Effective mass, the portion of an athlete’s mass contributing to a punch, is a key biomechanical factor influencing punching strength in boxing. This study examines its relationship with punch mechanics, impulse dynamics, and body composition, identifying techniques that maximize effective mass and enhance force transfer efficiency. 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 techniques 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 kg). No significant correlation was found between effective mass and body composition or training tenure, suggesting technique is more critical than absolute body mass. 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.

Background: Modern combat sports, including boxing, categorize participants by body mass to ensure fairness and safety. The effective mass, or the ability to maximize body mass during a punch, significantly impacts striking force. This study aims to explore the relationship between effective mass and striking force in lead jab and rear cross punches of boxers. Material and methods: Thirteen male boxers with an average body mass of 90.6 kg and average height of 184 cm participated. The study employed an AMTI MC12-2K force plate (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) and Noraxon Ultium EMG sensors (Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ, USA) to measure impact force and acceleration. Each boxer performed five maximum-force strikes with both lead jab and rear cross techniques. Results: The rear cross punch generated significantly higher ground reaction force (1709.28 ± 486.62 N) compared to the lead jab (1182.56 ± 250.81 N). However, effective mass values were similar for both punches: lead jab (18.95 ± 5.29 kg, 21.51% of body mass) and rear cross (18.50 ± 5.56 kg, 21.04% of body mass). Higher body mass and longer training tenure positively correlated with higher effective mass. An inverse relationship was found between fist acceleration and effective mass. Conclusions: Effective mass plays a crucial role in punch biomechanics, with similar utilization between lead jab and rear cross punches despite the latter’s higher force. Training focused on optimizing body mass utilization and refining punch techniques can enhance punch effectiveness.

Background: Boxing, a globally popular combat sport, demands technical precision and powerful strikes at the same time. The kinetic assessment of straight punches, specifically the rear cross and lead jab, is crucial for understanding the biomechanical factors influencing punch effectiveness. This study aims to explore the kinetic properties of these punches in trained boxers, focusing on punch force, acceleration, and the concept of a proximal-to-distal pattern. Methods: Thirteen advanced-level male boxers (body weight 90.6 ± 19.2 kg, height 184.0 ± 7.4 cm, experience 9.5 ± 6.5 y) from local clubs participated in this study. Using a force plate and wireless IMU sensors, we recorded punch force and limb acceleration during the execution of rear-cross and lead-jab punches. Data analysis involved statistical tests to compare the kinetic differences (Mann–Whitney U-test) between the two punch types and assessment of the influence of body mass and training tenure on punch effectiveness (multiple regression analysis). Significant differences were observed between the rear cross and lead jab in terms of total ground reaction force ($\overline{x}$ = 1709.28 N vs. $\overline{x}$ = 1176.55 N), acceleration of the fist ($\overline{x}$ = 94.33 m/s² vs. $\overline{x}$ = 66.07 m/s²), forearm ($\overline{x}$ = 67.11 m/s² vs. $\overline{x}$ = 41.62 m/s²) and arm ($\overline{x}$ = 88.40 m/s² vs. $\overline{x}$ = 81.36 m/s²), and target contact time ($\overline{x}$ = 0.03 s vs. 0.02 s). The rear-cross punch exhibited higher kinetic values, indicating greater effectiveness. Additionally, body mass and training tenure were identified as significant factors influencing punch force (R² score = 0.640). Conclusions: This study confirmed the biomechanical superiority of the rear cross over the lead jab in terms of generated force among trained boxers. The findings highlight the importance of coordination between each segment’s acceleration to generate a powerful strike. These insights are valuable for coaches and athletes in optimizing training strategies for boxing.

