# Which knuckles?



## Paul-M

My Shaolin Kung Fu instructor tells me to punch with the front two knuckles, as do pretty much everyone I speak to. But Bruce Lee's books, and a boxing book I have by Doug Werner both tell me to punch with the last three knuckles.

Are both ways effective? Which knuckles do you strike with ?


----------



## punisher73

Paul-M said:


> My Shaolin Kung Fu instructor tells me to punch with the front two knuckles, as do pretty much everyone I speak to. But Bruce Lee's books, and a boxing book I have by Doug Werner both tell me to punch with the last three knuckles.
> 
> Are both ways effective? Which knuckles do you strike with ?


 
A boxer's fracture is what happens when you hit a hard surface with the bottom three knuckles.  You will find boxer's that use the top two, and the bottom three, and some that say you should emphasize your middle knuckle.

Also, remember that boxing punches are trained with gloves on so you don't have to worry as much about breaking your hand as you do bare knuckle.  I prefer the vertical fist using the large two knuckles.


----------



## arnisador

Hitting with the bottom knuckles is primarily a Wing Chun kung fu practice and is associated with their vertical fist punch. In general, go with the big two knuckles for better and safer impact (though every punch that lands has the potential to bust a hand).


----------



## DavidCC

It depends on which type of gloves they use in your sport.  Oh, no gloves, not a sport?  then use the ones that won't break, the ones you can line up with your forearm


----------



## Zero

Way back when I did wing chun, it was as said above, the bottom 3 knuckles.

All my karate training has focused on bare knuckle application using the larger top two (or for a discrete, bullet effect, just the top) knuckles, with a verticle strike and straight line down the forearm.  I have been told by those I put faith in that this type of strike is one of the best for reducing chances of broken wrist or knuckles from a bare fisted punch and it feels good for me.

My boxing training (with gloves of course) has different focuses depending on the target and way the target is displayed/accessible.  For example, if with a right hook the head of the opponent is not covered up, or not defended well, then I apply a vertical fist blow (base/bottom of hand, ie pinkie at bottom, to floor) - and if the head is better covered, then to get through the defence/smaller opening I turn to a horizontal strike (palm facing down) to temple area etc.  With both strikes I still keep the focus on the large two knuckles but actually am fully contacting with all 3 larger knuckles through the gloves.

Uppercuts in gloves are interesting as sometimes, depending on the angle and how close you are in, it can be a hit from either the inside (smaller) or outside knuckles.


----------



## tshadowchaser

I prefer using the first two knuckles (having fractured my hand in a boxers break a few times early in life).
If I use the bottom three knuckles it is only after making initial contact with the first two then rotating my fist, as I have found this makes a lasting impression when done correctly


----------



## wade

First two. End of story. You get in a "real" fight and break your little baby fingers and the fight is over. Whether you wear gloves or not, always use the first two kunckles.


----------



## Whitebelt

Do what Sifu Pace says Paul.

Plus, I'm coming back after the GCSEs!


----------



## Em MacIntosh

The first two knuckles tend to be bigger and more able to transfer impact down the forearm to the shoulder and body.  When you strike with force you'll probably make contact with all five but I recommend that you concentrate on the first two when training.  I also don't remember reading anywhere that Bruce favored the bottom three over the top two.  I do find a lot of his strikes work well as a "ginger fist" (using the palm-side while a fist is clenched with the thumb moved out of the way)


----------



## zDom

Just look at an X-ray of the metacarpals (hand bones). Google an image or two. The first two are SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the other two. 

Based on that I will ALWAYS use the large two and NEVER use the smaller two.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Paul-M said:


> My Shaolin Kung Fu instructor tells me to punch with the front two knuckles, as do pretty much everyone I speak to. But Bruce Lee's books, and a boxing book I have by Doug Werner both tell me to punch with the last three knuckles.
> 
> Are both ways effective? Which knuckles do you strike with ?


Both methods serve a differing purpose.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

zDom said:


> Just look at an X-ray of the metacarpals (hand bones). Google an image or two. The first two are SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the other two.
> 
> Based on that I will ALWAYS use the large two and NEVER use the smaller two.


Never say never. Again the perpose of the strike is different.
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

wade said:


> First two. End of story. You get in a "real" fight and break your little baby fingers and the fight is over. Whether you wear gloves or not, always use the first two kunckles.


If you are hitting softer targets with a lesser force, why always?
sean


----------



## DavidCC

The first two have significantly better alignment with the bones of the arm.


----------



## Tangellione

I always hit with the 2 larger knuckles, so they take the most pressure. The other knuckles however can still make contact depending on how the blow connected. 

Last week I was training and during an exercise I accidentally hit my partner with the smaller knuckles. It nearly split my hand open. Well, not really but I can tell you it did not feel too good either. You might be able to deliver quick (and not so strong) punches with the smaller knuckles but when you're using heavy punches I'd say use the larger ones.


----------



## geezer

tshadowchaser said:


> I prefer using the first two knuckles (having fractured my hand in a boxers break a few times early in life).
> *If I use the bottom three knuckles it is only after making initial contact with the first two then rotating my fist, as I have found this makes a lasting impression when done correctly*



Interesting obsrvation Tshadowchaser. It's true that in Wing Tsun/Chun the classic verticle fist punch uses the bottom three knuckles, and the way the punch is thrown, these knuckles _do_ align solidly with the forearm. Also by snapping the fist upward on contact, as you noted, you can indeed _"make a lasting impression"_. A couple of caveats are in order though. 1. This is not an effective or safe structure for a horizontal fist punch as in boxing or karate. 2. Wing Chunners must train this punch with thousands of reps over a long period of time against a firm wall-bag to gradually strengthen the bones and tendons involved. 3. Even in Wing Tsun/Chun it is not the only punch used and knuckle alignment depends on the punch and target. And, keep in mind, if you are hitting something really hard without gloves, there's always a palm strike_...or better yet pick up a stick!_ --See you over on FMA Talk.


