Punches vs Open hand to face for self defense.

[lklawson]

Hey Kirk, that article you posted about wont you break your hand, I cant get it to come up on my screen. When I click the link the page just goes white and nothing loads.

Let's try it again, then.

http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Kirk, in your last few posts you have given me like a weeks worth of items to study. I personally don't know which to believe but I do have a anecdotal story. My personal friend is 62years old. He has 2 golden gloves and has a record of 75 wins 25 losses. He has been in 4 street altercations and came out on top handily. One of those was against a guy 75lbs bigger then him and taller. I asked him how many times he broke his hand in all his non gloved fights and he told me none, and never hand a problem with his hand either.

That aligns pretty well with what I've seen and with the historic record.

My guess is, you may have a point about wrist alignment and proper punching technique, evidenced by my still worthy opponent and friend. He told me he kept his shots to the nose and center face area and only jabbed. He spent most of his power shots on body shots, liver and solar plexus shots.

It's less hard to do than a lot of people think. Yes, it takes practice. Yes, nothing is 100%. But it's a pretty high-percentage movement when you've trained right.

I don't know what the truth is, but I bet it lies in the middle. I think that any martial artist needs to do bone conditioning. It isn't fool proof, but it does give a little margin of error.

Sure. And it's not the only factor.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Kframe]

Kirk thanks or PMing me that article, because I clicked your reposted link and it still just goes white and does nothing. I honestly think its my slow computer. Its just a Amd dual core e-300 apu. Not very strong.

Honestly I hope to never be in a situation that requires me to punch someone in the face with out a glove on out side a ring/cage.. Win lose or draw, the legal and social aftermath will be devastating. What with the demonization of self defense now adays..

 

[K-man]

Personally I would prefer to strike to the head but in reality under pressure I think I would revert to the punch. In one of the articles Kirk has quoted there is reference to conditioning. I think that is important, whether it is makawara or heavy bag, you will build a stronger structure, which is obviously why the Okinawans place such importance on that training. Another point I agree with is the vertical fist giving a better structure to hit with. A strike to the head is vertical, a strike to the bladder is almost horizontal. Anywhere in between is somewhere between the two extremes, what the Okinawans call a natural fist. From what I have read, that type of alignment gives the strongest structure.

As to whether you can break your hand or not. Sure you can. I busted a metacarpal bone years ago with a strike to the head. One of my close friends and one of Australia's top martial artists did a lot of bodyguard and bouncer work in the 70s. He reckons he has busted every bone in his hands at some time. Now whether he knew how to strike properly in those early days or whether he too was under adrenal stress and forgot the right technique, we will never know.

I just reread the thread. What a trip down memory lane!
:asian:

 

[Happy-Papi]

I'm talking in general and not on the face only. I use both but I notice that I tend to use open hands a lot probably because of my training where sometimes our opponents are wearing helmets, mask and body armor. Sometimes it is so hard to find an opening because of other equipments that are blocking the way like weapons, flashlight, magazines, knife, bag, shoulder holster and harness. Just imagine landing a punch on a helmet or a corner of an M16 magazine (not fun at all). Unless that I'm sure that my opponent is not wearing something hard under his shirt, my hands are most of the times open. I rarely use blows like palm hits but use my fingers a lot for jabbing/clawing the eye and grabbing the the windpipe and also use lots of elbows, shoulder blows and headbutts. One time I punched an enemy who was wearing a Ray ban and it broke which was a waste, I'm sure that it was an original and not made by some fat guy in some back alley (knuckle got scratched because of my stupidity... should have taken it first for myself, lol!)

Even my godfather (officer) told me that we should refrain from punching because it leaves telltale marks. He said to put a telephone book on the enemy before punching, HAHAHA! He also said that there are countries that have laws that are very strict against the use of punching so punching is not the best choice especially if it's just for some street brawl that we might be looked at as bad guys There are even instances that punching was used for self defense but was still accused and charged because the defender punched his attacker. Sometimes laws are just too black and white and too stupid... Ex. a girl punched a guy on the face for being a perv but the girl lost the case because she threw the punch and had to pay the perv??? Can't say the name of the country but this really happened... Even threatening the attacker verbally can sometimes backfire so best to just stay silent or give nice remarks while the attacker is attacking like saying, " good evening, please don't touch my behind, may I kindly call the police, may you have a nice day", lol!

With my training in mind, I just got more relaxed with open hands and just grew up with it. Probably it is because we concentrated more on CQC-FMA and I really like twisting, stand-up grappling and throwing more than punching and kicking. Both my brothers are officers and they too studied CQC-FMA in the academy but they have their own other preferences. Our youngest (spec-ops) was a boxer so eh prefers punching. Our 2nd (a thinker) likes Tae Kwon Do so he prefers kicking. But when when we talk about our experiences over coffee, it's always back to basic which is CQC-FMA where we poke the bad guys on the face, neck crank, grapple and throw, and slam their faces to the concrete. Maybe we just have similar training and experiences and tend to use more open hand fighting than punching. As my senior said, "This is why God created jungle boots so that we wont damage our little trigger finger!" HAHAHA!

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Kirk, I don't know what to tell you. Your obviously taking this personally when you should be examining what I'm saying professionally. You may teach high liability professionals in an off duty capacity (and that's great), but you are not (according to your profile and comments) a high liability professional yourself. Therefore it would be wise to listen, with an open mind, to those that are high liability professional and teach high liability professionals. We do what we do, and how we do it for a reason and there is a difference between teaching from theory and teaching from experience.

