## 3 Results
### Punches Performance
Comparisons between subject groups showed that there were within 2 times the calculated TE on each outcome (NRs) or greater than two times the TE (Rs) reported significant differences (\(p\) = 0.03) between the AEL group versus the CON group for the jab punch. No significant differences were found between the AEL group versus the CMJ group (\(p\) = 0.17) and between the CMJ group versus the CON group (\(p\) = 0.21). For the straight punch, significant differences were found between the AEL group versus the CON group (\(p\) = 0.03), while for the AEL group versus the CMJ group (\(p\) = 0.14) and the CMJ group versus the CON group (\(p\) > 0.99), no significant differences were found. For the right cross punch, significant differences were found between the AEL group versus the CMJ group (\(p\) = 0.03) and between the AEL group versus the CON group (\(p\) = 0.03), no significant differences were found between the CMJ group versus the CON group (\(p\) > 0.99). Finally, for the left cross punch, significant differences were reported between the AEL group versus the CMJ group (\(p\) = 0.05) and between the AEL group versus the CON group (\(p\) = 0.07), while the CMJ group versus the CON group did not report significant differences (\(p\) > 0.99). Figure 4: Individual changes in punching peak force for responders and non-responders across AEL, CMJ, and CON groups. Bars represent \(\Delta\) (delta) values from pre- to post-intervention for each punch type. Dashed lines indicate the technical error (TE) threshold for meaningful change. AEL: accentuated eccentric loading; CMJ: countermovement jump; CON: control; N: newton. Participant IDs 1–9 correspond to the AEL group, 10–19 to the CMJ group, and 20–29 to the CON group. The analysis revealed no significant main effects of group for any of the relative peak punching force variables (\(p\) > 0.19), although the partial eta squared values ranged from \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.01 to 0.03, indicating small effects. In contrast, significant main effects of time were observed for all punch types (\(p\leq\) 0.004), with \(\eta^{2}\)p values ranging from 0.27 to 0.50, which reflect large effects and substantial improvements over time across all participants. Significant group \(\times\) time interaction effects were found for the jab (F\({}_{2,26}\) = 5.35; \(p\) = 0.011; \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.29), straight (F\({}_{2,26}\) = 7.73; \(p\) = 0.002; \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.37), right cross (F\({}_{2,26}\) = 10.83; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.45), and left cross punches (F\({}_{2,26}\) = 7.59; \(p\) = 0.003; \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.37), all of which represent large interaction effects. These findings suggest that the relative improvements in punching peak force overtime were meaningfully different between groups, favoring the AEL intervention. Post hoc comparisons confirmed that the AEL group experienced significant increases in relative punching peak force for the jab (\(p\) = 0.003; 95% Cl\({}_{\rm dif}\): 0.6953 to 2.082 W/kg), straight (\(p\) < 0.001; 95% Cl\({}_{\rm dif}\): 1.598 to 3.291 W/kg), right cross (\(p\) = 0.001; 95% Cl\({}_{\rm dif}\): 1.199 to 2.579 W/kg), and left cross punches (\(p\) < 0.001; 95% Cl\({}_{\rm dif}\): 1.096 to 2.793 W/kg). No significant changes were observed for the CMJ or CON groups (\(p\) > 0.05 for all comparisons), and effect sizes in these groups remained negligible.