# Gloves vs Fist.  Which one wins for you



## JowGaWolf (Dec 13, 2016)

My guess is that this will vary depending on how conditioned a person's hand his and how well that person is able to deliver good technique.

Which wins for you?  Fist or Glove.
For me my fist wins this battle.  Gloves soften the striking points on my fist so I'm not able to get the knuckles as deep.


----------



## marques (Dec 13, 2016)

With my weak hands, better with gloves. Without much power training (for the same reason) MMA gloves would be the best for me, for precision. Little power, but well delivered. Efficiency. (Or pretending.)

I think if I am not angry, I have more power even with my elbows. In angry mode... Perhaps I don't care about pain and broken bones before someone is death...


----------



## drop bear (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 13, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Which wins for you?  Fist or Glove.


I'll say "palm edge" instead. It has less area and more meat. You can hit as hard as you can without worrying about your own hand bone breaking.

When I was young, at the end of one group fight, one of my friends found out that he had a tooth in his knuckle.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 13, 2016)

No gloves at all. More realism.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 13, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> No gloves at all. More realism.


Which one is your strongest hit? Gloves on or gloves off?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 13, 2016)

I purposefully train for self defense so I not only work on toughing my hands (punching rice bags along with, currently, the tire dummy in my basement I use my weapons on but hope to get a legit heavy bag for X-mas  ) but arm and hand structure.  The main reason for the gloves in MMA wasn't to reduce punch damage.  It was to 1. Make striking more viable for a win via KO with "boxing" style punches and 2. Reduce blood spilled since knuckles can cut skin far easier.

Tapeing up and/or wearing wrist supportive gloves allows you to avoid wrist damage from punching in ways that are dangerous biomechanically.  There is a reason bareknuckle boxers used to stand and punch like this...






Then the gloves themselves allow for punching to bony structures minimizing "boxers fractures" without going through the headache I do.  I will sometimes do knuckle push-ups on a tile floor, I punch rice filled canvass bags also to strengthen the bones over time etc.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I will sometimes do knuckle push-ups on a tile floor


I do knuckle push ups in the grass or some where that has some soil that isn't sun baked.   Each time I push up I will punch the ground with each fist before going back down.  Now that I typed this I wonder if that's why my punching is powerful even if my arm is half way extended.  I'll have to take some students and train them that way to see if their punching improves.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Tapeing up and/or wearing wrist supportive gloves allows you to avoid wrist damage from punching in ways that are dangerous biomechanically. There is a reason bareknuckle boxers used to stand and punch like this...



Then why did they stop standing and punching like that?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Then why did they stop standing and punching like that?


Nice try at hyperbole.  Round punches were thrown to soft parts, sometimes to hard if absolutely needed but like anything there is a "preferred" way.  

I can cite as proof here the massive increases in concussions and KO's documented in MMA since they introduced the gloves if necessary but I would hope since you train that you already know those undeniable statistics as an informed consumer. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/combat...rate-tenfold/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us

 Hell  some people are actually suggesting the UFC do away with gloves hoping that it will reduce head strikes to pre glove levels and thus reduce the incidents of concussions alone. 

Joe Rogan: UFC Fighters Shouldn't Wear Gloves

But whatever... Ignore biomechanics if ya want to.


----------



## Buka (Dec 14, 2016)

To damage an opponent, I'll take bare handed every time. To train, both for the opponents safety and the safety of my hands, I'll take good gloves every time.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Which one is your strongest hit? Gloves on or gloves off?



Off.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Nice try at hyperbole.  Round punches were thrown to soft parts, sometimes to hard if absolutely needed but like anything there is a "preferred" way.
> 
> I can cite as proof here the massive increases in concussions and KO's documented in MMA since they introduced the gloves if necessary but I would hope since you train that you already know those undeniable statistics as an informed consumer.
> 
> ...



So you would be gloves on for the more reliable ko?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So you would be gloves on for the more reliable ko?



I don't think it is a global "either/or" choice.

For my purposes I would see bare handed as the way because I train for self defense, where I won't be wearing gloves, so I do conditioning and train to punch hard targets in a specific way.  However if I was competing I would likely prefer gloves because not worrying as much about conditioning would mean more time for all the other training and not being as concerned about how I am punching hard targets mechanically.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I purposefully train for self defense so I not only work on toughing my hands (punching rice bags along with, currently, the tire dummy in my basement I use my weapons on but hope to get a legit heavy bag for X-mas  ) but arm and hand structure.  The main reason for the gloves in MMA wasn't to reduce punch damage.  It was to 1. Make striking more viable for a win via KO with "boxing" style punches and 2. Reduce blood spilled since knuckles can cut skin far easier.
> 
> Tapeing up and/or wearing wrist supportive gloves allows you to avoid wrist damage from punching in ways that are dangerous biomechanically.  There is a reason bareknuckle boxers used to stand and punch like this...
> 
> ...



The largely accepted reason for the classical boxing stance was the prequeesnbury rules which allowed grappling, throws, and low kicks. After the adoption of standardized rules that discouraged grappling and clinching boxing focus shifted to punching and a more evolved punching game developed. The newer more evasive style of punching transitioned to a more evasive skillset that favored footwork and headmovement which was a sharp contrast to the older "toe the line" style where evasion and footwork was frowned upon. Gloves were added to get the upperclass involved and reduce the risk of cuts to the face, they were initially only used in training but later became more widespread. 

Gloves vs bk? IMO it's a dumb comparison. Gloves are for training and competition. They reduce the risk of cuts and with wraps enable you to work punches with greater intensity for a prolonged time this improving your punching technique and endurance. They're a training tool that's it.

If I trained without gloves at my boxing gym my face would look like hamburger meat. I can't really believe anyone is training bare knuckle with any intensity and intent to make contact on a regular basis (in a partnered sparring context).


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> The largely accepted reason for the classical boxing stance was the prequeesnbury rules which allowed grappling, throws, and low kicks. After the adoption of standardized rules that discouraged grappling and clinching boxing focus shifted to punching and a more evolved punching game developed. The newer more evasive style of punching transitioned to a more evasive skillset that favored footwork and headmovement which was a sharp contrast to the older "toe the line" style where evasion and footwork was frowned upon. Gloves were added to get the upperclass involved and reduce the risk of cuts to the face, they were initially only used in training but later became more widespread.
> 
> Gloves vs bk? IMO it's a dumb comparison. Gloves are for training and competition. They reduce the risk of cuts and with wraps enable you to work punches with greater intensity for a prolonged time this improving your punching technique and endurance. They're a training tool that's it.
> 
> If I trained without gloves at my boxing gym my face would look like hamburger meat. I can't really believe anyone is training bare knuckle with any intensity and intent to make contact on a regular basis (in a partnered sparring context).


Everything you say is correct, but on another thread I believe it was @lklawson spoke of what he called the "pistol grip" punch for ungloved/untaped punching.  

The reason for this in my understanding is that everything just naturally lines up in a more solid structure at the wrist to avoid injury.  If you strike with the fist horizontal you either need it taped or the fist needs to be canted to line it up properly.  Tbh I thought that was just a WC theory until is contribution in the older thread but he could likely explain why he recommended it better from a Western Martial Arts perspective as he is an expert in that realm where as I am not.


----------



## donald1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Personally I could go either way; with or without gloves it dosnt matter much to me how I spare. But I would rather lean towards saftey.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Everything you say is correct, but on another thread I believe it was @lklawson spoke of what he called the "pistol grip" punch for ungloved/untaped punching.
> 
> The reason for this in my understanding is that everything just naturally lines up in a more solid structure at the wrist to avoid injury.  If you strike with the fist horizontal you either need it taped or the fist needs to be canted to line it up properly.  Tbh I thought that was just a WC theory until is contribution in the older thread but he could likely explain why he recommended it better from a Western Martial Arts perspective as he is an expert in that realm where as I am not.


I'll argue that at best it's debatable and you can make either work. Plenty of people fight bk with horizontal punches and don't break their wrist. The reason wc guys say their way is better is because of tradition and they try to back it up with pseudoscience. They point to classical boxing as confirmation for confirmation but the truth is classical boxing differed widely in approach, either way it's an antiquated punching method. You can say one vs the other is better but there are countless examples of horizontal punching working just fine.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I'll argue that at best it's debatable and you can make either work. Plenty of people fight bk with horizontal punches and don't break their wrist. The reason wc guys say their way is better is because of tradition and they try to back it up with pseudoscience. They point to classical boxing as confirmation for confirmation but the truth is classical boxing differed widely in approach, either way it's an antiquated punching method. You can say one vs the other is better but there are countless examples of horizontal punching working just fine.



You are correct that people don't always break their wrist but that doesn't mean it is pseudoscience.  The bone/ligament/tendon orientation in the wrist does actually line up more naturally without further adjustment when you also account for the forward motion of the arm.  This is simply a biological fact.  Now is it a fight breaking thing if you don't use that alignment?  Of course not but at the same time we have a guy on light duty because he was throwing hook punches and sprain/strained things because of the lack of natural alignment and he hadn't adjusted the angle of the fist itself to compensate.  

As for focusing on Wing Chun that's why I noted this post...
Krav Maga Kuckle Protection

I do not use the term loosely when I say he is an expert on Western/European Martial Arts.  I would also argue that if arts from opposite sides of the planet from divergent cultures and that evolved in different eras both say "this helps mitigate the chance of self injury" it does.  Regardless the natural alignment is a fact /Shrug.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Everything you say is correct, but on another thread I believe it was @lklawson spoke of what he called the "pistol grip" punch for ungloved/untaped punching.
> 
> The reason for this in my understanding is that everything just naturally lines up in a more solid structure at the wrist to avoid injury.  If you strike with the fist horizontal you either need it taped or the fist needs to be canted to line it up properly.  Tbh I thought that was just a WC theory until is contribution in the older thread but he could likely explain why he recommended it better from a Western Martial Arts perspective as he is an expert in that realm where as I am not.



The Isshinryu punch looks very much like the punch shown in the photo of the old-time bare-knuckle boxer.  Fist is vertical, thumb is on top, not along the side.  We strike with the top two knuckles.  Hand, wrist, and arm are in alignment.  I can hit quite hard without conditioning my hands and without hurting my knuckles, wrist, etc.  The pressing down on the thumb moves the bones of the hand into correct alignment.  IMHO.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Isshinryu punch looks very much like the punch shown in the photo of the old-time bare-knuckle boxer.  Fist is vertical, thumb is on top, not along the side.  We strike with the top two knuckles.  Hand, wrist, and arm are in alignment.  I can hit quite hard without conditioning my hands and without hurting my knuckles, wrist, etc.  The pressing down on the thumb moves the bones of the hand into correct alignment.  IMHO.



Oh it can absolutely hit hard.  I do the conditioning for the fist (and palm since I prefer palm strikes) more to minimize injury to myself.  I have seen more than a few of my co-workers get hurt even punching correctly but say the "bad guy" zigs instead of zags and a punch that was headed to the cheek ends up connecting with the forehead or did horizontal fist punches (especially round punches) and the wrist alignment is a tad off and they end up getting a sprain/strain.  If not for having seen hands swollen two sizes bigger or wrists in braces I may not be doing the conditioning, but on the downhill side towards retirement I am very much about mitigating the risk of injury.  I also make sure I stretch everyday before work (especially when it's cold out) with the same idea in mind.

Nothing is perfect though there is still the risk of injury, it's just about mitigating said risk.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2016)

[





donald1 said:


> Personally I could go either way; with or without gloves it dosnt matter much to me how I spare. But I would rather lean towards saftey.


So you are saying that you punch with about the same power with the gloves on as you do without the glove one? correct?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll say "palm edge" instead. It has less area and more meat. You can hit as hard as you can without worrying about your own hand bone breaking.
> 
> When I was young, at the end of one group fight, one of my friends found out that he had a tooth in his knuckle.


Yeah, I condition to punch but I am a much bigger fan of a side palm.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 14, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> If I trained without gloves at my boxing gym my face would look like hamburger meat. I can't really believe anyone is training bare knuckle with any intensity and intent to make contact on a regular basis (in a partnered sparring context).



The face is off limits.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> The reason wc guys say their way is better is because of tradition


I took a deeper look at the Wing Chun punch and their method of punching prevents a certain type of arm lock because the elbows are down.  In addition it makes throwing a rising elbow that much faster. I'm wondering if this is the reason as things in close quarters happen faster.  Also the type of punching that they are doing is a much shorter punch then when using a horizontal fist. These things seem more practical than some of the many excuses I've heard.  But then again that's just me looking at the punch from the outside.  I don't practice Wing Chun so I can be wrong about the why they use a vertical fist? but what I said about the punch are true.



Mephisto said:


> They point to classical boxing as confirmation for confirmation but the truth is classical boxing differed widely in approach, either way it's an antiquated punching method.


Some times I wonder if old bare knuckle photos are like most fight related photos; It's just a pose and not necessarily a technique that shows how things were done. Could it bet that it's just a pose to make the image look more fantastic? No different when boxers today pose for the camera.  If grappling was allowed  then having that hand so far back doesn't help the grappling game.  But if I was going to pose for a picture, back then, I would probably pose the same way because those poses allow me to flex my muscles for the better photo.   I wonder if in some of the pictures where they are curling the fist towards their body, if they aren't actually flexing their muscle like a bicep curl.  Try the same pose with the vertical fist and then watch your what happens to your bicep as you turn your hand upward,  now flex.
As for the arm being to the side close to the body, you can do the same thing 

If anyone does a google image search fore "old bare knuckle photos" then what I say starts to at least looks like it makes sense. I could still be wrong as I'm not a historian on bare knuckle fighting.  We do fighting poses in front of cameras today that aren't accurate so I don't see why someone back then wouldn't do the same.  I think things may have been different if they were taking photos for instructional purposes.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I don't think it is a global "either/or" choice.
> 
> For my purposes I would see bare handed as the way because I train for self defense, where I won't be wearing gloves, so I do conditioning and train to punch hard targets in a specific way.  However if I was competing I would likely prefer gloves because not worrying as much about conditioning would mean more time for all the other training and not being as concerned about how I am punching hard targets mechanically.



