# Is it possible to knock someone out with a jab



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 8, 2016)

You always hear people saying a jab is not a knockout punch but I think if you time it right it can be. No it's never going to be as powerful as a cross or a hook you can still get a lot of power into especially if you step into it. Also it's a harder punch to see coming and the ones that hurt most are the ones you don't see.

I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching.

An example of this is Forrest griffin vs Anderson silva


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 8, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> You always hear people saying a jab is not a knockout punch but I think if you time it right it can be. No it's never going to be as powerful as a cross or a hook you can still get a lot of power into especially if you step into it. Also it's a harder punch to see coming and the ones that hurt most are the ones you don't see.



It's more accurate to say that it's not a _*high percentage*_ knockout strike.



Kickboxer101 said:


> I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching



Actually, that's not how physics works.
The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 8, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's more accurate to say that it's not a _*high percentage*_ knockout strike.


Agreed.



Kickboxer101 said:


> I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching.



Jack Slack says that the art of the striker lies in creating collisions.



Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that's not how physics works.
> The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.



What?? That's not at all correct.

Impact is primarily determined by the relative velocity of the objects involved. (And by a lesser extent by their respective masses).

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (standing still), then their relative velocity is 10 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 10 mph due south), then their relative velocity is 20 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 9 mph due south), then their relative velocity is only 1 mph.

If A  is travelling 10 mph due north and B is travelling 10 mph due north, then their relative velocity is 0 and they won't collide.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 8, 2016)

I am not a physics person, but the way Tony Dismukes describes it is the way I was always told.  And I have seen collisions where there was more damage from a head on collision of two cars than from a single vehicle hitting a non-moving object.  Dirty Dog, did you mis-state and mean to say something else, or can you show us something from physics that proves your statement true?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 8, 2016)

It's possible to knock someone out with a jab and it happens.  As far as technique goes it requires that the power is generated by forward movement of the body instead of trying to generate all of the power only by using the arm. There are a couple of ways to generate the forward movement of the body. The most common way that we see is the superman punch





The style of martial arts that I train uses forward motion to increase the power of jabs and punches in general.  Forward motion is even used in our most powerful punches.  You can literally find quite a few of jab knockouts on youtube.

This guy generates the power for his jab in a similar manner that I generate power for my jabs.  In kung fu it's called a thrust punch


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 8, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





oftheherd1 said:


> I am not a physics person, but the way Tony Dismukes describes it is the way I was always told.  And I have seen collisions where there was more damage from a head on collision of two cars than from a single vehicle hitting a non-moving object.  Dirty Dog, did you mis-state and mean to say something else, or can you show us something from physics that proves your statement true?



No, I did not mis-state at all. 











Yes, it is counter-intuitive. It is, nonetheless, how physics works.

When object A is traveling at speed X and strikes object B, it decelerates from X to zero. The deceleration forces are identical regardless of if object B is stationary or moving.

If you'd like to argue with Newton, feel free. But in _*this*_ universe, that is how the physics works.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 8, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, I did not mis-state at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I beg the differ, that is not how physics work. There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.

An object B that is grounded will have a different friction than one that is moving most likely and as such the way force is moving differs.

To be honest it was a long time I even studied this but it is too complicated for me to recollect the details about it at this point.

While you are in general right especially when two objects can be deemed identical and simplified as to moving in specific paths, same does not apply to a fist hitting a head in order to say damage is identical in terms of force.

Not intended to be arguing, just wanted to say that we should not simplify science in order to make conclussions in this case.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 8, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> .
> 
> When object A is traveling at speed X and strikes object B, it decelerates from X to zero. The deceleration forces are identical regardless of if object B is stationary or moving.



This only applies if object B is rooted in place and cannot move or deform. The Mythbusters test compared the impact of cars colliding with each other to the impact of cars colliding with a wall. Since the wall was rooted and solid enough to not break, it applied a force to the oncoming car exactly sufficient to slow it from speed X to zero in the time it took the kinetic energy to expend itself deforming the body of the car..

When a moving car strikes a stationary car which isn't bolted to the ground (or a boxer strikes a stationary body), the target will be accelerated from its rest position and the moving object will not decelerate as quickly as it would have hitting an unmovable target. Depending on their relative speeds and masses, it might not even decelerate all the way to zero.

Contrariwise, if the colliding objects are moving opposite to each other with comparable momentum, then the effects will be more similar to what happens if they ran into a solid wall.

In the other direction, consider a car moving 50 miles an hour bumping the rear fender of a car moving the same direction at 49.9 miles per hour. The impact would be minimal. Certainly (as long as the drivers didn't lose control and hit something else), the cars wouldn't be crumpled the way they would if they hit a wall going 50 miles per hour.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 8, 2016)

Regarding the jab, the answer is yes.

However, causing unconsciousness with it typically requires rotational force to be applied to the head, and a jab seldom is positioned to do that.

Get offline and hit the jaw on the button and you may cause that rotational force to be applied.

Keep in mind that medical science now believes knockout blows are extremely dangerous in a longterm health sense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2016)

So how about this one:  car A moving at 50 mph, has a head-on collision with car B, which is moving at 60 mph.  Collision not only halts car A, but sends it in reverse direction of 10 mph ( I realize that is an oversimplification, but will suffice for the sake of discussion).  That seems to me to be a force acting on car A that is greater than the equivalent of it running into a stationary wall.

So how does this relate to two cars in a head-on collision, both going equal speed, bringing them to a halt, in terms of it being equivalent to simply hitting a stationary wall.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 8, 2016)

Another way to look at it is in terms of kinetic energy, since that is what is expended in the process of deforming the cars.

Kinetic energy is given by the equation ke = mv^2. The total kinetic energy involved in the collision is given by the sum of the energies of each object in the collision.

1) In the case of the car hitting a wall, the kinetic energy is (mass of car)*(velocity of car)^2. Since the wall doesn't move or deform, all this energy is spent deforming the body of the car as it decelerates..

2) In the case of car A hitting stationary car B, the kinetic energy is (mass of car A)*(velocity of car A)^2. (Same as above). In this case, some of the kinetic energy is spend decelerating and deforming car A and some of it is spent accelerating and deforming car B. The same amount of kinetic energy is spread out on different effects, so the damage will be less.

3) In the case of car A hitting car B moving in the opposite direction, the kinetic energy is (mass of car A)*(velocity of car A)^2 + (mass of car B)*(velocity of car B)^2. If the cars have the same mass and speed then the  total kinetic energy is twice that of the collision in #1 above, but since both cars are being affected equally, the energy is spent equally between decelerating/deforming car A and decelerating/deforming car B, so the damage to each will be comparable to the effects in collision # 1, but greater than the effects in collision #2. This is what the Mythbusters test demonstrated.

The effects for a person hitting another person are more complex to calculate, since the bodies can't be adequately modelled as point masses. The different velocities of different body parts and the elasticities of the various connections between them at the moment of impact make a straightforward calculation of ke=mv^2 not very workable. Still the same basic principles apply.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I beg the differ, that is not how physics work.



Don't grovel. It's demeaning.
And begging won't change how physics works.



Phobius said:


> There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.





> For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage.



That is the statement I responded to. That statement is wrong. If you'd like to discuss physiology instead of physics, that's fine. Since that is what my degrees are in, I'm more at home there than pure physics anyway.



Phobius said:


> To be honest it was a long time I even studied this but it is too complicated for me to recollect the details about it at this point.



It's really not complicated at all. An object moving at speed X has Y amount of kinetic energy. Decelerating that object from X to zero requires exactly that much energy. It doesn't matter if the object you're hitting is moving towards you, away from you, or stationary. 

