A straight punch with a step forward?

LukerC

No sorry buddy don't have a clip couldn't find it on youtube either.

Baggio...

LukerC wrote: »

No sorry buddy don't have a clip couldn't find it on youtube either.

Thanks, for having a look anyway.

R.

Charlie3dan

The chuck vs Guy Metzger clip; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syUexXXcYSA

He uses the straight punch at 3:23 of the clip but that's more of a stance shuffle than a step. Again though it's adapting the principle. No-one is saying you take a big ungaurded step from distance, that's just basic training. You need to move on from the basics which I think some contributors here aren't taking into account.

The actual finishing punch is in the clip isn't the stepping punch anyway.

Colly10, as you say the step can be better than the cross if too far away.
The step forward and jab is pretty much the same thing but it depends on whether you are punching before or after the step. In any case I'm not advocating the suppierority of the technique-just not dismissing it.

cowzerp

I know of 1 boxing club that use it now and again, they train it regular and do it on the trainers call! it works sometimes(as in it lands sometimes) i never seen someonne hurt with it, but is high risk as you step out of balance and the punch takes longer to throw!

Personally the benefits of doing it are no greater than a standard jab or cross and its negatives are much worse so to me its pointless. thats why its never seen in Pro boxing or Olympic standard boxing.

i'd rather spend my time working on the superior punches, jabs, hooks and uppercuts and crosses.

Baggio...

Charlie3dan wrote: »

You need to move on from the basics which I think some contributors here aren't taking into account..

Good vid, but I don't think the two are really comparable to be honest.

Forward drive is just the standard when hitting and developing impact.

ColinJennings

I find its main use is that it is a relatively simple first punch to learn and you can use it to develop techniques to increase speed and power. Once you have the basic punch down, you then apply the same to other stances.

Roper

ColinJennings wrote: »

I find its main use is that it is a relatively simple first punch to learn and you can use it to develop techniques to increase speed and power. Once you have the basic punch down, you then apply the same to other stances.

In a similar vein when I was starting out driving, my Dad had me push a wheelbarrow down the road, signalling turns with my hands and making car noises. After I'd learned the fundamentals of that, I simply applied what I'd learned to other vehicles.

Tim_Murphy

ColinJennings wrote: »

I find its main use is that it is a relatively simple first punch to learn and you can use it to develop techniques to increase speed and power. Once you have the basic punch down, you then apply the same to other stances.

It isn't simplier than a jab or a cross, which you could use instead. These also have the added bonus of not being crap techniques.

ColinJennings

Roper wrote: »

In a similar vein when I was starting out driving, my Dad had me push a wheelbarrow down the road, signalling turns with my hands and making car noises. After I'd learned the fundamentals of that, I simply applied what I'd learned to other vehicles.

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

But being serious whether you take a step forward, back, shuffle, skip or stand still, the hand movement for a punch remains almost the same. If you learn the hand movement, while standing still, the next most logical direction to move is forward as that is the direction the power is going.

Roper

ColinJennings wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

How do you know? I happen to think it becomes me very much.

But being serious whether you take a step forward, back, shuffle, skip or stand still, the hand movement for a punch remains almost the same. If you learn the hand movement, while standing still, the next most logical direction to move is forward as that is the direction the power is going.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of punching, fundamentally. But given that I was once in TKD too, that doesn't surprise me. Punching properly is 90% what you do with the rest of your body, 10% your arm. Arm punching is the worst thing in the world to encourage, and stepping forward begets arm punching.

ColinJennings

Roper wrote: »

Punching properly is 90% what you do with the rest of your body, 10% your arm. Arm punching is the worst thing in the world to encourage, and stepping forward begets arm punching.

Which is why having a very simple hand movement is a good way to learn all the other things you need to do to develop power.

SorGan

Roper wrote: »

In a similar vein when I was starting out driving, my Dad had me push a wheelbarrow down the road, signalling turns with my hands and making car noises. After I'd learned the fundamentals of that, I simply applied what I'd learned to other vehicles.

Baggio...

Roper wrote: »

Punching properly is 90% what you do with the rest of your body, 10% your arm. Arm punching is the worst thing in the world to encourage, and stepping forward begets arm punching.

Absolutely... arm punching is an amateurs mistake. It has no purchase...

Now punching (correctly) while moving forward is what it's all about. Getting body sponsorship in your strikes.

Roper

ColinJennings wrote: »

Which is why having a very simple hand movement is a good way to learn all the other things you need to do to develop power.

But why would you teach that simple hand movement as part of an unrealistic and overly complex motion and then have the person move on to the powerful, useful stuff? Why not teach them the good stuff like turning their feet, driving from their toes, snapping their hips and so on alongside the very simple hand movement?

