# Can you tell me anything about the logic behind chambering punches?



## amateur

My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?


----------



## dvcochran

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?


I do think there is value in the practice. It is simply the mechanics behind making power using as much of the body as possible. I know the arguments but if you watch any of the classic knockouts on film nearly all of them are more than a segmented arm or arm/shoulder punch. I think most of the rub comes down to styles of practice and "not wanting to do things the old ways". A word of caution; you need someone to properly teach you how to perform the "eastern" punch. There is a lot more to it than you may think. IMHO
Welcome to the forum. Let us know more about what you are doing. There is a lot of great knowledge here.


----------



## CB Jones

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?



Yes chambering is just loading up your punch to generate more power.  Helps maximize power by creating good weight distribution and acceleration in the punch.


----------



## Hanzou

It's an archiac punching method that is eclipsed by modern methods. There's next to zero value in performing it outside of "tradition" or to win kata competitions.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> It's an archiac punching method that is eclipsed by modern methods.



What modern methods doesn't involve chambering?  Most power punches come from a chambered position.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> What modern methods doesn't involve chambering?  Most power punches come from a chambered position.



I'm talking about this;







Modern methods don't do that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?



The chambered punch is not a technique but a training method. It teaches a number of things, including power generation with the hips. You would not find it useful if you're looking for utility outside of the context in which it is taught.

You were correct to note that you do not see the utility. That you do not see it doesn't mean no one does.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

CB Jones said:


> What modern methods doesn't involve chambering?  Most power punches come from a chambered position.



 Correct. People fail to grasp the mechanics when absorbing the lessons taught from hands on hips to hands held up. Power generation is the same, if taught correctly.


----------



## Martial D

CB Jones said:


> What modern methods doesn't involve chambering?  Most power punches come from a chambered position.


Naw, that's not really true. A good punch comes from where it is. The power comes from the springy back leg, hips, and shoulder. Pulling the fist back to the hip or high chamber position only helps if the power is coming from throwing the arm...aka arm punching.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Naw, that's not really true. A good punch comes from where it is. The power comes from the springy back leg, hips, and shoulder. Pulling the fist back to the hip or high chamber position only helps if the power is coming from throwing the arm...aka arm punching.



You have no idea what you just said.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> You have no idea what you just said.


Uhh..that's a weird comment but ok. I'm pretty sure I know EXACTLY what I just said, based on years and years of both boxing and TMA.

Chambering to the shoulder or hip adds nothing but a very pronounced telegraph, and to break body mechanics. There's a reason no successful fighter does it.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern methods don't do that.



That is just a drill.  Modern methods still utilize punching from a chambered position even if they do not use this particular drill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Uhh..that's a weird comment but ok. I'm pretty sure I know EXACTLY what I just said, based on years and years of both boxing and TMA.
> 
> Chambering to the shoulder or hip adds nothing but a very pronounced telegraph, and to break body mechanics. There's a reason no successful fighter does it.



You described the effects of training using chambering and then said you don't do it.  LOL. "The power comes from the springy back leg, hips, and shoulder."  Yes, no fooling.  Guess where that comes from?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

CB Jones said:


> That is just a drill.  Modern methods still utilize punching from a chambered position even if they do not use this particular drill.



Correct.  What does a hip-chambered punch teach?  Certainly not to fight that way!  But one learns where the power comes from when one cannot arm-punch.  One learns body movement (tai sabaki), trapping, center of gravity, and power generation.  Once those lessons are natural to the body, it no longer matters where the arms are.  I can stand in an upright position, guard my head, and throw a leading jab that generates power from my shoulder, hip, knees, and body rotation, and where might I have learned that?

People take a random aspect of training in an art they do not train in, fail to grasp the point of it, and pronounce it useless.  It certainly is useless - for them.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> You described the effects of training using chambering and then said you don't do it.  LOL. "The power comes from the springy back leg, hips, and shoulder."  Yes, no fooling.  Guess where that comes from?


Yes, those are the factors involved in power generation. Pulling the fist back to the body (chambering) adds nothing(arguably lessens) unless the power is purely from the arm. (As many TMA punches are)


----------



## Headhunter

It was always taught to me as a 3 dimensional tool. Bringing the hand back to the hip also represents a rear elbow to someone standing behind you


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Yes, those are the factors involved in power generation. Pulling the fist back to the body (chambering) adds nothing(arguably lessens) unless the power is purely from the arm. (As many TMA punches are)



You may be mistaking pulling the fist back to the body with the lessons it teaches.  And in any case, a chambered punch is the exact opposite of an 'arm punch' in terms of power generation, unless you're seriously doing it wrong.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> You may be mistaking pulling the fist back to the body with the lessons it teaches.  And in any case, a chambered punch is the exact opposite of an 'arm punch' in terms of power generation, unless you're seriously doing it wrong.


What? Unless you are trying to redefine what the term means, the ''chamber" is under the shoulder or at the hip. You already know this so I'm not even sure why you are arguing.

Are you really trying to tell me a tkd or karate reverse punch isn't an arm punch? (Especially when compared to how the same rear hand straight is thrown by a boxer)


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> It was always taught to me as a 3 dimensional tool. Bringing the hand back to the hip also represents a rear elbow to someone standing behind you


Ya, my old wc sifu liked to use that as reasoning for pulling the shot back to chamber too.

Unfortunately that sort of straight back elbow is completely useless in an actual altercation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?


It's a different approach to learning. In much of traditional Asian training, movements are exaggerated in the early foundations. I have theories about why this was done (partly, I think it allows an instructor to review a larger group of students), but the short of it is that it also exaggerates some principles. Here's one principle that's common across all striking arts I've seen: don't leave the hand out there after a strike. So, when practicing punches, most Eastern arts practice bringing the other hand "home". The chamber position - for this principle - serves the same purpose as the guard position in boxing. It's a place for the hand to call "home" when it's not striking. Most Japanese arts use more hip motion in their power generation than you'll see in most Western methods, and the chambering of that hand actually makes this easier to get right, for the beginner.

Personally, I think it's a beginner's position, and there's not a lot of functional reason to keep practicing it (outside of forms, or as a meditative fitness exercise) once you've gotten the principles right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Ya, my old wc sifu liked to use that as reasoning for pulling the shot back to chamber too.
> 
> Unfortunately that sort of straight back elbow is completely useless in an actual altercation.


Unless there's somebody trying to climb on back there. I haven't had that happen since middle school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> What? Unless you are trying to redefine what the term means, the ''chamber" is under the shoulder or at the hip. You already know this so I'm not even sure why you are arguing.
> 
> Are you really trying to tell me a tkd or karate reverse punch isn't an arm punch? (Especially when compared to how the same rear hand straight is thrown by a boxer)


Define what you mean by "arm punch", because a Karate reverse punch (as I've learned it in 2 styles of Karate, and in NGA) is not an "arm-only" punch - it drives power from the hips (and those from the leg).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It's an archiac punching method that is eclipsed by modern methods. There's next to zero value in performing it outside of "tradition" or to win kata competitions.


The punching methods don't vary that dramatically, Hanzou. It's the training to learn them that's quite different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern methods don't do that.


Traditional methods don't do that when actually punching in sparring, either. It's a drill to build certain characteristics, not really a template for a punch in action.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> What? Unless you are trying to redefine what the term means, the ''chamber" is under the shoulder or at the hip. You already know this so I'm not even sure why you are arguing.



I am not redefining chambering, you are misunderstanding it.



> Are you really trying to tell me a tkd or karate reverse punch isn't an arm punch? (Especially when compared to how the same rear hand straight is thrown by a boxer)



That is precisely what I am saying.  A karate reverse punch is not an arm punch, by which I mean the power is generated by the entire body, not just the muscles of the arm.  These skills are learned by practicing the hip-chambered punch.  Subsequent punching is also chambered - because it is not as obvious to you as a hip-chambered punch does not mean it is not chambered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Naw, that's not really true. A good punch comes from where it is. The power comes from the springy back leg, hips, and shoulder. Pulling the fist back to the hip or high chamber position only helps if the power is coming from throwing the arm...aka arm punching.


The "chamber" in sparring (whether boxing or traditional Karate) is at the guard position. We can all punch without that chamber (not having room to accelerate the arm), but we lose power. Our (all of us, so far as I know) have our strongest punches when delivering from "chamber" (again, that guard position).


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Define what you mean by "arm punch", because a Karate reverse punch (as I've learned it in 2 styles of Karate, and in NGA) is not an "arm-only" punch - it drives power from the hips (and those from the leg).



And there's a reason those styles aren't known for power punching. I mean, sure, you can add hip rotation and push off into a chambered punch, but the act of chambering it isn't adding any power.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> The "chamber" in sparring (whether boxing or traditional Karate) is at the guard position. We can all punch without that chamber (not having room to accelerate the arm), but we lose power. Our (all of us, so far as I know) have our strongest punches when delivering from "chamber" (again, that guard position).


Ok, so you are redefining it. Carry on then.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Ya, my old wc sifu liked to use that as reasoning for pulling the shot back to chamber too.
> 
> Unfortunately that sort of straight back elbow is completely useless in an actual altercation.



Again, I beg to differ.  Once of the reasons we pull the arm back like that is to teach body mechanics.  By practicing pulling the opposing arm back hard, fast, and straight, we teach power generation that involves hip and body rotation.

In addition, pulling back the arm sharply to the hips teaches a form of grapple which allows the experienced practitioner to grasp an available incoming arm or hand and pull it sharply in and down, which pulls the opponent's face directly into the path of the opposite hand punching at the same time.  While it is not always possible to grasp an incoming punch or available hand in this manner, when the opportunity presents itself, it is quite devastating.  To do it correctly requires the mind-body mechanics that are taught using that sharp pull to the rear that you dismiss as useless.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> And there's a reason those styles aren't known for power punching. I mean, sure, you can add hip rotation and push off into a chambered punch, but the act of chambering it isn't adding any power.


As I said in another post, "chambering" in action is returning to the guard position, and we all do that. The drill that chambers at the hip/ribs/shoulder is just that: a drill. It exaggerates the mechanics.

I don't think any of that is the reason many TMA folks don't generate as much power. It's the root of the back leg. I think (and this is supposition) this comes from earlier, when they all (including Karate, which now sometimes doesn't) recognized takedowns, and probably practiced them. So they held weight back a bit for stability. Boxing long ago stopped worrying with that, and brings power all the way up that back leg on power strikes, shifting more weight into it. That's less risky in boxing, and we see a bit less of it in MMA, though they often use the boxing mechanics (so we see the shift at the leg) because it's more mobile.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> And there's a reason those styles aren't known for power punching. I mean, sure, you can add hip rotation and push off into a chambered punch, but the act of chambering it isn't adding any power.



The act of chambering a punch at the hips is a training method, used to confer a skill, which it does.  That is the point, which at this point I must assume you are missing intentionally.  

It's like saying that training wheels are not useful to riding a bicycle.  That is correct, they are used to help teach riding a bicycle.  Once the skills are conveyed, we take them off the bike.  That does not make them useless.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not redefining chambering, you are misunderstanding it.
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what I am saying.  A karate reverse punch is not an arm punch, by which I mean the power is generated by the entire body, not just the muscles of the arm.  These skills are learned by practicing the hip-chambered punch.  Subsequent punching is also chambered - because it is not as obvious to you as a hip-chambered punch does not mean it is not chambered.



I made it clear I (as well as the OP) was talking about a hip chamber/shoulder chamber. In my very first response I specified there is no need to do this, and a good punch starts where it is(the guard)

Now it seems you are agreeing with me, and defining the chamber as throwing from the guard.

You are arguing my point and playing language games lol


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> As I said in another post, "chambering" in action is returning to the guard position, and we all do that. The drill that chambers at the hip/ribs/shoulder is just that: a drill. It exaggerates the mechanics.



He said so himself - he is just refusing to see that as the act of chambering the punch, or that chambering at the hip is used to teach those skills.



> I don't think any of that is the reason many TMA folks don't generate as much power. It's the root of the back leg. I think (and this is supposition) this comes from earlier, when they all (including Karate, which now sometimes doesn't) recognized takedowns, and probably practiced them. So they held weight back a bit for stability. Boxing long ago stopped worrying with that, and brings power all the way up that back leg on power strikes, shifting more weight into it. That's less risky in boxing, and we see a bit less of it in MMA, though they often use the boxing mechanics (so we see the shift at the leg) because it's more mobile.



