# Two-handed strikes?



## Telfer (Nov 25, 2009)

One thing never seen in any style I've looked at is a two handed striking technique...as in holding the hands locked together in some way to increase power.

It happens occasionally in WWF of course, but is there anything in a serious style???


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2009)

I know a few techniques that utilize both hands to reinforce the strike or block.  If you're talking something like the classic Kirk hammer-chop -- probably not a good idea.


----------



## MJS (Nov 25, 2009)

Telfer said:


> One thing never seen in any style I've looked at is a two handed striking technique...as in holding the hands locked together in some way to increase power.
> 
> It happens occasionally in WWF of course, but is there anything in a serious style???


 
I have to wonder though...how effective that really is.  IMO, you're going to be limited as to what you can throw.


----------



## K-man (Nov 26, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I know a few techniques that utilize both hands to reinforce the strike or block. If you're talking something like the classic Kirk hammer-chop -- probably not a good idea.


Mind you, if I had teeth like that, I wouldn't be grappling!!


----------



## Big Don (Nov 26, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I know a few techniques that utilize both hands to reinforce the strike or block.  If you're talking something like the classic Kirk hammer-chop -- probably not a good idea.


The Shat to the back!


----------



## Ironcrane (Nov 26, 2009)

I know of a few strikes that uses both hands at the same time. One is to palm strike both ears, and that can hurt a lot. I've used a double handed attack against a less serious sparing partner only 1-2 times. It really messed them up, as it was completely unexpected, and disrupted the flow. 

But other then that I wouldn't normally use them (Except for the palm to the ears) as you're in a very vulnerable position.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Nov 26, 2009)

Wing Chun utilizes a two handed strike, called *'po pai jern'* (double palm strike).  It can be found in the second empty handed form (traditionally in the 3rd set), and also in the Mook Yan Jong (dummy) form, the 5th set or po pai set.  The width of the hands can be varied, depending on how or where you strike an opponent.  In the strike, the hands are spread like the wings of a butterfly, only vertical.  That hand position is also adapted from the *'muy fa ng jern'* or plum flower 5 palm position concept.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 26, 2009)

In GoJu there are kata with two handed strikes. Ever though they appear to be hitting at the same time, they are not. Although seconds apart, and hard to see for sure, they do damage. Off of a parry or redirect. both hands or fists hit two different areas. The first hit breaks down their body defenses causing a shock value with the second one doing the real damage. You see it in boxing with the old one/two hit. Jab to the face sets up the body shot while the opponent is still recovering from the first hit. In GoJu and many other Martial Arts the strikes are done almost simultaneously.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2009)

In Isshinryu there are reinforced punches and blocks in the Seiuchin kata.

I have asked about how useful these are, and I while I still have some questions about the likelihood I would ever use them in a real self-defense application, there is an least one bunkai I was given that makes sense.

We use a right-handed punch from the obi where we grip the right hand with the left and punch straight out in a lunge punch.  The bunkai was given to me that it was useful for a punch delivered when one's back is against a wall.  We generate power by twisting our hips and full motion of the opposite arm (elbow) to the rear.  If one cannot do that, then one can generate additional power (beyond just the muscle strength of one arm) by using the opposite arm to assist.  Hmmm.  I guess I could see it happening.

Here is a good demonstration:

[yt]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiEIb61ZEpc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiEIb61ZEpc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[/yt]

You see the reinforced punch immediately after the backfist into the left palm, and it is followed by two reinforced middle-body blocks.

I'm not positive that I agree with the bunkai for the reinforced middle-body blocks, but I am a newbie.  I will wait and see if the application becomes clear to me at some point in the future.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 26, 2009)

In Kajukenbo there is a self defense technique in which you clasp your hands together with the fingers interlocked and punch to the throat area.  I believe that is what you were asking as opposed to a double attack or a supported technique.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2009)

I'm aware of a couple double spear hand strikes, or similar strikes with knuckles, as well, as a few others have mentioned.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> In Kajukenbo there is a self defense technique in which you clasp your hands together with the fingers interlocked and punch to the throat area.  I believe that is what you were asking as opposed to a double attack or a supported technique.


