I hate it when.....

[Xinglu]

Ever shoot a moving target, the speed of the bullet doesn't matter its the timing for when you pull the trigger that lets the target move into the path of the bullet.

Yes, I have. I served in the Army and have more then my fair share of dust on my boots.

A jab executed without timing ain't going to anything specificly because its like shooting a moving target target and trying to either spray & pray (hoping to get lucky) or trying to catch the target.

Now a jab can be effective I not arguing that but you have different types of jabs; a jab & hard jab. A hard jab, also called a hard lead, involves stepping forward behind the strike; exactly as my first mentioned. Usually a jab is used to either prob for a weakness or to offset the opponent's timing. If an opponent steps forward to strike & catch him with a jab (that requires timing) & if he steps forward and I meet him by steping forward with a jab (making it a hard jab/hard lead) my jab is slightly slower but far more powerful.



Well I have to disagree with you, speed is not the answer here proper technique is and in the context of proper technique, speed is one thing, but speed alone is not. Power comes from more then simple speed, it also involves timing, distance & stability all of which effect something like marksmanship as well; if you don't a stable firing platform the round is less likely to travel a straight line, if you don't understand how distance effects timing (especially against a moving target) & time your shots accordingly the speed of bullet is irrelevant.

Once again you are arguing a straw man argument. That's fine. If you don't want to accept the math for what it is, that's fine. It is really simple physics. I'll repeat my self one last time in the hopes that you finally get what I'm saying.

Repeat number one: I agree that timing is an important part of fighting and is crucial to making a strike effective. However, effective and powerful are not synonymous here. Not all powerful strikes are effective for the situation, and not all effective (for the situation) strikes are powerful strikes. We are talking about the measurable power of a jab here, not what makes a person an effective striker. See the difference?

Repeat number two: Velocity is exponentially more important to the power of the strike then mass behind the strike. That is scientific fact. You can argue that till your blue in the face, it won't change. And it is the entire basis of my assertion. In fact it was my entire point. The Jab has real power because of speed and transfer of energy. Where as you said, and I quote:

...a jab is a probing strike with no real power just speed. The jab wouldn't have hurt much if at all because it lacked the mass of the body behind the strike.

Speed is more important to power then mass. More important then either is the transfer of the the kinetic energy. (there I've now repeated that three or four times now). That was the entire point!!!! You then started talking about timing to distract everyone including you and me from the very real fact that you misspoke. Your original statement, to which I have been addressing this entire time does not hold water. It is that simple. I have math and physics to prove it, you have offered nothing in return to substantiate that mass is more important then velocity regarding the power of a strike. Mostly because the math doesn't back it. Perhaps you are confused and can't articulate what you really mean? Right now, I'm inclined to believe that since you keep talking about things I have either already agreed with you on that are irrelevant to the original point.

Repeat number three: Velocity is measured by time it takes to move from point A to point B and has nothing to do with timing. It is separate in this context.

Repeat number four: Another key element of power is the transfer of energy. A slower punch may hit harder because the transfer is better (though if the transfer method stayed the same and the velocity increased, the power generated would quadruple). This is where proper technique comes in. Technique alone = Power. Speed plus Technique = Devastating Power.

You can argue that timing is part of technique all you want, and outside of this context, I'd agree with you. But the simple physics measures power in following way:

Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity^2

Momentum = mass x velocity

There is nothing in that equation regarding timing.

You are a good shot and can use the weapon well because of timing. However, that does not affect the fact that every time you fire it, the fps is the same. The velocity of the ammunition, the stopping/penetration power is and always will be separate from the timing of the shot.

The initial argument assumes proper technique, but even if two poorly executed jabs are done with the same rate of transfer, the one with more velocity will be measurably more powerful!

Once again, I never was saying that timing is irrelevant to a warrior, only that it is irrelevant in the context of this conversation about what makes a punch powerful (not effective). The only measurable means by which we have to calculate the power of a strike, is by measuring the the variables above.

 

[Draven]

Once again you are arguing a straw man argument. That's fine. If you don't want to accept the math for what it is, that's fine. It is really simple physics. I'll repeat my self one last time in the hopes that you finally get what I'm saying.

What a strawman arguement that the effectiveness of a technique extends beyond measurable mathmatics?

I think all this math is in itself a strawman arguement against the fact that velocity is a constant of human ability & cannot be increased beyond that...