Let's start again and look at some facts:

• Professional boxers, despite training and hand protection, injure their hands in the ring. And not just head shots. Additionally, professional boxers, without hand protection, have injured their hands in bar fights and street brawls. Why? Because even though they are experienced punchers and are usually well conditioned, they cannot control the chaotic movements of a fight either in the ring or on the street.
• One can condition their hands and learn proper alignment and still cause self-injury because the target moves unpredictably. The target (head or body) moving may cause the punch to land before or after anticipated. This can change the angle or striking surface. This is what causes injuries like sprained wrists, boxer's fractures, busted knuckles etc. Doesn't mean the puncher isn't experienced. Doesn't mean he isn't tough. It does mean that 'stuff' happens in a chaotic fight that is beyond his control that can and does circumvent experience, conditioning and proper alignment.
• A self injury can and will effect manual dexterity in direct proportion to the severity of the injury. This can effect manipulation of a firearm, intermediate weapon, radio, manipulating small items like keys or a cell phone and negatively impact further self-defense. Particularly while under duress where manual dexterity is likely to be negatively impacted already.
• Self injury can also lead to blood borne pathogen exposure. This is a concern to the average private citizen to be sure but is dramatically increased for high liability professionals who are routinely exposed to those in the drug culture or prison culture. Both of which have high incident of blood borne pathogen potential.
• A professional boxer that does injure their hands in a fight has the luxury of a ring Doctor, immediate access to medical treatment and the ability to call off the fight. A person being mugged or an Officer defending him/herself does not have the same luxury.

A chin jab or EOH strike is effective and reduces the chance of self injury or exposure to blood borne pathogens. That is why WWII combatives teaches them as premier strikes (again see 'Kill or Be Killed' by Applegate or 'Get Tough' by Fairbairn or the 'Little Red/Black Book of Self Defense' by Nelson or many of the WWII training era films).

You can choose to get upset with what I'm explaining to you or you can choose to heed it. It is up to you. But if your teaching L.E. and corrections to punch to the head/face then you're providing them with training which is detrimental to their health and career. Depending on the state and agency policies, head punches are a no-no due to Officer liability (as I've detailed above) not to mention public perception. Head strikes with elbows, chin jabs etc are often authorized but not a 'punch' with the possible exception of a reactionary strike. I can't speak for every agencies policies, but I'm familiar with quite a few.

Peace.

 

[colemcm]

What about the long-term repercussions of both approaches? It may well be that either can be safely used without immediate injury, but what about years down the road? Is one more sustainable than the other?

I have no evidence to support it, but I would assume that palm strikes would cause less trauma in the long run.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

What about the long-term repercussions of both approaches? It may well be that either can be safely used without immediate injury, but what about years down the road? Is one more sustainable than the other?

I have no evidence to support it, but I would assume that palm strikes would cause less trauma in the long run.

Interesting question. There are a lot of bones i.e. metacarpals, phalanges, scaphoid, trapezoid, trapezium, hamate etc. Not to mention the connecting tissue in the wrist. Conditioning the hand is always an option, but at what price? Is it possible to limit manual dexterity over time? Yes. Is it possible to 'over-condition' the hand and thus self-injure? Yes. Can repeated blows to the hand (punching hard surfaces) cause a build up of damage over time that becomes evident down the road? Yes. Doesn't mean it 'will' happen, but it is a possibility depending on various factors.

An EOH strike can bring into play some of the bones in the hand. A chin jab though is centralized more in the palm and places less stress of hyper-extension on the wrist than does a punch. And with a chin jab you're not impacting with most of the bones in the 'hand' itself i.e. carpals, phalanges etc. And what bone is affected has some meat over it, much more than the knuckles or back of the hand. That and the likely angle of impact makes it safer. Nothing is 100%, but it is 'safer' all things being equal. That's why it's a well thought of strike in CQC circles.

 

[lklawson]

Kirk, I don't know what to tell you. Your obviously taking this personally when you should be examining what I'm saying professionally.

OK, fine. Let's try this ONE LAST TIME.

You claim that it is dangerous and unnatural to punch with a closed fist. You claim that palm-heel give greater range and greater safety from personal injury. Your claim is that people who strike with the closed fist, particularly professional boxers, regularly break their hand bones. I presented lots of evidence showing that these statements are not the indisputable fact that you claim. Instead of dealing with the evidence and facts that I presented, you questioned my credibility. How the hell am I not supposed to take that personally? But I made a mistake. I foolishly assumed that you actually were concerned about my credentials so I presented them to you. It was a foolish mistake on my part because you aren't actually concerned about my credentials. Rejecting my "credibility" out of hand allows you to reject the evidence presented without having to refute it. You shoot the messenger so that you may ignore the message.

Now that I've admitted that it is a losing proposition, that I understand you are entrenched in your position and will not change, I'm going to try again one more time, despite the evident futility of it. Why? I'm a hopeless optimist. I used to believe, as you do, that the closed fist was a sure way to broken bones and that the open hand, particularly the palm-heel, was the safest way to affect a linear strike. And then I started looking at evidence and was forced to change my position because the Scientific Method beats anecdotal stories. So there is some slim hope for you.

So here goes.

