Proper Punching

[MJS]

This is part 2 of a series of threads on the proper way to do our Kenpo. Part 1 was proper kicking. So in this thread, I would like to talk about punching. There is discussion on the proper anatomical way to execute your stirkes to get the most out of them in addition to avoid injury, both at the time of execution as well as long term.

So..on with the discussion. What do you feel is the best way to get the most out of your punch?

Mike

 

[Empty Hands]

What do you feel is the best way to get the most out of your punch?

As Mr. Pick said this last Friday, inertia, rotation and marriage of gravity. To that I would add proper alignment of your hand, which won't increase the force, but will protect your hand and help transfer that force.

 

[Mark L]

Contact with the first and second knuckles, align the metacarpals with the radius and ulna. Fire the hip first, don't lock the elbow. Tight fist. Hit the heavy bag, it can't lie and it's your best indicator.

 

[kenpofighter]

Proper rotation on your punch.

Align your punch according to your target. (Nother words if you are punching to the ribs align your punch to match the line of the ribs; not spread across the ribs).

Tense your fist on impact.

Use your first two knuckles to punch with.

Hit your target hard and don't miss!

 

[REH2]

Keep your elbows in close to your body unless your throwing a hook or an overhand. More power, quicker and harder for your opponent to detect. Of course, this is in conjunction with proper rotation and alignment.

 

[Empty Hands]

Fire the hip first...

Fire the foot first.

 

[Mark L]

Fire the foot first.

Please explain ...

You don't have to move (fire) your foot to punch, but I guess you do have to make sure it is firmly rooted.

 

[DavidCC]

I've been working on NOT squeezing my fist at all, and not tensing my arm, even at the point of impact.

My heavy bag reports "OW".

 

[MattJ]

Quoting myself from a similar thread here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=987052#post987052

 

[Empty Hands]

Please explain ...

You don't have to move (fire) your foot to punch, but I guess you do have to make sure it is firmly rooted.

You do have to move your foot to get maximum power. In a classic kenpo reverse punch, the back foot rotates from a 45 angle to pointing straight ahead into a forward bo. Boxers do something similar, although their heels tend to raise up. The acceleration of mass begins in the foot by pushing off the floor and rotating, through the hip, then the shoulder, all rotating and entraining together and joining the ground to the end of your fist. More rotation + more back up mass = more power.

 

[Mark L]

You do have to move your foot to get maximum power. In a classic kenpo reverse punch, the back foot rotates from a 45 angle to pointing straight ahead into a forward bo. Boxers do something similar, although their heels tend to raise up. The acceleration of mass begins in the foot by pushing off the floor and rotating, through the hip, then the shoulder, all rotating and entraining together and joining the ground to the end of your fist. More rotation + more back up mass = more power.

Thanks for your reply. I'll do some watching at the dojo this evening, but my impression is still that the hips move first and the foot rotates slighty in response to the upper body rotation (for a reverse punch). I'm not seeing any foot motion with a jab or uppercut.

 

[Empty Hands]

...my impression is still that the hips move first and the foot rotates slighty in response to the upper body rotation (for a reverse punch).

You can certainly do it this way, it just doesn't give you the same rotation and back up mass.

I'm not seeing any foot motion with a jab or uppercut.

For a jab, no. There is little rotation with a jab, although I still put some hip and shoulder into mine. Hence less power! I definitely rotate my foot for hooks and uppercuts though.

 

[Doc]

There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.

Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.

 

[Mark L]

There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.

Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.

So do you teach the foot rotation prior, simultaneously, or after throwing the hip? I initiate the strike by getting my hips going, I checked the mirror and my rear foot does rotate (maybe 30 degrees) but the heel is firmly rooted.


Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon. I'd argue that there is no sacrifice in power by leading the action with the hip, and that more power is generated by torquing your core. Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation? Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational. I do concur that a firmly planted heel is an absolute necessity to buttress the strike (Newton was right). I've tried starting with my foot, I can't get it to flow (old dog, new trick syndrome). YMMV

 

[DavidCC]

My Yi Li Quan friends tell me that their punches start at the foot, and spirals upwards through the hips etc.

I let one of them punch me, in the pectoral muscle, a focus mitt braced against it, and I thought my kidney was going to fall out.

I've seen this guy break river rocks with a knife hand.

I think they are on to something.

 

[DavidCC]

There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.

Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.

