Appendix: User Interview Data and Methodology
Interview Overview
Primary research was conducted through semi-structured interviews and surveys at boxing gyms in Singapore. This appendix documents the respondent breakdown, sample composition, and the rationale for categorisation into stakeholder groups.
Respondent Summary
| Respondent Group | Count | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Boxing-Gym Boxers | 50 | People who train recreationally or competitively in boxing gyms. Range includes beginners to competitive practitioners. |
| Training Support Stakeholders | ||
| Coaches | 7 | Professional or semi-professional boxing coaches working at gyms. |
| Gym Owners/Management | 3 | Owners or facility managers responsible for gym operations and business decisions. |
| Parents | 2 | Parents of young boxers, providing perspective on youth training and safety. |
| Support Stakeholders Subtotal | 12 | Total training support respondents |
| Total Respondents | 62 | All respondents across both groups |
Boxer Respondent Challenges
Among 50 boxer respondents, the following challenges were identified. Each respondent could mention multiple challenges, so percentages are not mutually exclusive and sum to more than 100%.
| Challenge Theme | Respondent Count | Percentage | Key Quotes / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limited Coaching Attention | 40 | 80% | Many practitioners reported insufficient one-on-one feedback in group class settings. Coaches cannot attend to all students simultaneously, particularly during skill drills and technique refinement phases. |
| Lack of Training Partners | 38 | 76% | Difficulty finding reliable partners who match skill level, weight class, and training intensity. This forces compromises: training below ability, or accepting mismatched partners. |
| Slow Progress | 36 | 72% | Mixed-ability classes delay advancement; experienced boxers must repeat basics while beginners progress. No personalised curriculum, resulting in frustration and potential plateaus. |
| Time Commitment | 22 | 44% | Balancing boxing with school, work, or family commitments limits training frequency and consistency. Fixed class schedules at gyms do not always align with respondent availability. |
| Injury Risk | 18 | 36% | Sub-concussive impacts from frequent sparring; some respondents reduce or avoid sparring due to injury fears. Particularly noted among parents of young boxers. |
| Feeling Unmotivated | 14 | 28% | Burnout from repetitive routines, difficulty seeing tangible progress, or social disconnection from cohort. Loss of motivation impacts training consistency. |
| Difficulty Tracking Progress | 14 | 28% | Lack of quantified metrics (punch power, speed, reaction time, stamina). Respondents want objective benchmarks to track improvement over time. |
Support Stakeholder Training Priorities
Among 12 training support stakeholders, 10 responded to the drill prioritisation question. Rankings were aggregated by taking the mean rank assigned by each respondent (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority). Lower average rank indicates greater perceived importance.
| Training Drill Type | Average Rank | Respondent Count | Stakeholder Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pad Work | 1.40 | 10 | Coaches emphasize pad work for controlled skill development, real-time feedback, and injury risk mitigation. Essential for both beginners and advanced practitioners. |
| Defense Drills | 2.80 | 10 | Defensive technique (slipping, parrying, counter-punching) is ranked as second-most important by stakeholders; often underdeveloped in gym curricula. |
| Technique Drills | 3.00 | 10 | Coaches prioritize drilling footwork, combinations, and stance as foundational competencies. Supports long-term skill progression and injury prevention. |
| Sparring | 3.40 | 10 | While essential for competitive readiness, sparring was ranked lower due to injury risks and safety liability. Stakeholders prefer structured drills when one-on-one attention is limited. |
| Bag Work | 5.20 | 10 | General conditioning tool, but ranked lowest among coached drills. Effective for cardio and solo training, but offers limited feedback and skill refinement. |
Data Collection Methodology
Sampling Strategy
Respondents were recruited through face-to-face interviews at multiple boxing gyms in Singapore. An attempt was made to achieve as broad a cross-section as possible, including practitioners at different skill levels (beginner, intermediate, competitive) and across diverse backgrounds (recreation, fitness, sport preparation).
Interview Format
Interviews followed an unstructured to semi-structured approach guided by the Interaction Design Foundation (IxDF) framework, enabling qualitative exploration of users' experiences and pain points. Questions were tailored to respondent type (boxer vs. support stakeholder) and ranged across motivation, challenges, training frequency, and desired improvements. Some respondents completed written survey forms in parallel for comparison.
Data Analysis
Responses were manually coded into thematic categories based on recurring problems and motivations. Theme prevalence was calculated as the proportion of respondents mentioning each challenge, regardless of order or emphasis. This approach allows multiple themes per respondent, reflecting the reality that users often face overlapping challenges.
Limitations
- Face-to-face recruiting at gyms introduces selection bias toward more active practitioners.
- Sample size is moderate and reflects Singapore-specific gym population; results may not generalize globally.
- Manual coding is subject to coder interpretation; detailed codebook and inter-rater reliability measures are not formally documented.
- No follow-up validation interviews conducted to verify coded categories.
Key Takeaways for Design
The data reveals that coaching attention and training partner availability are the two dominant pain points among boxers (80% and 76%, respectively), followed by slow progress in mixed-ability classes (72%). Support stakeholders emphasize pad work and structured drills as critical for safe, scalable skill development. These findings directly informed BoxBunny's five core design considerations and the product's core value proposition: providing intelligent, adaptive training support that mimics realistic sparring while enabling coaches to scale one-on-one feedback.