Claim:

1. People who strike with the closed fist regularly break their hand bones
2. The palm-heel (and other open hand strikes) are more natural
3. Training and conditioning do not mitigate or ameliorate the stated dangers
4. The European Bare Knuckle Boxing tradition is not applicable to, nor intended for, self defense
5. I am not a credible source of information on the subject

Refutation:

1. People who strike with closed fist, both for a living and as amateurs, have been doing so for thousands of years. Humans aren't particularly stupid (usually) and if the practice was so dangerous then it would have been abandoned many centuries ago. The European Bare Knuckle Tradition lasted for centuries and didn't really end until the uniform adoption of the Marquis of Queensberry rules. There are countless documentations of fights and manuals written by fighters from the tradition and time period. If the danger to the hand were so great, it would have shown up in the literature, either manuals, newspaper reports, or particularly in the many works decrying the bare knuckle tradition as barbaric. Nevertheless these warnings of dire consequences to the hands do not exist. Out of the manuals on training only one even mentions peripherally a danger to the hands and that one is a transitional manual penned after the MoQ rules were becoming the norm. It is simply inconceivable that no one from the Chinese, to the Okinawans, to the Europeans would fail to mention it as an unmitigated hazard. I have provided links to many of these antique manuals up-thread.
2. Striking with a closed fist is not only "natural," it is instinctive. As was presented in the Hatmaker article I referenced, under stress humans exhibit the Moro Reflex; they clench their hands. This has wide ranging implications for everything from unarmed fighting through firearms use (a fact which Fairbairn and Co. recognized in their firearms material). Several years ago a LEO was cleared of wrong doing after shooting a suspect; the LEO foolishly had his finger on the trigger when a sudden noise startled him and the Moro Reflex caused him to clench his hand, pulling the trigger and discharging the firearm. Additionally, there is the BBC article I referenced up-thread, detailing a study in the Journal of Experimental Biology which concludes that the human hand is ideally suited to both fine manipulation and clenched fist striking.
3. Similar to the long history not detailing dire consequences of closed fist striking, there is a long history supporting the proposition that conditioning and proper alignment mitigate risks of injury. The far east has a long tradition of body conditioning techniques coupled with specific training. Likewise the European tradition equally has body conditioning and specific training techniques. I referenced an article written by an M.D. (and also a Active Duty military) which made many of the same points and referenced historic manuals which contain the same information. Additionally, I can add noted boxer Jack Dempsey to the list. In his book "Championship Fighting," he specifically details fist/wrist alignment and gives illustrated examples intended for bare fist fighting. Though some other writers did the same, Dempsey's is the clearest. Dempsey, himself, fought many bare knuckle matches as he was coming up in the logging camps, mines, &tc. Yet, again, instead of emphasizing risks of injury or relating his own injuries, he instructs on how to not be injured.
4. Despite your claim that the European tradition of Bare Knuckle Boxing is inappropriate for self defense, it was, in fact, commonly used for self defense for centuries. It is laughably easy to prove this in all the existing historic documentation, again ranging from books to newspaper articles, to LEO and military instruction (even up to WWI and WWII). There are many WWII Combatives manuals which include closed fist use (such as the Cosneck manual I linked to) and there is even an intriguing WWI article written by a Camp Instructor linking Bayonet theory with Boxing theory. Boxing as a tool of self defense is such a common theme that it even shows up in entertainment of stage, screen, and radio broadcast because it was instantly recognizable to the audience as self defense, and further is, even today, recognized by the majority of the population. The idea that Boxing is inappropriate for self defense is extremely modern and doesn't gain even the smallest of popular foothold until the 1970's or so.
5. Whether or not I, personally, am a credible source on the subject should be completely irrelevant. What should matter is whether or not the facts I've presented are accurate or arguable. They are indisputable. That said, as I wrote up-thead, I do have some not-inconsequential experience on the subject of pre-MoQ Bare Knuckle Boxing. Enough, at least, that you should at least consider the evidence I've presented instead of rejecting it out of hand merely because it disagrees with your preconceived notions.

This is my evidence: Science, Medicine, and History. To date you have yet to present any evidence aside from anecdotal stories of modern boxers (who's training is nearly diametrically opposed to historic bare knuckle training), a firm "Because I said so," and thinly veiled implication that I am a mere dojo warrior and thus the evidence which I present can be dismissed out of hand.

Therefore it would be wise to listen, with an open mind

Physician, heed thyself. (to paraphrase)

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Feel better now? :uhyeah:

Let's examine your post.

Your claim is that people who strike with the closed fist, particularly professional boxers, regularly break their hand bones

I don't believe I used the word 'regularly'. I have said that it happens both in the ring (with hands wrapped and protected) as well as out of the ring (hands unprotected). And the reason it can and does happen is, despite experience and conditioning, a fighter cannot control all aspects of a chaotic fight to include assured angle of impact and/or striking surface. A closed fist punch to a hard target has a greater chance of self-injury than an open hand strike like the chin jab.

Instead of dealing with the evidence and facts that I presented, you questioned my credibility.

I've read your posts. We are seeing your 'evidence and facts' from two different perspectives. And yes, I do question your credibility in this area when it comes to what you are teaching your L.E. and corrections students as far as this topic. You obviously aren't familiar with their policy and procedures, use of force matrix (or whatever terminology they may be using) or the realization that a potential self injury that can be easily avoided my place them in greater danger. I do this job, you do not. I teach this job, you do not. I teach policy and procedures and use-of-force in this venue, you do not. You seem to have a fascination with bare knuckle boxing. That's great, everyone needs a hobby and I'm sure it's very interesting. But it is a sport. As such, sports are not life and death. If a boxer busts a knuckle/breaks a metacarpal or sprains his wrist the match is called off and he trots over to the ring side doctor and then gets immediate medical attention. The Officer or Joe Citizen that suffers an injury during an attack does not have that luxury. I don't understand why you don't get that!. The potential for injury is high enough already due to the attack, needlessly performing a task (punch) that has a potential for self injury rather than a task that limits the potential for self injury while completing the mission just as well, or better is just not sound self-defense philosophy.

