# Speed and Power In Your Strikes



## Xue Sheng (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I know this is not the topic being discussed, but the above is wrong. It is not possible to apply full power at less than full speed. It is possible, however, to go full speed with no power.
> 
> A person may be able to apply more power by slowing down, because that person has not learned to integrate the proper end point timing at higher speeds, but full power requires full speed.
> 
> I have run across many people who fit into the above statement. But it is not that the block is too fast, or the punch is too fast, it is "operator error."


 
Actually without relaxation you can't have full power or full speed. And if you learn proper alignment and power flow you do not need full speed for full power.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I know this is not the topic being discussed, but the above is wrong. It is not possible to apply full power at less than full speed. It is possible, however, to go full speed with no power.
> 
> A person may be able to apply more power by slowing down, because that person has not learned to integrate the proper end point timing at higher speeds, but full power requires full speed.
> 
> I have run across many people who fit into the above statement. But it is not that the block is too fast, or the punch is too fast, it is "operator error."


 
I wasn't arguing at the fact that speed is a component of power. Power= force X speed. If a knockout takes Power of 200 and you have Speed of 99 and Force of 2, then you end up with not enough Power to do the job. If you bring the Speed down to 70 and the Force up to 3, then it's mission accomplished. The very things that make a punch as fast as it can be are the things that rob it of power, hence my statement of optimal ratios. Punching with only the arms is much faster than using the entire body, it's also much weaker of a punch. There's only so fast a person can move and have their entire force behind it.

Same thing holds true with learning. There's only so fast someone can go and still absorb all they need to achieve expertise.


----------



## Ray (Jan 3, 2008)

Danjo said:


> I wasn't arguing at the fact that speed is a component of power. Power= force X speed.


Help me understand your equation.  I am familiar with Force = Mass X acceleration.  Mass is enhanced by not just throwing the fist, but putting the body into the punch.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 3, 2008)

Ray said:


> Help me understand your equation. I am familiar with Force = Mass X acceleration. Mass is enhanced by not just throwing the fist, but putting the body into the punch.


 
Yep. Same thing I was talking about, but you said it better. 

Mass in this case would be weight transfer that needs to occur to generate maximum force behind the fist being thrown. The body has to have a certain frame that supports this weight transfer involving the alignment of the shoulders and elbows and timing of the weight shift. Lacking this, you fail to put mass behind your punch. It's like the difference between a boxer's jab and the right cross. The jab is faster,but lacks mass (being only the arm) and thus is less powerful than the cross which involves the weight of the whole body. Just because the cross is slower, doesn't mean that it's not the more powerful punch. The ratio involves less acceleration in the cross, but greater mass and thus delivers more force than the jab ever could. Not a lot of people getting knocked out by jabs. We see boxers absorbing jabs for 12 rounds and still stay on their feet. If they took far less crosses, they'd be out of the fight very quickly. All of this is a way of saying that speed isn't everything. Sorry to derail.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Danjo said:


> I wasn't arguing at the fact that speed is a component of power. Power= force X speed. If a knockout takes Power of 200 and you have Speed of 99 and Force of 2, then you end up with not enough Power to do the job. If you bring the Speed down to 70 and the Force up to 3, then it's mission accomplished.


 
Knockout accomplished perhaps.  But it is not FULL power, although it is more power.  Using your analogy, if you bring speed down to 70 and force up to 3, you are still capable of a speed of 99.  Maybe not at the same force level, but FULL power in your example would be speed of 99 and force of 3.

I do understand your point, and I agree with it, albeit not your description.



> There's only so fast a person can move and have their entire force behind it.


 
I agree.



> Same thing holds true with learning. There's only so fast someone can go and still absorb all they need to achieve expertise.


 
Yes, and like power, that number is different for everyone.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I do understand your point, and I agree with it, albeit not your description.


 
Ah, why can't everyone just agree with everything I say?---sigh---:wink:


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Ray said:


> Help me understand your equation. I am familiar with Force = Mass X acceleration. Mass is enhanced by not just throwing the fist, but putting the body into the punch.


 
F=ma

P=mv

Pretty similar for these purposes.  My point is that unless you punch with all of your mass at your top speed, then you are not using your full power.  You are only using the power that you are fully capable of at that moment.

I may be nitpicking, and if so, I apologize.  But if you have to slow down to hit harder, then you are not realizing the full potential of your body to generate power.  You may be hitting as hard as you can at that moment, and we may choose to call that "full power," but then what do you call it a year of work later when you can hit harder?


----------



## Danjo (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> what do you call it a year of work later when you can hit harder?


 
Fuller power?


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually without relaxation you can't have full power or full speed. And if you learn proper alignment and power flow you do not need full speed for full power.


 
I agree with statement #1 completely.

But power= mass x velocity.  Mathematically, if v is less than full v, then p is less than full p.  And yes, if m is less than full m, then p is also less than full p.

Full power = total mass x top speed.

Maybe somebody with special powers can move these posts to a new thread?  I apologize for veering.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Fuller power?


 
Nice.:lfao:


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Ah, why can't everyone just agree with everything I say?---sigh---:wink:


 
Where's the fun in that?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> F=ma
> 
> P=mv
> 
> ...



These are equations for point masses, which is a pretty poor approximation of the human body. The faster the fist moves and the heavier it is, sure; you can treat the fist as a point as long as it doesn't open on impact, I suppose. But the faster you throw a lightly packed snowball, the more mass it loses in flight. That doesn't happen with the body, but looking at that jointed assemblage as merely launching the fist as a projectile and analyzing it according to the equations of concerning point projectiles amounts to assuming the rest of the arm provides no drag.

