Chris Parker
Grandmaster
As you decided you would actually say more about hand striking in this thread...
And... where was it even intimated that it would? All that was intimated was that actions that can break your hand can break your hand...
And, again, you seem to have missed the point. For the record, I wasn't listing target areas for fists alone, and I'd argue that there are better hand-forms to use than the ones you're suggesting.
Not in the way you're implying.
Knuckle push-ups are basically done two ways; either with the hands close (approximately placed underneath your shoulders), which means that there is a lot of side-loading and strain placed on the wrists, or by having the hands further apart, maintaining a straight line for the wrist, but moving the effective stress up to the shoulders and upper arms, which means it doesn't do anything for conditioning the hands or wrists.
Again, knuckle push-ups don't actually do anything for striking or punching.
No. For one thing, you've assigned a false value here... closed fists are quite prominent in my training, and I definitely use them. Second, while the belief can lead to preferences, having a belief that you can fly doesn't mean you can, and those that can't just don't believe in it. It's a big difference between arguing that a closed fist to a large, dense bone mass is riskier than an open hand to that same bone mass, and that closed fists just "don't work for someone else".
Well, personally, I feel that the article was a whole lot of nothing. Firstly, there are many records of broken hands in pugilistic sports, whether straight-out boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or anything else... all with closed fists, with or without gloves. So his first comment on the "myth" is false. He also misses that, in many of the older bare-knuckle fighting forms, closed fists would often be used only in the initial rounds... open hands would be prevalent later, which was often due to injuries to the hands sustained by using a closed fist. Then you get his take on a palm strike.... which is just an incredibly bad example, and a deeply flawed way of using one. When I strike with a palm, the wrist is almost straight, not the over-bent form he's showing here. This is an old trick, where you show a flawed version of whatever it is you're trying to discredit, in order to make your argument seem more valid...
As far as conditioning methods, he's basically advocating the exact same method that traditional arts use... striking, often supplemented by an ointment in order to strengthen the skin and reduce injury there. Nothing about knuckle push-ups, breaking objects, or anything else you suggested earlier.
Oh, and his biomechanics for a punch are flawed as well, due to a heavy bias, rather than anything actually correct. All in all, not a good article, with no support to many of the claims it's making.
And... where was it even intimated that it would? All that was intimated was that actions that can break your hand can break your hand...
And, again, you seem to have missed the point. For the record, I wasn't listing target areas for fists alone, and I'd argue that there are better hand-forms to use than the ones you're suggesting.
Not in the way you're implying.
Knuckle push-ups are basically done two ways; either with the hands close (approximately placed underneath your shoulders), which means that there is a lot of side-loading and strain placed on the wrists, or by having the hands further apart, maintaining a straight line for the wrist, but moving the effective stress up to the shoulders and upper arms, which means it doesn't do anything for conditioning the hands or wrists.
Again, knuckle push-ups don't actually do anything for striking or punching.
No. For one thing, you've assigned a false value here... closed fists are quite prominent in my training, and I definitely use them. Second, while the belief can lead to preferences, having a belief that you can fly doesn't mean you can, and those that can't just don't believe in it. It's a big difference between arguing that a closed fist to a large, dense bone mass is riskier than an open hand to that same bone mass, and that closed fists just "don't work for someone else".
Well, personally, I feel that the article was a whole lot of nothing. Firstly, there are many records of broken hands in pugilistic sports, whether straight-out boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or anything else... all with closed fists, with or without gloves. So his first comment on the "myth" is false. He also misses that, in many of the older bare-knuckle fighting forms, closed fists would often be used only in the initial rounds... open hands would be prevalent later, which was often due to injuries to the hands sustained by using a closed fist. Then you get his take on a palm strike.... which is just an incredibly bad example, and a deeply flawed way of using one. When I strike with a palm, the wrist is almost straight, not the over-bent form he's showing here. This is an old trick, where you show a flawed version of whatever it is you're trying to discredit, in order to make your argument seem more valid...
As far as conditioning methods, he's basically advocating the exact same method that traditional arts use... striking, often supplemented by an ointment in order to strengthen the skin and reduce injury there. Nothing about knuckle push-ups, breaking objects, or anything else you suggested earlier.
Oh, and his biomechanics for a punch are flawed as well, due to a heavy bias, rather than anything actually correct. All in all, not a good article, with no support to many of the claims it's making.
