# Proper Punching



## MJS (Jun 8, 2008)

This is part 2 of a series of threads on the proper way to do our Kenpo.   Part 1 was proper kicking.  So in this thread, I would like to talk about punching.  There is discussion on the proper anatomical way to execute your stirkes to get the most out of them in addition to avoid injury, both at the time of execution as well as long term.

So..on with the discussion.  What do you feel is the best way to get the most out of your punch? 

Mike


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2008)

MJS said:


> What do you feel is the best way to get the most out of your punch?



As Mr. Pick said this last Friday, inertia, rotation and marriage of gravity.  To that I would add proper alignment of your hand, which won't increase the force, but will protect your hand and help transfer that force.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 8, 2008)

Contact with the first and second knuckles, align the metacarpals with the radius and ulna. Fire the hip first, don't lock the elbow.  Tight fist. Hit the heavy bag, it can't lie and it's your best indicator.


----------



## kenpofighter (Jun 8, 2008)

Proper rotation on your punch.

Align your punch according to your target. (Nother words if you are              punching to the ribs align your punch to match the line of the ribs; not spread across the ribs).

Tense your fist on impact.

Use your first two knuckles to punch with.

Hit your target hard and don't miss!


----------



## REH2 (Jun 8, 2008)

Keep your elbows in close to your body unless your throwing a hook or an overhand.  More power, quicker and harder for your opponent to detect.   Of course, this is in conjunction with proper rotation and alignment.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Fire the hip first...



Fire the foot first.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Fire the foot first.


Please explain ...  

You don't have to move (fire) your foot to punch, but I guess you do have to make sure it is firmly rooted.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 9, 2008)

I've been working on NOT squeezing my fist at all, and not tensing my arm, even at the point of impact.

My heavy bag reports "OW".


----------



## MattJ (Jun 9, 2008)

Quoting myself from a similar thread here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=987052#post987052


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Please explain ...
> 
> You don't have to move (fire) your foot to punch, but I guess you do have to make sure it is firmly rooted.



You do have to move your foot to get maximum power.  In a classic kenpo reverse punch, the back foot rotates from a 45 angle to pointing straight ahead into a forward bo.  Boxers do something similar, although their heels tend to raise up.  The acceleration of mass begins in the foot by pushing off the floor and rotating, through the hip, then the shoulder, all rotating and entraining together and joining the ground to the end of your fist.  More rotation + more back up mass = more power.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 9, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> You do have to move your foot to get maximum power. In a classic kenpo reverse punch, the back foot rotates from a 45 angle to pointing straight ahead into a forward bo. Boxers do something similar, although their heels tend to raise up. The acceleration of mass begins in the foot by pushing off the floor and rotating, through the hip, then the shoulder, all rotating and entraining together and joining the ground to the end of your fist. More rotation + more back up mass = more power.


Thanks for your reply.  I'll do some watching at the dojo this evening, but my impression is still that the hips move first and the foot rotates slighty in response to the upper body rotation (for a reverse punch). I'm not seeing any foot motion with a jab or uppercut.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

Mark L said:


> ...my impression is still that the hips move first and the foot rotates slighty in response to the upper body rotation (for a reverse punch).



You can certainly do it this way, it just doesn't give you the same rotation and back up mass.



Mark L said:


> I'm not seeing any foot motion with a jab or uppercut.



For a jab, no.  There is little rotation with a jab, although I still put some hip and shoulder into mine.  Hence less power!  I definitely rotate my foot for hooks and uppercuts though.


----------



## Doc (Jun 9, 2008)

There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.

Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 9, 2008)

Doc said:


> There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.
> 
> Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.


So do you teach the foot rotation prior, simultaneously, or after throwing the hip?  I initiate the strike by getting my hips going, I checked the mirror and my rear foot does rotate (maybe 30 degrees) but the heel is firmly rooted.  


Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon.  I'd argue that there is no sacrifice in power by leading the action with the hip, and that more power is generated by torquing your core.  Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation?  Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational.  I do concur that a firmly planted heel is an absolute necessity to buttress the strike (Newton was right).  I've tried starting with my foot, I can't get it to flow (old dog, new trick syndrome).  YMMV


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 9, 2008)

My Yi Li Quan friends tell me that their punches start at the foot, and spirals upwards through the hips etc.

I let one of them punch me, in the pectoral muscle, a focus mitt braced against it, and I thought my kidney was going to fall out.