Thats almost exactly what I had in mind yes thanks...like a two-handed uppercut to the chin or throat area.

In an MMA fight the grappler usually keeps his head down and low as he lunges for the legs, very hard to strike from that angle so I've been thinking about alternatives.

Do you know the name of this Kajukendo tech???


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> If you're talking something like the classic Kirk hammer-chop -- probably not a good idea.


LOL!!!

Barely suppressed hysterics on Kirk's face there!


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In Isshinryu there are reinforced punches and blocks in the Seiuchin kata.



Wrist locks are the most common explanation of those movements.

If you are a strike is powerful enough that you need to re-enforce it and you are not spreading the impact across both arms its going to hurt and possibly break your own arm.

As to the original question, power generally comes from turning the body into the strike, if both hands are striking you can't put your body behind it and it won't have much force behind it.

Of course in about 300 years this limitation will be overcome by Cpt James Kirk, but the rest of us fall short of the awesomeness required to overcome that physical limitation.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 26, 2009)

Unless my opponent is totally helpless (then I seen no need for it) or I'm totally desperate, I would not suggest using anythinng that leaves me defenseless. Just my view on it.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> As to the original question, power generally comes from turning the body into the strike, if both hands are striking you can't put your body behind it and it won't have much force behind it.


Yes, try this experiment...stand with your back against a wall, clasp you fists together and thrust outwards as fast as possible.

You will find your back doing a big bounce off the wall as some of the energy kicks back and is wasted.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2009)

OK, well, thanks for that.  I am no expert, but I shared what I knew of my art and provided an example.  Wasn't really hoping to be told what I'm being taught is incorrect.  I was simply trying to answer a question by a newbie.  Little did I know it was a set up.  Next time I won't bother.  Welcome to MT, Telfer.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 26, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Yes, try this experiment...stand with your back against a wall, clasp you fists together and thrust outwards as fast as possible.
> 
> You will find your back doing a big bounce off the wall as some of the energy kicks back and is wasted.


Yes, very good Isaac Newton.. By your apparent lack of understanding of the most fundamental MA concepts such as rooting / grounding / centring [each art has its own nomenclature], you are demonstrating a limited viable martial art experience.  Do please state clearly into the microphone and for the record where you intended for this thread to end up before I put you on ignore haha..


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, well, thanks for that.  I am no expert, but I shared what I knew of my art and provided an example.  Wasn't really hoping to be told what I'm being taught is incorrect.  I was simply trying to answer a question by a newbie.  Little did I know it was a set up.  Next time I won't bother.  Welcome to MT, Telfer.


I watched your video and hit the thanks button for your contribution Bill. 
The technique in question is performed at 36 seconds into the clip right?


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

Jenna said:


> Do please state clearly into the microphone and for the record where you intended for this thread to end up


It doesnt have a destination Jen...and your complaint is a total mystery to me.


----------



## just2kicku (Nov 26, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Thats almost exactly what I had in mind yes thanks...like a two-handed uppercut to the chin or throat area.
> 
> In an MMA fight the grappler usually keeps his head down and low as he lunges for the legs, very hard to strike from that angle so I've been thinking about alternatives.
> 
> Do you know the name of this Kajukendo tech???



It is grab art #5. The fingers are locked together to lock the hands of someone grabbing you from the front.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 26, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> It is grab art #5. The fingers are locked together to lock the hands of someone grabbing you from the front.


I had never heard of Kajukendo until you mentioned it...interesting stuff!


----------



## Brian King (Nov 27, 2009)

Working with your hands joined can be interesting, it is a good method for exploring elbows and forearms and as a training aid to hinder habitual grabbing. It is interesting for those who shoot handguns using two hands, it is interesting for bind/handcuff exploration and it is interesting to explore working while wounded or exhausted.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Thats almost exactly what I had in mind yes thanks...like a two-handed uppercut to the chin or throat area.
> 
> In an MMA fight the grappler usually keeps his head down and low as he lunges for the legs, very hard to strike from that angle so I've been thinking about alternatives.
> 
> Do you know the name of this Kajukendo tech???