There is more to it than that, and I would have to include the tradition of fighting on a non-uniform, often slippery surface, and rules that apply to a boxing match that would not apply outside the ring.  In general, though, I agree.  If pure power going one direction is the desire, the boxer knows how to make that happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> I made it clear I (as well as the OP) was talking about a hip chamber/shoulder chamber. In my very first response I specified there is no need to do this, and a good punch starts where it is(the guard)
> 
> Now it seems you are agreeing with me, and defining the chamber as throwing from the guard.
> 
> You are arguing my point and playing language games lol



No.  I am pointing out that what you think of as a useless punch, the punch chambered at the hip, is a training method and not a fighting method, and that the lessons taught by the hip-chambered punch are transferable to any sort of punching, which even you described when talking about 'springiness' as I recall.

You are criticizing something you have no understanding of and then complaining that I don't accept your definition of something you do not understand.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Traditional methods don't do that when actually punching in sparring, either. It's a drill to build certain characteristics, not really a template for a punch in action.


What characteristics besides bad habits and mechanics is that building, specifically? You are training your muscle memory to move your fist the entire distance from the shoulder out with a stationary trunk. This is the very definition of arm punching.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> No.  I am pointing out that what you think of as a useless punch, the punch chambered at the hip, is a training method and not a fighting method, and that the lessons taught by the hip-chambered punch are transferable to any sort of punching, which even you described when talking about 'springiness' as I recall.
> 
> You are criticizing something you have no understanding of and then complaining that I don't accept your definition of something you do not understand.



LOL, if you say so. I bow to your great and profound understanding. *eyeroll*


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> What characteristics besides bad habits and mechanics is that building, specifically? You are training your muscle memory to move your fist the entire distance from the shoulder out with a stationary trunk. This is the very definition of arm punching.



You are training your body to generate power using the shoulders, hips, knees, stance, and body rotation.  That is the exact opposite of arm punching.  The fist placed at the hips is a reference point and the muscle memory learned will be transferred to a more advantageous position for the hands in an actual altercation.

I am posting this in case others happen upon it.  I realize you fail to grasp this concept.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> That is just a drill.  Modern methods still utilize punching from a chambered position even if they do not use this particular drill.



No, it goes beyond simply a drill. It is reinforced in multiple techniques and within the kata. That is actually how Karateka are supposed to punch.

 If you look at older media of Karate, those nonsensical punches from the hip and the deep stances were supposed to be how a karateka fights. The problem is that Karateka got eaten alive by western boxers, so now you have this psuedo kickboxing going on when katateka actually fight. There is zero reason to drill techniques that you completely discard when you're actually fighting.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Traditional methods don't do that when actually punching in sparring, either. It's a drill to build certain characteristics, not really a template for a punch in action.



Yes they do. The reverse punch is still considered a viable technique in karate fantasy land.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?



I'm circling back to the original post in this thread.  Forgive me for not having said some of this at first.



> My background is more westernized.



Nothing wrong with that.  Many of us here are from Western nations, regardless of what we study in the way of martial arts, and it is our background that informs much of what we understand and how we understand it.  We seek to put things in terms that make sense to us.  Perfectly natural.



> I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it.



The first problem is that you don't understand what you are doing - not a criticism, but a comment.  You are imitating what you see and think you understand what it is for.  The comment that there is nothing special about it is correct only if you understand what is being done.



> Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless.



LOL.  Many guys who also do not understand what they see also agree that it is useless.



> Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?



I would argue that it is indeed useless to incorporate what you have seen and think you understand into your workouts.

A person not trained in the hip-chambered punch might stumble onto the reasoning behind it and the various uses for it.  I'm sure it's possible, I'm sure it has been done.  It is not what you think it is, I can tell you that.  It is, as I mentioned several times in this thread, a training method, a tool.  It is not how we fight, despite what some might say.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

There was once an American who made a mistake while bowing to a person of higher rank who entered the floor.  He meant to face the person and bow as one often does in Japan.  Instead he kind of stepped out as if he were doing kata and assuming the ready position and then bowed from that odd position.  It was simply a mistake, no big deal.

But because others of lower rank saw him do it, they emulated it.  No one asked what the purpose was, they just did it.  They took it home and taught it.  Now many do it, I've even seen it done in Japan by a few.  There's nothing disrespectful or wrong about it, and now it is tradition.

But it started because someone saw something and thought they understood it rather than digging into it.

We see a karateka take a wide deep stance, place their hands on their hips, and practice a straight punch, with or without rotation.  We assume that means that's how they generate power, that's how they fight.  It's kihon.  Practice basics.  It is incorporated into some kata, although often with more expressive stances and hands in different positions.  We either see the 'chambered' fist at the hip or we presume it is not there at all; but it is there for anyone who has been taught correctly.

What you do not see is a self-defense situation with a well-trained martial artist squaring up against their attacker with their hands at their hips. If they do, I'd blame their instructor; someone seriously screwed up.

When I spar in the dojo, if I were to have to defend myself in a fight, my hands would be up, protecting my head.  Not at all unlike a boxer.  If I drop a hand, there's a specific reason for it, but I would not do that if I thought my head was open to being hit at that moment.  I would NEVER place my fists at my hips.  And yet, when I punch, I generate power in the manner I was trained, and that was done with hands on hips.  My entire body is engaged, including my shoulder, hips, knees, my stance, and the turning motion of my body.  I can generate power falling forward or back, and the 'pullback' of my non-punching arm is consistent with that, whether it is empty or holding on to some part of my attacker to drag them off-balance or down entirely.

All of this comes from punching with hands on hips, over and over and over.  It is mindful practice.  I know what I am doing and why I am doing it, and experience has taught me how to apply what I have learned.  I am confident in my abilities, although I have much yet to learn.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> You are training your body to generate power using the shoulders, hips, knees, stance, and body rotation.  That is the exact opposite of arm punching.  The fist placed at the hips is a reference point and the muscle memory learned will be transferred to a more advantageous position for the hands in an actual altercation.
> 
> I am posting this in case others happen upon it.  I realize you fail to grasp this concept.



It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? Why not just drill as you want to execute? This  is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.

For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?

Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.



When someone continues to say that A is B and then rejects the argument that A is A, I call it failing to grasp the concept.  I get that you have some definition of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is and what it is for, but you're incorrect.  I can't say more than that.  Your understanding is flawed.  A is A, not B.



> I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? This is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.



It would be exactly what you say if it was what you say it is.  A hot dog bun makes a lousy hamburger bun.  Everyone who eats hamburgers understands this.  But no one is saying that what you see as a hotdog bun is one.



> For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?
> 
> Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.



I am answering the OP's question, which involved a false understanding of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is.  If we cannot explain what it really is, we cannot explain what it is really for.

A non-Christian might think that one can be saved by wearing a crucifix.  After all, that's what some Christians do, right?  But if that is all they understand based on seeing one around many Christians' necks, they have a flawed understanding.  They can argue all day about how they wore a crucifix but it didn't get their soul saved.  Because the assumption is false in the first place, the conclusion is wrong in the second place.


----------



## Hanzou

Bill Mattocks said:


> LOL.  Many guys who also do not understand what they see also agree that it is useless.



Back to the original point though: MMA guys fight for a living. It's quite telling that they view that family of techniques as useless as well. I'm quite sure a professional fighter knows exactly what they're seeing when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip.

As someone who spent their formative years in traditional karate, I find it laughable that some people simply can't admit that a large amount of techniques in traditional martial arts are simply archaic and inefficient and should be discarded for superior methods. It's almost like dealing with a religion. The founder of their Asian martial arts style of choice might as well be Jesus or Muhammad spreading divine martial wisdom that must never be challenged or discarded.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> When someone continues to say that A is B and then rejects the argument that A is A, I call it failing to grasp the concept.  I get that you have some definition of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is and what it is for, but you're incorrect.  I can't say more than that.  Your understanding is flawed.  A is A, not B.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be exactly what you say if it was what you say it is.  A hot dog bun makes a lousy hamburger bun.  Everyone who eats hamburgers understands this.  But no one is saying that what you see as a hotdog bun is one.
> 
> 
> 
> I am answering the OP's question, which involved a false understanding of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is.  If we cannot explain what it really is, we cannot explain what it is really for.
> 
> A non-Christian might think that one can be saved by wearing a crucifix.  After all, that's what some Christians do, right?  But if that is all they understand based on seeing one around many Christians' necks, they have a flawed understanding.  They can argue all day about how they wore a crucifix but it didn't get their soul saved.  Because the assumption is false in the first place, the conclusion is wrong in the second place.


Ok, so your position is that chambering has two definitions then? You have 'throwing from the chambered position' (what most people understand as a chamber..hence the term chamber lol.) and throwing from the guard/wherever the hand is at the time which is chambering too because reasons.

That's a bit like saying modern dance is ballet because you practice ballet at home.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> ...which is chambering too because reasons.



I've given the reasons.  You choose not to understand them.  That's fine.  Moving on.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've given the reasons.  You choose not to understand them.  That's fine.  Moving on.


You really haven't. You've stated that doing a hip chamber helps you build mechanics for when you do throw for real, which you stated is from the guard position. At best, you've made an unsupported statement that chambering serves as a training tool. (Which I have made an argument against with reasoning)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I made it clear I (as well as the OP) was talking about a hip chamber/shoulder chamber. In my very first response I specified there is no need to do this, and a good punch starts where it is(the guard)
> 
> Now it seems you are agreeing with me, and defining the chamber as throwing from the guard.
> 
> You are arguing my point and playing language games lol


Bill clarified earlier that the thing you and the OP are talking about is a drill, not a punching method. It's a drill that can be used to teach (parts of) a punching method.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> What characteristics besides bad habits and mechanics is that building, specifically? You are training your muscle memory to move your fist the entire distance from the shoulder out with a stationary trunk. This is the very definition of arm punching.


I've never known it to build bad habits. I've never seen someone trained with that drill, for instance, accidentally pull back into that chambering position in sparring.

What it develops depends a lot on how the drill is used. When I've used it, it was mostly to focus on integrating body with the punch - specifically to help cure when someone was actually doing an arm-only punch. It also helps develop (as I think I pointed out earlier) the habit of drawing back one hand when the other punches. Whether it's the best way to do any of that is arguable. That it can be used for those ends is not arguable, in my opinion. Of course, like most drills, it can be misunderstood and misused.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> No, it goes beyond simply a drill. It is reinforced in multiple techniques and within the kata. That is actually how Karateka are supposed to punch.


I disagree. None of my instructors have ever asserted that this was what a punch should be like in application.



> If you look at older media of Karate, those nonsensical punches from the hip and the deep stances were supposed to be how a karateka fights. The problem is that Karateka got eaten alive by western boxers, so now you have this psuedo kickboxing going on when katateka actually fight. There is zero reason to drill techniques that you completely discard when you're actually fighting.


Is it possible that those old media weren't complete? I'm not much familiar with them, so can't speak to how they approached this. I've always seen this presented as the starting point for learning to punch, never as the application.

But let's assume that was, once, the application. How is that a problem now? If Karate evolved to better application, why damn them with sins of the past they aren't committing? That's just weird.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes they do. The reverse punch is still considered a viable technique in karate fantasy land.


Not in any Karate class I attended, nor in any seminar I've been in. Are there some folks doing what I would consider "wrong" application? Probably - we can find that in almost any system. But I've literally never seen it taught as how you should deliver a punch in sparring. Not once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.
> 
> I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? Why not just drill as you want to execute? This  is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.
> 
> For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?
> 
> Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.


This is part of the paradigm found in a lot of JMA. They exaggerate motion to ingrain certain concepts. I don't think it's the fastest/most efficient way to do it, but it does work well with students who are struggling. It's also pretty easy to teach that way, which probably is why it has held up in so many systems when other methods are available. I'll reiterate that I've seen this paradigm work over and over, and I've also seen a few instructors who didn't understand that its a starting/foundation position, and over-emphasize it in the long term.  Most folks, even if they continue to practice it exactly as that drill shows, easily progress to good mechanics for sparring. They do, quite literally, learn the mechanics they need from a different motion. That's not really all that odd. I see the same thing a lot in grappling. Someone who knows a takedown can easily learn another takedown that uses the same mechanics, even if it's a different set of movements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Back to the original point though: MMA guys fight for a living. It's quite telling that they view that family of techniques as useless as well. I'm quite sure a professional fighter knows exactly what they're seeing when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip.
> 
> As someone who spent their formative years in traditional karate, I find it laughable that some people simply can't admit that a large amount of techniques in traditional martial arts are simply archaic and inefficient and should be discarded for superior methods. It's almost like dealing with a religion. The founder of their Asian martial arts style of choice might as well be Jesus or Muhammad spreading divine martial wisdom that must never be challenged or discarded.


I think a lot of people on here from TMA readily admit there's stuff we do that's not maximum efficiency. Some of it, we even consciously choose to keep.

