Is it possible to knock someone out with a jab

[Kickboxer101]

You always hear people saying a jab is not a knockout punch but I think if you time it right it can be. No it's never going to be as powerful as a cross or a hook you can still get a lot of power into especially if you step into it. Also it's a harder punch to see coming and the ones that hurt most are the ones you don't see.

I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching.

An example of this is Forrest griffin vs Anderson silva

 

[Dirty Dog]

You always hear people saying a jab is not a knockout punch but I think if you time it right it can be. No it's never going to be as powerful as a cross or a hook you can still get a lot of power into especially if you step into it. Also it's a harder punch to see coming and the ones that hurt most are the ones you don't see.

It's more accurate to say that it's not a high percentage knockout strike.

I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching

Actually, that's not how physics works.
The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's more accurate to say that it's not a high percentage knockout strike.

Agreed.

I think the best option to get a ko with it is if they're moving forward and you use the opposing force of them coming in to hit them. For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage. Same goes for your punching.

Jack Slack says that the art of the striker lies in creating collisions.

Actually, that's not how physics works.
The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.

What?? That's not at all correct.

Impact is primarily determined by the relative velocity of the objects involved. (And by a lesser extent by their respective masses).

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (standing still), then their relative velocity is 10 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 10 mph due south), then their relative velocity is 20 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 9 mph due south), then their relative velocity is only 1 mph.

If A is travelling 10 mph due north and B is travelling 10 mph due north, then their relative velocity is 0 and they won't collide.

 

[oftheherd1]

I am not a physics person, but the way Tony Dismukes describes it is the way I was always told. And I have seen collisions where there was more damage from a head on collision of two cars than from a single vehicle hitting a non-moving object. Dirty Dog, did you mis-state and mean to say something else, or can you show us something from physics that proves your statement true?

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's possible to knock someone out with a jab and it happens. As far as technique goes it requires that the power is generated by forward movement of the body instead of trying to generate all of the power only by using the arm. There are a couple of ways to generate the forward movement of the body. The most common way that we see is the superman punch

The style of martial arts that I train uses forward motion to increase the power of jabs and punches in general. Forward motion is even used in our most powerful punches. You can literally find quite a few of jab knockouts on youtube.

This guy generates the power for his jab in a similar manner that I generate power for my jabs. In kung fu it's called a thrust punch

 

[Dirty Dog]

Agreed.



Jack Slack says that the art of the striker lies in creating collisions.



What?? That's not at all correct.

Impact is primarily determined by the relative velocity of the objects involved. (And by a lesser extent by their respective masses).

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (standing still), then their relative velocity is 10 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 10 mph due south), then their relative velocity is 20 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 9 mph due south), then their relative velocity is only 1 mph.

If A is travelling 10 mph due north and B is travelling 10 mph due north, then their relative velocity is 0 and they won't collide.

I am not a physics person, but the way Tony Dismukes describes it is the way I was always told. And I have seen collisions where there was more damage from a head on collision of two cars than from a single vehicle hitting a non-moving object. Dirty Dog, did you mis-state and mean to say something else, or can you show us something from physics that proves your statement true?

No, I did not mis-state at all.

Yes, it is counter-intuitive. It is, nonetheless, how physics works.

When object A is traveling at speed X and strikes object B, it decelerates from X to zero. The deceleration forces are identical regardless of if object B is stationary or moving.

If you'd like to argue with Newton, feel free. But in this universe, that is how the physics works.

 

[Phobius]

No, I did not mis-state at all.

Yes, it is counter-intuitive. It is, nonetheless, how physics works.

When object A is traveling at speed X and strikes object B, it decelerates from X to zero. The deceleration forces are identical regardless of if object B is stationary or moving.

If you'd like to argue with Newton, feel free. But in this universe, that is how the physics works.

I beg the differ, that is not how physics work. There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.

An object B that is grounded will have a different friction than one that is moving most likely and as such the way force is moving differs.

To be honest it was a long time I even studied this but it is too complicated for me to recollect the details about it at this point.

While you are in general right especially when two objects can be deemed identical and simplified as to moving in specific paths, same does not apply to a fist hitting a head in order to say damage is identical in terms of force.

