# Horizontal or Vertical,



## Juggernaut (Apr 3, 2007)

Within some of the techniques in the manuals such as Alternating Mace you strike with a vertical fist to the solar plexus. I heard a high level Kenpoist state that you should use a horizontal fist when punching below the shoulder and a vertical fist when punching above the shoulder. I am speaking of fully extended punches such as a reverse punch. Not uppercuts or flanking type punches.

Why would you punch with a vertical fist to the body versus a horizontal fist to the body as it is written in the Yellow Belt Manual in Alternating Mace?

Regards,

James


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 3, 2007)

The verticle has better alignment with the bones in your arm; however, full penetration or sudden distance changes will give cause for the horizontle. (no pun intented)
Sean


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> The verticle has better alighnment with the bones in your arm; however, full penetration or sudden distance changes will give cause for the horizontle. (no pun intented)
> Sean


 
What he said.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 3, 2007)

We actually do both, depending on the technique. It pretty much depends on the distance to target. In close, a vertical position (side fist) works quiet nicely and in our system, the arm doesn't fully extend. If the target is a little farther away, a reverse hand extends fully to reach through the target.


----------



## Juggernaut (Apr 3, 2007)

Thank you very much for your replies...that definitely answers my question.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 3, 2007)

jdinca said:


> We actually do both, depending on the technique. It pretty much depends on the distance to target. In close, a vertical position (side fist) works quiet nicely and in our system, the arm doesn't fully extend. If the target is a little farther away, a reverse hand extends fully to reach through the target.



I'm with him on this one, albeit with the caveat that even with the reverse punch the elbow is never locked out.


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 3, 2007)

I also chose the weapon by what my be in the way of my strike.  The vertical punch can roll over an arm that may in the way (JKD).

Also the target.  Like a puzzle piece, one fits better than another depending on the target.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 3, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> I'm with him on this one, albeit with the caveat that even with the reverse punch the elbow is never locked out.


Always invert over locking out.:ultracool 
Sean


----------



## jdinca (Apr 4, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> I'm with him on this one, albeit with the caveat that even with the reverse punch the elbow is never locked out.



Agreed!


----------



## SL4Drew (Apr 4, 2007)

Juggernaut said:


> I heard a high level Kenpoist state that you should use a horizontal fist when punching below the shoulder and a vertical fist when punching above the shoulder. * * *
> Why would you punch with a vertical fist to the body versus a horizontal fist to the body as it is written in the Yellow Belt Manual in Alternating Mace?


 
Here is what I would say is the general rule: A 'vertical' punch is an intermediate range attack at height below about the armpit line. And a 'horizontal' punch is the longest range of punch, used for heights above that line. And it's a rule I rarely find reason to break. 

If you dissect the "corkscrew" punch you will actually find both those punches in there, executed at their proper range and height. But myself, I would avoid striking the face with a punch.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 4, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> Here is what I would say is the general rule: A 'vertical' punch is an intermediate range attack at height below about the armpit line. And a 'horizontal' punch is the longest range of punch, used for heights above that line. And it's a rule I rarely find reason to break.
> 
> If you dissect the "corkscrew" punch you will actually find both those punches in there, executed at their proper range and height. But myself, I would avoid striking the face with a punch.



Would this be Mr. King?


----------



## Kenpo 2006 (Apr 6, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> Here is what I would say is the general rule: A 'vertical' punch is an intermediate range attack at height below about the armpit line. And a 'horizontal' punch is the longest range of punch, used for heights above that line. And it's a rule I rarely find reason to break.
> 
> If you dissect the "corkscrew" punch you will actually find both those punches in there, executed at their proper range and height. But myself, I would avoid striking the face with a punch.



I agree with the principle explained here but especially with not striking the face with a horzontal fist as you will like split the bone in your hand if you end up making incorrect contact. That is why generally chops and palms are executed to the face and head, because they have the same full range as a corkscrew punch but are fitted properly to the target.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 8, 2007)

Kenpo 2006 said:


> I agree with the principle explained here but especially with not striking the face with a horzontal fist as you will like split the bone in your hand if you end up making incorrect contact.



Yeah, have split the bone in both middle knuckles more than once, pre-MA days. And you can do the same thing no matter what kind of fist you use. Tiny fingers in hand/knuckles are no match for thick bones in head (even teeth).