----------



## zDom

Aye, I realize that for those who TRAIN those bottom two knuckles, that particular punch may be viable.

But I don't, so for me it's not, hence for me: ALWAYS the big two  If I EVER make contact with the other two, it will be an accident 

I'm banking that I won't ever "need" that other tool (bottom three knuckles punch), so I hope I'm right about not needing it.

Not saying it is a worthless tool, for those who have taken the time to develop it. Just saying its not in my box; my path didn't go that way.


----------



## naneek

valid point zdom, if you have not conditioned yourself for that kind of punch better to stick to what you know and have conditioned yourself for, geezer made a good point saying that to use the bottom knuckles the structure and delivery of the strike must be right a la wing chuns verticle punch


----------



## lklawson

arnisador said:


> Hitting with the bottom knuckles is primarily a Wing Chun kung fu practice and is associated with their vertical fist punch. In general, go with the big two knuckles for better and safer impact (though every punch that lands has the potential to bust a hand).


"Pistol Grip" punching with the bottom three knuckles is also the standard for old style bare knuckle pugilism (see examples at: http://stores.lulu.com/lawson ).

There's been speculation for years now that WC adopted/coopted the technique from western sailors.  It's an entertaining speculation but 100% unverifiable and not good for much other than irritating my WC friends.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Zero said:


> I have been told by those I put faith in that this type of strike is one of the best for reducing chances of broken wrist or knuckles from a bare fisted punch


Depends on wrist orientation.  I.E., horizontal or pistol grip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

wade said:


> First two. End of story. You get in a "real" fight and break your little baby fingers and the fight is over. Whether you wear gloves or not, always use the first two kunckles.


Old style bark knuckle pugilists would fight dozens of rounds, sometimes lasting for hours, punching pistol grip and hitting with the bottome three knuckles, without worrying about broken hands.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

DavidCC said:


> The first two have significantly better alignment with the bones of the arm.


In horizontal, OK, I'll agree.  Not in Pistol Grip though.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## DavidCC

lklawson said:


> "Pistol Grip" punching with the bottom three knuckles is also the standard for old style bare knuckle pugilism (see examples at: http://stores.lulu.com/lawson ).
> 
> There's been speculation for years now that WC adopted/coopted the technique from western sailors. It's an entertaining speculation but 100% unverifiable and not good for much other than irritating my WC friends.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
I dunno, I've heard from many sources that this tye of punch came about after the introduction of padded gloves (the shape of the glove causing a modification in the trainnig of the punch) ; and this is why breaking the 5th metacarpal from an impact is known as "boxer's fracture" - when they punch as they have trained WITHOUT wraps and pads.


----------



## lklawson

DavidCC said:


> I dunno, I've heard from many sources that this tye of punch came about after the introduction of padded gloves (the shape of the glove causing a modification in the trainnig of the punch) ; and this is why breaking the 5th metacarpal from an impact is known as "boxer's fracture" - when they punch as they have trained WITHOUT wraps and pads.


As a result of horizontal punching.

"Pistol Grip" punching in boxing is old.  WAY OLD.  Predates gloves ("mittens"/"mufflers") by a significant amount.  Look at _Defensive Exercises_ by Walker (1840) or _The Science of Self Defense_ by Price (1867) (http://www.geocities.com/cinaet/price.html ).  You can see its continued use post wide-spread addoption of the Marquis rules (requiring gloves) such as in Allanson-Winn's _Boxing_ (1915) or even in Dempsey's _Championship Boxing_ (1950) Chapter 9: Powerline, figs 6 & 7.  Dempsey's description of the why's wherefore's and how's is the most detailed and clear so I'll quote it here:

"THE POWER-LINE RUNS FROM EITHER SHOULDER
STRAIGHT DOWN THE LENGTH OF THE ARM​​TO THE FIST
KNUCKLE OF THE LITTLE FINGER, when the fist is
doubled.
Remember: The power line ends in the fist knuckle of the
little finger of either hand. Gaze upon your "pinky" with
new respect. You might call that pinky knuckle the _exit of_​_
your power line_the muzzle of your cannon.
You'll understand the power line if you feel it out.
Stand up. Walk toward a wall until you're arm's length
from the wall when facing it. Put your heels together. You
should be standing just far enough from the wall so that
you can barely touch it with the tip of the "middle" finger
of your "right" handat a "point directly opposite of your
chin. Touch that chin-high point with your middle-finger
tip.
Now move back three or four inches, but keep your heels
together.
Double your "right" fist firmly. In making a fist, close the
fingers into the palm of the hand, then close the thumb
down over the outside of the finger (Figure 5).
Extend the fist at arm's length "toward" the spot on the
wallonly toward it. The fist should be "upright", as if
you were holding a stick running from ceiling to floor.
The little knuckle is down, toward the floor.
With your arm "stiffly extended", let your body sway
slowly forwardwithout moving your feetuntil your
fist (still upright) is pressed so firmly against the chin-high
spot on the wall that your fist and stiff arm are
SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF YOUR LEANING
BODY (Figure 6.)
Note that the lower part of your fist (still upright)
particularly the "little knuckle"provides the natural,
solid end of the firm, straight line -from should to fist
that is supporting your weight. Note particularly that this
line runs unswervingly THROUGH YOUR WRIST TO​YOUR LITTLE KNUCKLE (Figure 7).
Now, with your upright fist still supporting your weight at
the chin-high spot, try to shift your pressure from the little
knuckle to the upper knuckles. The turn your fist so that​the palm of your hand is down. When you attempt
those changes, you should feel immediately that both new
pressure position of your fist "lack" the "solidity" of the
first position. And you should feel and see that a change in
position "swerved" the "power line" at the wristputting​your wrist in a hazardous landing position."
​So, yeah, Pistol Grip punching is way old.  Sorta "the original way" punching was done.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

I have some pics from antique manuals that I'd like to upload if I can manage to get permission to create a photo gallery.