Not intended to be arguing, just wanted to say that we should not simplify science in order to make conclussions in this case.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

.

When object A is traveling at speed X and strikes object B, it decelerates from X to zero. The deceleration forces are identical regardless of if object B is stationary or moving.

This only applies if object B is rooted in place and cannot move or deform. The Mythbusters test compared the impact of cars colliding with each other to the impact of cars colliding with a wall. Since the wall was rooted and solid enough to not break, it applied a force to the oncoming car exactly sufficient to slow it from speed X to zero in the time it took the kinetic energy to expend itself deforming the body of the car..

When a moving car strikes a stationary car which isn't bolted to the ground (or a boxer strikes a stationary body), the target will be accelerated from its rest position and the moving object will not decelerate as quickly as it would have hitting an unmovable target. Depending on their relative speeds and masses, it might not even decelerate all the way to zero.

Contrariwise, if the colliding objects are moving opposite to each other with comparable momentum, then the effects will be more similar to what happens if they ran into a solid wall.

In the other direction, consider a car moving 50 miles an hour bumping the rear fender of a car moving the same direction at 49.9 miles per hour. The impact would be minimal. Certainly (as long as the drivers didn't lose control and hit something else), the cars wouldn't be crumpled the way they would if they hit a wall going 50 miles per hour.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Regarding the jab, the answer is yes.

However, causing unconsciousness with it typically requires rotational force to be applied to the head, and a jab seldom is positioned to do that.

Get offline and hit the jaw on the button and you may cause that rotational force to be applied.

Keep in mind that medical science now believes knockout blows are extremely dangerous in a longterm health sense.

 

[Flying Crane]

So how about this one: car A moving at 50 mph, has a head-on collision with car B, which is moving at 60 mph. Collision not only halts car A, but sends it in reverse direction of 10 mph ( I realize that is an oversimplification, but will suffice for the sake of discussion). That seems to me to be a force acting on car A that is greater than the equivalent of it running into a stationary wall.

So how does this relate to two cars in a head-on collision, both going equal speed, bringing them to a halt, in terms of it being equivalent to simply hitting a stationary wall.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Another way to look at it is in terms of kinetic energy, since that is what is expended in the process of deforming the cars.

Kinetic energy is given by the equation ke = mv^2. The total kinetic energy involved in the collision is given by the sum of the energies of each object in the collision.

1) In the case of the car hitting a wall, the kinetic energy is (mass of car)*(velocity of car)^2. Since the wall doesn't move or deform, all this energy is spent deforming the body of the car as it decelerates..

2) In the case of car A hitting stationary car B, the kinetic energy is (mass of car A)*(velocity of car A)^2. (Same as above). In this case, some of the kinetic energy is spend decelerating and deforming car A and some of it is spent accelerating and deforming car B. The same amount of kinetic energy is spread out on different effects, so the damage will be less.

3) In the case of car A hitting car B moving in the opposite direction, the kinetic energy is (mass of car A)*(velocity of car A)^2 + (mass of car B)*(velocity of car B)^2. If the cars have the same mass and speed then the total kinetic energy is twice that of the collision in #1 above, but since both cars are being affected equally, the energy is spent equally between decelerating/deforming car A and decelerating/deforming car B, so the damage to each will be comparable to the effects in collision # 1, but greater than the effects in collision #2. This is what the Mythbusters test demonstrated.

The effects for a person hitting another person are more complex to calculate, since the bodies can't be adequately modelled as point masses. The different velocities of different body parts and the elasticities of the various connections between them at the moment of impact make a straightforward calculation of ke=mv^2 not very workable. Still the same basic principles apply.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I beg the differ, that is not how physics work.

Don't grovel. It's demeaning.
And begging won't change how physics works.

There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.

For example if a car hits another car that's parked at 40 miles an hour that's 40 miles am hour worth of damage but if both cars are going 40 mph when they hit each other that's 80 mph worth of damage.

That is the statement I responded to. That statement is wrong. If you'd like to discuss physiology instead of physics, that's fine. Since that is what my degrees are in, I'm more at home there than pure physics anyway.

To be honest it was a long time I even studied this but it is too complicated for me to recollect the details about it at this point.