But I made a mistake. I foolishly assumed that you actually were concerned about my credentials so I presented them to you. It was a foolish mistake on my part because you aren't actually concerned about my credentials.

Actually I'm quite concerned. Any time someone claims to teach military, L.E. corrections etc but uses techniques/tactics/movements that don't fit the needs of the job or potentially put the operator at greater risk I get concerned.

How the hell am I not supposed to take that personally?

Your choice. You can either listen to someone that is in the career field and teaches it or you can take it personally. A good instructor learns from those with greater knowledge in certain areas. I learn stuff as well, every chance I get. This area isn't one of them. You shouldn't teach LEO's and CO's to punch to the head/face. And too be quite clear, Joe Public shouldn't be punching to the head/face either for all the reasons I've listed but you've avoided. Can anyone say, 'blood borne pathogens'?

I understand you are entrenched in your position and will not change

On this point, no I will not change. Again, for the reasons I've listed above several times. Reasons given to support the use of a closed fist punch to the head in a sport venue (boxing, bare knuckles boxing etc) do not equate to sound self-defense, again for the reasons I've listed. Not when there are better alternatives available, and there are several.

Fairbairn and O'Neill were adept at boxing and judo (in fact O'Neill was the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka in the world in his era). Boxing and Judo by-and-large did NOT make it into their WWII combatives program. That's a fact. And why is that? Causing a self injury on the battlefield wasn't smart, hence the chin jab and EOH strikes (as well as the stomps and kicks and gouges etc). Same for an Officer or Mr. or Mrs. Private Citizen during a chaotic, unplanned, violent attack.

A closed fist punch to the head/face, when better options exist isn't merely ignorant...it's stupid.

 

[lklawson]

You seem to have a fascination with bare knuckle boxing. That's great, everyone needs a hobby and I'm sure it's very interesting. But it is a sport. As such, sports are not life and death. If a boxer busts a knuckle/breaks a metacarpal or sprains his wrist the match is called off and he trots over to the ring side doctor and then gets immediate medical attention. The Officer or Joe Citizen that suffers an injury during an attack does not have that luxury. I don't understand why you don't get that!. The potential for injury is high enough already due to the attack, needlessly performing a task (punch) that has a potential for self injury rather than a task that limits the potential for self injury while completing the mission just as well, or better is just not sound self-defense philosophy.

Yup, we'll just continue to engage Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias. Let's not deal with things like thousands of years of SD use.

I guess we're done.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Let's not deal with things like thousands of years of SD use.

Okay, instead we'll deal with things like blood borne pathogens, limiting self injury potential, policy and procedures and utilizing a better tool for the job.

I guess we're done.

Okay, I'm good with that as well. I'm fine with the reader reaching their own conclusion(s). And despite it getting warm, appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts.

Peace out.

 

[K-man]

Hey Guys, seriously ... take a breath. You have provided a really good discussion here and very worth while following. I think you are coming at it from different sides and there are areas where you will never agree, but you have put up some really good points, both of you. I can see where KSD is coming from from the LEO perspective and I think it would be the same here that punching people in the face does not put the police in good light on the nightly news. On the other hand Kirk has obviously put in a great deal of time and effort to reach the space he is in. The articles quoted were to my mind both logical and informative.

There are times when punching to the head might be appropriate and there are times when a heel palm might be appropriate, but we might not always have the ability to choose. Perhaps we should be sure to include some hand conditioning in our training because under stress I feel most of us would go back to the closed fist.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.
:asian:

 

[Kframe]

I can see both sides. I agree with ksd that a punch to the face may not always be appropriate. Be it use of force regs or what have you. My thing is, KSD why dismiss the evidence he has provided just because it came from boxing? Mind he is not talking about Modern style boxing which started under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but BKB boxing which was vastly different. Especially considering the times that style was popular, why wouldn't those people use the art they trained for self defense? Likely at that time there were few if any real martial arts out side of bkb that could be used for learning self defense. Hence why some OLD boxing manuals refer it as the science of self defense...

One thing that Kirk did not mention is that in BKB the volume of punching was way lower then it is today, and that punching to the head was not as frequent. It did happen, but not as frequently as body punching. In Kirks defense, though, all you have to do is youtube irish traveler boxing.

Honestly I don't understand why you would dismiss the evidence that he laid out. Its laughable to think that a bkb boxer back in the day could just go to the ring side doctor and get fixed up. You do realize that medicine back then was a joke right?! That BKB was illegal in a lot of places and doctors were likely not at ringside events.

Life and death or not, sport or not, that does not change the fact that it was a dynamic chaotic event, with bare knuckle punchs being thrown. If hand breaks were so common, why isn't it mentioned more frequently in those manuals? Especially if the people writing them were champions and were trying to teach others to fight for there living as well. You would think that would be topic number one.. Though to be honest, I know one of them, cant remember off hand, mentions boxers and people with good hands doing well. I wonder if that has something to do with Broken hands.

I don't know what the truth is, but I don't like it that you have such a superiority complex that you dismiss everything he has to say just because it comes from a more sportive background.(despite that it was used for more then sportive uses..)

Honestly out side of what ever it is you do and teach, I don't know of any martial arts that don't teach face punching in some fashion or another.

You seam to be fascinated with the notion that punching is self injurious. Can you provide more then anecdotal proof, actual evidence that your position is correct? He provided historical evidence as well as medical evidence from actual doctors.. Im still open on this, sway me with physical proof. The kind of proof that if you had to would be admissible in court.