But you're arguing about a drill and saying it's an ineffective punch for application. That'd be like me saying an animal walk isn't an effective way to maneuver in ground fighting. I'd be right, but the animal walk isn't intended to develop a way to move across the ring, though it's used to move across the gym. It's a drill used to develop strength, body balance, and other characteristics that are useful in ground maneuvering and grappling.

Now, if you want to argue about the effectiveness of the drill as a drill, I think there's a lot of room for good discussion on that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of people on here from TMA readily admit there's stuff we do that's not maximum efficiency. Some of it, we even consciously choose to keep.
> 
> But you're arguing about a drill and saying it's an ineffective punch for application. That'd be like me saying an animal walk isn't an effective way to maneuver in ground fighting. I'd be right, but the animal walk isn't intended to develop a way to move across the ring, though it's used to move across the gym. It's a drill used to develop strength, body balance, and other characteristics that are useful in ground maneuvering and grappling.
> 
> Now, if you want to argue about the effectiveness of the drill as a drill, I think there's a lot of room for good discussion on that.



Weird, I tried to reply and it just posted the above quote - no idea why.  Sorry.

Anyway - TMA with the emphasis on the T - we teach it because it is Traditional.  Is there anything better?  Dunno.  Maybe.  Who knows?  I don't seek better, I seek better understanding of traditional methods.  It works, I have confidence in it, I like it.  I mean, I could just carry a gun, I guess.  No need to learn to punch.

In any case, the hip-chamber does not just teach the power generation we've been discussing.  There is a lot more application in there, including a few things I have mentioned.  We can ignore all that, but there's so much there, why would anyone want to?  I find this notion odd.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I disagree. None of my instructors have ever asserted that this was what a punch should be like in application.
> 
> Is it possible that those old media weren't complete? I'm not much familiar with them, so can't speak to how they approached this. I've always seen this presented as the starting point for learning to punch, never as the application.
> 
> But let's assume that was, once, the application. How is that a problem now? If Karate evolved to better application, why damn them with sins of the past they aren't committing? That's just weird.



Because if the goal is end up punching like boxing or kickboxing, teaching someone the reverse punch or a similar strike is counter-intuitive towards that goal.  Boxers don't sit in horsey stance or front stance and throw chambered punches from the hip. They drill punches exactly like they throw punches in the ring.

Karate didn't evolve to a better application, the better application was forced upon it by western influences just like Muay Thai and Chinese Kickboxing. The difference is that those systems embraced western boxing and influences while Karate adhered to traditional methodology while its students embraced the western influence of higher stances and the western boxing guard because they had to.

If we all agree that boxers are the best punchers in the business, and that the end goal is to fight functionally like boxers/kickboxers, then why aren't we simply mimicking their methodology  instead of sticking to an outdated methodology that isn't reinforcing what our end goal is?


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I've never known it to build bad habits. I've never seen someone trained with that drill, for instance, accidentally pull back into that chambering position in sparring.
> 
> What it develops depends a lot on how the drill is used. When I've used it, it was mostly to focus on integrating body with the punch - specifically to help cure when someone was actually doing an arm-only punch. It also helps develop (as I think I pointed out earlier) the habit of drawing back one hand when the other punches. Whether it's the best way to do any of that is arguable. That it can be used for those ends is not arguable, in my opinion. Of course, like most drills, it can be misunderstood and misused.


Drawing back one hand while the other punches is a good example of a bad habit. For starters it's a telegraph, for two it's not necessary and adds nothing of positive value. 

What exactly do you see of value in doing it? This is, as I mentioned before, one of the main problems with traditional training. For the record, Ive seen it a LOT. TMA guys often DO draw back before they throw, and it's just an extra thing to get past when learning to punch properly.

This raises an interesting point though. You maintain that in competition/sparring/fighting you've never seen a karate man "accidentally" draw back to chamber position before punching, and the other guy arguing says it's just a method to build proper mechanics rather than something you actually do.

So why put that sort of long arm motion into your muscle memory at all? The best punch only travels a few inches. Why train a long telegraphed motion over and over for years just to throw it out and actually fight against the habit of doing it when the time comes?

All of this is really neither here nor there though if every punch you rotate into is a chambered punch. In fact at that point the term doesn't even mean anything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weird, I tried to reply and it just posted the above quote - no idea why.  Sorry.
> 
> Anyway - TMA with the emphasis on the T - we teach it because it is Traditional.  Is there anything better?  Dunno.  Maybe.  Who knows?  I don't seek better, I seek better understanding of traditional methods.  It works, I have confidence in it, I like it.  I mean, I could just carry a gun, I guess.  No need to learn to punch.
> 
> In any case, the hip-chamber does not just teach the power generation we've been discussing.  There is a lot more application in there, including a few things I have mentioned.  We can ignore all that, but there's so much there, why would anyone want to?  I find this notion odd.


In NGA we don't get into anything beyond its development of punching mechanics (because we develop those other principles directly in our grappling). I didn't stay in either Karate program long enough to know if either instructor was going to emphasize anything beyond those mechanics. I suspect one wouldn't, because we covered those in Judo classes (taught by the same instructor).


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Not in any Karate class I attended, nor in any seminar I've been in. Are there some folks doing what I would consider "wrong" application? Probably - we can find that in almost any system. But I've literally never seen it taught as how you should deliver a punch in sparring. Not once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Because if the goal is end up punching like boxing or kickboxing, teaching someone the reverse punch or a similar strike is counter-intuitive towards that goal.  Boxers don't sit in horsey stance or front stance and throw chambered punches from the hip. They drill punches exactly like they throw punches in the ring.


As I said, it's reasonable to argue whether it's the best method or not. I don't use it as much as my instructor did, but I do find it useful for students who struggle in specific ways (very arm-only is the main one). I prefer to introduce punches the way boxing tends to. I don't find the mechanics develop differently than they did for me, but most students seem to develop them faster using that method, as opposed to the traditional method. But I find both get to much the same end point over time.



> Karate didn't evolve to a better application, the better application was forced upon it by western influences just like Muay Thai and Chinese Kickboxing. The difference is that those systems embraced western boxing and influences while Karate adhered to traditional methodology while its students embraced the western influence of higher stances and the western boxing guard because they had to.


We could say better takedown defense was forced on BJJ by wrestlers. But that wouldn't change that BJJ has evolved better takedown defense. We could say a given MMA fighter developed better ground defense, or that he was forced by other competitors to have better ground defense. The end point is the same: he improved his ground defense. Your'e trying to make it about the cause, and make it a fault that they evolved because something else worked better. That's not a fault.



> If we all agree that boxers are the best punchers in the business, and that the end goal is to fight functionally like boxers/kickboxers, then why aren't we simply mimicking their methodology  instead of sticking to an outdated methodology that isn't reinforcing what our end goal is?


That's a good question. Some of it, as Bill said in a recent post, is sometimes we just like the traditional method. It works, even if it's not the most efficient approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Drawing back one hand while the other punches is a good example of a bad habit. For starters it's a telegraph, for two it's not necessary and adds nothing of positive value.


I think I wasn't clear. I was talking about in a series of strikes. After you punch with the right, it should be coming back while the left is going in, not just hanging out there doing nothing. It doesn't mean the right goes backward every time the left punches.



> What exactly do you see of value in doing it? This is, as I mentioned before, one of the main problems with traditional training. For the record, Ive seen it a LOT. TMA guys often DO draw back before they throw, and it's just an extra thing to get past when learning to punch properly.


I've seen it work well to correct students who were NOT getting any leg/hip/body into the punch. This drill makes it easier for me to get them to use more than just the arm. It has the disadvantage of not letting me work with leg power at that point, but many beginners aren't ready for that yet, so I'm okay letting that wait a bit. I don't doubt that some folks over-practice this type of drill to the exclusion of other drills. That would probably create that bad habit of rotating into the punch (that drawing back before the strike you mentioned, if I'm understanding you right). I see that without this drill, too, though. It's not uncommon, when I just teach punches from a fighting stance, to have someone want to draw the hand back before punching. They want to load the power, then deliver. This drill, actually, can be used to help cure that.



> This raises an interesting point though. You maintain that in competition/sparring/fighting you've never seen a karate man "accidentally" draw back to chamber position before punching, and the other guy arguing says it's just a method to build proper mechanics rather than something you actually do.
> 
> So why put that sort of long arm motion into your muscle memory at all? The best punch only travels a few inches. Why train a long telegraphed motion over and over for years just to throw it out and actually fight against the habit of doing it when the time comes?


I think you're seeing the drill differently than I see it, MD. The hand should NEVER draw back before punching. The opposite hand draws back during the punch (as the body rotates, to chamber for the next punch). So, there should never be a telegraphed motion involved. These are typically done with a pause between punches. The pause, however brief, should be the neutral starting point, and the punch should fire from that pause without a wind-up or telegraph. That's something I specifically use this drill for sometimes - to train OUT that habit to telegraph. The larger motions and squared stance often magnifies the error, so the student can feel themselves doing it - which they sometimes do not feel when in a fighting stance.



> All of this is really neither here nor there though if every punch you rotate into is a chambered punch. In fact at that point the term doesn't even mean anything.


That's rather my point. Chambering isn't a unique proposition, in any way. When a boxer jabs, he returns his punch to the chambered position. When he uppercuts, he returns to the chambered position. The chambered position is simply the position from which the punch is able to be fired. I can't deliver much power if my arm is more or less fully extended before I start the punch. But if I keep it bent to some useful angle, it's already chambered and ready to punch with.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


>








Here's a shotokan guy demonstrating technique and application. This is an arm punch.






Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


>


I would argue that's bad application. No reason for that hand to be down there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.



You clearly did not listen to what he was saying.  He was demonstrating a reverse punch and he clearly explained that this is not how you would use it in 'real life' but that the techniques developed would apply.  He even said he was demonstrating without involving the movement of hips and body that one would normally use in this punch, for the purposes of illustration.  Precisely what I have said.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that's bad application. No reason for that hand to be down there.



I cannot quite get that one myself.  I would have to see someone try to demonstrate that technique to me in a way that worked against a resisting partner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Here's a shotokan guy demonstrating technique and application. This is an arm punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.


Interesting that you put those both in the same category. The first actually uses his hips for power generation (proper for this drill). The second does not - and points out in his intro that this is not included, and so it's not actually the way you'd punch.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> As I said, it's reasonable to argue whether it's the best method or not. I don't use it as much as my instructor did, but I do find it useful for students who struggle in specific ways (very arm-only is the main one). I prefer to introduce punches the way boxing tends to. I don't find the mechanics develop differently than they did for me, but most students seem to develop them faster using that method, as opposed to the traditional method. But I find both get to much the same end point over time.



Having done both methods, I can unequivocally say that Boxing is the better method since that's exactly how karate exponents end up fighting.




> We could say better takedown defense was forced on BJJ by wrestlers. But that wouldn't change that BJJ has evolved better takedown defense. We could say a given MMA fighter developed better ground defense, or that he was forced by other competitors to have better ground defense. The end point is the same: he improved his ground defense. Your'e trying to make it about the cause, and make it a fault that they evolved because something else worked better. That's not a fault.



In the case of Bjj, wrestling has always had a profound influence on it even before it separated from Judo. Mitsoyo Maeda fought a variety of wrestlers and was forced to adapt his Jiujitsu and Judo to compensate. The difference between Bjj and Karate is that Bjj doesn't adhere to older methods if there's a more efficient method out there. For example, we learn the Double Leg Takedown the way modern wrestlers do it, not the way Judo does it. The sprawl came from wrestling as well, and yeah BJJ adapted that too. There's no reason to adhere to outdated methods beyond simply wanting to stick to tradition. Once you reach that point, you're not learning to fight or protect yourself, you're just doing an ancient Asian dance.



> That's a good question. Some of it, as Bill said in a recent post, is sometimes we just like the traditional method. It works, even if it's not the most efficient approach.



How can you say "it works" when you're not using its application when you're "fighting"?