Repeat number two: Velocity is exponentially more important to the power of the strike then mass behind the strike. That is scientific fact. You can argue that till your blue in the face, it won't change. And it is the entire basis of my assertion. In fact it was my entire point. The Jab has real power because of speed and transfer of energy. Where as you said, and I quote:

Ok one speed is a realative factor; if I'm punching at the same speed for my Hard Lead Jab as my Simple Jab and my simple jab has only only say 5ozs of mass compared to my hard lead jab which has much more mass say 30lbs of my body weight behind it then the higher mass exerated by the same velocity has greater power. Math is simple increase one factor either speed or mass (mass is easier to increase in a punch since speed will be fairly constant).

Repeat number three: Velocity is measured by time it takes to move from point A to point B and has nothing to do with timing. It is separate in this context.

Wrong we are discussing the effectiveness of a techniques application, thats not decided by simple math. You cannot generate more speed in a punch then your body allows so even at maxium speed as simple jab is no faster then a hard lead jab, the hard lead generates more power because more of the body's mass is placed into the strike.

Its math 2 + 2 = 4 & and if 2 is mass + 2 as velocity = 4 power & velocity is capped at 2 the only way to increase power is to increase mass. Because velocity is constant...

Repeat number four: Another key element of power is the transfer of energy. A slower punch may hit harder because the transfer is better (though if the transfer method stayed the same and the velocity increased, the power generated would quadruple). This is where proper technique comes in. Technique alone = Power. Speed plus Technique = Devastating Power.

But if your punch is only able to travel at x velocity at maximum; it means your body can only produce x or lower. How do generate more velocity if x is constant in the expression of maxium velocity? This isn't some Anime strawman arguement where you can go Super Sayian (Sp?) & increase speed beyond your individual peek level at that time. Therefore Velocity is constant of human ability & so they amount of power can only be adjusted by increasing mass placed into the strike.

The initial argument assumes proper technique, but even if two poorly executed jabs are done with the same rate of transfer, the one with more velocity will be measurably more powerful!

Once again, I never was saying that timing is irrelevant to a warrior, only that it is irrelevant in the context of this conversation about what makes a punch powerful (not effective). The only measurable means by which we have to calculate the power of a strike, is by measuring the the variables above.

Yes, but the variables are assumed to be static, in a vacum yes thats all that matters. However, no technique is done in a vacum it accures against moving animate and changing opponent. Meaning that by limiting the arguement to some mathmatical equasion is an attempt to avoid the fact that; a) this is a human encounter against a living animate object able to adjust the to new factors & b) the depended effectiveness of that mathmetical forumla (though limited as discribed before) is not the occuring in vacum but against another human being making the only measurable factor less effective in determining the outcome.

Just because its the only measurable factor does not mean the outcome can be measured on that factor alone.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A very large man I used to work with loved to do stuff like this. His favorite was to come up behind me and grab me in a bear hug and lift me off the ground then put me back down and talk about how I'd done nothing.

After a few times, I admit I got tired of it. So, one rainy night I walked into the ED for the start of my shift only to be grabbed once again. Only this time, when he put me down and started talking, I just pointed to the wet outline of my foot centered over his "man business", asked if he was glad that I'd learned control as well as power, and headed to the locker room to change.

 

[ap Oweyn]

This is an awful lot of debate over something that seems fairly obvious. Getting punched in the face, even sans full body weight, does damage. It ain't rocket science. You admitted as much yourself, Draven, when you suggested the experiment with jabbing someone in the chest and then crossing them in the chest. If you genuinely thought there was no harm in taking a jab in the face, your experiment would have involved taking one in the face. It didn't. Because you can rally all the facts and figures you like and the fact is still going to remain that getting punched. In. The. Face. Damages your face.

I'd no sooner stand there and let someone jab me in the face than I would stand there and let someone kick me in the jumblies. Neither would kill me. But there's a lot of territory between "won't kill me" and "like a refreshing spring breeze."


Stuart

 

[Draven]

This is an awful lot of debate over something that seems fairly obvious. Getting punched in the face, even sans full body weight, does damage. It ain't rocket science. You admitted as much yourself, Draven, when you suggested the experiment with jabbing someone in the chest and then crossing them in the chest. If you genuinely thought there was no harm in taking a jab in the face, your experiment would have involved taking one in the face. It didn't. Because you can rally all the facts and figures you like and the fact is still going to remain that getting punched. In. The. Face. Damages your face

Stuart

Stuart, not cross... simply changing the variable of mass from a simple jab to a hard lead both using a harmless slap.

As far as getting hit in the face, it happens & I have been hit in the face. Not a big deal to me but I'm not going to advise someone to take a shot to face for no reason. I've taken a few jabs to the face before & damage is debatible since I see I see the diference between real & proceived damage.

Procieved damage is the idea that because it hurt its damage & real damage is actually causing structural damage. A black eye is a fuzzy gray area between the two for example; it procieved damage because it may be only superficial vascular damage or it could be real damage because the vasuclar damage is sign of concussive head trauma... To which a puffy cheek is not real damage nor is a the experience of pain from being hit.