Who told you that this was a good way to learn how to punch?

Tim_Murphy

But being serious whether you take a step forward, back, shuffle, skip or stand still, the hand movement for a punch remains almost the same. If you learn the hand movement, while standing still, the next most logical direction to move is forward as that is the direction the power is going.

I'm guessing you're an ITF TKDer?

This is all fine for learning traditional style punching if that's what you are into, but don't try to translate it to real punching.

Originally Posted by ColinJennings
Which is why having a very simple hand movement is a good way to learn all the other things you need to do to develop power.

Like stepping forward? Are you serious?

Martin25

Guys
Advocates of the lunge punch are welcome to visit my gym for a free lesson on how we punch in Jeet Kune Do using tried and tested scientific principles,economy of motion,non telegraphic, proper body mechanics, visual focus principles, torque and alignment.
You may then compare your lunge punch.
all the best
Martin

ryoishin

well at least we got a discussion with tma, mma, and SD people in agreement, for the most part.

mark.leonard

If Pearsquasher won't (can't?) explain to his students why he punches the way he does, there is little chane he will here.

Anyone that responds to questions on his technique with hand waving arguments like "you don't fully understand martial arts" and so on is so obviously a bluffer. Pearsquasher my article in the Irish Fighter before last was aimed at people just like you. Stop hiding behind your belt and mystique, do some real training without ego, you'll be a lot happier, I guarantee it!

pearsquasher

mark.leonard wrote: »

If Pearsquasher won't (can't?) explain to his students why he punches the way he does, there is little chane he will here.

Anyone that responds to questions on his technique with hand waving arguments like "you don't fully understand martial arts" and so on is so obviously a bluffer. Pearsquasher my article in the Irish Fighter before last was aimed at people just like you. Stop hiding behind your belt and mystique, do some real training without ego, you'll be a lot happier, I guarantee it!

Hmmm for those of you who CAN read, I'll re-post what I said about this in full. I'll highlight the relevant bits just in case you missed it....so all highlighting is an addition to what I origionally posted.


I've teaching beginners in Bujinkan and this punch is involved, amongst others. I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

Note the use of "secrets" in quotes - indicating athat I don't believe there are secrets. Follow up posts indicated to me that a few people understood what I meant without help.

If you're going to pick apart what I say at least quote me.

cowzerp

pearsquasher wrote: »

I've teaching beginners in Bujinkan and this punch is involved, amongst others. I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words..

Why is it unexplainable? i can explain why you jab, hook, uppercut, cross.

pearsquasher

Same way why how to ride a bike is essentially unexplainable. Do people who learn to ride a bike read a book, have a go then are able to not fall off any more?

No.. they practice and get the feel of it themselves possibly with some instruction and eventually do it.

I personally think you cannot academically explain martial arts movements but learn about them through instruction, practice and experience.

Why is this concept so hard to understand? Why does it have to be that I'm getting all Yoda on my students? I've experienced the same learning with yoga, tennis, tieing my shoe laces, cooking. Everyone else is over-mystifying this, not me... :rolleyes:

cowzerp

pearsquasher wrote: »

Same way why how to ride a bike is essentially unexplainable. Do people who learn to ride a bike read a book, have a go then are able to not fall off any more?

No.. they practice and get the feel of it themselves possibly with some instruction and eventually do it.

I personally think you cannot academically explain martial arts movements but learn about them through instruction, practice and experience.

Why is this concept so hard to understand? Why does it have to be that I'm getting all Yoda on my students? I've experienced the same learning with yoga, tennis, tieing my shoe laces, cooking. Everyone else is over-mystifying this, not me... :rolleyes:

No one said read a book, i can explain how to ride a bike, but learning to ride a bike is more about just trying over and over till you get it, thats not how you learn to punch proper, thats how you learn bad technique thats hard to shift. your mystifying something thats quite simple.

Tim_Murphy

I think you guys are being overly hard on him to be honest.

In any sport or physical activity there are things people won't really 'get' until the get the experience of actually doing it. I could explain the nuisances of some BJJ technique, tactic or position to say a TKDist, but they won't really get what I am talking about. I wouldn't say it is "unexplainable in words", that would be a poor choice of phrase but the sentiment wouldn't be far off. I could explain it all I like but if the person doesn't have any frame of reference they won't really get what I am saying. Not that this necessarily applies to the lunging punch, bad technique is still bad technique.

cletus

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I think you guys are being overly hard on him to be honest.

