# Strength for the ground punches.



## Epson (Oct 6, 2005)

When you punch the opponent on the ground. You use the arm power, I mean how much legs and hips can you use. 
So how do you develop the strength for the ground punches. I mean besides sitting on the heavy bag and smacking the hell out of it.
A good input will be appreciated.
Thank you.


----------



## Navarre (Oct 6, 2005)

Although general arm strength helps, it is still the snap of the punch that is the most effective. I can't drive through the punch unless I want to break the skull.

In general, however, I wouldn't spend a great deal of time punching an opponent on the ground. Once I limit myself to such a straightforward attack the opponent gains an opportunity (if he's tough and lucky) to work for a counter. I'd rather go for a good lock that can use the ground to provide me with leverage. A nice choke works fine.

In snapping punches I believe it is more important to work a fast, effective recoil after the punch than to generate the initial forward movement. So, I would work drills designed to do that. 

I used to light a candle and do reverse punches or backfists toward the flame. My goal was to extinguish the flame by sucking it back toward me (from the recoil) instead of pushing it forward.  You can also set a styrofoam cup upside down on the edge of a table and do the same drill, trying to suck the cup back in your direction.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 6, 2005)

You also got gravity and body weight on your side, plus the ground on the other side of him keeping him fairly immobile.  So you don't need to hit as hard to do as much damage as you would standing.


----------



## Navarre (Oct 6, 2005)

Quite true, Andrew. I felt that was obvious so I didn't say it but we should always be aware of everything that works to our advantage so I'm glad you mentioned it. 

The laws of physics dictate that our punch is going to be opposed by an equal and opposite force. All the better for us if the target of that punch is immobile.  

We must also be aware though that we will feel a stronger opposing force back on our fist because of that immobility than we would if we struck while the opponent is standing. But hey, take whatever shot is available using the best technique at hand.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 6, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> I felt that was obvious so I didn't say it


 The thing about the obvious, is if you look at something the right way, every little detail can become obvious.  So if you never state the obvious, you'd be a very quiet person


----------



## Navarre (Oct 6, 2005)

I would like to respond to that but, after careful examination, it is all so obvious that I feel I must be quiet now. 


*crickets chirping*


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

Pull the arm back--way back--and drive down. I don't think you need much strength training for this, given the advantages of body weight and gravity.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

I'm thinking of this in terms of holding my hand up over a table and letting it fall.  I don't see how gravity really adds a whole lot of oomph to a punch....


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 6, 2005)

You're thinking the weight of your hand, not your body.

 Try this:  Lie down on your back, get someone to put a fist on your chest and lean on it.  (You could try face if you like but that might hurt more then is needed)  Just using their weight and gravity I'd imagine it's not too comfy.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 6, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> You also got gravity and body weight on your side, plus the ground on the other side of him keeping him fairly immobile.  So you don't need to hit as hard to do as much damage as you would standing.


Yes....yes...
To Andrew you listen...


When you are in the "Ground N' Pound" then you are much more ROOTED to gravity than when you are up on your feet!!! USE THAT. You still have the power of your waist and torso to generate torque....use it. PLUS: You can drive FORWARD with your legs and kind of "push" a punch horizontal to the ground. Good if their chin really presents itself.
just something to think about.


Your Brother
John


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

_Just using their weight and gravity I'd imagine it's not too comfy._

 Yeah, but now you are just talking body mass, not really weight. That body mass is the same whether it's moving horizontally or vertically.

 Imagine standing up against a wall and someone runs up to you and slams into you. Same thing..lot of body mass moving into the target, but horizontally instead of vertically. The mass is the same. All gravity really does is provide a constant rate of acceleration for the mass. F=MA. And if you are sitting on top of someone, not much of your mass is actually moving.

 Think of it in zero G, in a room. Put someone against a wall and 'jump' at them from the opposite side, you are going to hit them with the exact same force (assuming you push off with the same power) regardless of which side they are on. Again, F=MA and it's your body mass going into the target that provides the force, the damage.

