Theory: in most technical disagreements, both sides are correct.

[dvcochran]

Exept when there is no evidence to support one application. Or the evidence is plain mumbo jumbo.

Which separates different but equally valid approaches. From a fact vs fantasy debate.

You just said....Nothing at all.

 

[dvcochran]

Do you do a side kick with the heel or with the blade of the foot?
Do you hook punch with a horizontal or vertical fist?
Do you punch straight or do you twist your fist over at the moment of impact?

For each of those questions, there are three possible answers: A, B, or "depends". In my opinion, all three answers are correct, depending on the fighter, the teacher, and the application.
t
It boils down to a couple of things: repetition and confidence. There are generally pros and cons to both approaches in one of these debates. There are targets or applications that favor one option over the other. So to say one is intrinsically correct or incorrect is inaccurate.

However, which one is "correct" may vary from school to school, or style to style. The version you've trained over and over again is generally going to be the better version of a technique. The version you have more confidence in is one you'll feel more comfortable using when you need to. Or, if you've had the time to train both and drill for when you'd use the different versions, then "depends on the situation" becomes the more correct answer. That doesn't mean it's the right answer to give to someone who hasn't had the time to train both.

I would consider this a mildly 'advanced' question. It is important for a person to learn/practice any technique a certain way to create muscle memory. To start with a complex explanation of how a hook can be thrown in different ways, and Oh by the way you have to learn all this other stuff at the same time, is a tall order for most people.
As a person progresses over time they should acquire enough hands on experience that they start seeing where/when a technique can be modified to better fit situation. Mental progression.
As for me and my training, a side kick is always with the heel. toes angled slightly down so the blade of the foot is there if needed. It is all about the body English.
There is always a twisting or arcing motion in a punch. Otherwise it will be a segmented punch. There are exceptions such as being very close in.

 

[skribs]

I would consider this a mildly 'advanced' question. It is important for a person to learn/practice any technique a certain way to create muscle memory. To start with a complex explanation of how a hook can be thrown in different ways, and Oh by the way you have to learn all this other stuff at the same time, is a tall order for most people.
As a person progresses over time they should acquire enough hands on experience that they start seeing where/when a technique can be modified to better fit situation. Mental progression.
As for me and my training, a side kick is always with the heel. toes angled slightly down so the blade of the foot is there if needed. It is all about the body English.
There is always a twisting or arcing motion in a punch. Otherwise it will be a segmented punch. There are exceptions such as being very close in.

It is an advanced question, but I often see (on other sites) beginners arguing over which school is better because the other school does techniques "wrong."

 

[Flying Crane]

The opening 3 questions of this thread highlight minor physical variations: Heel or blade, vert. or horiz., twist or no twist, though the last two seem the same thing? - vert. punch = no twist; horiz. punch = twist. Anyway, Dirty Dog is right on the specific application being what determines the appropriateness of the variation.

For example, a side kick with the heel is good if the target is the spleen or liver, where the heel can dig in and penetrate that large area of soft tissue. I happened to watch a Benny Urquedez highlight video on you tube a few days ago and saw him drop several guys (TKO'd) with a spinning side/back kick, his heel digging deep. That just HAD to hurt.

But going for a smaller, harder target like the front of the knee, where the heel could miss or glance off, a blade kick would be a better option. Vertical punches are great for quick attacks and then snapping back to block or cover a potential counter. But if the opponent is off balance, wounded, or just plain slow and open, a nice thrusting twist punch would make a good finishing attack.

While a particular style may emphasize one or the other (which I think is fine as it reflects the style's overall approach), one should not feel inhibited to use a variation that best fits the situation. For an experienced martial artist, adapting, tweaking or varying a technique to go with a flowing situation should be the norm. Form should never hinder successful function.

I use a side kick with the heel, always. I never liked the blade as a contact point. To me, it does not matter the height of the kick or the target: I use the heel if I am using a side kick. But that’s me.

One’s mileage may vary.

 

[drop bear]

So then you're just playing a fantasy. You don't actually know if your stuff works.

I have hook punched people in self defense. I am learning how to hook punch from a guy with a UFC record.

And I test it regularly in sparring.

And I don't take people's money pretending I am an expert in a subject I don't understand.

You start these threads to find ways around having any practical knowledge of what you are doing while trying to lift yourself on to the same pedestal of those who do.

That is why when I mentioned that your premise only works if you can actually do the technique in question. You derailed your own thread. With this UFC nonsense.

 

[drop bear]

You just said....Nothing at all.

It is an advanced question, but I often see (on other sites) beginners arguing over which school is better because the other school does techniques "wrong."

Exept you can very easily determine which method is right. Because it will work or it won't work.

And there is no limit on right methods.

It is where the discussion remains intentionally theoretical that this problem occurs.

 

[JP3]

“Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Obi Wan to Luke.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Exept you can very easily determine which method is right. Because it will work or it won't work.

