The Influence of Anthropometric Characteristics on Punch Impact

Objective: This review examined the influence of anthropometric characteristics, such as height and body mass, on the impact of punches in striking combat sports. Despite their perceived importance for combat strategy, the relationship between these characteristics and punch impact remains unclear.Methods: We included Experimental, Quasi-experimental and Cross-sectional studies. The search was conducted on August 30, 2024, in three databases. The review analyzed 23 studies involving 381 participants (304 men, 30 women, 47 unknown gender). Various instruments were used in the included studies, including 10 instruments to measure impact force and 2 instruments to measure impact power. Results: Impact force ranged from 989 ± 116.76 to 5008.6 ± 76.3 N, with rear hand straight punches and rear hand hooks producing the greatest force. The PowerKube revealed that the rear hand straight punch generated the highest power, ranging from 15183.27 ± 4368.90 to 22014 ± 1336 W. While heavier weight categories were associated with stronger punches, body mass alone was not the only predictor. Other factors, such as technique, gender, and sport type, also played roles. The relationship between height and punch impact showed mixed results.Conclusion: The data suggest that while higher weight categories are associated with greater punch impact, body mass is not the only determining factor. The relationship between height and impact also showed mixed results, with no clear association. The review highlights the lack of a gold standard instrument for evaluating punch impact.

Keywords:

Subject: Arts and Humanities - Other

1. Introduction

Empirically, certain anthropometric characteristics have been noted as crucial for the technical profile of athletes in striking combat sports, characterized by the application of striking techniques that influence their combat strategies. Striking combat sports aim for temporary incapacitation or the accumulation of points, according to the specific rules of each discipline [1,2].

It has been shown that the choice of punch depends on the distance, position, and movement relative to the target, with height and reach being important variables for punch success [3,4]. However, despite these variables being considered important, their relationship with victory remains inconclusive [5,6].

The literature on the technical analysis of striking combat sports is diverse but inconclusive. Over the past two decades, the technical profile of athletes and the variables influencing their decisions during movements have been analyzed [3,5]. In this context, most punches in striking combat sports can be divided into three types: (a) straight punches (front-facing strikes), (b) hooks (lateral movements), and (c) uppercuts (vertical movements) [3].

To increase the likelihood of finishing a fight by incapacitating the opponent, the impact generated by punches has been widely analyzed [7,8,9]. Broadly speaking, the effectiveness of punch impact is a complex movement involving both upper and lower body muscles and the proper cooperation of agonist and antagonist muscles [1,10,11,12,13,14,15]. In this regard, Filimonov et al. 1985 [11] stated that rear hand punches can be divided into three main components to generate impact: (a) contribution of arm muscles to the target, (b) trunk rotation, and (c) leg propulsion from the ground [11]. Similarly, Ruddock et al. 2016 [16], mentioned three factors that contribute to punch effectiveness: (a) the speed of muscle group activation, (b) arm propulsion, and (c) muscle activation at the moment of impact to effectively transfer displaced mass, termed "stiffening" [16].

Moreover, evidence shows variations in impact levels between punch types, different weight categories, and athletes' limb lengths [17,18].

According to the literature, there are three types of punch impact evaluation in combat sports athletes: (a) direct evaluation of relevant inertia, using load cells and platforms directly connected to the target, providing a direct measure of applied impact (e.g., force platforms); (b) indirect evaluation of relevant inertia, involving the indirect measurement of impact by calculating changes in the target's acceleration caused by impact instead of directly measuring force (e.g., observing bag movement in slow-motion footage); (c) evaluation of impact on the athlete's limb, such as the fist, using measuring devices (e.g., load cells in boxing gloves) [4].

Additionally, various studies have measured punch impact using units like force (N), power (W), velocity (m/s), acceleration (m/s²), gravitational acceleration (g), and mass (kg) [9,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The International System of Units for force is the newton (N), and while many studies analyze punch force in newtons, the dynamic nature of punches requires measuring impact power in watts (W) [25,26]. Power describes the amount of work done per unit of time [26]. This concept appears crucial to evaluating the intensity and effectiveness of a punch, as it directly relates the force applied and the punch's execution speed [25].

The aim of this systematic review is to verify the current state of research regarding the analysis of the influence of anthropometric characteristics on punch impact. We hypothesize that anthropometric characteristics, such as height and body mass, influence punch impact. The studies included in this review cover the period from 2000 to 2020.

2. Methods

This systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [27]. The review was registered on the INPLASY website with the registration number: INPLASY202480138 and DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2024.8.0138.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

All studies published to date that report participants' anthropometric characteristics (e.g., height, body mass) related to the analysis of punch impact in Newton (N) or Watt (W) units were included. All types of studies were considered for inclusion in the review, except qualitative studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. This review was limited to articles published in English.