Background/Objectives: This study investigated postural stability in male inmates of a semi-open correctional facility, with a specific focus on comparing individuals with and without a history of substance dependence. The aim was to identify how addiction-related neurophysiological changes impact postural control under varying sensory and biomechanical demands. Methods: A total of 47 adult male prisoners (mean age: 24.3 years) participated in this study. Nineteen inmates had a documented history of alcohol or drug dependence (addicted group), while twenty-eight had no such history (non-addicted group). All participants were physically able and free of neurological disorders. Postural control was assessed using a stabilometric platform and wireless IMU across six 30 s standing tasks of varying difficulty (bipedal/unipedal stance and eyes open/closed). Linear (center of pressure path and ellipse area) and nonlinear (sample entropy, fractal dimension, and the Lyapunov exponent) sway metrics were analyzed, along with trunk kinematics from IMU data. This study received institutional ethical approval; trial registration was not required. Results: The addicted group showed greater instability, especially in the eyes-closed and single-leg tasks, with increased sway and irregularity in the anterior–posterior direction. IMU data indicated altered trunk motion, suggesting impaired neuromuscular control. In contrast, non-addicted individuals demonstrated more efficient, targeted postural strategies, while addicted participants relied on broader, less selective movements, possibly reflecting compensatory or neuroadaptive changes from substance use. Conclusions: Substance dependence is associated with compromised postural stability in incarcerated men. Balance assessments may be valuable for detecting functional impairments and guiding rehabilitation within prison healthcare systems.

Background/Objectives: The prison environment presents a unique context for examining the impact of addiction on physical and psychological functioning. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) are overrepresented in correctional facilities and often experience greater emotional difficulties and impaired physical capacity. This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of psychological and functional profiles between addicted and non-addicted male inmates in a semi-open correctional facility. Methods: The study included 47 male prisoners (19 addicted, 28 non-addicted). Physical performance was assessed using the Countermovement Jump (CMJ), handgrip strength, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), and the FitLight reaction time test. Psychological functioning was evaluated using six standardized questionnaires: problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping strategies, depression (PHQ-9), perceived stress (PSS-10), and self-compassion (SCS). Results: No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between addicted and non-addicted inmates in physical performance parameters. Addicted individuals demonstrated slightly higher handgrip strength with lower variability, while non-addicted inmates showed slightly better lower-body power in the CMJ test. Functional movement quality and reaction speed were similar between groups. Psychological assessments also revealed no significant differences between the groups. Coping styles, depressive symptoms, perceived stress levels, and self-criticism scores were comparable in both populations. In the addicted group, deeper squats correlated with lower stress (rho = −0.46, p = 0.047), and better hurdle step performance correlated with emotion-focused coping (rho = 0.46, p = 0.048). Conclusions: Although no statistically significant differences were found between addicted and non-addicted male inmates in the assessed physical and psychological outcomes, the limited sample size and context-specific nature of this pilot study suggest that these findings should be viewed as preliminary and interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the observed associations between physical performance and psychological variables indicate subtle interconnections between motor capacity, stress perception, and coping mechanisms that merit further investigation in larger, longitudinal studies.

Study aim: This study examined kinetic differences between orthodox and southpaw boxing stances across four fundamental punches – jab, cross, lead hook, and rear hook – to determine whether stance orientation influences punching force and fist acceleration. Material and methods: Thirty trained male boxers (age: 29.2 ± 1.4 years; body mass: 86.4 ± 1.4 kg; height: 175.8 ± 7.9 cm; training experience: 6.0 ± 2.1 years) performed five maximal-force repetitions of each punch in both stances. Punching force was recorded using an AMTI MC12-2K force plate, and fist acceleration was measured with a Noraxon Ultium EMG inertial sensor. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and Kruskal–Wallis tests with effect size estimation ( ε ² _ H ). Results: Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed punch-specific differences between stances. The jab generated greater force in southpaw (median: 1387.8 N, IQR: 1205.9–1658.6) than in orthodox (1292.8 N, 1129.1–1581.7; p = 0.021). In contrast, the cross (orthodox: 1863.4 N, 1594.3–2307.7 vs southpaw: 1589.7 N, 1363.4–1941.0; p < 0.001) and rear hook (orthodox: 2198.8 N, 1888.2–2580.6 vs southpaw: 2007.5 N, 1680.5–2262.3; p < 0.001) produced greater forces in orthodox. Lead hook force showed no significant stance difference ( p > 0.05). No significant stance differences were observed for fist acceleration in any technique. Across both stances, hook punches exhibited substantially higher forces and accelerations than straight punches. Conclusions: Boxing stance does not confer a universal biomechanical advantage but affects performance in a technique-specific way. Bilateral stance training may enhance technical versatility and better prepare athletes for opponents with different orientations.