But if you were wearing gloves in self defence you could knock guys out considerably more reliably. So given the choice why would you not take that advantage?

I mean the UFC stats were not conditioned hands vs unconditioned hands. It wasn't punching style vs punching style. Itwas gloves vs no gloves.

There seems no difference in the style of punching between modern bare knuckle and modern glove fighting. 

Seems pretty cut and dried.

Otherwise people break their hands while wearing gloves. Why do you think that given that risk people either advocate some sort of incorrect hand breaking punching style. Or dont condition their hands?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> The largely accepted reason for the classical boxing stance was the prequeesnbury rules which allowed grappling, throws, and low kicks. After the adoption of standardized rules that discouraged grappling and clinching boxing focus shifted to punching and a more evolved punching game developed. The newer more evasive style of punching transitioned to a more evasive skillset that favored footwork and headmovement which was a sharp contrast to the older "toe the line" style where evasion and footwork was frowned upon. Gloves were added to get the upperclass involved and reduce the risk of cuts to the face, they were initially only used in training but later became more widespread.
> 
> Gloves vs bk? IMO it's a dumb comparison. Gloves are for training and competition. They reduce the risk of cuts and with wraps enable you to work punches with greater intensity for a prolonged time this improving your punching technique and endurance. They're a training tool that's it.
> 
> If I trained without gloves at my boxing gym my face would look like hamburger meat. I can't really believe anyone is training bare knuckle with any intensity and intent to make contact on a regular basis (in a partnered sparring context).



We have done it with a kudo hat on. But that is a different dynamic again. I have met some guys who competed bare knuckle. I have chris haseman as a facebook friend. I should ask if there is a difference.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Some times I wonder if old bare knuckle photos are like most fight related photos; It's just a pose and not necessarily a technique that shows how things were done. Could it bet that it's just a pose to make the image look more fantastic?



In old style photos. You had to hold that position for a minute or so.
That is why everybody is scowling. It is just hard to smile for a minute.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> But if you were wearing gloves in self defence you could knock guys out considerably more reliably. So given the choice why would you not take that advantage?
> 
> I mean the UFC stats were not conditioned hands vs unconditioned hands. It wasn't punching style vs punching style. Itwas gloves vs no gloves.
> 
> ...


You are missing the point I am trying to make.

Wearing gloves simply isn't practical when you are out doing everyday tasks.  So regardless of whether or not they allow me to repeatedly pummel someone in the head it is largely irrelevant.

As such I train to address that reality.  I use palm strikes whenever possible and condition my hands in general to reduce the chance of injury.  Whether gloves work better in competition isn't relevant to me because 90% of the time (accounting for sparring and tournaments) I am not going to be wearing protective gloves.


----------



## oaktree (Dec 14, 2016)

I prefer palm like juany, as I have more variety, longer distance with my finger tips, and if one does iron palm a harder impact.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You are missing the point I am trying to make.
> 
> Wearing gloves simply isn't practical when you are out doing everyday tasks.  So regardless of whether or not they allow me to repeatedly pummel someone in the head it is largely irrelevant.
> 
> As such I train to address that reality.  I use palm strikes whenever possible and condition my hands in general to reduce the chance of injury.  Whether gloves work better in competition isn't relevant to me because 90% of the time (accounting for sparring and tournaments) I am not going to be wearing protective gloves.



So all that bit you posted about bare knuckle fighting isn't relevant. Because it is competition.

Or is it only relevant when it suits you?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Dec 14, 2016)

Definitely fists for me, as I like to be able to grab my opponent when they attack me (something you can't really do with boxing gloves on).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Otherwise people break their hands while wearing gloves.


Do boxers break their hand more often than MMA fighters?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> In old style photos. You had to hold that position for a minute or so.
> That is why everybody is scowling. It is just hard to smile for a minute.


Good point to bring this video in on the discussion since it relates to photography back then. It helps to put things into context of why photos looked a certain way.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Do boxers break their hand more often than MMA fighters?



Not sure.  A lot of factors at play there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I took a deeper look at the Wing Chun punch and their method of punching prevents a certain type of arm lock because the elbows are down.  In addition it makes throwing a rising elbow that much faster.


The

- vertical fist can be followed by an upward elbow faster.
- horizontal fist can be followed by a horizontal elbow, or downward elbow faster.

Because the twisting, the horizontal fist can generate at least 10% more power than the vertical fist. That's the advantage.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So all that bit you posted about bare knuckle fighting isn't relevant. Because it is competition.
> 
> Or is it only relevant when it suits you?


No, the point is that such history helps to inform my training because my purpose is bareknuckled.  Are you being obtuse on purpose it seems pretty obvious?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> No, the point is that such history helps to inform my training because my purpose is bareknuckled.  Are you being obtuse on purpose it seems pretty obvious?



It's drop bear. When isn't he obtuse?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> No, the point is that such history helps to inform my training because my purpose is bareknuckled.  Are you being obtuse on purpose it seems pretty obvious?



And so instead of finding an expert on the subject you went for the history books?

Isn't that kind of the equivalent of training via you tube?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> It's drop bear. When isn't he obtuse?



When people have the capacity to understand my posts.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 14, 2016)

If I want to fight, sure, bare knuckle. To train power on bags etc, gloves- strictly 16oz or more for the weight.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Do boxers break their hand more often than MMA fighters?


Have you heard of what a boxer's fracture is? Very common injury apparently. The only "injuries" I got from punching were some grazed knuckles.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not sure.  A lot of factors at play there.


I'm sure many actual injuries come from groundwork training.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And so instead of finding an expert on the subject you went for the history books?
> 
> Isn't that kind of the equivalent of training via you tube?



First the style of punching is THE style of punching for my WC anyway, in part for the reason involved.  The part about old school bareknuckled western boxing sharing the same point is simply to illustrate that it is a valid observation.  All to often when something is mentioned only in Eastern TMA's people reflexively dismiss it as pseudoscience regardless of the truth.

Secondly I noted a link early to a comment from a published expert in Western Martial Arts who participates on these forums, so an expert confirmed what I already was taught and learned on my own.  

Third all the history does is show you that the method was used, successfully for the noted reason.  Validation is important and such validation only occurs over periods of time, which means looking at history.

Finally your dismissal of the technique because it's old is actually kinda silly.  In the last hundred or so years (hell in the last many thousands) homo sapiens have not evolved physically and so the biomechanical benefits of such a punch structure, in order to mitigate potential injury, still exists.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> When people have the capacity to understand my posts.



We understand.  Via this understanding we also know that you are a massively defensive person and reflexively become obtuse and passive aggressive, sometimes even blatantly insulting, if someone expresses a preference for a different methodology than you do.  You come off as if you are assuming that a difference of opinion automatically = a criticism of your opinion and/or methodology.  It gets tiresome because while you might not see it what it amounts to is you starting an argument for argument's sake.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> When people have the capacity to understand my posts.



People understand them. Which is why we come to the conclusion of you acting obtuse. Do you ever stop and think why every thread you post ends up an argument?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 14, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I'm sure many actual injuries come from groundwork training.



Pregnancy. All the more reason to glove it.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> We understand.  Via this understanding we also know that you are a massively defensive person and reflexively become obtuse and passive aggressive, sometimes even blatantly insulting, if someone expresses a preference for a different methodology than you do.  You come off as if you are assuming that a difference of opinion automatically = a criticism of your opinion and/or methodology.  It gets tiresome because while you might not see it what it amounts to is you starting an argument for argument's sake.



Thanks for the assessment dr Phil.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 15, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> The largely accepted reason for the classical boxing stance was the prequeesnbury rules which allowed grappling, throws, and low kicks.


No kicks.  Though you could do throwing and "tripping up."  De Ashi Harai, for instance would be acceptable under some rules, as long as the "ref" and the fans didn't think it looked like a kick.  

Don't piss off the fans.  If they think you're being unmanly or cheating, they'll crash the ropes and the green and you'll get beaten to death.  Literally.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Everything you say is correct, but on another thread I believe it was @lklawson spoke of what he called the "pistol grip" punch for ungloved/untaped punching.
> 
> The reason for this in my understanding is that everything just naturally lines up in a more solid structure at the wrist to avoid injury.  If you strike with the fist horizontal you either need it taped or the fist needs to be canted to line it up properly.  Tbh I thought that was just a WC theory until is contribution in the older thread but he could likely explain why he recommended it better from a Western Martial Arts perspective as he is an expert in that realm where as I am not.


That's pretty much the gist of it.  Look at any of the old boxing manuals and this is what they teach.  Even the Dempsey manual, which really isn't all that old, teaches pistol grip punching.

















Bunch more: Album: Kirk

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 15, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> They point to classical boxing as confirmation for confirmation but the truth is classical boxing differed widely in approach,


For linear punches?  No, not particularly.



> either way it's an antiquated punching method.


Just like the wheel is antiquated because it was invented a really long time ago.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 15, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I took a deeper look at the Wing Chun punch and their method of punching prevents a certain type of arm lock because the elbows are down.  In addition it makes throwing a rising elbow that much faster. I'm wondering if this is the reason as things in close quarters happen faster.  Also the type of punching that they are doing is a much shorter punch then when using a horizontal fist. These things seem more practical than some of the many excuses I've heard.  But then again that's just me looking at the punch from the outside.  I don't practice Wing Chun so I can be wrong about the why they use a vertical fist? but what I said about the punch are true.


There used to be a guy 30+ years ago who suggested, in a Black Belt Mag article, that WC's oral history is 100% made up and that it didn't exist until contact with English traders who proceeded to kick their butts using English Boxing.  They swiped the basic stance and punches of English Boxing, added some kung-fu-ish stuff to it, created a palatable "history," and named it Wing Chun.  I don't know how true it is but it's a fun theory.  

Round punches and "swings" did tend to turn over the fist to horizontal, frequently.  Driscol's "The Straight Left and How to Cultivate It" illustrates that there was some derision to the using a round blow ("swing") though it seems to have been used a lot anyway.



> Some times I wonder if old bare knuckle photos are like most fight related photos; It's just a pose and not necessarily a technique that shows how things were done. Could it bet that it's just a pose to make the image look more fantastic? No different when boxers today pose for the camera.  If grappling was allowed  then having that hand so far back doesn't help the grappling game.  But if I was going to pose for a picture, back then, I would probably pose the same way because those poses allow me to flex my muscles for the better photo.   I wonder if in some of the pictures where they are curling the fist towards their body, if they aren't actually flexing their muscle like a bicep curl.  Try the same pose with the vertical fist and then watch your what happens to your bicep as you turn your hand upward,  now flex.
> As for the arm being to the side close to the body, you can do the same thing
> 
> If anyone does a google image search fore "old bare knuckle photos" then what I say starts to at least looks like it makes sense. I could still be wrong as I'm not a historian on bare knuckle fighting.  We do fighting poses in front of cameras today that aren't accurate so I don't see why someone back then wouldn't do the same.  I think things may have been different if they were taking photos for instructional purposes.


Nah.  That's pretty much how they fought.  The photos are static, yes, that's true.  But we are blessed with some rare instances of movie footage of the style.  The primary difference from the static photo is that they'd "mill" their fists in order to prevent telegraphing.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First the style of punching is THE style of punching for my WC anyway, in part for the reason involved.  The part about old school bareknuckled western boxing sharing the same point is simply to illustrate that it is a valid observation.  All to often when something is mentioned only in Eastern TMA's people reflexively dismiss it as pseudoscience regardless of the truth.
> 
> Secondly I noted a link early to a comment from a published expert in Western Martial Arts who participates on these forums, so an expert confirmed what I already was taught and learned on my own.
> 
> ...



And so only the minor issue of bare knuckle boxers fighting in a modern boxing style. Rather than the one you are suggesting to deal with.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And so only the minor issue of bare knuckle boxers fighting in a modern boxing style. Rather than the one you are suggesting to deal with.



And here is the immediate defense reaction I noted before.  I make no claims about modern bareknuckled boxing vs old, I just say one of the reasons I prefer such a punch personally and used history as an example of why I prefer it.  

Any fighting technique is based on trade offs.  If done properly the type of punch I am noting can be powerful, with the right body structure, as the Wing Chun punching video I have posted a few times previously shows.  That said it is not the most powerful punch out there (especially when compared to "round" punches).

So on one side we have the potential for a slightly stronger punch with a higher relative risk of injury, on the other a slightly less powerful punch but with a lower relative risk of injury. 

All of the above also doesn't take into account that modern professional boxing practices are obviously going to have an impact on modern bareknuckled boxing, similar to how for a fair amount of time "old school" bareknuckled boxing practices continued to influence gloved boxing.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And here is the immediate defense reaction I noted before.  I make no claims about modern bareknuckled boxing vs old, I just say one of the reasons I prefer such a punch personally and used history as an example of why I prefer it.
> 
> Any fighting technique is based on trade offs.  If done properly the type of punch I am noting can be powerful, with the right body structure, as the Wing Chun punching video I have posted a few times previously shows.  That said it is not the most powerful punch out there (especially when compared to "round" punches).
> 
> ...