I've seen this guy break river rocks with a knife hand.

I think they are on to something.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 9, 2008)

Doc said:


> There is a substitution in principle between the two methods. Boxers raise the rear heel whether or not they use their forward momentum when punching from the rear. They specifically train to allow their upper body to shoulder the bulk of the load so more time is allocated to the limited applications of the upper body in the sport.
> 
> Martial Artist, in general, have significantly more material and circumstances to train for, and should rotate the foot when punching in-place when torque is the primary vehicle which requires a stable platform. Substituting body momentum for stability allows the rear heal to rise effectively.


 
Does it then follow that when punching without forward movement the rear heel should stay down?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon.



Sorry!



Mark L said:


> Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation?



Absolutely!



Mark L said:


> Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational.



The way I do it uses both.  Accelerating the mass linearly from the ground, and chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation, which also begins from the foot.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 9, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The way I do it uses both.  Accelerating the mass linearly from the ground, and chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation, which also begins from the foot.


EH, I'm really not trying to be difficult or argumentative.  I'm trying to understand, and more importantly feel, your perspective.  My brain has always keyed on the hips and the heel, in that order, to my satisfaction.  I can't resolve the mechanics you've offered with my own understanding of that subject, but it'll give me something to play with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  "Chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation", help me out with that ...  I'd think that my abdominals, obliques, and spinal erectors working in concert to advance my hips have a more significant contribution to a torque about my spine than a gastroc contraction (even if it is supported by the quads, which I'll bet is minimal).

This is fun.


----------



## Doc (Jun 9, 2008)

Mark L said:


> So do you teach the foot rotation prior, simultaneously, or after throwing the hip?  I initiate the strike by getting my hips going, I checked the mirror and my rear foot does rotate (maybe 30 degrees) but the heel is firmly rooted.
> 
> 
> Empty Hands, I don't practice AK, so I'm not up on that jargon.  I'd argue that there is no sacrifice in power by leading the action with the hip, and that more power is generated by torquing your core.  Can we agree that the act of punching requires a body rotation?  Pushing off of the ground is a linear input to the hips, not rotational.  I do concur that a firmly planted heel is an absolute necessity to buttress the strike (Newton was right).  I've tried starting with my foot, I can't get it to flow (old dog, new trick syndrome).  YMMV


The proper method is predicated upon the type of punch thrown, as well as the amount of body momentum utilized. However, all of the movements are part and parcel of the same anatomical action that employs both linear and circular movements. 

Or as Mr. parker would say, "Where the linear ends, the circular begins, and where the circular ends, the linear begins."

 If the rotation of the hips and shoulders were to be "extended," the punching arm would begin to circle, and the rotating foot would begin to "turn inward" on its axis as well.

The proper methodology utilizes an understanding of depth zones in dimensional stages of action, on an anatomical level. Therefore, in a primarily "torquing principle," as the punching action is initiated it will cause the rotation of the shoulder and hip to follow, culminating in the rotation of the foot in the torquing scenario. This would be anatomically proper.

In a scenario that utilizes body momentum and inertial impact as primary principles, the actions reverse themselves. This time beginning with the rotation of the foot, which will drive the hips, followed by the shoulder, which drives the arm forward. This too, would be proper.

One exerts a pulling action anatomically, the other a pushing anatomical action. Keep in mind it is possible to utilize a combination of the two principles predicated on the intent inherent in the various dimensional stages of movement of the chosen action.

Further, neither of these scenarios takes into consideration inherent strategy in initiating a potentially successful strike on an aware opponent. Also consider, deceptive body movements such as feints of various body parts, as well as deceptive footwork all become factors with various levels of anatomical efficient tradeoffs, versus successful applications.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 9, 2008)

Doc said:


> The proper method is predicated upon the type of punch thrown, as well as the amount of body momentum utilized. However, all of the movements are part and parcel of the same anatomical action that employs both linear and circular movements.
> 
> Or as Mr. parker would say, "Where the linear ends, the circular begins, and where the circular ends, the linear begins."
> 
> ...


Thank you, I appreciate your opinions.  I must repeat myself: "It gives me something to play with, and this is fun."


----------



## Doc (Jun 9, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Thank you, I appreciate your opinions.  I must repeat myself: "It gives me something to play with, and this is fun."



Likewise sir.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2008)

Mark L said:


> "Chaining that acceleration into torque from rotation", help me out with that ...