2.2. Search Strategy

The search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science to identify and select relevant studies for inclusion in this review, combining three sets of terms: (i) terms related to the population of interest; (ii) terms related to anthropometric characteristics; (iii) terms related to punch techniques. The following search terms were used: (boxing OR combat sports OR muay thai OR kickboxing OR karate OR mma OR kung fu) AND (height OR anthropometric characteristics OR body measurements OR anthropometry OR physical attributes) AND (punch OR strength OR impact force OR power OR performance OR activity profile OR punch performance). The search was conducted on August 30, 2024. Additionally, a manual search of the literature cited in articles and in reference journals was performed.

2.3. Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Synthesis

The articles identified in the search were initially deemed potentially eligible based on their titles and abstracts. After a full review and based on the eligibility criteria, the articles for this review were selected. Zotero for Windows was used to manage the references. A specific form was developed for data extraction, including information on: i. Study characteristics: authors, year of publication, and design; ii. Sample characteristics: size, gender, age, height, body mass, body mass index (BMI); iii. Type of Sport; iv. Anthropometric characteristics; v. Measurement instruments; vi. Main results.

The qualitative synthesis of the data was presented in a table format. The extracted characteristics and variables are organized by study, in alphabetical order (Table 1 and Table 2).

2.4. Quality Assessment of Studies

To assess the quality of the included studies, an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies from the Effective Public Health Practice Project was used [28], recommended by the Cochrane Public Health Review Group [29] and previously applied by Teixeira et al. 2015 [30]. This tool allows for the assessment of experimental and observational studies in eight domains: representativeness (selection bias); study design; confounding factors; blinding; data collection; data analysis; results presentation; and representativeness (exclusions/dropouts). Each domain is classified as strong (good methodological quality), moderate, or weak (low methodological quality), with the final assessment determined according to the evaluations of each domain.

3. Results

3.1. Description of the Included Studies

The search of the literature performed in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science resulted in 1849 potential studies (Figure 1). Subsequently, 10 studies were added manually. Of the 1859 studies initially identified, 68 were removed as duplicates. A total of 1749 studies were excluded based on title and abstract. The main reasons for exclusion at this stage were that the articles did not report the anthropometric characteristics of the sample or did not present results of interest for the review (e.g., magnitude of punch impact). Additionally, qualitative studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded at this stage. As a result, 42 articles were considered potentially eligible for full-text reading. After reviewing the full texts of the selected articles, 23 were selected that met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.

3.2. Characteristics of the Studies

Table 1 and Table 2 detail the characteristics of the studies included in this analysis. The majority of studies (k = 18) had a cross-sectional observational design, three studies had an experimental design, and two were quasi-experimental.

3.3. Participant Characteristics

A total of 381 participants (men = 304; women = 30; unknown gender = 47) were included in the 23 studies (Table 1 and Table 2). The average age of these samples ranged from 17.5 ± 0.5 to 47.5 ± 10.13 years, with an average height ranging from 172 ± 10 to 182 ± 5 cm, and body mass ranging from 64.56 ± 12.1 kg to 86.8 ± 17 kg.

3.4. Impact Force

Regarding impact force, a total of 262 participants (men = 186; women = 29; unknown gender = 47) were included in the 16 studies (Table 1). The average age of these samples ranged from 17.5 ± 0.5 to 47.5 ± 10.13 years, height ranged from 172 ± 10 to 182 ± 5 cm, and body mass ranged from 64.56 ± 12.1 kg to 86.8 ± 17 kg.

To simplify the various terminologies presented in the literature, we chose to define the force measurement devices reflected in this review (e.g., dynamometer, load cell, force sensor) as load cells, as this is the most common definition in the literature and facilitates interpretation, given that all these devices are specific instruments for measuring impact force. Thus, we identified the following 10 different instruments: (1) Accelerometer inserted into the dummy's head and participants' gloves; (2) Tri-axial accelerometer inserted into the dummy's head; (3) Target with accelerometer and load cell inserted; (4) Target with a load cell specific for boxing and a force transducer; (5) Target on a board with a load cell on the side, transducer, and software; (6) Load cell inserted in the wall bag, with transducer and software; (7) Load cell inserted in the target, with transducer and software; (8) Load cell inserted in the boxing bag, with transducer and software; (9) Force platform with a cushioned target; (10) Boxing bag with a load cell and gyroscope transducer inserted. To facilitate the analysis of impact force data, we included studies that presented values in Newton (N) units, identifying the highest impact force values by instrument (Figure 2), as well as the type of instrument and main results (Table 1).