 

[Xinglu]

Yes, but...

That says it all.

Wrong, we are discussing the effectiveness of a techniques application

Maybe that is what YOU are talking about NOW.

What I have been talking about this whole time is:

...a jab is a probing strike with no real power just speed. The jab wouldn't have hurt much if at all because it lacked the mass of the body behind the strike.

Different things all-together. I said it was my last time repeating myself, and I will stick by that.

What a strawman arguement that the effectiveness of a technique extends beyond measurable mathmatics?

Close. You assert that a jab has no power because it is nothing but speed. I counter argue that it is because of speed that the jab has power. Then commit a straw man argument by creating a whole new argument not about the velocity of the jab but about the timing of when a strike is thrown and the technique.

The argument is weather or not a jab has power. Period. Everything else that you said, while valid in what makes an effective fighter, falls under one of two categories of argumentative fallacies: Red Herring and Strawman.

Straw man is a sub-fallacy of the red herring and more appropriate to your tactic here. I am arguing about the strike and only the strike, you are introducing things that relate to a fighter as a whole not just the strike. By redefining the argument like this you have created a straw man argument. Regardless of the validity to that argument, it has nothing to do with the initial assertions and counterargument. Yes, something can be valid and true and have nothing to do with the argument at hand. It is then that it becomes fallacious and irrelevant.

I'd be happy to discuss at length what makes a good fighter a good fighter, and I'm sure you and I would agree on more things then not. However, that deserves it's own thread and has nothing to do with anything I have been talking about: A jab derives it's power from technique first (like any strike) and speed (not mass). That said power increases with increased velocity more then it does with mass. Ergo, your initial statement that a jab has no real power was mistaken. If you want to talk about that, then we can continue. If you want to talk about something else fine, but don't try to pass them off as the same thing.

 

[Draven]

Maybe that is what YOU are talking about NOW.

What I have been talking about this whole time is:

And thats exactly what we've been wasting our time with all this time, because I'm talking about effectiveness of a technique. Which why I been talking about timing being a factor in it...

Apples & oranges...

 

[Xinglu]

Stuart, not cross... simply changing the variable of mass from a simple jab to a hard lead both using a harmless slap.

As far as getting hit in the face, it happens & I have been hit in the face. Not a big deal to me but I'm not going to advise someone to take a shot to face for no reason. I've taken a few jabs to the face before & damage is debatible since I see I see the diference between real & proceived damage.

Procieved damage is the idea that because it hurt its damage & real damage is actually causing structural damage. A black eye is a fuzzy gray area between the two for example; it procieved damage because it may be only superficial vascular damage or it could be real damage because the vasuclar damage is sign of concussive head trauma... To which a puffy cheek is not real damage nor is a the experience of pain from being hit.

You use the brush of broad generalizations a lot when you write.

A jab can knock you out and cause "real damage" like a concussion or fractured facial bones. It could irreparably damage the eye. All of these things are counter to your assertion that the jab has no real power.

Furthermore, it isn't the mass that really matters, it is the TRANSFER of the kinetic energy (1/2 mass times velocity squared) that makes it either a slap or a solid strike.

 

[Xinglu]

And thats exactly what we've been wasting our time with all this time, because I'm talking about effectiveness of a technique. Which why I been talking about timing being a factor in it...

Apples & oranges...

YES!!!! I'm glad you finally got it. I can stop ---> :hb: LOL

 

[ap Oweyn]

Stuart, not cross... simply changing the variable of mass from a simple jab to a hard lead both using a harmless slap.

Distinction without a difference really. The point remains that a jab is nothing to snark at.

As far as getting hit in the face, it happens & I have been hit in the face. Not a big deal to me but I'm not going to advise someone to take a shot to face for no reason. I've taken a few jabs to the face before & damage is debatible since I see I see the diference between real & proceived damage.

You mean 'perceived' damage, yes?

The damage of any hit is mitigated by the target's ability to block the shot, roll with it, glance it off, etc. All of which I'm guessing you were doing when you took these shots. And none of which came up in your calculation that Blade96 would have had nothing to worry about in the first place.

Doesn't take that much pressure to break a nose or loosen a tooth or two. Unless you're counting those as perceived damage.

Procieved damage is the idea that because it hurt its damage & real damage is actually causing structural damage. A black eye is a fuzzy gray area between the two for example; it procieved damage because it may be only superficial vascular damage or it could be real damage because the vasuclar damage is sign of concussive head trauma... To which a puffy cheek is not real damage nor is a the experience of pain from being hit.

