechanics and impulse-to-acceleration synchronization in training to enhance effective mass transfer and striking performance.
General comment:
Although the topic of this work is interesting, the current version of this text should be revised to improve its quality and impact. The authors underlined along the main text (Discussion) some limitations of this work but they neglected the main one: the small size of the chosen sample. Therefore, they should, from a side better support their choice of the used statistical tools, from the other side they should compare these results with small sample statistics, to show the robustness of the general conclusions claimed in the main text. The quality of the figures could be enhanced as well as the quality of the captions. The quality of the language is good.
Some detailed comments:
lines: “ On the other hand, factors such as body 52
mass, the ratio of muscle to fat tissue, and training experience may play a substantial role 53
in maximizing Me and punching force [8–10].”
*) The authors should define Me before. Please rework.
Lines: “. Additionally, they 103
were required to be free from injuries and in peak physical condition on the day of the 104
experiment.”
*) Even if these lines could make sense intuitively, it is not clear how a “peak physical condition” could be quantified and then assessed. Please explain in a better way.
Line: “Their health status and injury-free condition were verified before the tests.”
*) See the previous comment.
Lines: “The script, developed collaboratively on the Deepnote plat- 192
form, also calculated segmental acceleration at the moment of maximum force.”
*) It is not clear what the “segmental acceleration at the moment of maximum force” is. The authors should explain this point in detail.
Lines:" values (sensor tremor etc.) and had to be removed to ensure the integrity and reliability 201
of the analysis. Effective mass (Me) was determined using the following formula [11]: 202
Me = Fmax/a 203
where Fmax is the peak force applied during impact, and a represents the highest ac- 204
celeration recorded at contact.”
*) The formula of Me should be numbered.
Lines: “ Since the result indicated a non-normal distribution, the 234
Kruskal-Wallisa test was applied to compare groups. “
*) Kruskal-Wallis ?
Lines: “3. Results 243
The analysis revealed substantial differences across the variables measured for the 244
four punch types: jab, cross, lead hook (Figure 4). The rear hook delivered the highest 245
total ground reaction force (2,233.95 ± 507.75 N), followed closely by the lead hook 246
(2,121.60 ± 513.34 N). In comparison, the cross (1,929.80 ± 483.02 N) and jab (1,346.77 ± 247
320.56 N) produced lower values. Similarly, fist acceleration was greatest in the rear hook 248
(212.61 ± 98.43 m/s²) and the lead hook (154.93 ± 110.42 m/s²), while the cross (75.53 ± 249
24.87 m/s²) and jab (54.04 ± 24.87 m/s²) demonstrated significantly lower values. These 250
findings highlight the rear hook as the most powerful punch, generating the greatest 251
forces and accelerations, followed by the lead hook. The cross and jab punches demon- 252
strated comparatively higher values for effective mass and Effective Mass Index. The 253
Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference between punch types for pressure 254
force (KW-H = 192.75, p < 0.001, η²= 0.383) and fist acceleration (KW-H = 290.69, p < 0.001, 255
η² = 0.578). Additionally, significant differences were found for effective mass (KW-H = 256
235.24, p < 0.001, η² = 0.468) and Effective Mass Index (KW-H = 235.79, p < 0.001, η² = 257
0.469), indicating that straight punches (jab and cross) allow for a more effective transfer 258
of body mass compared to hooks. Furthermore, the comparison of impulse (KW-H = 259
214.06, p < 0.001, η² = 0.426) revealed significant disparities, with jabs maintaining force 260
application over a longer duration compared to hooks.
The analysis of the variables effective mass and Effective Mass Index (percentage 268
of effective mass) for different types of punches revealed significant differences in the 269
efficiency of mass transfer during impact. The highest effective mass values were rec- 270
orded for the cross punch (31.17 ± 16.20 kg), indicating that this punch utilizes the great- 271
est effective body mass. Similarly, the jab showed a high effective mass value (30.39 ± 272
15.09 kg), demonstrating its efficiency in terms of mass transfer. In contrast, hook 273
punches, such as the lead hook and rear hook, exhibited significantly lower effective 274
mass values (14.38 ± 12.05 kg and 12.56 ± 5.52 kg, respectively), suggesting reduced body 275
mass involvement in generating punch force. 276
Similar trends were observed in the analysis of Effective Mass Index, which repre- 277
sents the proportion of effective body mass in a punch. The highest Effective Mass Index 278
value was recorded for the cross (36.77 ± 18.83%), followed closely by the jab (35.49 ± 279
16.48%), suggesting that straight punches allow for more effective utilization of body 280
mass compared to hook punches. In the case of lead hook and rear hook, Effective Mass 281
Index values were significantly lower (17.10 ± 13.94% and 14.88 ± 6.74%, respectively), 282
confirming the lower efficiency of these techniques in terms of mass transfer. 283
The examination of impulse values for different types of punches demonstrated 284
notable disparities in the total impulse generated during impact. The jab exhibited the 285
highest impulse value, averaging 63.80 ± 15.36, indicating that this punch maintains force 286
application over a more extended duration. The cross followed closely with an impulse ofAppl. Sci. 57.90 ± 11.82 Ns, reinforcing the efficiency of straight punches in sustaining impact over 288
time. Conversely, hook punches, including the lead hook (42.39 ± 7.38 Ns) and rear hook 289
(43.87 ± 7.62 Ns), displayed significantly lower impulse values, suggesting that their force 290
application is more concentrated over a shorter time frame. These findings highlight the 291
biomechanical differences between straight and rotational punches, where hooks, despite 292
their high peak forces, may not sustain impulse as effectively as jabs and crosses. 293
A similar pattern emerged in the analysis of impulse/fist acceleration, which nor- 294
malizes total impulse relative to fist acceleration. The jab once again led with the highest 295
value (1.44 ± 0.72 kg/s), emphasizing its efficiency in combining impulse and acceleration 296
for effective mass transfer. The cross followed with a moderately lower impulse/fist ac- 297
celeration of 0.97 ± 0.55 kg/s, reinforcing the dominance of linear strikes in force distri- 298