Peace favor your sword


----------



## Skpotamus

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/boxers_fracture/article_em.htm 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer's_fracture

Boxers fracture defined.  It's typically the bones behind the pinky finger that break.  So why would you want to punch with the thing that breaks?  

Boxing started off including grappling, throws, submissions, and even weapons.  A round wasn't a set period of length, but determined by one fighter hitting the ground.  So saying a fight lasted 105 rounds doesn't necessarily mean it was longer than 20 minutes.  It could've just meant at least one fighter was damned good at throws and sweeps.  

I was always curious if the lack of busted hands from vertical punching was from the lack of power most people have when hitting that way?  Most vertical punches I see lack any type of hip rotation (most of the bareknuckle manuals I see show their punches this way).  Without the hip rotation, I can't see a person getting the same type of power they could get from planting their feet, driving with their legs and using their torso to twist and generate power.


----------



## lklawson

Skpotamus said:


> I was always curious if the lack of busted hands from vertical punching was from the lack of power most people have when hitting that way? Most vertical punches I see lack any type of hip rotation (most of the bareknuckle manuals I see show their punches this way).


I have some pics and some text extracted from some antique manuals that I'm working on getting posted/linked for this thread.



> Without the hip rotation, I can't see a person getting the same type of power they could get from planting their feet, driving with their legs and using their torso to twist and generate power.


You're right that most Bare Knucke (London Prize Ring rules and prior) manuals do not show any hip rotation.  However, they do typically illustrate dropstep punching.  A tremendous amount of force can be generated with a dropstep punch but it requires a lot more distance to generate it with.  Dempsey is, again, the most verbose and detailed in both text and illustrations on this concept.  He calls it the "Falling Step" and uses at least two illustrations to clarify his text (the most amusing one being "can a baby knock out a burly truck driver?")

Here is the text for Punching from Dempsey's book.  Pics will have to wait.