Note: Accelerometer and Load Cell = Target with an accelerometer and load cell inserted; Accelerometer and Gloves = Accelerometer inserted in the dummy's head and the participants' gloves; Tri-axial Accelerometers = Tri-axial accelerometers inserted in the dummy's head; Specific Load Cell = Target with a load cell specific to boxing and force transducer; Load Cell in Wall Bag = Load cell inserted in the wall bag, with transducer and respective software; Load Cell in Target = Load cell inserted in the target, with transducer and respective software; Load Cell in Boxing Bag = Load cell inserted in the boxing bag, with transducer and respective software; Force Platform = Force platform with cushioned target; Boxing Bag with Load Cell and Gyroscope = Boxing bag with load cell and an inserted gyroscope transducer; Board with Load Cell = Target on a board with a lateral load cell, transducer, and respective software.

3.5. Impact Power

Regarding impact power, a total of 119 participants (men = 118; women = 1) were included in the 7 studies (Table 2). The average age of these samples ranged from 24 ± 4 to 29 ± 2 years, average height ranged from 176.7 ± 6.2 to 181.72 ± 8.28 cm, and body mass ranged from 76 ± 7.2 to 80.9 ± 12.24 kg. The studies evaluated only straight punches, where the cross consistently showed higher values than the jab (front hand direct punch).

The studies that analyzed power used only two instruments, the PowerKube and the StrikeMate, which are similar with minor differences (name and appearance). The device in question is a portable and lightweight impact cube, specifically designed to measure and analyze the impact power of punches. Inside the cube are two high-precision accelerometers responsible for detecting and quantifying the acceleration caused by impacts [31].

3.6. Results Synthesis

All studies (k = 23) mention at least one of the participants' anthropometric characteristics (Table 1 and Table 2).

Regarding impact force, the most commonly used instruments in the studies were those with load cells inserted in the wall bag, equipped with transducers and appropriate software (k = 3), and force platforms with cushioned targets (k = 3). Both instruments, which are direct methods of relevant inertia assessment, showed the punches with the highest values, rear hand cross and hook, with an average impact force ranging from 1331.67 ± 234.49 to 5008.6 ± 76.3 N. The highest impact force levels per instrument ranged from 989 ± 116.76 to 5008.6 ± 76.3 N, with the rear hand straight punch (cross) and rear hand hook identified as generating the highest impact force levels (Table 1). The instrument that demonstrated the highest impact force values was the one with load cells inserted in the wall bag (Figure 2).

Regarding impact power, all studies used the same type of direct instrument for relevant inertia assessment. This instrument identified the cross as the punch with the highest value, with an average impact power ranging from 15183.27 ± 4368.90 to 22014 ± 1336 W (Table 2).

3.7. Methodological Quality of the Studies

Table 3 and Table 4 present the methodological quality of the studies. Most studies (k=21) were rated as having "moderate" methodological quality due to the study design, low sample power, and lack of representativeness of the population studied. Two studies were rated as having "strong" methodological quality.

Table 1. Characteristics of participants, type of sport, anthropometric characteristics, instruments, mean and maximum impact force in Newton (N) units of measurement.

