Can you tell me anything about the logic behind chambering punches?

[Bill Mattocks]

There was once an American who made a mistake while bowing to a person of higher rank who entered the floor. He meant to face the person and bow as one often does in Japan. Instead he kind of stepped out as if he were doing kata and assuming the ready position and then bowed from that odd position. It was simply a mistake, no big deal.

But because others of lower rank saw him do it, they emulated it. No one asked what the purpose was, they just did it. They took it home and taught it. Now many do it, I've even seen it done in Japan by a few. There's nothing disrespectful or wrong about it, and now it is tradition.

But it started because someone saw something and thought they understood it rather than digging into it.

We see a karateka take a wide deep stance, place their hands on their hips, and practice a straight punch, with or without rotation. We assume that means that's how they generate power, that's how they fight. It's kihon. Practice basics. It is incorporated into some kata, although often with more expressive stances and hands in different positions. We either see the 'chambered' fist at the hip or we presume it is not there at all; but it is there for anyone who has been taught correctly.

What you do not see is a self-defense situation with a well-trained martial artist squaring up against their attacker with their hands at their hips. If they do, I'd blame their instructor; someone seriously screwed up.

When I spar in the dojo, if I were to have to defend myself in a fight, my hands would be up, protecting my head. Not at all unlike a boxer. If I drop a hand, there's a specific reason for it, but I would not do that if I thought my head was open to being hit at that moment. I would NEVER place my fists at my hips. And yet, when I punch, I generate power in the manner I was trained, and that was done with hands on hips. My entire body is engaged, including my shoulder, hips, knees, my stance, and the turning motion of my body. I can generate power falling forward or back, and the 'pullback' of my non-punching arm is consistent with that, whether it is empty or holding on to some part of my attacker to drag them off-balance or down entirely.

All of this comes from punching with hands on hips, over and over and over. It is mindful practice. I know what I am doing and why I am doing it, and experience has taught me how to apply what I have learned. I am confident in my abilities, although I have much yet to learn.

 

[Martial D]

You are training your body to generate power using the shoulders, hips, knees, stance, and body rotation. That is the exact opposite of arm punching. The fist placed at the hips is a reference point and the muscle memory learned will be transferred to a more advantageous position for the hands in an actual altercation.

I am posting this in case others happen upon it. I realize you fail to grasp this concept.

It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? Why not just drill as you want to execute? This is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.

For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?

Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.

When someone continues to say that A is B and then rejects the argument that A is A, I call it failing to grasp the concept. I get that you have some definition of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is and what it is for, but you're incorrect. I can't say more than that. Your understanding is flawed. A is A, not B.

I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? This is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.

It would be exactly what you say if it was what you say it is. A hot dog bun makes a lousy hamburger bun. Everyone who eats hamburgers understands this. But no one is saying that what you see as a hotdog bun is one.

For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?

Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.

I am answering the OP's question, which involved a false understanding of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is. If we cannot explain what it really is, we cannot explain what it is really for.

A non-Christian might think that one can be saved by wearing a crucifix. After all, that's what some Christians do, right? But if that is all they understand based on seeing one around many Christians' necks, they have a flawed understanding. They can argue all day about how they wore a crucifix but it didn't get their soul saved. Because the assumption is false in the first place, the conclusion is wrong in the second place.

 

[Hanzou]

LOL. Many guys who also do not understand what they see also agree that it is useless.

Back to the original point though: MMA guys fight for a living. It's quite telling that they view that family of techniques as useless as well. I'm quite sure a professional fighter knows exactly what they're seeing when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip.

As someone who spent their formative years in traditional karate, I find it laughable that some people simply can't admit that a large amount of techniques in traditional martial arts are simply archaic and inefficient and should be discarded for superior methods. It's almost like dealing with a religion. The founder of their Asian martial arts style of choice might as well be Jesus or Muhammad spreading divine martial wisdom that must never be challenged or discarded.

