Gaining power from pulling a punch?

[DaveC426913]

Think of it more as a car that goes from 10m/s to -10m/s in 2 seconds versus a car that does the same in 1 second. The 1-second car will have twice the acceleration and thus twice the force of the 2 second car.

Exactly, a car that can accelerate twice as fast can do so because it is a faster car; it is analagous to a punch that is delivered faster. If you can deliver that punch twice as fast, it will do more damage and has nothing to do with whether you recoil or not.

 

[stewartcs]

You aren't negating the force you're applying by pulling it back. As it travels through the air it gains a lot of momentum, but once it comes in contact, due to the added resistance of your target, the gain in momentum is almost negligeable.

Your fist is gaining momentum because your muscles are producing the force. If your muscles then reverse the direction of force at the moment of contact, then the force you are applying is reduced.

Look at professional boxers; they always step into their punches. If they connect, their opponent is normally knocked out. However, with jabs, very seldom is their opponent ever knocked out.

What you seem to be failing to realize, is that the impulse is a function of both the applied force and the change in time. If you reduce the change in time (contact time) by reversing the force (it is reduced due to you pulling the punch backwards) then the impulse is also reduced because the force is no longer constant (it is now reduced). Hence the impulse is less at well.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

martial artists have been teaching this idea of retracting the punch throughout the centuries. i have learned never to question them or what they teach.

That's how ignorance is spread, not questioning rediculous theories.

that and also my physics teachers have also told me exactly the same thing about this same topic.

I really doubt your physics' teachers have said this. If so, you should change schools.

CS

 

[seycyrus]

This tomfoolery is often discussed in martial arts newsgroups. WC practictioners conveniently forget to recall the origin of the quicker change in momentum.

They also fail to provide actual footage of a WC practitioner using his WC strikes to devastating effect. It is ALL anecdotal

If I were to shoot a cannonbal that was somehow tethered so that it would feel a "pull back" at 2 inches after impact would it do more or less damage than a cannonball thta was allowed to travel ALL the way through it's target?

 

[seycyrus]

shukrri is completely right
martial artists have been teaching this idea of retracting the punch throughout the centuries. i have learned never to question them or what they teach.
QUOTE]

Ahh, grasshopper. You SHOULD question both them AND what they teach. It will allow you to become exposed to greater truths.

Thinking about "retracting" the punch often allows for a faster punch. It's psychology.
It also allows ensures that your hand is back in position for another tehnique.

 

[DaveC426913]

If I were to shoot a cannonbal that was somehow tethered so that it would feel a "pull back" at 2 inches after impact would it do more or less damage than a cannonball thta was allowed to travel ALL the way through it's target?

An excellent analogy, way better than my car analogy.

So to you believers: if the cannonball is in contact with the side of the ship for 1/10th as long, does that mean its force is 10x greater?

 

[sephirothrr]

Let me try the old argument again:
When you punch, you have the most force initially, and weaken as the punch continues.
If a human was able to deliver a string punch without losing force, following through would be the best option. However, since we can't do that, the most efficient way is to push with that initial force, and pull back, therefore maximizing the total work done.

 

[seycyrus]

Let me try the old argument again:
When you punch, you have the most force initially, and weaken as the punch continues.

Who says?

And who says the punch doesn't lose force if you pull it back. In fact, the opposite is the case

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me try the old argument again:
When you punch, you have the most force initially, and weaken as the punch continues.
If a human was able to deliver a string punch without losing force, following through would be the best option. However, since we can't do that, the most efficient way is to push with that initial force, and pull back, therefore maximizing the total work done.

I'm OK right up until the conclusion. How does that last line follow?

 

[Mindscrape]

Hah, at least these misconceptions are as bad as some of the quantum mechanics misconceptions out there, since more people seem to fall the QM ones. At least the guy can convince these people wrong by saying, "Here let me punch you in the face twice! One time I will follow through, and one time I will not, see which one is worse." This is much better than, "If I punch you in the face, the harder I punch the better chance of tunneling through."

Also, just looking at the post by sephirothrr.

W = \int \matbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r}

Unless at the end of your punch force is orthogonal to the path, which it isn't, you will maximize your work by adding more path length.