It's really not complicated at all. An object moving at speed X has Y amount of kinetic energy. Decelerating that object from X to zero requires exactly that much energy. It doesn't matter if the object you're hitting is moving towards you, away from you, or stationary.

The thing you're all forgetting is time. If you hit me, and I move away, your fist (and my body) are still subject to exactly the same amount of energy. What's different is the time. Moving away means it takes longer for the same amount of kinetic energy to transferred from your fist to my body. That is what renders your punch less effective.
In pretty much any city, you can pay someone to spend 30 minutes whacking you on the back. You can measure how much energy they deliver to your body during that time. And I bet you'll enjoy it (or most people will, at any rate). Now deliver that same amount of energy to your spine in 1 second. I know good orthopedists and neurosurgeons who will help you recover, as much as possible, afterwards.
When two objects moving in opposite directions collide, they both come to a stop immediately. Just as if they'd hit a wall. And with the same damage as if they'd hit a wall. The energy of the two objects is not cumulative.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's more accurate to say that it's not a high percentage knockout strike.



Actually, that's not how physics works.
The impact from hitting a stationary object vs a moving object is the same.

Assuming a fully-stationary object, yes. With a parked car, likely not, since it will move in the opposite direction. In fact, with crumple zones, hitting a parked car (even if it doesn't move) would yield a slower deceleration than hitting a car moving at more than a crawl.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreed.



Jack Slack says that the art of the striker lies in creating collisions.



What?? That's not at all correct.

Impact is primarily determined by the relative velocity of the objects involved. (And by a lesser extent by their respective masses).

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (standing still), then their relative velocity is 10 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 10 mph due south), then their relative velocity is 20 mph.

If A (travelling 10 mph due north) collides with B (travelling 9 mph due south), then their relative velocity is only 1 mph.

If A is travelling 10 mph due north and B is travelling 10 mph due north, then their relative velocity is 0 and they won't collide.

The important part of the physics is the force. F=MA. In this case, A (acceleration) is a negative number. What's important is how quickly a given object decelerates (negatively accelerates). This I think doesn't change just because the object it's impacting is moving. Impact between a moving steel weight and an anchored steel weight gives Fx1. Impact between two moving steel weights gives Fx2, but the force is distributed bteween the two objects, so each experiences Fx1.

This is all theoretical. Give (both the parked car moving and the crumple zones) change all of the force results, making the original statement roughly correct.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You guys are funny.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I beg the differ, that is not how physics work. There are many things not part of this equation such as toughness of the material in question, the fact that discussion is about object B acceleration/deceleration of brain to trigger a knockout effect. The fact that impact for material B differs pending on friction as well as muscle resistance.

An object B that is grounded will have a different friction than one that is moving most likely and as such the way force is moving differs.

To be honest it was a long time I even studied this but it is too complicated for me to recollect the details about it at this point.

While you are in general right especially when two objects can be deemed identical and simplified as to moving in specific paths, same does not apply to a fist hitting a head in order to say damage is identical in terms of force.

Not intended to be arguing, just wanted to say that we should not simplify science in order to make conclussions in this case.

I just had to comment on "conclussions" - it sounds like a confabulation of "concussions" and "conclusions". A perfect word for a KO. I will hereafter refer having given someone a "conclussion".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You guys are funny.

Yeah, but looks aren't everything.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So how about this one: car A moving at 50 mph, has a head-on collision with car B, which is moving at 60 mph. Collision not only halts car A, but sends it in reverse direction of 10 mph ( I realize that is an oversimplification, but will suffice for the sake of discussion). That seems to me to be a force acting on car A that is greater than the equivalent of it running into a stationary wall.

So how does this relate to two cars in a head-on collision, both going equal speed, bringing them to a halt, in terms of it being equivalent to simply hitting a stationary wall.

If we ignore crumple zones and imagine they are exactly head-on (opposite trajectories), the car traveling at 50 mph is slowed 20% faster than if it hit a stationary object, so takes more force. Likewise, the reflective movement of that car likely increases the deceleration time for the 60 mph car, so it takes a bit less force.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You guys are funny.

At least I've stopped wearing black socks with sandals...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can we change the logo on threads like this to read "Martial Geeks"?