Reference	Study design	Participants	Type of sport	Anthropometric Characteristics	Instruments	Main results
Adamec et al., 2021 [32]	Cross-sectional	N = 50 (men = 29; women = 21); Age: 34 years; Height: 174 cm; Weight: 76 kg.	Karate.	Height, weight.	Force platform with cushioned target (DIRA).	Fmax - Straight punch (4639 N).
Buśko et al., 2016 [33]	Cross-sectional	N = 13 men; Age: 17.5 years; Height: 175.5 cm; Weight: 69kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Boxing bag with load cell and an inserted gyroscope transducer (DIRA).	Fmean - Cross (1592.5 ± 507.1 N).
Chadli et al., 2014 [34]	Cross-sectional	N = 11 (unknown gender); Age: 23.5 ± 0.5 years; Height: 179 ± 9 cm; Weight: 77.39 ± 11 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Target with an accelerometer and load cell inserted (DIRA).	Fmean - Punch (989 ± 116.76 N).
Dunn et al., 2019 [35]	Cross-sectional	N = 15 men; Age: 17.5 ± 0.5 years; Height: 177.5 ± 9 cm; Weight: 73 ± 14 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Load cell inserted in the wall bag, with transducer and respective software (DIRA).	Fmean - Jabs (841 ± 180 N); Cross (1818 ± 332 N); Hooks (2622 ± 288 N).
Dunn et al., 2022 [36]	Cross-sectional	N = 28 men; Age: 19 ± 2 years; Height: 177 ± 7.3 cm; Weight: 70,5 ± 11 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Load cell inserted in the wall bag, with transducer and respective software (DIRA).	Fmean - Jab (823 ± 271 N); Cross (1830 ± 387 N); Lead hand hook (2491 ± 492 N); Rear hand hook (2742 ± 571 N).
Dyson et al., 2005 [37]	Cross-sectional	N = 6 men; Age: 24.5 ± 3.3 years; Height: 182 ± 5 cm; Weight: 73.3 ± 19 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Load cell inserted in the boxing bag, with transducer and respective software (DIRA).	Fmean - Cross (4236 ± 181 N); Jab (2722±75 N).
Finlay, 2022 [38]	Experimental	N = 10 men; Age: 19.7 ± 1.2 years; Height: 180.9 ± 7.0 cm; Weight: 78.7 ± 9.6 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Force platform with cushioned target (DIRA).	Fmax - Rear hand hook (2673 N); Lead hand hook (2565 N); Cross (2538 N).
Kim et al., 2018 [8]	Quasi-experimental	N = 15 men; Age: 23.4 years; Height: 176.5 cm; Weight: 67.7 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Tri-axial accelerometers inserted in the dummy's head (DIRA).	Fmax - Cross (2313 N).
Lee & McGill, 2017 [39]	Quasi-experimental	N = 12 men; Age: 24.2 ± 2.9 years; Height: 180 ± 5 cm; Weight: 76.8 ± 9.7 kg.	Muay Thai.	Height, weight.	Load cell inserted in the wall bag, with transducer and respective software (DIRA).	Fmean - Jab (3093.7 ± 69.4 N); Cross (5008.6 ± 76.3 N); Knee (9482 ± 152.8 N).
Loturco et al., 2016 [14]	Cross-sectional	N = 15 (men = 9; women = 6); Age: 25.9 ± 4.7years; Height: 172 ± 10 cm; Weight: 64.56 ± 12.1 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Force platform with cushioned target (DIRA).	Fmean - Jab men (1152.22 ± 246.87 N); Cross men (1331.67 ± 234.49 N); Jab women (902.50±213.49 N); Cross women (994.17±221.14 N).
Neto et al., 2009 [40]	Cross-sectional	N = 12 (men = 10; women = 2); Age: 23.4 years; Height: 174.7 ± 4 cm; Weight: 70.9 ± 12 kg.	Kung Fu.	Height, weight.	Load cell inserted in the target, with transducer and respective software (DIRA).	Fmax - Punch (1226 N).
Smith et al., 2000 [41]	Cross-sectional	N = 23 men; Age: 23.1 ± 1.2 years; Height: 178 ± 6 cm; Weight: 69.9 ± 8.6 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Target with a load cell specific to boxing and force transducer (DIRA).	Fmean - Cross – Elite (4800 ± 227 N), intermediate (3722 ± 133 N), beginner (2381 ± 116 N).
Smith, 2006 [9]	Cross-sectional	N = 29 (unknown gender); Age: 21 ± 2 years; Height: 174 ± 8 cm; Weight: 67 ± 10 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	Target with a load cell specific to boxing and force transducer (DIRA).	Fmean - Jab to the face (1722 ± 700 N), to the body (1682 ± 636 N); Cross to the face (2643 ± 1273 N), to the body (2646 ± 1083 N); Lead hand hook to the face (2412 ± 813 N), to the body (2414 ± 718 N); Rear hand hook to the face (2588 ± 1040 N), to the body (2555 ± 926 N).
V. A. de Souza & Marques, 2017 [42]	Cross-sectional	N = 8 men; Age: 20.25 ± 4.13 years; Height: 174 ± 4 cm; Weight: 72.41 ± 9.6 kg.	Karate.	Height, weight.	Target on a board with a lateral load cell, transducer, and respective software (DIRA).	Fmax - Straight punch (1812.01 N).
V. de Souza & Marques, 2017 [43]	Cross-sectional	N = 8 men; Age: 47.5 ± 10.13 years; Height: 176 ± 3 cm; Weight: 86.8 ± 17 kg.	Karate.	Height, weight.	Target on a board with a lateral load cell, transducer, and respective software (DIRA).	Fmean - Straight punch (2260.79 ± 538.44 N).
Walilko et al., 2005 [24]	Cross-sectional	N = 7 (unknown gender); Weight: 48 a 109kg.	Boxing.	Weight.	Accelerometer inserted in the dummy's head and the participants' gloves (DIRA e AL).	Fmax - Straight punch (4741 N). Weight categories: Flyweight (3914 N); Light welterweight (3621 N); Middleweight (3072 N); Super heavyweight (4741 N).
DIRA = Direct inertia-relevant assessment; AL = Assessment on the athlete's limb; Jab = Straight punch with the lead hand; Cross = Straight punch with the rear hand; Fmax = Maximum punch force; Fmean = Mean punch force.

Table 2. Characteristics of participants, type of sport, anthropometric characteristics, instruments, mean and maximum impact power in Watts (W) units of measurement.

