Unrealistic Punch in Training

HW1

Yellow Belt
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
20
In training, how do you or your partner/students feed a punch to practice techniques? I see a lot of index punches doing the step punch where as the person throws a straight punch with the R hand, also steps with the R foot and the punch "lands" the same time as the foot (not to be confused with the jab). I've also heard someone refer to it as the "swinging door" punch.

I have never seen anyone punch this way in a fight or even in sparring so it is my opinion that it's unrealistic but I would like to hear from people who train this way and the reason behind it. Thanks.
 

Ironbear24

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
477
That's a lunge punch and some martial arts use it. If you are practicing blocking and they do a punch like this I suggest you tell them "hey, punch me like you would in real life." That way you can be practicing correctly, because as you said people don't tend to punch that way.

Many people fall into a routine of half assing things because they don't have their heart and mind completely in the training, or they are doing what I call a "punch in the clock" training in session. Which means I spend this much time here than I am done type of training.
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
438
Location
England
"hey, punch me like you would in real life." That way you can be practicing correctly, because as you said people don't tend to punch that way.
Not all martial arts are intended to be accurate recreations of modern day civilian violence. No one is going to attack you in "real life" with a longsword, but it doesn't mean HEMA should do away with it and attack each other with beer bottles instead.

There is nothing wrong with training in an art which has little if nothing to do with how people attack you in real life. The problems only arise when the student is not training to deal with the realities of modern civilian violence, but thinks or assume's that they are.
 

Ironbear24

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
477
Not all martial arts are intended to be accurate recreations of modern day civilian violence. No one is going to attack you in "real life" with a longsword, but it doesn't mean HEMA should do away with it and attack each other with beer bottles instead.

There is nothing wrong with training in an art which has little if nothing to do with how people attack you in real life. The problems only arise when the student is not training to deal with the realities of modern civilian violence, but thinks or assume's that they are.

You literally took an extreme example and compared it to something the majority of places prepare their members for.
 
OP
H

HW1

Yellow Belt
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
20
Not all martial arts are intended to be accurate recreations of modern day civilian violence. No one is going to attack you in "real life" with a longsword, but it doesn't mean HEMA should do away with it and attack each other with beer bottles instead.

There is nothing wrong with training in an art which has little if nothing to do with how people attack you in real life. The problems only arise when the student is not training to deal with the realities of modern civilian violence, but thinks or assume's that they are.
Your analogy is a little off. To speak your language, my question is more like "Why are they practicing unrealistic attacks with the longsword?" rather than "Why are they training with a longsword?"
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
438
Location
England
majority of places prepare their members for.
That's the point, they are not. The majority of martial arts are teaching you just that "martial" arts, they are not trying to RBSD classes.

MMA does not market itself on being an accurate re-creation of civilian violence because it isn't, hence why it does not teach you to deal with multiple attackers. That isn't its intended use. The attacks in Aikido are (as far as I know) based on sword cuts. I doubt the majority if Aikido-ka would claim they are trying to accurately recreate the realities of modern civilian violence. Similarly Judo is a sport, and I would be surprised if most Judoka refuted it was a sport and instead chose to argue it a RBSD classs

In fact, apart from things like Karv Maga/KFM/RBSD which market themselves on their (supposed) realistic nature, take just about any martial art and I would be surprised if it's practitioners argued that it was intend to be an accurate recreation of modern HAOV.

Elements of your martial art can be adapted to deal with modern civilian violence, but the primary purpose of training is not to accurately recreate HOAV, which is why they call themselves martial arts, and not RBSD classes.
 

Ironbear24

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
477
That's the point, they are not. The majority of martial arts are teaching you just that "martial" arts, they are not trying to RBSD classes.