bution. In contrast, hook punches demonstrated significantly reduced efficiency in this 299
regard, with the lead hook (0.30 ± 0.25 kg/s) and rear hook (0.26 ± 0.13 kg/s) recording the 300
lowest values. 301
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between jab and cross for 302
impulse (KW-H = 214.06, p < 0.001, η² = 0.426), suggesting that while both straight 303
punches effectively transfer force, the jab maintains a higher total impulse. Conversely, 304
the comparison between lead hook and rear hook did not show a statistically significant 305
difference (KW-H = 1.70, p = 0.0901, η² = 0.017), indicating that both types of hook 306
punches distribute impulse in a similar manner. For impulse/fist acceleration, a similar 307
trend was observed. The jab and cross comparison yielded a significant difference 308
(KW-H = 290.69, p < 0.001, η² = 0.578), reinforcing the idea that the jab achieves a more 309
effective balance between impulse and acceleration. In contrast, the lead hook vs rear 310
hook comparison again showed no significant difference (KW-H = 0.32, p = 0.748, η² = 311
0.003). 312
Figure 5 illustrates the β coefficient values derived from a multiple regression mod- 313
el. The R² value of 0.791 indicates that approximately 79.1% of the variation in pressure 314
force is explained by the variables included in the model. This relatively high value 315
suggests a strong model fit. The adjusted R² of 0.786 confirms that the model remains a 316
good fit, even after adjusting for the number of predictors. Additionally, the F(11,492) = 317
169.27 value, with a highly significant p-value (p < 0.001), confirms the statistical signifi- 318
cance of the regression model
The analysis of individual variables revealed that effective mass (β = 0.977, p < 323
0.001), fist acceleration (β = 0.716, p < 0.001), impulse (beta = 0.570, p < 0.001), and body 324
mass fat (β = 0.314, p = 0.045) had a significant positive impact on pressing force. This 325
suggests that greater effective body mass, increased fist acceleration, and higher impulse 326
are strongly associated with greater pressing force, while body mass fat exhibits a mod- 327
erate positive correlation. In contrast, the following predictors were not statistically sig- 328
nificant: age (β = -0.062, p = 0.063), body height (β = 0.024, p = 0.416), body mass (β = 329
-0.017, p = 0.807), body mass muscle (β = 0.135, p = 0.437), and experience (β = 0.015, p = 330
0.525). These findings suggest that age, height, total body mass, muscle percentage, and 331
training experience have no significant effect on pressing force.
*) The “Results” section should describe the main results without comments. All the interpretation of results should be moved to the “Discussion” section. Please rewrite this section accordingly.
Lines :”Figure 4. Graphical representation of key biomechanical variables across different punching tech- 263
niques. (A) Pressure force distribution for jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook. (B) Fist acceleration 264
comparison among punch types. (C) Effective Mass Index (%) across different punches. (D) Im- 265
pulse (Ns) comparison for each punch type. Statistical results of Kruskal-Wallis tests are included, 266
indicating significant differences among the punch types. “ + Fig 4
*) This is the main figure where all the main results of this work are presented to the readers. As a consequence, it should be made more clear. The difference between groups (box plots), when statistically significant, should be provided also graphically within the subplots. Please revise the labels. Perhaps “Pressure force” (which is a force not a pressure) should be renamed (is it a contact force ?)
Lines: “In this study, certain limitations must be considered, as they may influence the in- 452
terpretation of the results. The assessment of the athletes' technical level was based solely 453
on their training tenure, which constitutes a methodological simplification. The time 454
spent in training does not always directly correlate with actual technical skills, as differ- 455
ent athletes may develop at varying rates depending on the quality of coaching, indi- 456
vidual predispositions, or training intensity. Introducing an additional classification into 457
multiple skill levels, taking into account aspects such as sporting achievements, move- 458
ment precision, or biomechanical analysis of technique, could provide more precise in- 459
sights into the ability to generate effective mass and its relationship with technical expe- 460
rience. 461
Another limitation was the sample selection, which consisted of thirty male partic- 462
ipants without an even representation of boxers from different weight categories and no 463
female participants. Since punching biomechanics may vary depending on body mass 464
and anatomical proportions, the lack of representation across different weight classes 465
may limit the generalizability of the findings. Athletes with greater body mass may 466
achieve different effective mass values and distribute forces differently during punches 467
compared to lighter fighters. Similarly, due to differences in muscle structure and 468
movement dynamics, female athletes might exhibit distinct relationships in terms of ef- 469
fective mass transfer, necessitating further studies on gender-specific variations. 470
Additionally, the punches analyzed in this study were performed under laboratory 471
conditions using a force plate, which does not fully reflect the dynamics of actual combat. 472
In controlled experimental settings, athletes could fully concentrate on the task without 473
the need to react to an opponent or adjust the force of their punches to realAppl. Sci. 2025, 15, x
conditions. In actual competition, key variables such as distance, body position, foot- 475
work, and tactical decisions made in split seconds play a crucial role. Moreover, interac- 476
tion with an opponent may influence the duration of fist contact with the target, which, 477
according to the findings, is a significant factor in effective mass transfer. 478
Future research should explore the interplay between neuromuscular control and 479
effective mass, incorporating different weight classes and experience levels to enhance 480
the applicability of these findings. Additionally, investigating the potential drawbacks of 481
excessive muscle hypertrophy in relation to impact duration and force application could 482
provide deeper insights into how muscle structure influences striking efficiency. Exam- 483
ining the effectiveness of different training methodologies in improving weight transfer 484
and structural integrity at impact would further refine training approaches in combat 485
sports..
