if the 'horizontal' position is a full extension of the arm 'in alignment with the shoulder', how would the 'vertical' punch be defined? Or in other words, how is it aligned in relation to the rest of the body?
Understand James that alignment with the shoulder doesn't necessarily mean the standard visualized punching configuration from a neutral bow stance. This is the reason for my comment about height, width, and depth sensitivity. The same could be said for the arm moving to full extension straight while standing, or laterally on a radial line with both shoulders.
In conventional linear martial punching, the vertical punching action is part of the anatomical height, width, and depth mechanics the body must perform to insure maximum efficiency, and effectiveness throughout the range of movement of the arm, in this particular activity once learned. (Keeping in mind this action is not "natural.")
Beginning at the palm up position, and as the arm moves away from the body, it rotates or 'corkscrews' to full extension with the vertical position being the actual punch configuration, and the horizonatl palm down being the completion or follow-through to that action. Approximately, beginning with approximately mid-forearm-to-torso depth, palm up (not on hip), the action extends forward and as the elbow loses the alignment support of the torso, the hand rotates to the vertical extension position. Once this physical action is exhausted, (arm as stright as you can make it), it can rotate or extend to the palm down position.
Further, it is important to realize the conventional martial arts, hand on hip palm up, clenched fist position is anatomically unsuited for the beginning of this linear punching process. Vertical, yes, palm up, no.
A useful experiement is to stand in front of a wall and project your vertical punch to its full extention, braced against the surface with resistence. Then attempt under load to forcefully rotate or "punch" into the horizontal position to feel its inherent anatomical weakness. Interestingly, Bruce Lee when he demonstarted his famous power "One inch Punch," used the vertical configuration only.
Consider the act of a clenched fist is anomalous in nature to linear "punching." However the body can be trained to use a natural weapon in an unnatural way. In human terms, the clenched fist is designed to grasp and seize, or be used in a "hammering" action when the fist is clenched.
Punching with the front of the hand is unnatural and must be trained, while hammering is natural and instinctual. Even so, linear punching must still conform to the anatomical mandates of the previous paragraph.
So if I am visualizing this correctly, the horizontal 'punch' would be delivered to the 9/3 o'clock line assuming I was in a training horse facing 12?
That is correct. The true "horizontal punch" is a circular arm configuration that must travel parallel to the torse beyond the "Radial Line Reference" of the shoulder to reach effective range.
Assuming a fighting-stance, would it be accurate to say that the horizontal punch is basically executed with the lead arm to shoulder height then, to include the alignment of both shoulders? (and never from a classic 'reverse' punch with the rear arm?)
No, the "Horizontal Punch" is as I described it above. The experiment is to demonstrate the "horizontal configuration" is not viable as a "punch," and only describes the hand at the completion of the "actual punch" which is vertical." To separate them into a Vertical AND a Horizontal as if they are seperate entities would be incorrect.
I've been pondering this for a while, maybe someone can add their thoughts: The heel-palm strike is akin to a 'push' (which is used to propel things away from you). And a punch looks very similar to a grab/gripping configuration of the hand (used to pull things towards you). So I would say that the human body has evolved to (amongst many other tasks) either push or pull things using the arms, and there is a most-effective way to perform either task. It seems to me that a grab' (punch) configuration of the fist would communicate to the body that it should be strong going backwards (to faciliate pulling something towards you), and a 'push' (palm-heel) would coordinate the muscles of the body to be strong in a forwards direction. So a punch does not seem to be the ideal way to communicate strength going forwards?
You are absolutely correct. Linear punching is, like most martial actions, a "trained" behavior. Additionally, the on hip palm up position is a seizing posture ill suied for either punching or execution of the so-called rear elbow.
So I'm thinking that a palm-heel is always going to be structurally stronger than a punch - and if a horizontal punch should only be delivered at/above shoulder height then why choose this weapon?
As I said in previous paragraphs, there is no horizontal punch in this manner so your thoughts are congent. This action is ill suited to self-defense applications.
Why not always utilize heel-palm strikes to this height zone?
Don't get hung up on the height zone, focusing instead on the depth of the arm movement in any linear direction.
Is a 'punch' a compromise posture that relies on striking with the small surface of the knuckles to be effective?
Not necessarily. Once proper linear punching is "learned," in anatomical terms, it is best used against soft tissue in which case Blunt Force Trauma can be effective even utilizing the "flat" of the knuckle joints. Cultural mandates, misinterpreted information, and unknowledgeble teachers have perpetuated many myths that do not always translate well to the typical "regular guy" self defense mold of Mr. Parker's vision.
James, isn't it about time you set up residence in the USA.