Since the chance that you have to use your MA skill in street self-defense is very low, you can't depend on your MA skill testing only by that. Also since MMA was not available many years ago, in US there was only full contact Karate that was available.

If you have used hook punch in challenge fights and knocked many people down, you will know that your hook punch will work. Otherwise you won't.

One time I used my hook punch (my forearm hit on the back of my opponent's head) to knock my opponent's body from vertical position to horizontal position, his body then dropped to the ground. I didn't think that was possible. But it did happen in front of my own eyes.

This is the problem of the striking art. You can use single leg to take down 1,000 opponents. You just can't use your hook punch to knock down 1,000 opponents.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I use a side kick with the heel, always. I never liked the blade as a contact point. To me, it does not matter the height of the kick or the target: I use the heel if I am using a side kick. But that’s me.

One’s mileage may vary.

I only learned it as a bladed strike. I think the heel may be the better all-around use.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept you can very easily determine which method is right. Because it will work or it won't work.

And there is no limit on right methods.

It is where the discussion remains intentionally theoretical that this problem occurs.

Except where more than one will work. See, you’re doing that binary thing again.

 

[skribs]

I have hook punched people in self defense. I am learning how to hook punch from a guy with a UFC record.

And I test it regularly in sparring.

And I don't take people's money pretending I am an expert in a subject I don't understand.

You start these threads to find ways around having any practical knowledge of what you are doing while trying to lift yourself on to the same pedestal of those who do.

That is why when I mentioned that your premise only works if you can actually do the technique in question. You derailed your own thread. With this UFC nonsense.

Did you get it on video? Do you have documentation of the skill level of the person you used it on to prove that they are a legitimate martial artist, and a worthy test of your skills?

Sparring isn't a competition. You don't go full force in sparring. Sparring prepares you for competition. I don't care who you learned it from. The question is whether you know what you're talking about or not. Until you have a winning UFC record, please stop giving any advice to anyone, because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

And in case you couldn't tell, the reason I did this is it's exactly what you do in every thread. Yes, it's nonsense. It's nonsense for me to put up a ridiculous criteria for you to meet in order to be taken seriously. You started this in this thread when you put me on the spot to say I don't know anything about a hook punch. How the hell would you know? And why is it your assumption that I don't? Maybe now that I've done this to you, you'll see how incredibly toxic you are and maybe calm down some.

Your attitude reminds of a typical story I've heard from girls dealing with misogynists. To clarify, I don't think you're sexist, but this is the way you treat TMAs. I've heard this story hundreds of times. A girl is wearing a Seahawks jersey. Some guy sees her wearing the jersey and starts giving her a hard time, because "girls can't be sports fans." When she says she's been a fan of the Seahawks her whole life, the guy starts quizzing her:

• Who was the strength and conditioning coach in 1994?
• What position were they in in the 2003 draft?
• Who was their third string quarterback 1988?

All sorts of obscure questions that nobody would know off the top of their head (except for maybe one or two mega fans), but that if she can't meet that standard, she's not a real Seahawks fan.

I don't know anyone else who will see the question "should a hook punch be with a vertical or horizontal fist" and immediately jump into "you don't know anything about a hook punch anyway, tell me everything you know to prove you know a hook punch." At least nobody with the right balance of neurotransmitters.

Exept you can very easily determine which method is right. Because it will work or it won't work.

And there is no limit on right methods.

It is where the discussion remains intentionally theoretical that this problem occurs.

Who said this discussion remains theoretical? This discussion happens among arts where people constantly compete (such as boxing). People who are successful have different approaches to different techniques. And they back it up in the ring. I've seen the discussions in boxing forums. I've seen the questions and answers in boxing videos, with different answers in different videos. I've seen the breakdowns of professional fighters and their different styles.

Unless you think boxing is theoretical?

 

[Dirty Dog]

When is the last time you used a hook punch in self defense?

Last week. It worked just fine. Did you have a question about how to use it?

 

[skribs]

“Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Obi Wan to Luke.

Except I contend that Obi-Wan did intentionally mislead Luke. What he said makes sense from a certain point of view...but that point of view is only apparent if you have all the facts. It's kind of like what I said regarding Bunkai (in another thread): most of the hidden applications are only noticed because you know those applications already. Bunkai doesn't really teach application, it just helps you map what you know of application to what you know of the form.

I only learned it as a bladed strike. I think the heel may be the better all-around use.

I think the heel is generally better. It's easier than striking with the blade of the foot. I only use the blade for specific targets that would be harder to hit with the heel (such as the neck).

My issue with blading the foot is it's easier to roll your ankle when you land.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except I contend that Obi-Wan did intentionally mislead Luke. What he said makes sense from a certain point of view...but that point of view is only apparent if you have all the facts. It's kind of like what I said regarding Bunkai (in another thread): most of the hidden applications are only noticed because you know those applications already. Bunkai doesn't really teach application, it just helps you map what you know of application to what you know of the form.



I think the heel is generally better. It's easier than striking with the blade of the foot. I only use the blade for specific targets that would be harder to hit with the heel (such as the neck).

