Why do people say to never kick air?

[Gerry Seymour]

"let" the target stop you? It's a choice?

Yes. You could stop before the target.

Why would you want the target to stop you. I don't.
When I kick a person, my leg doesn't stop on contact.

So, your leg defies physics and continues through solid matter? Or are you just purposely misreading so you can argue, and you're going to claim what I said meant the leg would instantly stop at the point of contact, irregardless of momentum?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't agree about punching "through" the head, that's too far back. To me, punching has an optimal focusing distance, there is one point in the distance that you focus the power, power diminish before and after the focusing point. Focus behind the head meaning power is far from optimal when you make contact to the face of the opponent. The symptom of focusing too deep is the heavy bag swing back a lot when you hit as you are more pushing the bag than hitting the bag.

That's why when you look at people punching heavy bags, you can tell right away whether the person know how to punch or not. For people that know how to punch, you can see the heavy bag dent in at the point of impact. It will sound loud with a crisp popping sound and the bag vibrates but not moving back. That's a good punch......Good penetration, dissipate all the energy at the point of contact, no energy is wasted in pushing the bag back.

If this is not clear enough, look at a boxer punching heavy bag. I remember seeing a video of Joe Fraiser punching a leather heavy bag, you can see the deep indent at the point of contact and the bag didn't even move. That's transferring all the energy into a single point and dig deep into the bag.

Also, I don't think people should rely on the bag to stop the punch, you contact, penetrate and you pull back. Or else in real fight, if the opponent dug and you miss, the punch will pull you off balance if there's nothing to stop you.

JMHO

The way I was taught the concept was that strikes were either aimed 1" into the target (for something like a jab, where impact is the point of the strike) or passed through the target and continued (for something like a hook or uppercut to the face, meant to transfer momentum for attempted KO).

 

[JerryL]

Yes. You could stop before the target.

I'm honestly not sure which one is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Assuming that you fail basic reading comprehension, or assuming you were being an *** on purpose.

So, your leg defies physics and continues through solid matter? Or are you just purposely misreading so you can argue, and you're going to claim what I said meant the leg would instantly stop at the point of contact, irregardless of momentum?

Were you purposely misreading me when I asked if letting the target stop you was a choice so you could argue? Or are you just that bad at your own premise.

- No my leg does not defy physics. Duh.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "through solid matter" since you are equivocating everything for no particular purpose. I would normally take a layman assumption, but I suspect you'd come back with the pauli exclusion principle (or some hamfisted interpretation thereof as I honestly don't credit you with knowing what that is before you google it)
- What I hope happens is that my leg causes the thing I hit to move, thus allowing my leg to continue its own motion back to a stable position. Same thing when I hit with my hand. I'd like my hand to go to the same place it was going before, but now bring my target with it; hopefully breaking the target in the process.
- "irregardless" is not a word because it would be a dumb word having both a negative prefix ("ir") and negative suffix ("less") making it a double negative.

So you are clearly misreading me just so you can argue.

 

[JerryL]

The way I was taught the concept was that strikes were either aimed 1" into the target (for something like a jab, where impact is the point of the strike) or passed through the target and continued (for something like a hook or uppercut to the face, meant to transfer momentum for attempted KO).

What if you are off by 1" (as mentioned in my earlier post, adrenaline tends to cause movements to shorten)? Sure, you could be off by 10", but that's far less likely.
What if your aim is perfect, but the target moves 1" back while you are trying to hit? Sure, a target could move 10" back in the same time, but that's far less likely.
Aiming 1" past the surface is a poor fighting tactic. Punch farther and you have far more room for error.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm honestly not sure which one is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Assuming that you fail basic reading comprehension, or assuming you were being an *** on purpose.


Were you purposely misreading me when I asked if letting the target stop you was a choice so you could argue? Or are you just that bad at your own premise.

- No my leg does not defy physics. Duh.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "through solid matter" since you are equivocating everything for no particular purpose. I would normally take a layman assumption, but I suspect you'd come back with the pauli exclusion principle (or some hamfisted interpretation thereof as I honestly don't credit you with knowing what that is before you google it)
- What I hope happens is that my leg causes the thing I hit to move, thus allowing my leg to continue its own motion back to a stable position. Same thing when I hit with my hand. I'd like my hand to go to the same place it was going before, but now bring my target with it; hopefully breaking the target in the process.
- "irregardless" is not a word because it would be a dumb word having both a negative prefix ("ir") and negative suffix ("less") making it a double negative.

So you are clearly misreading me just so you can argue.

Pretty much what I expected you'd say. Which you know quite well isn't contradictory to what you were trying to contradict.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What if you are off by 1" (as mentioned in my earlier post, adrenaline tends to cause movements to shorten)? Sure, you could be off by 10", but that's far less likely.
What if your aim is perfect, but the target moves 1" back while you are trying to hit? Sure, a target could move 10" back in the same time, but that's far less likely.
Aiming 1" past the surface is a poor fighting tactic. Punch farther and you have far more room for error.