Indeed, one expects, upon taking momentum to be your relevant quantity based on what you've written above, that

_p(t)=m(t)v(t)_

where _m(t) _is the amount of mass actually in the projectile at the given time and _v(t)_ is its velocity, and hence some sort of line integral along the "flight path" will likely be necessary to draw any interesting conclusion.

I might wonder whether some notion of impulse is the right way to translate "power" here. In any event, I am not convinced that your equations make any sense. If I punch you, what's _m_? The mass of my fist? Of my body? What's _v_? The velocity of my fist? When? Instantaneously, at the moment of impact, or averaged over the punch time?


----------



## tellner (Jan 4, 2008)

Once one starts tossing around "Force", "Work", "Power" and other physics terms it's best to make sure that they mean what one thinks the do. I'd suggest a trip to a general physics text or wikipedia for more precision. 

Lester Ingber has kindly made his classic text Karate: Kinematics and Dynamics available online.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2008)

tellner said:


> I'd suggest a trip to a general physics text or wikipedia for more precision.



I'm embarrassed by how often I tell my math. students that they can get good technical info. off Wikipedia. In principle it's unreliable but in practice it contains a _lot _of good info. that's easily accessible and well-linked.

The Lester Ingber link looks useful!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 4, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I agree with statement #1 completely.
> 
> But power= mass x velocity. Mathematically, if v is less than full v, then p is less than full p. And yes, if m is less than full m, then p is also less than full p.
> 
> ...


 
I highly doubt "Total Mass" is thrown... ever. If it was you would be throwing your body at them all the time with no root much like throwing a rock. And that is not exactly a good thing if you need to counter. 

Greater mass and less top speed get you the same thing.

Relax and you can move a lot of mass easily with little resistance and hit like a truck.

I'm a taiji guy it is what we do.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 4, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I highly doubt "Total Mass" is thrown... ever.


 
You are probably right.  Even if the whole body is moving the direction of the strike, and the end point timing is right, there is likely an antagonistic muscle hanging on somewhere, or the other hand chambering by moving the other direction.  

But, I never said it was.  Simply that, for their to be full power, the variables in the equation must also be "full."



> Greater mass and less top speed get you the same thing.


 
It may get you more power.  



> Relax and you can move a lot of mass easily with little resistance and hit like a truck.
> 
> I'm a taiji guy it is what we do.


 
I agree.  But you cannot slow down and hit full power.  The key is in perfect mechanics and perfect timing.  I doubt that the realization of real "full power strikes" is attainable.  That is one of the reasons that 40 years later, people still hit the bag everyday.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 4, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I might wonder whether some notion of impulse is the right way to translate "power" here. In any event, I am not convinced that your equations make any sense. If I punch you, what's _m_? The mass of my fist? Of my body? What's _v_? The velocity of my fist? When? Instantaneously, at the moment of impact, or averaged over the punch time?


 
Well, whether m is your fist or your body depends on whether or not you know how to punch.  It should be your body, but if your timing is off, it will be somewhere in between.  v would be velocity at the point where the measurement is being taken.  If you are aiming at a surface, it would be at impact, if you are trying to break ribs, it would be a couple of inches in.  

Impulse probably is a better approximation.  In any event, for the answer to be "full," all the variables have to be "full."  What everyone seems to be disputing is whether that is physically possible.  That is not the issue that I brought up.  

Kyoshi Roger Greene and I had this discussion a while back.  I was of the opinion that I could hit harder when I slowed down because my timing was better.  As are most of you.  And, yes, most people need to slow down to hit harder.  But Kyoshi's statement was:  "When you can operate at full speed with no loss of power, you have realized your full potential for power."

I think we continue to approach that level.  I am not sure anyone actually gets there.


----------



## tellner (Jan 5, 2008)

Tighten up and you have muscles working against each other. Relax everything except what you are moving at that moment and you are faster and more efficient.


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2008)

Folks,

I split these posts from the private lesson thread.  This is a good discussion and I didn't want to take away from the other thread.  Please continue any discussion about speed and power in strikes in this thread.

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 5, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> You are probably right. Even if the whole body is moving the direction of the strike, and the end point timing is right, there is likely an antagonistic muscle hanging on somewhere, or the other hand chambering by moving the other direction.
> 
> But, I never said it was. Simply that, for their to be full power, the variables in the equation must also be "full."


 
Actually you did say that



KenpoDave said:


> Full power = *total mass* x top speed.
> 
> .


 



KenpoDave said:


> I agree. But you cannot slow down and hit full power. The key is in perfect mechanics and perfect timing. I doubt that the realization of real "full power strikes" is attainable. That is one of the reasons that 40 years later, people still hit the bag everyday.


 
good body mechanics, proper alignment and relaxation not necessarily full speed. But then I doubt we will agree here and that is fine.


----------



## pete (Jan 5, 2008)

mass, velocity, and resistance are all EQUAL factors in determining POWER. you can't simply isolate one of them, and improve it while compromising the other two and expect positive results.

mass: improve by either adding (bulk up) or using more of what you already have.

velocity: NOT overall speed of doing a technique from start to finish as fast as possible, but increasing the quickness with which the strike is delivered from point of origin through target.

resistance: elimination of muscular tension and stiffness will eliminate resistance of the contractor muscles, which affects velocity. good posture and coordinated movement will eliminate resistance in acheiving whole body unity, which affects mass.

pete


----------



## Ray (Jan 5, 2008)

Acceleration, not velocity.  If I throw a punch at 60 MPH to a target that is backing away at 50 MPH, then I'm only accelerating the target 10 MPH.  If the target is approaching my weapon the the accleration and (potentially) the transfer of energy is greater.  Look at the techs you practice, which ones bring the next target toward your next strike?  If they do the opposite, you should think about whether your getting the effect you desire.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 5, 2008)

I was thinking a bit more about this Full power = total mass x top speed and you will have to forgive me but physics was a long time ago so I had to look the definition of power up and to be honest speed enters into under force
Force = Mass x Acceleration.

