Unrealistic Punch in Training

[drop bear]

I nail people with that punch. Just comes from an awkward range.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1. Practice only with a focus on technique
2. Practice only with a focus on power
3. Practice only with a focus on speed.
...
I'm not sure how it works with other fighting systems but it's probably similar but may not be trained separately.

1. Power training - body push arm.
2. Speed training - body chase arm.
3. Technique training - something between 1 and 2.

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

I don't train with this way of punching, but will offer some insights.

Often, the pedagogy used in teaching and learning the more traditional martial arts includes executing techniques in a manner that could be viewed as exaggerated and even unrealistic. There is a specific reason for this. Exaggerated movements can help focus on certain principles of movement while doing the technique, that can ultimately raise a technique to a higher level of effectiveness. It is simply a learning and drilling methodology and is not necessarily meant to illustrate how the technique would be done in a real fight. It is a stepping stone on a progression of learning and developing an effective technique. Ultimately, when those principles of movement are mastered, the technique can lose the exaggeration but still engage those movement principles that make it so devastating.

The problem seems to me to be when a teacher does not understand this progression, and/or fails to get the students to understand that that is what it is. Instead, that pass on to their students the notion that this is ultimately how the technique is to be done, in a real fight. They fail to recognize it for the training drill that it is meant to be, and that it is meant to progress into something else.

And from this misunderstanding come notions that not all traditional martial arts are meant to be a practical method of combat. To make such a claim lacks credibility on its surface. If the method were not meant to be a useful form of combat, it would not have developed as a martial art. What we now call traditional martial arts were quite cutting edge when they were first developed.

 

[Red Sun]

...im not sure if boxing really counts for this. If my pad-holder feeds me a punch, he/she basically punches me in the face with a pad.

 

[Buka]

It's a punch, for crying out loud. How it's thrown is up to the person throwing it. How it's dealt with is up to the person sticking it up the thrower's....

 

[HW1]

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.

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

 

[Flying Crane]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

There are more than one theory on how to best generate power for your techniques, by creating a unified body movement. This sort of expands on my earlier post.

The system that I train puts heavy emphasis on torso rotation as a method for developing a powerful punch. This is somewhat analogous to throwing a baseball, there is a turning motion of the torso as you deliver the punch, or throw the ball. The technique, obviously, is not identical. But there are some conceptual similarities. However, in our punching method the power for that punch comes from the feet, as we press against the ground and very deliberately use the legs and hips to drive our torso into a rotation, from which the punch is delivered. Unifying that chain of movements is very important, driving the technique from the ground up, as well as keeping the torso centered and upright, and keeping both feet rooted on the ground. This is unlike throwing a baseball, where the torso often bends at the waist and the back foot is lifted up off the ground. And yes, the way we practice our punch in its most basic form does contain a large exaggeration of that rotation, in order to emphasize the rooting, driving with the legs, and rotation of the torso. For someone not familiar with the methodology, it probably looks very odd.

In contrast to this, other methods may place a heavier emphasis on putting the mass of the body behind the technique. A lunge punch can be one example. It isn't simply stepping into a punch. Rather, it is very actively and deliberately launching the body forward, using the rear foot for power. This is the difference between "passive" walking and a very deliberate stepping. In a passive walk that probably most of us do automatically when we walk down the street, we are leaning slightly forward and putting one foot in front of the other to catch ourselves from falling. In a more deliberate step, the torso is held vertical and centered, and the back foot is pushing and driving the torso forward, instead of just leaning and falling forward. This active stepping is what should be happening in a lunge punch, and if done forcefully it can put a lot of power into the punch with the full weight of the body coming into it, and the strength of the leg driving it all.

In my own method, we also do this if we charge forward, but instead of a lunge punch we marry that forward driving step with the body rotation that I described earlier.

So it is definitely possible that these theories be combined on some level, to take advantage of the benefits of both.

Also, if the punch lands at the same moment the front foot hits the ground, then you have stopped that forward drive and the power benefits from that method will bleed away. The punch should land a bit earlier than the foot, while you are still actively driving forward.

But hopefully this helps you understand why the lunge punch can be very powerful, IF DONE PROPERLY, while differing in body mechanics from throwing a baseball.

