# Speed and Power



## MJS (Jun 1, 2008)

When you're performing your techniques, do you feel its more important to have speed over power, power over speed, or an equal balance of both?  Sometimes you'll see people blast through a move and it makes you wonder...was there any power behind those moves?  

Personally, I'd rather see a balance of both speed and power, with perhaps maybe a little more emphasis on the power.  

Your thoughts?


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 1, 2008)

MJS said:


> When you're performing your techniques, do you feel its more important to have speed over power, power over speed, or an equal balance of both?  Sometimes you'll see people blast through a move and it makes you wonder...was there any power behind those moves?
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see a balance of both speed and power, with perhaps maybe a little more emphasis on the power.
> 
> Your thoughts?



Great question. After some thought, guess I frame this a little differently.  

I'd rather go slowly with accuracy, intention, posture/balance, and relaxation up until the point of contact (then tightening the muscles to add power and protect ones striking limb). Maybe once in awhile--after many, many repetitions done as above--I may go 'all out' (in the past, for example, this might have been for a test, now mostly) to see how accurate, intentional, aligned/balanced, and relaxed I am when doing it 'for real'. 

Then, I take the weak points (oh, yeah, even after all that, will still have weak spots--hopefully they'll be few in number ), and go back to slow and smooth to correct/perfect what needs to be done.


----------



## Zoran (Jun 1, 2008)

MJS said:


> When you're performing your techniques, do you feel its more important to have speed over power, power over speed, or an equal balance of both?  Sometimes you'll see people blast through a move and it makes you wonder...was there any power behind those moves?
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see a balance of both speed and power, with perhaps maybe a little more emphasis on the power.
> 
> Your thoughts?



From a self defense perspective, power trumps speed in most cases. Each strike should cause damage, not annoy someone. If analogies are peoples thing, which would you rather not be hit with. A 100 mph marshmallow or a 50 mph truck?

From the perspective of a teacher, I would like my students to learn how to generate power first. If one follows the various principles that most kenpo systems teach, speed will come in time anyways.


----------



## BallistikMike (Jun 1, 2008)

To really shake things up ... speed is power.

Power is also relative to the target you are hitting accurately.

Its gotta be common knowledge to most of us here a straight punch to the nose is not the same as to the chin is not the same as to the sternum is not the same as to pectorals. Yet it is exactly the same.

The speed at which it arrives and the penetration it achieves is only as good as the target that is being struck. It is why some "hitters" sink shots and seem to have heavy hands and others slap shots and you get that sting and awesome looking speed. 

Its an amazing thing to feel the difference of "hitters" and "slappers" and they both do what works for them. 

Couldnt power be defined as speed x mass upon impact + depth of penetration ? But wouldnt you have to take into consideration the aspect of a fight. The changing dynamics. The reality of what is actually happening not the theory of it? The target being struck? The accuracy of the shot?

Speed has a direct effect on power

Accuracy has a direct effect on power

Penetration has a direct effect on power

Target selection has a direct effect on power

Check this out you bring huge speed and huge penetration you dont need to be so accurate in your target selection. You have huge speed and great accuracy you dont need to have so much penetration if you select the right targets (eyes, testicles, throat). 

I say all of them have great power 

Chose your art and train it to work for you. Maybe you become a master after decades of work and you become great at all four to achieve incredible power (speed, penetration, accuracy and target selection).


----------



## marlon (Jun 2, 2008)

the more relaxed you are the more speed you will have.  power depends on structural integrity, body mechanics and timing.  therefore the slow practice that promotes relaxation and proper body mechanics will train spped and power.  As for tensing at the end of a movement it disrupts speed because it disrupts relaxed movement causing on to use muscles to start and stop.  In terms of power, the filipino stick arts move with tremendous speed and multiple strikes ands each srtike may not have the "power" of a truck moving at 100 mph but the collective motion does damage.  To be sure just tapping someone is only an annoyance but there is a lot of ground in between tapping and hitting with hard maximal power.  Kempo is designed for multiple strikes and each strike need to have an effect  and this is not the same as damage, unlkes we are speaking of the overal structural intergity of the attacker.  The end result is another issue.
Ed Parker jr. said, if you cannot do it slow then you cannot do it at all.  i agree and add that if you train it slow you train to a higher level of skill, that encompasses speed and power...but it is still fun to go all out every once in a while but that is work out and not training...just my opinion

marlon


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 2, 2008)

marlon said:


> the more relaxed you are the more speed you will have.  power depends on structural integrity, body mechanics and timing.  therefore the slow practice that promotes relaxation and proper body mechanics will train spped and power.  *As for tensing at the end of a movement it disrupts speed because it disrupts relaxed movement causing on to use muscles to start and stop.*  In terms of power, the filipino stick arts move with tremendous speed and multiple strikes ands each srtike may not have the "power" of a truck moving at 100 mph but the collective motion does damage.  To be sure just tapping someone is only an annoyance but there is a lot of ground in between tapping and hitting with hard maximal power.  Kempo is designed for multiple strikes and each strike need to have an effect  and this is not the same as damage, unlkes we are speaking of the overal structural intergity of the attacker.  The end result is another issue.
> Ed Parker jr. said, if you cannot do it slow then you cannot do it at all.  i agree and add that if you train it slow you train to a higher level of skill, that encompasses speed and power...but it is still fun to go all out every once in a while but that is work out and not training...just my opinion
> 
> marlon



Here's how I've come to believe tensing at the end of the strike is best for me and my students:

My Kempo instructors have never mentioned tensing at all, leading to the default position of _using tensed muscles throughout the technique_. Very inefficient imho--slows the tech, tires the muscles.

My Kung Fu San Soo instructor teaches slow, relaxed practice, but models tensing somewhere close to the target, so that you're striking with a tensed weapon. Very powerful. (In this, he follows some of the old style CMA teachers I've heard so much about, who let the student figure out 'why' on their own, if they stick with it long enough)

Iain Abernethy (Karate, with specialization as bunkai revivalist) teaches to tense at point of impact to protect joints of striking limb, and to strike with a hard weapon.

Philip Starr (Internal CMA, author of recent _Martial Mechanics_ and a member here), comes closest to agreeing with you, Marlon, in that he says to stay relaxed through the target, then tense/slow the strike after striking through (his metaphor: don't apply the brakes until you've exploded through the target). 

Starr and Abernethy seem to contradict each other to me, and my KFSS training seems to comes down on the side of IA. So, guess that's why I use that route. I can see value in both views, however.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 2, 2008)

Early in training accuracy and correct form are most important to developed speed and power, and of course repetition is equally as important

But speed with out power is like hitting someone with a small pillow and power with out speed is like a train on the tracks coming at you, IF it hits you it WILL hurt. But if you want to stand there long enough for it to hit you that&#8217;s your problem.

But, IMO, you need speed and power to be effective


----------



## Rizuko Kokashi (Jun 2, 2008)

There is a difference in speed and power so it depends on how it use and how can you use that speed and power. I prefer to have more of speed than power. Speed you can finish a person off quickly with a lil of power. You can pick aways at your opponent even with a lil of power can finish your opponent. But with brute strenght without anything speed is nothing speed alone can out do power. You need to be balance but if you have speed and no power than there isn't a much way to perform fully like doing grading and you need to technique you aleast need power , speed but also mind power.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 2, 2008)

BallistikMike said:


> To really shake things up ... speed is power.
> 
> Power is also relative to the target you are hitting accurately.
> 
> ...


 
I think you are confusing power with effectiveness.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 2, 2008)

I think "timing" trumps them both.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 2, 2008)

BallistikMike is correct, speed is power.  More precisely stated, increased speed causes increased power.  Power is defined, in physics, as energy transfered or work done per unit time.  Transfer X joules of energy (via a strike) in 0.5 seconds, then transfer the same energy in 0.1 seconds => power is increased.  If you sacrifice energy for speed (hit softer but faster), then its a zero sum game.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 2, 2008)

My small take on it agrees with the slow builds fast train of thought.

If one trains for pinpoint accuracy in alow, balanced and coordinated movement, it will build the neural pathways needed to execute the technique with structural inegrity.  It is the structrual integrity that builds the power.  Once the pathways are built, natually, the motion will speed up and speed and power will result.  

The training for pinpoint accuracy follows the "Aim small, miss small" school of thought.  A Moderately strong strike, thrown with precision and great speed (due to the neural superhighways being built) will trump a really strong, inaccurate strike somewhere.  