And you dont think it is kind of like prefering voodo to modern medicine due to its longer use in history?

Apart from some boxers did this fifty years ago. Is there any indication it protects your hands any more that rolling a punch over?

I mean people did some knarley stuff back then. Doesn't mean it was anatomically correct due to biomechanics. That link is just made up. At this point anyway.

I mean I just saw a pretty reputable street fighters bag work. And you would have to assume he wins mostly on toughness.






By the way I get overhands. because it goes pretty much over the top of a guys head. Just makes intuitive sense that it would be high risk bare knuckle. But this sort of discussion from people who may have read some book on the subject. Dont understand bimechanics and nobody here is any sort of reasonable bare knuckle boxer. Kind of puts the arguments in a bit of doubt.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And you dont think it is kind of like prefering voodo to modern medicine due to its longer use in history?
> 
> Apart from some boxers did this fifty years ago. Is there any indication it protects your hands any more that rolling a punch over?
> 
> ...



It is a biological fact that the punch I note naturally aligns the first with the are more naturally at the point of impact.  All the old school boxing does is show the application of this fact.  Here is why, I am going to assume you know the following but are just being stubborn. 

When you throw a straight/horizontal punch with a horizontal fist you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm for maximum structure so you don't hurt yourself, otherwise you risk the most common "boxer's fracture" occurs to the ring and/or pinky finger.  In doing this you protect the fingers but as you canted the wrist without a fair amount of training you now risk injuring your wrist.

Now with the "old school" linear/straight punch, due to how the radius and ulna align, this positioning of the fist happens naturally, there is no need to think about canting the wrist so you have the optimal alignment (for injury prevention) of not only the fist to the target but the fist to the forearm.  No voodoo, simple biology which translates into biomechanics.

As for "experts", there is someone who has responded to this thread who is an expert on Western Martial Arts, to include bareknuckled boxing.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It is a biological fact that the punch I note naturally aligns the first with the are more naturally at the point of impact.



Source please or you are making stuff up.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> When you throw a straight/horizontal punch with a horizontal fist you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm for maximum structure so you don't hurt yourself, otherwise you risk the most common "boxer's fracture" occurs to the ring and/or pinky finger. In doing this you protect the fingers but as you canted the wrist without a fair amount of training you now risk injuring your wrist.
> 
> Now with the "old school" linear/straight punch, due to how the radius and ulna align, this positioning of the fist happens naturally, there is no need to think about canting the wrist so you have the optimal alignment (for injury prevention) of not only the fist to the target but the fist to the forearm. No voodoo, simple biology which translates into biomechanics.



I can throw a vertical fist and impact with my last knuckle. I can throw a vertical fist and have my wrist bent.

Apart from "Fact" I haven't read anything so far that makes one safer than the other.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2016)

lklawson said:


>




 Just because I couldn't figure out how to repost just the pictures. Juanny what part of the hand are they hitting with?
*
"When you throw a straight/horizontal punch with a horizontal fist you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm*"

And you wonder why there is arguments.

What part of my hand should I use to face palm properly?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I can throw a vertical fist and impact with my last knuckle. I can throw a vertical fist and have my wrist bent.
> 
> Apart from "Fact" I haven't read anything so far that makes one safer than the other.



If you don't force it and allow the fist to form naturally, a 100% straight/level punch, with a vertical fist, you will strike with the index and middle fingers first.

If you change the angle of the punch, the one you posted is basically going for the head, then you naturally end up hitting with the last three naturally.  Again though the fist is naturally in alignment with the wrist so there is a natural transmission of force down the entire arm to the shoulder.

I like how you avoided my last point though as you claimed no experts are around but an expert on Western Martial Arts has posted their opinion here already.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Just because I couldn't figure out how to repost just the pictures. Juanny what part of the hand are they hitting with?
> *
> "When you throw a straight/horizontal punch with a horizontal fist you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm*"
> 
> ...



There is NO proper way to face the palm, as I said before.  It has to do with priorities.  A horizontal fist, al la modern boxing, provides for not just round punches but straights.  This provide a bit more power (more than a bit for round punches) with a bit more risk of injury.  A vertical punch can really only be effectively thrown straight and is not quite as powerful because of the overall mechanics but it's still effective with a bit less risk of injury as compensation.  As I said before I actually prefer palm strikes because they are more powerful than the vertical straight punch (physics) and has even less risk of injury.

It seems you believe people are saying "vertical punches are better." This isn't what is being said, it's all about trade offs based on your priorities.  My training is straight punches for hard targets using a vertical fist and palm strike.  There I admittedly lose a little bit of power with the punch but gain a little bit of safety.  I also train round punches but those are used only on "soft targets".  Does any of this ensure I will never jack my hand or wrist?  No, it's all about percentages and priorities and mine lean towards being a LITTLE safer at the cost of doing a little less damage and a more linear path of attack via vertical punches or stronger palm strikes.  Yours may lean towards focusing on damage and more possible angles of attack.  Which is better?  That's where opinion comes in and there is no right answer.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 15, 2016)

However here are some other references...

Horizontal Punches vs Vertical Punches

It notes the three things that benefit me... Being naturally slim and fast having straight strikes that are faster, more naturally thrown and providing a safer punch make more sense for me because it maximizes my strengths and minimizes my weaknesses.  It doesn't mean again I don't throw horizontal round punches, I just tend to safe them for the body.

In terms of what I said before about the three knuckles here is how the 7th out of the 100 greatest punchers, according to "The Ring" Magazine would punch.



> *Three knuckle landing*
> We explained previously that your power-line ends in your pinky finger knuckle. It means that the greatest possible solidity would be achieved if you landed every punch with the little knuckle first. Unfortunately, however, the hand-bone behind the little knuckle is the most fragile of the five backbones. It can be broken the most easily. You must not attempt to land first with the little knuckle. Instead you must try to land first with the knuckle next to your pinky (the ring finger). We’ll call that the 2nd knuckle. Aiming with the 2nd knuckle usually brings about a three-knuckle landing. Those three-knuckles are: middle, second (ring) and pinky. If you aim with the second knuckle, those three knuckles usually will land together because the average fist slopes slightly from the middle knuckle to the pinky. Such a three-knuckle landing not only prevents the hand-bone behind any one knuckle from bearing all the punch-shock, but it also permits punching almost exactly along the power line. Rarely will one of those knuckles make a solo landing. But if you aim with the little knuckle, you risk a dangerous solo landing on forehead or blocking elbow.



So it notes the vulnerability of the last two fingers and tries to find the happy medium to achieve maximum power while minimizing injury but, again, it recognizes the chance of injury.  Go to the link below and note the verticals fist btw, and the angle of the arm as the above description is describing a head shot as I previously noted.

Source... Jack Dempsey's explosive straight punching technique | www.SugarBoxing.com

If I get the time I can certainly find more, and if so I will post em.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It is a biological fact that the punch I note naturally aligns the first with the are more naturally at the point of impact.  All the old school boxing does is show the application of this fact.  Here is why, I am going to assume you know the following but are just being stubborn.
> 
> When you throw a straight/horizontal punch with a horizontal fist you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm for maximum structure so you don't hurt yourself, otherwise you risk the most common "boxer's fracture" occurs to the ring and/or pinky finger.  In doing this you protect the fingers but as you canted the wrist without a fair amount of training you now risk injuring your wrist.
> 
> ...



Dude look at the pictures. What do you see?


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 16, 2016)

Speaking of gloves, how about the hemp knotted wraps worn in muay boran/muay caad chuek? They easily do way more damage than knuckles, since the tight rope knots tied at the knuckles make the fist rock-hard and the punches very abrasive. Still rarely used in some competition, but replaced with gloves after several injuries and deaths.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> However here are some other references...
> 
> Horizontal Punches vs Vertical Punches
> 
> ...


I would just like to add that striking with a vertical fist under gloved conditions allows versatile striking distances. This applies to straight punches, hooks and spinning/back fists.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So you would be gloves on for the more reliable ko?


I think if the question is purely about being able to do more damage with a punch, that is probably a "yes". A little padding (not the 16 oz gloves) makes head shots (literally) more usable. That's a powerful weapon.

Now, if we're looking at the usefulness of punches in general, I'm not sure a padded hand helps at all for body shots, and probably reduces the effectiveness some. So, I'll take on gloved and one ungloved, please. Billie Jean-do (Of course, you'll have a really good idea which hand is going to hit which part of the body, so there's that.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I took a deeper look at the Wing Chun punch and their method of punching prevents a certain type of arm lock because the elbows are down. In addition it makes throwing a rising elbow that much faster. I'm wondering if this is the reason as things in close quarters happen faster. Also the type of punching that they are doing is a much shorter punch then when using a horizontal fist. These things seem more practical than some of the many excuses I've heard. But then again that's just me looking at the punch from the outside. I don't practice Wing Chun so I can be wrong about the why they use a vertical fist? but what I said about the punch are true.


Those are all reasons why I prefer a short, vertical-fist strike and teach it as the primary punch for my students. NGA traditionally favors a horizontal strike with the elbow held down (actually close to 45 degrees).


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dude look at the pictures. What do you see?




Lol, you answered before you read everything I posted didn't ya lol.  Like I said defensive.  "Frankie says relax" man.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I would just like to add that striking with a vertical fist under gloved conditions allows versatile striking distances. This applies to straight punches, hooks and spinning/back fists.



I would agree, as do the links I posted but I am having enough of an issue just with the one topic I raised, adding more would just create another point of contention.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I took a deeper look at the Wing Chun punch and their method of punching prevents a certain type of arm lock because the elbows are down.  In addition it makes throwing a rising elbow that much faster. I'm wondering if this is the reason as things in close quarters happen faster.  Also the type of punching that they are doing is a much shorter punch then when using a horizontal fist. These things seem more practical than some of the many excuses I've heard.  But then again that's just me looking at the punch from the outside.  I don't practice Wing Chun so I can be wrong about the why they use a vertical fist? but what I said about the punch are true.



I posted some links from Western Boxing sources that discuss the pros and cons of the vertical fist that you may find interesting in addition to the points your raised here.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Lol, you answered before you read everything I posted didn't ya lol.  Like I said defensive.  "Frankie says relax" man.



What knuckle are they hitting with?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> What knuckle are they hitting with?



I already answered, and I am done repeating myself.  also, btw it's interesting how, yet again you are moving goal posts, avoiding that the expert in western martial arts that apparently doesn't exist actually exists and posted and are ignoring the links I posted.  Since clearly you are just going to keep avoiding the relevant things I posted and keep asking questions until you get an answer you think you can claim as a gotcha moment, I'm done.  I get that enough, along with everyone else, from two people on the WC forums.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I already answered, and I am done repeating myself.  also, btw it's interesting how, yet again you are moving goal posts, avoiding that the expert in western martial arts that apparently doesn't exist actually exists and posted and are ignoring the links I posted.  Since clearly you are just going to keep avoiding the relevant things I posted and keep asking questions until you get an answer you think you can claim as a gotcha moment, I'm done.  I get that enough, along with everyone else, from two people on the WC forums.



I would have thought making up a bunch of stuff that supports your position pretty relevant.

Apparently it doesn't.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I would have thought making up a bunch of stuff that supports your position pretty relevant.
> 
> Apparently it doesn't.


Read my posts and your question as to what I use is answered.   Then read the posts of the expert you ignore.  Then read the links I posted that support the first two.  I get it, you don't agree, that's cool.  We all have different priorities.  Those priorities inform our training.  If it works that is all that matters.  There is no "best" in a universal sense.  There is no "special sauce." So in the end it's all good.

However you seem to be looking for some excuse to say you are right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong, without presenting a damn thing.   You demand answers and give nothing in return.  Not cool.  That's why I said sounds like the two guys that stay over on the WC threads.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 17, 2016)

Fists are cheaper and hard to forget to take with you when you leave the house,


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 17, 2016)

I train my striking for bare knuckle, but we usually spar with finger gloves. Sometimes we go bare knuckle too, but with control. Modern combatives influenced by BKB, Kelly McCann style.

In Arnis I was taught to punch vertically, horizontally, and at about a 33 degree angle from vertical, which was considered preferred at my school. Horizontally was the least preferred. This was back in the 80's and I was just a kid.

Horizontal punches make it easier to cover your head with the shoulder, but do increase the risk of injury. Punching even vertically full power to the top of someone's skull is likely going to break some knuckles though.

We also practice open hands to hard targets, closed fists to soft targets. Even if you're going with fists to the face, we try to target the snotbox area. Open handed, a jab cross becomes an eye strike followed by a palm strike to the face.

Sparring BKB style without gloves, even lightly is super fun. The techniques work so much better, and your sparring partner respects your punches in a way that sparring with pillows doesn't generate. Even with gloves, it's necessary to spar in a boxing format, since if you can't land a jab under pressure, you can't land an eye strike either.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 17, 2016)

Even though I did the Thai boxing for some years, I always used to prefer lighter gloves than no gloves, but I started getting away from using fists to strike and went in the direction of the other types as I didn't want to train in a way that, if I just reacted to someone, could leave me with a  broken hand and a 6 to 12 week healing process, if not longer. I started using palms and  knifehand/ridgehands more and more, now almost exclusively and haven't noticed much loss of efficacy. A slight less reach, but since I've got gibbon arms that's no real problem.

