Page 2 of 9 First 123456 ... Last
  1. #11
    Mr. Mantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    under the sink
    Posts
    6,331
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The hard and soft styles can't really be separated out can they? I mean, once you start hitting, striking, with power... Soft becomes hard in application right? I suppose it is possible to find people who only trained in tai chi or something similar, it would seem a difficult task to me though. Would your friend be interested in adding a category for people who have a background in both hard and soft work?

    I think this is great!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,890
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The soft stylist will be Taiji, Bagua, Xingi.
    The theory is that soft stylist hit different than hard, so by comparing we will see if that is so, and if the way they do it is "better", if that is the right word.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Statistical significane of results with his sample size will be more effected by effect size, the power (1- [Prob of Type II error]), and the variation within treatment groups. With that size of a group there is little chance of a type one error (at least that's how it seems to me).

    While any test of this sort is difficult to get generality from (i.e. extend to a population as a whole) 25 individuals in each group is a pretty damn good size for any testing done with large mammals.

    Of course you can always work with flies and get ridiculously high sample sizes, or with geese ( I know a guy who is able to study 1/4 of an entire population at a time, how's that for sample size and generality).

  4. #14
    Such as thou art, sometime was I. supporting member
    The Wastrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Dochter is correct. It's not like you're conducting national opinion polls.
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,890
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So the size of the groups seems to be ok?

  6. #16
    Such as thou art, sometime was I. supporting member
    The Wastrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think so...But I don't do kinesiological research. It seems to me though that the number of measured strikes should be higher. And you have to account for fatigue right?
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I personally don't have a problem with it and I don't see anything statistically wrong with it (but I'm not a great statistician, or even good).

    As I said any "significance" seen will be because there is actually a pretty solid difference between the groups.

    With tests like this (moreso with medicine and ecology etc..) the question of significance isn't as clear cut because of what you are looking at. It all boils down to what sort of effect size you are interested in and how big/small you are able to test for. Some people are starting to think that significance testing needs to be completely dumped because of the misinformed reading that just because something fails to be "significant" at a 0.05/5% level it doesn't exist. In actuality it just means that your results could have come about by chance. Simulation modelling has shown that two distinct populations can often give this result due to lack of power in testing procedures. In actuality dropping sig testing is too dramatic and maybe a reanalysis of how we approach problems is instead needed. Additionally, alternative methods of statistical testing are being pursued, though it will probably be awhile till most of us start using them.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    In rereading what I wrote, disregard it no one will care.

    25 replicates per blocking factor with repeated measures is a perfectly fine experimental design.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,890
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think, more than anything, it will be interesting to see what differnces in impact force different striking styles can produce.
    As for the size comparison, I am not sure if that will resolve any debate about size.
    But to compare Supposedly different ways of striking sounds intriguing.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,046
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yeah, you won't be able to make any big claims about size but perhaps somethings about power generation. It is a neccesary blocking factor though.

    I forget, are the individuals all from different schools and gyms or the same ones. If from the same its a pretty clearcut case of pseudoreplication. In other words all you would be able to say is that the different schools/gyms in particular are different, not anything about hard and soft styles.

Page 2 of 9 First 123456 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO