Gaining power from pulling a punch?

[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 knowlege:

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 knowlege:

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.