 
In MMA the fighter would be better to keep head at his opponent's thigh height, jammed up against the leg with his head up. To keep the head low and down invites a choke and knee to the head probably at the same time. The defences against takedowns aren't usually strikes but evasive moves such as the sprawl.
Don't ever in MMA and BJJ interlock fingers, it's asking for broken fingers.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> As to the original question, power generally comes from turning the body into the strike, if both hands are striking you can't put your body behind it and it won't have much force behind it.


 

Swing it in a circular fashion and don't interlock your fingers. you can put your body behind it with plenty of force. And it's useful if you're cuffed (if you manage to get your arms in front of you).

But you're right if we're talking about straight strikes. 

Generally speaking, however, I'd rather be able to use my hands separately, rather than stuck together.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 27, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Yes, try this experiment...stand with your back against a wall, clasp you fists together and thrust outwards as fast as possible.
> 
> You will find your back doing a big bounce off the wall as some of the energy kicks back and is wasted.


 

Do the same experiment one-handed and see what gets more. You'll find it's the one-handed strike.


----------



## bigmoe (Nov 27, 2009)

Bill your sensei did not teach you incorrect i know him very well ask on monday or thursday to demenstrate reenforced punches and blocks you will understand.The uppercut in the kata also mentioned is not reenforced your left hand shows contact to a person  bill he will show that to you to


----------



## zepedawingchun (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> As to the original question, power generally comes from turning the body into the strike, if both hands are striking you can't put your body behind it and it won't have much force behind it.


 
That is not an all together true statement.  Power can be generated by moving the body forward (stepping) and extending the arms at the elbows from a bent to straightened postition.  Enough force can be generated to throw or snap a human body (opponent) backward or forwards when contacted.  If penetration of the chest is sought through striking, the energy is distributed into the body cavity and various organs can be bruised, damaged, or dislodged.  Many chinese arts use that concept all the time.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 27, 2009)

Brian said:


> Working with your hands joined can be interesting, it is a good method for exploring elbows and forearms and as a training aid to hinder habitual grabbing.


Like breaking a grab to the lapels yes.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Don't ever in MMA and BJJ interlock fingers, it's asking for broken fingers.


Excellent point...better to use two hands clasped one over the other without interlocking.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2009)

bigmoe said:


> Bill your sensei did not teach you incorrect i know him very well ask on monday or thursday to demenstrate reenforced punches and blocks you will understand.The uppercut in the kata also mentioned is not reenforced your left hand shows contact to a person  bill he will show that to you to



I think you misunderstood me.  I don't have a problem with reinforced punches or blocks.  I was responding to Telfer's request, as he said he had never seen a two-handed punch or block.  So I described one and provided a link to an example, and then I find that he knows quite well what a reinforced punch is, he just wanted to criticize it.  It was a setup, and a cheap shot at that.

I wish I had not posted, I do not like being suckered.


----------



## Telfer (Nov 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was responding to Telfer's request, as he said he had never seen a two-handed punch or block.  So I described one and provided a link to an example, and then I find that he knows quite well what a reinforced punch is, he just wanted to criticize it.


I'm critical of it???

I plan on using it!!!

What I said in the opening post is that I had never seen it as part of a serious MA system.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Nov 30, 2009)

In jiu-jitsu I learned a double lapel grab escape using one hand clasped inside the other and uding the arms as a wedge to force the hands off the lapels, then a return strike tothe bridge of the nose (like a two handed hammer fist)


----------



## geezer (Dec 1, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Excellent point...better to use two hands clasped one over the other without interlocking.


 
Yeah, and with apologies to Captain Kirk whomade that double-handed strike famous, (as well as the jumping two-footed side kick!) the only effective double-handed strikes I know keep the hands separated by at least a palm's width.

The first is Wing Chun's straight-on double front-punch. It takes advantage of WC's peculiar structure, centerline alignment and short-power technique. It is also enhanced by stepping forward and putting more body power behind the punch (see the post by Zepeda).

