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

[Hanzou]

Okay, just wanted to make sure before I asked this - do you see the point I was making about the difference in the two crosses you posted? One of those I couldn't kick from. One I could. You're probably better trained at kicks than me, so I'd expect it to be at least as clear to you.

Otherwise, they are nearly identical, to my eye.

Eh, I don't feel that the difference you brought up is all that meaningful. Keep in mind that two people will do the same technique in different ways. The important part is the core technique itself, and that is starting from boxer guard, pivoting off the ball of your rear foot, etc. In any case, my original point is that the Boxer Cross is fundamentally different than the Reverse Punch, and the Boxer Cross and the Boxer guard are commonly used in systems that utilize kicking.

 

[Hanzou]

That's what I was getting at in something earlier. You're generalizing your experience to all Karate. Even in the brief time I was training in Shotokan, I was always aware that this was a formal position for starting/studying, and not the application. The actual application would be much closer to a boxer's cross (I didn't really know what that was back then, so wouldn't have been able to make that statement at the time) with a karate guard (like what was shown in the MMA video someone posted).

No, I'm pointing out that people in Karate ARE trained in chambered strikes and are taught that those strikes are the actual application. Hence why those chambered strikes are reinforced in kata and other aspects of formal training. Now, I don't disagree that some schools might deviate from that since my Karate dojo was pretty traditional, but I think it is a bad training methodology to drill someone repeatedly a certain way when the actual application is completely different.

And yes it needs to be repeated: The Boxer Cross and the Karate Reverse Punch are two completely different techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Eh, I don't feel that the difference you brought up is all that meaningful. Keep in mind that two people will do the same technique in different ways. The important part is the core technique itself, and that is starting from boxer guard, pivoting off the ball of your rear foot, etc. In any case, my original point is that the Boxer Cross is fundamentally different than the Reverse Punch, and the Boxer Cross and the Boxer guard are commonly used in systems that utilize kicking.

I tried to be clear it was a small difference. If I wasn't, that's my bad. It's a small shift that makes the kick available, but otherwise much the same technique. With most cross/reverse from Karate in sparring, it's similar, though not as similar as the MT cross. The difference in the guard is significant, but not extreme, in that the typical Karate guard has the hands more separated and the feet are sometimes not held parallel (again, as in that MMA video posted earlier).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, I'm pointing out that people in Karate ARE trained in chambered strikes and are taught that those strikes are the actual application. Hence why those chambered strikes are reinforced in kata and other aspects of formal training. Now, I don't disagree that some schools might deviate from that since my Karate dojo was pretty traditional, but I think it is a bad training methodology to drill someone repeatedly a certain way when the actual application is completely different.

And yes it needs to be repeated: The Boxer Cross and the Karate Reverse Punch are two completely different techniques.

Except everything you've used to demonstrate that difference points to the formal training position and drills using it. What's the huge difference between the reverse punches in that Kyokushin video and a boxing cross to the body?

 

[_Simon_]

Without reading the whole thread (which has grown exponentially by the way, impressive!), in Kyokushin we would still do full chamber for all our techniques in basics and kata. We would do combinations too, sometimes full chamber, and sometimes just from hands up position. Sparring was without chambering usually.

Did the chambering help in full contact sparring? Who knows! It's truly hard (if not maybe impossible?) to say, but I can sure as heck say that it helped me in understanding power generation and body mechanics very well.

Did the constant chambering in basics and kata hinder me at all in sparring? Not in the slightest.

 

[Hanzou]

Except everything you've used to demonstrate that difference points to the formal training position and drills using it. What's the huge difference between the reverse punches in that Kyokushin video and a boxing cross to the body?

I would argue that at that point, the Kyokushin fighters aren't using Reverse Punches, they've adapted their system to being a form of kickboxing. If you look closely, even their stances are completely removed from the deep stances found in training and Kata practice. Again, as I've said many times; If that is the end point, why not simply do kickboxing from the beginning and avoid learning those techniques and kata that you're going to eventually shed?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would argue that at that point, the Kyokushin fighters aren't using Reverse Punches, they've adapted their system to being a form of kickboxing. If you look closely, even their stances are completely removed from the deep stances found in training and Kata practice. Again, as I've said many times; If that is the end point, why not simply do kickboxing from the beginning and avoid learning those techniques that you're going to eventually shed.

That's because you're insisting on the definition of "reverse punch" being what's in that formal position. Most folks I've trained with would consider that punch used in sparring to be a "reverse punch" and a "cross", seeing the two as interchangeable terms, outside the formal position. Again, the most common definition of "reverse punch" I've run into is "a punch from the rear hand".

 

[Hanzou]

That's because you're insisting on the definition of "reverse punch" being what's in that formal position. Most folks I've trained with would consider that punch used in sparring to be a "reverse punch" and a "cross", seeing the two as interchangeable terms, outside the formal position. Again, the most common definition of "reverse punch" I've run into is "a punch from the rear hand".

I'm insisting on the definition of the Reverse Punch being exactly what it is as a technique? Guilty as charged.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm insisting on the definition of the Reverse Punch being exactly what it is as a technique? Guilty as charged.