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I think I wasn't clear. I was talking about in a series of strikes. After you punch with the right, it should be coming back while the left is going in, not just hanging out there doing nothing. It doesn't mean the right goes backward every time the left punches.
> 
> 
> I've seen it work well to correct students who were NOT getting any leg/hip/body into the punch. This drill makes it easier for me to get them to use more than just the arm. It has the disadvantage of not letting me work with leg power at that point, but many beginners aren't ready for that yet, so I'm okay letting that wait a bit. I don't doubt that some folks over-practice this type of drill to the exclusion of other drills. That would probably create that bad habit of rotating into the punch (that drawing back before the strike you mentioned, if I'm understanding you right). I see that without this drill, too, though. It's not uncommon, when I just teach punches from a fighting stance, to have someone want to draw the hand back before punching. They want to load the power, then deliver. This drill, actually, can be used to help cure that.
> 
> 
> I think you're seeing the drill differently than I see it, MD. The hand should NEVER draw back before punching. The opposite hand draws back during the punch (as the body rotates, to chamber for the next punch). So, there should never be a telegraphed motion involved. These are typically done with a pause between punches. The pause, however brief, should be the neutral starting point, and the punch should fire from that pause without a wind-up or telegraph. That's something I specifically use this drill for sometimes - to train OUT that habit to telegraph. The larger motions and squared stance often magnifies the error, so the student can feel themselves doing it - which they sometimes do not feel when in a fighting stance.
> 
> 
> That's rather my point. Chambering isn't a unique proposition, in any way. When a boxer jabs, he returns his punch to the chambered position. When he uppercuts, he returns to the chambered position. The chambered position is simply the position from which the punch is able to be fired. I can't deliver much power if my arm is more or less fully extended before I start the punch. But if I keep it bent to some useful angle, it's already chambered and ready to punch with.


Ok, so if any punch that can be thrown with power from where it is is chambered, then any arm that isn't outstretched is chambered. Again, since that makes the word meaningless, and we are talking about the understood definition of chambering as practiced by taikwondoin and karateka as well as most styles of CMA etc..why are we having this discussion at all? You seem to agree that chambering, as the word is used by 99% of everyone, is a bad idea in practice.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> You clearly did not listen to what he was saying.  He was demonstrating a reverse punch and he clearly explained that this is not how you would use it in 'real life' but that the techniques developed would apply.  He even said he was demonstrating without involving the movement of hips and body that one would normally use in this punch, for the purposes of illustration.  Precisely what I have said.


Uhh..it really isn't. He was fairly clear about that being proper technique. Sure you can snap your hips into it, but it's still an arm punch that travels from the trunk on out. The guy was pretty clear that even with hips engaged, it's only a snap rather than a weight rotation, and the hips stay square. He even advises AGAINST rotating into it lol.

Look, I get that you're a karate guy and take criticism of karate personally, but there's a reason nobody does these sorts of motions in any sort of high level competition. It's the same reason kickboxing changed from full contact karate to boxing with karate based kicks. The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Having done both methods, I can unequivocally say that Boxing is the better method since that's exactly how karate exponents end up fighting.



I wouldn't argue against that. I tend to prefer teaching that way now, myself. I mostly use the more traditional JMA methods for students who struggle (they seem to work better for me there, perhaps because I have more experience with them) and simply as exercises to work on for a while.



> In the case of Bjj, wrestling has always had a profound influence on it even before it separated from Judo. Mitsoyo Maeda fought a variety of wrestlers and was forced to adapt his Jiujitsu and Judo to compensate. The difference between Bjj and Karate is that Bjj doesn't adhere to older methods if there's a more efficient method out there. For example, we learn the Double Leg Takedown the way modern wrestlers do it, not the way Judo does it. The sprawl came from wrestling as well, and yeah BJJ adapted that too. There's no reason to adhere to outdated methods beyond simply wanting to stick to tradition. Once you reach that point, you're not learning to fight or protect yourself, you're just doing an ancient Asian dance.


My point was simply that adapting to what we experience isn't a bad thing, including for those arts that went a long time without changing. I don't really care whether an art is proactive or reactive in that respect - it's still evolution.



> How can you say "it works" when you're not using its application when you're "fighting"?


Because it's what I used to develop what I do when I'm sparring, and I've used it to train others. It does work for developing mechanics for that application. It's a bit distant from application, so it probably takes longer to get to the same endpoint, compared to boxing. But most students aren't really on the fast track, anyway. Simple exercises like this seem to have a better "take home" value for most students who have no prior experience. Athletes are an exception to that - they (usually) have better body awareness, and don't benefit at all from the exaggerated traditional methods.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martial D said:


> The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.



And now we get to the meat of it.  Thanks.  Blocked.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> And now we get to the meat of it.  Thanks.  Blocked.


LOL.

I guess that proves my point. Sorry I had to trigger you bro.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Ok, so if any punch that can be thrown with power from where it is is chambered, then any arm that isn't outstretched is chambered. Again, since that makes the word meaningless, and we are talking about the understood definition of chambering as practiced by taikwondoin and karateka as well as most styles of CMA etc..why are we having this discussion at all? You seem to agree that chambering, as the word is used by 99% of everyone, is a bad idea in practice.


I don't think it's meaningless - it just means "ready to punch". I don't tend to use the term much in teaching. I'm more likely to tell them to get that hand "back in guard", which is the same position, of course.

But again, I don't think "99% of everyone" in the arts in question would say "chambering" is only the position used in that drill. I've heard others refer to "bringing the hand back to chamber" to mean exactly what I mean when I refer to "bringing the hand back to guard". That position is both chamber and guard - it prepares the hand to punch, while also providing protection.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Uhh..it really isn't. He was fairly clear about that being proper technique. Sure you can snap your hips into it, but it's still an arm punch that travels from the trunk on out. The guy was pretty clear that even with hips engaged, it's only a snap rather than a weight rotation, and the hips stay square. He even advises AGAINST rotating into it lol.
> 
> Look, I get that you're a karate guy and take criticism of karate personally, but there's a reason nobody does these sorts of motions in any sort of high level competition. It's the same reason kickboxing changed from full contact karate to boxing with karate based kicks. The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.


If we had a heavy bag handy, I could show you how much more power there is in that hip-snap punch than in an arm-only punch. It brings part of the bodyweight behind it, and that's the point of doing it that way. It's not the full power of the technique - you can't afford to rotate into it while in a squared stance (part of the reason he includes that admonition), so you have to learn to use hip/leg pressure from that static position.


----------



## CB Jones

From TMA17’s thread.

I like this video from Michael Jai White about the reverse punch


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's meaningless - it just means "ready to punch". I don't tend to use the term much in teaching. I'm more likely to tell them to get that hand "back in guard", which is the same position, of course.
> 
> But again, I don't think "99% of everyone" in the arts in question would say "chambering" is only the position used in that drill. I've heard others refer to "bringing the hand back to chamber" to mean exactly what I mean when I refer to "bringing the hand back to guard". That position is both chamber and guard - it prepares the hand to punch, while also providing protection.


Ok cool, I can roll with that. But at the same time, you have to admit that how you are defining it not only doesn't jibe well with the traditional definition, but the traditional definition(pulling it to the hip or shoulder) contradicts your definition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Ok cool, I can roll with that. But at the same time, you have to admit that how you are defining it not only doesn't jibe well with the traditional definition, but the traditional definition(pulling it to the hip or shoulder) contradicts your definition.


That's a starting point for learning, and is done (everywhere I've personally experienced it) exclusively in forms and other drills. I was taught from that same starting point in 2 styles of Karate and in NGA (which derives most of its strikes from Shotokan Karate).


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> That's a starting point for learning, and is done (everywhere I've personally experienced it) exclusively in forms and other drills. I was taught from that same starting point in 2 styles of Karate and in NGA (which derives most of its strikes from Shotokan Karate).


Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc. 

It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed. 

Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.

If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc.
> 
> It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed.
> ..[EDITORIAL SNIP - QUOTE USED BELOW]..
> If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?


I think you and I see the results differently. I see this drill as helping prevent telegraphing, when trained properly. I don't see it hindering anything, though it does encourage a slower progression.

Let me see if I can clarify what I've experienced. If I put every student through the same thing, my results are more consistent if I start from these kinds of drills. That holds back the better-coordinated folks and helps the less-coordinated folks. If I use a less structured approach (introducing punches at the heavy bag, from a fighting stance), I'll probably get a bit faster progress from average folks, much faster progress from those who are well coordinated, and much worse results from those who are poorly coordinated or simply have no real grasp of a punch, at all. So I mix the two. I mostly use the traditional methods to help fix problems people have (or learn) when using the more modern approach.

For my own training - and for someone who already has decent mechanics - I don't see much reason for spending time in this drill, except as an exercise in paying attention to the details it makes easier to see. I'm more likely to practice it at a heavy bag, when I use it, at all.



> Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.


I think the speed bag is a good analogy. As you say, it doesn't really match what they'll do in the ring. The posture isn't right, the use of the hands isn't right, etc. But it does build some attributes - in part because of the ways it's not like sparring/fighting. That statement is somewhat true of this punching drill, too. It takes steps, weight shifts, etc. out, to force you to work on hip action (I can generate reasonable power without it if I'm allowed to use my legs fully). Having that hip action allows for power from some odd angles. How useful is that? Probably not exceptionally so. Developing that base could be replaced with boxing's approach, but then you'd need to work in boxing footwork to take advantage of what boxing does. At what point are you just doing boxing, instead?


----------



## Buka

Martial D said:


> Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc.
> 
> It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed.
> 
> Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.
> 
> If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?



The primary use of the speed bag is to develop the shoulders in a hands up position for teaching boxing to beginners. Once your shoulders tire in a boxing match your hands will get lower and lower.

Once skilled, boxers use it as part of their workout because they're used to it, it's kind of fun when you can really make it sing, and they put in so much time grinding in the gym it fits in nicely with everything else.

Back when I was a youngster there was an old guy in my boxing gym that could play _Sweet Georgia Brown_ on the speed bag, even on the peanut bag. (really small speed bag)

Still makes me smile thinking about it.


----------



## Buka

As for the debate about how to punch, to me, it's kind of like listening to Political Parties argue over, well, everything. And to each their own, more power to them.

Wise onlookers know they're listening to a debate on the cleaning of the elephant stall and the donkey stall. Amount being the biggest difference. Bring a good broom and shovel.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Developing that base could be replaced with boxing's approach, but then you'd need to work in boxing footwork to take advantage of what boxing does. At what point are you just doing boxing, instead?



Boxing is not only the style of hitting and not getting hit with the hands, but also the result of hundreds of years of grinding away through competition, taking from everything that furthers that cause and innovating what did not yet exist. It's obviously not the be all end all of fighting which consists of many other elements as we all know.

But when speaking of hands and hand techniques..we start boxing when we want to take that element of fighting seriously..and not a moment before


----------



## oftheherd1

Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct.  What does a hip-chambered punch teach?  Certainly not to fight that way!  But one learns where the power comes from when one cannot arm-punch.  One learns body movement (tai sabaki), trapping, center of gravity, and power generation.  Once those lessons are natural to the body, it no longer matters where the arms are.  I can stand in an upright position, guard my head, and throw a leading jab that generates power from my shoulder, hip, knees, and body rotation, and where might I have learned that?
> 
> *People take a random aspect of training in an art they do not train in, fail to grasp the point of it, and pronounce it useless.  It certainly is useless - for them.*



Agreed.  Happens a lot here on RFF as well as other places..

One other thing I was taught was that punching from the camber position as the opposite arm moves back into the camber position adds power from action/reaction, and if there is an opponent behind you you may well catch him in the solar plexus.  You see it in other moves as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

oftheherd1 said:


> Agreed.  Happens a lot here on RFF as well as other places..
> 
> One other thing I was taught was that punching from the camber position as the opposite arm moves back into the camber position adds power from action/reaction, and if there is an opponent behind you you may well catch him in the solar plexus.  You see it in other moves as well.



I dearly love an open hand upper body block where the block becomes a grasp, the 'reverse' punch pulls the offending hand down to the waist (that 'elbow in the solar plexus', but from the front) and the opposite side punch goes right into the miscreant's face, which he is in the process of feeding to you.


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> As for the debate about how to punch, to me, it's kind of like listening to Political Parties argue over, well, everything. And to each their own, more power to them.
> 
> Wise onlookers know they're listening to a debate on the cleaning of the elephant stall and the donkey stall. Amount being the biggest difference. Bring a good broom and shovel.



This thread reminds me of cooking Gumbo.

You can go to Louisiana and ask 10 chefs how they make gumbo and you will get 10 different versions with most of them claiming that their way is the best.


----------



## Martial D

CB Jones said:


> This thread reminds me of cooking Gumbo.
> 
> You can go to Louisiana and ask 10 chefs how they make gumbo and you will get 10 different versions with most of them claiming that their way is the best.


That would only be true if the gumbo's sole purpose was objectively measurable through competition.

If that were so, we would know that some is better than others, with some certainty.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> That would only be true if the gumbo's sole purpose was objectively measurable through competition.
> 
> If that were so, we would know that some is better than others, with some certainty.



At the end of the day, the method of preparing the gumbo is moot.  What is important is that you have good gumbo.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> At the end of the day, the method of preparing the gumbo is moot.  What is important is that you have good gumbo.