 

[kateman]

well i'll admit iam wrong. what you guys are staying makes sense and fits in perfectly with the formulas and iam quite comfortable in saying that, all it comes down to is you guys have helped me learn something today that i obviously didnt understand properly before so cheers :)

indeed my teacher said that the force is greater when you retract a punch, despite that, he is a decent teacher.

also, when i said i don't question my martial arts teachers, iam talking like the ones who trained with the sensei who started the original art. and i only don't question him now because i have before and everything he has done has worked out (leaving out some injured limbs that came from asking such questions, not hurting for the sake of it but to show that it is effective).
i guess what it comes down to with retracting the punch is it keeps your limbs closer to your center for balance (as discussed before) that and defense from other attacks and the attack is easier to land than a full on punch.

 

[ropsta]

Don't know how I found this thread. It's interesting. Old I know. Still interesting.

I think what most of you are failing to take into account is that you are discussing the human body. Looking at from a pure physicist standpoint won't cut it.

How a force affects the human body depends on the time the force acts on it.

First off, let me say, we are not talking jabs here. A jab with follow through but no recoil, would be a very weak punch. No matter how long you tried to apply the force.

(1) Say you punch a rib and recoil the punch quickly after penetrating x inches. Maximum force minimum contact time. The rib bends inward at high speed and returns to position at high speed. The surrounding tissues are compressed, and the snap for the rib returning creates excess space thus damaging the surrounding tissue.

(2) You punch the rib at a high speed and no follow through creates a similar effect but the increase time acted creates less space when the ribs recoil. Damage but less.

(3) Punch a rib with full force and follow through. The rib bends inward, presses against the tissue. As the force is applied the the body begins to move with the force. The force on the tissue and ribs lessen as the body moves with the punch. Also the tissue move back into position a lot slower causing less damage as they return. However, let's take a few steps back. The ribs must be compressed a certain amount, varied with force and time, before the force is distributed through the chest and the rest of the body. This means damage can be done as the tissue is compressed, and damage can be done over a larger area.

So which method is more effective?

We know the second punch described wouldn't be very effective. The first punch can produce a lot of local damage. The third punch an deal out massive damage as well.

Well let's analyze the two contending punches themselves.

The quick one (contact time) consist of a violent burst, combined with penetration, and a quick recoil. It is not shallow. Also, little energy is wasted, and the puncher's own body absorbs little of the forward force.

The slower punch consist of a violent burst that keeps moving. In order to follow through force must be continually applied. Force on the punchers body is dissipated, depending how it's executed. The puncher own body absorbs some of the punch as well. The punchers body is absorbing more and more depending on the contact time. After a while the person is giving effort for no reason.

It would seem that both methods are good for putting someone down. No?

It would also seem that the only power gained from recoiling a punch is destructive power. So, the practitioners are not wrong.

But which is move more effective.

A punch with push through can knock a person out ->

Again look at the human body. The punch with push through compressed the skull longer; a fraction of a second longer. This is true, but a punch with recoil of equal force, can do the same.

What matters is efficiency.

I'm beginning to wonder the point of this argument. There isn't really much to argue, except maybe...

2 punches equal force, one with recoil and the other without. What matters more is the force at contact and the area of focus.

The idea of recoiling the punch; it provides greater focus on the target and deals damage.

But let's focus more on the follow through and less on the recoil.

The idea of punching 2 inches behind the target is applying follow through. Punching any deeper as observed above will be very inefficient and could actually do less damage if the initial force is not great enough.

There are ultimate fighter who throw out reckless punches and actually admit to them doing less damage if more attention is focus on continuing the force than creating velocity/hitting the target.

Shoot a cannon ball at a man, allow it to penetrate two inches (5 inches actually, considering the size), pull it back in an instant and his chest will explode. There are two forces acting on his body at the same time in a central area. The cannon pushing on his chest and the vacuum as the cannon is pulled away almost instantaneously.

The idea behind the recoiling of a punch is sound.

The way people have come to explain it just makes less sense. And it should, considering they are not physicists.

The power gained is in relation to a standard punch. You know, the one's bullies and people ignorant of fighting throw.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As an insane test:

A single board will break, whether you aim 2 inches behind it, or you follow through to the floor. Have person hold it in his/her hands.

Now stack ten boards together air tight and aim just two inches into the first board. You probably won't break any, no matter how you punch it.

Now leave air between the boards and just punch two inches in. You will break the first board and maybe the second.

