ArticlePloS one2026
Technical-tactical indicators associated with winning in elite amateur boxing: A matched-pair analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying technical-tactical indicators associated with winning in elite amateur boxing remains challenging because each bout contains a naturally dependent winner-loser pair. Using a matched-pair notational design, we analysed 108 international elite amateur bouts (216 boxer observations) from 2019 to 2025 based on official competition videos and official results. Coded indicators were total punches thrown, punches landed, punching accuracy, successful counterattacks, defensive success rate, ring-centre control and warnings. Winner-loser differences were assessed with paired tests, and independent associations with winning were examined using conditional logistic regression stratified by bout ID, followed by 1000-resample bootstrap internal validation. Compared with losers, winners showed higher punching accuracy (30.41 ± 5.87% vs 26.84 ± 5.79%; mean difference 3.57%, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.05; p < 0.001), more successful counterattacks, higher defensive success rate and higher ring-centre control. In the matched-pair multivariable model, punching accuracy (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.43), defensive success rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.30), ring-centre control (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13) and total punches thrown (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09) were independently associated with winning, whereas successful counterattacks were not independently significant after adjustment. The model showed strong internally described discrimination (AUC 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98; bootstrap-corrected AUC 0.93) and acceptable prediction error (Brier score 0.09; bootstrap-corrected Brier score 0.11). These findings suggest that winning in elite amateur boxing is associated with an integrated profile combining scoring efficiency, defensive quality, spatial control and sustained offensive output.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.