Power Generation

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you compress to the maximum, you can release to the maximum. If you stretch and extend your body to the one extreme, when you go to the other extreme, your hand can travel the maximum distance.

What's your opinion on this type of "power generation"?

 

[dvcochran]

There can be no argument that you get the maximum travel from maximum compression, assuming everything is working correctly. If nothing else is considered important I would agree with downward motion. However, everything else being equal, once you have reached max acceleration, max power will be made. If that can be done with a shorter stroke, then you gain speed (closing distance) and timing. So my opinion is if you can save the energy used by taking a full stroke and get the same results, you will be able to make more strokes before running out of energy.

 

[skribs]

For me, there's generally two questions I ask as I'm trying to generate power:

1. How am I getting power from the Earth?
2. How many muscles am I using in this technique?

Your point about full compression plays into my 2nd point. Compression means you get more muscles into the motion.

The point about maximum distance seems less important to me, because typically that interferes with the compression, unless you pass through the compression, which can be very awkward. As @dvcochran said, this also takes more time, which means the move is more likely to be avoided or intercepted.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The point about maximum distance seems less important to me, because typically that interferes with the compression, unless you pass through the compression, which can be very awkward. As @dvcochran said, this also takes more time, which means the move is more likely to be avoided or intercepted.

It's power and speed trade off. If your body turn from

1. left arm and left shoulder makes 135 degree to right arm and right shoulder makes 135 degree.
2. left arm and left shoulder makes 180 degree to right arm and right shoulder makes 180 degree.

1 is faster than 2 because your right hand travels less distance that 2. But 2 is more powerful than 1 because your right hand travels more distance.

Of course if you believe that 1 inch punch can be more powerful than 2 feet punch, that can be different discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you compress to the maximum, you can release to the maximum. If you stretch and extend your body to the one extreme, when you go to the other extreme, your hand can travel the maximum distance.

What's your opinion on this type of "power generation"?

In theory, maximum compression and maximum tension work. In the human body, there's not one "maximum". Most moves will max out one joint well before some other involved joint. Beyond even that, muscles work in groups, and attach at different points. Not all of them (maybe not most of them) have their maximum strength available when they are maximally stretched (joint fully flexed). It's more about optimal compression/tension than maximal. And I think that optimal point probably changes depending how you train the muscle - others with more actual knowledge in this can correct or clarify on that if they pop in.

 

[skribs]

It's power and speed trade off. If your body turn from

1. left arm and left shoulder makes 135 degree to right arm and right shoulder makes 135 degree.
2. left arm and left shoulder makes 180 degree to right arm and right shoulder makes 180 degree.

1 is faster than 2 because your right hand travels less distance that 2. But 2 is more powerful than 1 because your right hand travels more distance.

Of course if you believe that 1 inch punch can be more powerful than 2 feet punch, that can be different discussion.

You seem to be confusing distance with acceleration. If I roll a bowling ball 20 feet, and it's traveling at 10 MPH on impact, it will have a kinetic energy of ~53 ft-lbs. If I roll the ball 50 feet, and it's traveling 10 MPH on impact, it will have a kinetic energy of ~53 ft-lbs. Distance is only important in so much that the extra distance can give you extra acceleration. So the question isn't whether a 1 inch punch can be more powerful than a 2 foot punch. But if you reach maximum velocity and acceleration ceases at 1 foot, then a 1 foot punch will have the same impact as a 2 foot punch. But because it traveled a shorter distance, it doesn't require as much time to reach the target.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You seem to be confusing distance with acceleration.

Acceleration requires distance. No car can reach to 100 mph within 1 feet distance.

 

[marques]

I don’t denny it generates power, but while you ‘prepare for’ the target is moving away, potentially.

Power matters, but it is always needed a specific mix of power, speed and acuracy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Acceleration requires distance. No car can reach to 100 mph within 1 feet distance.

But every car also has a top speed. Once that is reached, more time won't make it faster. That's what he was getting at.

 

[jobo]

You seem to be confusing distance with acceleration. If I roll a bowling ball 20 feet, and it's traveling at 10 MPH on impact, it will have a kinetic energy of ~53 ft-lbs. If I roll the ball 50 feet, and it's traveling 10 MPH on impact, it will have a kinetic energy of ~53 ft-lbs. Distance is only important in so much that the extra distance can give you extra acceleration. So the question isn't whether a 1 inch punch can be more powerful than a 2 foot punch. But if you reach maximum velocity and acceleration ceases at 1 foot, then a 1 foot punch will have the same impact as a 2 foot punch. But because it traveled a shorter distance, it doesn't require as much time to reach the target.