No, you're insisting on the definition of it as it is in the formal position. You are quite willfully refusing to accept the definition several folks have said is the working definition for them and those they train with. Why do you get to decide what the word means to those who use it in their training?

 

[Hanzou]

No, you're insisting on the definition of it as it is in the formal position. You are quite willfully refusing to accept the definition several folks have said is the working definition for them and those they train with. Why do you get to decide what the word means to those who use it in their training?

I'm not deciding on anything. I'm looking at the actual technique and calling it what it is. You're trying to say that Blue is Purple when in fact Blue is Blue and Purple is Purple. The Reverse Punch is the Reverse Punch and the Cross Punch is the Cross Punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not deciding on anything. I'm looking at the actual technique and calling it what it is. You're trying to say that Blue is Purple when in fact Blue is Blue and Purple is Purple. The Reverse Punch is the Reverse Punch and the Cross Punch is the Cross Punch.

You're looking at a drill for training the technique, and calling that the technique. That's like looking at a bucket of paint and saying what's on the wall can't be paint, because paint comes in a bucket.

 

[Hanzou]

You're looking at a drill for training the technique, and calling that the technique. That's like looking at a bucket of paint and saying what's on the wall can't be paint, because paint comes in a bucket.

So we're back to you believing that the Reverse Punch isnt an actual technique but a training tool. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So we're back to you believing that the Reverse Punch isnt an actual technique but a training tool. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.

No, I never said that. I said what YOU claim is a reverse punch is only a drill and/or formal version (you've varied what you're talking about in this thread), and not the end technique. I've always said that - go back to the earliest time I mentioned it in this thread, and you'll see that.

A reverse punch is a technique. It is NOT any of the drills used to train it or its components.

 

[VPT]

Yes. I have a 2nd degree BB in Shotokan.

I hope you are aware that Shotokan has never, ever been considered "traditional karate"?

 

[JowGaWolf]

This might just be me seeing a minor difference and giving it meaning, but the MT cross holds the hip back a tad and transfers weight squarely to the front leg, which would make it possible to raise that leg for a kick in combination. The boxing cross is only slightly different, but it would be much more difficult to raise that leg. I'm not much of a kicker, but I see that immediately between them.

It's a minor difference that determines if you are able to kick or not. The position of a lock on a door will determine if on strangers can just walk in or have to knock. There are many minor things in Martial arts that can make a big difference when done or not done. Fist structures have minor differences in positions but big differences on oh the fist can be used.

Hanzou is just being Hanzou. I have to admit Hanzou is consistent.

 

[Danny T]

Walking...let's look at the technique of the human walking.
The basic form is the technique. Do we all walk same? No but the technique is still walking.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Eh, the Kyokushin fighters had a different structure than those guys in that video. However, I will give those Karate guys credit for at least resembling Karate as it is trained when they're actually fighting.

That's because you are comparing application with training of application. In fighting you are going to adjustments that aren't going to match perfect structure or demo structure.

 

[Buka]

In American Karate, amongst other things, I teach people to punch. That punching consists of right crosses, reverse punches and all other punches we use. We train all of them against resisting partners. Once the application of those punches reaches a point where they can use them fairly well, it's up to the student to use the ones they want.

Most use both ways (right cross or reverse punch) but not exclusively of each other. I've been hit with all of them maybe a zillion times, both to the body and to the face. Each and every one of them kind of sucked.

I don't see a big deal in which way anyone punches, as long as they can use that punch for what it was designed. To hit.

 

[amateur]

Whoah, I can't believe a thread of mine brought about that many responses. I read up to somewhere
in Page 3, then got dizzy and stopped.
Anyway, here's my view on your debates. I agree with the ones that said chamber punches are
indeed the way eastern fighters fought in the ancient past; it would be nonsense to practice
something they wouldn't utilize in combat.
I disagree with those that say chamber punches are just an outdated way of fighting that was
pushed aside by western style punches (those thrown with arms at head level). I don't think
that eastern masters are so idiotic or that punches thrown from head level is that hard knowledge
to acquire that it would take centuries of evolution for martial artists to come up with.
When I saw in a video that eastern, old fashioned masters have one arm raised and extended
forward and the other chambered when fighting, everything became clear to me (I think).
Eastern styles are designed for long range combat focused more on impressive kicks, for self
defense; shaolins and other masters of the ancient past were not interested in competition, they
got into real fights only when they had to. The raised arm served the purpose of keeping the
attacker at a distance and possibly grab and pull them if they approached so that the chambered
arm would deliver a loaded punch. That's why they practiced consecutive straight punches;
they also practiced that 'pull and punch' motion that way.
Western styles, on the other hand, are designed for competition. When you want to win a fight,
you won't just keep yourself at a distance and wait for the foe to attack, like you do when a
mugger corners you in an alley. If you want to win, sooner or later, you have to approach and
attack, so your arms have to be high.
All in all, kung fu wouldn't work in a ring and MMA wouldn't work in a life or death battle.
That's what I made of the knowledge I absorbed. Of course, I'm just a beginner, maybe all the
above is nonsense, maybe I didn't get anything right. I'm waiting for your responses.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hope you are aware that Shotokan has never, ever been considered "traditional karate"?

That depends who you ask, and how you define "traditional" - a debate that has raged many times here on MT, with no real consensus.