The second, more powerful double punch is seen in some versions of the Wing Chun (WT) Biu Tze form and called "double thunder-punch". It is delivered with a slight sideward rotation, chopping downward and twisting to center with both hands held as though grasping an axehandle. The body torque makes this a very heavy strike. I've used a similar strike in Eskrima. In any case, it is a more specialized technique than a single handed-punch, but when the right situation arises, its a very effective tool to have.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 1, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Yes, try this experiment...stand with your back against a wall, clasp you fists together and thrust outwards as fast as possible.
> 
> You will find your back doing a big bounce off the wall as some of the energy kicks back and is wasted.


Unless you actually understand proper body mechanics.  The same would happen with a single arm punch.  Unless, of course, you understand how to throw a punch correctly.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 2, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The same would happen with a single arm punch.  Unless, of course, you understand how to throw a punch correctly.


A single hand strike benefits from the twisting action of the torso, whereas a two handed strike loses energy from a more static posture.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 2, 2009)

Telfer said:


> A single hand strike benefits from the twisting action of the torso, whereas a two handed strike loses energy from a more static posture.


I would debate this twisting action of the torso. Those that know power transfer will understand, those that don't, won't.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 3, 2009)

Telfer said:


> A single hand strike benefits from the twisting action of the torso, whereas a two handed strike loses energy from a more static posture.


If you stand with you back flat against a wall and throw a single arm punch with torso twist you will still get a bounce off of your opposite shoulder.  But this is only if you are only talking about generating power in a boxing style method (_and _you don't properly understand the body mechanics of that method).  There are other ways.  Again, a proper understanding of body mechanics would demonstrate how your original statement is not absolute 'fact'.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, well, thanks for that. I am no expert, but I shared what I knew of my art and provided an example. Wasn't really hoping to be told what I'm being taught is incorrect. I was simply trying to answer a question by a newbie. Little did I know it was a set up. Next time I won't bother. Welcome to MT, Telfer.


 

To be fair to Telfer, it wasn't him who poo-poo'd your suggestion from Seuichin is was a different poster (Andrew Green) who did not agree with the bunkai explanation. 

 As a side note, practice that reinforced from a wrist grab and trapping their hand on your right wrist with your left.  When you pull back for the chamber to your waist and then punch forward again, it does some VERY interesting things to their joints and posture.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 4, 2009)

blindsage said:


> If you stand with you back flat against a wall and throw a single arm punch with torso twist you will still get a bounce off of your opposite shoulder.


Yes, the torso pivots around the spine and the two opposite motions of either side cancel each other out.

With a two handed strike there is no canceling out, but the recoil can be minimized by changing the angle of posture or even the angle of the strike.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Yes, the torso pivots around the spine and the two opposite motions of either side cancel each other out.


How does that happen?  The kinetic energy of the shoulder hitting the wall just somehow 'cancels' and you don't bounce off the wall?  That not really how it works.



> With a two handed strike there is no canceling out, but the recoil can be minimized by changing the angle of posture or even the angle of the strike.


There is no cancelling out in either version, the kinetic energy goes somewhere either way, you are in control of where, _again_, if you understand proper body mechanics.  And there shouldn't be any recoil in any strike, the body isn't a gun, you don't have something hitting something else inside your body causing a backward force, you are the hammer.  The only time there may be recoil is when you hit a target and the full energy of your hit isn't transferred into the target, but then that would probably be your own fault anyway.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 4, 2009)

blindsage said:


> How does that happen?  The kinetic energy of the shoulder hitting the wall just somehow 'cancels' and you don't bounce off the wall?


I wasnt referring to the wall scenario...when punching the air for example one side of the torso moves forward and the other side moves back, so the force of both motions cancel each other out.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 4, 2009)

blindsage said:


> And there shouldn't be any recoil in any strike, the body isn't a gun, you don't have something hitting something else inside your body causing a backward force, you are the hammer.
> 
> The only time there may be recoil is when you hit a target and the full energy of your hit isn't transferred into the target, but then that would probably be your own fault anyway.