You consider drilling a technique over and over again only to completely discard it in application to be "good"?


----------



## WaterGal

Hanzou said:


> Back to the original point though: MMA guys fight for a living. It's quite telling that they view that family of techniques as useless as well. I'm quite sure a professional fighter knows exactly what they're seeing when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip.
> 
> As someone who spent their formative years in traditional karate, I find it laughable that some people simply can't admit that a large amount of techniques in traditional martial arts are simply archaic and inefficient and should be discarded for superior methods. It's almost like dealing with a religion. The founder of their Asian martial arts style of choice might as well be Jesus or Muhammad spreading divine martial wisdom that must never be challenged or discarded.



I would suggest considering the fact that professional MMA fighters are not typical martial arts students, and that the things that a 19-year old aspiring pro fighter needs to practice to get into the UFC may be somewhat different from what your average chubby 9-year old needs to practice when they enroll in a martial arts class for the first time. 

Karate and TKD, specifically, were developed in their modern form partly to be taught to children in school in a big group lesson as a form of character development and physical education. In my experience, young kids have a hard time learning to punch well. They tend to want to just kind of raise up their arm and jab it forward a little from the arm, without using their body hardly at all. They often don't keep the wrist straight, maybe let the arm hang out there, etc. So having them explicitly practice twisting the hips as they punch, thrust the arm out straight, and bring their arm back quickly after the punch is over, can help them do it better. 

Now, somebody who's trying to be a pro fighter is probably some of the best of the best, right? They don't need these basic training methods. But your average beginner child might need them. It's like what someone else said about training wheels. They don't use training wheels on the Tour de France, but that doesn't mean that training wheels aren't useful for average kindergarten kids learning to ride a bike. Or, for example, a professional football player might not get a lot of out of a Zumba for Seniors fitness class at the gym - but that doesn't mean it's useless for your 70-year old mom who just wants to keep from needing a walker.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> You consider drilling a technique over and over again only to completely discard it in application to be "good"?




I coach jr high baseball on the side.  We do a ton of drills of individual techniques that you don't necessarily do in a game.....but the drills improve basic fundamentals.  So yes if a drill can improve a technique or fundamental even though it is not used in actual play.....I would support the drill.


If a drill or a technique is gonna help a student improve on a fundamental...absolutely I would consider it to be good even though it was discarded as the student progresses.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> You consider drilling a technique over and over again only to completely discard it in application to be "good"?



In the end, I don't care what drills someone used to develop a good straight punch....It only matters that they can throw a good straight punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip. ...


Not all MA systems punch from the waist. The Zimenquen system punch from hands next to the legs. There is no "from the hip" punch in that system.
















IMO, to always have to punch from the hip is a bad idea. In fighting, most of the time you just have to punch from wherever your hand is. When you use "comb hair" to redirect your opponent's arm, your hand starting punching position can be higher than your opponent's head.


----------



## Hanzou

WaterGal said:


> I would suggest considering the fact that professional MMA fighters are not typical martial arts students, and that the things that a 19-year old aspiring pro fighter needs to practice to get into the UFC may be somewhat different from what your average chubby 9-year old needs to practice when they enroll in a martial arts class for the first time.



Except boxing is taught to children throughout the world. In some parts of the United States, Boxing is a sport taught in public school to 6-12th graders. We also shouldn't forget that there's a growing number of kids learning MMA, and they're also learning western Boxing in those gyms. I have little doubt that those children learning Boxing/MMA have any problems with punching properly, or have any aspirations to become pro fighters (though they could in the future). This includes the 9 year old chubby kids.

In short, I simply don't buy the argument that people are trained in that fashion in Karate or TKD because it was designed for kids. They train that way because those are the traditional techniques, and those techniques are continued to be taught despite them having little practical value.


----------



## yak sao

A little different take...
In Wing Tsun we punch from the center, yet we still use the chambered position in our forms.

Our first form primarily trains one arm at a time while the other arm is held back in a chambered position.
We do not rest the arm on the side, instead it is held back with the muscles of the back and rear shoulder.
This is done to allow focus on the moving arm while simultaneously working the chambered arm. This starts to develop the concept of simultaneously using one arm to clear, deflect, etc, while the opposite arm attacks.

Also, by holding the arm back in a chambered position, we are exercising the muscles that support our various arm positions, thus building a stronger foundation for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Boxing is not only the style of hitting and not getting hit with the hands, but also the result of hundreds of years of grinding away through competition, taking from everything that furthers that cause and innovating what did not yet exist. It's obviously not the be all end all of fighting which consists of many other elements as we all know.
> 
> But when speaking of hands and hand techniques..we start boxing when we want to take that element of fighting seriously..and not a moment before


I disagree with the implicit notion that someone can't train striking with other methods AND be serious about it.

I tend to think boxing approach is overall "better", but that's by degrees. I've seen some solid skills developed, even by hobbyists, using TMA methods, too.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> I coach jr high baseball on the side.  We do a ton of drills of individual techniques that you don't necessarily do in a game.....but the drills improve basic fundamentals.  So yes if a drill can improve a technique or fundamental even though it is not used in actual play.....I would support the drill.
> 
> If a drill or a technique is gonna help a student improve on a fundamental...absolutely I would consider it to be good even though it was discarded as the student progresses.



Do you teach someone how to shoot a basketball, force them to drill that method of shooting a basketball, and then allow them shoot the ball a completely different way in the actual game?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You consider drilling a technique over and over again only to completely discard it in application to be "good"?


You're back to assuming the "technique" is the punch in the drill. I'll go back to my point about using animal walks for training.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all MA systems punch from the waist. The Zimenquen system punch from hands next to the legs. There is no "from the hip" punch in that system.



Looks like a great way to get socked in the face.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Do you teach someone how to shoot a basketball, force them to drill that method of shooting a basketball, and then allow them shoot the ball a completely different way in the actual game?


When I coached soccer/football, we sometimes used a drill where players would dribble a ball to a point, stop it dead as fast as they could, and switch to another ball (left by the previous player). You don't get to switch balls while playing, but that drill did develop some useful footwork.

You are deeply focused on what you don't like about this drill, and ignoring what folks are telling you it's used for. If you don't like it, that's fine. There are drills I don't like, so I don't use them for myself or my students. You should probably just let it go, man.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> Do you teach someone how to shoot a basketball, force them to drill that method of shooting a basketball, and then allow them shoot the ball a completely different way in the actual game?



There are numerous basketball drills that utilize techniques that are used to improve fundamentals....those drills are merely to improve fundamentals and you would never do them in a actual game.

Shooting, dribbling, passing etc....

Again if it helps to teach fundamentals it is a useful tool.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> When I coached soccer/football, we sometimes used a drill where players would dribble a ball to a point, stop it dead as fast as they could, and switch to another ball (left by the previous player). You don't get to switch balls while playing, but that drill did develop some useful footwork.
> 
> You are deeply focused on what you don't like about this drill, and ignoring what folks are telling you it's used for. If you don't like it, that's fine. There are drills I don't like, so I don't use them for myself or my students. You should probably just let it go, man.



LoL! Okay, then what "techniques" is the Reverse Punch drill used for?



CB Jones said:


> There are numerous basketball drills that utilize techniques that are used to improve fundamentals....those drills are merely to improve fundamentals and you would never do them in a actual game.
> 
> Shooting, dribbling, passing etc....
> 
> Again if it helps to teach fundamentals it is a useful tool.



You didn't answer the question.


----------



## JowGaWolf

amateur said:


> My background is more westernized. I have tried practicing punches in the eastern style (hands in chamber position) and I really couldn't see what's so special about it. Many guys that practice MMA agree that it's useless. Nevertheless, I did some research and absorbed some info about the science behind chamber practice. I'd like to hear your opinion too. If you think it's worth including some eastern punches in my workout, what are your arguments?


I'll reduce my response to a list of what it does.

It gets the hands arms out of the way.  If you don't chamber it then someone will grab it, or your arms won't fit through tight spaces.  Tyson used a lot of chambered punches to land upper cuts when close in.

It loads tension on your arms and increases flexibility
Sometimes you actually have to chamber a punch in a fight in order to transition into another technique.
Like others have stated it preloads a punch.
You can chain a punch high or low.
There's more but I'm lazy and this post is already 5 pages long.  You have to watch this video in slow motion, but if you watch only one arm, then you'll actually see Mike tyson use both high and low chambers where the fists comes back in a similar manner to what you see in Traditional martial arts.






Here are some MMA fighters using chambered punches.   When the fist comes back to the waist or to the chest, then it's is officially chambered


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> Do you teach someone how to shoot a basketball, force them to drill that method of shooting a basketball, and then allow them shoot the ball a completely different way in the actual game?



That is a strawman argument that is not accurate with what is going on.

If a drill would improve the shot in a game...yes I would have them continue to do the drills.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> That is a strawman argument that is not accurate with what is going on.
> 
> If a drill would improve the shot in a game...yes I would have them continue to do the drills.



Actually it's perfectly analogous to drilling the Reverse Punch technique in Karate in drills, forms, and one step sparring, and then when you're doing Kumite you abandon the technique completely in favor of sloppy western boxing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Looks like a great way to get socked in the face.


Your comment remind me a solo drill that I taught a long time ago. One of my students said, "Why did you drop your hand down and not protected your head." I asked him to have boxing guard and I did this.

My head was exposed. But my opponent couldn't punch me (I have controlled both of his arms). 






In the solo form. since you don't know where your opponent's arms are, it's hard to judge whether your opponent's hands can punch you or not.

You don't always have to use your arms to protect your head from punching. IMO, that's the most conservative strategy.

You can always "guide" your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm before you move in. In solo form, your arms may look like far away from your head. But your opponent's arm can also be far away from your head too.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> Actually it's perfectly analogous to drilling the Reverse Punch technique in Karate in drills, forms, and one step sparring, and then when you're doing Kumite you abandon the technique completely in favor of sloppy western boxing.



Ok I thought you were referring to the straight punches from horse stance.

I disagree with your opinion on the reverse punch.  I think its a good punch but you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> Ok I thought you were referring to the straight punches from horse stance.
> 
> I disagree with your opinion on the reverse punch.  I think its a good punch but you are entitled to your opinion.



It's a "good" punch in what way exactly? The Boxing Cross is better in just about every way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okay, then what "techniques" is the Reverse Punch drill used for?


It helps develop part of the punching mechanics. Specifically, it isolates part of the mechanics so they can be focused on, rather than relying overly on the other part of the mechanics.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> It's a "good" punch in what way exactly? The Boxing Cross is better in just about every way.



In that it is basically a boxing cross from a karate stance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It's a "good" punch in what way exactly? The Boxing Cross is better in just about every way.


Something being good doesn't preclude something else being better.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> It helps develop part of the punching mechanics. Specifically, it isolates part of the mechanics so they can be focused on, rather than relying overly on the other part of the mechanics.



Really? Okay, let's look at the Reverse punch; What are you developing from that beyond very bad habits?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> It's a "good" punch in what way exactly? The Boxing Cross is better in just about every way.


My Karate instructor friend he always sat with the cop car. When the cop wanted to arrest someone and if that person resisted, my friend would give that guy a Karate reverse punch. Since he was not allowed to punch his opponent on the head (only the body), he told me that most of the time, his opponent would drop from just one punch.

Can you drop someone with just one Karate back reverse punch? Of course you can.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> In that it is basically a boxing cross from a karate stance.



Except it isn't. 

Boxing Cross:






Reverse Punch:


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Really? Okay, let's look at the Reverse punch; What are you developing from that beyond very bad habits?


What I call a reverse punch isn't materially different from a boxing "cross" or "rear straight". Can you show me what you're calling a reverse punch?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Except it isn't.
> 
> Boxing Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse Punch:


Okay, so we don't get lost in discussing at cross points, what are the key differences to you between those? I see things I don't like (including something I consider "wrong" for that punch), but I want to focus on what you're talking about.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Something being good doesn't preclude something else being better.



Good point. I should have been more clear: The Reverse punch is bad, and the cross is the better way to do that punch.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> It helps develop part of the punching mechanics. Specifically, it isolates part of the mechanics so they can be focused on, rather than relying overly on the other part of the mechanics.


I think the thing here is that some of us feel the mechanics it builds are suboptimal, to put it mildly. 

This could be why the only place you see punches like that are in point karate and tkd, and they are tip taps.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Really? Okay, let's look at the Reverse punch; What are you developing from that beyond very bad habits?


By the way, how did we get to this from the earlier discussion of punching from jigotai? This is related, but not the same thing, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Good point. I should have been more clear: The Reverse punch is bad, and the cross is the better way to do that punch.