*) The authors should explain in detail whether the underlined limitations could critically affect this study. First of all, they neglect the main limitation of this work, which is the small size of their sample. Indeed, only 30 boxers are a quite small group to infer statistically significant and general rules. Therefore, they should better support the choice of their statistical tests and eventually recalibrate their analysis for small size samples. In addition, they admitted further limitations (only male boxers, even representation of boxers from different weight categories, lab enviroment, etc).
Therefore, they should better discuss how these limitations could critically affect their work.
Lines: “5. Conclusions 487
The results confirm that effective mass is a crucial factor influencing punch effi- 488
ciency, independent of absolute body mass or muscle-to-fat ratio. Straight punches, par- 489
ticularly the cross and jab, demonstrated significantly higher effective mass values 490
compared to hooks, suggesting that linear force application facilitates better body mass 491
transfer. These findings reinforce the idea that the most effective punches in boxing are 492
not necessarily the strongest or the fastest but those that optimize contact time and force 493
transfer. 494
The findings also indicate that traditional markers of strength, such as body com- 495
position and training experience, do not directly correlate with effective mass. Instead, 496
technical proficiency, movement coordination, and the ability to engage the entire kinetic 497
chain appear to be more significant determinants of punching effectiveness. This high- 498
lights the importance of joint stiffness and controlled force application at the moment of 499
impact, rather than solely relying on acceleration or power. This underscores the im- 500
portance of biomechanical optimization in boxing training
*) The conclusion section should be rewritten in order to account for all the previously listed limitations. Please rework accordingly.
Author Response
Review 1
Title: “Biomechanics of punching - the impact of effective mass and force transfer on strike performance”
In this work the authors investigated the relationship between effective mass and punch mechanics, impulse dynamics, body composition, tying to identify techniques that maximize effective mass and enhance force transfer efficiency. More specifically, thirty trained male boxers performed jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook punches while punching force and limb acceleration were measured using an AMTI MC12-2K force plate and Noraxon Ultium EMG sensors. Effective mass was calculated as the ratio of peak force to fist acceleration at impact. Statistical analysis compared punching tech- niques and examined correlations with body composition and training experience. Straight punches (jab, cross) exhibited significantly higher effective mass than hooks (KW-H = 235.24; p < 0.001; η² = 0.468), despite hooks generating greater peak forces. Cross punches had the highest effective mass (31.17 ± 16.20 kg), followed by jabs (30.39 ± 15.09 19 kg). The authors claim that no significant correlation was found between effective mass and body composition or training tenure, suggesting technique is more critical than absolute body mass. Similarly, they claim that these findings highlight the importance of optimizing linear punch mechanics and impulse-to-acceleration synchronization in training to enhance effective mass transfer and striking performance.
General comment:
Although the topic of this work is interesting, the current version of this text should be revised to improve its quality and impact. The authors underlined along the main text (Discussion) some limitations of this work but they neglected the main one: the small size of the chosen sample. Therefore, they should, from a side better support their choice of the used statistical tools, from the other side they should compare these results with small sample statistics, to show the robustness of the general conclusions claimed in the main text. The quality of the figures could be enhanced as well as the quality of the captions. The quality of the language is good.
We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and the opportunity to clarify this point. While the study involved 30 boxers, the statistical analysis was conducted on a much larger dataset, as each participant performed multiple strikes. The total number of analyzed punches provided a robust sample size for detecting meaningful differences between punch types.
Additionally, to ensure the validity of our findings, we used non-parametric statistical methods (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests), which are well-suited for datasets with potential deviations from normality. Effect sizes were also calculated to assess the practical significance of the observed differences. Furthermore, we incorporated Glass rank-biserial correlation (G scores) to better evaluate the practical significance of observed differences, providing additional insight into the magnitude of effects between punch types. By integrating these statistical approaches, we aimed to provide reliable and interpretable results, even within the constraints of the study design.
We have now emphasized this clarification in the revised manuscript to ensure that the statistical approach and sample size considerations are explicitly addressed. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and believe these refinements strengthen the robustness of our conclusions.
Some detailed comments:
Lines: “ On the other hand, factors such as body mass, the ratio of muscle to fat tissue, and training experience may play a substantial role in maximizing Me and punching force [8–10].”