There is always an opposite and equal reactive force. When you strike a target you prevent recoil with a stable stance, using the rear foot as a brace against the floor.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2009)

Telfer said:


> I wasnt referring to the wall scenario...when punching the air for example one side of the torso moves forward and the other side moves back, so the force of both motions cancel each other out.


it is not cancelled, it is circular movement of the torso as a whole, if you are moving them seperately, or thinking of them as such it this is not what is happening.  If you are moving them as seperate parts, that is a whole other problem all together.  If you are punching the air the force of the strike whould be going out, towards or into the target even if punching the air.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2009)

Telfer said:


> There is always an opposite and equal reactive force. When you strike a target you prevent recoil with a stable stance, using the rear foot as a brace against the floor.


But you weren't talking about striking a target, you were talking about shadowboxing basically.  If you aren't hitting a target, what is causing the recoil?  Why is your back hitting the wall when you throw a two handed hit?


----------



## Telfer (Dec 4, 2009)

blindsage said:


> If you aren't hitting a target, what is causing the recoil?  Why is your back hitting the wall when you throw a two handed hit?


The contraction of your triceps can be likened to the explosion inside a gun, which forces the bullet forward and the gun backward in recoil.

Your fist is the bullet and your body is the gun.

Except in this case the fist is connected to the body (unlike the bullet) so when it connects with a target the recoil is far more powerful than merely striking the air.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2009)

Telfer said:


> The contraction of your triceps can be likened to the explosion inside a gun, which forces the bullet forward and the gun backward in recoil.


Except that if you are using proper mechanics the tricep is not the source of power your body is.



> Your fist is the bullet and your body is the gun.


The entire force of your body should be going into the fist this is why you twist in a boxing style punch, the body is the bullet, not the fist.



> Except in this case the fist is connected to the body (unlike the bullet) so when it connects with a target the recoil is far more powerful than merely striking the air.


The 'recoil' comes from not transferring the power properly into your target. The better you get at hitting (understanding body mechanics) the more power goes into your target, and the less 'recoil' you get. The fist doesn't recoil because it's attached to the body, it recoils because it strikes something harder than the force generated, or it's force is actively redirected, not because the body automatically 'recoils' from hitting.

You have a perception of body mechanics that is flawed from the get go. You are either striking with much less power than you are capable of or your understanding of what you are doing is vastly different from what you are actually doing.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 5, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The entire force of your body should be going into the fist this is why you twist in a boxing style punch, the body is the bullet, not the fist.


Try holding your arm straight out in front of a heavy bag and hit with the hips as you say.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 5, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The 'recoil' comes from not transferring the power properly into your target. The better you get at hitting the more power goes into your target, and the less 'recoil' you get.


There is always an opposite and equal reactive force...its one of the first laws of physics.

So you always get recoil, the trick is to prevent the reactive force from acting on anything but the target...in other words, reflecting it back at the target through the miracle of postural stability.

Imagine a gun held in a VERY strong vise...the force acting on the bullet would be much stronger because of the gun's rock solid immobility.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 6, 2009)

Hi Telfer,

Have to say, you're really off on your understanding here (as a number of others have said). But to put it in the terms you are using here, here we go.

The law you are refering to is Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, the first dealing with inertia, and the second deals with application of force. Pretty important stuff for us to understand and get right. The third law is, as you said, that every action will have an equal and opposite reaction. Unfortunately, you are rather out in where you think that equal and opposite reaction is. And your "wall" experiment is just plain wrong, sorry.

If you strike, as you say, with one shoulder going forward (the striking side, let's say the right here), causing the opposite (the left) to go backwards, then you have lost half of your potential power backwards, and really need to improve your understanding of power generation. Instead, as you strike forward, the balancing force goes back down into the ground through your legs and feet (what most TMA guys and arts refer to as being "rooted" or "grounded"). As we teach it, the pivot point is not your spine, as that results in the aforementioned loss of power, but the opposite shoulder/hip. Think of your body not as a revolving door, but as a gate swinging on a hinge. That way all your body weight goes forward, there is no bouncing off of anything, and you get maximum power generation. And it follows Newton's Laws.

The trick is to prevent the reactive force from acting on anything but the target? Nope, you've kind of lost physics again there. From the sounds of things, you've got a little way to go, so I'd start paying attention to those trying to help you out, sound good?