 So, when you are sitting on someone, you've basically reduced potential energy to zero as most of your mass is at rest. Gravity can accelerate your mass, but not by much, or rather, not much of your mass.  (And note that for gravity to accelerate *any* mass, you have to lift that mass in the opposite direction first.  You are expanding about as much energy to prepare the strike as gravity is giving you back in executing the strike.  A horizontal strike does not use gravity to accelerate the mass into the target so does not have to work against gravity to add energy to the setup for  the strike)

 Maybe just too small a sample size but I've seen knockouts from punches to the head and kicks to the head and even knees; one shot with a lot of torque and/or a lot of mass. I don't think I've seen a knock out from a ground-and-pound at least not with one shot, and I suspect that's because you can't generate as much force because you can't employ as much of your mass and body torque.

 Ground-and-pound seems to work best in that it keeps the opponent from being able to retaliate much, but it doesn't seem really that efficient a way to damage someone


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> You're thinking the weight of your hand, not your body.


Yup. Gravity doesn't aid the hand much, but if you rear up just a little and then let your body come down as you punch, then you've got something. Yes it's mass, but gravity is accelerating that mass.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

_(And note that for gravity to accelerate *any* mass, you have to lift that mass in the opposite direction first._

  The more I think about it, the more important I think this point is.

  Gravity is *not* a free energy source 

  Think of these two examples.

 Put someone on the ground, climp up a four foot ladder, and drop on them. Do it again, and again, and again. Do it ten times. 

  Now, put someone up against a wall, stand four feet from them, and slam into them, again..ten times.  

 In both cases, the same amount of mass is hitting the target. In the end, which is more efficient? In the first case, you have to expend energy to overcome gravity to get up from the ground and onto the ladder. In the second case, you are not directly working against gravity so you do not have to expend much energy to reset your position. Hint: try jumping four feet horizontally...try jumping four feet vertically. The real question is one of accelerationn. Can gravity accelerate your mass fast enough to provide more force into the strike than a horizontal jump. Would I 'hit the ground' falling harder than I 'hit the wall' moving horizontally?

 What gravity gives in terms of acceleration, gravity takes in terms of energy it takes to put your body in position to take advantage of that acceleration. So as Arnisador mentions, you can 'raise up' your body to get more mass into play, but it's a zero sum game because it costs you the same energy your getting. May as well just use that energy for a forward strike.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 6, 2005)

When I was training MMA at a gym full of mat rats, we had  simple way of training the downward punches and hooks for delivery from the mounted position. Go to the triceps pull-down cables. Change the handle from the triceps bar to a simple cable pulley handle (shaped a bit like a closed horse-shoe). Assume the mount position with the handle higher than your head.

Load weight (start with about 40 pounds). Keeping your elbow behind your fist, position your hand, knuckles facing the ground (as in your targets head), and brace in  3-point stance.  Now, do lots of reps. Increase the reitance as you can. You'll feel it train the chest/biceps tie-in (at the top of the movement); the triceps (from about half-way down to the bottom), abs and lats, and forearms. Use broad ranges of motion, but maintain mechanically correct form (don't over-extend on the back swing). 

For roundhouses/hooks to the side of the head from the mount...put the cable handle in the bottom hole, so it's essentially at floor level. If you're training the right arm, place your right side to the machine, shoulder in line with the bottom handle. Now, 3-point stance, and "punch" a cross body pull off the cable. You'll be training the same power groove use to throw roundhose/hooks to the head of a guy you've mounted, who has his hands up against descending (front shot to the head) attacks. 

Fish in a barrel: If his hands are protecting the front of his face, throw shots around the side. When he switches to blocking the side, you go back to face-on shots. The cable exercises mentioned above will strengthen the grooves used in each, by mimicking the motions against resistance.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> In both cases, the same amount of mass is hitting the target. In the end, which is more efficient?