If you're picturing the punch from the video you just posted, I agree. But that wasn't a good reverse punch. A bad reverse punch is, well, bad.

And I'm often frustrated when people use the formal/classical practice version of a punch to do more than what it was meant to -which he is doing in that video.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so we don't get lost in discussing at cross points, what are the key differences to you between those? I see things I don't like (including something I consider "wrong" for that punch), but I want to focus on what you're talking about.



Cross: Starts from Boxing guard, less travel time, move towards ball of foot to generate more power in hip rotation.
Reverse: Starts from hip, longer travel time, foot remains planted, power generated from hip rotation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Except it isn't.
> 
> Boxing Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse Punch:


  One punch is done in the context that your Opponent doesn't kick.  The other one is done in the context that your opponent kicks.  A Boxing Cross is not suitable for use against someone who has a strong kick.  The weight distribution of the Boxing Cross causes a weaker root.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I think the thing here is that some of us feel the mechanics it builds are suboptimal, to put it mildly.
> 
> This could be why the only place you see punches like that are in point karate and tkd, and they are tip taps.


Those folks are using a version of the punch that works in that context. When the mechanics of the punch are used in sparring, they don't differ hugely from the basic mechanics of a boxing punch. I still use the same basic mechanics I've always used, but I don't look a bit like what you see in any of those drills. I look more like a boxer sometimes (when I'm not standing too tall for boxing movement).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Cross: Starts from Boxing guard, less travel time, move towards ball of foot to generate more power in hip rotation.
> Reverse: Starts from hip, longer travel time, foot remains planted, power generated from hip rotation.


That's a formal position. The reverse punch, in application, actually is just like what you described for the boxing cross. A "reverse punch" is just a straight punch from the rear hand. I know of no other definition for it.

EDIT: One difference, actually - a lot of Karateka don't shift to the ball of the foot, to keep some weight in reserve. This sacrifices power for stability and protection from takedown. I think most in MMA have found other ways to protect against foot sweeps and such.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> One punch is done in the context that your Opponent doesn't kick.  The other one is done in the context that your opponent kicks.  A Boxing Cross is not suitable for use against someone who has a strong kick.  The weight distribution of the Boxing Cross causes a weaker root.



The Cross is used in Muay Thai and MMA, and there are kicks in MMA and Muay Thai.

Neither of those sports/MA use the Reverse Punch or the Karate stances that are supposedly giving you a "better root".


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That's a formal position. The reverse punch, in application, actually is just like what you described for the boxing cross. A "reverse punch" is just a straight punch from the rear hand. I know of no other definition for it.
> .



So why are Karate students taught the "formal position" instead of the actual technique?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> The Cross is used in Muay Thai and MMA, and there are kicks in MMA and Muay Thai.
> 
> Neither of those sports/MA use the Reverse Punch or the Karate stances that are supposedly giving your a better root.


When you use boxing guard, if you throw a roundhouse kick, the punch you throw afterward have to come from the boxing guard. It makes no sense to drop your hand on your waist from a boxing guard and then punch out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The Cross is used in Muay Thai and MMA, and there are kicks in MMA and Muay Thai.


The cross in Muay Thai is not a Boxer's cross.  Muay thai crosses are thrown in the context of being able to launch a kick from the punch.





Here's a boxer's cross. It is clear by their footwork that they won't be able to throw a good kick with their cross.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use boxing guard, if you throw a roundhouse kick, the punch you throw afterward have to come from the boxing guard. It makes no sense to drop your hand on your waist from a boxing guard and then punch out.



You don't have to use the Boxing guard, you could always use this guard:






This way your chambered strike is ready to be unleashed!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The Cross is used in Muay Thai and MMA, and there are kicks in MMA and Muay Thai.


When you see a boxer's cross thrown you will never see a kick follow.
When you see a muay thai cross thrown you will often see a kick follow.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> Except it isn't.
> 
> Boxing Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse Punch:



Disagree.

The small differences is mainly caused by the stance.  The hand can be chambered lower or higher.

Again I like the way Michael Jai White shows the reverse punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You don't have to use the Boxing guard, you could always use this guard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This way your chambered strike is ready to be unleashed!


Yes it's possible to fight with a karate stance.  The concept of a chambered strike is not what you think.  Chambered strikes do not just sit on the hip waiting for stuff to happen.  Chambered strikes return to the hip or chest and fire out ward. Examples of both are found here.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The cross in Muay Thai is not a Boxer's cross.  Muay thai crosses are thrown in the context of being able to launch a kick from the punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a boxer's cross. It is clear by their footwork that they won't be able to throw a good kick with their cross.



Er what? Why didn't you simply post a Boxer Cross instructional video as well?






Here, I'll help you out:

Muay Thai Cross:






Boxing Cross:






Differences?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Many people confuse chambered fist in training and chambered fist in application


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Many people confuse chambered fist in training and chambered fist in application








That's the training and the description (alongside a demonstration) of the application. They're not different.

I suppose the confusion arises when you're trained in this way ad nauseam, and then when you actually spar you realize it's next to impossible to actually hit anyone utilizing that method.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> Disagree.
> 
> The small differences is mainly caused by the stance.  *The hand can be chambered lower or higher*.



That is never expressed in any kata or formal training. Within those contexts, the Reverse Punch ALWAYS begins with the hand chambered at the hip.


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> That is never expressed in any kata or formal training. Within those contexts, the Reverse Punch ALWAYS begins with the hand chambered at the hip.



Ok.....that doesn't mean that as students progress variations are learned and taught....like chambering the hands in a higher or lower position.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Er what? Why didn't you simply post a Boxer Cross instructional video as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll help you out:
> 
> Muay Thai Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boxing Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Differences?


Look at the rear foot.  One foot pivots the other raises.  That's a big difference. If all you are looking at is the punch then you'll miss the reality and that reality is that these are not the same punches. You can see structurally that these are not same punches.   When you look at the muay thai fighter from the fight you can see that his stance is not the same as a boxers stance.


----------



## Hanzou

CB Jones said:


> Ok.....that doesn't mean that as students progress variations are learned and taught....like chambering the hands in a higher or lower position.



Again, you are never formally taught the Boxer Cross, you are taught the Reverse punch. The techniques are NOT interchangeable, they are fundamentally different from each other. As I mentioned multiple posts ago, students informally adapted the reverse punch to mirror the Boxer's Cross because they quickly realized that the former is impractical against Western Boxing.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Look at the rear foot.  One foot pivots the other raises.  That's a big difference. If all you are looking at is the punch then you'll miss the reality and that reality is that these are not the same punches. You can see structurally that these are not same punches.   When you look at the muay thai fighter from the fight you can see that his stance is not the same as a boxers stance.



LoL! You mean him pivoting to his tip-toes because he was punching someone taller than him?

It's laughable that you think there's a structural difference there. That is literally the exact same punch with the difference coming into play because the MT guy is punching a higher target.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That's the training and the description (alongside a demonstration) of the application.


An application demo is not the same as the actual application of a technique.  An application demo is like an explainer video.  It lacks things like , timing, fight movement, baiting. 
This is an applications demo. It explains





This is actual application. No explaining. Only showing actual application (non demo)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> LoL! You mean him pivoting to his tip-toes because he was punching someone taller than him?


His lead foot stays flat so his height does not change.  Do you punch on your tippy toes when someone is taller than you?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> An application demo is not the same as the actual application of a technique.  An application demo is like an explainer video.  It lacks things like , timing, fight movement, baiting.
> This is an applications demo. It explains
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actual application. No explaining. Only showing actual application (non demo)



That is actually a limited application because you're not allowed to punch to the head in Kyokushin competitions, which leads towards deviations in hand placement and strikes,


----------



## CB Jones

Hanzou said:


> Again, you are never formally taught the Boxer Cross, you are taught the Reverse punch. The techniques are NOT interchangeable, they are fundamentally different from each other. As I mentioned multiple posts ago, students informally adapted the reverse punch to mirror the Boxer's Cross because they quickly realized that the former is impractical against Western Boxing.



Disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion

Have a good night.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That is actually a limited application because you're not allowed to punch to the head in Kyokushin competitions, which leads towards deviations in hand placement and strikes,


It's still not a demo.  It's still an application of a technique. Punching someone in the chest vs punching them in the face uses the same structure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So why are Karate students taught the "formal position" instead of the actual technique?


Again, it's a starting point, and a drill - that's how I was taught every time I've been taught that. Some (like the BB in the video with the heavy bag) try to make it the actual application, but that's not how I was taught and doesn't make sense to me based on what works.

So, it's not that they are taught the formal position instead of the actual technique. The formal position is how they start learning the technique. Clearly, in some places, that's over-emphasized.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You don't have to use the Boxing guard, you could always use this guard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This way your chambered strike is ready to be unleashed!


You really like your version of the world, don't you? It doesn't matter what people tell you they've experienced and learned - you're just going to hold onto what you really want to be true, no matter what.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Er what? Why didn't you simply post a Boxer Cross instructional video as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll help you out:
> 
> Muay Thai Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boxing Cross:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Differences?


This might just be me seeing a minor difference and giving it meaning, but the MT cross holds the hip back a tad and transfers weight squarely to the front leg, which would make it possible to raise that leg for a kick in combination. The boxing cross is only slightly different, but it would be much more difficult to raise that leg. I'm not much of a kicker, but I see that immediately between them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That's the training and the description (alongside a demonstration) of the application. They're not different.
> 
> I suppose the confusion arises when you're trained in this way ad nauseam, and then when you actually spar you realize it's next to impossible to actually hit anyone utilizing that method.


The instructor's rear hand is lower than I'd recommend (the demo partner is closer to what I'd use), but that clearly isn't the formal position. It doesn't move entirely into application, because they're repeating the same strike over and over (and that strike wouldn't be one you'd get to do twice in a row).

Oh, and as you can see, that one covers the moving beyond square - something that was brought up as a limitation of the jigotai drill earlier. I don't agree with the "always", but it makes the point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That is never expressed in any kata or formal training. Within those contexts, the Reverse Punch ALWAYS begins with the hand chambered at the hip.


If by "formal training" you mean the formal position, that's correct as far as I know. But training goes well beyond the formal position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Look at the rear foot.  One foot pivots the other raises.  That's a big difference. If all you are looking at is the punch then you'll miss the reality and that reality is that these are not the same punches. You can see structurally that these are not same punches.   When you look at the muay thai fighter from the fight you can see that his stance is not the same as a boxers stance.


We're starting to get into the discussion from that stance thread, now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Again, you are never formally taught the Boxer Cross, you are taught the Reverse punch. The techniques are NOT interchangeable, they are fundamentally different from each other. As I mentioned multiple posts ago, students informally adapted the reverse punch to mirror the Boxer's Cross because they quickly realized that the former is impractical against Western Boxing.


No, you're confusing "formal position" with "what is taught". Students are taught from the formal position as a starting point and for specific drills. Instructors coach the progression to application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> LoL! You mean him pivoting to his tip-toes because he was punching someone taller than him?
> 
> It's laughable that you think there's a structural difference there. That is literally the exact same punch with the difference coming into play because the MT guy is punching a higher target.


I can't remember, Hanzou - does your background include training in kicks?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> Disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion
> 
> Have a good night.


Not really even an opinion. He's stating what others are not trained in, without really knowing what they are trained in.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> His lead foot stays flat so his height does not change.  Do you punch on your tippy toes when someone is taller than you?



His lead foot can remain flat because you get a height increase off of your back foot. Try it sometime.

Irregardless, the point is, you can use the Boxer cross when someone is trying to kick you. MMA, Kickboxing, etc. all use the  Boxer Cross OVER the Reverse Punch from Karate.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I can't remember, Hanzou - does your background include training in kicks?



Yes. I have a 2nd degree BB in Shotokan.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Again, it's a starting point, and a drill - that's how I was taught every time I've been taught that. Some (like the BB in the video with the heavy bag) try to make it the actual application, but that's not how I was taught and doesn't make sense to me based on what works.
> 
> So, it's not that they are taught the formal position instead of the actual technique. The formal position is how they start learning the technique. Clearly, in some places, that's over-emphasized.



And again, I was taught that it is a technique that has application in actual fighting. I was never taught the Boxer Cross until I actually took Boxing some years later. Obviously I'm not the only one who was taught in this fashion as others in this thread and the videos I've posted have shown.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> You really like your version of the world, don't you? It doesn't matter what people tell you they've experienced and learned - you're just going to hold onto what you really want to be true, no matter what.



What's the problem? That is an actual fighting stance in traditional Karate.