Just my .02


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 2, 2008)

Mark L said:


> BallistikMike is correct, speed is power. More precisely stated, increased speed causes increased power. Power is defined, in physics, as energy transfered or work done per unit time. Transfer X joules of energy (via a strike) in 0.5 seconds, then transfer the same energy in 0.1 seconds => power is increased. If you sacrifice energy for speed (hit softer but faster), then its a zero sum game.


 
You are referring to the length of time the weapon is in contact with the target.  That is not the same as 'how fast the weapon gets to the target'.

I think the definition of power you are using, while correct in an engineering/science context, is not the same definition of power that martial artists use.  I believe the "power" we are talking about is only a measurement of the amount of kinetic energy transferred.  I do think that the information you are sharing is accurate and interesting, but I don't think that this is the "speed" or "power" that are the topic here.

"increased speed causes increased power" I think this is true in an isolated system, where a simple mass is colliding with another mass. But that is far far too simplistic to describe the interaction of two human bodies.




So, why do people feel there is a trade-off between speed and power?  IMHO Becasue Ed Parker confused them LOL!!  "Point of Origin" and "efficiency of motion" are misunderstood, so you see people making movements that are not capable of effectively using the body's ability to generate kinetic energy.  they use these movements because they result in less travel time to the target.  But when it gets there, it's got nothing on it. 

It's like a pizza delivery guy with a rocket jet pack, he gets here in 1 minute but he forgets to bring your pizza!  I prefer the guy who carefully drives to my house and brings extra sauce.


----------



## Jdokan (Jun 2, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I think "timing" trumps them both.


Fully agree here!!

With proper timing all else is secondary....important...just secondary...


----------



## marlon (Jun 2, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Here's how I've come to believe tensing at the end of the strike is best for me and my students:
> 
> My Kempo instructors have never mentioned tensing at all, leading to the default position of _using tensed muscles throughout the technique_. Very inefficient imho--slows the tech, tires the muscles.
> 
> ...


 

do we agree that there are two types of power:  penetrating and percussive(sp) they are delivered differently in that one pushes though the target physically and the other strikes thwe surface but the effect reverberates through like striking a drum.  Both are power and delivery is different.

marlon


----------



## Mark L (Jun 2, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> You are referring to the length of time the weapon is in contact with the target.  That is not the same as 'how fast the weapon gets to the target'.
> 
> I think the definition of power you are using, while correct in an engineering/science context, is not the same definition of power that martial artists use.  I believe the "power" we are talking about is only a measurement of the amount of kinetic energy transferred.  I do think that the information you are sharing is accurate and interesting, but I don't think that this is the "speed" or "power" that are the topic here.
> 
> "increased speed causes increased power" I think this is true in an isolated system, where a simple mass is colliding with another mass. But that is far far too simplistic to describe the interaction of two human bodies.


I disagree.  When talking power, it doesn't matter how long it takes the weapon to arrive at the target, since no energy (power) can transfer until it makes contact.   The definition of power and the definition of speed are precise, whether we're physicists or martial artists.  If the OP meant something different than these very specific terms, he should re-phrase.  Physics is physics, it applies to all masses colliding, including human bodies and appendages (though you are correct in that it would be a lot more complicated to describe it mathematically).  We can't arbitrarily choose where we'll accept the science and where we won't.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 2, 2008)

marlon said:


> do we agree that there are two types of power: penetrating and percussive(sp) they are delivered differently in that one pushes though the target physically and the other strikes thwe surface but the effect reverberates through like striking a drum. Both are power and delivery is different.
> 
> marlon


Yeah, I think we can agree on that. 

My talk of tensing at impact is for the *percussive* variety. This should (and I'm reminding mostly _myself_ here ) drop the opponent in his tracks.

Pushing power/force can be detected because it drives the opponent back (or around, as in your aikido-influenced version of Combo 10, I think it was?). So yeah, I think you're right that there are strikes (as well as throws) that are more *pushing* through the target.

As for kicks, I use a toe kick (we wear shoes), for example upward to inner thighs, that would fit more your percussive definition, and the standard front ball kick, which often drives the opponent in some direction--more the pushing or driving power.