But now? I'd rather have no gloves at all. It's hard to, once you've got the kuzushi you want, from whatever source you get it, to apply submissions of most types with even light gloves on.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> I train my striking for bare knuckle, but we usually spar with finger gloves. Sometimes we go bare knuckle too, but with control. Modern combatives influenced by BKB, Kelly McCann style.
> 
> In Arnis I was taught to punch vertically, horizontally, and at about a 33 degree angle from vertical, which was considered preferred at my school. Horizontally was the least preferred. This was back in the 80's and I was just a kid.
> 
> ...



On that note.  I know a few guys who have broken their hands from body punching. 

If you hand meets an elbow at a bad angle you can break the bone that is near or over the thumb.  Scapula?

It can retire a fighter


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

For me i have tried open hand vs closed fist.  And i could stop people more quickly with a closed fist strike.

Which means one one two less punches to my face.  And that can be the difference between winning and loosing a fight.


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> On that note.  I know a few guys who have broken their hands from body punching.
> 
> If you hand meets an elbow at a bad angle you can break the bone that is near or over the thumb.  Scapula?
> 
> It can retire a fighter



Oh yeah. If you cover by grabbing the back of your head and the incoming fist meets the protruding elbow it, ouch. Likewise when blocking a body shot with the forearm but strike the fist with the elbow instead. When the elbow meets the forearm of an incoming haymaker, that's pretty awesome. 

It's fighting after all, and nothing is at all "safe" from the perspective of a non-fighter. But neither is skiing or rugby, so there you go.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 17, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Oh yeah. If you cover by grabbing the back of your head and the incoming fist meets the protruding elbow it, ouch. Likewise when blocking a body shot with the forearm but strike the fist with the elbow instead. When the elbow meets the forearm of an incoming haymaker, that's pretty awesome.
> 
> It's fighting after all, and nothing is at all "safe" from the perspective of a non-fighter. But neither is skiing or rugby, so there you go.



What you describe above is actually one of the reasons for one type of "cover" in the Kali I study.  It's one of many methods of gunting.  The only difference is we don't grab the back of the head, we sometimes describe it as a "salute".  It can be anywhere from the hand being around the temple, going as far back as covering the ear, but we never grab the back of the head for whatever reason.  I am guessing it's because it slows down using that limbs for a counter strike.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It can be anywhere from the hand being around the temple, going as far back as covering the ear, but we never grab the back of the head for whatever reason. I am guessing it's because it slows down using that limbs for a counter strike.


yes grabbing the back of your head slows down using that limb greatly and it still fails to cover vital areas of the head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2016)

> On that note. I know a few guys who have broken their hands from body punching.
> 
> If you hand meets an elbow at a bad angle you can break the bone that is near or over the thumb. Scapula?
> 
> It can retire a fighter





drop bear said:


> For me i have tried open hand vs closed fist.  And i could stop people more quickly with a closed fist strike.
> 
> Which means one one two less punches to my face.  And that can be the difference between winning and loosing a fight.


These two, IMO, outline the trade-off. I think the small difference in reach is less important (though not entirely inconsequential). I usually prefer fists to the body and open hands to the face. In my case, this is partly because I'm unlikely to grab at the body, but can use the head directly, so I like my hands open near the head. Add to that the fact that it's easier to hurt your hand on the bony head, and I willingly sacrifice some of my striking power when going for the head...unless I'm really close, then I have elbows!


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> These two, IMO, outline the trade-off. I think the small difference in reach is less important (though not entirely inconsequential). I usually prefer fists to the body and open hands to the face. In my case, this is partly because I'm unlikely to grab at the body, but can use the head directly, so I like my hands open near the head. Add to that the fact that it's easier to hurt your hand on the bony head, and I willingly sacrifice some of my striking power when going for the head...unless I'm really close, then I have elbows!



I pretty much go with this idea myself most of the time, more because I just can't break the instinct to punch to the body.  It helps that on a "soft target" the knuckles can "dig in", but I am working hard to break the habit because I know my palm strikes, my side palm in particular, hit harder and "deeper".  This I think is the nature of a side palm strike (basically just the "meat" on the pinky side of the heal of your hand) and the fact I am a little obsessive and watch TV while wacking a bag lying on a table doing iron palm.  If trained right I actually think a palm strike is superior to a punch, and side palms in particular for deeply into small places like under the orbit of the eye or even the eye socket itself.  Plus being hand open you can immediately go to a control option of some sort as you said.

As for if I am close enough, if I am in a striking game I almost always want to get in close enough so my elbows become my primary weapon.  Not only are they damn effective strikes but most people I have dealt with on the street simply aren't used to dealing with being "struck" that close.  It can actually freak em out a bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I pretty much go with this idea myself most of the time, more because I just can't break the instinct to punch to the body.  It helps that on a "soft target" the knuckles can "dig in", but I am working hard to break the habit because I know my palm strikes, my side palm in particular, hit harder and "deeper".  This I think is the nature of a side palm strike (basically just the "meat" on the pinky side of the heal of your hand) and the fact I am a little obsessive and watch TV while wacking a bag lying on a table doing iron palm.  If trained right I actually think a palm strike is superior to a punch, and side palms in particular for deeply into small places like under the orbit of the eye or even the eye socket itself.  Plus being hand open you can immediately go to a control option of some sort as you said.
> 
> As for if I am close enough, if I am in a striking game I almost always want to get in close enough so my elbows become my primary weapon.  Not only are they damn effective strikes but most people I have dealt with on the street simply aren't used to dealing with being "struck" that close.  It can actually freak em out a bit.


For me, the striking range is usually either very close or far. If I'm in between those points, I'm in prime grappling area. I'll strike in that area, but it's most often to open up options for grappling. If someone keeps me from getting in, striking is my "defense" in that range while I either move out of range or take an opening to get back in. Striking in elbow range is usually because they entered past my grappling range, or I'm moving in to get better position. An upward elbow to the face that (hopefully) drops them puts me in precisely the position I want: not fighting any more.


----------



## oaktree (Dec 17, 2016)

Drop bear please Google the word scapula to know it's location.

Metacarpophalangeal joint - Wikipedia I guess you are referring to.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> yes grabbing the back of your head slows down using that limb greatly and it still fails to cover vital areas of the head.



There is a sneaky movement now to try to hit people in the neck or behind the ear.  It does a bit more damage and is harder to escape via head movement than the jaw. 

Works a bit betterwith smaller gloves because they are harder to block. 

If someone is firing shots there then your blocking arm needs to go back a bit further.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

oaktree said:


> Drop bear please Google the word scapula to know it's location.
> 
> Metacarpophalangeal joint - Wikipedia I guess you are referring to.



I looked it up.  It is probably the carpal bones.  Scapula is in the shoulder or something.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> For me, the striking range is usually either very close or far. If I'm in between those points, I'm in prime grappling area. I'll strike in that area, but it's most often to open up options for grappling. If someone keeps me from getting in, striking is my "defense" in that range while I either move out of range or take an opening to get back in. Striking in elbow range is usually because they entered past my grappling range, or I'm moving in to get better position. An upward elbow to the face that (hopefully) drops them puts me in precisely the position I want: not fighting any more.



Easy to miss with elbows.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> These two, IMO, outline the trade-off. I think the small difference in reach is less important (though not entirely inconsequential). I usually prefer fists to the body and open hands to the face. In my case, this is partly because I'm unlikely to grab at the body, but can use the head directly, so I like my hands open near the head. Add to that the fact that it's easier to hurt your hand on the bony head, and I willingly sacrifice some of my striking power when going for the head...unless I'm really close, then I have elbows!



I have had no issue punching and then grabbing. And it is kind of my thing.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> For me, the striking range is usually either very close or far. If I'm in between those points, I'm in prime grappling area. I'll strike in that area, but it's most often to open up options for grappling. If someone keeps me from getting in, striking is my "defense" in that range while I either move out of range or take an opening to get back in. Striking in elbow range is usually because they entered past my grappling range, or I'm moving in to get better position. An upward elbow to the face that (hopefully) drops them puts me in precisely the position I want: not fighting any more.



Once that close I am about grappling as well but I have had driven into me "you don't take down until you set them up for it" and you set them up by softening them up.  This obviously isn't a standard my Aikido Sensei would be strictly approval of but it's the way I was trained for all the time after I left him.  With that in mind I have just found the use of elbows that close often helps soften up not only physically but psychologically because being hit but something that hard that close is something they are simply not used to.

As an example, there is a specific take down "routine" I do that works well on your average street idiot.  There is a bit more to the entry but I am just trying to illustrate the use of the elbow in terms of setting up a takedown that also often involves me having a solid grip on the wrist of the side I move to.   

1. Enter with a palm strike or even just a damn good slap to the face.
2. keep going in towards them as you also step to their side.  Next bring the elbow in to hit as I continue to stretch my arm across their centerline.  
3. then drop the arm down towards the neck area.
4. drive your knee up into the back of their knee while simultaneously swinging your arm back against their neck/face.  

The strike/slap followed by the elbow is all their brain is registering until they are falling to the ground and I don't think it would work as well without that elbow because they would try turning it into a wrestling match.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is a sneaky movement now to try to hit people in the neck or behind the ear. It does a bit more damage and is harder to escape via head movement than the jaw


It's not a sneaky movement.  Just not widely use.  Jow Ga teaches this technique as a basic technique for beginners. 

The blocking arm doesn't need to go back a bit.  Just pretend that your wrist is a phone and you are talking on your phone. Keep your wrist straight and that will protect the spot.  The straight wrist causes the punch to land at a different angle and prevents the punch from landing on the area that you speak of.

That should cover most instances of anyone trying to hit that area.  With that said, if someone knows the technique then there's very little that one can do to prevent that area from being struck.  You guys have actually seen me use this technique before but I don't think anyone paid much attention to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Once that close I am about grappling as well but I have had driven into me "you don't take down until you set them up for it" and you set them up by softening them up.  This obviously isn't a standard my Aikido Sensei would be strictly approval of but it's the way I was trained for all the time after I left him.  With that in mind I have just found the use of elbows that close often helps soften up not only physically but psychologically because being hit but something that hard that close is something they are simply not used to.



This is what Stan Pranin is talking about when he says there was originally more striking in Aikido. The current focus on not striking (and, yeah, it does seem to be a focus) is, IMO, detrimental to the effectiveness of the art.



> As an example, there is a specific take down "routine" I do that works well on your average street idiot.  There is a bit more to the entry but I am just trying to illustrate the use of the elbow in terms of setting up a takedown that also often involves me having a solid grip on the wrist of the side I move to.
> 
> 1. Enter with a palm strike or even just a damn good slap to the face.
> 2. keep going in towards them as you also step to their side.  Next bring the elbow in to hit as I continue to stretch my arm across their centerline.
> ...


If I'm picturing that right, you're still inside their shoulder, right? In that space, strikes do become more useful (often necessary) for the reason you mention. If you end up outside the shoulder, there's less need for the elbow, though the initial strike is probably really useful in both cases. This is why we prefer to be outside the shoulder (actually, behind it), and why I teach students to hit when a technique isn't available or starts to fail (rather than trying to force the technique).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I looked it up.  It is probably the carpal bones.  Scapula is in the shoulder or something.


Carpals are the wrist bones. Metacarpals are the bones in the hand. Phalanges are the fingers (and toes). (I still remember how my high school teacher taught me the hand and foot bones: "Carpals on the car. Tarsals on the tar.")


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I have had no issue punching and then grabbing. And it is kind of my thing.


It's just one quarter-beat slower. Not really problematic, in most cases. I do like being able to combine the strike and grab (palm strike to the head, and fingers just wrap around). It's also easier to teach proper striking to new students who are learning to grapple, when the hand positions are so similar. Not an issue for some students, but the less-coordinated confuse it for a while.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Easy to miss with elbows.


From that close?

I should probably clarify that I teach using elbow with a trapping hand. So, if I'm striking with my right elbow to the head, my left hand is often behind their neck. Much harder to miss there.


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is a sneaky movement now to try to hit people in the neck or behind the ear.  It does a bit more damage and is harder to escape via head movement than the jaw.
> 
> Works a bit betterwith smaller gloves because they are harder to block.
> 
> If someone is firing shots there then your blocking arm needs to go back a bit further.



Yeah, a sloppy haymaker can wrap around and tickle your off button at the base of your skull. Not fun. I'd rather cover that puppy up just in case. 

Everything is a compromise. Against a telegraphed haymaker, I like the two-handed shoulder stop, since the followups are many. However, you don't always get that amount of notice. So grabbing the back of the head it is for my back-up. Easy to do, provides a good amount of safety. I'm not saying that other things aren't good too. But that's my go-to when things get hairy.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Yeah, a sloppy haymaker can wrap around and tickle your off button at the base of your skull. Not fun. I'd rather cover that puppy up just in case.
> 
> Everything is a compromise. Against a telegraphed haymaker, I like the two-handed shoulder stop, since the followups are many. However, you don't always get that amount of notice. So grabbing the back of the head it is for my back-up. Easy to do, provides a good amount of safety. I'm not saying that other things aren't good too. But that's my go-to when things get hairy.



A telegraphed haymaker for me says sleeve lift hip throw.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This is what Stan Pranin is talking about when he says there was originally more striking in Aikido. The current focus on not striking (and, yeah, it does seem to be a focus) is, IMO, detrimental to the effectiveness of the art.



I would agree because of the following.  Now note it will be a little overly simplified.  To fight/defend yourself you need energy to first be traveling in one direction or another.  If your opponent is not polite enough to provide you with energy you can redirect to your purpose then you must direct energy towards him in a more personal manner and at some point that typically involves striking of some sort, even if it is simply to "set them up."