As to your tricep acting as an explosive force, well, if you are really doing that you will have pretty much no power whatsoever. You are just using a fairly weak muscle in a rather inefficient way, and tensing it which reduces speed, and thereby power. Remember that 2nd Law? F = ma? Force (power in your strike) equals Mass (the weight of your strike, in your case just your arm, in mine my entire body weight) times Acceleration (the velocity or speed of the mass in motion, and by tensing your tricep to provide you with your "explosive power", you are slowing yourself down).

But back to the original topic. Double strikes exist in a number of forms, but the method you have described is rather limited, and not entirely powerful, but looks great in a WWE match. So I wouldn't expect to see it around.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 6, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> As we teach it, the pivot point is not your spine, as that results in the aforementioned loss of power, but the opposite shoulder/hip. Think of your body not as a revolving door, but as a gate swinging on a hinge.


Well all I can tell you Chris is that what Ive written is nothing new, and you can look it up in detail from some good authorities on the subject.

This pic for example is from page 101 of Nakayama's classic book 'Dynamic Karate'...does it look like the body pivots at the spine?

http://i48.tinypic.com/2cymqsl.jpg

Indeed, and as for the methods of reflecting recoil you can get a broader description of what I've written from a book called 'Martial Mechanics' by Sifu Phillip Starr, chapter 5 pages 31-37 to be exact.


----------



## geezer (Dec 6, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Well all I can tell you Chris is that what Ive written is nothing new, and you can look it up in detail from some good authorities...


 
I really don't know who's right. In fact I seen instructors teach techniques by referencing things that I'm sure are _NOT_ correct from the standpoint of Newtonian physics. Explaining power generation via Ki or Chi for example. But these same guys could really hit. And the instructional models they used helped their students. So Telfer, how is your hitting power? If it's good, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you! Besides, there are a lot of different ways to generate power. It's a little too complex an issue to resolve with words on a forum like this. So I'm happy with whatever works.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 7, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Well all I can tell you Chris is that what Ive written is nothing new, and you can look it up in detail from some good authorities on the subject.
> 
> This pic for example is from page 101 of Nakayama's classic book 'Dynamic Karate'...does it look like the body pivots at the spine?
> 
> ...


 
Hi Telfer,

Well, for one thing, I don't teach karate... however karate's power source comes indeed from the twisting of the spine, but not to the degree you were talking about. The rear hand (in a gyaku tsuki reverse punch) is pulled back and down to the hip, but not to the degree that your shoulder is pulled back. Your picture clearly shows that, by the way.

As to reflecting recoil, that should be taken care of by grounding yourself, not twisting around. By understanding the way the mechanics work, you will find that you are not having the force move you back (if you are doing things correctly), so you may have misread that particular book. Small caveat, I haven't read it myself, so it is entirely possible that I would simply be completely disagreeing with the author there rather than yourself. Either way, though, your description is limited and flawed.

Oh, and Geezer, yeah a number of people use concepts such as ki/qui/chi to describe their power source, but you will also find that the mechanics are very well covered as well. By the way, we use both in our schools, as they actually describe different aspects.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 7, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Try holding your arm straight out in front of a heavy bag and hit with the hips as you say.


 
That was actually quite funny. In a few years you will hopefully look bak at what you wrote and laugh yourself.


----------



## KenpoGer (Dec 7, 2009)

In my system (Kenpo) you can block and counter an attack at the same time, in my opionion its an very effective way because wasted motion is wasted time.
Why just block or just counter, do both and the fight will end fast.

Kenpo Salute, Timm


----------



## Jaspthecat (Dec 7, 2009)

In Xing Yi you learn a double palm strike which when combined with a step forward and the right grounding is very powerful.

Practically, I think it would be best used as a shove eg when you are pushing someone away from you to encourage them to back off.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 7, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Try holding your arm straight out in front of a heavy bag and hit with the hips as you say.


Umm....no problem.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 7, 2009)

Telfer said:


> There is always an opposite and equal reactive force...its one of the first laws of physics.


Yes, you're just applying the concept wrong.



> So you always get recoil, the trick is to prevent the reactive force from acting on anything but the target...in other words, reflecting it back at the target through the miracle of postural stability.