MMA does not market itself on being an accurate re-creation of civilian violence because it isn't, hence why it does not teach you to deal with multiple attackers. That isn't its intended use. The attacks in Aikido are (as far as I know) based on sword cuts. I doubt the majority if Aikido-ka would claim they are trying to accurately recreate the realities of modern civilian violence. Similarly Judo is a sport, and I would be surprised if most Judoka refuted it was a sport and instead chose to argue it a RBSD classs

In fact, apart from things like Karv Maga/KFM/RBSD which market themselves on their (supposed) realistic nature, take just about any martial art and I would be surprised if it's practitioners argued that it was intend to be an accurate recreation of modern HAOV.

Elements of your martial art can be adapted to deal with modern civilian violence, but the primary purpose of training is not to accurately recreate HOAV, which is why they call themselves martial arts, and not RBSD classes.

In the case of the op. Which is what the thread is about. He must be in some form of self defense class if he is concerned with this question, that or a competitive gym with the goal of competition.

Either way. He or she should never be hesitant to ask his training partner/partners to kick it up a notch.
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
438
Location
England
Your analogy is a little off. To speak your language, my question is more like "Why are they practicing unrealistic attacks with the longsword?" rather than "Why are they training with a longsword?"
Putting to one side the analogy, the point is still valid. Just because the student mistakes their martial arts class for a RBSD class, it doesn't make it so.

If you are defending lunge punches you are learning a martial art (not all MA defend lunge punches of course). You are not learning to deal with civilian violence because you will not be not be attacked with a lunge punch. If you want to learn a martial art great, but don't mistake it for a RBSD class.

If you want to learn RBSD, then take a RBSD class as then you won't (or at least shouldn't) be defending lunge punches.

So the question shouldn't be why are they practising unrealistic punches, the question should be why are you mistaking a martial arts class for a realistic RBSD class.
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
438
Location
England
In the case of the op. Which is what the thread is about. He must be in some form of self defense class if he is concerned with this question, that or a competitive gym with the goal of competition.

Either way. He or she should never be hesitant to ask his training partner/partners to kick it up a notch.
You have a valid point, it would help if we knew what class he was taking.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
9,370
Reaction score
3,414
Location
New York
Ignoring the MA vs SD debate that happens all the time one here, there are two ways of punching at my dojo.

The first is what you are talking about, and it's how we punch in to lower belts. The idea is just to get them used to seeing a fist come at them, and practice doing the technique off the punch. It's not meant to be realistic, but more of a learning technique. Occasipnally, higher belts will request this when they're learning a new technique so they can practice it.

The other way the we punch is by trying to hit the person. As the 'attacker' your goal is to successfully hit the person with a punch/kick. We stay realistic but are free to be inventive with it, and if we don't hit them, we 'lose'. We can also follow it up if they block but don't do anything to prevent the second strike. This is primarily for higher belts, and the idea is to progress from the first punching method to the second.

IMO it's a good way to do it. The first way allows the lower belts to practice their techniques, and sometimes if you try to get to 'realistic' with the punch they will freeze/panic and not know what to do.
 

Ironbear24

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
477
Ignoring the MA vs SD debate that happens all the time one here, there are two ways of punching at my dojo.

The first is what you are talking about, and it's how we punch in to lower belts. The idea is just to get them used to seeing a fist come at them, and practice doing the technique off the punch. It's not meant to be realistic, but more of a learning technique. Occasipnally, higher belts will request this when they're learning a new technique so they can practice it.

The other way the we punch is by trying to hit the person. As the 'attacker' your goal is to successfully hit the person with a punch/kick. We stay realistic but are free to be inventive with it, and if we don't hit them, we 'lose'. We can also follow it up if they block but don't do anything to prevent the second strike. This is primarily for higher belts, and the idea is to progress from the first punching method to the second.

IMO it's a good way to do it. The first way allows the lower belts to practice their techniques, and sometimes if you try to get to 'realistic' with the punch they will freeze/panic and not know what to do.

This is why I tell my training partners "don't be afraid to punch me in the face, I won't get mad at you, I won't hit you back. I will be disappointed in my self for not blocking properly, but I will get over it."
 
OP
H

HW1

Yellow Belt
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
20
Ignoring the MA vs SD debate that happens all the time one here, there are two ways of punching at my dojo.