> If I'm picturing that right, you're still inside their shoulder, right? In that space, strikes do become more useful (often necessary) for the reason you mention. If you end up outside the shoulder, there's less need for the elbow, though the initial strike is probably really useful in both cases. This is why we prefer to be outside the shoulder (actually, behind it), and why I teach students to hit when a technique isn't available or starts to fail (rather than trying to force the technique).



You can end up in either position actually.  If I do not take positive control of the arm on the side I am entering, either via a trap or a wrist lock, then I am inside, if I do accomplish the initial limb control then I am standing on the outside and slightly to the rear.  The main reason for the elbow in either case, at least to my mind, is that the elbow is in a position to strike as a consequence of how I will apply the swing arm anyway, so why not avail myself of an additional distraction?


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> A telegraphed haymaker for me says sleeve lift hip throw.



My hip throws suck. I almosr never get them to work in randori in Judo. Foot sweeps, various sacrifice throws, all functional. Can't do O goshi against a resisting opponent to save my life for two reasons: I'm 6 feet tall so getting low enough is a challenge, and I'm a lefty, so it's easy for a right gripping opponent to block me. Koshi Guruma works for me once in a while since my arm goes over top. Sometimes I get single arm throws to work. My next goal is getting my Tai Otoshi to work.

My worst so far: Hane Goshi (Spring hip). Can't do it at all.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Yeah, a sloppy haymaker can wrap around and tickle your off button at the base of your skull. Not fun. I'd rather cover that puppy up just in case.
> 
> Everything is a compromise. Against a telegraphed haymaker, I like the two-handed shoulder stop, since the followups are many. However, you don't always get that amount of notice. So grabbing the back of the head it is for my back-up. Easy to do, provides a good amount of safety. I'm not saying that other things aren't good too. But that's my go-to when things get hairy.



First let me explain better what I meant by the ear being as far back as we go.  I mean that is where the palm will be.  So the finger tips may wrap a bit around the back of the skull but the fingertips alone really don't provide much in the way of protection, they essentially just become a pivot point if needed.

That out of the way, if you are facing the opponent, unless they are "Mr. Fantastic" from the Fantastic 4 you can still stop the strike you are referring to with the cover hand stopping around the ear though.  All that is required is expanding the angle.  By this I mean the following; picture the "base" on the angle running along the side of your head and the other portion of the angle starting where you hand is positioned along that first line.  Next, with your hand as the pivot point, swing the elbow out as the strike is coming in.  Essentially the haymaker slides long the arm, widening it's arc and so it still misses.  

This is of course only if you insist on staying in one place.  The more sensible course is to simply t-step or release step away from that haymaker, in that case you get the same effect without creating a larger opening for a straight shot to come into through the now wider gap.

Like you said though. everything is a compromise.  In the first example I better have my opposite hand in a position to cover what is now a wider gap for the opponents other hand.  In the second example I better not dawdle and reorient towards my opponent quickly because I have basically given him a flanking position.  

I just try to personally avoid 2 armed defenses against everything but strong kicks because, first I wish to counter as quickly as possible and lastly, if the opponent is any good at trapping, you have placed yourself in a position where they can potentially trap not one but both your arms by simply moving in on the arm closest to them.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> My hip throws suck. I almosr never get them to work in randori in Judo. Foot sweeps, various sacrifice throws, all functional. Can't do O goshi against a resisting opponent to save my life for two reasons: I'm 6 feet tall so getting low enough is a challenge, and I'm a lefty, so it's easy for a right gripping opponent to block me. Koshi Guruma works for me once in a while since my arm goes over top. Sometimes I get single arm throws to work. My next goal is getting my Tai Otoshi to work.
> 
> My worst so far: Hane Goshi (Spring hip). Can't do it at all.



I'm 5'9. And for some reason the people who mess with me are always very tall and lanky guys. In sparring and practice it is very hard for me to do any clean throw or tachi waza on a shorter person. Height does matter alot for any hip throw.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> My hip throws suck. I almosr never get them to work in randori in Judo. Foot sweeps, various sacrifice throws, all functional. Can't do O goshi against a resisting opponent to save my life for two reasons: I'm 6 feet tall so getting low enough is a challenge, and I'm a lefty, so it's easy for a right gripping opponent to block me. Koshi Guruma works for me once in a while since my arm goes over top. Sometimes I get single arm throws to work. My next goal is getting my Tai Otoshi to work.
> 
> My worst so far: Hane Goshi (Spring hip). Can't do it at all.



We over rotate the shoulder throw so that if it gets blocked we can shoot for a single leg.  Of course can't single leg in judo.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Yeah, a sloppy haymaker can wrap around and tickle your off button at the base of your skull. Not fun. I'd rather cover that puppy up just in case.
> 
> Everything is a compromise. Against a telegraphed haymaker, I like the two-handed shoulder stop, since the followups are many. However, you don't always get that amount of notice. So grabbing the back of the head it is for my back-up. Easy to do, provides a good amount of safety. I'm not saying that other things aren't good too. But that's my go-to when things get hairy.



Yeah. we hit a little angle to get around. But same same. Especially with little gloves.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm 5'9. And for some reason the people who mess with me are always very tall and lanky guys. In sparring and practice it is very hard for me to do any clean throw or tachi waza on a shorter person. Height does matter alot for any hip throw.


Not every throw can be used against a taller opponent. When this happens, use the right technique designed for throwing a taller opponent.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First let me explain better what I meant by the ear being as far back as we go.  I mean that is where the palm will be.  So the finger tips may wrap a bit around the back of the skull but the fingertips alone really don't provide much in the way of protection, they essentially just become a pivot point if needed.
> 
> That out of the way, if you are facing the opponent, unless they are "Mr. Fantastic" from the Fantastic 4 you can still stop the strike you are referring to with the cover hand stopping around the ear though.  All that is required is expanding the angle.  By this I mean the following; picture the "base" on the angle running along the side of your head and the other portion of the angle starting where you hand is positioned along that first line.  Next, with your hand as the pivot point, swing the elbow out as the strike is coming in.  Essentially the haymaker slides long the arm, widening it's arc and so it still misses.
> 
> ...



You would have to trap the far arm. The closest arm would be the one that goes across the body. Which is not the one that is really going to throw a bomb back at you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2016)

Hands on the back of your neck will make me strike harder with the goal of breaking your hand or fingers. At the very least I will try to strike hard enough to cause enough damage to reduce the ability of that hand.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> From that close?
> 
> I should probably clarify that I teach using elbow with a trapping hand. So, if I'm striking with my right elbow to the head, my left hand is often behind their neck. Much harder to miss there.



Yeah the elbow doesnt have any real forward travel past its intended target. And it is a straight bar. So if the target has really moved at all the elbow misses outright. If the other hand is in the way then the elbow misses.

Now because in fighting the head is moving all the time. The elbow isn't as reliable as people think. Which is wny it is not thrown as often as it technically should be.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 18, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not every throw can be used against a taller opponent. When this happens, use the right technique designed for throwing a taller opponent.



I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the tall people are easier to throw than the shorter people are.

It has to with getting your hips lower than theirs for the hip throw.


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the tall people are easier to throw than the shorter people are.
> 
> It has to with getting your hips lower than theirs for the hip throw.



I agree. It's a vicious circle really. Because I'm tall, I don't get the chance to use hip throws very often, so when I actually do find a taller person, my hip throws aren't practiced enough to be useful anyway. Never mind the inherent difficulty of getting in on a much taller opponent. Oh well, work in progress, just like my BKB.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You would have to trap the far arm. The closest arm would be the one that goes across the body. Which is not the one that is really going to throw a bomb back at you.



I am referring to this 





> ... I like the two-handed shoulder stop


  Now I have seen techniques that sound like this were you face the block point (in this case the haymaker) and then jam the arm throwing the haymaker with both your arms, one close to the elbow, the other in closer to the shoulder.  I have most often seen this done when there is a very noticeable weight/strength difference between the two combatants, the stronger being the one throwing the haymaker and the size differential making the defender lacking confidence in addressing the haymaker with a single arm.

The problem with this (and I have seen it done under pressure) is the opponent can take their freehand and go for the arm near the shoulder and then basically shove that arm across and then down on top of the arm near the elbow.  This not only traps but also complete screws the balance of the guy who was blocking and you can completely clobber him.

Now if this isn't what he meant (because I had never heard that particular term before) then the above may not apply.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I would agree because of the following.  Now note it will be a little overly simplified.  To fight/defend yourself you need energy to first be traveling in one direction or another.  If your opponent is not polite enough to provide you with energy you can redirect to your purpose then you must direct energy towards him in a more personal manner and at some point that typically involves striking of some sort, even if it is simply to "set them up."


Agreed. My position is that a "pure aiki" approach to the aiki arts is idealistic. There's nothing wrong with that if you come from a point of intellectual study. From a practical perspective, however, you have to account for those times when the attacker isn't - as you said - polite enough to provide the energy.




> You can end up in either position actually.  If I do not take positive control of the arm on the side I am entering, either via a trap or a wrist lock, then I am inside, if I do accomplish the initial limb control then I am standing on the outside and slightly to the rear.  The main reason for the elbow in either case, at least to my mind, is that the elbow is in a position to strike as a consequence of how I will apply the swing arm anyway, so why not avail myself of an additional distraction?


The only reason I have for not adding the elbow on the outside position is simply that I move directly to controlling the head, using it to bring him down without the strike. Two different approaches, likely of similar efficacy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> My hip throws suck. I almosr never get them to work in randori in Judo. Foot sweeps, various sacrifice throws, all functional. Can't do O goshi against a resisting opponent to save my life for two reasons: I'm 6 feet tall so getting low enough is a challenge, and I'm a lefty, so it's easy for a right gripping opponent to block me. Koshi Guruma works for me once in a while since my arm goes over top. Sometimes I get single arm throws to work. My next goal is getting my Tai Otoshi to work.
> 
> My worst so far: Hane Goshi (Spring hip). Can't do it at all.


Actually, the biggest issue with making your throws (pretty much any of them) work during randori is that your partner knows the same throws. If they are of similar experience and skill, their ability to counter is probably equal to your ability to throw (and vice versa). With someone who doesn't know those techniques (and to a lesser extent, even someone who does, but not from Judo), there are more opportunities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah the elbow doesnt have any real forward travel past its intended target. And it is a straight bar. So if the target has really moved at all the elbow misses outright. If the other hand is in the way then the elbow misses.
> 
> Now because in fighting the head is moving all the time. The elbow isn't as reliable as people think. Which is wny it is not thrown as often as it technically should be.


Ah. The elbow strike I'm mostly thinking about is upward. It's that close, and would be used mostly when we've both come in (so momentum holds them from backing up as quickly as in other circumstances). Beyond that distance, unless I'm restraining their head/neck, I'm not within what I'd consider elbow distance. So, as you said, not a lot of opportunities for it, since it's such short range. It makes a nice complement to the way we move, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the tall people are easier to throw than the shorter people are.
> 
> It has to with getting your hips lower than theirs for the hip throw.


Easier to start against a taller person (taller at the hips). More devastating if your hips are higher than theirs (since you can drop under then raise them up and crash them to the ground).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> I agree. It's a vicious circle really. Because I'm tall, I don't get the chance to use hip throws very often, so when I actually do find a taller person, my hip throws aren't practiced enough to be useful anyway. Never mind the inherent difficulty of getting in on a much taller opponent. Oh well, work in progress, just like my BKB.


In my experience, though a hip throw can be devastating from a taller person, it takes a bigger opening, so the best hip throwers tend to be the guys with short legs. The stocky guys with solid physiques have a nice ability to use that weight to pull you into it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I am referring to this   Now I have seen techniques that sound like this were you face the block point (in this case the haymaker) and then jam the arm throwing the haymaker with both your arms, one close to the elbow, the other in closer to the shoulder.  I have most often seen this done when there is a very noticeable weight/strength difference between the two combatants, the stronger being the one throwing the haymaker and the size differential making the defender lacking confidence in addressing the haymaker with a single arm.
> 
> The problem with this (and I have seen it done under pressure) is the opponent can take their freehand and go for the arm near the shoulder and then basically shove that arm across and then down on top of the arm near the elbow.  This not only traps but also complete screws the balance of the guy who was blocking and you can completely clobber him.
> 
> Now if this isn't what he meant (because I had never heard that particular term before) then the above may not apply.


I think you and I pictured the same block. It's one I teach as a starting point for new students. It's also a nice "oh crap" maneuver, but has weaknesses like the one you mentioned. Coming in really hard helps (and takes their structure when you crash into that one shoulder at the joint), as does throwing an elbow, or even a forearm to the neck.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah. The elbow strike I'm mostly thinking about is upward. It's that close, and would be used mostly when we've both come in (so momentum holds them from backing up as quickly as in other circumstances). Beyond that distance, unless I'm restraining their head/neck, I'm not within what I'd consider elbow distance. So, as you said, not a lot of opportunities for it, since it's such short range. It makes a nice complement to the way we move, though.



I throw elbows from any direction.  As in the case I was discussing earlier it is horizontal, thing is when I am doing that I am so silly close that even if the person does move their head the only thing that may change is the part of the head that gets struck.  Both Kali and Wing Chun are weird in that way.  Yes once in "trapping/grappling range" you can grapple and take down, but there is also a lot of work done striking in the trapping/grappling range as well.  The idea being that the opponent should be well "softened up" before you use those techniques.

As for head control, the method you work with is definitely effective, I just have certain complications occupationally.  Even if I am doing head control it is, in essence, also neck control and that is more problematic for the brass than me shattering an orbit with an elbow strike because they aren't the ones training me in this and so they don't have the same insulation from civil liability.