If you have a greater mass accelerating slower that a smaller mass you can get the same or greater force.
A sparrow going 10 mph has MUCH less force than a Bus going 0.5 mph

So if you throw a punch at great speed and are too tense you actually are moving less mass forward but if you relax you can potentially create more force with less speed because you are accelerating greater mass.

Work = force X distance

Work is needed for power
Power on the other hand is the rate at which work is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of energy required or expended for a given unit of time. As a rate of change of work done or the energy of a subsystem, power is:
P = W/t
where
P is power 
W is work 
t is time.


----------



## tellner (Jan 5, 2008)

Velocity, Acceleration, Jerk, Thump, Work, Power, Total Kinetic Energy transferred, or something else entirely. 

Which of these is the important quantity and why?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 5, 2008)

tellner said:


> Velocity, Acceleration, Jerk, Thump, Work, Power, Total Kinetic Energy transferred, or something else entirely.
> 
> Which of these is the important quantity and why?


 
It is all just part of an attempt to show where Power comes from because of the definition supplied by KenpoDave



> Full power = total mass x top speed.


----------



## Ray (Jan 6, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> But power= mass x velocity. Mathematically, if v is less than full v, then p is less than full p. And yes, if m is less than full m, then p is also less than full p.
> 
> Full power = total mass x top speed.


Now I see!  You're saying power is "mass x velocity" because the physics formula is "p = mv"  No, "p" is not power, it is momentum.

And now, after all these posts, I have to ask the question.  What do you want to accomplish with that power?  Is the "power" to break an arm going to be the same speed and mass as the "power" to knock someone out; and is that going to be the same as to push someone away from you?

BTW: power = work / time.  It is the rate at which work is performed, or engergy transmitted.


----------



## still learning (Jan 6, 2008)

Hello, All those things are easier to say than do....in a actual fight with the adrenline and fear kicking in....most of us will find it hard to relax?

...both sides hitting, blocking, and trying not to get hurt?  UM

Can we control our strikes?  

NO matter your power or strenghts? ....it is where you hit that is more important.

Also to hit the nose or eyes or groin...does not take much power or speed ....just enough to hurt it (what is just enough?) maybe a little speed and power? .....2X?   (normal person)

Again each person is build different....THE TRUTH IS MORE RELAX TO ACTUAL STRIKE/BLOCK....the more power and speed....very simple truths

Everyone can build themselves for more muscles...therefore can gain more power and speed......there is a point most of us can get too...

Remember everyone can kick,punch,block...no matter size or skill....success will come to timing and the right tarkets...a child can hit you in the groin (right place) and drop you...true?

 ( faster you go? ...the faster you get there...)   food is better eaten slow...speed can kill here?

PS: :Life is more fun when pace is slower.....hitting back is more fun if one is faster and more powerful...life must have balance of the right speed.

Kissing can be fast or slow....which is more powerful?

Aloha, better to duck faster?


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 6, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually you did say that


 
No, you said that "total mass" was likely never thrown.  I was commenting that I did not say it was.  However, for there to actually be "full power," it is my opinion that total mass must be thrown as well.

I am of the opinion that "full power" is one of those goals that you always strive for but never reach.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 6, 2008)

So, let me ask, because I don't think that anyone yet has actually addressed the point that I brought up...

Does anyone believe that a full power can be achieved by hitting slower than you are capable of hitting?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 6, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> No, you said that "total mass" was likely never thrown. I was commenting that I did not say it was. However, for there to actually be "full power," it is my opinion that total mass must be thrown as well.
> 
> I am of the opinion that "full power" is one of those goals that you always strive for but never reach.


 
You do realize that this is now, at best, useless semantics don't you?

OK, you say you didn't say it but it does from the formula you supplied and now you are saying it.



KenpoDave said:


> However, for there to actually be "full power," it is my opinion that *total mass* must be thrown as well.


 

And to throw total mass means you are throwing yourself at your opponent much like a rock is thrown from a catapult and if that is the case you have only one shot because you are now flying though the air at your opponent and have no root. And if youre lucky your opponent does not move or redirect your total mass 

This is getting a bit to silly for me now, later


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 6, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> So, let me ask, because I don't think that anyone yet has actually addressed the point that I brought up...
> 
> Does anyone believe that a full power can be achieved by hitting slower than you are capable of hitting?


 
Try reading this again and you tell me

Force = Mass x Acceleration.

If you have a greater mass accelerating slower that a smaller mass you can get the same or greater force.

A sparrow going 10 mph has MUCH less force than a Bus going 0.5 mph

So if you throw a punch at great speed and are too tense you actually are moving less mass forward but if you relax you can potentially create more force with less speed because you are accelerating greater mass.

Work = force X distance

Work is needed for power
Power on the other hand is the rate at which work is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of energy required or expended for a given unit of time. As a rate of change of work done or the energy of a subsystem, power is:
P = W/t
where
P is power 
W is work 
t is time.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 6, 2008)

This whole thread has started to make my head hurt. When it comes to physics, I made a good history major so sorry for starting this whole mess. Let's put away our pocket protectors and get back into our gis.