> That is why generally chops and palms are executed to the face and head


It took experience with open hand strikes for me to see how powerful, fast (because more relaxed than closed fist), and effective they are. Now, that's pretty much all I use/teach to the head (hard striking surface to soft targets, soft to hard [padded surfaces include: driving palm heel, willow palm, knife hand, tiger rake, whipping palm, open tiger's mouth--even as a block]). Open hand strikes are plenty powerful to the body, too. Just try a driving palm heel to the solar plexus on a training partner, stepping through the target. :ultracool


----------



## Doc (Apr 8, 2007)

While much of the previous posts are generally correct, consider that the so-called "horizontal punch" in anatomical terms, is not actually a punch as conventionally used. All manner of anatomical action is height, width, and depth sensitive in varying degrees to anatomical positioning relative to the rest of the human frame. 

In the execution of punches that rotate the bones in the arm through their full rotational axis, we discover that the commonly regarded 'horizontal' position is a full extension of the arm in alignment with the shoulder. Therefore, anatomically the horizontal is not a punch but merely the completed action, or follow through of a fully extended punch. 

While the anatomical correct full horizontal punch does exist, it's most efficient anatomical execution requires it be delivered parallel to the torso, as opposed to the right angle 90-degrees to the torso and pelvis practiced in most arts. This semantical misnomer carries through most arts, and the closer arts are to the source material and origins, the least likely you will see this punch used in actual application. Originally this practice of rotating the arm to the full horizontal palm down position, was a training methodology usually done from a horse stance, to teach follow-through. As the arts spread and were interpreted this 'training method' began to be misinterpreted as an application.


----------



## Juggernaut (Apr 9, 2007)

Doc,

A most interesting post indeed....

If I am understanding you correctly the horizontal punch should only be used when it is at shoulder level otherwise the structural strength and connection of the punching limb will become misaligned. (please correct me if I am wrong)

So what do you suggest when punching below or above shoulder level?


----------



## JamesB (Apr 9, 2007)

Doc said:


> In the execution of punches that rotate the bones in the arm through their full rotational axis, we discover that the commonly regarded 'horizontal' position is a full extension of the arm in alignment with the shoulder. Therefore, anatomically the horizontal is not a punch but merely the completed action, or follow through of a fully extended punch.


 
if the 'horizontal' position is a full extension of the arm 'in alignment with the shoulder', how would the 'vertical' punch be defined? Or in other words, how is it aligned in relation to the rest of the body? 



Doc said:


> While the anatomical correct full horizontal punch does exist, it's most efficient anatomical execution requires it be delivered parallel to the torso, as opposed to the right angle 90-degrees to the torso and pelvis practiced in most arts.


 
So if I am visualizing this correctly, the horizontal 'punch' would be delivered to the 9/3 o'clock line assuming I was in a training horse facing 12? Assuming a fighting-stance, would it be accurate to say that the horizontal punch is basically executed with the lead arm to shoulder height then, to include the alignment of both shoulders? (and never from a classic 'reverse' punch with the rear arm?)

I've been pondering this for a while, maybe someone can add their thoughts: The heel-palm strike is akin to a 'push' (which is used to propel things away from you). And a punch looks very similar to a grab/gripping configuration of the hand (used to pull things towards you).  So I would say that the human body has evolved to (amongst many other taks) either push or pull things using the arms, and there is a most-effective way to perform either task. It seems to me that a grab' (punch) configuration of the fist would communicate to the body that it should be strong going backwards (to faciliate pulling something towards you), and a 'push' (palm-heel) would coordinate the muscles of the body to be strong in a forwards direction. So a punch does not seem to be the ideal way to communicate strength going forwards?

So I'm thinking that a palm-heel is always going to be structurally stronger than a punch - and if a horizontal punch should only be delivered at/above shoulder height then why choose this weapon? Why not always utilize heel-palm strikes to this height zone? Is a 'punch' a compromise posture that relies on striking with the small surface of the knuckles to be effective?

just wondering, open to thoughts on this...


----------



## Doc (Apr 9, 2007)

JamesB said:


> if the 'horizontal' position is a full extension of the arm 'in alignment with the shoulder', how would the 'vertical' punch be defined? Or in other words, how is it aligned in relation to the rest of the body?


Understand James that alignment with the shoulder doesn't necessarily mean the standard visualized punching configuration from a neutral bow stance. This is the reason for my comment about height, width, and depth sensitivity. The same could be said for the arm moving to full extension straight while standing, or laterally on a radial line with both shoulders.