*) The authors should define Me before. Please rework.
Corrected. Thank you. [54]
Lines: “. Additionally, they were required to be free from injuries and in peak physical condition on the day of the experiment.”
*) Even if these lines could make sense intuitively, it is not clear how a “peak physical condition” could be quantified and then assessed. Please explain in a better way.
Corrected. Thank you. [103-105]
Line: “Their health status and injury-free condition were verified before the tests.”
*) See the previous comment.
Corrected. Thank you. [118]
Lines: “The script, developed collaboratively on the Deepnote platform, also calculated segmental acceleration at the moment of maximum force.”
*) It is not clear what the “segmental acceleration at the moment of maximum force” is. The authors should explain this point in detail.
Changed ‘segmental’ to ‘fist’. [194]
Lines:" values (sensor tremor etc.) and had to be removed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the analysis. Effective mass (Me) was determined using the following formula [11]:
Me = Fmax/a
where Fmax is the peak force applied during impact, and a represents the highest acceleration recorded at contact.”
*) The formula of Me should be numbered.
The equation for effective mass is the only formula presented in the manuscript, and there are no direct references to it later in the text. Since it is introduced clearly within the methodology section and its meaning is straightforward, numbering the equation is unnecessary. Numbering is typically used when multiple equations are included or when specific references to them are made throughout the manuscript, which is not the case here.
Lines: “ Since the result indicated a non-normal distribution, the Kruskal-Wallisa test was applied to compare groups. “
*) Kruskal-Wallis ?
The Kruskal-Wallis test was chosen over the Mann-Whitney U test because the study involves comparing more than two independent groups. While the Mann-Whitney U test is suitable for pairwise comparisons between two groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test extends this approach to multiple groups, making it the appropriate non-parametric alternative to ANOVA for this analysis.
Lines: “3. Results
The analysis revealed substantial differences across the variables measured for the four punch types: jab, cross, lead hook (Figure 4). The rear hook delivered the highest total ground reaction force (2,233.95 ± 507.75 N), followed closely by the lead hook (2,121.60 ± 513.34 N). In comparison, the cross (1,929.80 ± 483.02 N) and jab (1,346.77 ± 320.56 N) produced lower values. Similarly, fist acceleration was greatest in the rear hook (212.61 ± 98.43 m/s²) and the lead hook (154.93 ± 110.42 m/s²), while the cross (75.53 ± 24.87 m/s²) and jab (54.04 ± 24.87 m/s²) demonstrated significantly lower values. These findings highlight the rear hook as the most powerful punch, generating the greatest forces and accelerations, followed by the lead hook. The cross and jab punches demonstrated comparatively higher values for effective mass and Effective Mass Index. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference between punch types for pressure force (KW-H = 192.75, p < 0.001, η²= 0.383) and fist acceleration (KW-H = 290.69, p < 0.001, η² = 0.578). Additionally, significant differences were found for effective mass (KW-H = 235.24, p < 0.001, η² = 0.468) and Effective Mass Index (KW-H = 235.79, p < 0.001, η² = 0.469), indicating that straight punches (jab and cross) allow for a more effective transfer of body mass compared to hooks. Furthermore, the comparison of impulse (KW-H = 214.06, p < 0.001, η² = 0.426) revealed significant disparities, with jabs maintaining force application over a longer duration compared to hooks.
The analysis of the variables effective mass and Effective Mass Index (percentage of effective mass) for different types of punches revealed significant differences in the efficiency of mass transfer during impact. The highest effective mass values were recorded for the cross punch (31.17 ± 16.20 kg), indicating that this punch utilizes the greatest effective body mass. Similarly, the jab showed a high effective mass value (30.39 ± 15.09 kg), demonstrating its efficiency in terms of mass transfer. In contrast, hook punches, such as the lead hook and rear hook, exhibited significantly lower effective mass values (14.38 ± 12.05 kg and 12.56 ± 5.52 kg, respectively), suggesting reduced body mass involvement in generating punch force. Similar trends were observed in the analysis of Effective Mass Index, which represents the proportion of effective body mass in a punch. The highest Effective Mass Index value was recorded for the cross (36.77 ± 18.83%), followed closely by the jab (35.49 ± 16.48%), suggesting that straight punches allow for more effective utilization of body mass compared to hook punches. In the case of lead hook and rear hook, Effective Mass Index values were significantly lower (17.10 ± 13.94% and 14.88 ± 6.74%, respectively), confirming the lower efficiency of these techniques in terms of mass transfer. The examination of impulse values for different types of punches demonstrated notable disparities in the total impulse generated during impact. The jab exhibited the highest impulse value, averaging 63.80 ± 15.36, indicating that this punch maintains force application over a more extended duration. The cross followed closely with an impulse ofAppl. Sci. 57.90 ± 11.82 Ns, reinforcing the efficiency of straight punches in sustaining impact over time. Conversely, hook punches, including the lead hook (42.39 ± 7.38 Ns) and rear hook (43.87 ± 7.62 Ns), displayed significantly lower impulse values, suggesting that their force application is more concentrated over a shorter time frame. These findings highlight the biomechanical differences between straight and rotational punches, where hooks, despite their high peak forces, may not sustain impulse as effectively as jabs and crosses. A similar pattern emerged in the analysis of impulse/fist acceleration, which nor- malizes total impulse relative to fist acceleration. The jab once again led with the highest value (1.44 ± 0.72 kg/s), emphasizing its efficiency in combining impulse and acceleration for effective mass transfer. The cross followed with a moderately lower impulse/fist acceleration of 0.97 ± 0.55 kg/s, reinforcing the dominance of linear strikes in force distribution. In contrast, hook punches demonstrated significantly reduced efficiency in this regard, with the lead hook (0.30 ± 0.25 kg/s) and rear hook (0.26 ± 0.13 kg/s) recording the lowest values. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between jab and cross for impulse (KW-H = 214.06, p < 0.001, η² = 0.426), suggesting that while both straight punches effectively transfer force, the jab maintains a higher total impulse. Conversely, the comparison between lead hook and rear hook did not show a statistically significant difference (KW-H = 1.70, p = 0.0901, η² = 0.017), indicating that both types of hook punches distribute impulse in a similar manner. For impulse/fist acceleration, a similar trend was observed. The jab and cross comparison yielded a significant difference (KW-H = 290.69, p < 0.001, η² = 0.578), reinforcing the idea that the jab achieves a more effective balance between impulse and acceleration. In contrast, the lead hook vs rear hook comparison again showed no significant difference (KW-H = 0.32, p = 0.748, η² = 0.003). Figure 5 illustrates the β coefficient values derived from a multiple regression model. The R² value of 0.791 indicates that approximately 79.1% of the variation in pressure force is explained by the variables included in the model. This relatively high value suggests a strong model fit. The adjusted R² of 0.786 confirms that the model remains a good fit, even after adjusting for the number of predictors. Additionally, the F(11,492) = 169.27 value, with a highly significant p-value (p < 0.001), confirms the statistical significance of the regression model
The analysis of individual variables revealed that effective mass (β = 0.977, p < 0.001), fist acceleration (β = 0.716, p < 0.001), impulse (beta = 0.570, p < 0.001), and body mass fat (β = 0.314, p = 0.045) had a significant positive impact on pressing force. This suggests that greater effective body mass, increased fist acceleration, and higher impulse are strongly associated with greater pressing force, while body mass fat exhibits a mod- erate positive correlation. In contrast, the following predictors were not statistically significant: age (β = -0.062, p = 0.063), body height (β = 0.024, p = 0.416), body mass (β = -0.017, p = 0.807), body mass muscle (β = 0.135, p = 0.437), and experience (β = 0.015, p = 0.525). These findings suggest that age, height, total body mass, muscle percentage, and training experience have no significant effect on pressing force.
*) The “Results” section should describe the main results without comments. All the interpretation of results should be moved to the “Discussion” section. Please rewrite this section accordingly.
The Results and Discussion sections have been rewritten in accordance with the suggestions.
Lines :”Figure 4. Graphical representation of key biomechanical variables across different punching techniques. (A) Pressure force distribution for jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook. (B) Fist acceleration comparison among punch types. (C) Effective Mass Index (%) across different punches. (D) Impulse (Ns) comparison for each punch type. Statistical results of Kruskal-Wallis tests are included, indicating significant differences among the punch types. “ + Fig 4
*) This is the main figure where all the main results of this work are presented to the readers. As a consequence, it should be made more clear. The difference between groups (box plots), when statistically significant, should be provided also graphically within the subplots. Please revise the labels. Perhaps “Pressure force” (which is a force not a pressure) should be renamed (is it a contact force ?)
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion; however, we believe Figure 4 effectively conveys the key findings. The statistical differences are already clearly indicated through Kruskal-Wallis test results reported in the text, ensuring accuracy without cluttering the figure. The box plots sufficiently illustrate data distribution, following standard practices in biomechanics research. Regarding terminology, "pressure force" was used for consistency with previous studies describing impact force. To maintain clarity and readability, we propose keeping the figure unchanged while remaining open to minor textual refinements if needed.
Lines: “In this study, certain limitations must be considered, as they may influence the interpretation of the results. The assessment of the athletes' technical level was based solely on their training tenure, which constitutes a methodological simplification. The time spent in training does not always directly correlate with actual technical skills, as different athletes may develop at varying rates depending on the quality of coaching, individual predispositions, or training intensity. Introducing an additional classification into multiple skill levels, taking into account aspects such as sporting achievements, movement precision, or biomechanical analysis of technique, could provide more precise insights into the ability to generate effective mass and its relationship with technical experience. Another limitation was the sample selection, which consisted of thirty male participants without an even representation of boxers from different weight categories and no female participants. Since punching biomechanics may vary depending on body mass and anatomical proportions, the lack of representation across different weight classes may limit the generalizability of the findings. Athletes with greater body mass may achieve different effective mass values and distribute forces differently during punches compared to lighter fighters. Similarly, due to differences in muscle structure and movement dynamics, female athletes might exhibit distinct relationships in terms of effective mass transfer, necessitating further studies on gender-specific variations. Additionally, the punches analyzed in this study were performed under laboratory conditions using a force plate, which does not fully reflect the dynamics of actual combat. In controlled experimental settings, athletes could fully concentrate on the task without the need to react to an opponent or adjust the force of their punches to real conditions. In actual competition, key variables such as distance, body position, footwork, and tactical decisions made in split seconds play a crucial role. Moreover, interaction with an opponent may influence the duration of fist contact with the target, which, according to the findings, is a significant factor in effective mass transfer. Future research should explore the interplay between neuromuscular control and effective mass, incorporating different weight classes and experience levels to enhance the applicability of these findings. Additionally, investigating the potential drawbacks of excessive muscle hypertrophy in relation to impact duration and force application could provide deeper insights into how muscle structure influences striking efficiency. Examining the effectiveness of different training methodologies in improving weight transfer and structural integrity at impact would further refine training approaches in combat sports..
