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

[Martial D]

Here's a shotokan guy demonstrating technique and application. This is an arm punch.

Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would argue that's bad application. No reason for that hand to be down there.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.

You clearly did not listen to what he was saying. He was demonstrating a reverse punch and he clearly explained that this is not how you would use it in 'real life' but that the techniques developed would apply. He even said he was demonstrating without involving the movement of hips and body that one would normally use in this punch, for the purposes of illustration. Precisely what I have said.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would argue that's bad application. No reason for that hand to be down there.

I cannot quite get that one myself. I would have to see someone try to demonstrate that technique to me in a way that worked against a resisting partner.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's a shotokan guy demonstrating technique and application. This is an arm punch.

Here's another BB demonstrating application of the reverse punch. Another chambered arm punch that while I'm sure would sting, has no force behind it.

Interesting that you put those both in the same category. The first actually uses his hips for power generation (proper for this drill). The second does not - and points out in his intro that this is not included, and so it's not actually the way you'd punch.

 

[Hanzou]

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.

Having done both methods, I can unequivocally say that Boxing is the better method since that's exactly how karate exponents end up fighting.

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.

In the case of Bjj, wrestling has always had a profound influence on it even before it separated from Judo. Mitsoyo Maeda fought a variety of wrestlers and was forced to adapt his Jiujitsu and Judo to compensate. The difference between Bjj and Karate is that Bjj doesn't adhere to older methods if there's a more efficient method out there. For example, we learn the Double Leg Takedown the way modern wrestlers do it, not the way Judo does it. The sprawl came from wrestling as well, and yeah BJJ adapted that too. There's no reason to adhere to outdated methods beyond simply wanting to stick to tradition. Once you reach that point, you're not learning to fight or protect yourself, you're just doing an ancient Asian dance.

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.

How can you say "it works" when you're not using its application when you're "fighting"?

 

[Martial D]

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.


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.


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.


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.

Ok, so if any punch that can be thrown with power from where it is is chambered, then any arm that isn't outstretched is chambered. Again, since that makes the word meaningless, and we are talking about the understood definition of chambering as practiced by taikwondoin and karateka as well as most styles of CMA etc..why are we having this discussion at all? You seem to agree that chambering, as the word is used by 99% of everyone, is a bad idea in practice.

 

[Martial D]

You clearly did not listen to what he was saying. He was demonstrating a reverse punch and he clearly explained that this is not how you would use it in 'real life' but that the techniques developed would apply. He even said he was demonstrating without involving the movement of hips and body that one would normally use in this punch, for the purposes of illustration. Precisely what I have said.

Uhh..it really isn't. He was fairly clear about that being proper technique. Sure you can snap your hips into it, but it's still an arm punch that travels from the trunk on out. The guy was pretty clear that even with hips engaged, it's only a snap rather than a weight rotation, and the hips stay square. He even advises AGAINST rotating into it lol.

Look, I get that you're a karate guy and take criticism of karate personally, but there's a reason nobody does these sorts of motions in any sort of high level competition. It's the same reason kickboxing changed from full contact karate to boxing with karate based kicks. The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Having done both methods, I can unequivocally say that Boxing is the better method since that's exactly how karate exponents end up fighting.

I wouldn't argue against that. I tend to prefer teaching that way now, myself. I mostly use the more traditional JMA methods for students who struggle (they seem to work better for me there, perhaps because I have more experience with them) and simply as exercises to work on for a while.

In the case of Bjj, wrestling has always had a profound influence on it even before it separated from Judo. Mitsoyo Maeda fought a variety of wrestlers and was forced to adapt his Jiujitsu and Judo to compensate. The difference between Bjj and Karate is that Bjj doesn't adhere to older methods if there's a more efficient method out there. For example, we learn the Double Leg Takedown the way modern wrestlers do it, not the way Judo does it. The sprawl came from wrestling as well, and yeah BJJ adapted that too. There's no reason to adhere to outdated methods beyond simply wanting to stick to tradition. Once you reach that point, you're not learning to fight or protect yourself, you're just doing an ancient Asian dance.

My point was simply that adapting to what we experience isn't a bad thing, including for those arts that went a long time without changing. I don't really care whether an art is proactive or reactive in that respect - it's still evolution.

How can you say "it works" when you're not using its application when you're "fighting"?

Because it's what I used to develop what I do when I'm sparring, and I've used it to train others. It does work for developing mechanics for that application. It's a bit distant from application, so it probably takes longer to get to the same endpoint, compared to boxing. But most students aren't really on the fast track, anyway. Simple exercises like this seem to have a better "take home" value for most students who have no prior experience. Athletes are an exception to that - they (usually) have better body awareness, and don't benefit at all from the exaggerated traditional methods.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.

And now we get to the meat of it. Thanks. Blocked.

 

[Martial D]

And now we get to the meat of it. Thanks. Blocked.

LOL.

I guess that proves my point. Sorry I had to trigger you bro.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok, so if any punch that can be thrown with power from where it is is chambered, then any arm that isn't outstretched is chambered. Again, since that makes the word meaningless, and we are talking about the understood definition of chambering as practiced by taikwondoin and karateka as well as most styles of CMA etc..why are we having this discussion at all? You seem to agree that chambering, as the word is used by 99% of everyone, is a bad idea in practice.

I don't think it's meaningless - it just means "ready to punch". I don't tend to use the term much in teaching. I'm more likely to tell them to get that hand "back in guard", which is the same position, of course.