 

[Martial D]

When someone continues to say that A is B and then rejects the argument that A is A, I call it failing to grasp the concept. I get that you have some definition of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is and what it is for, but you're incorrect. I can't say more than that. Your understanding is flawed. A is A, not B.



It would be exactly what you say if it was what you say it is. A hot dog bun makes a lousy hamburger bun. Everyone who eats hamburgers understands this. But no one is saying that what you see as a hotdog bun is one.



I am answering the OP's question, which involved a false understanding of what a hands-on-hip chambered punch is. If we cannot explain what it really is, we cannot explain what it is really for.

A non-Christian might think that one can be saved by wearing a crucifix. After all, that's what some Christians do, right? But if that is all they understand based on seeing one around many Christians' necks, they have a flawed understanding. They can argue all day about how they wore a crucifix but it didn't get their soul saved. Because the assumption is false in the first place, the conclusion is wrong in the second place.

Ok, so your position is that chambering has two definitions then? You have 'throwing from the chambered position' (what most people understand as a chamber..hence the term chamber lol.) and throwing from the guard/wherever the hand is at the time which is chambering too because reasons.

That's a bit like saying modern dance is ballet because you practice ballet at home.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...which is chambering too because reasons.

I've given the reasons. You choose not to understand them. That's fine. Moving on.

 

[Martial D]

I've given the reasons. You choose not to understand them. That's fine. Moving on.

You really haven't. You've stated that doing a hip chamber helps you build mechanics for when you do throw for real, which you stated is from the guard position. At best, you've made an unsupported statement that chambering serves as a training tool. (Which I have made an argument against with reasoning)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I made it clear I (as well as the OP) was talking about a hip chamber/shoulder chamber. In my very first response I specified there is no need to do this, and a good punch starts where it is(the guard)

Now it seems you are agreeing with me, and defining the chamber as throwing from the guard.

You are arguing my point and playing language games lol

Bill clarified earlier that the thing you and the OP are talking about is a drill, not a punching method. It's a drill that can be used to teach (parts of) a punching method.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What characteristics besides bad habits and mechanics is that building, specifically? You are training your muscle memory to move your fist the entire distance from the shoulder out with a stationary trunk. This is the very definition of arm punching.

I've never known it to build bad habits. I've never seen someone trained with that drill, for instance, accidentally pull back into that chambering position in sparring.

What it develops depends a lot on how the drill is used. When I've used it, it was mostly to focus on integrating body with the punch - specifically to help cure when someone was actually doing an arm-only punch. It also helps develop (as I think I pointed out earlier) the habit of drawing back one hand when the other punches. Whether it's the best way to do any of that is arguable. That it can be used for those ends is not arguable, in my opinion. Of course, like most drills, it can be misunderstood and misused.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, it goes beyond simply a drill. It is reinforced in multiple techniques and within the kata. That is actually how Karateka are supposed to punch.

I disagree. None of my instructors have ever asserted that this was what a punch should be like in application.

If you look at older media of Karate, those nonsensical punches from the hip and the deep stances were supposed to be how a karateka fights. The problem is that Karateka got eaten alive by western boxers, so now you have this psuedo kickboxing going on when katateka actually fight. There is zero reason to drill techniques that you completely discard when you're actually fighting.

Is it possible that those old media weren't complete? I'm not much familiar with them, so can't speak to how they approached this. I've always seen this presented as the starting point for learning to punch, never as the application.

But let's assume that was, once, the application. How is that a problem now? If Karate evolved to better application, why damn them with sins of the past they aren't committing? That's just weird.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes they do. The reverse punch is still considered a viable technique in karate fantasy land.

