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

[Kung Fu Wang]

Do you hook punch with a horizontal or vertical fist?

When you punch with vertical hook punch, if your opponent give you a hard block on your forearm, his arm will hit on your "inside" blood vessel. You don't want that to happen to you.

This is why when you tough your arm with "3 stars", you will hit the

- outside surface,
- outside edge, and
- inside edge.

You will not tough your arm by hitting the "inside surface".

 

[drop bear]

There are two things in play. Does the technique actually work (i.e., is this technique practical for anyone)? And does the technique work for me (i.e., is this technique practical for me)?

If we accept as a given that all or most techniques CAN work, then the rest is troubleshooting on an individual level, and you will be successful or unsuccessful based on how you train and your level of self awareness.

Yeah. Under any normal circumstances you are correct.

But we are dealing with martial arts which is quite simply in the same realm of natural medicine for pretty much the same reasons. Because everyone can come up with their own method for any reason or none.

So healing crystals work. Because we accept anything will work and they work for me as evidenced by how aligned my chakras are.

There is not only no base or attempt to discern the difference. There is active opposition to anything that discern the difference.

And so now we have this idea that crystals and chemo are really only two different takes on a theory. Rather than one mostly works and one mostly doesn't.

We treat anecdotes as valid as scientific evidence. So Barry who had cancer used a healing crystal and got better is enough to convince people.

And then comes the great upset from the crystals crowd. Because this logic validates crystals for them so expecting any sort of real evidence of a working method seems unnecessarily mean.

 

[drop bear]

If you got "anyone who has time to post on here isn't serious about their training," from my post, I think you missed the point. I would go so far as to say that some discussions are less constructive than others, and that the most helpful will resemble troubleshooting and not a bunch of hypothetical "what ifs".

Ok. Just as a comparison. How do you set up a double leg over arm bar? And what would you do if they started resisting it?

 

[Buka]

Yeah. Under any normal circumstances you are correct.

But we are dealing with martial arts which is quite simply in the same realm of natural medicine for pretty much the same reasons. Because everyone can come up with their own method for any reason or none.

So healing crystals work. Because we accept anything will work and they work for me as evidenced by how aligned my chakras are.

There is not only no base or attempt to discern the difference. There is active opposition to anything that discern the difference.

And so now we have this idea that crystals and chemo are really only two different takes on a theory. Rather than one mostly works and one mostly doesn't.

We treat anecdotes as valid as scientific evidence. So Barry who had cancer used a healing crystal and got better is enough to convince people.

And then comes the great upset from the crystals crowd. Because this logic validates crystals for them so expecting any sort of real evidence of a working method seems unnecessarily mean.

You always did seem like an aligned chakras guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Works in what context? In a school where no one touches the other? In a bar? In a combat sport?

Good point. It depends what context you're training for.

Simply put, I think if you're training in a style with no or little contact, and you aren't in a profession where you can apply the techniques as intended, you can have a robust discussion about the minutia of a technique. The stakes are low and it keeps your brain active. Why not?

Agreed.

If the success or failure matters, then you would be wise (in my opinion) to train for your activity and apply a more rigorous, results based standard for your training.

Agreed. And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There are things I train (and teach) particularly for the pursuit of understanding (part of the "-do" of what I teach). There are other things I train (and teach) particularly because they are highly reliable in a broad swath of contexts, most of them across a range of systems.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, since a hook punch has a vertical fist, I wouldn't call it a hook punch if you do it the other way...

No difference in either statement, mine or yours. But, it sort of goes against your theory, a little, since you think one side of a specific technical disagreement is wrong.

Actually, his statement is consistent with his OP. He has a point of view. If you disagree, it's entirely possible there's not a "wrong" in there, just a difference in views.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

By the way @Steve, glad to see you back in the discussions.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Actually, his statement is consistent with his OP. He has a point of view. If you disagree, it's entirely possible there's not a "wrong" in there, just a difference in views.

Is Karate ridge hand a valid technique? It's not.

When Karate became full contact Karate, many Karate guys broke his hands by using ridge hand. I had many Karate guys who came to me for the Chinese medicine for broken bone back in the 70th.

The Karate ridge hand may be a valid technique in point fight tournament. It's not a valid technique in full contact fight tournament.

IMO, the vertical hook punch makes no sense.

 

[skribs]

Is Karate ridge hand a valid technique? It's not.

When Karate became full contact Karate, many Karate guys broke his hands by using ridge hand. I had many Karate guys who came to me for the Chinese medicine for broken bone back in the 70th.

The Karate ridge hand may be a valid technique in point fight tournament. It's not a valid technique in full contact fight tournament.

IMO, the vertical hook punch makes no sense.

How were they striking? With their thumb, or with the actual ridge of their hand?

IMO, ridgehand strike = bad. Ridgehand throw, on the other hand...

 

[drop bear]

The Karate ridge hand may be a valid technique in point fight tournament. It's not a valid technique in full contact fight tournament.

I don't see what it does that a sort of hammer fist doesn't do better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't see what it does that a sort of hammer fist doesn't do better.