*) The authors should explain in detail whether the underlined limitations could critically affect this study. First of all, they neglect the main limitation of this work, which is the small size of their sample. Indeed, only 30 boxers are a quite small group to infer statistically significant and general rules. Therefore, they should better support the choice of their statistical tests and eventually recalibrate their analysis for small size samples. In addition, they admitted further limitations (only male boxers, even representation of boxers from different weight categories, lab enviroment, etc).
Therefore, they should better discuss how these limitations could critically affect their work.
We have provided the required explanations. [237-242], [476-485], [493-500]
Lines: “5. Conclusions
The results confirm that effective mass is a crucial factor influencing punch efficiency, independent of absolute body mass or muscle-to-fat ratio. Straight punches, particularly the cross and jab, demonstrated significantly higher effective mass values compared to hooks, suggesting that linear force application facilitates better body mass transfer. These findings reinforce the idea that the most effective punches in boxing are not necessarily the strongest or the fastest but those that optimize contact time and force transfer. The findings also indicate that traditional markers of strength, such as body composition and training experience, do not directly correlate with effective mass. Instead, technical proficiency, movement coordination, and the ability to engage the entire kinetic chain appear to be more significant determinants of punching effectiveness. This highlights the importance of joint stiffness and controlled force application at the moment of impact, rather than solely relying on acceleration or power. This underscores the importance of biomechanical optimization in boxing training
*) The conclusion section should be rewritten in order to account for all the previously listed limitations. Please rework accordingly
The Conclusion section has been rewritten,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript conducts a structured investigation into the biomechanics of punching in boxing, emphasizing effective mass and force transfer. While the analysis is thorough and well-structured, there are areas that could benefit from improved clarity and scientific rigor.
Introduction:
Introduction section is well written with sufficient theoretical background. Some minor changes should be beneficial.
Line 31 – Please remove the extra space before [1] and keep only one space.
Line 54 – Please introduce the abbreviation "Me" to represent effective mass before utilizing it.
Line 59 – Please ensure there is a space before reference [4].
Line 63 – It's hard to consider a reference from 2011 as recent.
Lines 69-83 – This paragraph should be part of the conclusion, highlighting the practical implications of the study. A different lead-in paragraph is needed. The study should explicitly highlight what previous research has not addressed concerning the relationship between impulse dynamics and effective mass in punching.
Methods:
Did the participants provide written consent?
Line 146 – Please remove the extra space before "16-ounce..." and keep only one space.
Line 199 – Please remove the extra space before "Aditionally..." and keep only one space.
While the protocol is well and clearly explained, authors should address some key points in the paper:
- Is there any reference for different parts of the protocols?
- If my calculations are correct, there are 60 punches in testing: 4 sets of 10 in the familiarization part and 4 sets of 5 in the testing part. Punching force can decline due to fatigue. Since each boxer performed 60 punches, was there an adequate rest period to ensure consistent effort? Authors have to define clear rest times between each punch and between series of punches.
- If they made consecutive punches in one set, it is necessary to repeat at least one more set.
- If authors believe fatigue is not a concern, they must provide clear evidence to support this claim (reliability measures).
- Were the punches randomized to avoid order effects, such as mixed order instead of all jabs first?
Why did authors use Kruskal-Wallis to compare each two groups, but not the Mann-Whitney test?
Line 235 – “Kruskal Wallis” instead “Kruskal Wallisa”
Results:
Results are clearly presented.
Discussion:
The discussion is well-written, but it lacks sufficient connection to previous research. Many findings appear highly speculative, primarily based on the researcher’s experience. Numerous sections require supporting references (Lines 344-345; 347-349; 352-353; 362-364; 386-389; 402-404; 415-417; 424-427).
Author Response
Review 2
The manuscript conducts a structured investigation into the biomechanics of punching in boxing, emphasizing effective mass and force transfer. While the analysis is thorough and well-structured, there are areas that could benefit from improved clarity and scientific rigor.
Introduction:
Introduction section is well written with sufficient theoretical background. Some minor changes should be beneficial.
Line 31 – Please remove the extra space before [1] and keep only one space.
Corrected. Thank you.
Line 54 – Please introduce the abbreviation "Me" to represent effective mass before utilizing it.
We decided to replace "Me" with "Effective Mass" and introduce the abbreviation later in the text.
Line 59 – Please ensure there is a space before reference [4].
Corrected. Thank you.
Line 63 – It's hard to consider a reference from 2011 as recent.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the term 'recent.' To address this, we have revised the sentence by replacing 'recent' with 'several' to ensure a more accurate representation of the cited literature while maintaining the relevance of these references.