The thing you're all forgetting is time. If you hit me, and I move away, your fist (and my body) are still subject to exactly the same amount of energy. What's different is the time. Moving away means it takes longer for the same amount of kinetic energy to transferred from your fist to my body. That is what renders your punch less effective. 
In pretty much any city, you can pay someone to spend 30 minutes whacking you on the back. You can measure how much energy they deliver to your body during that time. And I bet you'll enjoy it (or most people will, at any rate). Now deliver that same amount of energy to your spine in 1 second. I know good orthopedists and neurosurgeons who will help you recover, as much as possible, afterwards.
When two objects moving in opposite directions collide, they both come to a stop immediately. Just as if they'd hit a wall. And with the same damage as if they'd hit a wall. The energy of the two objects is not cumulative.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's more accurate to say that it's not a _*high percentage*_ knockout strike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Assuming a fully-stationary object, yes. With a parked car, likely not, since it will move in the opposite direction. In fact, with crumple zones, hitting a parked car (even if it doesn't move) would yield a slower deceleration than hitting a car moving at more than a crawl.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The important part of the physics is the force. F=MA. In this case, A (acceleration) is a negative number. What's important is how quickly a given object decelerates (negatively accelerates). This I think doesn't change just because the object it's impacting is moving. Impact between a moving steel weight and an anchored steel weight gives Fx1. Impact between two moving steel weights gives Fx2, but the force is distributed bteween the two objects, so each experiences Fx1.

This is all theoretical. Give (both the parked car moving and the crumple zones) change all of the force results, making the original statement roughly correct.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 8, 2016)

You guys are funny.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I beg the differ, that is not how physics work. There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.
> 
> An object B that is grounded will have a different friction than one that is moving most likely and as such the way force is moving differs.
> 
> ...



I just had to comment on "conclussions" - it sounds like a confabulation of "concussions" and "conclusions". A perfect word for a KO. I will hereafter refer having given someone a "conclussion".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You guys are funny.


Yeah, but looks aren't everything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> So how about this one:  car A moving at 50 mph, has a head-on collision with car B, which is moving at 60 mph.  Collision not only halts car A, but sends it in reverse direction of 10 mph ( I realize that is an oversimplification, but will suffice for the sake of discussion).  That seems to me to be a force acting on car A that is greater than the equivalent of it running into a stationary wall.
> 
> So how does this relate to two cars in a head-on collision, both going equal speed, bringing them to a halt, in terms of it being equivalent to simply hitting a stationary wall.



If we ignore crumple zones and imagine they are exactly head-on (opposite trajectories), the car traveling at 50 mph is slowed 20% faster than if it hit a stationary object, so takes more force. Likewise, the reflective movement of that car likely increases the deceleration time for the 60 mph car, so it takes a bit less force.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 8, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You guys are funny.



At least I've stopped wearing black socks with sandals...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2016)

Can we change the logo on threads like this to read "Martial Geeks"?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If we ignore crumple zones and imagine they are exactly head-on (opposite trajectories), the car traveling at 50 mph is slowed 20% faster than if it hit a stationary object, so takes more force. Likewise, the reflective movement of that car likely increases the deceleration time for the 60 mph car, so it takes a bit less force.


I expect to be enrolling in some undergrad physics courses in a year or two, hope to get a better grasp of these issues then.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 8, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> The thing you're all forgetting is time. If you hit me, and I move away, your fist (and my body) are still subject to exactly the same amount of energy. What's different is the time. Moving away means it takes longer for the same amount of kinetic energy to transferred from your fist to my body. That is what renders your punch less effective.



Not forgetting about time at all. We're discussing impact. Impact is measured in units of force. Force is inversely proportional to the time required to accelerate/decelerate a mass. As you say, moving away means that the acceleration from the blow takes longer, which means the force of impact is less.



Dirty Dog said:


> When two objects moving in opposite directions collide, they both come to a stop immediately. Just as if they'd hit a wall. And with the same damage as if they'd hit a wall.



Yep, hitting an oncoming object of equal mass and opposite velocity is like hitting a wall. As I noted above, hitting a stationary object which is not locked in place is different. Even if the collision brings the moving object to a complete stop (which won't necessarily happen, depending on the masses involved), the struck object will move somewhat, which means the time of deceleration for the moving object will take longer, which means the force is less, which means the impact is less.



Dirty Dog said:


> The energy of the two objects is not cumulative.



Actually, it is, as I noted above. If the masses and speeds are the same, then the kinetic energy involved in the collision of the 2 objects will be twice that of one object colliding with a wall. However that kinetic energy is equally split between deforming object A and object B, so each object takes the same damage as if it had collided with a wall. 2 x 1/2 = 1.