Yeah it's an impractical mess, but that's because it is designed around utilizing heavily chambered strikes like the Reverse Punch. It isn't the only one that does this either, and there's plenty of Karate schools around the world that waste time teaching impractical silliness like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes. I have a 2nd degree BB in Shotokan.


Okay, just wanted to make sure before I asked this - do you see the point I was making about the difference in the two crosses you posted? One of those I couldn't kick from. One I could. You're probably better trained at kicks than me, so I'd expect it to be at least as clear to you.

Otherwise, they are nearly identical, to my eye.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> And again, I was taught that it is a technique that has application in actual fighting. I was never taught the Boxer Cross until I actually took Boxing some years later. Obviously I'm not the only one who was taught in this fashion as others in this thread and the videos I've posted have shown.


That's what I was getting at in something earlier. You're generalizing your experience to all Karate. Even in the brief time I was training in Shotokan, I was always aware that this was a formal position for starting/studying, and not the application. The actual application would be much closer to a boxer's cross (I didn't really know what that was back then, so wouldn't have been able to make that statement at the time) with a karate guard (like what was shown in the MMA video someone posted).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> What's the problem? That is an actual fighting stance in traditional Karate.


Not as I was taught it. And not as I've seen it used by folks with a lot more Karate training than me. That's the point.



> Yeah it's an impractical mess, but that's because it is designed around utilizing heavily chambered strikes like the Reverse Punch. It isn't the only one that does this either, and there's plenty of Karate schools around the world that waste time teaching impractical silliness like that.


I don't doubt it. I've seen silliness in a lot of areas of life - why should MA be any different. But that doesn't make the silliness the only way, nor does it make it "the way".


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It's still not a demo.  It's still an application of a technique. Punching someone in the chest vs punching them in the face uses the same structure.



Eh, the Kyokushin fighters had a different structure than those guys in that video. However, I will give those Karate guys credit for at least resembling Karate as it is trained when they're actually fighting.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Okay, just wanted to make sure before I asked this - do you see the point I was making about the difference in the two crosses you posted? One of those I couldn't kick from. One I could. You're probably better trained at kicks than me, so I'd expect it to be at least as clear to you.
> 
> Otherwise, they are nearly identical, to my eye.



Eh, I don't feel that the difference you brought up is all that meaningful. Keep in mind that two people will do the same technique in different ways. The important part is the core technique itself, and that is starting from boxer guard, pivoting off the ball of your rear foot, etc. In any case, my original point is that the Boxer Cross is fundamentally different than the Reverse Punch, and the Boxer Cross and the Boxer guard are commonly used in systems that utilize kicking.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That's what I was getting at in something earlier. You're generalizing your experience to all Karate. Even in the brief time I was training in Shotokan, I was always aware that this was a formal position for starting/studying, and not the application. The actual application would be much closer to a boxer's cross (I didn't really know what that was back then, so wouldn't have been able to make that statement at the time) with a karate guard (like what was shown in the MMA video someone posted).



No, I'm pointing out that people in Karate ARE trained in chambered strikes and are taught that those strikes are the actual application. Hence why those chambered strikes are reinforced in kata and other aspects of formal training. Now, I don't disagree that some schools might deviate from that since my Karate dojo was pretty traditional, but I think it is a bad training methodology to drill someone repeatedly a certain way when the actual application is completely different. 

And yes it needs to be repeated: The Boxer Cross and the Karate Reverse Punch are two completely different techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Eh, I don't feel that the difference you brought up is all that meaningful. Keep in mind that two people will do the same technique in different ways. The important part is the core technique itself, and that is starting from boxer guard, pivoting off the ball of your rear foot, etc. In any case, my original point is that the Boxer Cross is fundamentally different than the Reverse Punch, and the Boxer Cross and the Boxer guard are commonly used in systems that utilize kicking.


I tried to be clear it was a small difference. If I wasn't, that's my bad. It's a small shift that makes the kick available, but otherwise much the same technique. With most cross/reverse from Karate in sparring, it's similar, though not as similar as the MT cross. The difference in the guard is significant, but not extreme, in that the typical Karate guard has the hands more separated and the feet are sometimes not held parallel (again, as in that MMA video posted earlier).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm pointing out that people in Karate ARE trained in chambered strikes and are taught that those strikes are the actual application. Hence why those chambered strikes are reinforced in kata and other aspects of formal training. Now, I don't disagree that some schools might deviate from that since my Karate dojo was pretty traditional, but I think it is a bad training methodology to drill someone repeatedly a certain way when the actual application is completely different.
> 
> And yes it needs to be repeated: The Boxer Cross and the Karate Reverse Punch are two completely different techniques.


Except everything you've used to demonstrate that difference points to the formal training position and drills using it. What's the huge difference between the reverse punches in that Kyokushin video and a boxing cross to the body?


----------



## _Simon_

Without reading the whole thread (which has grown exponentially by the way, impressive!), in Kyokushin we would still do full chamber for all our techniques in basics and kata. We would do combinations too, sometimes full chamber, and sometimes just from hands up position. Sparring was without chambering usually.

Did the chambering help in full contact sparring? Who knows! It's truly hard (if not maybe impossible?) to say, but I can sure as heck say that it helped me in understanding power generation and body mechanics very well.

Did the constant chambering in basics and kata hinder me at all in sparring? Not in the slightest.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Except everything you've used to demonstrate that difference points to the formal training position and drills using it. What's the huge difference between the reverse punches in that Kyokushin video and a boxing cross to the body?



I would argue that at that point, the Kyokushin fighters aren't using Reverse Punches, they've adapted their system to being a form of kickboxing. If you look closely, even their stances are completely removed from the deep stances found in training and Kata practice. Again, as I've said many times; If that is the end point, why not simply do kickboxing from the beginning and avoid learning those techniques and kata that you're going to eventually shed?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that at that point, the Kyokushin fighters aren't using Reverse Punches, they've adapted their system to being a form of kickboxing. If you look closely, even their stances are completely removed from the deep stances found in training and Kata practice. Again, as I've said many times; If that is the end point, why not simply do kickboxing from the beginning and avoid learning those techniques that you're going to eventually shed.


That's because you're insisting on the definition of "reverse punch" being what's in that formal position. Most folks I've trained with would consider that punch used in sparring to be a "reverse punch" and a "cross", seeing the two as interchangeable terms, outside the formal position. Again, the most common definition of "reverse punch" I've run into is "a punch from the rear hand".


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That's because you're insisting on the definition of "reverse punch" being what's in that formal position. Most folks I've trained with would consider that punch used in sparring to be a "reverse punch" and a "cross", seeing the two as interchangeable terms, outside the formal position. Again, the most common definition of "reverse punch" I've run into is "a punch from the rear hand".



I'm insisting on the definition of the Reverse Punch being exactly what it is as a technique? Guilty as charged.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I'm insisting on the definition of the Reverse Punch being exactly what it is as a technique? Guilty as charged.


No, you're insisting on the definition of it as it is in the formal position. You are quite willfully refusing to accept the definition several folks have said is the working definition for them and those they train with. Why do you get to decide what the word means to those who use it in their training?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> No, you're insisting on the definition of it as it is in the formal position. You are quite willfully refusing to accept the definition several folks have said is the working definition for them and those they train with. Why do you get to decide what the word means to those who use it in their training?



I'm not deciding on anything. I'm looking at the actual technique and calling it what it is. You're trying to say that Blue is Purple when in fact Blue is Blue and Purple is Purple. The Reverse Punch is the Reverse Punch and the Cross Punch is the Cross Punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I'm not deciding on anything. I'm looking at the actual technique and calling it what it is. You're trying to say that Blue is Purple when in fact Blue is Blue and Purple is Purple. The Reverse Punch is the Reverse Punch and the Cross Punch is the Cross Punch.


You're looking at a drill for training the technique, and calling that the technique. That's like looking at a bucket of paint and saying what's on the wall can't be paint, because paint comes in a bucket.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> You're looking at a drill for training the technique, and calling that the technique. That's like looking at a bucket of paint and saying what's on the wall can't be paint, because paint comes in a bucket.



So we're back to you believing that the Reverse Punch isnt an actual technique but a training tool. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So we're back to you believing that the Reverse Punch isnt an actual technique but a training tool. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.


No, I never said that. I said what YOU claim is a reverse punch is only a drill and/or formal version (you've varied what you're talking about in this thread), and not the end technique. I've always said that - go back to the earliest time I mentioned it in this thread, and you'll see that.

A reverse punch is a technique. It is NOT any of the drills used to train it or its components.


----------



## VPT

Hanzou said:


> Yes. I have a 2nd degree BB in Shotokan.



I hope you are aware that Shotokan has never, ever been considered "traditional karate"?


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> This might just be me seeing a minor difference and giving it meaning, but the MT cross holds the hip back a tad and transfers weight squarely to the front leg, which would make it possible to raise that leg for a kick in combination. The boxing cross is only slightly different, but it would be much more difficult to raise that leg. I'm not much of a kicker, but I see that immediately between them.


It's a minor difference that determines if you are able to kick or not.  The position of a lock on a door will determine if on strangers can just walk in or have to knock.  There are many minor things in Martial arts that can make a big difference when done or not done. Fist structures have minor differences in positions but big differences on oh the fist can be used. 

Hanzou is just being Hanzou.  I have to admit Hanzou is consistent.


----------



## Danny T

Walking...let's look at the technique of the human walking.
The basic form is the technique. Do we all walk same? No but the technique is still walking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Eh, the Kyokushin fighters had a different structure than those guys in that video. However, I will give those Karate guys credit for at least resembling Karate as it is trained when they're actually fighting.


 That's because you are comparing application with training of application.  In fighting you are going to adjustments that aren't going to match perfect structure or demo structure.


----------



## Buka

In American Karate, amongst other things, I teach people to punch. That punching consists of right crosses, reverse punches and all other punches we use. We train all of them against resisting partners. Once the application of those punches reaches a point where they can use them fairly well, it's up to the student to use the ones they want.

Most use both ways (right cross or reverse punch) but not exclusively of each other. I've been hit with all of them maybe a zillion times, both to the body and to the face. Each and every one of them kind of sucked.

I don't see a big deal in which way anyone punches, as long as they can use that punch for what it was designed. To hit.


----------



## amateur

Whoah, I can't believe a thread of mine brought about that many responses. I read up to somewhere
in Page 3, then got dizzy and stopped.
Anyway, here's my view on your debates. I agree with the ones that said chamber punches are
indeed the way eastern fighters fought in the ancient past; it would be nonsense to practice
something they wouldn't utilize in combat. 
I disagree with those that say chamber punches are just an outdated way of fighting that was
pushed aside by western style punches (those thrown with arms at head level). I don't think
that eastern masters are so idiotic or that punches thrown from head level is that hard knowledge
to acquire that it would take centuries of evolution for martial artists to come up with.
When I saw in a video that eastern, old fashioned masters have one arm raised and extended
forward and the other chambered when fighting, everything became clear to me (I think). 
Eastern styles are designed for long range combat focused more on impressive kicks, for self 
defense; shaolins and other masters of the ancient past were not interested in competition, they
got into real fights only when they had to. The raised arm served the purpose of keeping the 
attacker at a distance and possibly  grab and pull them if they approached so that the chambered
arm would deliver a loaded punch. That's why they practiced consecutive straight punches;
they also practiced that 'pull and punch' motion that way.
Western styles, on the other hand, are designed for competition. When you want to win a fight,
you won't just keep yourself at a distance and wait for the foe to attack, like you do when a
mugger corners you in an alley. If you want to win, sooner or later, you have to approach and
attack, so your arms have to be high.
All in all, kung fu wouldn't work in a ring and MMA wouldn't work in a life or death battle.
That's what I made of the knowledge I absorbed. Of course, I'm just a beginner, maybe all the
above is nonsense, maybe I didn't get anything right. I'm waiting for your responses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

VPT said:


> I hope you are aware that Shotokan has never, ever been considered "traditional karate"?


That depends who you ask, and how you define "traditional" - a debate that has raged many times here on MT, with no real consensus.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> It's a minor difference that determines if you are able to kick or not.  The position of a lock on a door will determine if on strangers can just walk in or have to knock.  There are many minor things in Martial arts that can make a big difference when done or not done. Fist structures have minor differences in positions but big differences on oh the fist can be used.
> 
> Hanzou is just being Hanzou.  I have to admit Hanzou is consistent.