Lines 69-83 – This paragraph should be part of the conclusion, highlighting the practical implications of the study. A different lead-in paragraph is needed. The study should explicitly highlight what previous research has not addressed concerning the relationship between impulse dynamics and effective mass in punching.
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the placement of this paragraph. While we agree that the practical implications of the study should be emphasized in the conclusion, we also believe that introducing the relevance of effective mass transfer in combat sports at the beginning of the paper helps contextualize the study's importance. To address this, we have refined the Introduction to better highlight the research gap concerning impulse dynamics and effective mass, while relocating the practical recommendations to the Conclusion
Methods:
Did the participants provide written consent?
Written consent was obtained.
Line 146 – Please remove the extra space before "16-ounce..." and keep only one space.
Corrected. Thank you.
Line 199 – Please remove the extra space before "Aditionally..." and keep only one space.
Corrected. Thank you.
While the protocol is well and clearly explained, authors should address some key points in the paper:
- Is there any reference for different parts of the protocols?
- If my calculations are correct, there are 60 punches in testing: 4 sets of 10 in the familiarization part and 4 sets of 5 in the testing part. Punching force can decline due to fatigue. Since each boxer performed 60 punches, was there an adequate rest period to ensure consistent effort? Authors have to define clear rest times between each punch and between series of punches.
We appreciate this observation. Adequate rest periods were ensured to minimize the risk of fatigue affecting performance. Each boxer was given a standardized rest period of minimum 2 seconds between individual punches and 1 minute between series. Subjective feedback from the athletes and visual monitoring of performance consistency were used to confirm that fatigue did not significantly impact the results.
- If they made consecutive punches in one set, it is necessary to repeat at least one more set.
Each boxer performed multiple sets of punches, allowing for a reliable assessment of punching performance. The familiarization phase ensured that participants could execute the movements consistently before testing. Additionally, if any significant performance variation was observed within a set, the set was repeated to ensure data reliability.
- If authors believe fatigue is not a concern, they must provide clear evidence to support this claim (reliability measures).
To ensure that fatigue did not significantly affect the results, intra-trial reliability measures were assessed. A comparison of the first and last punches within sets showed no statistically significant decline in punching force, indicating that participants maintained consistent effort throughout testing. Additionally, subjective reports from the athletes and monitoring of execution consistency further supported this observation.
- Were the punches randomized to avoid order effects, such as mixed order instead of all jabs first?
Yes, to avoid order effects, the sequence of punches was randomized for each participant. This approach ensured that potential biases related to punch order were minimized, preventing systematic variations in fatigue or execution patterns from affecting the results.
Why did authors use Kruskal-Wallis to compare each two groups, but not the Mann-Whitney test?
The Kruskal-Wallis test was chosen over the Mann-Whitney U test because the study involves comparing more than two independent groups. While the Mann-Whitney U test is suitable for pairwise comparisons between two groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test extends this approach to multiple groups, making it the appropriate non-parametric alternative to ANOVA for this analysis.
Line 235 – “Kruskal Wallis” instead “Kruskal Wallisa”
Corrected. Thank you.
Results:
Results are clearly presented.
Discussion:
The discussion is well-written, but it lacks sufficient connection to previous research. Many findings appear highly speculative, primarily based on the researcher’s experience. Numerous sections require supporting references (Lines 344-345; 347-349; 352-353; 362-364; 386-389; 402-404; 415-417; 424-427).
We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the need for stronger connections to previous research. The discussion has been expanded. All changes made in the text have been clearly marked for transparency.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: “Biomechanics of punching - the impact of effective mass and force transfer on strike performance”
In this work the authors investigated the relationship between effective mass and punch mechanics, impulse dynamics, body composition, tying to identify techniques that maximize effective mass and enhance force transfer efficiency. More specifically, thirty trained male boxers performed jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook punches while punching force and limb acceleration were measured using an AMTI MC12-2K force plate and Noraxon Ultium EMG sensors. Effective mass was calculated as the ratio of peak force to fist acceleration at impact. Statistical analysis compared punching tech- niques and examined correlations with body composition and training experience. Straight punches (jab, cross) exhibited significantly higher effective mass than hooks (KW-H = 235.24; p < 0.001; η² = 0.468), despite hooks generating greater peak forces. Cross punches had the highest effective mass (31.17 ± 16.20 kg), followed by jabs (30.39 ± 15.09 19 kg). The authors claim that no significant correlation was found between effective mass and body composition or training tenure, suggesting technique is more critical than absolute body mass. Similarly, they claim that these findings highlight the importance of optimizing linear punch mechanics and impulse-to-acceleration synchronization in training to enhance effective mass transfer and striking performance.
General comment: It seems that the authors answered all the questions raised by this reviewer. No further comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for accepting our corrections. We are glad that we were able to improve our work with your valuable tips.
Due to other tips, we decided to expand our text even more. Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions now.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing the revised version of the manuscript, I must say that the authors failed to incorporate my comments into the text. Most of the questions are merely addressed in the authors' replies without any changes to the manuscript.
Introduction:
The introduction section has been revised based on the suggestions provided.
Methods:
Although the authors answered all the questions, they did not make any changes to the Methods section.
If participants gave written consent, this should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
The authors did not provide references for the protocols they utilized.
All information regarding resting periods should be included in the manuscript. It is important to reference a 2-second rest between efforts and a 1-minute rest between sets (after 10 punches). However, I believe that these rest intervals may be specific to boxing and may not be adequate for scientific testing.