I'm quickly running out of vocabulary to express myself!   I see that Mr. Chapel has laid it all out in a much more cogent way than myself, so I would refer to him.  For my part, I would just say that when I throw a cross/reverse punch, I start from the ground.  I push off with my rear foot to accelerate my body forward.  This acceleration is then used to help "throw" my foot and hip into their rotation.  Thus, you have added the linear acceleration to your foot/hip/shoulder rotation.

Have fun playing!


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm quickly running out of vocabulary to express myself!   I see that Mr. Chapel has laid it all out in a much more cogent way than myself, so I would refer to him.  For my part, I would just say that when I throw a cross/reverse punch, I start from the ground.  I push off with my rear foot to accelerate my body forward.  This acceleration is then used to help "throw" my foot and hip into their rotation.  Thus, you have added the linear acceleration to your foot/hip/shoulder rotation.


Hey, that's what I said.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Does it then follow that when punching without forward movement the rear heel should stay down?



For most martial artist, yes. Boxing as a sport spends countless hours working on upper body power because they have the luxury of training for a very small number of "attacks." When all you have to do is execute and defend basically against a jab, cross, hook, and uppercut, then you have lots of time to do that and maximize upper body punching potential. They do not train for street self-defense attacks or kicks, so they are free to concentrate their efforts on other things that serve them well within the rules of engagement in the ring.


----------



## Ray (Jun 10, 2008)

Doc said:


> For most martial artist, yes. Boxing as a sport spends countless hours working on upper body power because they have the luxury of training for a very small number of "attacks." When all you have to do is execute and defend basically against a jab, cross, hook, and uppercut, then you have lots of time to do that and maximize upper body punching potential. They do not train for street self-defense attacks or kicks, so they are free to concentrate their efforts on other things that serve them well within the rules of engagement in the ring.


I generally agree with what you say (I gave up disagreeing when you showed me how wrong I was) and I generally agree with what you're saying about boxers.  A half-way decent boxer can sure be real tough in a street encounter though.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> I generally agree with what you say (I gave up disagreeing when you showed me how wrong I was)


It was only one time, and I'm old enough to get it right at least once.


> and I generally agree with what you're saying about boxers.  A half-way decent boxer can sure be real tough in a street encounter though.


Well I agree with you. The same can be said of any of the physical contact sports, because they train to deliver and take punishment, as a part of the rules of the game. However their "toughness" lies within the rules of the game for which they train. Nobody tackles as hard as an NFL Linebacker, but attack them with a choke, or kick at their legs and they freak. You know kinda like biting a boxer on his ear during a fight, they freak too in spite of all their toughness, even though biting is good old street fight country.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 10, 2008)

Doc said:


> The proper method is predicated upon the type of punch thrown, as well as the amount of body momentum utilized. However, all of the movements are part and parcel of the same anatomical action that employs both linear and circular movements.
> 
> Or as Mr. parker would say, "Where the linear ends, the circular begins, and where the circular ends, the linear begins."
> 
> ...


OMG, I actually understand what Doc is saying even in full scientific mode.  Maybe I just got more sleep last night or sumthin'.  Anyway, Doc, keep helpin us peasants. Evidently there's hope.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> OMG, I actually understand what Doc is saying even in full scientific mode.  Maybe I just got more sleep last night or sumthin'.  Anyway, Doc, keep helpin us peasants. Evidently there's hope.



I need sleep. Did I write that? Anyway, we're all peasants sir.


----------



## MarkC (Jun 10, 2008)

I was going to ask about intitiating the punch first, as someone famous used to advocate, in order to avoid telegraphing the punch by moving hips, feet, etc. before the punch, but I think Doc addressed this already above.
Or maybe I'm just tired tonight....


----------



## Doc (Jun 11, 2008)

MarkC said:


> I was going to ask about intitiating the punch first, as someone famous used to advocate, in order to avoid telegraphing the punch by moving hips, feet, etc. before the punch, but I think Doc addressed this already above.
> Or maybe I'm just tired tonight....



No you're not tired sir, and you make plenty of sense.


----------



## MarkC (Jun 11, 2008)

"The proper methodology utilizes an understanding of depth zones in dimensional stages of action, on an anatomical level. Therefore, in a primarily "torquing principle," as the punching action is initiated it will cause the rotation of the shoulder and hip to follow, culminating in the rotation of the foot in the torquing scenario. This would be anatomically proper.