As an example, my school is hosting a seminar in Feb on  Chin Na takedowns, nerve strikes for larger opponent's, knife grappling, joint dislocation and "proper" choke holds.  You would think my or wouldn't mind me sending out an email inviting officers to take part, especially since the head instructor is a DoJ certified instructor.  Nope, since they don't want to be seen as "sponsoring" it I was only allowed to hang a flier on the bulletin board.  Gotta love liability born paranoia.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I throw elbows from any direction.  As in the case I was discussing earlier it is horizontal, thing is when I am doing that I am so silly close that even if the person does move their head the only thing that may change is the part of the head that gets struck.  Both Kali and Wing Chun are weird in that way.  Yes once in "trapping/grappling range" you can grapple and take down, but there is also a lot of work done striking in the trapping/grappling range as well.  The idea being that the opponent should be well "softened up" before you use those techniques.
> 
> As for head control, the method you work with is definitely effective, I just have certain complications occupationally.  Even if I am doing head control it is, in essence, also neck control and that is more problematic for the brass than me shattering an orbit with an elbow strike because they aren't the ones training me in this and so they don't have the same insulation from civil liability.
> 
> As an example, my school is hosting a seminar in Feb on  Chin Na takedowns, nerve strikes for larger opponent's, knife grappling, joint dislocation and "proper" choke holds.  You would think my or wouldn't mind me sending out an email inviting officers to take part, especially since the head instructor is a DoJ certified instructor.  Nope, since they don't want to be seen as "sponsoring" it I was only allowed to hang a flier on the bulletin board.  Gotta love liability born paranoia.


I can see that.

I've been working on better defining the zones for students. At advanced levels it's pretty fluid, but it's useful for students do have some rules to make their decisions on early. For me, striking is primarily at 3 distances: leg length (kicks), wrist (punches and some kicks), and "kissing distance" (elbows and some knees). There are exceptions, but most of the striking outside those areas will be directly linked to a "technique" (throw/takedown/lock). In "elbow-ish" range (where you're about halfway out the length of your arm, so not elbow striking distance, just the measurement), that's prime grappling range. If I'm on the outside of the arm, prime grappling range comes all the way to "shoulder-ish" range. Inside, at that range, is mostly a mistake and it's time to beat our way out or beat our way through.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

Nvm, will repost when I find a better video


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 18, 2016)

@gpseymour found a better video that illustrates the general concept of "softening up" to execute some takedowns in FMA.  Not the one I described exactly but the principles are the same.






I do everything on God's green earth to avoid inside entries, but the tools are there if ya need em.  As you can see, elbows and knees (which I haven't mentioned yet) are a big part of it, as is the head/neck control you speak of on the last series shown.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 18, 2016)

just came across this. bobby gunn goes for more rotation in a punch. Not less.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the tall people are easier to throw than the shorter people are.
> 
> It has to with getting your hips lower than theirs for the hip throw.


The answer is still the same. You can't throw small people the same way you throw tall people.  You have to use the appropriate technique for throwing small people.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> just came across this. bobby gunn goes for more rotation in a punch. Not less.


Pretty much lines up with punching concepts found in Traditional Martial arts.  Most people who hit without gloves strike with the flat part of the fist and not the actual knuckle.  Hitting with the actual knuckle is brutal because that force isn't being displaced across the fingers.  When I say brutal I mean brutal on the knuckle.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah. The elbow strike I'm mostly thinking about is upward. It's that close, and would be used mostly when we've both come in (so momentum holds them from backing up as quickly as in other circumstances). Beyond that distance, unless I'm restraining their head/neck, I'm not within what I'd consider elbow distance. So, as you said, not a lot of opportunities for it, since it's such short range. It makes a nice complement to the way we move, though.



Yeah. If you can set it up.  It does maim people.

It is just a different conversation than i get in close and use elbows.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Pretty much lines up with punching concepts found in Traditional Martial arts.  Most people who hit without gloves strike with the flat part of the fist and not the actual knuckle.  Hitting with the actual knuckle is brutal because that force isn't being displaced across the fingers.  When I say brutal I mean brutal on the knuckle.



I don't know many people who hit with the flat fist.

I mean i am sure someone does it.  But the knuckles either first two or last too are more common.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> @gpseymour found a better video that illustrates the general concept of "softening up" to execute some takedowns in FMA.  Not the one I described exactly but the principles are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's pretty much what I was referring to as "beating your way through". We'd likely use a shorter set of strikes, as we'd be upsetting their balance at the hip at the same time if we can, but the principle is the same. 

Interestingly, I saw the beginnings of one of our more obscure throws in there at 1:17. I've not seen it in other styles before (I assume it's in Daito-ryu, but haven't seen it in any videos of that style, either). We'd normally continue that as a projection throw, rather than a takedown, but the start is the same. Now I need to get a student to that rank so I can play with it more as a takedown. Danged slow time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I don't know many people who hit with the flat fist.
> 
> I mean i am sure someone does it.  But the knuckles either first two or last too are more common.


I teach "the first two knuckles" as the principle, but that's not actually the strike. The actual strike (as I do it, as I've always seen it done, even by new students) is the face of those first two fingers, led by the knuckles to the extent they extend beyond the face of the fingers. The knuckles are a focus point, but to actually punch with the knuckles would require bending the wrist.

Thinking that through, we may be saying the same thing. If I punch a convex surface (a face, perhaps), the knuckles will be all that make hard contact unless the surface collapses (hitting a muscle in the chest, perhaps). The face of the fingers will make secondary contact on all but the hardest surfaces. So, if I punch a skull (ow), the knuckles take all that force. If I punch a jaw, some of that will be distributed to the face of the fingers, unless it's a glancing blow.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm 5'9. And for some reason the people who mess with me are always very tall and lanky guys. In sparring and practice it is very hard for me to do any clean throw or tachi waza on a shorter person. Height does matter alot for any hip throw.


If your opponent is shorter than you, you want to crash him down from the top.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 19, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Oh yeah. If you cover by grabbing the back of your head and the incoming fist meets the protruding elbow it, ouch. Likewise when blocking a body shot with the forearm but strike the fist with the elbow instead. When the elbow meets the forearm of an incoming haymaker, that's pretty awesome.



Defensive Exercises, Donald Walker, 1840 - from the section "Simpler Method of Boxing"



Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 19, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> My hip throws suck. I almosr never get them to work in randori in Judo. Foot sweeps, various sacrifice throws, all functional. Can't do O goshi against a resisting opponent to save my life for two reasons: I'm 6 feet tall so getting low enough is a challenge, and I'm a lefty, so it's easy for a right gripping opponent to block me. Koshi Guruma works for me once in a while since my arm goes over top. Sometimes I get single arm throws to work. My next goal is getting my Tai Otoshi to work.
> 
> My worst so far: Hane Goshi (Spring hip). Can't do it at all.


We need to get together.  I can show you a "trick" that will really up the ante on your o goshi, tai otoshi, and some related throws.  Bob Spraley taught it to me before he passed away.  The Cross Buttock illustrated in Fistiana hints at it.

There's a trick to hane goshi as well and a different one for uki goshi.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Dec 19, 2016)

I'm not sure I know anyone, at least anyone in a striking Martial Art, other than boxing, who doesn't focus on hitting with the first two knuckles.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2016)

Buka said:


> I'm not sure I know anyone, at least anyone in a striking Martial Art, other than boxing, who doesn't focus on hitting with the first two knuckles.


The issue of striking with the knuckle is not a system problem it's a practitioner problem. Most martial art systems that I know of will train air punches and tell to focus the hits with the first 2 knuckles or the middle knuckle. But when the punching mitts or punching bags come into play students will wear gloves.  This changes how the fist makes an impact on the target and allows students to make mistakes with their punching techniques without consequences.  The most common mistakes are probably swiping punches and hitting with the flat of the fist.  

Sometimes I have the beginner and intermediate students spar against me without gloves on for the purpose of me knowing if the flat of the fist is landing or if the knuckles are landing.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2016)

Buka said:


> I'm not sure I know anyone, at least anyone in a striking Martial Art, other than boxing, who doesn't focus on hitting with the first two knuckles.



The olde school boxing does the last two. you can see it in the diagrams. Some people do the flat. 

I am a first two knuckles guy. And in general am a rotating punch guy.

(Although I do throw vertical fists from time to time)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The olde school boxing does the last two. you can see it in the diagrams. Some people do the flat.
> 
> I am a first two knuckles guy. And in general am a rotating punch guy.
> 
> (Although I do throw vertical fists from time to time)


I was a rotating punch person for years. I found a preference for the vertical fist - it fits my movement and approach to the art. Though, as I explore new ways to apply some of the principles, I find the rotating punch useful in new ways, so in a few years I'll probably be back to using them equally.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I was a rotating punch person for years. I found a preference for the vertical fist - it fits my movement and approach to the art. Though, as I explore new ways to apply some of the principles, I find the rotating punch useful in new ways, so in a few years I'll probably be back to using them equally.



Mma is using them both because of the small gloves. Goes back to trying to nail those behind the ear targets. 

A straight punch over rotated (thumb down) has a bit mote range. 

This on the other hand I just don't see the advantage.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I was a rotating punch person for years. I found a preference for the vertical fist - it fits my movement and approach to the art. Though, as I explore new ways to apply some of the principles, I find the rotating punch useful in new ways, so in a few years I'll probably be back to using them equally.



Just one thing, a technical point. The old school boxing actually has you aiming with the ring finger and with proper technique you strike with the middle finger through pinky.  The photo posted is a little deceiving on that point which is why I linked the detailed description of the Jack Dempsey punch.  The arrow is showing the "aim" point, not the actual point of impact.

As explained in the same link because of alignment maximum force would actually be achieved striking with just the pinky BUT since it is the weakest bone in the hand you need to spread the impact out over a wider area.

That punch is also one done as a head shot.  The natural angle of the wrist causes the fist to naturally strike in that manner due to the angle of the arm.  It is in essence trying to exploit what comes naturally to make it work.  A natural consequence of say doing a body blow, due to the angle of the first, is that if you punch straight ahead you will end up striking with the first two fingers instead, unless you change the angle of the wrist of course like some styles do.  There are two primary schools on thought on vertical fist body blows I have found.  The first does what I just described, another has you "snapping" the wrist so that even on a punch at a lower angle will have the last 2-3 fingers landing.  Since the "lower" shots are to soft(er) targets I suppose the risk of injuring the wrist isn't that high when "snapping" but that method still makes me a little twitchy because I have skinny wrists


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Mma is using them both because of the small gloves. Goes back to trying to nail those behind the ear targets.
> 
> A straight punch over rotated (thumb down) has a bit mote range.
> 
> This on the other hand I just don't see the advantage.


They probably should do kung fu.  Those long punches are similar to long fist kung systems but lack the proper mechanics to keep someone from pulling the person off balance with long punches.  The general rule is that those punches don't go above your head height because it opens you up more and puts you at risk.

The block with the thumbs downward works. It's used in Kung Fu and Karate.  It's structurally stronger than the blocks that are used in MMA and it's actually more than just a block.  It can be used as a soft block which also serves as a "wind-up" for a technique using that same arm or it can be used to guide a strike.  The way that they show the application of it in the video is incorrect from a kung fu perspective and a practical fighting perspective.  They show it as a 1-2 technique (block then punch) and that is incorrect on multiple levels.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Dec 19, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The issue of striking with the knuckle is not a system problem it's a practitioner problem. Most martial art systems that I know of will train air punches and tell to focus the hits with the first 2 knuckles or the middle knuckle. But when the punching mitts or punching bags come into play students will wear gloves.  This changes how the fist makes an impact on the target and allows students to make mistakes with their punching techniques without consequences.  The most common mistakes are probably swiping punches and hitting with the flat of the fist.
> 
> Sometimes I have the beginner and intermediate students spar against me without gloves on for the purpose of me knowing if the flat of the fist is landing or if the knuckles are landing.



That's why we prefer to train with no gloves.


----------



## Buka (Dec 20, 2016)

You couldn't actually hit a person standing like that. Because if you did, come judgement day......


----------



## drop bear (Dec 20, 2016)

Buka said:


> You couldn't actually hit a person standing like that. Because if you did, come judgement day...



Please.

Jesus would give you a high five himself for giving that guy a slap.

Everybody knows jesus loves ko,s.


----------



## Buka (Dec 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Please.
> 
> Jesus would give you a high five himself for giving that guy a slap.
> 
> Everybody knows jesus loves ko,s.





I don't know, bro, you know you’d feel bad later. Kind of like kicking a puppy. A blind one, at that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

Buka said:


> You couldn't actually hit a person standing like that. Because if you did, come judgement day......


 I don't know what that lower arm is doing,  Jow Ga has a similar technique that looks like that picture but our lower arm isn't turned like that.  In the Jow Ga technique you would be able to strike someone from that position. Right off the top of my head, I can see 6 practical strikes that someone in that position can do.  The only thing that is throwing me off is that lower guard.  I would have to see what came before this position and what comes after it to really what the purpose of that lower guard if any.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

High guard in practical use in Jow Ga
1:17
1:22
1:51
2:17
4:41
4:53


----------



## lklawson (Dec 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> They probably should do kung fu.


They probably should do Bartitsu, since that's what they're doing.    



> Those long punches are similar to long fist kung systems


Those "long punches" are part and parcel of pre-Marques boxing.  This has only been pointed out half a dozen times or so.



> but lack the proper mechanics to keep someone from pulling the person off balance with long punches.


It's a *drill*.  The "mechanics" are fine.



> The general rule is that those punches don't go above your head height because it opens you up more and puts you at risk.