Not in any Karate class I attended, nor in any seminar I've been in. Are there some folks doing what I would consider "wrong" application? Probably - we can find that in almost any system. But I've literally never seen it taught as how you should deliver a punch in sparring. Not once.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not that I "fail to grasp this concept", it's that I don't agree with you for one, and for two you are either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I already explained why I think it's a bad habit generator. Why would you drill a certain movement in practice and expect that to help you with a different movement? Why not just drill as you want to execute? This is actually something a lot of TMA guys seem to believe..not just with this but the usefulness of kata and stance training as well. I don't buy it, and neither do most people that fight competitively.

For two, you are being a bit dishonest by conflating 'using it as a training method' vs 'doing it when it counts'(completion/sparring/fighting). Nobody but you brought the former into this discussion. I'm pretty sure the OP meant in execution , as did I. If you start defining a chamber as throwing from anywhere, what are we even talking about here?

Again, you seem to be arguing just to argue semantics.

This is part of the paradigm found in a lot of JMA. They exaggerate motion to ingrain certain concepts. I don't think it's the fastest/most efficient way to do it, but it does work well with students who are struggling. It's also pretty easy to teach that way, which probably is why it has held up in so many systems when other methods are available. I'll reiterate that I've seen this paradigm work over and over, and I've also seen a few instructors who didn't understand that its a starting/foundation position, and over-emphasize it in the long term. Most folks, even if they continue to practice it exactly as that drill shows, easily progress to good mechanics for sparring. They do, quite literally, learn the mechanics they need from a different motion. That's not really all that odd. I see the same thing a lot in grappling. Someone who knows a takedown can easily learn another takedown that uses the same mechanics, even if it's a different set of movements.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Back to the original point though: MMA guys fight for a living. It's quite telling that they view that family of techniques as useless as well. I'm quite sure a professional fighter knows exactly what they're seeing when someone is throwing a telegraphed, easily countered punch from the hip.

As someone who spent their formative years in traditional karate, I find it laughable that some people simply can't admit that a large amount of techniques in traditional martial arts are simply archaic and inefficient and should be discarded for superior methods. It's almost like dealing with a religion. The founder of their Asian martial arts style of choice might as well be Jesus or Muhammad spreading divine martial wisdom that must never be challenged or discarded.

I think a lot of people on here from TMA readily admit there's stuff we do that's not maximum efficiency. Some of it, we even consciously choose to keep.

But you're arguing about a drill and saying it's an ineffective punch for application. That'd be like me saying an animal walk isn't an effective way to maneuver in ground fighting. I'd be right, but the animal walk isn't intended to develop a way to move across the ring, though it's used to move across the gym. It's a drill used to develop strength, body balance, and other characteristics that are useful in ground maneuvering and grappling.

Now, if you want to argue about the effectiveness of the drill as a drill, I think there's a lot of room for good discussion on that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think a lot of people on here from TMA readily admit there's stuff we do that's not maximum efficiency. Some of it, we even consciously choose to keep.

But you're arguing about a drill and saying it's an ineffective punch for application. That'd be like me saying an animal walk isn't an effective way to maneuver in ground fighting. I'd be right, but the animal walk isn't intended to develop a way to move across the ring, though it's used to move across the gym. It's a drill used to develop strength, body balance, and other characteristics that are useful in ground maneuvering and grappling.

Now, if you want to argue about the effectiveness of the drill as a drill, I think there's a lot of room for good discussion on that.

Weird, I tried to reply and it just posted the above quote - no idea why. Sorry.

Anyway - TMA with the emphasis on the T - we teach it because it is Traditional. Is there anything better? Dunno. Maybe. Who knows? I don't seek better, I seek better understanding of traditional methods. It works, I have confidence in it, I like it. I mean, I could just carry a gun, I guess. No need to learn to punch.

In any case, the hip-chamber does not just teach the power generation we've been discussing. There is a lot more application in there, including a few things I have mentioned. We can ignore all that, but there's so much there, why would anyone want to? I find this notion odd.

 

[Hanzou]

I disagree. None of my instructors have ever asserted that this was what a punch should be like in application.