You need to study your physics deeper, saying there is always and equal and opposite reaction is not necessarily the same as recoil.  The only recoil you should have in the air is that of the air molecules, so not any perceptable.  The 'recoil' you experience off a target is (which introduced and explained in an earlier post) when your force hits the object.  Yes, posural stability plays a large part in what happens after that, but you can have 'postural stability' standing with your back against a wall and throwing a two handed strike, or putting your arms out straight and hittinga bag with your hips.



> Imagine a gun held in a VERY strong vise...the force acting on the bullet would be much stronger because of the gun's rock solid immobility.


Or imagine the ground is the hammer of the gun and your body is the bullet.  You'll get a lot more power.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 8, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> As to reflecting recoil, that should be taken care of by grounding yourself, not twisting around. By understanding the way the mechanics work, you will find that you are not having the force move you back.


Yes, thats what Ive said in more than one post...the book I referenced goes into more detail.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 8, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Umm....no problem.


There is a critical problem actually...you may be able to generate a weak pushing action with a torso twist, but you will have minimal velocity. Its very slow.

A higher velocity is what you need to generate knock out power, and this only comes from contracting the tricep.

Stand in front of a heavy bag and this time dont twist your torso at all, but stand with a stable posture. Strike the bag only with your arm and you'll see that this is where your speed comes from.


----------



## Telfer (Dec 8, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The only recoil you should have in the air is that of the air molecules, so not any perceptable.


Anything with mass is resistant to motion...its called inertia.

The more mass...the more inertia.

Your hands have mass of course, and when they are accelerated forward there is an opposite and equal reactive force backwards against this inertia.

The laws of physics work in a perfect vacuum too...no air molecules required.

So, when you stand with your back one inch away from a wall, clasp your hands together in front, and suddenly extend them out in front with a quick punching action...your back will bump into the wall every time.

If you need more proof, pick up a 5 pound dumbbell, hold it in your hands and do the same thing. This time you will smack into the wall with a much greater force.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 8, 2009)

Okay, I'm going to try to cover this in one post here (another good idea, Telfer).

*(Originally posted by Telfer): Yes, thats what Ive said in more than one post...the book I referenced goes into more detail. *

Actually, you posted once about bracing with a rear foot, which went against your other posts/scenarios, and this was commented. But bracing isn't really the idea, it is actually more power source generation. Just bracing means that you are losing power backwards, and tensing againts it which will slow you down and cause you to lose even more strength.

*(Originally posted by Telfer): There is a critical problem actually...you may be able to generate a weak pushing action with a torso twist, but you will have minimal velocity. Its very slow.

A higher velocity is what you need to generate knock out power, and this only comes from contracting the tricep.

Stand in front of a heavy bag and this time dont twist your torso at all, but stand with a stable posture. Strike the bag only with your arm and you'll see that this is where your speed comes from. *

Okay, you're missing a lot of information here. To start with, power (at it's most effiecient) comes from the entire body, and that means the entire body. You just use your arm, you lose power. You tense the way you have described you lose speed. You have missed the point entirely.  Speed comes from relaxing, and power comes from putting your body behind it. Oh, and high velocity is not required for a knockout. In fact, many knockouts come from slower strikes, just so you know... You really do have a fair bit to learn, I suggest you go back to Tez's and Brian's posts, they have been the best here.

Your heavy bag exercise here is just bad mechanics. When I hit, for example, there is very little movement of my arm. In fact, almost none. It is all body movement, and believe me, that generates plenety of speed and power, certainly more than enough for a knockout. And yes, this has been tested (not in a ring, I might add), although it's not an experience I enjoy reliving.

*(Originally posted by Telfer): Anything with mass is resistant to motion...its called inertia.*

Actually the opposite. Inertia, basically, says that if something is in motion, then it will remain constant unless another force is applied. Mass is not resistant to motion, it is not really anything in regard to motion. It simply needs an external force to generate motion. Make sense?

*The more mass...the more inertia.*

Not entirely true... we'll get to that with your vacuum later.