This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Not the sort of calculations that anyone goes through as a fist is rocketing toward their face.


Stuart

 

[Draven]

You use the brush of broad generalizations a lot when you write.

No I'm not using broad generalizations I'm being pointedly specific; there are different types of jabs & a simple jab isn't very powerful...

A jab can knock you out and cause "real damage" like a concussion or fractured facial bones. It could irreparably damage the eye. All of these things are counter to your assertion that the jab has no real power.

Furthermore, it isn't the mass that really matters, it is the TRANSFER of the kinetic energy (1/2 mass times velocity squared) that makes it either a slap or a solid strike.

Look as I already stated in the math I explained, human speed is a constant you can't increase beyond a specific level & that means simple jab will have the same amount of velocity as hard lead jap the only difference is mass...

Distinction without a difference really. The point remains that a jab is nothing to snark at.

As I stated before, there are different types of jabs & until the OP explains differently I'm assuming a simple jab which carries allot of velocity but has little mass.

You mean 'perceived' damage, yes?

The damage of any hit is mitigated by the target's ability to block the shot, roll with it, glance it off, etc. All of which I'm guessing you were doing when you took these shots. And none of which came up in your calculation that Blade96 would have had nothing to worry about in the first place.

Doesn't take that much pressure to break a nose or loosen a tooth or two. Unless you're counting those as perceived damage.

Tell you what I'm gonna find some videos to show what I'm talking about;
1.Tommy Morrison vs Mike Foley Jab Knockout

Noticee that Morrison (gold trunks) steps forward with a hard lead jab to KO Foley...

2. Quick Jab Knockout in Karate Tournament


Notice that the yellow belt steps directly into the simple jab of the white belt about 1:09 min into the video. The jab its self had little power on its however the yellow belt stepped face first into the strike...

3. Neighborhood Bully Loses Fight with old man

Its hard to see what the defender does because the attacker is in the way of the camera, but looking over the attackers should looks like the defender stepped in with a hard lead.

4. Beginner Boxing Tips : How to Throw a Jab in Boxing
Please note the Jap does not have allot of mass behind it, the "power jab" does & the speed of either punch is the same...

For all those factors that "mitigate" the effect they also stand to redefine the mathmatics involved. If I can roll with a punch and suffer no real injury from it, then the math doesn't prove it has any real power because there is another math forumla to subtract from the "power" of the punch. Also the type of jab employed (which in this case a simple jab) isn't intented to have power but speed. Launched with timing a simple jab can KO an opponent as demonstrated in the second video but the (simple) jab had a head on colision with the guy's face; literally...

This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Not the sort of calculations that anyone goes through as a fist is rocketing toward their face.


Stuart

No, but you should be thinking while fighting. If the first hit is fast but has no power or in the case of OP "out of the blue" and you have time to react & move away you need to start processing what you're seeing and experiencing. I know that as a yellow belt he simply doesn't have the experience to do that at this point. But, its also something he should be working on and something I can & have down.

With experience any MAist should be able to make decisions on calculated assessments based on given facts. As strike thats just fast has no power without significant mass behind it.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Draven, I get the difference between a jab and a stiff jab. But no number of links to YouTube is going to undo the fact that you've told someone not to worry about taking a jab in the face. This has descended into intellectual silliness. Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, getting punched in the face is something to be avoided. Not dismissed out of hand.

I've said my peace.

 

[Xinglu]

Draven, I get the difference between a jab and a stiff jab. But no number of links to YouTube is going to undo the fact that you've told someone not to worry about taking a jab in the face. This has descended into intellectual silliness. Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, getting punched in the face is something to be avoided. Not dismissed out of hand.

I've said my peace.

Thank you!

 

[Xinglu]

No I'm not using broad generalizations...

Terms like "real damage" are generalizations. Damage is damage the only degree is severity. It's all very real. "real damage" implies that there is "false damage." Which is nothing short of a crock of ****.

That paper-cut is real damage to the skin. As real a gun shot. Of course the severity differs but both are real. Hell a stab wound can cause less damage then a gunshot... both are lethal.

A jab is a threat to be considered and acknowledged, not ignored or marginalized. The damage it can do ranges in severity from: low to potentially deadly.

Advising people to not be concerned about it is bad advise. Period.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

When I was a child (about 9 years old), a man at my grandfather's garage grabbed me from behind and picked me up.. . Knowing that I was in TKD, he asked me, "now what are you going to do?!?!?" I kicked him in the balls with my heel and he dropped like a Nancy.. .

After puking, he never bothered me again. Not too mention the whole garage got a BIG kick (no pun intended) out of the situation.

But as for the OP, yeah, it gets old really quick.. . but after witnessing someone being reacted to, word gets around