----------



## pete (Jan 6, 2008)

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello, All those things are easier to say than do....in a actual fight with the adrenline and fear kicking in....most of us will find it hard to relax?
> 
> ...both sides hitting, blocking, and trying not to get hurt? UM


 
yes, and that is why we learn meditation and train to use those techniques under stress.  in other words, first learn what the adrenal glands do and feel the triggers... then practice dissolving the physical (tensions) and the emotional (fear) to eliminate hesitation, anticipation, and other reactive behaviors during altercation.

pete


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 7, 2008)

Another point I'd like to bring up that I haven't seen is it also depends on where you are in relation to your opponent. You could have a fast, well timed, and powerful punch to the correct target, But if you're too far away from your opponent or not in a good position, the punch will not be as effective. I've seen a lot of ineffective kickers with great form.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 7, 2008)

Josh Oakley said:


> Another point I'd like to bring up that I haven't seen is it also depends on where you are in relation to your opponent. You could have a fast, well timed, and powerful punch to the correct target, But if you're too far away from your opponent or not in a good position, the punch will not be as effective. I've seen a lot of ineffective kickers with great form.


Position is the third consideration.
Sean


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 7, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> You do realize that this is now, at best, useless semantics don't you?




It happens when you don't address the point.




> OK, you say you didn't say it but it does from the formula you supplied and now you are saying it.


 
Sigh.  Again, I am saying that full power requires total mass.  You are saying that throwing total mass is not beneficial because one is not anchored, and you are saying that because of my example, I have said that total mass can or should be thrown.  That is not what I have said.  It may be useless semantics, but you are not addressing what I said in the context that I said it.

So, I will ask again, no semantics...Do you, Xue Sheng, believe that you can strike with full power at less than full speed?  

See, I believe this...If, by throwing a strike, block, kick, etc. at full speed, you sacrifice power, then you should slow down and get your timing right.  Once your timing is right, you should start to speed back up and maintain that correct timing.  




> And to throw total mass means you are throwing yourself at your opponent much like a rock is thrown from a catapult and if that is the case you have only one shot because you are now flying though the air at your opponent and have no root. And if you&#8217;re lucky your opponent does not move or redirect your &#8220;total mass&#8221;


 
I am not disputing that.  Personally, I believe that training with full power in mind is useful.  Attempting to strike full power in a fight is a gamble, for the reasons you stated.  I think it is important to know the difference between a fully committed strike and an over committed strike.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 7, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Try reading this again and you tell me
> 
> Force = Mass x Acceleration.
> 
> ...


 
You are addressing more power, less power, greater power.  

What about full power?  
P=W/t
W=Fd
P=Fd/t
F=ma
d/t=v (velocity)
P=mav

So, Power = mass x acceleration x velocity.  Thanks, that makes good sense to me.

Now, it is simple multiplication.  If any of the three variables m, a, or v, is less than it's full potential, then P is not it's full potential either.


----------



## Ray (Jan 7, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> You are addressing more power, less power, greater power.
> 
> What about full power?
> P=W/t
> ...



Acceleration is (final velocity minus starting velocity) divided by time.
So no, P does not equal mass * acceleration * velocity.
And no, 'P' is MOMENTUM, not power in P=MV


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> Acceleration is (final velocity minus starting velocity) divided by time.
> So no, P does not equal mass * acceleration * velocity.
> And no, 'P' is MOMENTUM, not power in P=MV


 
Doing the algebra from P=W/t, that is what you come up with.

If P=W/t, and W=Fd, and F=ma, then W=(ma)d, and P=mad/t, and since d/t=v, then P=(ma)v.  If P=(ma)v is incorrect, sorry, I was working off the equation posted.

Here it is from www.physicsclassroom.com

"The expression for power is work/time. Now since the expression for work is force*displacement, the expression for power can be rewritten as (force*displacement)/time. Yet since the expression for velocity is displacement/time, the expression for power can be rewritten once more as force*velocity. This is shown below.






Now, if Power=Force times velocity, and Force=mass times acceleration, then yes, Power does equal mass times acceleration times velocity.  It is pretty straightforward.

What I have discovered over the last day, is that no one will answer the question...Can you hit full power without hitting full speed?  Everyone became wrapped up in either what the equation actually is, or whether total mass can or should be thrown, that the point was never addressed.

It is a simple yes or no question...Does anyone believe, using the above equation posted from www.physicsclassroom.com, that full power can be achieved without full force or full velocity?


----------



## pete (Jan 8, 2008)

dave, i've been following this thread and agree with your deductions.  i orignally threw 'resistance' into the mix, as this is a human/physical application of power, therefore 'technique' has a lot to do with the actual manifestation. however, i can agree that resistance is a negative sub-cat of both force and velocity, a factor that would limit one's ability to reach full potential, therefore limit full power.

however, where i see this 'resistance/technique' thing coming more into play is in actual usage, where one may have to govern his total power by self inflicted resistenace, or 'counter balance' to avoid 'over-committment' of the attack.

pete


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 8, 2008)

pete said:


> dave, i've been following this thread and agree with your deductions. i orignally threw 'resistance' into the mix, as this is a human/physical application of power, therefore 'technique' has a lot to do with the actual manifestation. however, i can agree that resistance is a negative sub-cat of both force and velocity, a factor that would limit one's ability to reach full potential, therefore limit full power.
> 
> however, where i see this 'resistance/technique' thing coming more into play is in actual usage, where one may have to govern his total power by self inflicted resistenace, or 'counter balance' to avoid 'over-committment' of the attack.
> 
> pete


 
I agree.


----------



## Matt (Jan 8, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> It is a simple yes or no question...Does anyone believe, using the above equation posted from www.physicsclassroom.com, that full power can be achieved without full force or full velocity?