Punch farther, and you're easier to off-balance. Punch farther, and if they don't move, you're not in the prime power zone with many strikes. Punch farther, and if they move up a tad, the punch is effectively jammed.

 

[JerryL]

Pretty much what I expected you'd say. Which you know quite well isn't contradictory to what you were trying to contradict.

Unh huh... Sure. That's a real funny way you've got of apologizing for a straw-man.

Punch farther, and you're easier to off-balance. Punch farther, and if they don't move, you're not in the prime power zone with many strikes. Punch farther,

This is going to amaze you... I mean, totally blow your mind. It's apparently a deep secret that the martial masters have been keeping from you, but I'm going to clue you in.

Hit X will go farther through the target if you are closer to the target when you throw it.

I know. It's hard to understand, much less believe; but if you make, say, a right cross where your fist ends up 3' from your center, whether that fails to connect, smacks the surface, or pushes through is depending on whether the thing you are hitting is farther than 3', at 3', or closer than 3'.

So it turns out you aren't "punching farther" and there's no new balance issues involved. The problem existed solely in a lack of imagination.

and if they move up a tad, the punch is effectively jammed.

SMH

Apparently everyone has been keeping many secrets from you. I may lose my decoder ring for outing them, but I'll tell you another.

Turns out there's a range in which a given hit is effective.

In fact, if you look at an art like Systema; they'll actually teach a single movement that's a shoulder strike, an elbow, and a punch letting the distance to impact dictate which.

While something like boxing doesn't go to that extreme, most non-hooking punches work from just outside the clinch all the way to almost the end of extension. This is because much of the actual force is generated in the legs and hips.

Of course jamming is *possible*; but your approach turns a perfect hit to a complete miss with 1" of error; where mine (and everyone else I've seen) gives you at least a foot.

 

[Alan0354]

The way I was taught the concept was that strikes were either aimed 1" into the target (for something like a jab, where impact is the point of the strike) or passed through the target and continued (for something like a hook or uppercut to the face, meant to transfer momentum for attempted KO).

I was taught to go like 3" into the target.

I am actually practicing hook, my biggest fear is if I miss, the momentum will swing me off balance. Still working on this.

 

[JerryL]

I was taught to go like 3" into the target.

I am actually practicing hook, my biggest fear is if I miss, the momentum will swing me off balance. Still working on this.

I believe the hook is supposed to be mostly body movement.

Circling this back to the main topic, that's one of the advantages of "shadow boxing". As much as it's important to get used to hitting an object, it's also important to get used to going through the full motion and a bag gets in the way of that. Hence both.

 

[RTKDCMB]

When practicing kicking they say never to kick air.

Why do you have to kick some thing as you cannot kick air and visualize some thing is there?

Unless you train in a vacuum, you have no choice but to kick air.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was taught to go like 3" into the target.

I am actually practicing hook, my biggest fear is if I miss, the momentum will swing me off balance. Still working on this.

I think the actual distance of penetration varies a bit by target (how hard it is, how much it's moving), so the 1" and 3" end up being the same approach.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Hit X will go farther through the target if you are closer to the target when you throw it....So it turns out you aren't "punching farther" and there's no new balance issues involved.

I was thinking the same things while reading some of the comments about pushing thru the opponent. Yes, some penetration is needed, but not at the cost of overextending, sacrificing balance and leaving oneself open should the strike miss. The best way to avoid these negative results is to be at the right distance before you strike. This skill requires several elements and is a good indicator of expertise.

Regarding penetration - it depends on the target. Some targets such as eyes, larynx, or straight knee don't have much give, so little penetration is required (0.5"-2.0"). Other targets such as thighs, bent knees and torso have move give and will require a little more (3.0"-4.0").

That's why when you look at people punching heavy bags, you can tell right away whether the person know how to punch or not. For people that know how to punch, you can see the heavy bag dent in at the point of impact. It will sound loud with a crisp popping sound and the bag vibrates but not moving back. That's a good punch

Exactly. The bag should buckle and jump, not swing - for punches and kicks as well. Swinging shows the focus point was too far, and/or the strike is relying on simple mass being delivered rather than speed and kime/chinkuchi.

Also, I don't think people should rely on the bag to stop the punch, you contact, penetrate and you pull back.

Not just the bag, but an opponent as well. The target shouldn't control the strike's execution. If it should pull back as you execute, relying on the bag/opponent, to stop your attack means you'll end up chasing it/him and being overextended.

 

[Equilibrum32]

My opinion is that the biggest problem with kicking air (or punching it) is that you develop the habit of stopping your own strike, rather than developing power. Mind you, this would also apply to shadow boxing, and we know that - used properly - that doesn't really impair the ability to deliver power. So the caution should be to use proper care when striking air (to @Dirty Dog's comment) and make sure you also spend enough time striking a target so you get the feel for delivering power.

One can throw the exact same kick or punch in the air. And people do.