> Chapter 7: WHAT IS A PUNCH?
> 
> "NATURE has given you, a normal beginner, the three requisites for a knockout punch. They are:
> 
> 1. WEIGHT - THE WEIGHT OF YOUR ENTIRE BODY
> 
> 2. POWERFUL MUSCLES IN YOUR FEET, LEGS, AND BACK - THE MEANS OF HELPING YOU TO "PUT YOUR BODYWEIGHT INTO MOTION
> 
> 3. ARMS AND FIST - THE MEANS OF "EXPLODING" YOUR MOVING WEIGHT AGAINST AN OPPONENT.
> 
> For practical purpose, I divide a punch into two parts: a) setting the weight in motion and b) relaying the moving weight to a desired point on an opponent with a stepped-up impact or explosion.
> 
> All full fledge punches must have that (a) and (b) combination. It is only what might be called "partial" punches that the body-weight does not play a stellar role. Partial punches are those delivered with only the weight of arms and fist - short backhands to the head, chops to the kidney or to the back of the neck, or mere cuffs to the head when in a tight clinch.
> 
> Since we're concerned primarily with the stunning, full-fledged knockout punch, let's move on to it. Let's examine the first fundamental. How do we set the body-weight in motion?
> 
> "There are FOUR ways of setting the body weight in motion for punching:
> 
> 1. Falling Foward.
> 
> 2. Sprining forward.
> 
> 3. Whirling the shoulders by means of the powerful back muscle, assisted by shifting weight from one leg to the other.
> 
> 4. Surging upwards, as in delivering uppercuts.
> 
> 
> Every punch combines at least two of those motion-methods.
> 
> Best of all the punches is the "stepping straight jolt" delivered with either fist from the "falling step." It has fall, spring, and whirl. That stepping jolt must not be confused with the "ordinary straight punch" that is delivered at medium range without moving the feet, and depends almost entirely on the shoulder whirl. The stepping jolt is a much more explosive blow.
> 
> "Hooks and uppercut are short-range blows that can be just as explosive as stepping jolts. However, the hooks and uppercuts are less desireable for fist-fighting, in which one tries to keep at long range as much as possible in order to avoid clinching and wrestling.
> 
> "How does a fighter set his weight in motion by a fall? The falling procedure is simple. Remember the baby and the truck driver? (note Dempsey is refering to a diagram of a baby free falling about to land directly on top of a standing man. The baby fell straight down from the fourth floor window. It was yanked straight toward the earth by gravity. It encountered nothing to change the direction of its moving body-weight until it struck the truckman's head. However, the direction of a falling object can be changed. Let's take an example of a boy sitting on a sled and sliding down a snowny hill (note: this is also illustrated in the book). In a sense the boy and his sled are falinng objects, like the baby. But the slope of the hill prevents them from falling straight down.
> 
> "Their fall is deflected to the angle of the hill. The direction of their "weight-in-motion" is on a slant. And when they reach the level plain at the bottom of the hill, they will continue to slide for a while. Howeve, the direction of their slide on the plain - the direction of their "weight-in-motion" - will be "STRAIGHT OUT", at a right angle to the straight-down pull of gravity.
> 
> "Those examples of the falling baby and the sledding boy illustrate two basic principles of the stepping jolt:
> 
> (1) Gravity can give motion to weight by causing a fall.
> 
> (2) The direction of that "weight-in-motion" can be deflected away from the perpendicular - on a slant, or straight forward.
> 
> "But, you ask, 'what's the connection between all that falling stuff and the straight jolt?"
> 
> "I'll answer that question by letting you take your first step as a puncher, and I do mean s-t-e-p.
> 
> End of chapter 7.
> 
> Chapter 8: THE FALLING STEP
> "Stand in the middle of the floor. Point your left foot at any distant object in the room. Place your right foot to the rear and slightly to the right of your left foot (the book provides illustrations, this description is illustrated in figure 3). For the cahp about 5'10", the heel of his right foot should be about 18" back (and slightly to the right) of the heel of his left foot."
> 
> "let your arms dangle loosely at your sides; you won't need to use them in the step."
> 
> "Bend your knees slightly. Ben your body forward slightly as you shift your "weight forward on to your left foot", so that your "right foot" is resting only on the ball of the foot. Remember that the knees are still slightly bent. Teeter up and down easily (half bouncing without leaving the floor) to make certain you're in a comfortable, ballanced position. If your position doesn't feel balanced and comfortable, move your right foot about slightly - but not much - to get a better balance as you teeter. You are resting only lightly on the balls of your "right foot", remember. Stop teetering, but keep the knees slightly bent and your arms at your side.
> 
> "NOW - WITHOUT ANY PREMLIMINARY MOVEMENTS - take a long, quick step forward with your "left" foot, toward the object at which your left toe had been pointing (this is illustrated in figure 4). I emphasive: "no preliminary movement befor the step. You unquestionably will be tempted to shift some of the weight from the "left" foot to the "right" foot, which is resting lightly on its ball. NO PRELIMINARY MOVEMENT! Just lift the "left" foot and LET THE BODY FALL FORWARD IN A LONG, QUICK STEP."
> 
> "The "left" foot should land flat and solid on the floor at the end of the step."
> 
> "It is a quick, convulsive and extremely awkward step. Yet, it's one of the most important steps of your fistic life; for that falling step lurch is the rough diamond out of which will be ground the beautiful, straight knockout jolt. It's the gem-movement of straight punching. Try that falling-step many times. Make certain, each time, that you start from a comfortably ballanced position, that the body-weight is resting largely on the "left" leg, that the knees are slightly bent, that the arms are at your side, and that you make no preliminary movement with your "right" foot."
> 
> "I call that forward lurch a "falling step." Actually, every step in walking involves a small "fall." Walking is a series of "falls." But in this particular step, the fall is exaggerated for two reasons:
> 
> (1) your weight is well forward when you step off.
> 
> (2) the step is so long that it gives gravity a chance to impart unusual momentum to your body-weight.
> 
> The solidity with which your "left" foot landed upon the floor was caused by your momentum. The late Joe Gans rarely missed with a long, straight punch; but, when he did you could hear for half a block the smack of his left sole on the canvas."
> 
> "Although the weight of your body was resting largely upon your "left" foot when you stepped off, you didin't fall to the floor. Why? Because the alert ball of your "right" foot came to the rescue frantically and gave your body a forward "spring" in a desperate attempt to keep your body balanced upright - to maintain its equilibrium. Your rescuing "right" foot acted not only as did the slope of the hill for the sledding boy, but also as a "springboard" in the side of the hill might have functioned had the sledding boy whizzed onto a springboard on the side of the hill. The "left" foot serves as a "trigger" to the spring the "right" foot. So, the falling step sometimes is called the "Trigger step"
> 
> "I warned: DON'T MAKE A PRELIMINARY MOVEMENT before stepping off. Had you followed yur natural inclination and shifted your weight to the right foot before stepping, that action would have started your body-weight "moving backward" - "away" from the direction in which you intend to step. Then you would have had to lose a split-second while your "right" was stopping the back motion and shifting your weight forward again before the punching step could be taken"
> 
> 
> "Learn now and remember always in fighting you cannot afford to give your body the luxury of a useless preliminary or prepartory movment before shooting a punch. In the first place, your target may be open for only a split-second, and you must take advantage of that opening like a bolt of lightning. Secondly, preliminary movements are "give-aways" - "tell-tales" -"telegraphs" - that treacherously betray to your opponent your next action. Joe Louis was knocked out in his first fight with Max Schmeling principally because of the tell-tale movements of Joe's left jab. Schmeling timed Joe's telegraphs and smashed him again and agin with straight rights to the head. Herr Maxie smashed him every time that careless left hand beckoned."
> 
> "You now know how to set your weight into motion for a straight jolt - by means of the FALLING STEP. Next we must consider the second part of the jolt: CONVEYING THE MOVING BODY-WEIGHT AND EXPLODING IT AGAINST THE OPPONENT."
> 
> "However, before studying the "movements" in conveyance and explosion, it will be neccesary for you to understand clearly the LINE OF POWER that all successful conveyance and explosion must follow."
> 
> End of chapter 8.


 
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Skpotamus

I've trained with some people who used the drop step (WWII combatives people).  I know that it isn't a very fair comparison, but every single person at my local boxing gym can punch harder and faster than the guys showing the drop step method (including guys and girls in the 100lb category).


----------



## lklawson

Promissed pics:

Here are the Dempsey pics to go along with the above text:










Here are some related pics from various antique manuals.