But this is not the right question! We're not speaking of efficiency, but doing damage.




> What gravity gives in terms of acceleration, gravity takes in terms of energy it takes to put your body in position to take advantage of that acceleration. So as Arnisador mentions, you can 'raise up' your body to get more mass into play, but it's a zero sum game because it costs you the same energy your getting. May as well just use that energy for a forward strike.


By the same reasoning...if I place a billiard ball on my head (reference height zero) is does the same damage as if I toss it 20 feet in the air and then it lands on my head, because I paid an energy cost to get it up in the air in the first place?

Storing and using potential energy is common in many machines. It allows one to do work. That's good. I think your analysis is very incomplete.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Think of it in zero G, in a room. Put someone against a wall and 'jump' at them from the opposite side, you are going to hit them with the exact same force (assuming you push off with the same power) regardless of which side they are on. Again, F=MA and it's your body mass going into the target that provides the force, the damage.


 Sure, if all you're attacks involve flying around in zero G....

 How about this, stand on some melting ice, so it's nice and wet wearing some slippers that are good and slippery.  Hit something.

 Now try it again on pavement in shoes.  

 Which is gonna hurt the guy more?

 On ice you slide away and a good chunk of that energy is spent slidding you instead of the other guys head.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

_Sure, if all you're attacks involve flying around in zero G..._

 The point was the weight is sorta meaningless. It's all in the mass. Weight simply becomes acceleration for the mass. F= MA, Force = Mass X Acceleration. Weight is simply a way if having gravity provide the acceleration in that equation. But it's the mass moving into the target and the acceleration of that mass that does damage.  (And the illustration was simply because in zero G there is *no* weight but still the same mass so if you provide acceleration, F=MA still applies)


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

[/i]But this is not the right question! We're not speaking of efficiency, but doing damage._

  I think you have to consider both.  Have you ever seen a fight where one fighter wastes energy and tires before the end.

 So, looking at it from two sides. If you are doing 'ground and pound' without moving your body, especially your lower body, then you have little mass to move into the target in which case you are not doing much damage because it's all arm/shoulder strength. If you are raising your body up to get more downward mass motion then you get more power into the shot, by using gravity to accelerate the mass, but the expense is that you are expending your energy to raise your body up counter to gravity so that gravity can in turn pull your body back down. There's also a limit to how far you can move your mass..six inches...a foot. 

 That's why I mentioned jumping straight up four feet versus jumping horizontally four feet. It's pretty hard to jump up four feet because gravity is pretty tough to work against. So if your attack is contigent upon repeatedly using gravity to increase power/damage, you're going to be using a lot of energy to prepare your attack.

 So the real question is...is the damage done by using gravity to assist your mass acceleration greater the damage that can be done by using your muscle power to move your mass horizontally. ( I would contend that you can get more of your body mass moving into a punch by driving from your legs and twisting your hips and shoulders horizontally into a punch then you could be lifting your body upa few inches to drop down on someone: Espcially if a) your legs are absorbing your force or b) your body hits theirs before your fist does...both of which will essentially steal mass from the strike)

 So, back to ground-and-pound more directly. I think it works in that it's very hard to defend/protect yourself, but it doesn't seem to be an efficient way to do damage. When I've seen ground-and-pound, it seems like a way to get a lot of strikes in against someone defenseless, but I'''l admit I've never seen a ground-and-pound where the punch just knocked the guy out with one shot, and I honestly think that the reason is because it's not a very efficient way to do a lot of damage (compared to a reverse punch or some kicks and knees where you can get a lot of body mass and torque moving into the strike...and you do see one shot knockouts)_


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

But mass doesn't cause damage...weight, which is the magnitude of a _force_, does. If an elephant sits on you you don't get crushed because of its mass, but because of its weight. The difference is academic in one sense--as long as _g_ is constant, the (magnitude of the) force is just a constant multiple of  the mass--but forces are what act to move things (like ribs, say).