I know some would add more types of strikes (Starr has four, I think), but your distinction works well for me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 2, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Yeah, I think we can agree on that.
> 
> My talk of tensing at impact is for the *percussive* variety. This should (and I'm reminding mostly myself here ) drop the opponent in his tracks.
> 
> ...


 
There are CMA Sifu&#8217;s who would tell you there are 3 types of punches and a push is not one of them. A push is a push and a strike is a strike

Also the way Philip Starr describes a punch is one of the CMA punches and it does not surprise me that he would describe a punch in that manor, he has a rather impressive Xingyiquan background and that is the Xingyiquan way of striking. 

The difference as it was described to me is in area and depth affected.

External (hard - Sanshou) bunch affects a large surface area but does not have as much depth (Sledge hammer). An internal/external (hard/soft - Xingyiquan) punch, as described by Mr. Starr is relaxed until it hits the target then tenses (explodes) and relaxes again this tends to affect a smaller surface area but penetrates further (Sledge hammer for splitting rocks). An internal strike (soft - Taijiquan) stays relaxed for the entire movement and through the strike. This tends to affect very little surface area but goes very deep (arrow).


----------



## Mark L (Jun 2, 2008)

Maybe we could consider accepting a reduction in the power of a single blow if it allows us to strike multiple times in a shorter time.  Three stiff jabs vs. haymaker?  I don't know if this is what the OP was after, but it seems a viable option, especially against a skilled opponent.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 2, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I disagree. When talking power, it doesn't matter how long it takes the weapon to arrive at the target, since no energy (power) can transfer until it makes contact. The definition of power and the definition of speed are precise, whether we're physicists or martial artists. If the OP meant something different than these very specific terms, he should re-phrase. Physics is physics, it applies to all masses colliding, including human bodies and appendages (though you are correct in that it would be a lot more complicated to describe it mathematically). We can't arbitrarily choose where we'll accept the science and where we won't.


 
I wasn't disagreeing wth physics LOL  Just pointing out that sometimes differnet disciplines use the same word in different ways.  

So when a kenpo guy talks aoubt "speed" he is talking about how quickly a technique is completed_ "Sometimes you'll see people blast through a move"_ , or how long a weapon takes to get to the target.  

You were clearly using the length of time the weapon is in contact with the target "_Transfer X joules of energy ... in 0.5 seconds, then transfer the same energy in 0.1 seconds_" which is why I wrote what I wrote.  Your points are valid but they are not relevant to the question.


_"When talking power, it doesn't matter how long it takes the weapon to arrive at the target, since no energy (power) can transfer until it makes contact."_

If we are talking about the science of Physics, I agree; but when talking speed in martial arts, that is in fact the specific definition (of one type of speed).

dictionary.com lists 22 defintions for "speed" LOL


----------



## Mark L (Jun 2, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> _"When talking power, it doesn't matter how long it takes the weapon to arrive at the target, since no energy (power) can transfer until it makes contact."_
> 
> If we are talking about the science of Physics, I agree; but when talking speed in martial arts, that is in fact the specific definition (of one type of speed).
> 
> dictionary.com lists 22 defintions for "speed" LOL


I didn't say speed, I said "When talking power ...", you quoted it, then in the very next sentence changed to "when talking speed".  Power delivered doesn't matter how long it takes to get to the target.  That's not my opinion, that's a fact.  The science of physics applies to martial arts.

But if you have to be right, its not important enough to me to argue ...


----------



## BallistikMike (Jun 2, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I think you are confusing power with effectiveness.


 
I think you should re-read the post and reconsider. 

I quite clearly stated what effects speed, accuracy, target choice and penetration have on power. I am sorry if you failed to comprehend it but it was stated.

To be blunt power is the effect you have on a person upon impact. Thats what we are talking about. Thats what power is. 

Its an effect you have on a human being or bag or focus mitt and we are trying to give it a value and explain how we came about that value.

Speed is the easiest value to change when coming up with a "power" value and its the speed of travel upon impact not the time of travel reaching the traget. What also gets thrown out is distance. Which has a direct relationship with timing. 

Power is a complicated matter and different strokes for different folks on how they achieve it. Myself its quite simple heavy hands on impact creating the desired effect of a knockout shot. Fighters will understand this and agree, speed kills.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 2, 2008)

BallistikMike said:


> ... and its the speed of travel upon impact not the time of travel reaching the traget. What also gets thrown out is distance. Which has a direct relationship with timing.