Walker's "Boxing"





Walker's "Simpler Method of Boxing"





Price's Blow #2





Price's Blow #1





Davie's Left hand Lead





Sullivan's Left Lead at face





Left Lead from Art and Practice of Boxing





Allanson-Winn's Left hand Lead (line illustration)





Allanson-Winn's Left hand Lead at chin

Obviously this is just a sampling, but you get the idea. They're all striking with a "Pistol Grip" punch, and (when the pics are detailed enough to tell) you can see that they're favoring the bottom three knuckles of the flat of the fist.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deaf Smith

Which bones in your hand are stronger? The smaller ones or the larger? Which are supported better?

Simple test. Go to a hard wood floor. Do pushups with your fist closed. Do them first with the last three kunckles of the hand (I.E. Bruce Lee flashion), then do it with just the first two larger kunckles. Do LOTS of pushups. See which feels less pain and is more comfortable.

I bet you will find the larger kunckles work much better for the simple reason the force is right behind the bone structure.

And while you are at it, I suggest much wrist exercises to make your wrist as strong as possible. Many a puncher has had their wrist broken on bags as well as bodies. If that wrist flexes for any reason, your own strength may very well cause the wrist to buckle and snap.

Deaf


----------



## lklawson

Deaf Smith said:


> Which bones in your hand are stronger? The smaller ones or the larger? Which are supported better?
> 
> Simple test. Go to a hard wood floor. Do pushups with your fist closed. Do them first with the last three kunckles of the hand (I.E. Bruce Lee flashion), then do it with just the first two larger kunckles. Do LOTS of pushups. See which feels less pain and is more comfortable.
> 
> I bet you will find the larger kunckles work much better for the simple reason the force is right behind the bone structure.


<shrug>
I don't really want to argue the point. If you like punching that way and feel comfortable doing so for reasons that you've critically examined, then, by all means, absolutely do so. 

As far as I can tell, there's plenty of rock-solid evidence for both, to be honest.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Skpotamus

lklawson said:


> <shrug>
> I don't really want to argue the point. If you like punching that way and feel comfortable doing so for reasons that you've critically examined, then, by all means, absolutely do so.
> 
> As far as I can tell, there's plenty of rock-solid evidence for both, to be honest.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
The only evidence that hitting with the smaller knuckles is better is from old boxing manuals using a method of boxing that is no longer used (which focused on grappling, NOT punching from what I understand, and used a much weaker punch throwing a lot fewer punches in a fight) and the teaching of martial artists of various styles that teach to hit with those knuckles, most of which have probably never been in a fight (see definition of martial artist).  

All the statistical and scientific evidence suggests that one is inherently more prone to injury than the other.


----------



## lklawson

Skpotamus said:


> The only evidence that hitting with the smaller knuckles is better is from old boxing manuals using a method of boxing that is no longer used (which focused on grappling, NOT punching from what I understand,


Sorry, that's just not right. Punching the opponent in the head (and body) was a major part of the sport. The focus was not specifically grappling any more than grappling is the "focus" of modern MMA. It was simply something permitted by the rules and therefore happened in appropriate circumstances.

For example, the first couple of rounds in the Mendoza v. Humphries fight ended with Mendoza punching Humprhies in the head and knocking him from his feet. For that matter, *most* of the rounds of the Mendoza v. Humphries match did not end with grappling (ims).




> and used a much weaker punch


I've never seen anything but anecdotal evidence to support the thesis that bare knuckle pugilism punches were "much weaker" nor that modern punches are "much harder." You are free, of course, to state that in your opinion they are, but it is hardly anything other than an opinion and I could easily point to other anecdotal opinion reference material stating how hard old style punches were such as one commentator stating that Dempsey's punches were like a tug-boat bumping it's moore or the fact that Mendoza was knocking Humphries clean off his feet with one punch.

For that matter, I've seen much ink spilled over whether or not pistol grip punching is "harder" or "weaker" or more/less skeletally sound than horizontal or even half-twist. Everyone has weighed in from osteo physicians to lay folks.

However, to date, I've yet to see anything even approaching a rigorous, to say nothing of definitive, study.



> throwing a lot fewer punches in a fight)


Sorry, again this is simply not so. The evidence is quite plentiful that bare knuckle pugilists punched each other a lot. The primary difference was in range at which most (but not all) punches were thrown.




> and the teaching of martial artists of various styles that teach to hit with those knuckles, most of which have probably never been in a fight (see definition of martial artist).


Go argue with them about that. I'm disinclined to wade back into that old argument.



> All the statistical and scientific evidence suggests that one is inherently more prone to injury than the other.


And that evidence has yet to have been presented. I have seen lots of assertions about "which knuckles are stronger" and "the boxer's fracture" but all of that has been presented in the context of modern punching. Yes, punching horizontally and hitting with the "small knuckles" can, and does, lead to a "boxer's fracture." Yet, I've yet to see any actual evidence of this beeing an issue with the pistol grip punch. Lots of noise about "boxer's fractures" but no evidence.

Further, as I've said, I've seen some fair amount of ink, one that I recall specifically from a physician, which *supports* the idea of a pistol grip punch giving better skeletal structure.

Additionally, I'm disinclined to think that a sport (Bare Knuckle Pugilism) with a verifiable time-line and lineage lasting *centuries*, using a well documented techinque was "doing it wrong." One would think that in the course of a couple hundred years at least one fella would have thought, "hey! what happens when I punch horizontally?"

So, honestly, and I'm not trying to be a wang about it, but please just admit that this is your opinion and claiming "all statistical and scientific evidence" is something of a stretch.

Now, as I said, if you're happy punching horizontal fist, by all means, please do so. I'm not telling you that it's "wrong."

Peace favor your sword


----------



## zDom

Howabout a breaking competition? See who can still type their results after a couple of block breaks?