What's the point?

In order to break all the boards you would have to applied an insane amount of follow through to outdue punching just 2-3 inches in. And it would work.

However, you cannot punch through a human body, no matter how much follow through you apply. The body reacts. Punching 2 inches in and recoiling allows little time for the opponents body to do so.

So I'll stop with saying, they are not wrong, they just don't explain it correctly.

 

[stewartcs]

There are two forces acting on his body at the same time in a central area. The cannon pushing on his chest and the vacuum as the cannon is pulled away almost instantaneously.

For starters, a vacuum does not exert a force on anything. I'll try to respond to the rest later when I have more time.

CS

 

[seycyrus]

I think what most of you are failing to take into account is that you are discussing the human body. Looking at from a pure physicist standpoint won't cut it.

Good thing we haven't been then. We have been looking at it from a physicists perspective combined with a lot of common sense.

First off, let me say, we are not talking jabs here. A jab with follow through but no recoil, would be a very weak punch. No matter how long you tried to apply the force.

This is very circular. A jab is defined in a matter not consistent with your statement.

(1) Say you punch a rib and recoil the punch quickly after penetrating x inches. Maximum force minimum contact time. The rib bends inward at high speed and returns to position at high speed. The surrounding tissues are compressed, and the snap for the rib returning creates excess space thus damaging the surrounding tissue.

This statement is full of assumptions. My responses are (respectively): How do you know? What makes you think so? and ... Does it?

(2) You punch the rib at a high speed and no follow through creates a similar effect but the increase time acted creates less space when the ribs recoil. Damage but less.

Again... perhaps some evidence would be useful.

(3) Punch a rib with full force and follow through. The rib bends inward, presses against the tissue. As the force is applied the the body begins to move with the force. The force on the tissue and ribs lessen as the body moves with the punch. Also the tissue move back into position a lot slower causing less damage as they return. However, let's take a few steps back. The ribs must be compressed a certain amount, varied with force and time, before the force is distributed through the chest and the rest of the body. This means damage can be done as the tissue is compressed, and damage can be done over a larger area.

Again, I see a lot of assumptions that are lining up with what I believe is the question we are trying to answer.

We know the second punch described wouldn't be very effective. The first punch can produce a lot of local damage.

We don't *know* any of that.

The quick one (contact time) consist of a violent burst, combined with penetration, and a quick recoil. It is not shallow. Also, little energy is wasted, and the puncher's own body absorbs little of the forward force.

There is no penetration in reality, only in your stipulated example. It *is* shallow. Almost the entirety of your argument flows from *created examples* that have no basis in reality.

There are ultimate fighter who throw out reckless punches and actually admit to them doing less damage if more attention is focus on continuing the force than creating velocity/hitting the target.?

Initial velocity and accuracy are not an integral part of your argument. Why bring them up now?

Shoot a cannon ball at a man, allow it to penetrate two inches (5 inches actually, considering the size), pull it back in an instant and his chest will explode. There are two forces acting on his body at the same time in a central area. The cannon pushing on his chest and the vacuum as the cannon is pulled away almost instantaneously.

This is ridiculous. Even if we accept your proposal of the vacuum (which I almost certainly do not), the very same canon ball would be creating a vacuum as it moved through space evacuating the space behind it. We would therefore see a violent implosion of a body as a canon ball moved through it as the "vacuum" pulled the surrounding tissue "in".

But such a sight is not seen.

What evidence do you have of your "expoding chest" example?

The idea behind the recoiling of a punch is sound.

The idea is contrary to reality, assumes evidence that doesn't exist, and relies upon circular reasoning and definitions.

The power gained is in relation to a standard punch. You know, the one's bullies and people ignorant of fighting throw.

I've seen people knocked out by bullies and "ignorant" people, but not one knocked out by a "pulled" punch.

Care to show me an example? The google is your friend.

A single board will break, whether you aim 2 inches behind it, or you follow through to the floor. Have person hold it in his/her hands.

Now stack ten boards together air tight and aim just two inches into the first board. You probably won't break any, no matter how you punch it.

Now leave air between the boards and just punch two inches in. You will break the first board and maybe the second.

What's the point?

You've provided a top notch example of materials reinforcing each other and a great example of "united we stand..."

But a very poor one of "pulled" punched generating more power.