But again, I don't think "99% of everyone" in the arts in question would say "chambering" is only the position used in that drill. I've heard others refer to "bringing the hand back to chamber" to mean exactly what I mean when I refer to "bringing the hand back to guard". That position is both chamber and guard - it prepares the hand to punch, while also providing protection.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Uhh..it really isn't. He was fairly clear about that being proper technique. Sure you can snap your hips into it, but it's still an arm punch that travels from the trunk on out. The guy was pretty clear that even with hips engaged, it's only a snap rather than a weight rotation, and the hips stay square. He even advises AGAINST rotating into it lol.

Look, I get that you're a karate guy and take criticism of karate personally, but there's a reason nobody does these sorts of motions in any sort of high level competition. It's the same reason kickboxing changed from full contact karate to boxing with karate based kicks. The karate/TMA hand game just isn't on par with modern methods.

If we had a heavy bag handy, I could show you how much more power there is in that hip-snap punch than in an arm-only punch. It brings part of the bodyweight behind it, and that's the point of doing it that way. It's not the full power of the technique - you can't afford to rotate into it while in a squared stance (part of the reason he includes that admonition), so you have to learn to use hip/leg pressure from that static position.

 

[CB Jones]

From TMA17’s thread.

I like this video from Michael Jai White about the reverse punch

 

[Martial D]

I don't think it's meaningless - it just means "ready to punch". I don't tend to use the term much in teaching. I'm more likely to tell them to get that hand "back in guard", which is the same position, of course.

But again, I don't think "99% of everyone" in the arts in question would say "chambering" is only the position used in that drill. I've heard others refer to "bringing the hand back to chamber" to mean exactly what I mean when I refer to "bringing the hand back to guard". That position is both chamber and guard - it prepares the hand to punch, while also providing protection.

Ok cool, I can roll with that. But at the same time, you have to admit that how you are defining it not only doesn't jibe well with the traditional definition, but the traditional definition(pulling it to the hip or shoulder) contradicts your definition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok cool, I can roll with that. But at the same time, you have to admit that how you are defining it not only doesn't jibe well with the traditional definition, but the traditional definition(pulling it to the hip or shoulder) contradicts your definition.

That's a starting point for learning, and is done (everywhere I've personally experienced it) exclusively in forms and other drills. I was taught from that same starting point in 2 styles of Karate and in NGA (which derives most of its strikes from Shotokan Karate).

 

[Martial D]

That's a starting point for learning, and is done (everywhere I've personally experienced it) exclusively in forms and other drills. I was taught from that same starting point in 2 styles of Karate and in NGA (which derives most of its strikes from Shotokan Karate).

Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc.

It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed.

Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.

If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc.

It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed.
..[EDITORIAL SNIP - QUOTE USED BELOW]..
If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?

I think you and I see the results differently. I see this drill as helping prevent telegraphing, when trained properly. I don't see it hindering anything, though it does encourage a slower progression.

Let me see if I can clarify what I've experienced. If I put every student through the same thing, my results are more consistent if I start from these kinds of drills. That holds back the better-coordinated folks and helps the less-coordinated folks. If I use a less structured approach (introducing punches at the heavy bag, from a fighting stance), I'll probably get a bit faster progress from average folks, much faster progress from those who are well coordinated, and much worse results from those who are poorly coordinated or simply have no real grasp of a punch, at all. So I mix the two. I mostly use the traditional methods to help fix problems people have (or learn) when using the more modern approach.

For my own training - and for someone who already has decent mechanics - I don't see much reason for spending time in this drill, except as an exercise in paying attention to the details it makes easier to see. I'm more likely to practice it at a heavy bag, when I use it, at all.

Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.

I think the speed bag is a good analogy. As you say, it doesn't really match what they'll do in the ring. The posture isn't right, the use of the hands isn't right, etc. But it does build some attributes - in part because of the ways it's not like sparring/fighting. That statement is somewhat true of this punching drill, too. It takes steps, weight shifts, etc. out, to force you to work on hip action (I can generate reasonable power without it if I'm allowed to use my legs fully). Having that hip action allows for power from some odd angles. How useful is that? Probably not exceptionally so. Developing that base could be replaced with boxing's approach, but then you'd need to work in boxing footwork to take advantage of what boxing does. At what point are you just doing boxing, instead?

 

[Buka]

Ya, I get what you are saying. A starting point, add in other mechanics later, or a training tool that isn't the same as execution etc.

It just seems like a strange tool to me as the mechanics it puts into you seem to hinder more than help if you want to get fast hard punches that come from the body and are not telegraphed.

Like, with a speed bag. Boxers obviously don't fight like they work the bag, but the bag gives you timing and spacial awareness, as well as short range explosiveness with the forearms and wrists. The point of the speed bag isn't to to teach proper mechanics but rather to train these attributes.

If the point is to drill in applicable mechanics, why not just drill how you throw? Isn't anything else counterproductive at that point?

The primary use of the speed bag is to develop the shoulders in a hands up position for teaching boxing to beginners. Once your shoulders tire in a boxing match your hands will get lower and lower.

Once skilled, boxers use it as part of their workout because they're used to it, it's kind of fun when you can really make it sing, and they put in so much time grinding in the gym it fits in nicely with everything else.

Back when I was a youngster there was an old guy in my boxing gym that could play Sweet Georgia Brown on the speed bag, even on the peanut bag. (really small speed bag)

Still makes me smile thinking about it.

 

[Buka]

As for the debate about how to punch, to me, it's kind of like listening to Political Parties argue over, well, everything. And to each their own, more power to them.

Wise onlookers know they're listening to a debate on the cleaning of the elephant stall and the donkey stall. Amount being the biggest difference. Bring a good broom and shovel.