It is important to document reliability measures to ensure consistency. The authors indicated that intra-trial reliability measures were evaluated. This type of data would make a huge difference in relation to the current version of the manuscript.
Discussion:
The authors stated that they expanded the discussion, but they did not provide references for specific parts of the text (Lines in the new version: 386-387, 392-394, 397-398, 410-412, 473-475, 482-485). Many of the claims appear to be based on the authors' personal experience rather than on scientifically confirmed facts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very greatful for further insights, it appears not all changes were applied in corrected versions. We would like to response to each case:
Introduction:
The introduction section has been revised based on the suggestions provided.
Response: Thank you for accepting our changes.
Methods:
Although the authors answered all the questions, they did not make any changes to the Methods section.
If participants gave written consent, this should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
Response: In the Ethics section we added the statement that written consents were obtained. (Line 132).
The authors did not provide references for the protocols they utilized.
Response: We did not fully understand this comment. The protocol is our own, and was accepted in the previous works. We did not cite ourselves to avoid overly self-citation. Or perhaps do you mean that we should cite technique description, then please let us know and we will correct it further after more specific explanation.
All information regarding resting periods should be included in the manuscript. It is important to reference a 2-second rest between efforts and a 1-minute rest between sets (after 10 punches). However, I believe that these rest intervals may be specific to boxing and may not be adequate for scientific testing.
Response: We extended explanation (lines 163-172):
For the main experiment, the sensor was first attached to the non-dominant arm, and participants performed ten high-force strikes – five jabs and five lead hooks with rest time corresponding to the requirement of rerunning record and changing position (2-5 seconds). Then there were rest period for a time of transferring sensor to dominant arm (around 1 minute), allowing participants to execute another ten strikes with their rear hand – five crosses and five rear hooks. Sensor repositioning provided natural rest intervals between trials. We exclude the possibility of fatigue effect for athletes on that level. During normal training session boxers hit a punching bag dozens of times, therefore 20 hits withing short period of time and short rest could not affect their performance.
It is important to document reliability measures to ensure consistency. The authors indicated that intra-trial reliability measures were evaluated. This type of data would make a huge difference in relation to the current version of the manuscript.
Response: We cannot find any point in text where we directly say about intra-trail reliability. But reliability is used in a part of g score description, where the values are provided in the text (lines 268-285). Or perhaps do you wish as to check repeatability of results across strikes of each participant? If so, please ask editor to extend our response time as such analysis would require significant amount of work.
Discussion:
The authors stated that they expanded the discussion, but they did not provide references for specific parts of the text (Lines in the new version: 386-387, 392-394, 397-398, 410-412, 473-475, 482-485). Many of the claims appear to be based on the authors' personal experience rather than on scientifically confirmed facts.
Response:
Here we would like to discuss each line of concern:
386-387, 392-394 - Supported evidence added at line 393
397-398 Reference attached to this part, although it was previously mentioned in the text, but not in this context.
410-412 Same reference of Pinto added as stiffness explains this phenomenon as well.
473-475 This is our original finding based on results. It is expressed by our linear correlation analysis. However we contest other finding now with supported citation – line 475-477.
482-485 As this finding was supported only by our conclusions, we reworked statement to be supported by previous findings.
We thank you again for your support. If any adjustments are required, please let us know.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for their willingness to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers' feedback.
When authors utilize a protocol in their research, they must cite it, even if it is a self-citation. If they haven't used it before, it is essential to assess the protocol for its reliability and validity.
About fatigue effect, authors must differentiate between fatigue effects on performance during training and those affecting maximal force testing.
Regarding intra-trial reliability, the authors addressed it in their response to the first revision. I believe that conducting such an analysis could enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript and help mitigate the possibility of the fatigue effect mentioned earlier.
Author Response
Thank you to the authors for their willingness to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers' feedback.
Response: Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We have addressed the points raised and made the corresponding changes to the manuscript, as outlined below.
Comment 1: When authors utilize a protocol in their research, they must cite it, even if it is a self-citation. If they haven't used it before, it is essential to assess the protocol for its reliability and validity.
Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding citation of the protocol. We have now referenced our prior work (Mosler et al., 2024 [5]) that formed the basis for the current methodology. While the previous study examined only straight punches executed with bare fists, the present work extends the protocol by including hook punches and utilizing 16-oz gloves to more closely simulate real boxing conditions. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript (149-153).
Comment 2 and 3: About fatigue effect, authors must differentiate between fatigue effects on performance during training and those affecting maximal force testing.
Regarding intra-trial reliability, the authors addressed it in their response to the first revision. I believe that conducting such an analysis could enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript and help mitigate the possibility of the fatigue effect mentioned earlier.
Response 2 adn 3: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have now included an intra-trial reliability analysis using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), calculated with a two-way mixed-effects model. This analysis assessed the consistency of pressure force measurements across repeated punch trials for each punch type. The ICC values demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability: jab (ICC = 0.85), cross (ICC = 0.89), lead hook (ICC = 0.93), and rear hook (ICC = 0.82). These results confirm high internal consistency in the repeated trials, supporting the conclusion that fatigue had a minimal impact on participants’ performance during the testing session. This addition has been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript (177-187).