Mule Muffins.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

lklawson said:


> hey probably should do Bartitsu, since that's what they're doing


It doesn't matter what they are doing if the technique is not done correct.  You can not realistically block and then punch in a fight like they are doing.  The technique that there are doing of blocking and then punching is should be drilled as one motion and not a one step where it's Block then Punch.  It should be Block and Punch where it almost looks simultaneously.  You can try this for yourself and you'll see that "Block and Punch" works better than "Block then Punch".  Just because they are doing Bartitsu doesn't mean that another martial arts that uses similar techniques can't help them understand their own system better.  Kung Fu stress a lot of "1 and 2" and very few "1 then 2" principles.



lklawson said:


> Mule Muffins.


Understand how to exploit a long fist technique and then you won't think like this


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

Example of "Block *and* punch" drill  it is drilled this way because it is used this way in a real fight.  It is not a one step of Block then punch which is not practical in fighting,





Unfortunately many TKD and Karate schools have drilled one steps for techniques for so long that some instructors don't understand how to correctly apply the technique.  Notice that this is a block *then* strike perspective which will get you knock out.  If you practice and drill like this then the technique will fail you in a real fight.  With the exception that your opponent is slower than you.


----------



## Buka (Dec 20, 2016)

Buka said:


> You couldn't actually hit a person standing like that. Because if you did, come judgement day......



Actually, that stance could have some practical application.

Say he was standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona, and had "_Los Angeles, 522 miles_" written on his upper arm, and _"Dallas, 908 miles_" written on his lower.

Could get a job with the Chamber of Commerce. Might even meet a gal with a flat-bed Ford.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't matter what they are doing if the technique is not done correct.  You can not realistically block and then punch in a fight like they are doing.  The technique that there are doing of blocking and then punching is should be drilled as one motion and not a one step where it's Block then Punch.  It should be Block and Punch where it almost looks simultaneously.  You can try this for yourself and you'll see that "Block and Punch" works better than "Block then Punch".  Just because they are doing Bartitsu doesn't mean that another martial arts that uses similar techniques can't help them understand their own system better.  Kung Fu stress a lot of "1 and 2" and very few "1 then 2" principles.
> 
> Understand how to exploit a long fist technique and then you won't think like this


Most places I've seen (regardless of art) initially teach (and drill) as a block, then punch. This is easier for the new student to learn. Later, it's normally changed (either in a progression of the same drill, or in new drills) into a simultaneous movement.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Most places I've seen (regardless of art) initially teach (and drill) as a block, then punch. This is easier for the new student to learn. Later, it's normally changed (either in a progression of the same drill, or in new drills) into a simultaneous movement.



Beat me to it.  That is obviously a very basic drill.  Those drills are usually about teaching proper structure not actual application.  Everything else I have seen about Bartitsu is very much and simultaneous attack and defense just as the main source arts for the unarmed follow. (Jujutsu, Judo, Pugilism and Savate.) It would be odd in the extreme to have something so basic to the source arts not in the Mixed art imo.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't matter what they are doing if the technique is not done correct.


However, it is correct.  It may not be "correct" for your understanding of whatever kung fu system you're applying but it is exactly as described in dozens of boxing manuals and old school drawings & photos.












> You can not realistically block and then punch in a fight like they are doing.


Sure you can; under the right circumstances ...as with anything else.




















































































> The technique that there are doing of blocking and then punching is should be drilled as one motion and not a one step where it's Block then Punch.  It should be Block and Punch where it almost looks simultaneously.


You can do it that way too.  But it's not a requirement.













A ton more here: Album: Kirk



> You can try this for yourself and you'll see that "Block and Punch" works better than "Block then Punch".


What makes you think that I haven't tried all this stuff out?



> Just because they are doing Bartitsu doesn't mean that another martial arts that uses similar techniques can't help them understand their own system better.


Boxers have been doing it quite successfully for centuries.  Proof above.



> Kung Fu stress a lot of "1 and 2" and very few "1 then 2" principles.


First,* IT'S A DRILL*.  Did you miss that the first time I wrote it?  Second, as show, it is precisely in line with beginning lessons starting with Mendoza and going on up.



> Understand how to exploit a long fist technique and then you won't think like this


All hail Kung Fu!


----------



## lklawson (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Beat me to it.  That is obviously a very basic drill.  Those drills are usually about teaching proper structure not actual application.  Everything else I have seen about Bartitsu is very much and simultaneous attack and defense just as the main source arts for the unarmed follow. (Jujutsu, Judo, Pugilism and Savate.) It would be odd in the extreme to have something so basic to the source arts not in the Mixed art imo.


He ignored me when I wrote that it was a drill (I even bold faced it).  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Most places I've seen (regardless of art) initially teach (and drill) as a block, then punch. This is easier for the new student to learn. Later, it's normally changed (either in a progression of the same drill, or in new drills) into a simultaneous movement.


Most schools don't reach the point where it's turn into a simultaneous movement which is why we see advanced students and some instructors still practice it as a Block then a Punch and this becomes evident when they start talking about the application of the technique, where they describe it as a block then a punch.

There are 2 things that I do to help students with difficult move 
Force them to do the technique slowly
To help students learn the technique by forcing them to go slow.  Most average students are able to do this technique slowly but have trouble doing the technique fast.  This happens because the brain hasn't mapped out this movement yet.   If the student goes slow then learning the technique will be easy.  If they try to go too fast then they will become frustrated.  When I see students try to do new techniques at a fast speed, I will force them to slow down so that their brains can learn the new motion.  The difficulty that people have with things like this is due to the brain never or rarely moving the body in this manner. 


If they have problems with the actual movement, then I explain the technique similar to a movement that they already know how to do.
Most people can do this without any problem. If they put their arm on top of their head from the side then,  I tell them that they have to do it with arm moving upward in front of the face.




So I will ask them to position their arm like this and reach forward at the same time. If they are able to do that much then I'll explain the movement as being similar, but not exactly. I begin to explain the differences such as the turning the hand and closing the fist when reaching instead of keeping the hand open.  Those are 2 minor changes that are usually easy for students to make.  From there I go straight into application of the technique so that they will have an accurate visual of what they are doing and that they will have an idea of the structure they will need.  I throw a really slow punch to their face and ask them to do the same movement that they just showed me (lifting arm reaching out at the same time).  I drill this technique over and over until they can visualize a slow punch coming and the block and punch happening at the same time.  I have them practice at a slow pace just to start to make it easier for the brain to learn the movements and learning how to syncing the movement.  Once they get master that level, I make additional corrections, slowly turning it into a complex martial art technique.  The entire learning process usually takes about 10 classes.  By the 10th class the only thing that they need to do is to continue to increase the speed, refine the technique so that it's functional in structure and learn how to drive power into the technique.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 20, 2016)

If you are going to block then punch off two beats. Block then punch off the same arm.

If you are going to do it off one beat. You have to either be really fast or know that punch is coming. In fisty fighting this is really quite hard.

The biggest issue with blocking and punching simultaneously is if the other guy uses head movement then you are a lot less likley to hit anything with that shot. And then you are open for his other hand.

If the other guy fakes then you have just shot both arms away from your head and are likley open to the other hand.

And if the other guy throws combinations you will not be able to keep up with them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Those drills are usually about teaching proper structure not actual application.


 With certain techniques, the 1-step version will not have the same structure that technique has when done as a simultaneous movement.  So in reality the student wouldn't be learning the structure that's needed for application, they will be learning the structure that's needed for 1 step.



lklawson said:


> However, it is correct. It may not be "correct" for your understanding of whatever kung fu system you're applying but it is exactly as described in dozens of boxing manuals and old school drawings & photos.





lklawson said:


> Boxers have been doing it quite successfully for centuries. Proof above


I never said they haven't, The only person I referred to was the guy in the Bartitsu video who did the technique as a block and then punch.  The only groups that I stalked about not doing were Taekwondo and Karate schools who do 1 step drills and never teach to do the techniques as a block and punch.  I know for a fact that there are Taekwondo and Karate schools that do teach it as a block and punch and those schools are the exception to my comments.



lklawson said:


> First,* IT'S A DRILL*. Did you miss that the first time I wrote it? Second, as show, it is precisely in line with beginning lessons starting with Mendoza and going on up.


I understand that it's a drill.  What I also understand is that the person doing the drill did not look like a beginner.  BASICS is not the same as BEGINNER.  People practice basics regardless of their skill level.  Basics are the foundation.  

Here's a video of him sparring and doing the 1 step application as he showed in his previous video.  You will see that the technique fails when done as a 1 then 2. Had he sent the punch at the same time then he would have made contact without the need to muscle his opponents arm the way he did. The upward movement of the "block" (actually a redirect) arm was also off. If that arm does not go up ward then all that will happen is the grind that you'll also see.  See the 0:59 mark.  .


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to do it off one beat. You have to either be really fast or know that punch is coming. In fisty fighting this is really quite hard.


Yes that's true. That's where baiting and tell-tale signs.  It's better to encourage an attack that you want than to try to guess what's coming.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> With certain techniques, the 1-step version will not have the same structure that technique has when done as a simultaneous movement.  So in reality the student wouldn't be learning the structure that's needed for application, they will be learning the structure that's needed for 1 step.



For some techniques you are correct, but the techniques applicable to the largely upright structure of Victorian Pugilism tend to work in a 1 step training fashion.  Usually, if I understand what you are describing correctly, what you speak of happens with arts where the body supporting the arms has more movement allowed.  

As for the video there was also some simultaneous action in it.  For the :59 part it looks like that, for the most part, there was exaggerated hesitation because the glove got hung up on the defending arm which was in a suboptimal position to start with.

One other thing you need to know and @lklawson can correct me if I am wrong.  Bartitsu is basically in a process of rediscovery.  We have articles written at the time, photographs etc but the "Bartitsu Club" of London closed in the early 20th century and while there were instructors for the individual arts at the Club who went to teach elsewhere the guy who put it all together into Bartitsu stopped publically teaching and then obviously died at some point.  So what @lklawson is speaking of can be absolutely true for the people refining it in the US and then you can go to Germany and have some differences.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> there was exaggerated hesitation because the glove got hung up on the defending arm which was in a suboptimal position to start with.


In reference to the technique at 0:59.  What you saw are a number of body mechanics not connecting.  Most people think that the arm is lifting the punch (where the fist stays horizontal), but in reality the arm is rising in a circular motion (where the thumb points down).  This circular motion creates the structure necessary to redirect it over the head.  The turning of the forearm as you are doing the block will provide a stronger structure than not turning the forearm.  If I keep my forearm straight with my fist horizontal to the ground (with thumb pointing horizonta towards me) then my structure will fail as it causes more stress to be put on the arm.  If you slow the video down and pause it, you can actually see that thumb is horizontal and eventually points to the ceiling when it should be turning vertical with the thumb pointing towards the ground.  If you hold your hand in that position and ask someone to push forward on your forearm towards you, then you should be able to feel the stress on your elbow or shoulder.  However, if you put your arm in that same position and turn your thumb towards your face then your arm is able tor resist more pressure. In order to he the arm higher you will need to do a circular type motion as if you are trying to toss the punch over head. That circular motion keeps the force of the punch from going into your arm making it easier to lift.  Most people lift as if they are trying to put the punch on top of a shelf which limits the range of motion as the shoulder fails.  



Juany118 said:


> Bartitsu is basically in a process of rediscovery.


This is what I understand as well based on the little that I actually read and a documentary about it.  From what it looks like they are doing what HEMA did which is to try to decode practical fighting techniques from limited resources.  HEMA used  other martial arts to help them make sense of the techniques they were rediscovering.  We understand that fighting systems often have influences from other fighting systems.  If you can find that influence then you can plug in gaps to techniques that aren't clear because of missing details. I think you will like the video below as he talks about the evolution of the rising block.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In reference to the technique at 0:59.  What you saw are a number of body mechanics not connecting.  Most people think that the arm is lifting the punch (where the fist stays horizontal), but in reality the arm is rising in a circular motion (where the thumb points down).  This circular motion creates the structure necessary to redirect it over the head.  The turning of the forearm as you are doing the block will provide a stronger structure than not turning the forearm.  If I keep my forearm straight with my fist horizontal to the ground (with thumb pointing horizonta towards me) then my structure will fail as it causes more stress to be put on the arm.  If you slow the video down and pause it, you can actually see that thumb is horizontal and eventually points to the ceiling when it should be turning vertical with the thumb pointing towards the ground.  If you hold your hand in that position and ask someone to push forward on your forearm towards you, then you should be able to feel the stress on your elbow or shoulder.  However, if you put your arm in that same position and turn your thumb towards your face then your arm is able tor resist more pressure. In order to he the arm higher you will need to do a circular type motion as if you are trying to toss the punch over head. That circular motion keeps the force of the punch from going into your arm making it easier to lift.  Most people lift as if they are trying to put the punch on top of a shelf which limits the range of motion as the shoulder fails.
> 
> This is what I understand as well based on the little that I actually read and a documentary about it.  From what it looks like they are doing what HEMA did which is to try to decode practical fighting techniques from limited resources.  HEMA used  other martial arts to help them make sense of the techniques they were rediscovering.  We understand that fighting systems often have influences from other fighting systems.  If you can find that influence then you can plug in gaps to techniques that aren't clear because of missing details. I think you will like the video below as he talks about the evolution of the rising block.


The only thing I would say regarding the above it that you may be projecting a little bit.  Wing Chun has bong sau and bil sau.  Either can be used to deflect a strike to the head but it has nothing to do with a circular action.  The angle of the forearm creates to deflection.  Not pretty but the quickest photo I could find..