In a scenario that utilizes body momentum and inertial impact as primary principles, the actions reverse themselves. This time beginning with the rotation of the foot, which will drive the hips, followed by the shoulder, which drives the arm forward. This too, would be proper.

One exerts a pulling action anatomically, the other a pushing anatomical action. Keep in mind it is possible to utilize a combination of the two principles predicated on the intent inherent in the various dimensional stages of movement of the chosen action.

Further, neither of these scenarios takes into consideration inherent strategy in initiating a potentially successful strike on an aware opponent. Also consider, deceptive body movements such as feints of various body parts, as well as deceptive footwork all become factors with various levels of anatomical efficient tradeoffs, versus successful applications."

The answer to my somewhat unasked question was indeed already in Doc's post.
For me, it's a bit difficult to put scenario 1 into practice consistently.
I wonder about the difference in power between the two methods.
I also wondered if the method of intiating the strike first isn't more effective for stikes with the lead hand.
All this is probably elementary, but my mind sometimes work in strange ways....


----------



## Doc (Jun 11, 2008)

MarkC said:


> "The proper methodology utilizes an understanding of depth zones in dimensional stages of action, on an anatomical level. Therefore, in a primarily "torquing principle," as the punching action is initiated it will cause the rotation of the shoulder and hip to follow, culminating in the rotation of the foot in the torquing scenario. This would be anatomically proper.
> 
> In a scenario that utilizes body momentum and inertial impact as primary principles, the actions reverse themselves. This time beginning with the rotation of the foot, which will drive the hips, followed by the shoulder, which drives the arm forward. This too, would be proper.
> 
> ...



No sir, you make perfect sense. It's all about context. A person could mechanically throw a perfect punch, but the goal is to actually hit someone AND be mechanically sound as possible under the circumstances. This is where the instincts and skill of the executor comes into play, constantly making decisions based on what is in front of them from one jiffy-second to the next, what is viable functional and not. A not-so-perfect punch that can knock the guy out, in my book is still a dam good punch sir.


----------



## donald (Jun 14, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> My Yi Li Quan friends tell me that their punches start at the foot, and spirals upwards through the hips etc.
> 
> This may sound ignorant, but how in the world do you start a punch from the ground up?
> 
> ...


----------



## Doc (Jun 14, 2008)

donald said:


> DavidCC said:
> 
> 
> > My Yi Li Quan friends tell me that their punches start at the foot, and spirals upwards through the hips etc.
> ...


----------



## Mark L (Jun 15, 2008)

I guess I'm with Donald here.  I still don't see the foot moving first, and I've tried.  It is intuitive to me that the feet, knees, thighs provide an integral support system but I don't see them as the impetus for the strike.  Hips and core, backed up by our structure to the floor.  It works for me, even if I'm wrong.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I guess I'm with Donald here.  I still don't see the foot moving first, and I've tried.  It is intuitive to me that the feet, knees, thighs provide an integral support system but I don't see them as the impetus for the strike.  Hips and core, backed up by our structure to the floor.  It works for me, even if I'm wrong.



I think you probably misunderstand. The foot doesn't have to move for the action to start at the ground.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 15, 2008)

What MR Planas told us yesterday:
"In Kenpo, you do not hit with your hand, foot, arm or leg, but with your whole body"


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 15, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I guess I'm with Donald here.  I still don't see the foot moving first, and I've tried.  It is intuitive to me that the feet, knees, thighs provide an integral support system but I don't see them as the impetus for the strike.  Hips and core, backed up by our structure to the floor.  It works for me, even if I'm wrong.





Doc said:


> I think you probably misunderstand. The foot doesn't have to move for the action to start at the ground.





Big Don said:


> What MR Planas told us yesterday:
> "In Kenpo, you do not hit with your hand, foot, arm or leg, but with your whole body"



We have some similar principles in my style; they're not really easily amenable to writing except as a reference after you've been taught.  Essentially, a hand strike actually starts with the toes...


----------



## Doc (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What MR Planas told us yesterday:
> "In Kenpo, you do not hit with your hand, foot, arm or leg, but with your whole body"



As I read it, everyone here agrees on the "what," which is a "whole body" strike. But that's not what we were discussing. We were talking about the "how."