Reference	Study design	Participants	Type of sport	Anthropometric Characteristics	Instruments	Main results
Brown et al., 2020 [44]	Cross-sectional	N = 15 men; Age: 24.2 ± 2.9 years; Height: 176.7 ± 6.2 cm; Weight: 79.3 ± 11.8 kg; BMI: 24.9 kg.m-2.	Boxing	Height, weight.	PowerKube (DIRA).	Pmean - Cross (15227.4 ± 225 W).
Brown et al., 2021 [45]	Experimental	N = 20 men; Age: 28 ± 6 years; Height: 178 ± 4 cm; Weight: 76.5 ± 10 kg.	Boxing.	Height, weight.	PowerKube (DIRA).	Pmean - Cross (22014±1336 W).
Brown et al., 2022 [21]	Cross-sectional	N = 22 men; Age: 28 ± 2 years; Height: 178 ± 8.1 cm; Weight: 79 ± 7.1 kg; BMI: 24.9 ± 2.5 kg.m-2.	Boxing	Height, weight.	PowerKube (DIRA).	Pmean - Cross (15227 ± 2250 W).
Brown et al., 2023 [46]	Cross-sectional	N = 16 (men = 15; women = 1); Age: 24 ± 4 years; Height: 181.72 ± 8.28 cm; Weight: 80.16 ± 11.32kg.	Boxing; Muay Thai	Height, weight.	PowerKube (DIRA).	Pmean - Cross (19640 ±1410 W).
Del Vecchio et al., 2018 [47]	Experimental	N = 17 men (10 EG; 6 CG); Age: 28 ± 2 (EG) e 29 ± 2 (CG) years; Height: 178 ± 8.1 (EG) e 177.7± 5.7 (CG) cm; Weight: 79 ± 7.1 (EG) e 79.8 ± 11.9 (CG) kg.	Combat sports (not specified)	Height, weight.	StrikeMate (DIRA).	Pmean - Jab (6781.6 ± 2178.9 W); Cross (15335.9 ± 4432.8 W); Front kick (8357.5 ± 2895.9 W); Roundhouse kick (40129.2 ± 10169.8 W).
Del Vecchio et al., 2019 [48]	Experimental	N = 16 men (10 EG; 6 CG); Age: 25.2 ± 1.8 (EG) e 29 ± 2(CG) years; Height:178.1 ± 7.1(EG) e 177.7 ± 5.7 (CG) cm; Weight: 76 ± 7.2 (EG) e 79.8 ± 11.9 (CG) kg.	Combat sports (not specified)	Height, weight.	StrikeMate (DIRA).	Pmean - Jab (7478.82 ± 2994.36 W); Cross (15183.27 ± 4368.90 W); Front kick (7438.64 ± 1910.56 W); Roundhouse kick (45278.30 ± 11323.13 W).
Del Vecchio et al., 2021 [49]	Cross-sectional	N = 13 men; Age: 28.8 ± 4.57 years; Height:176.9 ± 4.14 cm; Weight: 80.9 ± 12.24 kg; BMI: 25.9 ± 3.8 kg.m-2.	Combat sports (not specified)	Height, weight.	StrikeMate (DIRA).	Pmean - Jab (8081 ± 3742 W); Cross (15431 ± 4294 W); Front kick (8563 ± 3095 W); Roundhouse kick (46377 ± 12209 W).
AL = Assessment on the athlete's limb; DIRA = Direct inertia-relevant assessment; EG = Experimental group; CG = Control group; Jab = Straight punch with the lead hand; Cross = Straight punch with the rear hand; Pmax = Maximum punch power; Pmean = Mean punch power.

Table 3. Assessment of the methodological quality of studies on the impact force of punches.

REFERENCE	STUDY DESIGN	BLINDING	REPRESENTATIVITY (SELECTION BIAS)	SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVITY (DROPOUTS)	CONFOUNDING FACTORS	DATA COLLECTION	DATA ANALYSIS	PRESENTATION OF RESULTS	OVERALL CLASSIFICATION
Adamec et al., 2021 [32]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Buśko et al., 2016 [33]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Chadli et al., 2014 [34]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Dunn et al., 2019 [35]	2	3	2	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Dunn et al., 2022 [36]	2	3	2	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Dyson et al., 2005 [37]	2	3	2	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Finlay, 2022 [38]	1	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	strong
Kim et al., 2018 [8]	1	3	3	1	2	1	1	1	moderate
Lee & McGill, 2017 [39]	1	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	strong
Loturco et al., 2016 [14]	2	3	2	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Neto et al., 2009 [40]	2	3	2	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Smith et al., 2000 [41]	2	3	1	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Smith, 2006 [9]	2	3	1	4	3	1	1	1	moderate
V. A. de Souza & Marques, 2017 [42]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
V. de Souza & Marques, 2017 [43]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Walilko et al., 2005 [24]	2	3	3	4	3	1	1	1	moderate

Legend: 1 = Strong; 2 = Moderate; 3 = Weak; 4 = No rating.