*Your hands have mass of course, and when they are accelerated forward there is an opposite and equal reactive force backwards against this inertia.
*
Nope, different Laws there. They work in conjunction, but are separate ideas. Inertia means you need to have another force to stop your strike (hitting a target/person/wall), equal and opposite reaction gives you your power by pushing (grounding/rooting) with your feet. Your physics is off.

*The laws of physics work in a perfect vacuum too...no air molecules required.

*Cool, this is a fun one. One of the Apollo missions tested the Laws of physics in a vacuum (told you we'd get back to this) by dropping two very different mass objects. According to the Laws, with no gravity to work as an inertial force (in this case speeding up motion rather than slowing it down... inertia works both ways, you know), both objects should fall at the same rate. These objects were a feather and a hammer. And they did fall at the same rate. So, in answer to your earlier comment, mass is not direcly related to inertia, but the force applied is.

*So, when you stand with your back one inch away from a wall, clasp your hands together in front, and suddenly extend them out in front with a quick punching action...your back will bump into the wall every time.*

Okay, you've changed things here. Now we're an inch away from the wall, with no support? You know, I'm going to leave that alone, as the rest of your construct is flawed in more ways. 

Do you strike just standing there with no supporting footwork? No? Okay, then, your experiement is of no relevance. In fact it sounds like it has been deliberately designed to discredit anothers concepts, as it has no relevance or basis in the reality of the idea you are discussing. Try getting into a common posture (for you and your system, there's no point giving you one of mine, as this has to work for you), then repeat your experiment. If you are getting the same result, then talk to your instructor/coach, because you are missing the point entirely.

*If you need more proof, pick up a 5 pound dumbbell, hold it in your hands and do the same thing. This time you will smack into the wall with a much greater force. *

Yes, because more force is being applied, not due to more weight/mass. But again, if you are doing this the way you are describing, stop, because you are just wasting your time.

Your physics is out, your understanding of body mechanics is flawed, your knowledge of power generation is frankly immature at best. Again, I'm going to repeat myself here and suggest you pay a little more attention to those trying to help you improve, instead of coming back with non-arguments. We are trying to help you, you know.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 9, 2009)

Telfer said:


> A higher velocity is what you need to generate knock out power, and this only comes from contracting the tricep.


 
You honestly believe you can generate more power with your tricep than with the entire body? I think you should ask your instructor about this, could help your training a LOT. 

Only "real men" punch with only their arms. :lol:


----------



## blindsage (Dec 9, 2009)

Most of your comment are addressed extremely well by Chris Parker, but I'll add a bit. 



Telfer said:


> There is a critical problem actually...you may be able to generate a weak pushing action with a torso twist, but you will have minimal velocity. Its very slow.


No, actually you can create significant push and velocity with body structure and forward movement.



> A higher velocity is what you need to generate knock out power, and this only comes from contracting the tricep.


This is just wildly incorrect.  If your power is coming strictly from you arms, your power is pretty weak.  And tension in muscle slows them, this is basic physiology.



> Stand in front of a heavy bag and this time dont twist your torso at all, but stand with a stable posture. Strike the bag only with your arm and you'll see that this is where your speed comes from.


I never did twist the torso.  There is a lot missing from your understanding here that would probably best be explained in person.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 9, 2009)

Telfer said:


> Anything with mass is resistant to motion...its called inertia.
> 
> The more mass...the more inertia.
> 
> Your hands have mass of course, and when they are accelerated forward there is an opposite and equal reactive force backwards against this inertia.


As Chris explained, no.



> The laws of physics work in a perfect vacuum too...no air molecules required.


Yes, and since the hands once in motion would tend to stay in motion, then only an outside force would cause a 'recoil'.



> So, when you stand with your back one inch away from a wall, clasp your hands together in front, and suddenly extend them out in front with a quick punching action...your back will bump into the wall every time.
> 
> If you need more proof, pick up a 5 pound dumbbell, hold it in your hands and do the same thing. This time you will smack into the wall with a much greater force.


SMH, no it won't, if you are using your mechanics correctly and generating power from you body instead of your arms.  

Are you getting this from an instructor, or coming to your own conclusions?


----------