Good question, by the way. It is my impression that there is a whole lot of poor instruction going on, where the students never understand the real mechanisms that they should be striving to develop. Instead, they mimic what a technique looks like, and think that they understand it, never realizing they have missed the important parts. And that makes ALL the difference in the world, in executing the technique.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all.

A properly done lunge punch certainly should be coordinated. It's not really a move I personally care for, but there are people who are very skilled at it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

I learned the, throw first step second method, or what ever you call it. We learn it because, it is a common attack; we use it because it is so fast.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Your latter claim is not accurate. I teach my students to deal with realistic scenarios (while still using some traditional exercises to teach specific movements or principles). I teach a self-defense oriented martial art. I didn't choose "martial art" because it's not reality-based. I use the term because it's the term I'm used to for the traditionally-based (especially Eastern) arts. I don't deliberately differentiate between RBSD and "martial arts", nor do any of the instructors I know - one is a descriptor of how one trains and for what purpose, while the other is simply a generic identifier. Sometimes they overlap (as in my case) and sometimes they don't (as in the TKD training my brother particpates in).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I agree with this last point vehemently (hey, if we can vehemently disagree with something, surely we can agree in the same manner, yes?). I have had training partners who didn't pay attention to distance when feeding attacks, and I'd just let the attack happen. They'd stop short and ask why I didn't defend. I'd ask in return why they didn't attack.

I think a lot of these bad habits (poor form/coordination, poor distancing, etc.) in feeding attacks comes from a couple of sources. Firstly, when students start feeding attacks, most of them suck at it, and a lot of instructors let that sucking stand, so it becomes habit. Secondly, most people are very bad at imitating a real strike unless they're really trying to hit. So, when they want to not hit someone, they go wide, under-extend, or simply deliver a strike with no body mechanics to back it up. This all seems to get worse when they have to deliver at 25% speed so someone can work on a technique.

I've made learning to attack properly part of the curriculum. If you can't attack well, you don't get to move forward. It's an essential tool.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

The lunge punch is more likely to happen if someone is trying to close distance fast with a punch. IMO, it's no harder or easier to work with than a step with the opposite foot - it just opens up the opposite diagonals.

 

[Paul_D]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

It's a useful punch when used in context, so I wouldn't say it's unrealistic as punch, but is unrealistic as an attack in terms of learning defences against it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Which is why I think it's unrealistic because the lunge punch is not coordinated at all. Also, in my observation, to maintain proper body mechanics and balance to generate desired force, people do not "lunge throw" a ball, "lunge swing" a bat, or heck even "lunge roll" a bowling ball.

Keep in mind, in martial arts you learn coordination and proper body mechanics for a technique. That's what your forms and kata help you develop. This is a good example of a lunge punch.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It's a useful punch when used in context, so I wouldn't say it's unrealistic as punch, but is unrealistic as an attack in terms of learning defences against it.

How so?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's a useful punch when used in context, so I wouldn't say it's unrealistic as punch, but is unrealistic as an attack in terms of learning defences against it.

I'd say it's only unrealistic if you don't train against other punches, too. It's a punch that can happen. I've spotted it in videos of attacks on YouTube, so it exists in the wild. It seems more prevalent in videos of those who are bad at punching, but that's an impression, rather than being based upon any real analysis.

 

[drop bear]

How so?

The punch is uncommon. Which is a fair point.

 

[Paul_D]

How so?

When you have done (insert name of technique or action here) and they have ended up too far away for gyaku-zuki/reverse punch.

This isn't the best example, but it will do for now and hopefully makes it a bit clearer than me just trying to explain it in writing (Skip to 1:27, the link I posted was set to start at 1:27 but MT has changed the URL)

 

[Paul_D]

I've spotted it in videos of attacks on YouTube

Don't suppose you can remember any of the videos? I would be very interested to see, I've never seen it in the wild.

 

[Touch Of Death]

When you have done (insert name of technique or action here) and they have ended up too far away for gyaku-zuki/reverse punch.

This isn't the best example, but it will do for now and hopefully makes it a bit clearer than me just trying to explain it in writing (Skip to 1:27, the link I posted was set to start at 1:27 but MT has changed the URL)

Well, I am watching this guy. He is rising up on the front leg, and it offends my sensibilities. I do it differently.