Is it possible that those old media weren't complete? I'm not much familiar with them, so can't speak to how they approached this. I've always seen this presented as the starting point for learning to punch, never as the application.

But let's assume that was, once, the application. How is that a problem now? If Karate evolved to better application, why damn them with sins of the past they aren't committing? That's just weird.

Because if the goal is end up punching like boxing or kickboxing, teaching someone the reverse punch or a similar strike is counter-intuitive towards that goal. Boxers don't sit in horsey stance or front stance and throw chambered punches from the hip. They drill punches exactly like they throw punches in the ring.

Karate didn't evolve to a better application, the better application was forced upon it by western influences just like Muay Thai and Chinese Kickboxing. The difference is that those systems embraced western boxing and influences while Karate adhered to traditional methodology while its students embraced the western influence of higher stances and the western boxing guard because they had to.

If we all agree that boxers are the best punchers in the business, and that the end goal is to fight functionally like boxers/kickboxers, then why aren't we simply mimicking their methodology instead of sticking to an outdated methodology that isn't reinforcing what our end goal is?

 

[Martial D]

I've never known it to build bad habits. I've never seen someone trained with that drill, for instance, accidentally pull back into that chambering position in sparring.

What it develops depends a lot on how the drill is used. When I've used it, it was mostly to focus on integrating body with the punch - specifically to help cure when someone was actually doing an arm-only punch. It also helps develop (as I think I pointed out earlier) the habit of drawing back one hand when the other punches. Whether it's the best way to do any of that is arguable. That it can be used for those ends is not arguable, in my opinion. Of course, like most drills, it can be misunderstood and misused.

Drawing back one hand while the other punches is a good example of a bad habit. For starters it's a telegraph, for two it's not necessary and adds nothing of positive value.

What exactly do you see of value in doing it? This is, as I mentioned before, one of the main problems with traditional training. For the record, Ive seen it a LOT. TMA guys often DO draw back before they throw, and it's just an extra thing to get past when learning to punch properly.

This raises an interesting point though. You maintain that in competition/sparring/fighting you've never seen a karate man "accidentally" draw back to chamber position before punching, and the other guy arguing says it's just a method to build proper mechanics rather than something you actually do.

So why put that sort of long arm motion into your muscle memory at all? The best punch only travels a few inches. Why train a long telegraphed motion over and over for years just to throw it out and actually fight against the habit of doing it when the time comes?

All of this is really neither here nor there though if every punch you rotate into is a chambered punch. In fact at that point the term doesn't even mean anything.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Weird, I tried to reply and it just posted the above quote - no idea why. Sorry.

Anyway - TMA with the emphasis on the T - we teach it because it is Traditional. Is there anything better? Dunno. Maybe. Who knows? I don't seek better, I seek better understanding of traditional methods. It works, I have confidence in it, I like it. I mean, I could just carry a gun, I guess. No need to learn to punch.

In any case, the hip-chamber does not just teach the power generation we've been discussing. There is a lot more application in there, including a few things I have mentioned. We can ignore all that, but there's so much there, why would anyone want to? I find this notion odd.

In NGA we don't get into anything beyond its development of punching mechanics (because we develop those other principles directly in our grappling). I didn't stay in either Karate program long enough to know if either instructor was going to emphasize anything beyond those mechanics. I suspect one wouldn't, because we covered those in Judo classes (taught by the same instructor).

 

[Hanzou]

Not in any Karate class I attended, nor in any seminar I've been in. Are there some folks doing what I would consider "wrong" application? Probably - we can find that in almost any system. But I've literally never seen it taught as how you should deliver a punch in sparring. Not once.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because if the goal is end up punching like boxing or kickboxing, teaching someone the reverse punch or a similar strike is counter-intuitive towards that goal. Boxers don't sit in horsey stance or front stance and throw chambered punches from the hip. They drill punches exactly like they throw punches in the ring.