 

[stewartcs]

So I'll stop with saying, they are not wrong, they just don't explain it correctly.

No, they are still wrong. The point is if you pull your punch, then you are negating the momentum you have just generated from your body.

By stepping into a punch there is more momentum (due to the mass of your body) in your punch.

By pulling your punch, you have to remain stationary so as to pull back your punch...which results in less momentum.

The magnitude of the impulse is dependent upon the momentum and time. They are directly proportional. Thus whatever creates the most momentum and/or larger contact time will have a larger impulse. Which in this case is stepping into the punch, not pulling it.

The force felt is a function of the momentum and time of contact. The time of contact is inversely proportional to the force (F = mv/t). The shorter the time of contact the higher the force felt (with constant momentum). If one assumes the body being struck is stationary, it must exert a force equal and opposite to that generated by the person throwing the punch in order to remain stationary. The time of contact is dependent on the properties of the body being struck. If one further assumes the time of contact is equal (since the body neither moves nor changes its properties this is a reasonable assumption) greater force will be felt due to that which causes the largest momentum. Again this would be the case of stepping into the punch since it results in greater momentum.

Now let look at another case...a moveable body. The greater the time of contact, the less force is felt. Therefore, if one “rolls” with the punch or otherwise moves with the application of the impulse, the force felt would be less since the contact time is longer, and vice versa. However, this does not mean that pulling your punch creates more force due to the smaller time of contact (since you are negating the force and not the body absorbing it). The body that has the force exerted upon it must increase the time of contact by absorbing the impulse (in this case). Since the body’s properties don’t change in either case (moveable or immoveable), it will absorb the impulse the same way unless the body moves significantly. Normally, the adult human body is massive enough to result in only a small displacement due to a punch (in a fight, it is probably even braced somewhat for stability). The increased momentum due to stepping into the punch would outweigh the small increase in time of contact (due to the small, if any, movement of the body) thus resulting in a larger applied force on the body. So unless the person being punched moves or rolls with the punch, stepping into it will typically result in the most applied force to their body.

CS

 

[ropsta]

There is no extra force being generated by the punch. The punch is just an efficient one. And the punch does require the inclusion of body weight.

They are not speaking of a person just standing stationary while throwing out a punch. That is illogical and ineffective. I agree with the math. The math is sound. As is the idea behind the punch.

You are not pulling the punch. You are aiming for a point. You are punching through that point with your entire body (almost every punch is thrown with a step. Even Bruce Lee advocates this). You are then snapping your body back. Continuing with the motion will throw you off balance, and, if your opponent's body moves, will allow their body enough time to compensate.

Added to the fact is that your arm, shoulder and spine begin to absorb the impact as well, should you try to keep this hypothetical punch going.

You are not gaining or adding power by snapping back after the follow through. You are punching correctly and efficiently.

There is follow through. And their should be a step and or a turning of the hips to maximize damage. Therefore, the math stated above is included in the snapping punch. Correct?

As I stated, these people explain incorrectly, but the idea behind it is sound.

 

[ropsta]

But a very poor one of "pulled" punched generating more power.

The punch is not pulled back until after contact and follow through.

For starters, a vacuum does not exert a force on anything. I'll try to respond to the rest later when I have more time.

Yes, but the body rushing back to fill that space does damage it. I exaggerated I know. But let's consider the velocity the cannon ball travels and the amount of energy displaced by somehow stopping once it has gone in. Instead of tearing through the person,tell me what would happen.

 

[ropsta]

Initial velocity and accuracy are not an integral part of your argument. Why bring them up now?

Focus = accuracy or rather the point the person's aiming for -mentioned lots

Force is MxA. A= change in velocity over time.

By pointing that out, it's like saying we are not discussing a punch. Velocity/force and accuracy are the most important factors in a punch. Agreed?

The punch is not generating more power. It is more efficient. The Bullies you saw knock people, I can assure you, had a lot of force behind their punches, and hit their mark. So whether they pulled their arm back afterward would be irrelevant.

I noticed you took apart the small pieces of my post (hypothetical) instead of looking at the overall idea I was getting at. Which was:

I think what most of you are failing to take into account is that you are discussing the human body.
...

The idea behind the recoiling of a punch is sound.

The way people have come to explain it just makes less sense. And it should, considering they are not physicists.