----------



## Skpotamus

zDom, I actually have broken patio blocks with punches before for demo's and in class work. The most I ever did with a punch was two blocks without spacers when I was around 16 and still thought that breaking was cool. 



http://www.savateaustralia.com/Savate Essays/Bare-Knuckles to Modern Boxing.htm 

A link to an article on bare knuckle boxing. 
While touting the benefits of the vertical punch, it also admits that the horizontal punch has more power to it and that punching bare knuckle pugilists would hold back their punches power to prevent hand injury.  
Rounds were decided and ended not based on time limits, but on one fighter hitting the ground. Be that from a punch knockdown, or a throw. It wasn't until the addition of "mufflers" or gloves that KO's became common. Many fights ended with one fighter being stunned form a hard throw and unable to toe the line within his 38 second window (30 seconds to get up, then 8 seconds to make it to his scratch line). 

Interesting book aside, Jack Dempsey wasn't known as the Manassa Mauler because he was a highly technical boxer. He went in and scrapped and mostly out toughed his opponents. He preferred to get inside and pound his opponents with hooks and uppercuts to the body, then went after the head with looping, wild shots. He was also known for cheating during his fights (having plaster on his wraps in one fight, hitting the groin, headbutting, rabbit punching, hitting after the break, after the bell, hitting a downed fighter, etc). 

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ack+dempsey+punching+pictures&um=1&hl=en&sa=X talks about dempsey and has some pictures of his punching technique, him winding up his uppercuts and hooks completely behind his hip (clearly not what his book says to do). 

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ack+dempsey+punching+pictures&um=1&hl=en&sa=X shows him displaying a jab in a library of congress photo, (btw, note the hand position, his fist is horizontal).





 Dempsey fighting Jess Willard. Note Dempsey's wide, swinging style with all his punches coming from the waist. Not quite the tight, technical game he writes about in his book. 

Also, if you watch carefully, you can see that his hands are turned over horizontally when he throws punches to his opponents heads (at least when he was throwing power shots). 

His power came not from good technique, but from big, winding blows that in some cases, almost made him fall down when he missed. See videos on ESPN or youtube of more of his fights. When he missed his hooks, or crosses, he almost completely turned his back on his opponents. 

Was he a great fighter? Undoubtably, was he a technical boxer? His defense was good for modern boxing rules (no grappling, kicking, kneeing, or elbowing), but his punching was wild, and he fought his entire career with gloves. 



The arm being held horizontal or vertical makes np difference in bone alignment in the fist and wrist. Your arm rotates at the shoulder to rotate your fist from vertical to horizontal (hence the oft repeated phrase "flared elbows" as a thing to correct when punching as the rotation in the shoulder causes the elbow to turn outwards). Whether your shoulder rotates and the elbow is up or down does not affect the alignment of your wrist and hand. If it does, then you are somehow torqueing your wrist into an unnatural position similar to some wrist locks. 

A boxer's fracture is defined as a break through the bones of the hand that form the knuckles. Some doctors use the term "brawler's fracture" rather than "boxer's fracture" because a boxer is not as likely to get this injury
The metacarpal bones in the hand connect the bones in the finger to the bones in the wrist. There are 5 metacarpal bones&#8212;1 to connect each finger to the wrist. All of the metacarpal bones have the same anatomic structure. Each consists of the base, the shaft, the neck and the head. The base of the metacarpal bone is the portion that attaches to the bones of the wrist. The shaft is the long, slender portion of the bone. The neck is the portion of the bone that connects the shaft to the head. The head of the metacarpal bone connects the metacarpal bone to the bone of the finger. The head of the metacarpal bones form the knuckle of an enclosed fist. A boxer's fracture involves a break in the neck of the metacarpal. This was described originally in the fracture of the metacarpal bone of the little (small) finger because this is the most common one to break when punching an immovable object.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/81/93/23109381.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jupiterimages.com/itemDetail.aspx%3FitemID%3D23109381&h=177&w=250&sz=20&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=BW5Bm00UW3pTiM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3DX%2Bray%2Bfist%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den is a picture of an Xray of a clinched fist, you can see from the photo that the metacarpal of hte pinky finger is actually at a greater angle to the wrist than any other metacarpal (close 2nd would be the first metacarpal on this Xray) and is the smallest one as well.  Impact forces on this knuckle cause more shearing force in the middle of the small bone, hence the break being more common here. 

I would like to point out that this person seems to have pretty small wrists compared to their hands. Someone who's done some wrist and forearm strengthening (like a boxer say), will have thicker wrists that provide more support for the first metacarpal. 

If the pinky knuckle is most prone to breaking when punching something (and it is according to ANY doctor or medical reference you can find on top of any legitimate boxing reference you can find), then why on earth would someone intentionally try to hit with it? Wouldn't it make more sense to hit with the bones that break less frequently, such as the larger knuckles?

Out of curiousity, have you ever boxed before?  I'm just wondering if you've ever applied your vertical punching/smaller knuckle impact ideas before.


----------



## thetruth

Touch Of Death said:


> If you are hitting softer targets with a lesser force, why always?
> sean



Why risk targeting a soft target with a weak weapon that could be damaged if the target moves slightly before it is struck.  Is it not best to go with the highest common denominator?  That way if you miss your 'soft' target you dont break your hand.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## zDom

Skpotamus said:


> If the pinky knuckle is most prone to breaking when punching something (and it is according to ANY doctor or medical reference you can find on top of any legitimate boxing reference you can find), then why on earth would someone intentionally try to hit with it? Wouldn't it make more sense to hit with the bones that break less frequently, such as the larger knuckles?
> 
> Out of curiousity, have you ever boxed before?  I'm just wondering if you've ever applied your vertical punching/smaller knuckle impact ideas before.