As I said, it's reasonable to argue whether it's the best method or not. I don't use it as much as my instructor did, but I do find it useful for students who struggle in specific ways (very arm-only is the main one). I prefer to introduce punches the way boxing tends to. I don't find the mechanics develop differently than they did for me, but most students seem to develop them faster using that method, as opposed to the traditional method. But I find both get to much the same end point over time.

Karate didn't evolve to a better application, the better application was forced upon it by western influences just like Muay Thai and Chinese Kickboxing. The difference is that those systems embraced western boxing and influences while Karate adhered to traditional methodology while its students embraced the western influence of higher stances and the western boxing guard because they had to.

We could say better takedown defense was forced on BJJ by wrestlers. But that wouldn't change that BJJ has evolved better takedown defense. We could say a given MMA fighter developed better ground defense, or that he was forced by other competitors to have better ground defense. The end point is the same: he improved his ground defense. Your'e trying to make it about the cause, and make it a fault that they evolved because something else worked better. That's not a fault.

If we all agree that boxers are the best punchers in the business, and that the end goal is to fight functionally like boxers/kickboxers, then why aren't we simply mimicking their methodology instead of sticking to an outdated methodology that isn't reinforcing what our end goal is?

That's a good question. Some of it, as Bill said in a recent post, is sometimes we just like the traditional method. It works, even if it's not the most efficient approach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Drawing back one hand while the other punches is a good example of a bad habit. For starters it's a telegraph, for two it's not necessary and adds nothing of positive value.

I think I wasn't clear. I was talking about in a series of strikes. After you punch with the right, it should be coming back while the left is going in, not just hanging out there doing nothing. It doesn't mean the right goes backward every time the left punches.

What exactly do you see of value in doing it? This is, as I mentioned before, one of the main problems with traditional training. For the record, Ive seen it a LOT. TMA guys often DO draw back before they throw, and it's just an extra thing to get past when learning to punch properly.

I've seen it work well to correct students who were NOT getting any leg/hip/body into the punch. This drill makes it easier for me to get them to use more than just the arm. It has the disadvantage of not letting me work with leg power at that point, but many beginners aren't ready for that yet, so I'm okay letting that wait a bit. I don't doubt that some folks over-practice this type of drill to the exclusion of other drills. That would probably create that bad habit of rotating into the punch (that drawing back before the strike you mentioned, if I'm understanding you right). I see that without this drill, too, though. It's not uncommon, when I just teach punches from a fighting stance, to have someone want to draw the hand back before punching. They want to load the power, then deliver. This drill, actually, can be used to help cure that.

This raises an interesting point though. You maintain that in competition/sparring/fighting you've never seen a karate man "accidentally" draw back to chamber position before punching, and the other guy arguing says it's just a method to build proper mechanics rather than something you actually do.

So why put that sort of long arm motion into your muscle memory at all? The best punch only travels a few inches. Why train a long telegraphed motion over and over for years just to throw it out and actually fight against the habit of doing it when the time comes?

I think you're seeing the drill differently than I see it, MD. The hand should NEVER draw back before punching. The opposite hand draws back during the punch (as the body rotates, to chamber for the next punch). So, there should never be a telegraphed motion involved. These are typically done with a pause between punches. The pause, however brief, should be the neutral starting point, and the punch should fire from that pause without a wind-up or telegraph. That's something I specifically use this drill for sometimes - to train OUT that habit to telegraph. The larger motions and squared stance often magnifies the error, so the student can feel themselves doing it - which they sometimes do not feel when in a fighting stance.

All of this is really neither here nor there though if every punch you rotate into is a chambered punch. In fact at that point the term doesn't even mean anything.

That's rather my point. Chambering isn't a unique proposition, in any way. When a boxer jabs, he returns his punch to the chambered position. When he uppercuts, he returns to the chambered position. The chambered position is simply the position from which the punch is able to be fired. I can't deliver much power if my arm is more or less fully extended before I start the punch. But if I keep it bent to some useful angle, it's already chambered and ready to punch with.