The first is what you are talking about, and it's how we punch in to lower belts. The idea is just to get them used to seeing a fist come at them, and practice doing the technique off the punch. It's not meant to be realistic, but more of a learning technique. Occasipnally, higher belts will request this when they're learning a new technique so they can practice it.

The other way the we punch is by trying to hit the person. As the 'attacker' your goal is to successfully hit the person with a punch/kick. We stay realistic but are free to be inventive with it, and if we don't hit them, we 'lose'. We can also follow it up if they block but don't do anything to prevent the second strike. This is primarily for higher belts, and the idea is to progress from the first punching method to the second.

IMO it's a good way to do it. The first way allows the lower belts to practice their techniques, and sometimes if you try to get to 'realistic' with the punch they will freeze/panic and not know what to do.
Thank you! This was the kind of answer I was looking for. I didn't think my question would spark an SD vs MA debate.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
844
Location
Spokane Valley WA
Ignoring the MA vs SD debate that happens all the time one here, there are two ways of punching at my dojo.

The first is what you are talking about, and it's how we punch in to lower belts. The idea is just to get them used to seeing a fist come at them, and practice doing the technique off the punch. It's not meant to be realistic, but more of a learning technique. Occasipnally, higher belts will request this when they're learning a new technique so they can practice it.

The other way the we punch is by trying to hit the person. As the 'attacker' your goal is to successfully hit the person with a punch/kick. We stay realistic but are free to be inventive with it, and if we don't hit them, we 'lose'. We can also follow it up if they block but don't do anything to prevent the second strike. This is primarily for higher belts, and the idea is to progress from the first punching method to the second.

IMO it's a good way to do it. The first way allows the lower belts to practice their techniques, and sometimes if you try to get to 'realistic' with the punch they will freeze/panic and not know what to do.
I agree. Most people can't handle a "real" punch, much less, see it coming. Baby steps.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
22,351
Reaction score
2,581
Location
Northern VA
This is actually a pretty complicated question...

Some drills/kata/exercises are done against specific, somewhat unrealistic or unlikely attacks in order to practice a particular technique or principle. My favorite example of this sort of thing are techniques done against lapel grabs... Really, who grabs a lapel with any serious intent anymore? But what is that "lapel grab" actually defending against? Would the same principle work done against a punch that you just faded back enough from? So, what is that "unrealistic lunging punch" actually doing? Could the principle be applied in a different situation? What's underneath the obvious movement? And, sometimes, the "unrealistic attack" makes perfect sense if you look into the origins or where the art came from -- like if it's based on someone wearing feudal era Japanese armor versus one wearing a boxer's shorts... Each is going to move differenly, right?

But there's more to it... because a lot of the time, the attack IS unrealistic, even as what it's "supposed to be." How often do we see someone practice by "feed the punch and stand still so that many bad things can happen"? Often with a punch or kick that isn't even close to actually hitting anything? Not good... Not good at all. Each training partner has a job to do, and the one giving the attack is supposed to be giving something workably real to deal with. At first, that may be "stick out out there like a statue" move, but it should still be in range, and have enough authority to enforce the desired response. Then, as the practice advances, the attack should become more fluid, and less cooperative. It's vital that you be fed a realistic attack if you want to be able to develop a realistic technique.
 

Kickboxer101

Master Black Belt
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
311
At the end of the day how do you know it's an unrealistic punch what if you get attacked by a karate guy who punches like that? Of course you should practice against harder strikes but never count anything out in a fight. I remember once being in a bar and nothing to do with me but 2 guys argued and one dropped into a deep karate stance and throw this big lunging punch
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
11,132
Reaction score
2,975
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
the punch "lands" the same time as the foot ....
In training, you want to achieve the outside 3 harmonies:

- hand coordinate with foot,
- elbow coordinate with knee.
- shoulder coordinate with hip.