No, the equation is not up to the job. There is one small problem. Well, actually a whole bunch of them.

 Muscle contraction strength and speed of contraction follow a curve, and the highest force production occurs at slow speeds for any given muscle. 1RM lifts are slow. 15 RM lifts are much faster. 

 Striking is a complex kinetic chain and requires many muscles to act in a coordinated sequential pattern. 

 Different parts of the body will be acting at different velocities. 

 There is probably an 'optimum power' sweet spot, and it's most likely not at the fastest or slowest contraction speed. 

 There are several segments of the body that work as relatively discrete masses and the force should probably be calculated independently and in a best case scenario _might_ be able to be 'summed' with high efficiency. 

Basically, the physics formulas you grabbed are insufficient to provide even a reasonable approximation of 'optimum power'. 

It's sort of like why baseball bats have a 'sweet spot' that's not at the end, even though the basic formula for radial velocity would indicate that the tip of the bat would be the best place to make contact with the ball as it would be the longest lever arm.

Essentially this is where biomechanics diverges from basic free body physics. When calculating projectiles, 45 degrees is the obvious choice for launch angle for maximum distance. Strangely enough however, when doing the long jump, 17 to 22 degrees is the optimum takeoff. It's sort of an apples and oranges thing and isn't especially intuitive. 

Matt


----------



## Ray (Jan 8, 2008)

Matt said:


> No, the equation is not up to the job. There is one small problem. Well, actually a whole bunch of them.
> ...
> 
> Essentially this is where biomechanics diverges from basic free body physics. When calculating projectiles, 45 degrees is the obvious choice for launch angle for maximum distance. Strangely enough however, when doing the long jump, 17 to 22 degrees is the optimum takeoff. It's sort of an apples and oranges thing and isn't especially intuitive.


Totally awesome post.


----------



## Matt (Jan 8, 2008)

Ray said:


> Totally awesome post.



Thanks, just showing off my Phys. Ed.  / Nerd conjunction. 

I tried to calculate it all out once, and I'm going to go try to find the full page of circles, arrows and paragraphs so I can a.) avoid re-doing it and b.) show what a mess it can become. 

If I can I'll scan it and post a link. 

Matt


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 9, 2008)

Matt said:


> No, the equation is not up to the job. There is one small problem. Well, actually a whole bunch of them.
> 
>  Muscle contraction strength and speed of contraction follow a curve, and the highest force production occurs at slow speeds for any given muscle. 1RM lifts are slow. 15 RM lifts are much faster.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks.  So, you are saying that optimum power is full power, and that one can punch at full power at less than full speed.  Do you have an equation that can reasonable approximate this?


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 9, 2008)

pete said:


> dave, i've been following this thread and agree with your deductions. i orignally threw 'resistance' into the mix, as this is a human/physical application of power, therefore 'technique' has a lot to do with the actual manifestation. however, i can agree that resistance is a negative sub-cat of both force and velocity, a factor that would limit one's ability to reach full potential, therefore limit full power.
> 
> however, where i see this 'resistance/technique' thing coming more into play is in actual usage, where one may have to govern his total power by self inflicted resistenace, or 'counter balance' to avoid 'over-committment' of the attack.
> 
> pete


 
Hi Pete, Dave and others,

I've been reading all the posts and I think that we are now into math instead of doing EFFECTIVE SPEED AND EFFECTIVE POWER.

And I've been asked privately by Dave to post on this topic, so here's a quickee.

I still remember the first time I heard Ed Parker (1975) ask the question, "do you need a cannon to kill a sparrow? Or is a bb gun good enough?"

It was one of the most massive epiphanies I've had in the martial arts. God Damn! I don't need to continually attempt to develop power! Wow!

Monday night I was teaching a medical doctor a speed (invisible to the uke) Counter-offensive technology that had as one of it's strikes a knockout (flash point). 

I mentioned to him that it was one of the Primary Electricals of the human body and would take out balance and vision instantly (just as if you'd shot him through the head on the "T" Zone with a .45 cal), so the uke would collasp, but would be just fine in 3-5 seconds as long as you did it with very light penetration.

When I teach I always demonstrate on real bodies, and I always use yound strong men (between 18-35) so their are the results I'm looking for but no lasting damage due to aging and deterioation of the body.

So I dropped the young strong uke to his knees with a real light pisaform strike to GB 22. He fell like a brick, but was immediately okay. And, "no" to the mismatchers, it was NOT hypnosis.

The MD goes, "awe, come on. That couldn't drop him".

I smiled at him, "so let me hit you".

So I did and he fell also.

He got to his feet and said, "but you hit me harder than you hit him".

The rest of the black belts starting laughing at him. He was cool. He took it okay.

I then taught him the location of the impact zone. The angle. The exact weapon to use. How to do the Bamboo breath to lock in the mass to that straight line strike with a circle on it's end.

So he finally believed it worked when he could make it work.

Then he stated, but it's not an electrical point. They don't exist. It must be a nerve plexus under the mastoid.

I told him, "Doc, whether your education has taught you about them or not, there is six thousand years of Traditional Chinese Medicine that has already proved they exist and can be used for healing and for attack".

He looked at me funny, and then stopped his arguing.

Back in 1990 I did write a best selling GIANT manual on "Speed Fighting, Speed Hitting Secrets of the Masters".

I think you have that book Dave, and if you want to toss out one or two points of that old book, you have my permission.

The point of speed is it gives the ability to increase effectiveness, deception and attack and counter-attack abilities. So we do have things that do increase your speed.

Other points that have NOT been addressed here are the many different types of effective speed.

I'm curious to why that is so.