Agreed. I've played with it a bit, and can't really find a use for it. If I need to hit in that direction, I'd rather use my forearm bone.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't see what it does that a sort of hammer fist doesn't do better.

The ridge hand uses a harder member of the hand (thumb joint/bone) and comes from a different direction than either a vertical or horizontal hammer fist. From outside the body vs. inside or above the body.
That said, it is not a go to technique for me. I would rather reposition to use a hook or even rotate my wrist inward slightly to hit with the knuckles.

 

[Steve]

By the way @Steve, glad to see you back in the discussions.

I won't last long, I think.

 

[skribs]

The ridge hand uses a harder member of the hand (thumb joint/bone) and comes from a different direction than either a vertical or horizontal hammer fist. From outside the body vs. inside or above the body.
That said, it is not a go to technique for me. I would rather reposition to use a hook or even rotate my wrist inward slightly to hit with the knuckles.

I would only use it as a strike for soft targets. The neck, or a lower version to the groin (a good follow-up to a palm strike to the face). For these shots, the ridgehand may make a better implement because of it's narrower profile to slip between the chin and the collarbone, or between the legs.

My biggest issue with the strike is that there isn't really a good way to throw it with power. A hook punch (as you said) is a tighter technique, so you can more easily rotate your body through it. You can also put your weight behind it easier, Since the punch is around a foot in front of your elbow. The ridgehand is done with a straighter arm, which means you have to do more work to rotate through it, and you can't put your weight behind it. It's more like you're pulling your hand through, which means there's much less weight behind the strike.

I remember my 2nd dan test I tried to break a board with a ridgehand strike. I finally gave up and used a chop with my left hand (my weaker hand). Broke it on the first try without much effort. I figure someday I may go back and see if there's something I'm doing wrong with my ridgehand where I would have been able to break that board, but for now I'm happy knowing my chop is strong enough to.

 

[Flying Crane]

Is Karate ridge hand a valid technique? It's not.

When Karate became full contact Karate, many Karate guys broke his hands by using ridge hand. I had many Karate guys who came to me for the Chinese medicine for broken bone back in the 70th.

The Karate ridge hand may be a valid technique in point fight tournament. It's not a valid technique in full contact fight tournament.

IMO, the vertical hook punch makes no sense.

People break their hands throwing a punch as well. That does not mean the technique is invalid. It just means people need to be smart about how and when they use it, and appropriate targets for its use.

Context matters, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone by now.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I won't last long, I think.

Nah. Even when we disagree and argue, I'm always glad to see you on here.

 

[Flying Crane]

My biggest issue with the strike is that there isn't really a good way to throw it with power. A hook punch (as you said) is a tighter technique, so you can more easily rotate your body through it. You can also put your weight behind it easier, Since the punch is around a foot in front of your elbow. The ridgehand is done with a straighter arm, which means you have to do more work to rotate through it, and you can't put your weight behind it. It's more like you're pulling your hand through, which means there's much less weight behind the strike.

I would disagree with a couple points here.

First, the ridgehand does not need to be thrown with a straight arm. The ridgehand describes the striking surface on the hand, but how it is delivered could be modified to fit the circumstances.

Second, it is definitely possible to deliver with power. The foundational methodology of my system can be applied to a ridgehand just as well as any of our other hand techniques. It is the same full-body engagement that we use for everything.

As a side note, we also deliver a similar technique but with a closed fist. It is basically the opposite of a hammerfist, striking with the top of the fist. It is more stable than a ridgehand because the fingers are not extended and vulnerable. It is devastating against the side of the jaw or coming up under the chin.

 

[JP3]

Your hand itself is the same. However, there are two big differences:

1. With the knife-hand block there's usually a partial rotation of the elbow. The knife-hand strike is more linear.
2. With the knife-hand block I'm aiming to hit with the forearm. With the knife-hand strike I'm aiming to hit with my hand.

All right, there's a difference in the way you concieve of and express that block... as I actually DO use the knife-hand edge to execute the block, i.e. I'm striking the opponent's striking appendage... otherwise I just use a regular outside forearm block. I think it's a carry-over from my Hapkido days... or maybe I drug something else in. I can't really tell you where I got the concept, but I've been doing it that way for...goodness, decades now.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Do you hook punch with a horizontal or vertical fist?

When you do that, is your big fist eye (tiger mouth) facing up, or facing down? It makes sense if it's facing down. It doesn't make sense if it's facing up.

 

[dvcochran]

Second, it is definitely possible to deliver with power. The foundational methodology of my system can be applied to a ridgehand just as well as any of our other hand techniques. It is the same full-body engagement that we use for everything.

As a side note, we also deliver a similar technique but with a closed fist. It is basically the opposite of a hammerfist, striking with the top of the fist. It is more stable than a ridgehand because the fingers are not extended and vulnerable. It is devastating against the side of the jaw or coming up under the chin.

I agree with what you are saying but do you think there is anywhere the same amount of musculosketal support for a ridge hand vs. a conventional strike using the knuckles?