I personally am inclined to believe that the truth lies in the middle, that both sides have valid points. My current and still open opinion is that you can punch to the face, its just that the risks go up depending on were you hit and how hard and how frequently. I don't belive that it is this menacing instantly injurious thing that you are making it out to believe. I do believe that there are benefits to palm strikes, but there are drawbacks and they are not magical cure alls either.

Honestly the average martial artist is going to punch with a closed fist, because that is how a great many of them are taught. Starting literally from day one.

Just incase I sound like im defending Kirk, I am. Only because you mindlessly dismissed every shred of evidence he laid out because he is not a LEO. He Is a citizen, guess what chief, SO ARE YOU. LEO are not above citizens, and I hate this us vs them mentality so many have. This notion that your some how better, more deserved because your LEO/guberment in some fashion.

Ill say it again im still open to empirical evidence by multiple well cited sources. Prove it to me. I want proof not even God him self could Deny.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

My thing is, KSD why dismiss the evidence he has provided just because it came from boxing?

I did not dismiss him because his evidence came from boxing, I also used boxing in my examples. I did disagree with his conclusions and stated why.

ts laughable to think that a bkb boxer back in the day could just go to the ring side doctor and get fixed up. You do realize that medicine back then was a joke right?! That BKB was illegal in a lot of places and doctors were likely not at ringside events.

I wasn't talking about BKB boxing. My reference was to modern boxing as a modern sport.

I don't know what the truth is, but I don't like it that you have such a superiority complex that you dismiss everything he has to say just because it comes from a more sportive background.

You're not reading my posts in the context they were written. I dismiss most things that are based upon a sport training methodology when the topic is self defense, which this thread is about. Sport training methodology isn't sufficient for self defense scenarios and vice versa. This goes beyond that consideration however because it touches on blood borne pathogens (which everyone that advocates closed fist strikes to the face/head is glossing over or ignoring but is a MAJOR concern) as well as policy & procedures of students in high liability professions which can and does dramatically differ from what is primarily a sporting event. The fact that advocates aren't acknowledging a proper concern with blood borne pathogens screams a lack of understanding or real world concerns that face high liability professionals as well as private citizens in violent encounters.

You seam to be fascinated with the notion that punching is self injurious. Can you provide more then anecdotal proof, actual evidence that your position is correct?

Punching a hard surface with a clenched fist CAN be self injurious. Are you suggesting that no professional boxer has ever injured their hand and/or wrist in and out of the ring? Are you suggesting that no private citizen has ever injured their hand/wrist by punching the head? Are you serious? :duh:

My current and still open opinion is that you can punch to the face, its just that the risks go up depending on were you hit and how hard and how frequently.

You're proving my point by admitting the risk goes up. So why do something where the risk goes up when you don't have to?

I don't belive that it is this menacing instantly injurious thing that you are making it out to believe.

Never said it was 'instant', don't put words in my mouth. But as you just admitted, the risk goes UP. Again, why do something where the risk goes up when you don't have to put yourself...or a student in that position?

Honestly the average martial artist is going to punch with a closed fist...

And the superior one will use another tool that works just as good or better without the risk. Sorry...had to go there :wink:

I do believe that there are benefits to palm strikes, but there are drawbacks and they are not magical cure alls either.

No one ever mentioned they were magic. And I'm curious what you think the drawbacks would be? They were effective enough for Fairbairn, Sykes, O'Neill, Applegate, Nelson, Cestari and company as being a premier strike.

Just incase I sound like im defending Kirk, I am. Only because you mindlessly dismissed every shred of evidence he laid out because he is not a LEO. He Is a citizen, guess what chief, SO ARE YOU. LEO are not above citizens, and I hate this us vs them mentality so many have. This notion that your some how better, more deserved because your LEO/guberment in some fashion.

What happened? You just get a ticket or something and now you're venting? Don't take it out on me sport. And Kirk doesn't need defending. He's doing fine presenting his opinion on his own. And don't you dare for one instant make the insinuation that I've EVER put myself above anyone because of my profession. I speak passionately about what I know and what I believe based on my experience. Never once have I put forth an 'us vs. them' post. And in case you missed it, I've mentioned private citizens (which I also teach) more than once in my posts. And yes, I ALSO I'm a private citizen which means I have the same first amendment rights as everyone else. And I exercise that right. If you don't like it then put me on ignore.

I haven't dismissed Kirk because he isn't a LEO. I have disagreed with him strenuously because of what he states he teaches LEO's and corrections. I wouldn't claim to be a good sport teacher and teach people interested in competition because I don't have personal experience in that venue. And I will speak out strongly on those that teach high liability professionals that have no personal experience with those professions, their policies and procedures, their use-of-force matrix and the health concerns that they face MORE than Joe Public on a daily basis. Or at the very least they seek to have a serious understanding of what their students do and face on a daily basis. By teaching LEO's and corrections to punch to the face is, to be blunt, irresponsible and detrimental to their health and career. I've detailed several times the reasons why. And I'll once again extent those reasons to the private sector, just so you don't think I'm segregating 'us' from 'them'....cause 'we' are 'them' as well.

I've detailed my reasoning. Take it, leave it, ignore it. I'm responsible only for those I teach.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I would like to ask a question, directed mainly to Kirk and K-frame, but anyone is free to answer if they like. Since this is a thread on self-defense, we're talking a real world attack scenario. So the simple question is this;

How many real fights have you been in? I'm not talking about training or sparring, that isn't a real fight. And I'm not talking a schoolyard shoving match. I'm talking about defending yourself, or someone else against a violent attack from a determined attacker who is attempting to do great bodily harm to you or another or is at a lethal force level.

