Maximising punch power

[AndrewGreen]

If someone with the same lead stick out a jab and you also stick out a jab, your jab will cross his jab too, would your punch not qualify as a cross punch, based on your explanation of a punch "cross[ing] over each other"? Somewhat confusing to me.

That's where it gets its name, that's all.

A cross is a straight line punch off the back leg, that's all that really needs to be there. The reasons behind the name aren't always going to apply.

Like martial arts, the name hints at war, but very few martial arts have anything at all to do with war, and something like planning and targeting artillery fire is not likely to be refered to as a "Martial Art".

[Jazper]

It seems that the name for a punch may be the same but execution is far different, especialy in Shorin Ryu. I have noticed thought these threads what is stated in comparison to what is executed is different in our style. Is that because some styles have common heritage threads?

[BJJShotoshe]

Hip rotation, Hip vibration, lowering your stance, closed hips, proper corkscrew motions of the wrist and elbow, as well as the pendullum motion.

[lgm]

If someone with the same lead stick out a jab and you also stick out a jab, your jab will cross his jab too, would your punch not qualify as a cross punch, based on your explanation of a punch "cross[ing] over each other"? Somewhat confusing to me.

That's where it gets its name, that's all.

A cross is a straight line punch off the back leg, that's all that really needs to be there. The reasons behind the name aren't always going to apply.

No offense meant, but since you did not cite the authoritative source of your interpretation for the etymology of the term "cross" in cross punch, I take it that this is your personal, subjective interpretation of its etymological origin.

If a cross punch is to be defined as a straight line punch off the back leg, then it could also be interpreted as a punch crossing one's lead leg while punching. This is just a personal subjective interpretation too of the etymological origin of the term "cross". It would be equivalent to the "reverse punch" in Shotokan karate as I earlier deduced.

Like martial arts, the name hints at war, but very few martial arts have anything at all to do with war, and something like planning and targeting artillery fire is not likely to be refered to as a "Martial Art".

"Martial" refers to war or combat, literally and etymologically speaking. If "war" is taken to mean "fighting", so martial arts would have something to do with war. However, the etymological or literal meaning of a term may in the course of its lexical development come to mean a different but still related concept. So, in this sense, martial arts as understood today would still be related to war or fighting.

In a very general sense, martial arts would include both armed and unarmed fighting arts. In a restricted sense, it refers usually to unarmed fighting arts, and mostly Oriental types though non-Oriental types are not excluded.

Okay, I'm just in the mood to split hairs, just to amuse, forget it.

[elbows_and_knees]

If someone with the same lead stick out a jab and you also stick out a jab, your jab will cross his jab too, would your punch not qualify as a cross punch, based on your explanation of a punch "cross[ing] over each other"? Somewhat confusing to me.

No they won't - they will be parallel to eachother. your crossing hand is on the outside of his jab. It has to cross over the jab to hit his face.

Just speculating, but "cross" punch in Muay Thai boxing seems to mean "reverse" punch in karate. Let me explain.

it doesn't mean reverse, but yes, it is a similar punch.

[elbows_and_knees]

"Martial" refers to war or combat, literally and etymologically speaking. If "war" is taken to mean "fighting", so martial arts would have something to do with war. However, the etymological or literal meaning of a term may in the course of its lexical development come to mean a different but still related concept. So, in this sense, martial arts as understood today would still be related to war or fighting.

In a very general sense, martial arts would include both armed and unarmed fighting arts. In a restricted sense, it refers usually to unarmed fighting arts, and mostly Oriental types though non-Oriental types are not excluded.

Okay, I'm just in the mood to split hairs, just to amuse, forget it.

historically speaking, you would be correct. These days, we don't fight with spears, on horseback, etc. The things you learn in a "martial" art these days technically aren't martial anymore, especially in terms of most weapons learned. In a time of sheer desperation, however, these are techniques that can be used in warfare - you run out of bullets, are disarmed, are in cq range, etc.

[Goju_boi]

of course we don't use that in wars no more,but aren't martial arts taught to the soldiers?Therefore in a way it is still being used.

[AndrewGreen]

No, hand to hand is a very low priority for soldiers.

Some groups apparantly do BJJ, but it's also been said they do it for fitness and getting them agressive, not as much for use in the field.

"Martial Arts" are a civillian thing.

[Why_Worry]

yeah the military learns martial arts, but if they do its only for some of the self defense aspects and they dont really learn like spiritual stuff with it and they dont really focuse that much on it because they would prefer just working on stuff they will use more. But japan teaches their army a little karate i think (or at least the police) and korea teaches their army tae kwon do.

[AndrewGreen]

No, not even the self-defence aspects.

It's more for mindset then anything, they want strong, aggressive guys that keep going even if they're hurting.

What better way to get that then to have them beat the tar out of each other in a controlled environment

Look into some history of the "Dai Nippon Budokai" around WW2, Same idea was used, and then martial arts got banned when the US occupied for a time.