 

[Alan0354]

I was thinking the same things while reading some of the comments about pushing thru the opponent. Yes, some penetration is needed, but not at the cost of overextending, sacrificing balance and leaving oneself open should the strike miss. The best way to avoid these negative results is to be at the right distance before you strike. This skill requires several elements and is a good indicator of expertise.
That's where good footwork comes in, to get to the right distance.

Regarding penetration - it depends on the target. Some targets such as eyes, larynx, or straight knee don't have much give, so little penetration is required (0.5"-2.0"). Other targets such as thighs, bent knees and torso have move give and will require a little more (3.0"-4.0").

Exactly. The bag should buckle and jump, not swing - for punches and kicks as well. Swinging shows the focus point was too far, and/or the strike is relying on simple mass being delivered rather than speed and kime/chinkuchi.
Again, good footwork to get to the right distance so you penetrate enough to deliver max power, but not focus too that result in pushing instead of hitting.

Not just the bag, but an opponent as well. The target shouldn't control the strike's execution. If it should pull back as you execute, relying on the bag/opponent, to stop your attack means you'll end up chasing it/him and being overextended.

Nothing is worst than pulling yourself off balance if the target move away and you miss.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One can throw the exact same kick or punch in the air. And people do.

I’d argue it looks the same, but isn’t. You (the generic “you”) know you’ll have to stop it, and are likely slowing the motion much earlier than you would to recover a missed strike. You also are almost certainly not committing weight into it the way you would to deliver power.

 

[Alan0354]

I’d argue it looks the same, but isn’t. You (the generic “you”) know you’ll have to stop it, and are likely slowing the motion much earlier than you would to recover a missed strike. You also are almost certainly not committing weight into it the way you would to deliver power.

I can only speak for myself, when I said I punch to 3" into the target, I meant the optimal point is 3" into the target, that's when my punch is fully extended and ready to pull back. So regardless the target is there or not, I reach the "snapping" point and will be pulled back. I don't know how to explain better, it's like the optimal point is when the punch reach it's highest snapping speed and it will stop advancing even without hitting anything.......For the lack of better description. At the point, my body weight with the speed are all committing to it to deliver the power.

 

[Yokozuna514]

I believe the hook is supposed to be mostly body movement.

Circling this back to the main topic, that's one of the advantages of "shadow boxing". As much as it's important to get used to hitting an object, it's also important to get used to going through the full motion and a bag gets in the way of that. Hence both.

The main topic is about 'kicking' air and why people suggest "not" to do it. Sure you can shadow box and it does have it's purposes but there is a lot that it "won't" tell you. When it comes to kicking air vs resistance, you don't want to spend half your time doing each. In the beginning you may spend more time kicking air to get your motion down but as you progress and learn the pendulum swings decidedly to kicking against resistance (ie: a bag or a body). The bag and body will give you a lot more feedback than simply kicking air. So "both" but with a big caveat as to where you are in your journey.

 

[Alan0354]

The main topic is about 'kicking' air and why people suggest "not" to do it. Sure you can shadow box and it does have it's purposes but there is a lot that it "won't" tell you. When it comes to kicking air vs resistance, you don't want to spend half your time doing each. In the beginning you may spend more time kicking air to get your motion down but as you progress and learn the pendulum swings decidedly to kicking against resistance (ie: a bag or a body). The bag and body will give you a lot more feedback than simply kicking air. So "both" but with a big caveat as to where you are in your journey.

You still need to kick air after you go to the bag. You get speed for kicking air, you gain power to kick bags. Best is to do 50:50. I know, it's my own experience. When I was training, I did mainly bags, I was wondering why I am slow. Then I started to kick air, I gain speed. So I am doing 50: 50 now.

You need feedback on both.

I've been doing kicking bags a log for a few years while I was training, even after I quit, I still do it like twice a week on bags at home particularly on front kick( my back problem prevents me from doing side kick and even round kick). Been doing that for over 20 years. I started to have foot pain, went to doctor, both my foot have obvious arthritis. If you are young, you can get away with that, when you get old, watch out.

 

[Yokozuna514]

You still need to kick air after you go to the bag. You get speed for kicking air, you gain power to kick bags. Best is to do 50:50. I know, it's my own experience. When I was training, I did mainly bags, I was wondering why I am slow. Then I started to kick air, I gain speed. So I am doing 50: 50 now.

You need feedback on both.

I've been doing kicking bags a log for a few years while I was training, even after I quit, I still do it like twice a week on bags at home particularly on front kick( my back problem prevents me from doing side kick and even round kick). Been doing that for over 20 years. I started to have foot pain, went to doctor, both my foot have obvious arthritis. If you are young, you can get away with that, when you get old, watch out.

Pendulums have a way of swinging back the other way, Alan, . The important thing is to find a way to persevere in your training as you have.

 

[Equilibrum32]

I’d argue it looks the same, but isn’t. You (the generic “you”) know you’ll have to stop it, and are likely slowing the motion much earlier than you would to recover a missed strike. You also are almost certainly not committing weight into it the way you would to deliver power.

You can absolutely do it. And you can feel when you do it too. Now whether you should do it is a separate point.