An add on question would be, if you have been in this type of self defense situation, did you punch to the face? And if so, was that your only and/or best option at the time? And if so, why?

 

[Kframe]

So you weren't talking about BKB, but modern boxing. Why? From my reading, the majority of the boxing talk from kirk centered on BKB not MOQ. You dismiss sportive and that's fine doesn't change the facts that for several hundred years, BKB was both sport and self defense. Thusly must be considered separately from modern Crap.

For more anecdotal proves nothing evidence, my own father TKD BB, used his art on at least 20 different occasions for self defense, using mostly punch's and throws and blocking techniques(forearms) to end his confrontations yet suffered no problems. Proves nothing, yet It tells me that punching to the head is risky as is anything involving combat but not as highly risky as your making it out to be.


KSD my problem with palm strikes has already been stated. Firstly it has shorter range. That is not debatable to me. The way I was taught it, has several inches shorter range then a punch. Secondly and this is my opinion, but I Feel that I do not have the same impact or power as a punch. It feels to spread out, not enough penetration. I want that concussive impact, I want his brain to bounce around in his skull, the way a good hard punch does to someone's brain when it knocks them out. I just don't get that feeling from a palm strike. Just feels shallow, no matter how much I put into it. That is my reasoning for not liking it.

Honestly, if attacked with a sucker punch ill likely react as trained. SLip duck body shot to solar plexus or liver depending on which side the attack came from and hook to the jaw. For me the hook to the jaw is the most powerful and accurate thing I have. The jaw(when impacted at the area a hook would normally hit, the side below the teeth) is not a overly hard bone. It should break easier then the bones of the hand. I just cant think of any good way to attack that structure with a palm strike given that I know what my reaction will be. I do not know of any palmstrikes that travel like a hook.

You say that the superior martial artist will choose the better tool. How can he when his entire training up till that point from day one is to punch with a closed fist. I can visit every single style of martial art in 300miles of my location and I guaranty I wont find one that does palm strikes to the head instead of punching as regular training from day one. Most every place I have ever seen or trained at It was something supplemental, and only occasionally practiced. If its different were you are and for your students then great. Sadly most if not the vast majority do not put much focus on it. Even if they did train it at the higher levels of the art how do you un train literally years of hard wired closed fist punching training they have most assuredly practiced.

You keep mentioning Fairbairn, I take issue with him. He published a proven faulty and patently misleading "timetable of death" with regards to his knife "system". I don't care how good of a martial artist he was, He deliberately mislead soldiers going off to war, not a honorable thing IMHO. Secondly, his knife system isn't even a damn system. I have read the manual and its just a collection of different ways to cut and hold the damn knife.. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how to hold a knife and make a damn cut.

Honestly I feel people like Micheal Janich are far better knife experts then he ever was.

No KSD im not going to put you on ignore. Just because I am pissed and just because I am inclined to not agree with you does not mean I don't respect you or value your imput on things. No I have not been pulled over in years and I don't plan on it. I just get tired of meeting and reading and hearing on various media cops and other leo that feel they are better then others. Recent cop things that piss me off? How about this story..http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...his-hunting-property-but-we-have-the-footage/ No excuse. According to MI law he broke no fking laws. Yep good constitutional policing there.. Or how about this one. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ro-gun-sign-what-he-discovered-blew-him-away/

I have friends and family that are cops and are fair and decent people yet I see crap like that, and meet many more with BS attitudes and yet you wonder why I have a issue with cops..

Only thing I have had to pull my ccw on was a rather vicious Doberman. Other then that, nothing thankfully.

That's the thing I hate about online forums. Seriously if we were in a gym in real life, just talking and training in person, this probably would have gone a whole different way. I hate the impersonal nature of forums. One day I want to train with you. I want to see what makes you so different. Maybe ill pick up something new. Im always open to new techniques.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

That's the thing I hate about online forums. Seriously if we were in a gym in real life, just talking and training in person, this probably would have gone a whole different way. I hate the impersonal nature of forums.

Agreed, one thing that is always lost in translation is the tone of the person.

So you weren't talking about BKB, but modern boxing. Why? From my reading, the majority of the boxing talk from kirk centered on BKB not MOQ.

Alright, let's discuss both with an eye towards critical thinking. According to Kirk, self injury wasn't a topic covered. Okay, why? Is it because self injury never happened? I'd have a hard time believing that. Is it because it wouldn't support the premise of the book? Possibly. If someone writes a book on the virtues of TKD competition they would likely go on about the positives i.e. conditioning, discipline, self confidence etc. They probably wouldn't delve into the area where people have been killed in competitions or received life changing injuries or long term medical conditions due to repeated trauma. Wouldn't make their book very popular or profitable. And would the author(s) have considered self injury a problem during their era? One would need to ask if the author(s) were concerned about the ability to manipulate a tool, such as a firearm, intermediate weapon, communication device (radio or cell phone) or small items such as keys, using refined motor skills under duress after a self injury. Putting self injury to the side for a moment, were they concerned about blood borne pathogens during this era? Probably not considering science only discovered germs a little over a century ago. It may have been used for self defense as well as sport, but the question remains; was it the best possible option. I submit that no, it was and is not the best option. And I have detailed my reasons.

For more anecdotal proves nothing evidence, my own father TKD BB, used his art on at least 20 different occasions for self defense, using mostly punch's and throws and blocking techniques(forearms) to end his confrontations yet suffered no problems. Proves nothing, yet It tells me that punching to the head is risky as is anything involving combat but not as highly risky as your making it out to be.