Then we have many tactics of decreasing their speed, and adding to their confusion and reaction time.

I've got some very stuff I've not yet published on this. I'll see if I can find it. 

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 9, 2008)

what exactly is meant power?  i understand the speed part, but i don't know what technique or what task is to be achieved. because there could be severlal possible kinds of power.  like the destructive power of causing shock or damage to the enemy or brick or whatever.  then there's the power to move mass- like to throw or push someone. - talking about leverage etc-there are even several powers working to create a kind of effect.  
at times fast motion could be powerful, other times quick ones.  when completely trapped the body will gather stregth and then shake violently to attempt to become free.  
 but i find it interesting nevertheless to compare striking with just the arms or with the entire body.  the body is more powerful but the hands are much faster and harder to see coming.-therefore more suited for stunning. 
there is something about the motion of the attack as well as all things in life that the energy follows some sort of 'conrolled release'- 
in fighting, the opponents engage with the precise intention of concealing the timing and or the nature of their actions.  closing in while in some way looking to hit the other or to close in as a defensive counterstrike also to strike in some way. there is a buildup of energy which is released---.  

j


----------



## Danjo (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> When I teach I always demonstrate on real bodies, and I always use yound strong men (between 18-35) so their are the results I'm looking for but no lasting damage due to aging and deterioation of the body.
> 
> So I dropped the young strong uke to his knees with a real light pisaform strike to GB 22. He fell like a brick, but was immediately okay. And, "no" to the mismatchers, it was NOT hypnosis.
> 
> ...


 
Forgive me for extracting this part of your post without the rest of it, but I have a question regarding this.

I've seen your video on YouTube and read the above and this was what I noticed: The people that you demo on and what you describe above show the person standing still to recieve the attack. If something has to be done so precisely, "location, angle, exact weapon and the bamboo tech etc.", how practical is it in a fighting situation? For instance, I would have my guard up and be moving as well as attacking at the same time. How would this type of attack be useful against that?

One might only need a BB Gun to kill a Sparrow at rest, but a game bird in flight requires a shotgun.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 10, 2008)

Danjo said:


> I've seen your video on YouTube and read the above and this was what I noticed: The people that you demo on and what you describe above show the person standing still to recieve the attack. If something has to be done so precisely, "location, angle, exact weapon and the bamboo tech etc.", how practical is it in a fighting situation?


 
Even though this is not on topic and I have covered it elsewhere on martialtalk, that 5 minute demo of speed waza's is just that, a "demo of speed waza's". It is not a bar fight. It is not a cage fight. It is not a sparring match. It is a demonstration of a few (a very SMALL amount)specific DRILLS used by me and my students to gain awesomely effective speed and power and accuracy.

A gentleman on kenpotalk asked me if we had any of those drills. I said, "yes". Then I got a few of my students and spent 10 minutes with them SHOWING the drills. Then, as a freebee, my son put those simple DRILLS up on you tube for that one person.

Again, they were DRILLS, like typing drills. Here, let me give you a simple example of DRILLS! aaaaaa bbbbbbb cccccccc ddddd eeeee fffffff gggggg hhhhhhhhh iiiiiiiiii jjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkkkk lllllllll mmmmmmmm nnnnnnnnnn ooooooo ppppppppp qqqqqqqqqq rrrrrrrrrrr ssssssss tttttttttt uuuuuuuuuu vvvvvvvvvvv wwwwww xxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyy zzzzzzzzzzzzz! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS! DRILLS!

And I did produce other DVD's (about 370 videos back then, 20 years ago) on "Secrets of Speed Attack" and "Secrets of Championship Sparring" and "Secrets of Speed Fighting" (and many other topics) which go over more advanced DRILLS for exactly what you are asking about.

And at GOE 2007, one of the SPEED demos I did was have a black belt "hit me", and even though he started FIRST, I stopped timed him and off angled him and hit him 8 times before his punch got close, then I blocked it.

But of course he wasn't really trying, so I had him hit me again, and he really did try. So I could only hit him 5 times that time before his punch got close enough to block.

But of course he wasn't really trying and everyone knows that Speed Hitting is not possible or effective, so I had him hit me again, and he really, really, really did try. So that last time I could only hit him 3 times before his punch got close enough to block.

And, of course, even though I'd never met the person before, we must have faked it, right? Because it can't be REAL effective right?

But you were NOT in that workshop so you missed it. I did have it filmed and many people have enjoyed that workshop on DVD. KenpoJoe was also there and he filmed it also (with my permission, but only for his OWN study!).

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
ps. I'm confused to why no one has answered my questions. They were really good questions, that if you THINK ABOUT THE ANSWERS, it will really help your speed skills.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 10, 2008)

Danjo said:


> One might only need a BB Gun to kill a Sparrow at rest, but a game bird in flight requires a shotgun.


 
Your logic (?) is so funny.

I couldn't pass up you changing what I said that Ed Parker said.

And when I was a kid I did kill a lot of birbs with my bb gun. So did my brother. And when my kids were growing up they did kill a lot of birds with their bb guns.

Maybe you NEED PRACTICE?

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
Ps. I really do suggest that you research a personality profile called "mismatching" and another one called "Polarity responder". It might be an epiphanity for you. But I really don't care either way.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 10, 2008)

pete said:


> however, where i see this 'resistance/technique' thing coming more into play is in actual usage, where one may have to govern his total power by self inflicted resistenace, or 'counter balance' to avoid 'over-committment' of the attack.
> 
> pete


 
Quite true. 

Sometimes, we have to remind ourselves, that parts of the body have to relax, or else, we end up creating that resistance.  Often times, this can be seen when someone's simply trying too darn hard to generate power.  