Table 4. Assessment of the methodological quality of studies on the impact power of punches.

REFERENCE	STUDY DESIGN	BLINDING	REPRESENTATIVITY (SELECTION BIAS)	SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVITY (DROPOUTS)	CONFOUNDING FACTORS	DATA COLLECTION	DATA ANALYSIS	PRESENTATION OF RESULTS	OVERALL CLASSIFICATION
Brown et al., 2020 [44]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Brown et al., 2021 [45]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Brown et al., 2022 [21]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Brown et al., 2023 [46]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate
Del Vecchio et al., 2018 [47]	1	2	3	1	2	1	1	2	moderate
Del Vecchio et al., 2019 [48]	1	2	3	1	2	1	1	2	moderate
Del Vecchio et al., 2021 [49]	2	3	3	4	2	1	1	1	moderate

Legend: 1 = Strong; 2 = Moderate; 3 = Weak; 4 = No rating.

4. Discussion

Striking combat sports are highly complex and aim to deliver effective strikes while minimizing exposure to counterattacks [20,32]. Athletes perform various punches that can be influenced by individual characteristics such as body mass, height, limb length, and muscle mass, which appear to play a crucial role in determining punch impact [17,23,24].

Our literature review specifically focused on the influence of anthropometric factors on punch impact. The data suggest that while higher weight categories generally correspond to greater punch impact, body mass alone does not determine punch impact. Other factors, such as technique, strength, limb length, gender, and the type of sport, are also important. For example, studies comparing athletes of different weights show that athletes with higher average body mass tend to generate higher impact forces, but differences in punch impact are not always straightforward [14,42]. Upon examining the studies where body mass was analyzed, we found that athletes with higher body mass produced greater impact forces. In this regard, Loturco et al. 2016 [14] reported lower force levels (1331.67 ± 234.49 N) for participants with an average body mass of 64.56 ± 12.1 kg, while de Souza and Marques 2017 [43] observed higher impact force levels (2260.79 ± 538.44 N) in participants with an average body mass of 86.8 ± 17 kg [43]. However, Loturco et al. 2016 [14] study included participants of both genders, which may have introduced bias, as men typically produce higher punch impact forces [14]. Studies involving only male participants with similar body mass (67.7 kg and 67 ± 10 kg) reported higher impact forces than the study by de Souza and Marques 2017 [43], indicating that while body mass influences impact force, it is not the only determining factor [8,9,43].

Contrary to the assumption that athletes with higher body mass consistently produce punches that generate more impact, our review revealed mixed findings regarding body mass and impact power. For instance, participants with lower body mass (76.5 ± 10 kg) exhibited higher impact power (22014 ± 1336 W) compared to those with higher body mass (80.9 ± 12.2 kg), who showed lower impact power (15431 ± 4294 W) (Table 3). This variation may be attributed to differences in the types of combat sports, as participants with higher body mass were not specified as specialists in punching techniques (e.g., boxing practitioners), which could explain the lower impact power [49].

When exploring the relationship between height and punch impact, no clear causal relationship was found. While a group of participants with an average height of 178 ± 4 cm demonstrated the highest impact power (22014 ± 1336 W), those with slightly taller (181.7 ± 8.3 cm) and shorter (176.7 ± 6.2 cm) heights exhibited lower impact powers (19640 ± 1410 W and 15227 ± 225 W, respectively). The small height differences among participants may have limited the ability to detect a consistent relationship between height and punch impact power.

5. Limitations

The aim of this review was to reflect on what the literature mentions regarding anthropometric characteristics and punch impact; however, relevant studies with information on each variable may have been excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. One of the main reasons was the lack of presentation of the participants' anthropometric characteristics and/or the use of different measurement units to analyze punch impact. According to the literature, several studies measured punch impact using units such as force (N), power (W), velocity (m/s), acceleration (m/s²), gravitational acceleration (g), and mass (kg). These units were evaluated with different instruments, such as accelerometers, high-speed cameras, force platforms, load cells, and transducers. This diversity of equipment and measurements complicates standardization and analysis of results, potentially causing bias. Thus, only studies with measurements in Newtons (N) and Watts (W) were included.

Another limitation was the homogeneity of the samples. This lack of diversity may have compromised the ability to detect significant differences in punch impact among athletes with different anthropometric characteristics.

6. Conclusion

Although body mass and height may influence punch impact, the relationship between these factors is complex and multifaceted. Our analysis suggests that while anthropometric characteristics may play an important role, other factors, such as technical skill, training methods, and types of combat sports, are also significant determinants of punch performance. Additionally, more focused studies on how anthropometric characteristics interact with technical skills and individual physical capabilities could provide a deeper understanding of punch performance, ultimately leading to more targeted training strategies in striking combat sports.