Agreed. My point was simply that I think it's exactly the same technique, just shifted to allow for the kick. If you taught a boxer to kick, that's probably the exact change they'd make to their cross to allow the potential for a kick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> In American Karate, amongst other things, I teach people to punch. That punching consists of right crosses, reverse punches and all other punches we use. We train all of them against resisting partners. Once the application of those punches reaches a point where they can use them fairly well, it's up to the student to use the ones they want.
> 
> Most use both ways (right cross or reverse punch) but not exclusively of each other. I've been hit with all of them maybe a zillion times, both to the body and to the face. Each and every one of them kind of sucked.
> 
> I don't see a big deal in which way anyone punches, as long as they can use that punch for what it was designed. To hit.


What is your distinction between those two, Buka?


----------



## Buka

Danny T said:


> Walking...let's look at the technique of the human walking.
> The basic form is the technique. Do we all walk same? No but the technique is still walking.



That's a rally great point/analogy. After I read it I pictured how I walk, how the guys I work with walk, and how all my friends walk. 

It's a damn good think we don't have a thread on walking here. Probably be fifty pages of "You're doing it all wrong!"


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that at that point, the Kyokushin fighters aren't using Reverse Punches, they've adapted their system to being a form of kickboxing. If you look closely, even their stances are completely removed from the deep stances found in training and Kata practice. Again, as I've said many times; If that is the end point, why not simply do kickboxing from the beginning and avoid learning those techniques and kata that you're going to eventually shed?



Same reason you tie a boxers feet together. 

There are a whole bunch of technical adjustments that need to be made by artificially restricting movement. 

I still don't get chambering. But say deep stances forces your hips underneath you. Which when you become advanced in boxing is a technique that becomes important.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> What is your distinction between those two, Buka?



Openings, opportunity, position, intent. But, basically, it comes down to what you like.

If I'm standing in a natural stance and have to throw a punch I'll probably throw a cross (I'm talking about between the two mentioned) Not because it's the better of the two, but it's the better of the two for the way I move. If I'm in a more committed stance, as in sparring, again, it's opportunity and the openings available. The cross, for me anyway, allows me a better flow for the combinations that I like and are, more importantly, used to.

However, I have a rather nifty reverse punch. It's actually the first punch I ever learned. Been doing it two years longer than a cross. Some years back I had to stop a man from entering a prohibited area. I knew he was high as a loon and didn't care about anything and ignored all verbal warning. He advanced throwing his arms up over his head and yelling. I dropped a step forward, I think I was intending to throw a cross or maybe a shove, I think so anyway, but I threw a reverse punch, a traditional karate reverse punch that just came out. Hit him right in the front of his ribs under his pec. He broke like glass, went down in a heap. And this was winter, we both had heavy coats on. My intent was to stop him from entering an area of no no. Worked pretty good.

Had it on video from work. But they wouldn't give me a copy of it. Too bad, I really liked that video. And nooooo, it's not on youtube. Too bad about that too, it was kind of funny because it had no sound. But it was long before youtube ever existed.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> Same reason you tie a boxers feet together.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of technical adjustments that need to be made by artificially restricting movement.
> 
> I still don't get chambering. But say deep stances forces your hips underneath you. Which when you become advanced in boxing is a technique that becomes important.



Anybody that's spent long hours in boxing gyms have had their feet tied together at some point. For the uninitiated, it's to shorten your stance so your feet remain somewhat under your hips. I remember back when I did that, felt like I was on a chain gang for months on end.

 It's a training tool. It may actually work a little bit. But no matter, in the heat of the boxing match the feet open wider, just like they had never been tied together in training at all.

I've had a lot of conversations about this with world class boxers. They all nod and laugh and say "yeah."


----------



## WaterGal

Hanzou said:


> Except boxing is taught to children throughout the world. In some parts of the United States, Boxing is a sport taught in public school to 6-12th graders. We also shouldn't forget that there's a growing number of kids learning MMA, and they're also learning western Boxing in those gyms. I have little doubt that those children learning Boxing/MMA have any problems with punching properly, or have any aspirations to become pro fighters (though they could in the future). This includes the 9 year old chubby kids.
> 
> In short, I simply don't buy the argument that people are trained in that fashion in Karate or TKD because it was designed for kids. They train that way because those are the traditional techniques, and those techniques are continued to be taught despite them having little practical value.



I've never heard of young kids training in boxing in schools (or really, anywhere), but I'll take your word on that. How do those children's school boxing programs train their kids in boxing? I'm sure they have them practice some drills. What are they?


----------



## Dirty Dog

WaterGal said:


> I've never heard of young kids training in boxing in schools (or really, anywhere), but I'll take your word on that. How do those children's school boxing programs train their kids in boxing? I'm sure they have them practice some drills. What are they?



Depends on how you define "young kids" really. There's a boxing school in our area that has students in the 9-10 year old range. Periodically, we like to get together to have our respective students do some sparring. It's good for all of them.


----------



## Hanzou

amateur said:


> All in all, kung fu wouldn't work in a ring and *MMA wouldn't work in a life or death battle*.



Yes it would. In a life or death battle I'd rather be trained in MMA than just about any King Fu ste out there.


----------



## WaterGal

Dirty Dog said:


> Depends on how you define "young kids" really. There's a boxing school in our area that has students in the 9-10 year old range. Periodically, we like to get together to have our respective students do some sparring. It's good for all of them.



Even 9-10; I'm used to boxing being something for teens and adults. Though I did just look on google, and it does appear that one MMA school in my area has switched from offering youth Muay Thai to youth boxing since the last time I looked at their website. They do emphasize that the kids can't get hurt during the class, which makes me wonder what the training is like - only on bags, maybe? But really, I'm wondering how a beginner's boxing class for average 9-10 year olds is like. Do they do basic drills to get the kids comfortable and used to moving and hitting?


----------



## Dirty Dog

WaterGal said:


> Even 9-10; I'm used to boxing being something for teens and adults. Though I did just look on google, and it does appear that one MMA school in my area has switched from offering youth Muay Thai to youth boxing since the last time I looked at their website. They do emphasize that the kids can't get hurt during the class, which makes me wonder what the training is like - only on bags, maybe? But really, I'm wondering how a beginner's boxing class for average 9-10 year olds is like. Do they do basic drills to get the kids comfortable and used to moving and hitting?



They look a lot like 9-10 year olds in a TKD class, but without the kicking (at least at this particular school). They spar with gloves with a lot of padding, and they wear headgear and something like looks an awful lot like hogu. 
I'd question the "can't" claim, because feces occurs. But I'm sure injuries are pretty rare.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes it would. In a life or death battle I'd rather be trained in MMA than just about any King Fu ste out there.


Yeah, I've never really understood the claim that MMA wouldn't work in SD. There might be ways to improve its application outside the ring/octagon, but being able to beat somebody up is a useful skill in many SD situations. And it's hard to argue anybody is really better at that skill than MMA competitors.


----------



## pdg

Buka said:


> I've had a lot of conversations about this with world class boxers. They all nod and laugh and say "yeah.



Is that before or after you sweep them for a laugh?


----------



## Buka

pdg said:


> Is that before or after you sweep them for a laugh?



It was probably three years in the boxing gym before I ever experienced "Hey, let's spar and you can do all the Karate stuff."

That might have been my all time, favorite, fun day in my training history.  Boxers have no idea how to break fall. And they sure as hell have no clue about sweeps. But I caught a lot of them before they fell on most of the sweeps, that's only fair and proper. I took them down with simple sweeps, Iron Brooms, trips, leg kick outs, scissor take downs. It was so much damn fun.

I swept so much that day I was offered a job as a janitor. Still have the broom, too.


----------



## Buka

P.S. to my last post above. Another thing I did was snap kick them to the groin several times a round. At first it was "Hey, that's dirty fighting, that's a foul!" But I explained to them that groin contact was a standard target in all open Karate tournaments back then. All of them. And it was just a slap to the large groin protector all boxers wear training. So I'd just slap it. Then throw the same thing to their stomach but crack them kind of hard. That was how they knew the groin tap was just a tap.

But if you have it in your repertoire, slap them with a lead leg hook kick, small angle, right upside their head when they're in mid punch. Then, because they'll be looking for that kick, which they don't really understand - I mean, how could they? - pump fake a sweep, only really wide, pull it back and hook kick. You'll smack them again.

THEN - fake that hook, pull it back mid kick and side kick them on the waist line _as_ they attempt to step in. If you catch them mid step, it will sit them on their butt with a wonderful look of confusion on their face.

I love boxing. But I love Martial fighting against boxers even more.


----------



## pdg

Hold up there @Buka - this guy on YouTube says boxing beats *any* other martial art, flawlessly, every single time.

They obviously let you do those things


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> P.S. to my last post above. Another thing I did was snap kick them to the groin several times a round. At first it was "Hey, that's dirty fighting, that's a foul!" But I explained to them that groin contact was a standard target in all open Karate tournaments back then. All of them. And it was just a slap to the large groin protector all boxers wear training. So I'd just slap it. Then throw the same thing to their stomach but crack them kind of hard. That was how they knew the groin tap was just a tap.
> 
> But if you have it in your repertoire, slap them with a lead leg hook kick, small angle, right upside their head when they're in mid punch. Then, because they'll be looking for that kick, which they don't really understand - I mean, how could they? - pump fake a sweep, only really wide, pull it back and hook kick. You'll smack them again.
> 
> THEN - fake that hook, pull it back mid kick and side kick them on the waist line _as_ they attempt to step in. If you catch them mid step, it will sit them on their butt with a wonderful look of confusion on their face.
> 
> I love boxing. But I love Martial fighting against boxers even more.



There is a few in the organization my son competes in that are pushing for the organization to stop allowing groin contact.  Hopefully that doesn't gain traction.


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> Another thing I did was snap kick them to the groin several times a round



This December, Jacob and his Sensei's son created a sparring game.  It was freestyle continuous sparring (3 minute rounds) but only Groin kicks scored......they called it.....Jingle Balls.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. My point was simply that I think it's exactly the same technique, just shifted to allow for the kick. If you taught a boxer to kick, that's probably the exact change they'd make to their cross to allow the potential for a kick.



Yeah, but not all the time. The last boxer I taught kicking to was Ray Leonard. He didn’t change squat about his punching.

I guess we can’t really fault him for that. That man could punch like the Dickens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Yeah, but not all the time. The last boxer I taught kicking to was Ray Leonard. He didn’t change squat about his punching.
> 
> I guess we can’t really fault him for that. That man could punch like the Dickens.


How did I not see that coming?


----------



## Buka

CB Jones said:


> There is a few in the organization my son competes in that are pushing for the organization to stop allowing groin contact.  Hopefully that doesn't gain traction.



To me, the best thing about allowing contact to the groin is the benefit to the kickers. If you’re a “kicker”, allowed groin contact will make you a better kicker.

Sure as hell will teach not to dangle that kick. Or to pose. And every one of us kickers has gone through a brief period of that pose stage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. My point was simply that I think it's exactly the same technique,


In my mind they are similar techniques but not the exactly the same technique.  Think of walking.  Do you use the same walking technique to walk on sand, on ice, in water, on a log?  If they were the same then you would be able to walk the same way one each one of those surfaces.

The fact that you would have to make adjustments to kick after the punch tells you that it's not the same.  If the punch was exactly the same then no adjustments would be needed in order to follow up with a kick.

This is something that everyone can literally try for themselves and the difference would be noticed right away.


----------



## Buka

JowGaWolf said:


> Think of walking.  Do you use the same walking technique to walk on sand, on ice, in water, on a log?  If they were the same then you would be able to walk the same way one each one of those surfaces.



Another great point. You guys are giving me so many points to use in a class.

God, I love this place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> In my mind they are similar techniques but not the exactly the same technique.  Think of walking.  Do you use the same walking technique to walk on sand, on ice, in water, on a log?  If they were the same then you would be able to walk the same way one each one of those surfaces.
> 
> The fact that you would have to make adjustments to kick after the punch tells you that it's not the same.  If the punch was exactly the same then no adjustments would be needed in order to follow up with a kick.
> 
> This is something that everyone can literally try for themselves and the difference would be noticed right away.


I like that analogy. I don't see them as that different, but I don't think we differ materially in our view - mostly a matter of degree.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I don't see them as that different,


It just depends on where you look.  Start big and everything looks the same.  Start digging down into and differences begin to appear.
This is pretty much how I see martial arts and martial arts techniques these days.


----------



## amateur

Hanzou said:


> Yes it would. In a life or death battle I'd rather be trained in MMA than just about any King Fu ste out there.



Ok, I was a little dogmatic about MMA. That aside, do you agree with the rest of my post?


----------



## JowGaWolf

amateur said:


> Ok, I was a little dogmatic about MMA. That aside, do you agree with the rest of my post?


Don't make friends with Hanzou lol..  Just kidding Hanzou.  Keep doing you.


----------