Then the question would arise; how many of those 20 did he 'have' to punch someone in the head/face? Was there no other possible alternative? Was he in a position where he would have immediate need to operate some tool/device using refined motor skills while under duress? If he had injured his hand, and did have a need to operate/manipulate a tool/device using refined motor skills while under duress would it have impaired that ability?

KSD my problem with palm strikes has already been stated. Firstly it has shorter range. That is not debatable to me. The way I was taught it, has several inches shorter range then a punch. Secondly and this is my opinion, but I Feel that I do not have the same impact or power as a punch. It feels to spread out, not enough penetration. I want that concussive impact, I want his brain to bounce around in his skull, the way a good hard punch does to someone's brain when it knocks them out. I just don't get that feeling from a palm strike. Just feels shallow, no matter how much I put into it. That is my reasoning for not liking it.

It is my experience that the vast majority of real fights are up close and personal and distance, particularly in terms of inches, is rarely an issue. To your second concern, I don't know how you were taught open hand strikes. Too be honest, I'd rather chin jab than punch because I feel I can get more power into the strike (if we're discussing the head as a target). I can tell you for a fact, because I've been in surgery for a prisoner that this happened to, that if you chin jab someone hard enough you will likely break their jaw on both sides of the jaw bone. This was explained to me by he surgeon as he wired the guys jaw shut. A properly delivered chin jab will more than rattle the brain and is extremely likely to cause unconsciousness. Very likely to cause major trauma to the mouth as well. But I have much less of a chance for blood borne pathogen exposure as I'm not impacting my palm into something hard/sharp enough to open up my hand. Certainly not like punching someone in the mouth, orbital or jaw with my knuckles. And a chin jab is likely to keep the mouth of the attacker closed during impact so that any trauma/blood is contained, at least momentarily during the strike. Nothing is 100% and I'm not going to paint the chin jab as a magic bullet. But let's examine it thoroughly for a moment, less chance of self injury, less potential I'm going to open a wound on my own hand, less chance for blood-to-blood exposure with a strike that is effective. WWII combatives advocates as well as L.E. and corrections wouldn't put such emphasis on a 'so-so' strike. As I've mentioned, in the books Kill or Get Killed and Get Tough the chin jab and EOH strikes take a front and center position, punches to the head aren't discussed at all. There are many reasons they didn't and I've detailed that. Again, a chin jab isn't magic and one needs to use it properly. But let's face it, it doesn't take 20 years to master a chin jab. It's pretty much 'stupidly simple'. That is why I like it. Stupidly simple works under duress.

You say that the superior martial artist will choose the better tool. How can he when his entire training up till that point from day one is to punch with a closed fist.

Let's be clear, I like punching and have no issue with it with the exception of to the head. I can hit a person hard enough to make them deficate themselves. Guess how I know that. But that is a strike to the abdomen which is a soft body target. I like punching to the meaty part of the thigh. Great for putting someone off balance and likely on the ground. But the meaty part of the thigh has a lot of cushion to punch.

I can visit every single style of martial art in 300miles of my location and I guaranty I wont find one that does palm strikes to the head instead of punching as regular training from day one.

Okay, let's take a critical look at this. I don't dispute what you're saying for a moment. However, this goes back to sport training methodology vs. self defense training methodology. It also brings up the question; is the instructor teaching from theory or experience? Valid question. Someone teaching a particular concept/principle/movement/technique/strategy either needs to have personal experience with how effective it would be (either in a sport setting or real life setting depending on the focus) or their instructor needs to have experience. If not, how do we actually know something is either effective or the best tool for the job? I'm not implying that a martial arts instructor needs to go out and get into fights. But at some point we need to have some type of litmus test as to the effectiveness of the material. This is why I'm always vocal when it comes to sport vs. SD. Someone that has never been in a real fight, who's instructor has never been in a real fight, who's instructor has never been in a real fight trying to tell me that XYZ joint lock will work on a real, determined attacker during a violent encounter yet they've never used it on a real, determined attacker during a violent encounter and neither has anyone in their lineage sets of my BS meter.

My point is that yes, punching can be effective but many/most instructors that don't have personal experience don't cover the 'what comes next' aspect of self defense. For example, they'll teach 'do this punch to the head'. Okay, what comes next? If it worked and you knocked out the bad guy and you didn't hurt your hand and you didn't have a blood borne pathogen exposure then great! Does anyone drill on what happens if you busted up your hand or sprained your wrist and now need to access or manipulate something with a refined motor skill? Or you did open your knuckles on his bloody mouth and now you've been exposed to HIV? Anyone cover that? Or your instructor drills you on a really neat joint lock. Does he know it will really work? Has he actually done it to a real bad guy? Do you do the lock, then release and then drill it again? Great...what comes next? Did he go over situational awareness so that after you've slapped on the really neat joint lock you're now scanning the area for additional threats? What about if the joint lock doesn't work? What about his ability to access a concealed or improvised weapon with the other hand. My point is that self defense is it's own entity and requires a lot more than just 'punch here' and 'kick here' or 'they've been doing this for hundreds of years so it must be the best option' yet doesn't consider the 'what comes next' aspect which can be just as important....or even more important than the actual initial technique.

I just get tired of meeting and reading and hearing on various media cops and other leo that feel they are better then others.