Does it then follow that when punching without forward movement the rear heel should stay down?

 

[Empty Hands]

Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon.

Sorry!

Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation?

Absolutely!

Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational.

The way I do it uses both. Accelerating the mass linearly from the ground, and chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation, which also begins from the foot.

 

[Mark L]

The way I do it uses both. Accelerating the mass linearly from the ground, and chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation, which also begins from the foot.

EH, I'm really not trying to be difficult or argumentative. I'm trying to understand, and more importantly feel, your perspective. My brain has always keyed on the hips and the heel, in that order, to my satisfaction. I can't resolve the mechanics you've offered with my own understanding of that subject, but it'll give me something to play with

. "Chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation", help me out with that ... I'd think that my abdominals, obliques, and spinal erectors working in concert to advance my hips have a more significant contribution to a torque about my spine than a gastroc contraction (even if it is supported by the quads, which I'll bet is minimal).

This is fun.

 

[Doc]

So do you teach the foot rotation prior, simultaneously, or after throwing the hip? I initiate the strike by getting my hips going, I checked the mirror and my rear foot does rotate (maybe 30 degrees) but the heel is firmly rooted.


Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon. I'd argue that there is no sacrifice in power by leading the action with the hip, and that more power is generated by torquing your core. Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation? Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational. I do concur that a firmly planted heel is an absolute necessity to buttress the strike (Newton was right). I've tried starting with my foot, I can't get it to flow (old dog, new trick syndrome). YMMV

The proper method is predicated upon the type of punch thrown, as well as the amount of body momentum utilized. However, all of the movements are part and parcel of the same anatomical action that employs both linear and circular movements.

Or as Mr. parker would say, "Where the linear ends, the circular begins, and where the circular ends, the linear begins."

If the rotation of the hips and shoulders were to be "extended," the punching arm would begin to circle, and the rotating foot would begin to "turn inward" on its axis as well.

The proper methodology utilizes an understanding of depth zones in dimensional stages of action, on an anatomical level. Therefore, in a primarily "torquing principle," as the punching action is initiated it will cause the rotation of the shoulder and hip to follow, culminating in the rotation of the foot in the torquing scenario. This would be anatomically proper.

In a scenario that utilizes body momentum and inertial impact as primary principles, the actions reverse themselves. This time beginning with the rotation of the foot, which will drive the hips, followed by the shoulder, which drives the arm forward. This too, would be proper.

One exerts a pulling action anatomically, the other a pushing anatomical action. Keep in mind it is possible to utilize a combination of the two principles predicated on the intent inherent in the various dimensional stages of movement of the chosen action.

Further, neither of these scenarios takes into consideration inherent strategy in initiating a potentially successful strike on an aware opponent. Also consider, deceptive body movements such as feints of various body parts, as well as deceptive footwork all become factors with various levels of anatomical efficient tradeoffs, versus successful applications.

 

[Mark L]

The proper method is predicated upon the type of punch thrown, as well as the amount of body momentum utilized. However, all of the movements are part and parcel of the same anatomical action that employs both linear and circular movements.

Or as Mr. parker would say, "Where the linear ends, the circular begins, and where the circular ends, the linear begins."

If the rotation of the hips and shoulders were to be "extended," the punching arm would begin to circle, and the rotating foot would begin to "turn inward" on its axis as well.

The proper methodology utilizes an understanding of depth zones in dimensional stages of action, on an anatomical level. Therefore, in a primarily "torquing principle," as the punching action is initiated it will cause the rotation of the shoulder and hip to follow, culminating in the rotation of the foot in the torquing scenario. This would be anatomically proper.

In a scenario that utilizes body momentum and inertial impact as primary principles, the actions reverse themselves. This time beginning with the rotation of the foot, which will drive the hips, followed by the shoulder, which drives the arm forward. This too, would be proper.

One exerts a pulling action anatomically, the other a pushing anatomical action. Keep in mind it is possible to utilize a combination of the two principles predicated on the intent inherent in the various dimensional stages of movement of the chosen action.

Further, neither of these scenarios takes into consideration inherent strategy in initiating a potentially successful strike on an aware opponent. Also consider, deceptive body movements such as feints of various body parts, as well as deceptive footwork all become factors with various levels of anatomical efficient tradeoffs, versus successful applications.

Thank you, I appreciate your opinions. I must repeat myself: "It gives me something to play with, and this is fun."