In conventional linear martial punching, the vertical punching action is part of the anatomical height, width, and depth mechanics the body must perform to insure maximum efficiency, and effectiveness throughout the range of movement of the arm, in this particular activity once learned. (Keeping in mind this action is not "natural.")

Beginning at the palm up position, and as the arm moves away from the body, it rotates or 'corkscrews' to full extension with the vertical position being the actual punch configuration, and the horizonatl palm down being the completion or follow-through to that action. Approximately, beginning with approximately mid-forearm-to-torso depth, palm up (not on hip), the action extends forward and as the elbow loses the alignment support of the torso, the hand rotates to the vertical extension position. Once this physical action is exhausted, (arm as stright as you can make it), it can rotate or extend to the palm down position.

Further, it is important to realize the conventional martial arts, hand on hip palm up, clenched fist position is anatomically unsuited for the beginning of this linear punching process. Vertical, yes, palm up, no.

A useful experiement is to stand in front of a wall and project your vertical punch to its full extention, braced against the surface with resistence. Then attempt under load to forcefully rotate or "punch" into the horizontal position to feel its inherent anatomical weakness. Interestingly, Bruce Lee when he demonstarted his famous power "One inch Punch," used the vertical configuration only.

Consider the act of a clenched fist is anomalous in nature to linear "punching." However the body can be trained to use a natural weapon in an unnatural way. In human terms, the clenched fist is designed to grasp and seize, or be used in a "hammering" action when the fist is clenched.

Punching with the front of the hand is unnatural and must be trained, while hammering is natural and instinctual. Even so, linear punching must still conform to the anatomical mandates of the previous paragraph.


> So if I am visualizing this correctly, the horizontal 'punch' would be delivered to the 9/3 o'clock line assuming I was in a training horse facing 12?


That is correct. The true "horizontal punch" is a circular arm configuration that must travel parallel to the torse beyond the "Radial Line Reference" of the shoulder to reach effective range.


> Assuming a fighting-stance, would it be accurate to say that the horizontal punch is basically executed with the lead arm to shoulder height then, to include the alignment of both shoulders? (and never from a classic 'reverse' punch with the rear arm?)


No, the "Horizontal Punch" is as I described it above. The experiment is to demonstrate the "horizontal configuration" is not viable as a "punch," and only describes the hand at the completion of the "actual punch" which is vertical." To separate them into a Vertical AND a Horizontal as if they are seperate entities would be incorrect.


> I've been pondering this for a while, maybe someone can add their thoughts: The heel-palm strike is akin to a 'push' (which is used to propel things away from you). And a punch looks very similar to a grab/gripping configuration of the hand (used to pull things towards you).  So I would say that the human body has evolved to (amongst many other tasks) either push or pull things using the arms, and there is a most-effective way to perform either task. It seems to me that a grab' (punch) configuration of the fist would communicate to the body that it should be strong going backwards (to faciliate pulling something towards you), and a 'push' (palm-heel) would coordinate the muscles of the body to be strong in a forwards direction. So a punch does not seem to be the ideal way to communicate strength going forwards?


You are absolutely correct. Linear punching is, like most martial actions, a "trained" behavior. Additionally, the on hip palm up position is a seizing posture ill suied for either punching or execution of the so-called rear elbow.


> So I'm thinking that a palm-heel is always going to be structurally stronger than a punch - and if a horizontal punch should only be delivered at/above shoulder height then why choose this weapon?


As I said in previous paragraphs, there is no horizontal punch in this manner so your thoughts are congent. This action is ill suited to self-defense applications.


> Why not always utilize heel-palm strikes to this height zone?


Don't get hung up on the height zone, focusing instead on the depth of the arm movement in any linear direction.


> Is a 'punch' a compromise posture that relies on striking with the small surface of the knuckles to be effective?


Not necessarily. Once proper linear punching is "learned," in anatomical terms, it is best used against soft tissue in which case Blunt Force Trauma can be effective even utilizing the "flat" of the knuckle joints. Cultural mandates, misinterpreted information, and unknowledgeble teachers have perpetuated many myths that do not always translate well to the typical "regular guy" self defense mold of Mr. Parker's vision.

James, isn't it about time you set up residence in the USA.


----------



## JamesB (Apr 10, 2007)

Thanks, Doc, for the lengthy explanation, most useful..