I would let a person punch me in the chest in this sloppy manner to get close enough to let out a few more efficient punches of my own. Punching in the head is a different story. The organs give. The brain doesn't.

Watch the left hand -with the first fall. Aided by the punch to the back of the head, of course.



Punch recoil, punch recoil, turn punch. Efficient.



Knock out aided by the right hook, and the opponent moving forward. Notice how after contact all, the boxers arm just hangs there a bit. And he even pushes the opponent slightly. Less efficient.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but the body rushing back to fill that space does damage it.

I refute this. Just because it seems plausible doesn't mean it's so.

I exaggerated I know. But let's consider the velocity the cannon ball travels and the amount of energy displaced by somehow stopping once it has gone in. Instead of tearing through the person,tell me what would happen.

The chain holding the ball and the attachment point on the cannon will stretch and heat up in the process. That's where the energy goes. That's energy that would have gone directly into the victim, but by providing a recoil mechanism, you've saved them from all the damage. Nice going.

 

[ropsta]

Initial velocity and accuracy are not an integral part of your argument. Why bring them up now?

Focus = accuracy -mentioned lots

Force is MxA. A= change in velocity over time.

By pointing that out, it's like saying we are not discussing a punch. Velocity/force and accuracy are the most important factors in a punch. Agreed?

Not generating more power. More efficient. The Bullies you saw knock people, I can assure you, had a lot of force behind their punches, and hit their mark. So whether they pulled their arm back afterward would be irrelevant.

I noticed you took apart the small pieces of my post instead of looking at the overall idea I was getting at. Which was:

The idea behind the recoiling of a punch is sound.

The way people have come to explain it just makes less sense. And it should, considering they are not physicists.

I would let a person punch me in the chest in this sloppy manner to get close enough to let out a few more efficient punches of my own. Punching in the head is a different story. The organs give. The brain doesn't.

Watch the left hand -with the first fall. Aided by the punch to the back of the head, of course.



Punch recoil, punch recoil, turn punch. Efficient.



Knock out aided by the right hook, and the opponent moving forward. Notice how after contact all, the boxers arm just hangs there a bit. And he even pushes the opponent slightly. Less efficient.

Here's one showing a snapped punch that knockouts alone. Again, any well placed punch can knock out, but observe how not open he is after and the apparent ease.

 

[ropsta]

I refute this. Just because it seems plausible doesn't mean it's so.

So does more damage come from the compression or the expansion? Compressing would cause the weaker capillaries and veins to be injured or rupture. The expansion allows for blood to fill the damaged areas and cause more damage.

Nice going.

The smug remark was not necessary, as that was a serious question. I am making an argument but I am also learning, my friend.

Now how much damage are they saved from if the ball is already 5 inches inside them when it is pulled back? I'd assume some of that heat would affect the person as well, is this correct?

 

[DaveC426913]

So does more damage come from the compression or the expansion? Compressing would cause the weaker capillaries and veins to be injured or rupture. The expansion allows for blood to fill the damaged areas and cause more damage.

Once the damge is done, the damge is done. Whether the ball is removed immediately, or seconds later, it causes no more damage.

The smug remark was not necessary, as that was a serious question.

Entirely tongue-in-cheek. Presumably, it's agreed that you are not the one blamed for the attack.

Now how much damage are they saved from if the ball is already 5 inches inside them when it is pulled back?

Hard to say. If it were a cannonball, then plenty, since a cannonball has enough left over kinetic energy to carry him clean over the side of the ship, or, if small enough, simply go right through him.

I'd assume some of that heat would affect the person as well, is this correct?

If you mean the heat from the distortion of the chain, no. Bang a nail with a hammer. After a few bangs, the nail will be quite hot to the touch, merely from distortion. But it's not significant, especially when compared to the levels of kinetic energy we're dealing with.

 

[ropsta]

Once the damge is done, the damge is done. Whether the ball is removed immediately, or seconds later, it causes no more damage.

That would be true if the human bloody did not continuously pump blood, and if damage from inflammation were entirely unheard off.

But my using that example was not to illustrate that extra damage is done, but that it is more localized. I just assumed that all that localized force would do a ton of damage at that point ie explode. Things like vacuums from the rapid change in direction and my lack of knowledge in that area aided this bad conclusion. I assumed that once the ball made contact with the body all air in that area would be forced out, and thus once the cannonball is pulled back the surrounding tissue would be, seemingly attached to it for a while because of the vacuum formed (much like if one were to cup his on a piece of paper, just so, press down, and then lift the paper with the provided vacuum). This was my mistake.