The difference between mass (in kilograms, say) and force (in newtons, say) is real. One is a scalar, the other a vector. That vector is what causes things to happen. (I assume by weight we mean the scalar quantity _w_=|*F*|.) It's not just the mass.

Being somewhat more philosophical, this becomes all the more clear in relativity, where we have rest mass as a separate concept from an object's actual mass. This highlights the fact that motion--acceleration--affects things in a real way.



> Weight simply becomes acceleration for the mass.



I don't think this means anything.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

_But mass doesn't cause damage...weight, which is the magnitude of a force, does._

 I think that's backwards, which is why I used zero G as an example.  Two spaceships with negligble gravitational attraction will still mess each other up if the run into each other, because of the mass they have (even if one is at rest)

_I don't think this means anything._

 Yeah. I disn't think so.  I couldn't figure out how to phrase it better.

 Basically, what I meant was that weight is your attraction to the earth.  The earth's core...it's center of gravity, pulls at you but...the earth's surface (or the floor or whatever) keeps you from being pulled into it..if you will.  The weight just increases the amount of that attraction so...without support, you accelerate toward the earth, up to a constant.  The mass of the two objects (you and the earth, or the elephant and the earth) determine how strong the attraction is.

 Basically, gravitational attration, or 'weight' provides a drive to get the mass moving, but....you can put a dent in a ceiling just as easily by throwing a baseball up as  in the floor by throwing it down because the baseball still has it's motion and still has it's mass.  A moving elephant will still crush you in zero G, if it's moving.  Gravity is just is a tool to get something moving in a particular direction


----------



## first123class (Oct 6, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> I would like to respond to that but, after careful examination, it is all so obvious that I feel I must be quiet now.
> 
> 
> *crickets chirping*


Funny


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 6, 2005)

If a guy hits me while we're standing, I can allow my body to "ride" the force of the blows penetration, and lessen the effect. On the ground, with naught but concrete behind me, there is nowhere to go. My head becomes the watermelon caught between Gallaghers sledge hammer and the smashing block, making the argument of "are blows from a standing position inherently stronger?" moot. There's a target effect in there too. In this case, a pinned target.

My buddy Eric used to make this point this way: "I'll stand here, and you can hit me in the head with your hardest reverse punch; I'll keep my chin thrust forward, and my hands behind my back. If I don't get back up, you win. If I DO get back up, then it's my turn...and I get to pound your head from the mount. Deal?" Eric had a 400+ pound bench. As a power-lifting champ in Cali 2 years running, he also had a helluva squat. Still, despite his leg strength, he preferred to pop from on top. And yes, he was trained in upright fighting, as well.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## first123class (Oct 6, 2005)

I guess it's how you are trained and what you are used to.
Immagine throwing a side kick standing. Now imagine throwing a stump on someones head, who is on the ground.  Which one is better? Which one would hurt more. 
I would say an average not trained person or a novice would want to stump on the head. But a master kicker would take the chances with the stand up kick. Same goes for punches. A boxer would prefer to throw a punch at a standing opponent. but a novice would probably rather ground and pound. Why do you think we instinctively want to down a person.


----------



## first123class (Oct 6, 2005)

Dave,
what happened to strike often? lol


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 6, 2005)

first123class said:
			
		

> Dave,
> what happened to strike often? lol


I figger...if you beat the guy to the punch and land some thunder where it counts (first, hard, fast), the follow-up hits implied by the "often" part will hit air...unconscious, horizontal targets harder to hit on an upright, horizontal plane of attack.  

Thanks for asking!

