"One Punch One Kill" Concept

[bushido_man96]

There is evidence but most of it follows principles of meridians and acupuncture, acupressure points along the meridians...and since western medicine denies such things and calls them myths, they really don't explore them very much. There are points where when hit, shock the heart into stopping, which is where we get our modern day heart starting techniques from (pounding the chest of a heart attack victim, for example, to re-start the heart). There are others, based upon artery attacks and such.

My question is, does the research cross the board? Can it be proved to effect everyone the same way? I am not trying to sound like I am shooting the idea down, but I will admit that I am one of the skeptical ones that doesn't really buy into them.

There are one hit deaths out there :http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_female_boxing_death_occurs_in_US_sanctioned_match

The problem I have here is two-fold:

1. There is no indication that the blow that knocked her out, and eventually caused her death, was the only blow that she took during that round.

2. Seeing as the blow came in the third round, it surely wasn't the only blow that she received to the head. Therefore, I would more readily conclude that her death was as a result of multiple blows to the head.

[Bushido-Ruach]

My question is, does the research cross the board? Can it be proved to effect everyone the same way? I am not trying to sound like I am shooting the idea down, but I will admit that I am one of the skeptical ones that doesn't really buy into them.

As far as I can tell from experience and the limited literature that I have been able to find, most of them work on everyone because they are based upon specific points on the body USUALLY in the weak spots where one muscle or tendon overlaps or meets another. Some also work because of the wave reverberatons you may be familiar with that originate from certain strikes we use against the body and body caveties - where the vibration waves actually put certain parts of the body into shock from the purcusion created by prolonged contact (the difference between a quick jab to the body versus the hit that you hold momentarily...like a snapping side kick vs. a hard hitting side kick).

Most of the points that don't work on everyone are pressure points...I have hit people on the forearm on Lung 6 and some respond and some just look at me like, "Was that supposed to hurt?" Most of the points that are actually listed as "Dim Muk" points do work and are very dangerous, especially since some of them don't have recucitation techniques. Most of them do have recucitations, but some do not.

They are definitely nothing that I would ever teach to an immature individual!!!

Greetings!

[Triddle]

If you take 'one punch one kill' a little more losely and maybe look for 'one punch to end the fight' I think that many of you would be surprised how many fights end in a single strike.

If you play the pre-fight correctly (most fights begin with an 'interview') and look for your opertunity to strike a good hit will generally be all it takes, or if it is not, that one hit sets you up to win the fight as you get the oppertunity to follow it up. Its a matter of making sure your in control before the fight begins by controling the space between yourself and the opponent (Look into Geoff Thompson's 'fence') and make sure that you strike before your oponent does this will generally be the end of the encounter.

A 'street fight' opperates a lot differential to a ring fight, or sparring, or whatever, you win or lose more often than not before a strike is even thrown depending on how you handle the pre-fight, the actual punch is just making it formal.

[cross]

I think the "one hit, one kill" motto is often mis-interpreted. People assume it means "you hit the person with one punch and thats the end of the fight".

A more accurate and practical interpretation would be that with each strike you throw you should have the intention of ending the confrontation. Not a concept unique to karate, but the saying is often over analyzed by alot of people, especially those outside of karate.

I doubt any of the previous karate masters where suggesting that its wrong to attack in combinations.

[cross]

Just read this article: http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Power_and_Impact.asp

Fairly relevant to this topic also.

[Shotokan-kez]

I would hate to have to hit someone, i really don't like the idea at all, but if i had to i would. With me not being a fighter at all the "one punch one kill" concept would be great but i wouldn't rely on it.

Most of the people who die after being punched once that you read over here in the paper are usually because of them hitting their heads on concrete after their fall or something like that.

[bushido_man96]

From the article:

Karate is an art based upon the “one-blow, one kill” concept – i.e. every single blow, no matter how many we actually throw, is capable of being a fight finisher – and hence one would expect that powerful strikes are something that all moderately experienced karateka would possess. However, the modern practises of too much “air punching”, not enough impact training, and the influence of point sparring have produced karateka who are unable to strike with real power.

I think that this paragraph speaks volumes. I think it is important to be striking objects, like mitts, shields, the makiwara if one is available to you, and it is important to punch when motion is going on, too, i.e., the opponent is backing away.

To generate fight-stopping power we should move the feet first (if appropriate), then the hips, and finally the hand. The body moves and then the hand transfers the resulting movement of the bodyweight into the opponent. If the hand either moves first, or at the same time as the hip, the bodyweight has either not moved, or has only moved a small amount at the time the hand makes “impact”. There is therefore no significant amount of bodyweight to transfer and the impact will be chiefly down to the arm motion alone. The resulting punch will be very weak.

I point out this section, because what is said in bold is what I have seen of Bruce Lee's ideas on punching; move the weapon first. I like to punch the way that Abernethy describes, in italics, by generating everything from the ground up.

[joesteph]

I read the Abernethy article Cross posted the link to, noted the section that you have in italics, Brian, and this "from the ground up" execution of the punching technique is sounder, IMO, than the section that you've placed in bold.

I'd have said "is self-evidently sounder," but you've pointed out Lee's concept. I'd say Lee is on sounder ground if the situation demands it, such as that there's no time to prepare, and so you strike out from where your hand is.

Although it may seem that breaking the punch into three parts, first the foot, then the hips, then the hand, is time-consuming, it's actually meant to be done with a smooth and yet rapid flow of one into the other; you don't even think about it, you just do it.

[bushido_man96]

Although it may seem that breaking the punch into three parts, first the foot, then the hips, then the hand, is time-consuming, it's actually meant to be done with a smooth and yet rapid flow of one into the other; you don't even think about it, you just do it.

Yeah, Joe, the motion is much smoother than it sounds. It really all flows together, once you get the hang of it.

I'd have said "is self-evidently sounder," but you've pointed out Lee's concept. I'd say Lee is on sounder ground if the situation demands it, such as that there's no time to prepare, and so you strike out from where your hand is.

Lee's idea of moving the hand first comes from his study of Fencing. I have read similar ideas in other literature on swordsmanship, George Silver coming to mind presently. The idea of moving the weapon first is to present a threat to the opponent, illiciting a reaction from them. Since you have moved the weapon first, and not the foot, then you can move in reaction to what the opponent does, as you have not committed movement yet, just the weapon. You can then change course, trajectory, tact, etc. The thing is, I don't know how well this translates from weapons systems to unarmed systems.

[joesteph]

Black Belt Magazine has its issues from the early 1960s to 2004 online for free reading. I found an article titled "One Strike, One Kill vs. Multiple Strikes" on p. 104 in the October 2004 issue at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZtsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=Black+Belt&lr=&source=gbs_toc_pages&cad=0_1#PPA104,M1

From the article, p. 106:

"You never really know what effect any given strike will have; therefore you're obligated to strike until there is no longer a threat," says Chuck Sullivan, a kenpo master . . . "[if you don't] strike continuously with rapidity, you'll be required to evaluate the situation after each strike, which can give your opponent a chance to recover."

The article's an interesting read.