For example, I've had some rather large (physically strong) students, who, when they first started training, thought that they had to tense their whole body when throwing a punch.  When doing so, they'd even tense the shoulders (trapezius), which hindered their ability to accelerate.  

Trying to get some folks to relax, especially when they're new, and nervous, can be difficult.  There are even times, where you may have to tell them to tense a different part of their body, in order to make another part relax.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 10, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> Even though this is not on topic and I have covered it elsewhere on martialtalk, that 5 minute demo of speed waza's is just that, a "demo of speed waza's". It is not a bar fight. It is not a cage fight. It is not a sparring match. It is a demonstration of a few (a very SMALL amount)specific DRILLS used by me and my students to gain awesomely effective speed and power and accuracy.
> 
> A gentleman on kenpotalk asked me if we had any of those drills. I said, "yes". Then I got a few of my students and spent 10 minutes with them SHOWING the drills. Then, as a freebee, my son put those simple DRILLS up on you tube for that one person.
> 
> ...


 
Wow. Get worked up much? 

Might be cool to see the video you are mentioning to make your point. As to the rest, you're clearly answering questions that I didn't ask. In terms of effectiveness though, that has yet to be demonstrated. Hitting someone 8 times with a bb gun isn't going to do a lot of damage.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 10, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> Your logic (?) is so funny.
> 
> I couldn't pass up you changing what I said that Ed Parker said.
> 
> ...


 
I don't see the point in practicing with weapons designed to kill the equivalent of sparrows at rest when it's far more useful to be able to kill larger game birds in flight.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 10, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> Ps. I really do suggest that you research a personality profile called "mismatching" and another one called "Polarity responder". It might be an epiphanity for you. But I really don't care either way.


 
I might suggest you research the terms "Flim Flam" or "Huckster." But whatever.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 10, 2008)

a lame riddle

what for do you need fingers if you have a palm. what do you need a palm for if you have fingers?
lol


----------



## thardey (Jan 10, 2008)

kaizasosei said:


> a lame riddle
> 
> what for do you need fingers if you have a palm. what do you need a palm for if you have fingers?
> lol



Indeed, one is useless without the other.


I was taught that Momentum = Mass x Velocity, which was very helpful in my football career as a lineman. Whoever had the greater momentum would move the other guy. So, since I was often half the weight of the other guys, if I got moving to twice the speed, then our momentum would be equal. Of course, since I was smaller, I could accelerate faster. After the initial collision, I would be at a disadvantage, because of the less strength, but then I would resort to leverage, crab-blocking, taunting, etc to keep the advantage.

Then in Karate I was taught that while momentum has its uses, particularly to knock someone over, it was "damaging energy" that we are after. I try to "dent" the kicking bag, not knock it over. I may have been taught wrong, but this was described as "kinetic energy." The equation for that is 1/2 mass x (velocity[squared]). That is, if you double the mass, you double the energy, but if you double the velocity, you quadruple the energy. That's why it's easier to break board with speed than just by pushing.

Now, I may have been taught wrong, and I'm neither a physics or math major, so kinetic energy may not be what we're dealing with after all.

But if it is, then how to apply it to a human being, say, throwing a punch? Okay, in sparring, I throw close to maximum velocity on a punch, however, I never tighten up on contact. This means that while my velocity is high, my mass (for the sake of transfer of energy) is only the weight of my fist and forearm. If I loosen my fist, then I slow down that transfer over a longer period of time, and widen the transfer area = Little or no damage caused.

If I tighten my fist, with the proper knuckle alignment, and proper use of my body, then the mass involved increases significantly, as well as shortening the time over which the energy is transferred, and transferring it into a smaller area. At the moment of impact, I would be increasing the mass to include some percentage of my body weight, (At this point I'm out of my league, since I don't know how much stances affect overall mass and such.) But suffice to say that the mass is increased, speed is high, and damage is caused.

On the other hand, If I am already touching my partner/opponent, and I push really hard, I may move him, but I probably won't hurt him unless he trips and lands on the floor. (In which case it's the impact with the floor that got him.) That's a lot of mass, but no speed.

It's like shooting the above mentioned shotgun, without having it pushed tight against your shoulder. If you give it enough room to develop speed, then it will bruise your shoulder, but if it is tight to begin with, it will only push you.

So, my answer to the original question, as I understood it is, that no, you cannot develop full transfer of energy without speed. That is, it is not worth sacrificing speed in order to utilize more mass (or strength.) Speed is twice as effective as mass (practically speaking mass=strength) at causing damage. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't regain the use of some of that mass by tightening up at the point of impact, which is ideal.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 10, 2008)

Thanks for responding.



Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> ps. I'm confused to why no one has answered my questions. They were really good questions, that if you THINK ABOUT THE ANSWERS, it will really help your speed skills.


 
I don't recall seeing questions.  Could you repost them?


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 10, 2008)

thardey said:


> I was taught that Momentum = Mass x Velocity, which was very helpful in my football career as a lineman. Whoever had the greater momentum would move the other guy. So, since I was often half the weight of the other guys, if I got moving to twice the speed, then our momentum would be equal. Of course, since I was smaller, I could accelerate faster. After the initial collision, I would be at a disadvantage, because of the less strength, but then I would resort to leverage, crab-blocking, taunting, etc to keep the advantage.
> 
> Then in Karate I was taught that while momentum has its uses, particularly to knock someone over, it was "damaging energy" that we are after. I try to "dent" the kicking bag, not knock it over. I may have been taught wrong, but this was described as "kinetic energy." The equation for that is 1/2 mass x (velocity[squared]). That is, if you double the mass, you double the energy, but if you double the velocity, you quadruple the energy. That's why it's easier to break board with speed than just by pushing.
> 
> ...