If your body can be unified into a single unit, all your body parts can move/stop at the same time, you will be able to generate the maximum amount of power.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
5,064
Location
Lexington, KY
Usually, arts which practice defenses against the lunch punch are arts which include lunge punches as part of their repertoire. This follows the common pattern where practitioners of a martial art spend more time training to fight against another practitioner of the same art than anything else.

Of course, those arts which include the lunch punch as a technique also have many other attacks. Why do they so often use the lunge punch as the default attack when training defenses against a punch rather than something else, such as a jab or reverse punch? One reason might be to make things easier for beginners to learn. A lunge punch travels a long distance and gives plenty of time for a beginner to react when practicing a technique. I suppose you could argue that even for more advanced practitioners, the larger scope of the motions involved make it easier to demonstrate and perceive subtle aspects of the defensive techniques in a way that would be harder to see when those same principles were applied against a smaller, faster attacking motion. I'm not personally a big fan of that approach, but I don't currently practice an art which uses that methodology so it's not my problem.

What bothers me much more than the selection of what type of punches to train against is the practice in some schools to have the attacker feed a punch that, when fully extended, falls several inches short of making contact with the defender. In my opinion this is a terrible way to train. It causes students to learn bad distancing, bad timing, bad angling, and changes which techniques will actually work in the situation.

The attacks in Aikido are (as far as I know) based on sword cuts.

I've seen that claim, but if so they are simulating terribly, terribly incompetent sword cuts. I suspect the stepping overhand knife hand attack in question may actually be used because its telegraphed, overcommitted nature makes it easier for aikidoka to practice their characteristic approach to blending with and redirecting ana ttack.
 

Ironbear24

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
477
This is actually a pretty complicated question...

Some drills/kata/exercises are done against specific, somewhat unrealistic or unlikely attacks in order to practice a particular technique or principle. My favorite example of this sort of thing are techniques done against lapel grabs... Really, who grabs a lapel with any serious intent anymore? But what is that "lapel grab" actually defending against? Would the same principle work done against a punch that you just faded back enough from? So, what is that "unrealistic lunging punch" actually doing? Could the principle be applied in a different situation? What's underneath the obvious movement? And, sometimes, the "unrealistic attack" makes perfect sense if you look into the origins or where the art came from -- like if it's based on someone wearing feudal era Japanese armor versus one wearing a boxer's shorts... Each is going to move differenly, right?

But there's more to it... because a lot of the time, the attack IS unrealistic, even as what it's "supposed to be." How often do we see someone practice by "feed the punch and stand still so that many bad things can happen"? Often with a punch or kick that isn't even close to actually hitting anything? Not good... Not good at all. Each training partner has a job to do, and the one giving the attack is supposed to be giving something workably real to deal with. At first, that may be "stick out out there like a statue" move, but it should still be in range, and have enough authority to enforce the desired response. Then, as the practice advances, the attack should become more fluid, and less cooperative. It's vital that you be fed a realistic attack if you want to be able to develop a realistic technique.

Usually lunge punch defense can easily be adapted to knife thrust defense because of the similar motion.

the lunch punch

The punch that makes you lose your lunch.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
3,713
In training, how do you or your partner/students feed a punch to practice techniques? I see a lot of index punches doing the step punch where as the person throws a straight punch with the R hand, also steps with the R foot and the punch "lands" the same time as the foot (not to be confused with the jab). I've also heard someone refer to it as the "swinging door" punch.

I have never seen anyone punch this way in a fight or even in sparring so it is my opinion that it's unrealistic but I would like to hear from people who train this way and the reason behind it. Thanks.
In Jow Ga all punches are real punches even the odd ones that seem useless. At my school there are 3 levels of training.
1. Practice only with a focus on technique
2. Practice only with a focus on power
3. Practice only with a focus on speed.

Training in these 3 areas is what helps us to turn a punch into a "realistic punch." #1 trains muscle memory for a technique so that it's natural. #2 trains connection of power so that the punch will be powerful and effective. #3 trains how to do #1 and #2 really fast so that we can fight with it.

I'm not sure how it works with other fighting systems but it's probably similar but may not be trained separately.
 

Latest Discussions

Top