Doc said:


> A useful experiement is to stand in front of a wall and project your vertical punch to its full extention, braced against the surface with resistence. Then attempt under load to forcefully rotate or "punch" into the horizontal position to feel its inherent anatomical weakness. Interestingly, Bruce Lee when he demonstarted his famous power "One inch Punch," used the vertical configuration only.


 
I could feel my arm+shoulder become a little weaker (less able to support my body) as I rotated from vertical to horizontal - that's assuming I did the test as I understood I should. But I'm still a little confused, up until now it has been said that the horizontal configuration is more of a 'brace' than a punch, so I was expecting to feel little difference. Don't worry about answering this point, I realise that I need face-face explanation and man-handling to fully comprehend this stuff.



Doc said:


> Punching with the front of the hand is unnatural and must be trained, while hammering is natural and instinctual. Even so, linear punching must still conform to the anatomical mandates of the previous paragraph.


 
...which is presumably why there are so many blocks/hammer-fists in kenpo and not so many punches, interesting indeed.



Doc said:


> Don't get hung up on the height zone, focusing instead on the depth of the arm movement in any linear direction.


 
that's the key point for me I think, I was looking at the elevation (height) of the arm+shoulder and not the amount of extension in the arm. 



Doc said:


> James, isn't it about time you set up residence in the USA.


 
How cool would that be?! Funnily enough my brother has only just emigrated to Boston a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think my mother would be too happy if I eloped as well. I'll have to settle for a flying visit when I get the chance - I'll bring my notebook too


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2007)

JamesB said:


> Thanks, Doc, for the lengthy explanation, most useful..
> 
> I could feel my arm+shoulder become a little weaker (less able to support my body) as I rotated from vertical to horizontal - that's assuming I did the test as I understood I should. But I'm still a little confused, up until now it has been said that the horizontal configuration is more of a 'brace' than a punch, so I was expecting to feel little difference. Don't worry about answering this point, I realise that I need face-face explanation and man-handling to fully comprehend this stuff.


No, you're on track. What you're feeling is the "disassociated" mode the body moves into when it moves anatomically inefficiently. Also correct is this hrozontal position is best utilized in techniques as a "Brace," rather than an inefficient punch. This is essentially the same way it is used in Western Boxing, as a follow through with shoulder rotation and body momentum that 'pushes' and "Braces" through the punch. Excellent observations sir.


> ...which is presumably why there are so many blocks/hammer-fists in kenpo and not so many punches, interesting indeed.


Yes, the reasons are two-fold. One; its more efficient in a self-defense vehicle and two; because they are more natural, they are much easier to learn. Consider the intensity, and how much training a Western Boxer goes through to develop sound punching skills because that's all they do. Contrast that with the many different methods of striking and other mechanisms that must be learned in an overall effective self-defense system.


> that's the key point for me I think, I was looking at the elevation (height) of the arm+shoulder and not the amount of extension in the arm.


While that is a factor also, I didn't want to muddy the waters of the discussion. I recall some rather high ranking practitioners from Shotokan, who were beginning to question the efficacy of the 'chudan-zuki' or middle horizontal thrusting punch. They realized years ago, this so-called punch at that height had some serious flaws. When you consider this punch is the bread of their butter in their art, you begin to realize the implications of their epiphany. But then they have become influneced by applications over the cultural mandate of the "do" arts.


> How cool would that be?! Funnily enough my brother has only just emigrated to Boston a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think my mother would be too happy if I eloped as well. I'll have to settle for a flying visit when I get the chance - I'll bring my notebook too


Or buy Mum a uniform and belt and ....


----------



## JamesB (Apr 11, 2007)

Doc said:


> Or buy Mum a uniform and belt and ....


 
now *that* would be a sight to behold.....:uhyeah:


----------



## teej (Apr 23, 2007)

Juggernaut said:


> Doc,
> 
> A most interesting post indeed....
> 
> ...


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2007)

For the record: I never stated the horizaontal punch should only be executed at shoulder height.


----------



## marlon (Apr 23, 2007)

a horizontal punch to the midsection angled downwards can do a lot to fold an opponent and move thier center behind thier limbs...better than a vertical punch.  i do not find the vertical punch effective when striking downwards on an upright opponent

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Doc (Apr 23, 2007)

I believe I said that there is no horizontal punch in this manner.


