A punch should be followed by a pull

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
15,009
Reaction score
5,014
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
A punch should not be just a punch. A punch should be followed by a pull. A punch should be like the following ancient weapon.

Your thought?

spear-with-hook.jpg
 
If every punch is treated as if it's going to turn into a pull, then those punches will be compromised.
 
On a scale that ranges from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree:
A punch should not be just a punch.
Somewhat agree.
A punch should be followed by a pull.
Disagree.

A punch should be just a punch when you are training for that punch, and also if that punch knocks out your opponent. There should be no follow-up after that.

A punch could be followed by a pull. It could also be followed by a sweep, another punch, a kick, a knee strike, an evasive maneuver, or many other things. There are a lot of things you could do after a punch besides a pull. There's also a lot of situations when it can't. For example, if you're wearing gloves (boxing) or if grabbing isn't allowed (Taekwondo), or if your opponent closes in after you punch.
 
Been punching a long time, never once needed a pull afterwards. An alibi maybe.

Why would I want to pull?
 
Last edited:
Depends if you trust your striking. If you do, no pull need. If you don't, pull in order to grapple.
 
Depends if you trust your striking. If you do, no pull need. If you don't, pull in order to grapple.

I somewhat disagree with this. Not every strike is a knockout blow. Using a strike as a shock/distraction while you set up your grab is not a bad strategy.
 
Why would I want to pull?
- Pull your opponent into your punch/kick.
- Borrow your opponent's resistance force to move in.
- Achieve a clinch.
- Change a striking game into a wrestling game.
- …

It meets the principle that one should keep friend close but enemy closer.
 
Depends if you trust your striking. If you do, no pull need. If you don't, pull in order to grapple.
When you use this weapon, even if you can pull with it, you don't give up your stabbing ability.

stab + pull > stab

If you have choice of the following 2 weapons, which one will you choose?

spear-with-hook.jpg

spear.jpg
 
When you use this weapon, even if you can pull with it, you don't give up your stabbing ability.

stab + pull > stab

If you have choice of the following 2 weapons, which one will you choose?

spear-with-hook.jpg

spear.jpg
I’d take the regular spear. Damn hook would just get in the way.

That is a specialty weapon, used for dragging people off horseback and then stabbing them. If you don’t need to do that, the hook is just in the way.
 
The barbed spear thing is not a good analogy, as it inherently grabs with every thrust. But so long as we're talking about punches instead of palm strikes, your fingers inherently are not in the right position to grab when your punch lands.
 
When you use this weapon, even if you can pull with it, you don't give up your stabbing ability.

stab + pull > stab

If you have choice of the following 2 weapons, which one will you choose?

spear-with-hook.jpg

spear.jpg
If you've got a weapon, that's an entirely different sitaition. I will say that, with a weapon with that range, you wont see me punching. Probably won't see me pulling either, unless I've already impaled my opponent.
 
I somewhat disagree with this. Not every strike is a knockout blow. Using a strike as a shock/distraction while you set up your grab is not a bad strategy.
It doesn't need to be a knockout blow. But risking a hit (which trying to grab/pull does) to get them closer means to me that you dont have confidence at a punching range.

The other way of looking at this is saying "if you don't pull, you don't have confidence in grappling". Which i guess makes sense. Personally, I'm a striker who likes to get in close. So I'll get in close quickly, and leave just as quickly. Not going to give you the opportunity to switch the game up though.
 
It doesn't need to be a knockout blow. But risking a hit (which trying to grab/pull does) to get them closer means to me that you dont have confidence at a punching range.

The other way of looking at this is saying "if you don't pull, you don't have confidence in grappling". Which i guess makes sense. Personally, I'm a striker who likes to get in close. So I'll get in close quickly, and leave just as quickly. Not going to give you the opportunity to switch the game up though.

No. It means I'm confident in both.
 
Haven't we had this conversation before?
 
No. It means I'm confident in both.
IMO it would mean you're more confident in your grappling then your striking. Because you're you're actively turning a striking match into a grappling match.

Which is fine for people who are lrinarilg grapplers. I just wouldn't do so because I trust my striking
 
IMO it would mean you're more confident in your grappling then your striking. Because you're you're actively turning a striking match into a grappling match.

Which is fine for people who are lrinarilg grapplers. I just wouldn't do so because I trust my striking

Unless you're using that grappling to set up your next strike. A lot of the traditional TKD I've learned alternates between strikes and grabs.
 
Unless you're using that grappling to set up your next strike. A lot of the traditional TKD I've learned alternates between strikes and grabs.
Yup. So you're grappling to set up a strike, because you don't trust your striking enough. If that's what you're saying, then we agree. If you're saying that you need grappling to facilitate striking, then we disagree, and you dont truat your striking enough
 
Back
Top