Every time this topic comes up, people spill the same tripe, its like every one skipped science class, you measure kinetic energy in kj , not feet lbs, thats Force and force Is dependent on acceleration not distance traveled, you cant assume that a greater distance means more acceLeration, apart from the obvious requiremebpnt that it has to travel some distance in a second,Or fraction there of, for you to measure acceleration aT all, kinetic energy on the other hand is Factored on velocity per meter, that still doesnt mean that a longer distance gives more kinetic energetic, generally the opersite, at least with bowling balls

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Every time this topic comes up, people spill the same tripe, its like every one skipped science class, you measure kinetic energy in kj , not feet lbs, thats Force and force Is dependent on acceleration not distance traveled, you cant assume that a greater distance means more acceLeration, apart from the obvious requiremebpnt that it has to travel some distance in a second,Or fraction there of, for you to measure acceleration aT all, kinetic energy on the other hand is Factored on velocity per meter, that still doesnt mean that a longer distance gives more kinetic energetic, generally the opersite, at least with bowling balls

While it's true he's using a technically incorrect unit, the rest of what he says is the same thing you say. So less "tripe" than "principally accurate, but technically incorrect". Force is the result of the kinetic energy being exerted upon the target, in this case, so the two are roughly equivalent.

 

[jobo]

While it's true he's using a technically incorrect unit, the rest of what he says is the same thing you say. So less "tripe" than "principally accurate, but technically incorrect". Force is the result of the kinetic energy being exerted upon the target, in this case, so the two are roughly equivalent.

No, if he is talking abiut kinetic energy of a bowling ball, then acceleratipn has nothing to do with it, if he is talking about the force appkied to a bowling ball then distance has nothing to do with it, either wzy what he is saying is tripe x2 and bowling balls only work ad a comparator of a punch if you can take your hand off and throw it at them, so triple tripe

And in what way are they roughly equivelent, ? they are apples and oranges

 

[geezer]

..And in what way are they roughly equivelent, ?

Dunno. I got the impression that Skribs and Gerry were both trying to say the same thing that you were getting at, namely that distance alone didn't mean that a punch would be more powerful. But what the heck do I know. I did skip science class, several times in fact!

Anyway I know a lot of guys who can wind up and throw a big, long haymaker and still not hit that hard, while there are some others, like my old escrima teacher, who could floor you with a short, non-telegraphic punch. And I'll bet you've had the same experience ...and can even articulate it scientifically!

 

[skribs]

No, if he is talking abiut kinetic energy of a bowling ball, then acceleratipn has nothing to do with it, if he is talking about the force appkied to a bowling ball then distance has nothing to do with it, either wzy what he is saying is tripe x2 and bowling balls only work ad a comparator of a punch if you can take your hand off and throw it at them, so triple tripe

And in what way are they roughly equivelent, ? they are apples and oranges

My point is the bowling ball is not accelerating. It is not the acceleration, but the velocity that matters in terms of how much kinetic energy can be delivered. And if the maximum velocity has been reached, then the maximum energy potential has been reached as well.

 

[skribs]

Acceleration requires distance. No car can reach to 100 mph within 1 feet distance.

But once a car has reached 100 MPH, does it matter if it took 1 foot or 1 mile to get to that speed? If it crashes at 100 MPH, it crashes at 100 MPH.

 

[jobo]

My point is the bowling ball is not accelerating. It is not the acceleration, but the velocity that matters in terms of how much kinetic energy can be delivered. And if the maximum velocity has been reached, then the maximum energy potential has been reached as well.

Well thats true of bowling balls, but not of punches, because the other possibly more important factor is the mass, which are fixed on a ball, but not on your body, which can generate efextive mass in excess of your body weight, which i think is what the op was getting at, before you told him that bowling proved him wrong

 

[geezer]

Well thats true of bowling balls, but not of punches, because the other possibly more important factor is the mass, which are fixed on a ball, but not on your body, which can generate efextive mass in excess of your body weight, which i think is what the op was getting at, before you told him that bowling proved him wrong

Sure, and again, we all know that there are some people who can effectively throw their body weight into a short punch. Forget about Skribs and his bowling balls. This is what I'm talking about.

Now to be sure, it's easier to develop power over a longer distance, but it takes longer and people might see it coming. If you can pull it off, short power has a lot of advantages.

 

[Martial D]

Sure, and again, we all know that there are some people who can effectively throw their body weight into a short punch. Forget about Skribs and his bowling balls. This is what I'm talking about.

Now to be sure, it's easier to develop power over a longer distance, but it takes longer and people might see it coming. If you can pull it off, short power has a lot of advantages.

I would say you can generate the same or even more power over short distances, with the added bonus of giving the other guy less preparation time. Most boxing coaches wiil tell you if your fist is moving more than 6 inches you are doing it wrong.(for hooks and uppercuts at least.)

 

[skribs]

To emphasize this point - about the weakest technique I have ever used is the ridgehand strike. And that strike has a very long range of motion.

 

[jobo]

I would say you can generate the same or even more power over short distances, with the added bonus of giving the other guy less preparation time. Most boxing coaches wiil tell you if your fist is moving more than 6 inches you are doing it wrong.(for hooks and uppercuts at least.)

Well yes, power is work done divieded by time, so if the shorter punch does half the work in a third of the time its more powerful