You aren't asking ME are you? I think you have misunderstood MY position on this issue:

I am COMPLETELY FOR using the largest two knuckles and would never DREAM of using the smaller two  And exactly for the reasons quoted above.

I don't know if it is due to training or physiology, but I find the wrist alignment using the large two knuckles stronger and more natural feeling that aligning with the small two knuckles.

Also, how did "vertical fist" and "horizontal fist" get mixed up in this discussion?

I use BOTH vertical fist AND horizontal fist  BOTH with the large two knuckles* depending on range and/or situation.


----------



## lklawson

zDom said:


> I am COMPLETELY FOR using the largest two knuckles and would never DREAM of using the smaller two


It is worth noting that the old time Pugilists didn't advocate hitting with the "smaller two" knuckles either.  They advocated hitting with the lower *THREE* knuckles.  The index finger was the "odd man out" so to speak.



> Also, how did "vertical fist" and "horizontal fist" get mixed up in this discussion?


My fault, I'm afraid.  I pointed out in earlier posts that old time Pugilists hit with the lower three knuckles and did so from a "pistol grip" (verticle) fist and that this orientation was ideal to supporting the lower three knuckle punching without injury.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Skpotamus said:


> Jack Dempsey ... He was also known for cheating during his fights (having plaster on his wraps in one fight


These particular allegations have been proven to be false.  He didn't plaster his wraps.  Neither did he secret a railroad spike in his gloves in the Willard fight.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bodhisattva

Paul-M said:


> My Shaolin Kung Fu instructor tells me to punch with the front two knuckles, as do pretty much everyone I speak to. But Bruce Lee's books, and a boxing book I have by Doug Werner both tell me to punch with the last three knuckles.
> 
> Are both ways effective? Which knuckles do you strike with ?



Hitting people with the last three knuckles is oftren recommended because of the alignment it puts on the wrist with the forearm.

I don't buy into this.

I believe in punching with the knuckles of the middle and index finger and the bones of the hand in line with the bones of the forearm.

If you hit with the last two knuckles, you will suffer a boxer's break.

It won't happen until you are hitting powerfully with good mechanics.


----------



## Deaf Smith

Kirk,

I broke my hand, smallest bone behind the pinkie finger's knuckle, cause I hit with the last three knuckes back in college.

That's why I'm kind of biased about how to strike with a punch.

Deaf


----------



## Skpotamus

zDom said:


> You aren't asking ME are you? I think you have misunderstood MY position on this issue:
> 
> I am COMPLETELY FOR using the largest two knuckles and would never DREAM of using the smaller two  And exactly for the reasons quoted above.
> 
> I don't know if it is due to training or physiology, but I find the wrist alignment using the large two knuckles stronger and more natural feeling that aligning with the small two knuckles.
> 
> Also, how did "vertical fist" and "horizontal fist" get mixed up in this discussion?
> 
> I use BOTH vertical fist AND horizontal fist  BOTH with the large two knuckles* depending on range and/or situation.


 
zDom, I started off talking to you about the breaking, then switched to another person in the next paragraph, sorry I didn't make it clear.  :asian:


----------



## lklawson

Deaf Smith said:


> Kirk,
> 
> I broke my hand, smallest bone behind the pinkie finger's knuckle, cause I hit with the last three knuckes back in college.
> 
> That's why I'm kind of biased about how to strike with a punch.


Like I said, if you're happy with the way that you punch and have some reasonable purpose for your selection then I've got no bones to pick with you.  I'm not gonna tell you you're doing it "wrong."

Fact is, I'm perfectly happy with folks who want to punch with the index and middle knuckles.  It's just not the only way.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## tyciol

It does seem confusing... I'd probably try to harden all the knuckles. Your aim messes up a lot in combat so sometimes you hit with a part of the hand you didn't intend to.

Honestly I think it might depend on the kind of punch you're using too. I always figured for a straight punch you'd use the inside 2, and for a cross you'd use the outside 2.


----------



## Skpotamus

ty, a cross is a straight punch.  

http://www.rivalboxing.com/e/trainingtips-e.html


----------



## lklawson

Skpotamus said:


> ty, a cross is a straight punch.


In the old school, the cross was actually a "Cross Counter." It was (typically) a rear punch fired over (or under) an opponent's incoming punch, while you bob to one side (usually the inside, but not always), with the punch "crossing" it. This terminology persisted up through the first part of the 20th C. and didn't change until sometime around the 40s or 50s (at a guess) when the terminology dissapeared from the common boxing lexicon.

You still see it happen today but the term "Cross Counter" isn't applied to it per se.

Here are a few examples:





Dempsey Cross Counter





_Davies - Right hand cross counter_





_Corbet - Crossing on the jaw_





_Boxing and how to train - pp26 LEFT HAND CROSS COUNTER_





_Davies - Avoiding right lead and cross countering with the left_





_Davies - Avoiding a right lead and cross countering with right upper cut_





_Davies - Avoiding a left lead at head and cross countering with right upper cut_





Edwards' Cross Counter


----------



## Skpotamus

lklawson said:


> In the old school, the cross was actually a "Cross Counter." It was (typically) a rear punch fired over (or under) an opponent's incoming punch, while you bob to one side (usually the inside, but not always), with the punch "crossing" it. This terminology persisted up through the first part of the 20th C. and didn't change until sometime around the 40s or 50s (at a guess) when the terminology dissapeared from the common boxing lexicon.
> 
> You still see it happen today but the term "Cross Counter" isn't applied to it per se.


 
I didn't know that was how the term came into being.  Today the term refers to a punch thrown with the rearhand, straight at your opponent, it's also called a straight right (for orthodox fighters) from time to time.  