 
Doesn't sound to me like you were taught wrong.  Thanks.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 13, 2008)

It seems the physics discussion mostly worked itself out to before I got here.  Oh well, next time.


The discussion seems to have moved from the theoretical physics into more practical matters of application, and effective speed.  I do agree with KenpoDave that speed done properly does not sacrifice mass, and would be 'effective speed,' as opposed to someone just trying to be fast by itself.



Doc LaTourrette brought up a good point in his question though, that there is more than 1 type of speed in practical application, some of which have nothing to do with the scientific definition.


It doesnt matter what velocity you are moving at; if your opponent doesnt see it until it hits them you were quick as lightning.


Conversely, if you spend time winding up to the other side of the room you could have the fastest fist in the world and youd still be slow.



Anthony


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 13, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Danjo*
> 
> Hitting someone 8 times with a bb gun isn't going to do a lot of damage.



Not if you aim for their little toe.  The left eye, however, or the right eye, trachea, open mouth, right testicle...

It is the same point as hitting sparrows in flight with a BB gun.  A matter of practice(and awareness).


----------



## Danjo (Jan 13, 2008)

Wanderer said:


> Not if you aim for their little toe. The left eye, however, or the right eye, trachea, open mouth, right testicle...
> 
> It is the same point as hitting sparrows in flight with a BB gun. A matter of practice(and awareness).


 
You won't be able to do that if the person is moving and attacking you at the same time any more than you'd be able to hit that proverbial sparrow if it was swooping at you. The areas you mention are going to be the best protected by anyone with experience and thus even more difficult to hit.

Practicing to hit someone with three to five solid shots in a combination of kicks and punches, keeping aware of their autonomic reflex reactions and making sure that you can put real power into them is far better than trying to see if you can nail someone 16 times per second in the forehead with your fingertips while they stand there with their hands at their sides. Then if you continually practice this on several differnt people of varying sizes and quickness, you can get a pretty good feel for things. True, it's still only a drill, or "DRILL DRILL DRILL" if you prefer to rant like a child, but one that is going to go a longer way to making you a real fighter. 

Speed is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. George Forman's punches looked like they took a week to land sometimes, but when they did, it knocked the opponent to the opposite side of the ring.


----------



## LawDog (Jan 13, 2008)

In a live situation your opponents doorway patterns, including ranging, will change rapidly. Your opponent will be striking back with high flow patterns as well.
When he is injured, tired etc, tyou will have the opportunity to single out a specific point of injury.
Injure then take out.
:boxing:


----------



## Danjo (Jan 13, 2008)

Of course, everything I'm saying goes right out the window when you're dealing with someone with ESP and Remote Viewing capabilities like the "Mind Master" who can obviously tell what you're going to throw before you even know yourself.

http://www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com/


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 13, 2008)

Wanderer said:


> It seems the physics discussion mostly worked itself out to before I got here. Oh well, next time.
> 
> 
> The discussion seems to have moved from the theoretical physics into more practical matters of application, and effective speed. I do agree with KenpoDave that speed done properly does not sacrifice mass, and would be 'effective speed,' as opposed to someone just trying to be fast by itself.
> ...


 
Yes.  Quick vs. Fast would make for an interesting discussion.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 16, 2008)

> Originally posted by *Danjo*
> You won't be able to do that if the person is moving and attacking you at the same time



A lot of people tend to dismiss things out of hand.
I'm not saying that you do, but how do you know that it's not possible?  Running a 4 minute mile used to be considered scientifically impossible.

Anthony


----------



## Danjo (Jan 16, 2008)

Wanderer said:


> A lot of people tend to dismiss things out of hand.
> I'm not saying that you do, but how do you know that it's not possible? Running a 4 minute mile used to be considered scientifically impossible.
> 
> Anthony


 
Experience.


----------



## Wanderer (Jan 16, 2008)

> Originally posted by *KenpoDave*
> Yes.  Quick vs. Fast would make for an interesting discussion.



It's easy when you get behind your opponent, which is a lot of fun to do in a sparring match, but there are other ways too.

One I noticed as a teenager, when my father had me 'attack' him to see what I was learning.  I threw a combo, front snap kick to the groin(pulled of course), following through with a punch.
He kept telling me that I was telegraphing the punch; That I would shift my body a certain way right before throwing my punch every time.  No matter what I did, I couldn't find a way to fix what he was talking about.

It took me a while to realize, that he had *never seen my kick.*  The dozen times I pulled my foot an inch from his groin, he never even knew that I threw a kick, because of the angle at which it came up.  Unless we actually tilt our head down, we can't see past our cheekbones, and any strike that comes up close to the body is hidden.

Does anyone have a story of another way?

Anthony


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 16, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Experience.


 
So, in your experience, you are not quick enough or fast enough to accurately strike a moving target?

But, are you more accurate now than you used to be?

Do you expect to be more accurate, say, a year from now, than you are now?

Moving targets are certainly more difficult to hit, but by no means impossible.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 16, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> So, in your experience, you are not quick enough or fast enough to accurately strike a moving target?
> 
> But, are you more accurate now than you used to be?
> 
> ...


 
Ummm...try sticking to what I actually said for a change.

You can't pull off 8 hits to vital points in one second against a moving opponent who is fighting you and has his guard up.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 16, 2008)

Never mind.

Thanks, though, to everyone who participated, especially those of you that addressed my original question.  I learned a great deal from this thread, re-examined some things, and sought out the source of some of my information for clarification.

So now it is time to take what I have learned back to the mat.


----------