And I've never said I'm better than anybody here. If the topic is sport related, like how to win a comp you won't even see me in the thread because that isn't my thing. SD related stuff is my thing and if I think I have something of value to offer then I'm 'in like Flint'. Doesn't mean I'm better, or a bad *** or Bruce Lee reincarnated or the son of Chuck Norris nor does it mean I have a big red 'S' tattooed on my chest. But the fact is that in this area I've been trained by a real Navy SEAL, a real Russian Spetzna, two real Israeli commandoes, a guy that was knighted by the Queen of England for his knife defense program and a bunch of 'names' in the military and LEO community as well as my own MA instructor that was NYPD. I ain't special but by golly...in this area I've been blessed to have been in the right place at the right time to receive training that most MA don't have access to normally. And, unfortunately, I've been in hundreds and hundreds of fights. Not proud of it, it just is what it is. I work in high liability areas and between the military and the L.E. arena I've been in uniform for nearly three decades. Again, doesn't make me special or right all the time. But I've learned from experience and I've learned from mistakes. And because of that I probably do see things quite differently from many martial arts instructors.

I have friends and family that are cops and are fair and decent people yet I see crap like that, and meet many more with BS attitudes and yet you wonder why I have a issue with cops

Yeah, well I have an issue with a-hole cops too. I don't like it when they flip the lights on to get through an intersection. I don't like it when they speed but then issue speeding tickets. So I don't act like that. But I'm an old fashioned square so again I probably see things differently.

In terms of the martial arts, if it's sport then I'm not the guy to listen to. If it is SD then maybe I have something to offer. If it's of use then use it, if not then flush it.

Only thing I have had to pull my ccw on was a rather vicious Doberman. Other then that, nothing thankfully.

And hopefully you never will. I've had to pull my sidearm five times and it sucks and would prefer not having to be in that situation ever again. But if it happens, at least I have some sound training to get me through. That and a silent prayer I prayed a couple of decades ago that has seen me through many a tough spot.

Anyway, this has been enough of a novel. I don't like punching if it is to the head/face. I feel the risk outweighs the reward and that better options will generally exist. YMMV.

 

[lklawson]

I can see both sides. I agree with ksd that a punch to the face may not always be appropriate. Be it use of force regs or what have you. My thing is, KSD why dismiss the evidence he has provided just because it came from boxing? Mind he is not talking about Modern style boxing which started under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but BKB boxing which was vastly different. Especially considering the times that style was popular, why wouldn't those people use the art they trained for self defense? Likely at that time there were few if any real martial arts out side of bkb that could be used for learning self defense. Hence why some OLD boxing manuals refer it as the science of self defense...

One thing that Kirk did not mention is that in BKB the volume of punching was way lower then it is today, and that punching to the head was not as frequent. It did happen, but not as frequently as body punching. In Kirks defense, though, all you have to do is youtube irish traveler boxing.

Honestly I don't understand why you would dismiss the evidence that he laid out. Its laughable to think that a bkb boxer back in the day could just go to the ring side doctor and get fixed up. You do realize that medicine back then was a joke right?! That BKB was illegal in a lot of places and doctors were likely not at ringside events.

Life and death or not, sport or not, that does not change the fact that it was a dynamic chaotic event, with bare knuckle punchs being thrown. If hand breaks were so common, why isn't it mentioned more frequently in those manuals? Especially if the people writing them were champions and were trying to teach others to fight for there living as well. You would think that would be topic number one.. Though to be honest, I know one of them, cant remember off hand, mentions boxers and people with good hands doing well. I wonder if that has something to do with Broken hands.

I don't know what the truth is, but I don't like it that you have such a superiority complex that you dismiss everything he has to say just because it comes from a more sportive background.(despite that it was used for more then sportive uses..)

Honestly out side of what ever it is you do and teach, I don't know of any martial arts that don't teach face punching in some fashion or another.

You seam to be fascinated with the notion that punching is self injurious. Can you provide more then anecdotal proof, actual evidence that your position is correct? He provided historical evidence as well as medical evidence from actual doctors.. Im still open on this, sway me with physical proof. The kind of proof that if you had to would be admissible in court.

I personally am inclined to believe that the truth lies in the middle, that both sides have valid points. My current and still open opinion is that you can punch to the face, its just that the risks go up depending on were you hit and how hard and how frequently. I don't belive that it is this menacing instantly injurious thing that you are making it out to believe. I do believe that there are benefits to palm strikes, but there are drawbacks and they are not magical cure alls either.

Honestly the average martial artist is going to punch with a closed fist, because that is how a great many of them are taught. Starting literally from day one.

Just incase I sound like im defending Kirk, I am. Only because you mindlessly dismissed every shred of evidence he laid out because he is not a LEO. He Is a citizen, guess what chief, SO ARE YOU. LEO are not above citizens, and I hate this us vs them mentality so many have. This notion that your some how better, more deserved because your LEO/guberment in some fashion.

Ill say it again im still open to empirical evidence by multiple well cited sources. Prove it to me. I want proof not even God him self could Deny.

Kudos for trying. "A" for effort.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I would like to ask a question, directed mainly to Kirk and K-frame, but anyone is free to answer if they like. Since this is a thread on self-defense, we're talking a real world attack scenario. So the simple question is this;

How many real fights have you been in? I'm not talking about training or sparring, that isn't a real fight. And I'm not talking a schoolyard shoving match. I'm talking about defending yourself, or someone else against a violent attack from a determined attacker who is attempting to do great bodily harm to you or another or is at a lethal force level.

An add on question would be, if you have been in this type of self defense situation, did you punch to the face? And if so, was that your only and/or best option at the time? And if so, why?

None, I'm just a dojo warrior, remember?