Edited:  For some reason the pictures aren't showing up until they're in my quotes


----------



## geezer

Deaf Smith said:


> Kirk, I broke my hand, smallest bone behind the pinkie finger's knuckle, cause I hit with the last three knuckes back in college. That's why I'm kind of biased about how to strike with a punch.
> Deaf


 
I'm sure that kind of experience leaves a lasting impression. I was having this same conversation a short while back, and the guy on the stool next to me put out his fist and showed me were he shattered his middle knuckle when hitting with the first two knuckles.  He said he had to have it surgically pinned and recovery took over a year. My point? If you hit the right target with the right technique, you can effectively use the first two knuckles as in Karate, or the bottom three with a verticle fist as in Wing Tsun. On the other hand, if you screw up, either way you'll suffer the consequences. So what's the answer? Number one: Avoid stupid fist fights.  Number two: When you do fight, hit 'em with a brick. LOL


----------



## Skpotamus

geezer said:


> I'm sure that kind of experience leaves a lasting impression. I was having this same conversation a short while back, and the guy on the stool next to me put out his fist and showed me were he shattered his middle knuckle when hitting with the first two knuckles. He said he had to have it surgically pinned and recovery took over a year. My point? If you hit the right target with the right technique, you can effectively use the first two knuckles as in Karate, or the bottom three with a verticle fist as in Wing Tsun. On the other hand, if you screw up, either way you'll suffer the consequences. So what's the answer? Number one: Avoid stupid fist fights. Number two: When you do fight, hit 'em with a brick. LOL


 

That sounds more like a bone condition than the result of poor technique.  When bones shatter, it's usually either from an incredible impact (falling from several stories, highway speed wrecks, etc), or from some form of pre-existing bone condition.  

We had a girl in our school that kept shattering bones (3 total, two toes and one finger), requireing pins to be inserted to hold the bone back together until it could reknit.  Turns out she had some type of osteoporosis (sp?) beginning that was causing injuries that would result in a sprain in most people turn into breaks in her.  Last I heard she was undergoing treatment and had quit martial arts altogether.  

Then again, your buddy might just have been incredibly unlucky.


----------



## geezer

lklawson said:


> In the old school, the cross was actually a "Cross Counter." It was (typically) a rear punch fired over (or under) an opponent's incoming punch, while you bob to one side (usually the inside, but not always), with the punch "crossing" it. This terminology persisted up through the first part of the 20th C. and didn't change until sometime around the 40s or 50s (at a guess) when the terminology dissapeared from the common boxing lexicon.



Hey, thanks for the history and the old pictures. I don't know much about the history of boxing, but I find it very interesting that the old prints and drawings you posted (at least the ones that date back before Dempsey) show the rear or "chambered" hand held low, at waist level, rather than up, guarding the head. Was there a good reason for this, or was it a case of the art not yet being fully developed? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious as to why they did that.


----------



## lklawson

geezer said:


> Hey, thanks for the history and the old pictures. I don't know much about the history of boxing, but I find it very interesting that the old prints and drawings you posted (at least the ones that date back before Dempsey) show the rear or "chambered" hand held low, at waist level, rather than up, guarding the head. Was there a good reason for this, or was it a case of the art not yet being fully developed? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious as to why they did that.


Yes, there was actually a specific reason for this.

Most of the old manuals say that the rear hand should be held covering "the Mark." This was specified as either the Solar Plexus or the pit of the stomach. Some manuals specify that the rear hand should be held somewhat slightly below the alternate pec. This also covers the mark. 

Naturally the Solar Plex./Pit of the Stomach is a fantastic place to blast a person. Hard to get a Solar Plex shot with modern boxing gloves (not impossible though). They're just so big. Older gloves (mittens/mufflers) were often smaller (look at the ones on the Davies cards), and of course, bare knuckle... Well anyway.

So when you throw out that lead punch, the back hand pretty much goes somewhere, and it's common to retract it a bit down which puts it near the waist.

The reason that old style boxing didn't keep that rear hand up to cover the face as often was a function of the rules. No boxing gloves (or small) so that they had less surface area to act as a shield. Additionally, and more importantly, the inclusion of grappling in the rules led to a much more extended, distanced, game. There was still a lot of "punching the guy in the head" (it was still boxing after all), but once you got in close it was common to clinch and then try to throw, trip, or take a Chancery hold and whale the tar out of the opponent (see my book: _Banned from Boxing_ at http://stores.lulu.com/lawson ). That's one reason why you see a more extended lead with the chin up. The lead was to act as both a "feeler" for grappling entries and as a shield to prevent it. You can see some of this "chin up - longer lead" creeping into NHB competitions. I recall the Sanchez/Koscheck fight (UFC 69) where the commentators were carping about one fighter not tucking his chin and keeping a longer lead. Kept claiming that he was "begging to be knocked out." He won that match and never took a serious punch to the head. http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/122912/Diego_Sanchez_vs_Josh_Koscheck.html (On a side note, I'm gratified to see that The Rounding Blow is slowing being reintroduced by MMA too, though it's generally thought of as a looping swing or a very horizontal "Supperman" type hook.)

Natrually, there was some stylistic overlap between the London Prize Ring rules, which allowed grappling, and the Marquis of Queensberry rules, which banned grappling. A good example of this is Billy Edwards manual (free on my lulu page), which includes instructions for both amateur (which was Marquis rules) and professional (which was London Prize Ring). The cleanest "break," stylistically, between the two probably had to be by James Corbett, affectionately known as "The Father of Modern/Scientific Boxing (his manual is also available as free download on my lulu page). His stylistic differences are very clear and distinct from that of, say, Edwards. Well worth comparing them and thinking of it as an evolution in styles prompted by the evolution of rules.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