----------



## distalero (Apr 24, 2007)

For what it's worth: back in the day (primitive times ) the horizontal punch was described as only a training punch and never anything else, whatever sort of meaning and expostion of information was otherwise attached to it by various instructors. Just a training punch, even when it was explained that the only possible path for it to take as any sort of practical strike was as a decending punch, downward so that the first two knuckles would be the leading portion of the fist. So, no big mystery, just "If you use this, you have to punch down, like this". 

The vertical punch was promoted as the punch to use when the path was horizontal to the ground and possibly at a slight angle upwards. Again, no big mystery, just the attempt to hit with the stronger/larger knuckles. Training punches were done in the horse stance or in simple training step through punches, and of course in the respective forms, and vertical punches done in the stance shifting "motion" of motion Kenpo techniques. 

Just to add: rightly or wrongly, we "wise" students, back in the mists of time used to judge other styles, other practioners by this as one criterion of their training or understanding. We found it kinda laughable that an opponent would try to use the horizontal fist when sparring, etc.


----------



## marlon (Apr 24, 2007)

Doc said:


> I believe I said that there is no horizontal punch in this manner.


 
i need to re read this thread it seems
marlon


----------



## Doc (Apr 24, 2007)

distalero said:


> For what it's worth: back in the day (primitive times ) the horizontal punch was described as only a training punch and never anything else, whatever sort of meaning and expostion of information was otherwise attached to it by various instructors. Just a training punch, even when it was explained that the only possible path for it to take as any sort of practical strike was as a decending punch, downward so that the first two knuckles would be the leading portion of the fist. So, no big mystery, just "If you use this, you have to punch down, like this".
> 
> The vertical punch was promoted as the punch to use when the path was horizontal to the ground and possibly at a slight angle upwards. Again, no big mystery, just the attempt to hit with the stronger/larger knuckles. Training punches were done in the horse stance or in simple training step through punches, and of course in the respective forms, and vertical punches done in the stance shifting "motion" of motion Kenpo techniques.
> 
> Just to add: rightly or wrongly, we "wise" students, back in the mists of time used to judge other styles, other practioners by this as one criterion of their training or understanding. We found it kinda laughable that an opponent would try to use the horizontal fist when sparring, etc.


BINGO!  The punch was utilized from a horse stance by the Chinese to train the *follow through* of the functional vertical punch without striking an object. Like many other aspects of the Chinese Arts, the Okinawan's and subsequently Japanese misinterpreted or misunderstood its purpose. Originally because Karate-do was without physical contact or application function and consisted only of kata, it was appropriate.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Apr 25, 2007)

Science aside, I think it's a matter of taste.  I can hit way harder with a vertical fist than a horizontal one and faster too.   I think palm heels are great but the wrist or palm can break too.  As for body targets, I like the nakataka ippon ken (middle knuckle out half a digit) to narrow surface area, especially rib shots (not in sparring though...).


----------



## JamesB (Apr 25, 2007)

distalero said:


> For what it's worth: back in the day (primitive times ) the horizontal punch was described as only a training punch and never anything else, whatever sort of meaning and expostion of information was otherwise attached to it by various instructors. Just a training punch, even when it was explained that the only possible path for it to take as any sort of practical strike was as a decending punch, downward so that the first two knuckles would be the leading portion of the fist. So, no big mystery, just "If you use this, you have to punch down, like this".
> 
> The vertical punch was promoted as the punch to use when the path was horizontal to the ground and possibly at a slight angle upwards. Again, no big mystery, just the attempt to hit with the stronger/larger knuckles. Training punches were done in the horse stance or in simple training step through punches, and of course in the respective forms, and vertical punches done in the stance shifting "motion" of motion Kenpo techniques.
> 
> Just to add: rightly or wrongly, we "wise" students, back in the mists of time used to judge other styles, other practioners by this as one criterion of their training or understanding. We found it kinda laughable that an opponent would try to use the horizontal fist when sparring, etc.


 


Doc said:


> BINGO! The punch was utilized from a horse stance by the Chinese to train the *follow through* of the functional vertical punch without striking an object. Like many other aspects of the Chinese Arts, the Okinawan's and subsequently Japanese misinterpreted or misunderstood its purpose. Originally because Karate-do was without physical contact or application function and consisted only of kata, it was appropriate.