The distance traveled during the time of impact, right?  That's largely determined by the speed _at _and_ through_ impact.


BallistikMike said:


> Power is a complicated matter and different strokes for different folks on how they achieve it. Myself its quite simple heavy hands on impact creating the desired effect of a knockout shot. Fighters will understand this and agree, speed kills.


Are you equating 'heavy hands' with delivering energy to the target in a short time, perceived as speed?  That's been my experience.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2008)

Zoran said:


> From a self defense perspective, power trumps speed in most cases. Each strike should cause damage, not annoy someone. If analogies are peoples thing, which would you rather not be hit with. A 100 mph marshmallow or a 50 mph truck?
> 
> From the perspective of a teacher, I would like my students to learn how to generate power first. If one follows the various principles that most kenpo systems teach, speed will come in time anyways.


I'm not sure I concur. All a person needs to do to an opponent is give cause for hesitation. If you can do it over and over fast, it is just as good as doing it a few times really hard. 
Sean


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 3, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I didn't say speed, I said "When talking power ...", you quoted it, then in the very next sentence changed to "when talking speed". Power delivered doesn't matter how long it takes to get to the target. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. The science of physics applies to martial arts.


 

what you said was -" _When talking power, it doesn't matter how long it takes the weapon to arrive at the target"  _which is a statement relating speed to power, the whole point of the thread; and I pointed out that "how long it takes the weapon to get to the target" is in fact one definition of speed.

The OP was comparing the importance of speed (the rate at which a person executes a technique) with power (how hard the person hits).  

Bringing in specific definitions as used in a different scientific discipline (other than martial arts) is not helping answer the OP question.  We might as well talk about the maximum size of a lens aperture and the abiltiy to influence political decisions (which are both both valid definitions of "speed" and "power" from fields of study other than martial arts) LOL.

"Power delivery" ??? I thought you defined power as the delivery of energy????????? how can I have delivery of a delivery?  If you are going to use specific technical definitions to make your point you should at least use them consistently.


Mark as far as I can tell the only contention we have here is that you were referencing the amount of time the weapons was in contact with the target as the "SPEED".  That is not what he was asking about, nor was the OP even asking aobut the speed at which a weapon travels.  He was clearly asking about the rate at which the person executes a technique, which you haven't addressed yet.
-------------

Mike, 

Me -> "I think you are confusing power with effectiveness"
Mike -> "To be blunt power is the effect you have on a person upon impact."

OK so if you think power is the effect, how are you not defining power as effectiveness????? _(which IMO is in fact a confusion of terms)_

I think one can deliver a high-power shot to a resistant target and get mimnimal effect; also one can deliver a low-power shot to a vulnerable target and get a huge effect.  Do you agree or disagree with that?


"I am sorry if you failed to comprehend it but it was stated." ROFL I disagree therefore I must not have understood.  Could you be more condescending??? 

-----------------
Sean,
"I'm not sure I concur. All a person needs to do to an opponent is give cause for hesitation. If you can do it over and over fast, it is just as good as doing it a few times really hard. 
Sean "

I think that is mostly true but at some point you have to do more than that.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 3, 2008)

How about if I just agree that you're right, on this and everything else you say.  

I hope someday I'll have as much kempo knowledge and experience as you.  Ignore on.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 3, 2008)

Mark L said:


> How about if I just agree that you're right, on this and everything else you say.
> 
> I hope someday I'll have as much kempo knowledge and experience as you. Ignore on.


 

Whatever Mark, that's very immature.  The fact is your post never addressed the original question.  

I hope you deal with questions from your students better than this, because if this is how you teach, I'd have to say you are really "selling them short".

Is this how you handle disagreements in general?  Temper-tantrums?  Grow up, grow a pair, and learn how to have a discussion already.


----------



## Doc (Jun 5, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I think "timing" trumps them both.



You have two receivers in football. One is lightening fast but is never open, the other is slow, but runs good routes and is always open. Who do you throw the ball to?

We go to the range and combat shoot. The rookies are really fast but never hit the target. Some older veterans take their time and place the shot right between the horns. Who was the most effective?

My point is a simple one. Speed is an asset, but only one in a realistic scenario, and alone is as ineffective as no speed at all.

