"Science" shows and average testing.

[SSJBlastoise]

Ok, well the title was a bit hard to accurately say the topic but I waa watching Sport Science one night and it was the episode that was testing the hitting like a girl saying. The two videos show it in case you wanted to watch it.

Spoiler: Videos

Anyhow, the set up sounded good, two boxers of the same height and similar weight (male and female). Now the first small issue is that the female boxer is is one of the top boxers in the world and the male boxer is just an amateur. This isn't really a big issue because it's more about power so technique shouldn't make that much difference.

However, there is one major issue I have with the comparison. If you watch the video you can see the woman wind up and take a step into the punch while the male boxer is punching with a proper boxing technique. Simple reason this annoys me, not just because wind up punches are always going to hit harder but the simple fact that, as a professional boxer she should know that if she was to try a punch like that in a match she would get laid out straight away. I would have rather they used a comparison of punches that came from a proper boxing stanceand throwing a normal straight punch.

Personally this ruined the segment for me and it's not the first time it has happened while watching a science based show. It also happens in Mythbusters from time to time and while I know they are for entertainment but it's just disappointing to see shows like this fail in some areas.

Now the question I have is, have you ever been watching a show like Mythbusters or Sport Science and noticed flaws in their testing? It can be major or minor flaws.

 

[Zantos]

There's an xkcd for that!

Spoiler: Can you tell what it is yet?

So yeah, all these types of shows have serious flaws in their testing. The thing is that they are for entertainment. A whole round enjoyable show with a few issues with it's rigour is far, far, far far far far more interesting to watch than if you were to actually see people doing proper scientific experiments week in, week out. Especially if they also included the part where they have to do an error analysis, write it up and *shudder* reference.

The biggest flaw with Mythbusters that I see is the number of times they'll do something once and declare that to be the true and only case, but that is far more preferable to watching them do it 20 times and doing a standard deviation on the results.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

So yeah, all these types of shows have serious flaws in their testing. The thing is that they are for entertainment. A whole round enjoyable show with a few issues with it's rigour is far, far, far far far far more interesting to watch than if you were to actually see people doing proper scientific experiments week in, week out. Especially if they also included the part where they have to do an error analysis, write it up and *shudder* reference.

The biggest flaw with Mythbusters that I see is the number of times they'll do something once and declare that to be the true and only case, but that is far more preferable to watching them do it 20 times and doing a standard deviation on the results.

I understand that but a lot of the time the experiments conducted can at least be compared to their own testing. I'm more getting at the major flaws I guess, not the simple ones like repetition of the experiment for more data points and sometimes they do that but don't show the viewers because watching the same thing multiple times get boring. I guess it could just be comparing two things that despite saying they are the same, they aren't.

 

[Zantos]

I understand that but a lot of the time the experiments conducted can at least be compared to their own testing. I'm more getting at the major flaws I guess, not the simple ones like repetition of the experiment for more data points and sometimes they do that but don't show the viewers because watching the same thing multiple times get boring. I guess it could just be comparing two things that despite saying they are the same, they aren't.

Repetition isn't a simple flaw, it's done exactly so the sort of inconsistencies you're pointing out don't weigh the final result. But I think I get what you mean.

I reckon the problem a lot of the time is not making their hypothesis particularly clear, so it's hard for both them and us to judge exactly what is and isn't within the testing criteria.

Thing is that you're talking about how in a match she would get laid out, however they're not testing it specifically for matches. When you have two professionals you're right, if you just have a random woman and a random man punching someone the chances are they're not professionals and you could probably get away with that.

Also, 'just an amateur' is hardly fair, he is an African silver medallist and Olympic quarter finalist. Just an amateur makes it sound like he's just a guy that goes to punch a bag once a week.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

Thing is that you're talking about how in a match she would get laid out, however they're not testing it specifically for matches. When you have two professionals you're right, if you just have a random woman and a random man punching someone the chances are they're not professionals and you could probably get away with that.

Also, 'just an amateur' is hardly fair, he is an African silver medallist and Olympic quarter finalist. Just an amateur makes it sound like he's just a guy that goes to punch a bag once a week.

That is true but it could have been rectified by something as simple as telling each person to do one particular punch as they would in a match. Anyone can tell you a punch taken with a step into it gives more power than a standing punch from the shoulder.

I was harsh on him but compared to the level they are in their respective categories he is. Olympic boxing is an amateur event and I know amateur in this case doesn't mean bad because I've watched it and I know people who do box in similar classes but even from comparing the Olympics to professionals you can notice the difference in skill levels.