My issue with blading the foot is it's easier to roll your ankle when you land.

Agreed, especially on that last point. Even though what I've trained for many years is the bladed position, it feels inherently weaker to me than the heel. Unfortunately, I'm not yet adept at using the heel in that kick.

 

[skribs]

Agreed, especially on that last point. Even though what I've trained for many years is the bladed position, it feels inherently weaker to me than the heel. Unfortunately, I'm not yet adept at using the heel in that kick.

I nearly rolled my ankle doing our virtual class last week.

Not on any technique. Just walking back to my mark after we were done with a form...

 

[Dirty Dog]

I nearly rolled my ankle doing our virtual class last week.

Klutz. (Kidding, anyone who claims this sort of thing never happens to them is lying.)

Not on any technique. Just walking back to my mark after we were done with a form...

Shouldn't you be finishing your form back where you started?

 

[skribs]

Klutz. (Kidding, anyone who claims this sort of thing never happens to them is lying.)



Shouldn't you be finishing your form back where you started?

Now that I think of it, it may have been a kicking drill.

With the Palgwe forms, we usually end a few paces behind where we start. It's a similar issue as Taeguek #1. However, in this class there were a few other issues present, which sometimes caused me to end up off my mark.

1. I was in the corner
2. My Master was demonstrating the form in a different direction, and we had to move so we didn't step through each other

 

[drop bear]

Except where more than one will work. See, you’re doing that binary thing again.

So there is no limit on right methods?

 

[drop bear]

Did you get it on video? Do you have documentation of the skill level of the person you used it on to prove that they are a legitimate martial artist, and a worthy test of your skills?

Sparring isn't a competition. You don't go full force in sparring. Sparring prepares you for competition. I don't care who you learned it from. The question is whether you know what you're talking about or not. Until you have a winning UFC record, please stop giving any advice to anyone, because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

And in case you couldn't tell, the reason I did this is it's exactly what you do in every thread. Yes, it's nonsense. It's nonsense for me to put up a ridiculous criteria for you to meet in order to be taken seriously. You started this in this thread when you put me on the spot to say I don't know anything about a hook punch. How the hell would you know? And why is it your assumption that I don't? Maybe now that I've done this to you, you'll see how incredibly toxic you are and maybe calm down some.

Your attitude reminds of a typical story I've heard from girls dealing with misogynists. To clarify, I don't think you're sexist, but this is the way you treat TMAs. I've heard this story hundreds of times. A girl is wearing a Seahawks jersey. Some guy sees her wearing the jersey and starts giving her a hard time, because "girls can't be sports fans." When she says she's been a fan of the Seahawks her whole life, the guy starts quizzing her:

• Who was the strength and conditioning coach in 1994?
• What position were they in in the 2003 draft?
• Who was their third string quarterback 1988?

All sorts of obscure questions that nobody would know off the top of their head (except for maybe one or two mega fans), but that if she can't meet that standard, she's not a real Seahawks fan.

I don't know anyone else who will see the question "should a hook punch be with a vertical or horizontal fist" and immediately jump into "you don't know anything about a hook punch anyway, tell me everything you know to prove you know a hook punch." At least nobody with the right balance of neurotransmitters.



Who said this discussion remains theoretical? This discussion happens among arts where people constantly compete (such as boxing). People who are successful have different approaches to different techniques. And they back it up in the ring. I've seen the discussions in boxing forums. I've seen the questions and answers in boxing videos, with different answers in different videos. I've seen the breakdowns of professional fighters and their different styles.

Unless you think boxing is theoretical?

I don't lie about being a UFC fighter though. I don't suggest I can equip people with the skills to be a UFC fighter.

You do suggest you can equip people for self defense.

You produce thread after thread trying to justify this idea that all techniques work, all systems are the same So that your method automatically validates itself. Rather than just validating whatever method you support.

There is nothing to indicate you can throw a hook punch. And so this discussion remains theoretical.

The fact that when i ask you to show me anywhere your ideas working you think that is ridiculous. Is a clear indication You don't understand the subject.

 

[drop bear]

. You started this in this thread when you put me on the spot to say I don't know anything about a hook punch. How the hell would you know? And why is it your assumption that I don't? Maybe now that I've done this to you, you'll see how incredibly toxic you are and maybe calm down some.

This isn't true.

Here is exactly what I said.

"If you don't have a reliable method of telling fantasy from reality then your OPs premise no longer works.

So what you are talking about is good. Providing you have the basic fundamentals in place first.

So say two successful boxers discussing their own take on proper orientation of a hook punch is different to two boxers and you having that discussion.

Because we don't know if you can throw a punch effectively or not."

What about that statement is incorrect.

I said "we don't know if you can throw a hook punch."

So your counter argument is.

"How the hell would you know?"

I don't know. That is why i said we don't know if you can throw a hook punch.

You need to be able to follow the conversation. Not just make up your own conversation.

You need to be able to separate fact from fantasy.