 
Thankyou distalero and Doc, I think I'm finally seeing the significance of the Horizontal 'punch' - a most useful explanation indeed


----------



## teej (Apr 27, 2007)

Doc said:


> BINGO! The punch was utilized from a horse stance by the Chinese to train the *follow through* of the functional vertical punch without striking an object. Like many other aspects of the Chinese Arts, the Okinawan's and subsequently Japanese misinterpreted or misunderstood its purpose. Originally because Karate-do was without physical contact or application function and consisted only of kata, it was appropriate.


 
Doc, I agree but wonder about the term "misinterpreted". Most of Western Martial arts Japanese and Okinawan training occured after WW11. Not only did the West win, we dropped atomic "weapons of mass destruction". That would be very hard for me to forget if I lived there, especially if the winning forces we now occupying my country.

With that thinking in my mind, I have often wonder if the Japanese/Okinawans taught Westerners with some "intentional" incorrect aspects to their Martial Arts? Example; what you mentioned in the quote above possibly being a misinterpretation. Have you ever felt that some things like this were taught "intentionally incorrect" to possibly giving them the upper hand should they have to fight Westerners again?

Thank you, Teej


----------



## Doc (Apr 27, 2007)

teej said:


> Doc, I agree but wonder about the term "misinterpreted". Most of Western Martial arts Japanese and Okinawan training occured after WW11. Not only did the West win, we dropped atomic "weapons of mass destruction". That would be very hard for me to forget if I lived there, especially if the winning forces we now occupying my country.
> 
> With that thinking in my mind, I have often wonder if the Japanese/Okinawans taught Westerners with some "intentional" incorrect aspects to their Martial Arts? Example; what you mentioned in the quote above possibly being a misinterpretation. Have you ever felt that some things like this were taught "intentionally incorrect" to possibly giving them the upper hand should they have to fight Westerners again?
> 
> Thank you, Teej


Your thoughts have been echoed by others as well. I've been around long enough to see guys in the military get a black belt in the exact length of time they were stationed in country, after some hefty American dollars were paid. All they learned was how to "punch" and kick. Black Belts awarded in less than a year was very common with the average time being about 6 months.

But, the horizontal punch is universally seen in all facets of the Japanese and Okinawan arts as a staple of their training, especially in makiwara training and "basics" from a kiba dachi horse stance. This leads to the whole idea of a "training" mechanism misused or misinterpretated in application. Not unusual at all. Take the "mae geri" front kick, much like the "yoko geri" knife edge side kick as well, neither really exists in the Chinese Arts, so where did they come from? The most likely answers are misinterpretation, or an unknowledgeable "improvement."


----------



## marlon (Apr 27, 2007)

Doc said:


> I believe I said that there is no horizontal punch in this manner.


 
Just to be clear our 'horizontal punch strikes with the 2 larger knuckles in a position inbetween a back 2 knuckle and a vertical punch and rotates on contact.   Are you saying this punch does not exist as a downward strike that can push the opponent's center backwards?  Again i am just clarifying in order to understand...or are you saying that this motion is not called a horizontal punch

Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## Jdokan (Apr 27, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> Here is what I would say is the general rule: A 'vertical' punch is an intermediate range attack at height below about the armpit line. And a 'horizontal' punch is the longest range of punch, used for heights above that line. And it's a rule I rarely find reason to break.
> 
> If you dissect the "corkscrew" punch you will actually find both those punches in there, executed at their proper range and height. But myself, I would avoid striking the face with a punch.


The exception for the horizontal (front punch)would be striking downward to the pelvic triangle...Or using the the thrust to the nose in a rolling type stike to knock the face downwards...Otherwise makes sense to me......


----------



## Doc (Apr 27, 2007)

A "horizontal punch" in anatomical terms does not exist under any of the beforementioned circumstances, only the hyper-extension of the vertical punch. Beyond the follow through, it serves as a "brace" of the action, not an actual punch regardless of height. It does however, lose its ability to "brace" at angles that approximates anything in between the 90-degree angle forward of the shoulder when standing errect, to the 45-degree angle upwards. Human anatomical structure is significantly angle dependent in most cases.

The actual "horizontal punch," anatomically exist when the hand travels nearly parallel with the torso. It too includes the vertical in its extension, however in this instance the 'horizontal' retains its efficacy through the entire mechanical movement, as well as the 'bracng' action.

This punch exists in two of the forms of the commercial basic forms set, and is one of many applications in motion-kenpo that is absolutely correct once anatomically decoded for application.


----------