(Another way to put it is that even though the wall applies a force equal to that of an object moving in the opposite direction, the wall itself is not moving so it has no kinetic energy.)

This is fun. To think through this I had to dig out physics knowledge I haven't used since college. Makes me want to pull out my old textbooks.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 9, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Don't grovel. It's demeaning.
> And begging won't change how physics works.



True, so dont be wrong.



Dirty Dog said:


> That is the statement I responded to. That statement is wrong. If you'd like to discuss physiology instead of physics, that's fine. Since that is what my degrees are in, I'm more at home there than pure physics anyway.



The statement you responded to was however if not completely true your response was incorrect.






Dirty Dog said:


> It's really not complicated at all. An object moving at speed X has Y amount of kinetic energy. Decelerating that object from X to zero requires exactly that much energy. It doesn't matter if the object you're hitting is moving towards you, away from you, or stationary.



You are missing the key thing of any physics class/course or whatever you call it. The total sum of all force vectors are zero. You can not rule out the object that is being hit by the impact. Reason you can do so with a wall is because it is connected to ground and has a material toughness strong enough to withstand those forces and pass them into the earth or whatever it goes depending on the construction. Force does not disappear but are instead resulting in a larger deformation of the crashing object.

Problem is if object being hit can not withstand those forces without folding, deforming or otherwise moving in some way. Equation differs greatly and deformation or impact effect is spread out between the two objects. Either resulting in larger deformation or acceleration.

So two objects moving at a speed of X will result in a total force of impact larger than if one object moves at a speed of X and other at speed of 0. At impact the larger force that needs to be spread or nullified will result in greater damage.

Actually if the wall could move at a speed of X into a car at speed of X the impact would be a lot higher on the car, reason being that the wall can be deemed as reflecting the complete force back into the car. Sort of like an infinite field. So if wall moved at speed of X into a car moving at speed of X. This effect would be same as car running into a stationary wall at 2X speed.

This really is beginner physics.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 9, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Even if the collision brings the moving object to a complete stop (which won't necessarily happen, depending on the masses involved), the struck object will move somewhat, which means the time of deceleration for the moving object will take longer, which means the force is less, which means the impact is less.
> 
> This is fun. To think through this I had to dig out physics knowledge I haven't used since college. Makes me want to pull out my old textbooks.



Just a point of order...

If the two cars hit each other head on and bounced backward, technically, they did stop.  For a fraction of a second, they had to stop in order to change direction.  It can't be seen with the eye, but it does happen.  A baseball briefly stops (and flattens out) when it hits a bat before to goes off into the stands; throw a ball straight into the air, and it stops before coming back down.

The car has to stop traveling in one direction before changing direction, otherwise it wouldn't change direction.  Now, if it changes direction at an angle, i.e. traveling due north, got hit, and went NNE, then it didn't completely stop in the north direction because there's still a north component to its direction.  But if it was traveling due north and the impact changed its direction to south (at any angle of south), then it completely stopped beforehand.

Yep, college physics was fun.  Teaching physics in my middle school science classes is my favorite unit.  My degree is biology with sports medicine, so this type of physics isn't my strongest suit.


----------



## marques (Jul 9, 2016)

Of course it is possible. And some guys are experts on that.
Just human head can absorb quite heavy strikes on the front. Anything (jab, cross, hook, kick...) to the side of the head is a easier KO. (The hard here is getting the side.)


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 9, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Can we change the logo on threads like this to read "Martial Geeks"?


Martial Dork

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger84 (Jul 9, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> You always hear people saying a jab is not a knockout punch but I think if you time it right it can be. No it's never going to be as powerful as a cross or a hook you can still get a lot of power into especially if you step into it. Also it's a harder punch to see coming and the ones that hurt most are the ones you don't see.
> 
> I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching.
> 
> An example of this is Forrest griffin vs Anderson silva


It is certainly possible but generally unintentional.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 9, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> Martial Dork
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Yeah I stopped bothering to read my own thread I'm to dumb to understand most of this lol


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 9, 2016)

Venn diagrams always help these technical discussions...