In any sport or physical activity there are things people won't really 'get' until the get the experience of actually doing it. I could explain the nuisances of some BJJ technique, tactic or position to say a TKDist, but they won't really get what I am talking about. I wouldn't say it is "unexplainable in words", that would be a poor choice of phrase but the sentiment wouldn't be far off. I could explain it all I like but if the person doesn't have any frame of reference they won't really get what I am saying. Not that this necessarily applies to the lunging punch, bad technique is still bad technique.

the difference here, Tim, is that you are talking about explaining part of a style to an exponent of another style, pearsquasher, at least originally, was talking about explaining, or not as the case may be, a technique from a particular style to a student of the same style.

last time I rolled with you, you were able to explain overhooking the arm before beginning the rubber guard pretty well, no talk of "can't explain it in words, you must feel it to know it"

Tim_Murphy

last time I rolled with you, you were able to explain overhooking the arm before beginning the rubber guard pretty well, no talk of "can't explain it in words, you must feel it to know it"

Of course.
If an instructor or coach can't explain the fundamentals of whatever it is they are doing to a begineer or anybody else then I'd call BS on them. At the same time, there are certain things one will learn more from experience than from instruction, but again this does not really apply to the fundamentals of any technique and is more to do with things such as timing etc.

pearsquasher

pearsquasher, at least originally, was talking about explaining, or not as the case may be, a technique from a particular style to a student of the same style.

And because I'm teaching beginners (3rd time I had to mention this)........ I may as well be instructing to a different "style"ist. So in effect, I'm NOT teaching to Bujinkan practicioners... I AM teaching to different styles. (The style of no-style )

cowzerp

So Beginners dont need proper instruction of technique and application? They need to be told how and why more than experienced people.

either your a poor coach or just real bad at explaining things-accept that you where wrong and stop trying to defend the undefendable.

pearsquasher

So Beginners dont need proper instruction of technique and application? They need to be told how and why more than experienced people.

either your a poor coach or just real bad at explaining things-accept that you where wrong and stop trying to defend the undefendable.

3rd time.. more emphasis.

I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

cletus

pearsquasher wrote: »

And because I'm teaching beginners (3rd time I had to mention this)........ I may as well be instructing to a different "style"ist. So in effect, I'm NOT teaching to Bujinkan practicioners... I AM teaching to different styles. (The style of no-style )

does this concept extend to other activities, or is it limited to bujinkan. For instance, I am a PE teacher. When I teach the lay up in basketball, for example, i can explain all the fundamentals to beginners who may have never done it before.

I can explain, not only every reason why it is done, but reasons why it is not done, reasons for use of one hand over another etc. In fact, if I could not teach this, there is a good chance I wouldn't have passed my teaching practice in college.

what I cant really teach, as has been mentioned by others in the thread, is the timing of this shot in a competitive environment i.e. a game.

Likewise I have seen Fergal Quinlan explain things such as passing the guard, establishing side control etc. to complete beginners, without suggesting that they must "feel it to understand it"

cowzerp

pearsquasher wrote: »

3rd time.. more emphasis.

I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

LOL!

ryoishin

I would say that from what I know in the bujinkan the sensei/teacher is nt a coach more shows the shape of things and the student adapts it to their height, reach way of moving etc, but im thinking more along the lines of a serious of movements rather than just teaching a punch. Does nt the Bujinkan over emphasis a certain way of moving in the begining so the student gets a feeling of fludity? I have nt trained in the bujinkan.

Compared to the likes of boxing, bjj etc where you show someone the basics and how best to do them under athletic conditions, trying to get the best results in the shortest amount of time.

TKD SC

pearsquasher wrote: »

3rd time.. more emphasis.

I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

I do admire you keep going back to your initial quote.
Ok, do you explain ANY reason then to them?? Like, anything at all?? I'm honestly not trying to argue / annoy you, I'm just curious!

cletus

surely before you can adapt things to you height, reach, etc. you need to have a strong grasp of the fundamentals

ryoishin

yep, I never said it was a good way of teaching.

I trained in a simular style to the bujinkan and in Ireland it was all show you the move and then you do it yourself for ages til you grasp it. Then I went to Japan and the Japanese came over every 2 minutes to correct what you were doing, "raise your back heel, more hip" etc.

cletus

ryoishin wrote: »

yep, I never said it was a good way of teaching.

:D:D:D:D

fair enough

Tim_Murphy

I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

If only repeating a point over and over made it more valid! :pac:

TKD SC

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

If only repeating a point over and over made it more valid! :pac:

TKD SC

Just thinking there - to Pearsquasher, have you done any training in / with any other MA styles / clubs?
Thanks,
Simon

Judomad

pearsquasher wrote: »

3rd time.. more emphasis.

