## 4 Discussion
### Differences in the Temporal and Kinematics Variables  
The main finding in our study is that the execution modality causes considerable changes in measured quantities of RP. However, the results of the pairwise comparison suggest caution and additional clarification regarding RPH and RPSM. As for the seven temporal variables, only two--thAS and tBA--were significantly different between these two modalities. On the contrary, when it comes to the kinematic variables, the difference was confirmed in all cases but HA. Indeed, HV, BA, BV, and BRa are significantly higher starting from RPNH to RPSM, although the noticeable lowest effect size was evidenced for body rotation angle and body and hand velocity between the RPH and RPSM modalities. According to certain authors, the lower body plays a major role in punch execution [1; 42] and may affect preimpact hand velocity [19]. [PERSON] et al. [54] observed that changing conditions of execution affects how fast the punch will be. The _gyako-tsuki_ (Japanese for RP) performed from a static position reaches as high as 6.28 m/s, while dynamic execution increases the obtained values up to 6.47 m/s. In our study, the static modality RPH mean was 6.20 \(\pm\) 0.70 m/s, while the highest velocity obtained in motion, RPSM, reached 6.58 \(\pm\) 0.64 m/s. On the contrary, the lowest values were obtained in static modality, excluding the lower part of the body: 5.92 \(\pm\) 1.64 m/s. Thus, the inclusion of the lower part of the body in RP, as well as specific test requirements (i.e., static punch execution vs. punch \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline  & & & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** \\ \hline
1. & tHAS & – & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
2. & tHA & 0.33 ** & – & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
3. & tHV & 0.38 ** & 0.76 ** & – & & & & & & & & & & \\
4. & tBAS & 0.46 ** & 0.29 ** & 0.38 ** & – & & & & & & & & & \\
5. & tBA & 0.18 * & 0.26 ** & 0.32 ** & 0.12 & – & & & & & & & & \\
6. & tBV & 0.01 & 0.25 ** & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.59 ** & – & & & & & & & \\
7. & tBRa & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.09 & \(-\)0.14 & 0.22 ** & 0.06 & – & & & & & & \\
8. & HA & 0.31 ** & 0.33 ** & 0.25 ** & 0.11 & 0.46 ** & 0.18 * & 0.24 ** & – & & & & \\
9. & HV & \(-\)0.24 ** & 0.27 ** & 0.23 ** & \(-\)0.07 & 0.17 & 0.10 & -0.07 & 0.39 ** & – & & & \\
10. & BA & \(-\)0.05 & 0.18 * & 0.19 * & \(-\)0.38 ** & 0.60 ** & 0.44 ** & 0.33 ** & 0.39 ** & 0.13 & – & & \\
11. & BV & \(-\)0.20 * & 0.08 & \(-\)0.02 & \(-\)0.24 ** & 0.08 & 0.38 ** & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.24 ** & 0.25 ** & – & \\
12. & BRa & \(-\)0.28 ** & 0.19 * & 0.09 & \(-\)0.23 ** & 0.29 ** & 0.43 ** & 0.48 ** & 0.27 ** & 0.30 ** & 0.45 ** & 0.55 ** & – \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular} Abbreviations: RPNH—reverse punch no hip included; RPH—reverse punch in motion; t—time of an event (ms); H—hand; B—body; A—acceleration in the dominant axis of motion (g0); V—velocity (m/s); Ra—rotation angle (deg); S—start. Note: **. Correlation is statistically significant at the \(p<0.01\) level (2–tailed); * Correlation is statistically significant at the \(p<0.05\) level (2–tailed).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of partial rank correlations between the temporal and kinematic body and hand parameters of RP (N = 129). execution in motion), represents the fundamental principle of RP execution and, as such, the significantly changing values of kinematic variables across the three modalities in the present study can be explained. However, the present study provides interesting evidence regarding hand acceleration on the dominant axis. No significant difference in HA was confirmed between RPH and RPSM, and this finding must be questioned. While training without a partner is not unusual [14], a distinctive place in combat karate belongs to practicing against an opponent, with or without the use of additional equipment, adopting a combat stance.