Dave


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2005)

I will admit  that I really don't like 'ground and pound' as a technique for a few reasons other than the technical reasons I went into as far as efficient use of energy and power.  Both derive from the idea of self-defense situations

 1) Legal - getting on top of someone in a ground-and-pound I think gets awfully difficult to defend on ay sort of legal grounds.  "He pulled a knife on me so I punched him in the face." is one thing.  "He pulled a knife so I sat on his chest and pounded his face to pulp" I think gets a bit harder to defend under grounds of 'self-defense'

 2) Partners - In my school's self-defense training, we do practice takedowns, but they all end up positional such that the defender (us) is still on his feet in a balanced controlled position.  The reason for this is partially so you can control the person as needed "He cries uncle, let him up, he resists...put a bit more pressure on that elbow.."  but a lot of it is based on the assumption that he could have friends and you need to be ready to move on...maybe breaking guy number one's arm in the process to be sure.  So I'll admit I'm not a big fan of fighting techniques that end up with having to be on the ground yourself to control the other person as it seems like a vulnerable position to be in

 Sorry if I hijacked this thread away from its intent


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

I think the big thing is to know how to defend against it, as best one can. It certainly can occur in a self-defense situation!


----------



## Epson (Oct 7, 2005)

I was contemplating. It sort of seems to me that the strength of the ground and pound strikes comes in the order.
Hammer/bottom fist the strongest
straight punches
hooks the weakest.
In a standing position the straight punches would be the strongest, but with the vector of gravity is the main advantage, the hammer may be the best bet.
Let me know what you guys think.


----------



## KenpoPastor (Oct 17, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But mass doesn't cause damage...weight, which is the magnitude of a _force_, does. If an elephant sits on you you don't get crushed because of its mass, but because of its weight. The difference is academic in one sense--as long as _g_ is constant, the (magnitude of the) force is just a constant multiple of  the mass--but forces are what act to move things (like ribs, say).



What you are saying just validates Force = Mass X Acceleration in this case gravity = force.

The real question is does the 9 feet per second acceleration resultant from gravity add to the speed of your punch in the ground and pound scenario or does the the torque you can generate using your body acheive a greater acceleration of the punch.

The punch that is faster is harder because either way mass is constant.

I beleive that a trained stand up fighter will generate a harder punch on his feet than the guy trained in ground and pound will generate on the ground.  My argument is that a mediocre major league pitcher easily generates an initial hand speed of 132 feet per second to throw a 90 mph fastball.  That is all torque my friends. This leads me to the conclusion that the 9 feet per second assistance from gravity with lower torque can not possibly match what a trained fighter's punch with higher toque can produce in terms of force.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 17, 2005)

Unless you can align yourself to get more mass behind it on the ground than you can standing up. I think you can. You can get "over" the punch in a way that you can't do when standing.

Certainly, torque matters. But you can raise up and come down in the ground-and-pound situation in a way that you can't when standing. The baseball example is a good one, though baseball picther gets a _lot_ of wind-up, but now imagine standing up and using a bowling ball held in your hand to smash a wall in front of you. Compare that with smashing that same ball onto the ground. It'll hit with more force on the ground.

I think we both agree that in most cases martial artists over-estimate the "boost" they get from gravity. It isn't that big. If it's all arm, there's little value to it. Standing toruqe can be very powerful. But as I G&P, I'm getting more than just arm into it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 17, 2005)

Simple test:

 Lie someone on there back, mount them, push down on them as hard as you can.  They just relax and measure the discomfort.

 Same test standing, don't brace them or you against anything, stand still and push, have them relax and measure the discomfort.

 Two things are on your side, gravity and the floor.  Punches while mounted hurt, lots, lots more then standing, even more then standing on your head and  definately more then when doing a hand stand underwater.  Whether it hurts more then while sitting in a fully reclined lazyboy and eating nachos is questionable, but if you take the nachos out it is a clear win.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh yeah, the floor/ground is a big factor here--I thought we were speaking only of the other aspect, but the fact that you have no where to go and must absorb the blow is surely a bigger factor than the force itself.


----------



## Epson (Oct 28, 2005)

The mat is pretty soft under them, I guess.  Plus how many punches get a clean A-B path.


----------