I don't explain to them every reason why it's used because it's unexplainable in words. Over time, like with most other things I've learned and am now passing on, the practicalities and function becomes absorbed through dedicated training. This way of learning - by doing - is a major feature of the type of martial art that I do and it's highly rewarding and lends the student the responsibility of practicing diligently to reveal the "secrets" to themselves. Really, there are no secrets... only revealed understanding through training. (sorry for the cheezy lingo...... what can I say... it's the nature of it all!)

thats why ninjitsu is the best art around...........................there that good they dont even know themselves how to explain the techniques and we all know that a ninja is way more lethal than even spiderman and superman put together.........

come to think of it...remember the teenage mutant NINJA turtles, they even beat BeeBob and Rocksteady, and we all know BeeBob and Rocksteady are pure beasts haha

dlofnep

Are we talking like a superman punch? Could someone give me a video of the punch in question. I find it hard visualising stuff from text.

Charlie3dan

Just copied this from my post #44

Basic training: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8844BzvEyMs (he goes on a bit so skip to the end, we all know what we're talking about here anyway)

Use for sport:
EDIT: (link not working) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kpnznBeFDs&feature=related

Not sure if the thread is still concerned with the punch itself anymore though :rolleyes:

cletus

enjoy

dlofnep

ta

dlofnep

Ah yeah, I saw Daniel Larusso deliver one of those in Karate Kid.

fitz0

TKD SC wrote: »

There's so many things trained in kata that you won't see used alot except in kata , probably cos they're completely useless anywhere else except against those imaginary slow moving opponents who attack in strange ways in kata!!

From my understanding of kata they are not actually block, punch, block, punch. There are hidden techniques within them. I was taught a breakdown of the second shotokan kata (heion shodan) which involved striking the opponents arm, getting them in a hammerlock, fist to the back of the head and a push, all in the first 5 moves. Theres a LOT more to kata than repetitive motions in unrealistc situations.

SorGan

fitz0 wrote: »

From my understanding of kata they are not actually block, punch, block, punch. There are hidden techniques within them. I was taught a breakdown of the second shotokan kata (heion shodan) which involved striking the opponents arm, getting them in a hammerlock, fist to the back of the head and a push, all in the first 5 moves. Theres a LOT more to kata than repetitive motions in unrealistc situations.

why hide a combination of chop/strike/kick movements?

Charlie3dan

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah yeah, I saw Daniel Larusso deliver one of those in Karate Kid.

I'm the same, I can only judge boxers by comparing them to Rocky :rolleyes:

TKD SC

fitz0 wrote: »

From my understanding of kata they are not actually block, punch, block, punch. There are hidden techniques within them. I was taught a breakdown of the second shotokan kata (heion shodan) which involved striking the opponents arm, getting them in a hammerlock, fist to the back of the head and a push, all in the first 5 moves. Theres a LOT more to kata than repetitive motions in unrealistc situations.

Ah yeh, I know that bunkai / pattern application idea - I've actually bought a couple of books on it and I've been shown a few of the "hidden techniques". It's an interesting side if you already know the patterns and want to see / take something else out of them or see them in a new light. But I've come to the conclusion that if I want to learn how to say strike an arm and throw someone or whatever it might be (it's early and I can't think of an elaborate example ) then it's better just to train doing that with a partner and get the feel for it and be able to pull it off rather than trying to fit it into a movement you're performing on your own that's similar / semi-similar in a pattern. I.e., for actual training, why not go to a judo class and learn to throw, for example, rather than trying to learn a throw from a low block walking stance in the 5th move of some pattern?! Having said all that, it still can be nice to see patterns in a different light too if you're practising them anyway as part of the syllabus. Paul O'Leary who posts here the odd time could go into more depth on it all. But he'll have Tim Murphy arguing with him pretty quick

Edit - a lot of times though they ARE trained as "repetitive motions in unrealistic situations" !...

Charlie3dan

TKD SC wrote: »

Paul O'Leary who posts here the odd time could go into more depth on it all. But he'll have Tim Murphy arguing with him pretty quick

Lol!

fitz0

TKD SC wrote: »

a lot of times though they ARE trained as "repetitive motions in unrealistic situations" !...

When I did Shotokan thats all they were to me. I did them for years before I started doing Kyusho-jitsu. We started doing them in the same manner but after advancing a grade or two we were shown a few breakdowns if our technique was good enough.

I find katas to be good exercises in technique. If you want to go deeper into their meaning by all means do so. And if you want to take them at face value thats ok too. Its all up to the practitioner.