However in my first post, I did state that if someone were to throw this continuous punch it could do more damage over a greater area. All we all in agreement over this?

I then noticed that (given we are speaking of punches of equal force) the damage done is actually irrelevant. And I switched to focus on which one is more effective (same post). While both can knock a person out, because the force at collision is the same, attempting to continually punch through a person looses effectiveness as the punch continues because even the puncher body begins to absorb the energy.

Punching 2-3 inches into the target with the same force produces almost the same damage, and the added recoil, minimizes how open you are to the target afterward. Any power actually gained, is in relation to a person who does not actually know how to throw a punch. As a test, tell a friend of yours, who knows nothing of fighting, to punch you in the chest. Teach that person martial arts and the correct way to punch. Tell that person to punch you again. Observe the difference.

So it make sense to punch in this manner. If it didn't we wouldn't see so many top fighters doing it.

However, the way some instructors have come to explain it is flawed.

Entirely tongue-in-cheek. Presumably, it's agreed that you are not the one blamed for the attack.

Not sure how to respond to that, as I have approached this topic from a exploratory manner to begin with. I am very enthusiastic about fighting and physics, and if I have somehow provoked an attack, please do forgive me.

Hard to say. If it were a cannonball, then plenty, since a cannonball has enough left over kinetic energy to carry him clean over the side of the ship, or, if small enough, simply go right through him.

So the cannonball is allowed to follow through to an extent, and damage is done. How done the kinetic energy affect the surrounding tissues?

If you mean the heat from the distortion of the chain, no. Bang a nail with a hammer. After a few bangs, the nail will be quite hot to the touch, merely from distortion. But it's not significant, especially when compared to the levels of kinetic energy we're dealing with.

Gotcha

 

[DaveC426913]

So it make sense to punch in this manner. If it didn't we wouldn't see so many top fighters doing it.

Well, this is the very thing we're refuting. Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it does what they say. As you go on to point out, there are other goals besides delivering the most damaging blow, such as keeping one's stance for a counter-move.

 

[stewartcs]

Well, this is the very thing we're refuting. Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it does what they say. As you go on to point out, there are other goals besides delivering the most damaging blow, such as keeping one's stance for a counter-move.

IIRC this was the original conclusion we came up with before this thread was reopened. I still believe it is correct.

CS

 

[ropsta]

Well, this is the very thing we're refuting. Just because they're doing it doesn't mean it does what they say. As you go on to point out, there are other goals besides delivering the most damaging blow, such as keeping one's stance for a counter-move.

Are we? I'm confused now. Oh well...

But why refute it? There are advantages to this punch as there are to others. I think many have misconceptions about the recoiled punch by the way it was described. There are three definite steps; punch, penetrate, recoil. The other punch had 2; punch penetrate. Both are with applied body weight, and/or turning of the hips.

One is just the smarter choice in fighting a human. Because most of the time one punch isn't going to take a person down. And if you invest yourself in continuing to penetrate, what happens if you miss, or someone simply allows you to do to get a better position? You are now in a bad spot.

Another factor; how do you keep the punch going effectively and efficiently, once the other fighters body starts to push back?

It's a lot easier (from experience) to execute a punch with a recoil than it is to drive the punch into a person. Most of the time when people drive a punch like that, they appear to be falling (off balance). Really, falling or jumping are the only ways I can see this punch executed with any continuous follow through (unless it's aimed at the head).

Also observe the difference in amount of contact time from the driven punch with the recoiled one. It is usually very small. All subsequent contact is usually just pushing the opponent.

I could go on with comparisons on efficiency, but I realize I would be discussing technique. And people have discussed over technique (not just fighting) for centuries.

So I'll just end with saying, listen to your instructors, but don't take everything they say as is. There is good reason for what they do, though they might not have a thorough understanding of why.

Edit: Oh, I see now. I started off trying get idea of why or how it would affect a person's body, but I had no way to prove it and shifted gears. My point was not to show that the punch does more damage, but that it is just more efficient, subjective I know.