7. Future Implications

Future research should include more diverse samples in terms of anthropometric characteristics to better elucidate how these variables influence punch impact. The creation and use of a gold standard instrument would facilitate the standardization of analysis methods for measuring punch impact, which is crucial for advancing research in this area, allowing for the comparison of results between different studies and the identification of more consistent patterns among distinct samples. Studies aimed at analyzing the influence of anthropometric characteristics and the strength/power of upper and lower limbs on the performance of different punching techniques will contribute to a deeper understanding of the determining factors in generating impact in these movements.

Declarations

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Data availability

All original data are freely available in electronic database.

Ethics approval

As a systematic review and synthesis of primary findings, we did not directly interact with human subjects for this study.

Authors’ contributions

Conception of the study design: all authors; literature search and selection: MP; study coding and preparation of the data set: JC; data analysis: GS and LM; writing, reviewing, editing, and final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

References

Lenetsky S, Harris N, Brughelli M. Assessment and contributors of punching forces in combat sports athletes: Implications for strength and conditioning. Strength Cond J. 2013;35(2):1-7. [CrossRef]
Slimani M, Chaabène H, Davis P, Franchini E, Cheour F, Chamari K. Performance aspects and physiological responses in male amateur boxing competitions: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(4):1132-41. [CrossRef]
Hristovski R, Davids K, Araújo D, Button C. How boxers decide to punch a target: Emergent behaviour in nonlinear dynamical movement systems. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;5(CSSI):60.
Lenetsky S, Uthoff A, Coyne J, Cronin J. A review of striking force in full-contact combat sport athletes: Methods of assessment. Strength Cond J. 2022;44(1):71-83. [CrossRef]
Davis P, Benson PR, Waldock R, Connorton AJ. Performance analysis of elite female amateur boxers and comparison with their male counterparts. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(1):55-60. [CrossRef]
Pic M. Quality, height, age and home advantage in boxing. RICYDE Rev Int Cienc Deporte. 2017;14(52):174-87. [CrossRef]
Chaabène H, Tabben M, Mkaouer B, Franchini E, Negra Y, Hammami M, et al. Amateur boxing: Physical and physiological attributes. Sports Med. 2015;45:337-52. [CrossRef]
Kim K-J, Lee S-B, Park S. Effects of boxing-specific training on physical fitness and punch power in Korean national boxers. Exerc Sci. 2018;27(4):296-302. [CrossRef]
Smith MS. Physiological profile of senior and junior England international amateur boxers. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;5(CSSI):74.
Ebben WP, Blackard DO. Developing a strength-power program for amateur boxing. Strength Cond J. 1997;19(1):42-51.
Filimonov VI, Koptsev KN, Husyanov ZM, Nazarov SS. Boxing: Means of increasing strength of the punch. Strength Cond J. 1985;7(6):65-6.
Giovani D, Nikolaidis PT. Differences in force-velocity characteristics of upper and lower limbs of non-competitive male boxers. Int J Exerc Sci. 2012;5(2):106.
Joch W, Fritche P, Krause I. Biomechanical analysis of boxing. University Press, Baltimore MD; 1981.
Loturco I, Nakamura FY, Artioli GG, Kobal R, Kitamura K, Abad CCC, et al. Strength and power qualities are highly associated with punching impact in elite amateur boxers. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(1):109-16. [CrossRef]
McGill SM, Chaimberg JD, Frost DM, Fenwick CM. Evidence of a double peak in muscle activation to enhance strike speed and force: An example with elite mixed martial arts fighters. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(2):348-57. [CrossRef]
Ruddock AD, Wilson DC, Thompson SW, Hembrough D, Winter EM. Strength and conditioning for professional boxing: Recommendations for physical preparation. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(3):81-90. [CrossRef]
Podhurskyi SE. Performance of striking techniques among qualified Muay Thai athletes of different weight classes. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2020;20(2):294-304. [CrossRef]
Tiwari AK, Pandey AS, Badhyal S. Design and development of a device for performance analysis and injury prevention in boxing. J Postgrad Med Educ Res. 2021;54(4):231-5. [CrossRef]
Atha J, Yeadon MR, Sandover J, Parsons KC. The damaging punch. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291(6511):1756-7. doi: . [CrossRef]
Beattie K, Ruddock AD. The role of strength on punch impact force in boxing. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(10):2957-69. [CrossRef]
Brown L, Doyle G, Hastings K, Thornton-White C, Galbraith A. Profiling the physiological parameters of boxers in the parachute regiment. Int J Strength Cond. 2022;2(1):1-12. [CrossRef]
Girodet P, Vaslin P, Dabonneville M, Lacouture P. Two-dimensional kinematic and dynamic analysis of a karate straight punch. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2005;8(sup1):117-8. [CrossRef]