In some of the newer commercial martial arts, speed is "sold" as the only asset necessary to be effective. It is packaged as supreme in lieu of all other factors of rational thought. 

It has people throwing punches in a technique line, than freezing in place so someone can do all these really cool moves, as if in a fight nobody moves after the first punch, or reacts to being hit. 

It can be alluring and impressive to the unknowledgeable, but this speed emphasis alone will neither yield the anticipated effective results, nor lasting skills that may be raised to higher levels.

You do not "train" for speed. You learn properly and over time, you become fast if you were taught properly. Beginning with speed yields the opposite results, with a steady decline over time.

Or as Mr. Parker taught me, "Speed is a byproduct of proper mechanics, mental, and physical familiarity." When I would tell him I thought he was fast, He would always say, "It's smoke and mirrors. I'm mechanically sound, I know and understand what I'm doing, and I have great timing. That's what translates to speed my friend."


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2008)

Great replies!  Keep 'em coming! 

IMO, speed and power are 2 different things.  You can blaze thru a form with speed and not have any power in your strikes, just like you could blaze thru a technique and the strikes are barely there.  I tend to, as I said in my OP, to fall back more on the power than the speed.  Not to say that we shouldn't be quick, but I'd rather put power in front of speed.


----------



## JTKenpo (Jun 6, 2008)

"Draw fast, shoot slow" is a quote from a very talented Hawaiin Kempo master which he gave out at one of his seminars.  He expanded on the point by saying our initial move should be lightening fast and our subsequent and follow up motions need to be deadly accurate.  His point was speed for speed sake is useless.  I also believe there are few people with the one punch knock out power some arts claim to have.  So there needs to be a good combination of both.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 6, 2008)

marlon said:


> do we agree that there are two types of power: penetrating and percussive(sp)
> 
> Kind of like my head splitting as I'm trying to wrap it around all the definitions in this thread


----------



## Mark L (Jun 7, 2008)

MJS said:


> Great replies!  Keep 'em coming!
> 
> IMO, speed and power are 2 different things.  You can blaze thru a form with speed and not have any power in your strikes, just like you could blaze thru a technique and the strikes are barely there.  I tend to, as I said in my OP, to fall back more on the power than the speed.  Not to say that we shouldn't be quick, but I'd rather put power in front of speed.


Maybe I'm not getting it.  Proper execution gives rise to speed _and_ power, they are companions.


----------



## MJS (Jun 8, 2008)

Well, I thought my OP was clear.  I was asking what everyone feels is more important...speed or power.  Where the discussion goes from there could be anywhere.   And actually that seems to be the path its taking, which is perfectly fine.   I'm no physics major, so I'll bow out of the speed=power type of discussions.  

As for your question Mark...I'll go back to my kata and technique examples.  I've seen people blast thru a kata so fast, throwing half hearted strikes, just for the sake of getting done.  I've seen the same with techniques.  Its fine and dandy to go quick, but if all you're doing is slapping the person, what good is that?  Thats probably the #1 reason why Kenpo is referred to as a "Slap Art" because thats all it looks like.  

IMHO, the goal should be to harness both speed and power, but for me, a bit more emphasis on the power.  Of course, if a punch is coming we want to be able to block and counter quick.  But we can do that 2 ways...block and throw a half hearted shot just for the sake of hitting, or throw a shot thats going to have some effect.

Mike


----------



## Mark L (Jun 8, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, I thought my OP was clear.  I was asking what everyone feels is more important...speed or power.  Where the discussion goes from there could be anywhere.   And actually that seems to be the path its taking, which is perfectly fine.   I'm no physics major, so I'll bow out of the speed=power type of discussions.
> 
> As for your question Mark...I'll go back to my kata and technique examples.  I've seen people blast thru a kata so fast, throwing half hearted strikes, just for the sake of getting done.  I've seen the same with techniques.  Its fine and dandy to go quick, but if all you're doing is slapping the person, what good is that?  Thats probably the #1 reason why Kenpo is referred to as a "Slap Art" because thats all it looks like.
> 
> ...


I agree with you.  I try to do the form/technique properly first, with good balance, precise movements and targeting.  As I get comfortable with the mechanics I increase power, which (in my experience) builds speed.  I don't practice a "slap art".


----------