----------



## JP3 (Jul 9, 2016)

You guys do realize you've totally hijacked this thread, right?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 9, 2016)

Since the OP asked "can you knock someone out with a jab" and then proceeded to answer their own question with a video of someone doing exactly that, it was sort of a pointless thread to begin with, and destined to be hijacked.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 10, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour



Not sure how a car can be parked at 40 miles per hour. 



Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that's not how physics works.



Actually it is.



Dirty Dog said:


> The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.



As long as the resultant velocity is the same.



oftheherd1 said:


> I am not a physics person



Fortunately I am.



Dirty Dog said:


> It's really not complicated at all. An object moving at speed X has Y amount of kinetic energy. Decelerating that object from X to zero requires exactly that much energy. It doesn't matter if the object you're hitting is moving towards you, away from you, or stationary.



You are a little muddled up as to where this statement (which is correct) applies. Two identical cars traveling at 40 mph towards each other will have the same impact force as one car traveling towards a stationary car at 80 mph not 40 mph. Both cars will accelerate away from each other in opposite directions at the same velocity if they were both moving at the same velocity toward each other. With the stationary car it would accelerate away from the moving car whilst it would become stationary. Assuming a completely ealstic collision in both cases.



gpseymour said:


> crumple zones



The purpose of crumple zones is to spread out the contact point of the impact over a longer period of time thus reducing the power (change in kinetic energy over time) experienced by the driver..


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Not sure how a car can be parked at 40 miles per hour.



I saw that as I typed it, and it made me laugh, so I left it unclarified. 



> The purpose of crumple zones is to spread out the contact point of the impact over a longer period of time thus reducing the power (change in kinetic energy over time) experienced by the driver..



This. So it's not a change in total force, but in force delivered to the occupants. Boxing gloves and headgear do the same thing.


----------



## Buka (Jul 10, 2016)

I have seen people knocked out with everything over the years. 

Not sure if any of them had an understanding of physics.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 10, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Since the OP asked "can you knock someone out with a jab" and then proceeded to answer their own question with a video of someone doing exactly that, it was sort of a pointless thread to begin with, and destined to be hijacked.


Not really since it wasnt actually a ko the guy was still conscious he just quit he waved it off as he went down


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 11, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, I did not mis-state at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, now I see it.  Each car is an immovable object for the other (mass and speed being as nearly equal as possible).  Amazing what one can learn.  Thanks for the links.


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 11, 2016)

I know for a fact the jab can knock someone out from my own experience.  When I was an amateur kick boxer, I fought in the UAKF here in PHX back in the late 1990s and early 2000 and I won my first fight in the first round by the 3 knock down rule and one of the knock downs was from my jab. In my second fight, I knocked an opponent out cold with a jab and he stayed down for a long time and he was out before he hit the floor. I even was able to daze and knock into the ropes the champion of my division with my jab.  That fight was declared a draw and it was the only one I went the distance.  I won the rest by way of knockout.  I think the fact I am left handed helped with the accuracy and that when I hit someone with a kick punch or whatever, I do it as if it may be my last chance.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 11, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> I know for a fact the jab can knock someone out from my own experience.  When I was an amateur kick boxer, I fought in the UAKF here in PHX back in the late 1990s and early 2000 and I won my first fight in the first round by the 3 knock down rule and one of the knock downs was from my jab. In my second fight, I knocked an opponent out cold with a jab and he stayed down for a long time and he was out before he hit the floor. I even was able to daze and knock into the ropes the champion of my division with my jab.  That fight was declared a draw and it was the only one I went the distance.  I won the rest by way of knockout.  I think the fact I am left handed helped with the accuracy and that when I hit someone with a kick punch or whatever, I do it as if it may be my last chance.


Nice how long did you fight for competitively?


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 11, 2016)

I fought 4 times amateur kickboxing,1 time shoot fighting, 5 times rage in the cage all here in Tucson or Phx from 1997 to 2000.

I had 1 draw in kickboxing since the champ could not make weight the fight was changed to a exhibition match rather than for the record.  When I watch the fight I can see he would have won on points.  I lost 2 rage in the cage on decisions, I won the other three, 2 knockouts and 1 submission, and I lost the shoot fighting match, I was choked out.


----------