Pierce JD, Reinbold KA, Lyngard BC, Goldman RJ, Pastore CM. Direct measurement of punch force during six professional boxing matches. J Quant Anal Sports. 2006;2(2). [CrossRef]
Walilko TJ, Viano DC, Bir CA. Biomechanics of the head for Olympic boxer punches to the face. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(10):710-9. [CrossRef]
Del Vecchio L, Whitting J, Hollier J, Keene A, Climstein M. Reliability and practical use of a commercial device for measuring punch and kick impact kinetics. Sports. 2022;10(12):206. [CrossRef]
Powers SK, Howley ET. Exercise physiology: Theory and application to fitness and performances. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27(3):466.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372. [CrossRef]
Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176-84. [CrossRef]
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343. [CrossRef]
Teixeira PJ, Marques M, Carraça EV, Rutter H, Oppert JM, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. A systematic review of self-regulation mediators of success in obesity interventions: The SPOTLIGHT project. Eur Health Psychol. 2015;17(S).
Del Vecchio L, Borges N, MacGregor C, Meerkin JD, Climstein M. Musculoskeletal profile of amateur combat athletes: Body composition, muscular strength and striking power. Mov Sport Sci. 2021;3:1-9. [CrossRef]
Adamec J, Hofer P, Pittner S, Monticelli F, Graw M, Schöpfer J. Biomechanical assessment of various punching techniques. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135(3):853-9. [CrossRef]
Buśko K, Staniak Z, Szark-Eckardt M, Nikolaidis PT, Mazur-Różycka J, Łach P, et al. Measuring the force of punches and kicks among combat sport athletes using a modified punching bag with an embedded accelerometer. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2016;18(1):47-54. [CrossRef]
Chadli S, Ababou N, Ababou A. A new instrument for punch analysis in boxing. Procedia Eng. 2014;72:411-6. [CrossRef]
Dunn EC, Humberstone CE, Iredale KF, Blazevich AJ. A damaging punch: Assessment and application of a method to quantify punch performance. Transl Sports Med. 2019;2(3):146-52. [CrossRef]
Dunn EC, Humberstone CE, Franchini E, Iredale KF, Blazevich AJ. Relationships between punch impact force and upper- and lower-body muscular strength and power in highly trained amateur boxers. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(4):1019-25. [CrossRef]
Dyson R, Smith M, Fenn L, Martin C. Differences in lead and rear hand punching forces, delivered at maximal speed relative to maximal force, by amateur boxers. ISBS-Conf Proc Arch. 2005.
Finlay MJ. World Heavyweight Championship boxing: The past 30+ years of the male division. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0263038. [CrossRef]
Lee B, McGill S. The effect of core training on distal limb performance during ballistic strike manoeuvres. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(18):1768-80. [CrossRef]
Neto OP, Pacheco MTT, Bolander R, Bir C. Force, reaction time, and precision of Kung Fu strikes. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;109(1):295-303. [CrossRef]
Smith MS, Dyson RJ, Hale T, Janaway L. Development of a boxing dynamometer and its punch force discrimination efficacy. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(6):445-50. [CrossRef]
de Souza VA, Marques AM. Relationship between age and expertise with the maximum impact force of a reverse punch by Shotokan karate athletes. Arch Budo. 2017;13:243-54.
de Souza VA, Marques AM. Impact force of a reverse punch performed by karate athletes. 2nd Int Budo Conf. 2017.
Brown L, Galbraith A, Doyle G, Hastings K. Physiological profiles of elite parachute regiment infantry boxers. J Aust Strength Cond. 2020.
Brown L, Hastings K, Doyle G, Bruce-Low S, Galbraith A. The effects of lower core resistance training on rear hand punching performance in professional boxers. J Aust Strength Cond. 2021;29(5):15-24.
Brown L, Hastings K, Ogilvie D, McAllister B, Velicko N, Amouri A, et al. Identifying the significance of specific eccentric and concentric training modalities on punching impact power (IP) output in boxers and Thai boxers. J Aust Strength Cond. 2023;31(7):7.
Del Vecchio L, Stanton R, Macgregor C, Humphries B, Borges N. The effects of a six week Exogen training program on punching and kicking impact power in amateur male combat athletes: A pilot study. 2018.
Del Vecchio L, Stanton R, Macgregor C, Humphries B, Borges N. Effects of a six-week strength and power training program on punching and kicking impact power in amateur male combat athletes: A pilot study. 2019. [CrossRef]
Del Vecchio L, Borges N, MacGregor C, Meerkin JD, Climstein M. Musculoskeletal profile of amateur combat athletes: Body composition, muscular strength and striking power. Mov Sport Sci. 2021;3:1-9. [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Flowchart according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

Figure 2. Highest Impact Force Values by Instrument.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Choose an area of interest and we will send you notifications of new preprints at your preferred frequency.

Disclaimer