Basically the elbow is at ~ 130 degrees and the angle of the arm (with appropriate energy) causes the strike to rise and miss, similar to parrying in sword play.  The shallower the angle the greater chance of a collapse of the supporting structure.

Now I will admit, maybe I may also be projecting my WC training onto Bartitsu and Victorian Pugilism but there are at least similarities that invite it.  Out of the gate we have 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Vs






WC is all about linear angles to deflect vs rotation and so maybe that's why I relate?  So I don't look at such a block as something that uses the upward motion of the arm to deflect but rather the angles of the structure with simple linear energy behind it to accomplish the same goal.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Dec 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> They probably should do kung fu.  Those long punches are similar to long fist kung systems but lack the proper mechanics to keep someone from pulling the person off balance with long punches.  The general rule is that those punches don't go above your head height because it opens you up more and puts you at risk.
> 
> The block with the thumbs downward works. It's used in Kung Fu and Karate.  It's structurally stronger than the blocks that are used in MMA and it's actually more than just a block.  It can be used as a soft block which also serves as a "wind-up" for a technique using that same arm or it can be used to guide a strike.  The way that they show the application of it in the video is incorrect from a kung fu perspective and a practical fighting perspective.  They show it as a 1-2 technique (block then punch) and that is incorrect on multiple levels.


The upward block is a good block but in one picture the guy is blocking a staff. You should never block a weapon with your arm, if someone's attacking with a weapon then you evade and block the arm not the weapon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> The upward block is a good block but in one picture the guy is blocking a staff. You should never block a weapon with your arm, if someone's attacking with a weapon then you evade and block the arm not the weapon.


I'm not a big fan of "never".


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Dec 21, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a big fan of "never".


So you'd ever block a wooden or metal staff coming at you with force with your arm


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> So you'd ever block a wooden or metal staff coming at you with force with your arm


Yeah, if I wasn't able to get out of the way. Better my arm than my head.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to block then punch off two beats. Block then punch off the same arm.
> 
> If you are going to do it off one beat. You have to either be really fast or know that punch is coming. In fisty fighting this is really quite hard.


The fencing world has been describing these "actions" for centuries, and in very similar terms to what you're using here, "beat" or "tempo" ("tempi") or sometimes "time." A double-time (or two-beat) counter is exactly that, a parry then riposte.  A single-time counter is a parry simultaneous with a riposte and is generally considered more sophisticated.  

Fencing Glossary - Dictionary of Fencing Terms
Glossary of fencing - Wikipedia

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I never said they haven't, The only person I referred to was the guy in the Bartitsu video who did the technique as a block and then punch.


Correction.  You said it was "wrong."  Multiple times, in fact.  It's not wrong.  It's just a dui tempo movement.



> Here's a video of him sparring and doing the 1 step application as he showed in his previous video.  You will see that the technique fails when done as a 1 then 2. Had he sent the punch at the same time then he would have made contact without the need to muscle his opponents arm the way he did. The upward movement of the "block" (actually a redirect) arm was also off. If that arm does not go up ward then all that will happen is the grind that you'll also see.  See the 0:59 mark.  .


So you're big contribution is that a double-time counter is easier to block, and therefore "fails" more often, than a single-time counter?  Well, gee, water is wet.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> One other thing you need to know and @lklawson can correct me if I am wrong.  Bartitsu is basically in a process of rediscovery.  We have articles written at the time, photographs etc but the "Bartitsu Club" of London closed in the early 20th century and while there were instructors for the individual arts at the Club who went to teach elsewhere the guy who put it all together into Bartitsu stopped publically teaching and then obviously died at some point.  So what @lklawson is speaking of can be absolutely true for the people refining it in the US and then you can go to Germany and have some differences.


In a lot of ways, yes.  In some ways, no.  The Bartitsu Society isn't a governing board the way that USJA is, for instance.  The Bartitsu Society doesn't accredit, test, rank, or certify nor does it have any sort of regulations on curriculum for individual members or clubs.  Various people are free to read the manuals, or not, and try to implement based on whatever guides seem to work for them.  The individual members of the Bartitsu Society with more experience can offer advice and suggestions, even training, to people who desire it, but no one is required to take the advice.  Does that mean that some people's understanding may be a bit shallow from time to time? Yup.  But to the best of my recollection, the Bartitsu Society has never officially repudiated anyone.

Bartitsu study is the very definition of free-form, "organic" development.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In reference to the technique at 0:59.  What you saw are a number of body mechanics not connecting.  Most people think that the arm is lifting the punch (where the fist stays horizontal), but in reality the arm is rising in a circular motion (where the thumb points down).  This circular motion creates the structure necessary to redirect it over the head.  The turning of the forearm as you are doing the block will provide a stronger structure than not turning the forearm.  If I keep my forearm straight with my fist horizontal to the ground (with thumb pointing horizonta towards me) then my structure will fail as it causes more stress to be put on the arm.  If you slow the video down and pause it, you can actually see that thumb is horizontal and eventually points to the ceiling when it should be turning vertical with the thumb pointing towards the ground.  If you hold your hand in that position and ask someone to push forward on your forearm towards you, then you should be able to feel the stress on your elbow or shoulder.  However, if you put your arm in that same position and turn your thumb towards your face then your arm is able tor resist more pressure. In order to he the arm higher you will need to do a circular type motion as if you are trying to toss the punch over head. That circular motion keeps the force of the punch from going into your arm making it easier to lift.  Most people lift as if they are trying to put the punch on top of a shelf which limits the range of motion as the shoulder fails.


In your kung fu.  Note that Boxing is not necessarily your kung fu.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2016)

lklawson said:


> They probably should do Bartitsu, since that's what they're doing.
> 
> Those "long punches" are part and parcel of pre-Marques boxing.  This has only been pointed out half a dozen times or so.
> 
> ...


Mmmmm.......mule muffins......oh wait, is that not what I think it is?


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Mmmmm.......mule muffins......oh wait, is that not what I think it is?


It's a quote from Sherman T. Potter.

Yes, I'm old, and a cranky bastage...

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2016)

lklawson said:


> It's a quote from Sherman T. Potter.
> 
> Yes, I'm old, and a cranky bastage...
> 
> ...


Your alternative answer, of course, would have been "horsefeathers".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 21, 2016)

lklawson said:


> So you're big contribution is that a double-time counter is easier to block, and therefore "fails" more often, than a single-time counter?


Nope. My statement are in reference to that one technique that I keep referring to. There are times where a block and then punch is the only way a technique will work, it's just that the technique being used isn't one of those techniques.



lklawson said:


> In your kung fu. Note that Boxing is not necessarily your kung fu


Rising blocks are rising blocks no matter what system is doing it.  It will still have the same failure points when done incorrectly.  It will still have the same limitations.  The only difference is the depth of understanding that a system may have in comparison to what another system may have.  A system that does this type of block all the time will have a better understanding of the limitations and the points of failure than a system that doesn't use the blocks much.  I look outside of my system for certain things because sometimes a different system may have a more detailed understanding of the body mechanics of a similar technique that I need to do in my system.

You keep thinking fighting system vs fighting system.  Everything I've said for far has been based on the mechanics of what was trying to be done.  I even pointed out in his own video of when the technique failed and why it failed.  Boxing doesn't have to be Kung Fu if the body mechanic challenges are the same.  if he's trying to lift a punch with the arm in front then his techniques will have to address the same challenges that other systems face when lifting a punch with the arm in front.  

His natural development in Bartitsu  for that specific technique is going to lead him to the same challenges and same solutions, but there is not need to reinvent the technique or search for answers the hard way when detailed solutions are already there to help him understand what he's trying to do with that technique.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Everything I've said for far has been based on the mechanics of what was trying to be done.


Based on *your *belief of how the mechanics are "supposed to work" which, apparently, is informed by your kung fu.

So yeah, it sure as heck does seem to be that the crux of your (current) argument is, "he's doing it wrong for kung fu."  Which is the very definition of a style-v-style argument.

Heck, your very first comment about it was that they "should just do kung fu" since, they were doing the "long fist' stuff "wrong."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 21, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Heck, your very first comment about it was that they "should just do kung fu" since, they were doing the "long fist' stuff "wrong."


 I said this because if you have no reference of how to do a long punch like so that the structure is correct  then you need to find a system that does these type punches all the time.  When you are training long fist all the time then you will have a better understanding of where the mechanics are successful and when they will fail.  Even if they didn't want to actually take kung fu they could ask and have discussions with someone who does a lot of long fist.  Conversations like "How do you do this type of technique in your system?"  "Why don't you do it like this?"  Can be very insightful as they may be aware of some  issues that you aren't aware of.  Not because it's Kung Fu, but because they are always doing long fist.  If there anything that they should have an understanding of is the mechanics behind a long fist punch.












How long have you been doing long fist techniques?  Do you use punching techniques in sparring similar to what the Bartitsu guy showed?  Do you do rising blocks when you spar?  Do you know at which points the technique fails? Do you know what makes the technique weak and where it stays strong?  Can you see when the technique fails in the video and understand why the mechanics that would make the long punch strong and which mechanics will make the technique weak?  

For example, when I see the picture to the left I think of the technique the guy is showing on the right   But that's only if picture on the left is punching.  From there, it becomes an issue of mechanics.  Can I effectively throw a punch like the picture in the left, what mechanics feel natural and which mechanics feel in efficient.  I look at it from different perspectives such as.  what type of punch is the hand blocking? Is it a jab or a circular swing?  I look at the legs and try to determine the movement?  Is this guy about to lung in with a punch? or his does his body position represent him preparing to move back.?  Is the other guy with the block advancing or retreating?  I take all of this into consideration before I decide that what I see in a photo is a similar technique.  But with a video, things like this are easier to determine because you have more information about what is going on and what mechanics are needed to actually do the technique.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 29, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I said this because if you have no reference of how to do a long punch like so that the structure is correct


It was your assumption that they had "no reference for how to do a long punch like that so that the structure is" <ahem> "'correct'."  You were, well, not correct.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 29, 2016)

lklawson said:


> It was your assumption that they had "no reference for how to do a long punch like that so that the structure is" <ahem> "'correct'."  You were, well, not correct.


Do you practice long fist? Do you fight using long fist techniques?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 29, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Your alternative answer, of course, would have been "horsefeathers".


Or "horse hockey" and "pigeon pellets" lol

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Do you practice long fist? Do you fight using long fist techniques?



Ok. so we have two different interpretations of a technique. Why is yours correct?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok. so we have two different interpretations of a technique. Why is yours correct?


To be honest my best answer to this question is to try to actually use the techniques shown in the Bartitsu. Or have someone else try to use it. 

We can make an assumption that it's an effective technique because someone decided that it was important enough to draw it down for record keeping.  So when doing this technique in free sparring, it should be effective and it should feel strong.  If the person does the technique and it feels weak and useless, then that means there is something off with the mechanics.  I think by trying to use these techniques in free sparring will shed better light on what I'm saying.
By trying these techniques in free sparring a person will see first hand the mechanics that are required to make those long fist techniques efficient.  The person will find out really quick what doesn't work.  They will also recognize what doesn't work when they see it.

The confidence and the certainty that I have is from me using long fist techniques in free sparring and getting hit in the face when I got the long fist technique wrong.  So when I saw the guy demo the long fist technique, the first thing that came to my mind was my own failures that I had while learning long fist. There were things that worked well and things that didn't.  The things that I got wrong I paid with a punch to my face, or ribs.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Do you practice long fist? Do you fight using long fist techniques?


What does that have to do with Classic Boxing?  Are you saying that Kung Fu Long Fist swiped their striking from London Prize Ring era Boxing?

Interesting theory.  I like it.  But it's sure to piss off Kung Fu guys.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest my best answer to this question is to try to actually use the techniques shown in the Bartitsu. Or have someone else try to use it.
> 
> We can make an assumption that it's an effective technique because someone decided that it was important enough to draw it down for record keeping.  So when doing this technique in free sparring, it should be effective and it should feel strong.  If the person does the technique and it feels weak and useless, then that means there is something off with the mechanics.  I think by trying to use these techniques in free sparring will shed better light on what I'm saying.
> By trying these techniques in free sparring a person will see first hand the mechanics that are required to make those long fist techniques efficient.  The person will find out really quick what doesn't work.  They will also recognize what doesn't work when they see it.
> ...


Gads!  How many times must it be written?  What you saw was a DRILL; a single part of a progression, a spectrum, in training and using the techniques.

You are so stuck on "being right" that you seem to be deliberately ignoring this point. 

How 'bout you try this?  Boxing is NOT Kung Fu and London Prize Ring era Boxing is NOT YOUR long-fist Kung Fu.  Give that a go, m'kay?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok. so we have two different interpretations of a technique. Why is yours correct?


I thought you may like this.  The video shows some long fist techniques in boxing from 1925.  James J Corbett was bareknuckle fighter.  One of the things that stands out is how his movement flows.  The punch at 0:48 is how it's done in Jow Ga as well as other long fist techniques minus the big wind up.  But that forward movement is what causes the damage.  In order to prevent falling over from the forward momentum (from the shuffle forward), the front leg steps forward so that it can better handle it.  You'll also notice that it's not robotic. You'll actually see a series of various types of long fist punches, as well as parries, and grappling.





The video below is from 1899.  This guy actually lands a sweet long fist and knocks the guy down with it.  If you slow it down and pause it, you can see that he takes that forward shuffle and when the impact occurs he's actually in a fairly low bow stance.





This is Jim Jefferies training.  Notice the footwork


----------