----------



## MarkC (Jun 16, 2008)

I was sitting here thinking about all this information on proper punching technique, and going over it in my mind, then realized (duh!) that I've been mostly thinking about it in relation to a single punch, which we don't often do in real life. This is where repetition of basic techniques until they're right, and continuing after, to make sure they stay right, come in handy. To actually have to think about all this in a second or two would not be the most pleasant experience while also trying to avoid having your opponent clean your clock.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2008)

MarkC said:


> I was sitting here thinking about all this information on proper punching technique, and going over it in my mind, then realized (duh!) that I've been mostly thinking about it in relation to a single punch, which we don't often do in real life. This is where repetition of basic techniques until they're right, and continuing after, to make sure they stay right, come in handy. To actually have to think about all this in a second or two would not be the most pleasant experience while also trying to avoid having your opponent clean your clock.


Then your strikes become utilizatioins of points on a larger circle from which you can generate even more power.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jun 17, 2008)

MarkC said:


> I was sitting here thinking about all this information on proper punching technique, and going over it in my mind, then realized (duh!) that I've been mostly thinking about it in relation to a single punch, which we don't often do in real life. This is where repetition of basic techniques until they're right, and continuing after, to make sure they stay right, come in handy. To actually have to think about all this in a second or two would not be the most pleasant experience while also trying to avoid having your opponent clean your clock.



You may inject many variables. Whether on offense or defense, the first punch will remain the same in execution. Further, the second offensive or defensive punch, does not have to take a circuitous route to its intended target.


----------



## MarkC (Jun 17, 2008)

I think I grok that.


----------



## marlon (Jun 17, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I guess I'm with Donald here. I still don't see the foot moving first, and I've tried. It is intuitive to me that the feet, knees, thighs provide an integral support system but I don't see them as the impetus for the strike. Hips and core, backed up by our structure to the floor. It works for me, even if I'm wrong.


 
if your strike does not start from the ground...from your base then moving your hips is just wiggling your ..bum.  think physics and you will see that you need the "counter-force" of the ground to strike properly with force the hips direct that force they do not produce it.  Try striking someone while standing in one of those inflated play gyms kids love.

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Fiendlover (Jun 17, 2008)

MJS said:


> This is part 2 of a series of threads on the proper way to do our Kenpo.  Part 1 was proper kicking. So in this thread, I would like to talk about punching. There is discussion on the proper anatomical way to execute your stirkes to get the most out of them in addition to avoid injury, both at the time of execution as well as long term.
> 
> So..on with the discussion. What do you feel is the best way to get the most out of your punch?
> 
> Mike


 
use your hips to give it more power and use your first two knuckle because they are strongest.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jun 17, 2008)

MarkC said:


> I think I grok that.


 
And bonus points for using "grok" in conversation!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 18, 2008)

All this talk of proper hip and body torque makes me wonder if enough attention is being payed to the fist, shoulder, and elbow.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jun 20, 2008)

I'm giving my thoughts from a position of movement, not being in a static stance.  

Footwork:  Without this, our punches probably won't reach our target and probably won't be as effective.

Proper alignment and execution:  Not telegraphing your strikes.  Are you throwing a straight punch (cross) and raising your elbow or keeping it in?  Proper hand position for the strike you're throwing.  ie: a hook punch.  Hand vertical or horizontal.  

Stepping and rotation of the hips:  This IMO goes hand in hand with the footwork.  Are you throwing your strikes without any hip movement?  If so, the power is going to be cut in half.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jun 20, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Contact with the first and second knuckles, align the metacarpals with the radius and ulna. Fire the hip first, don't lock the elbow. Tight fist. Hit the heavy bag, it can't lie and it's your best indicator.


 
I would say fire the hip last.  I would say that you must begin the movement of the hand, relax the forward knee to begin body weight moving forward, then fire the hip so that you are still accelerating on contact.  If you fire the hip first, and it is no longer moving on impact, you may as well be in a horse stance.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 20, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I would say fire the hip last. I would say that you must begin the movement of the hand, relax the forward knee to begin body weight moving forward, then fire the hip so that you are still accelerating on contact. If you fire the hip first, and it is no longer moving on impact, you may as well be in a horse stance.


I agree. Your elbow should be centering as you kneel or BECOME THE CROUCHING TIGER! Then fire with the hip.-vampfeed-
Sean


----------



## KenpoDave (Jun 20, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What MR Planas told us yesterday:
> "In Kenpo, you do not hit with your hand, foot, arm or leg, but with your whole body"


 
He is right.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 20, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> He is right.


That statement is also dangerous, because people might try to body a punch when they should alighning with less force. You only have so much energy... its like a video game.
Sean


----------