 

[dclaudio]

Ok, so at the risk of being ridiculed by those posting here who simply want to be right instead of wanting to actually discuss something in the hopes of advancing their knowledge:

A punch that hits its target begins degrading in force from the moment of impact, no? It gains momentum and force up until the instant of impact, at which point said force begins to degrade until it is completely used up. Seems to me that as I've (humbly) studied both martial arts and punching specifically for a while that the idea behind the retraction is one of both efficiency and maximum damage. As a medical student, I can speak to the theory of retraction as at least valid in terms of causing a different kind of damage to the body than a "follow through". (can I also say that the difference we're talking about here is a matter of inches, as anyone who follows their punch through to more than six to ten inches is throwing haymakers that leave them open for any number of counterattacks) The idea behind retracting is to pull back the punch after the maximum amount of power has been transferred, as well as before degridation of said force kicks in. Medically speaking, you are not going to do more damage with a 8-inch punch than with a 2 inch punch, depending on the person throwing. Once I've hit the maximum threshold of force, following through further is a waste of time. On the same hand, every body and puncher is different. For instance, a punch to a very fat man in the stomach will need to penetrate much further than someone with a six-pack. To get the same effect on the internal body structure, the right shockwave must be applied to the body cavities. The fat guy will take a 6 inch penetration as opposed to a skinny guy, who will need only 2 inches.

Efficiency is the key. Punch to deliver the maxium amount of damage, while retracting soon enough to be safe. A complete follow through is not necessary to get the max damage out of your blow and retracting too soon will negate your power. I think that teachers are right in teaching rectration after a short distance, but wrong when they try to place a specific measurment to it. In the same way, depending on the the person, joints will break at different stress levels. To train that bending a shoulder 6 inches every time will consistantly break it for every person will make you less effective.

Anyway, my thoughts...

 

[DaveC426913]

Efficiency is the key. Punch to deliver the maxium amount of damage, while retracting soon enough to be safe. A complete follow through is not necessary to get the max damage out of your blow and retracting too soon will negate your power.

Yes, I think this is the general consensus. There may be all sorts of ancillary reasons to retract an outstretched limb as quickly as possible (such as getting it out of harm's way and back in a position to defend against a counterattack, or to strike again), but none of them have to do with delivering more damage - which is the crux of the question.

Ok, so at the risk of being ridiculed by those posting here who simply want to be right instead of wanting to actually discuss something in the hopes of advancing their knowledge:

BTW, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you think we're all bickering about something we know nothing about and thank heavens you came along to educate us. Surely I'm misinterpreting.

 

[dclaudio]

Yes, I think this is the general consensus. There may be all sorts of ancillary reasons to retract an outstretched limb as quickly as possible (such as getting it out of harm's way and back in a position to defend against a counterattack, or to strike again), but none of them have to do with delivering more damage - which is the crux of the question.


BTW, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you think we're all bickering about something we know nothing about and thank heavens you came along to educate us. Surely I'm misinterpreting.

I guess my point is that damage is a relative term when talking about fighting. To lay the meaning of damage (when it comes to fighting) at the feet of how much PSI you're delivering with a punch may not be the best measurement of effectiveness. To deliver the maximum amount of damage during a fight depends on where you're striking, how many times, at what angle, etc. You cannot practice punching a specific distance because the math says it is the most effective when the variables affecting your technique at the time of the throw are endless. A punch delivered with a complete follow through may be what delivers the maximum effectiveness in one situation and not another. Maximum power and maximum damage potential are not the same thing.

As far as the second question, you are misinterpreting. If you are not one of those people arguing for the sake of argument, ignore it. If you're being contrary with an attitude of superiority, be offended. I see lots of posts here that serve to belittle instead of learn from one another. Let's all be friends.

 

[DaveC426913]

To deliver the maximum amount of damage during a fight depends on where you're striking, how many times, at what angle, etc. You cannot practice punching a specific distance because the math says it is the most effective when the variables affecting your technique at the time of the throw are endless.

Well yes. But this is a physics forum. The first act is to eliminate those irrelevant variables and concentrate on the "all other things being equal" scenario.

As far as the second question, you are misinterpreting. If you are not one of those people arguing for the sake of argument, ignore it. If you're being contrary with an attitude of superiority, be offended. I see lots of posts here that serve to belittle instead of learn from one another. Let's all be friends.

I guess I missed those ones. Not hard to believe; this thread has been in a coma for two years.