Punches: Recoil vs. Follow Through

[joesteph]

At the web site of the Brotherhood of Martial Artists you can download their online magazines for free, or just read them online. I found the May 2009 issue to have a short but interesting article, "Recoil vs. Follow Through," by (this is how it's written) Jamie Surrett, Dr. Merrill PHY 110-D1, on pp. 23-25. Essentially, it compares/contrasts the punch that's rapidly whipped out to "snap" at impact, and is recoiled instantly, with the punch that "keeps on going" like an Energizer bunny, following through the opponent's body. Which does more damage?

There are two charts, each one containing the physics of each punch. The physics favors the recoil punch.

The article didn't get into whether the punchers were using a vertical or horizontal fist, a jab or cross, or by the first two or last three knuckles striking. It went by time, velocity, and force to arrive at results.

Personally, I've found the vertical fist to be the fastest of the vertical, three-quarters, and horizontal choices, and the quickest to recoil. My first JKD lesson had me working focus mitts and concentrating on that snap. I could tell if I did it right by the sound made on impact.

[Kuma]

My friend and sensei Yuki calls these two the "Goju" punch and the "Shorin-Ryu" punch, funnily enough. Back when he was with us before he left, his best compliment to me was that I had a good Goju punch because, like many guys, I like to plow through my opponent with my punch like it's a cannonball. However, his punches were snappy and hit like a sledgehammer for a guy who only weighed 75kg compared to some of us who was training with him (he would stagger one of our guys with a single blow against a pad, and this guy was over 120kg!) Both are great choices I think, and it depends on what you're better at.

Another school of thought on this is Philip Starr in his fantastic book "Martial Mechanics." Without stealing too much of his thunder, he prefers follow through against the more immobile targets (i.e. the body and the legs) and recoil strikes against the more mobile body parts (i.e. the head and the arms). I'm actually experimenting with this current school of thought right now, and it seems to make a lot of sense.

[joesteph]

[A] school of thought on this is Philip Starr in his fantastic book "Martial Mechanics." Without stealing too much of his thunder, he prefers follow through against the more immobile targets (i.e. the body and the legs) and recoil strikes against the more mobile body parts (i.e. the head and the arms).

Your post caused me to check out the book at Amazon, Kuma, and I liked what I was able to "Search Inside." I wound up ordering it. Thanks!

[Kuma]

joesteph, you will not regret it. During my yearlong deployment to Iraq that was an invaluable text that I really think helped me take my martial arts training to the next level. I read it so many times I need to order a new copy.

[sensei8]

There are two charts, each one containing the physics of each punch. The physics favors the recoil punch.

I just want to say this for now...IMHO, the 'punch', no matter which one it is, must be done correctly first! For the punch to be correct, imho, the SNAP must be solid, no snap, then it's a push! Therefore, to not recoil is to not snap is to not punch!

The physics favoring the recoil punch isn't so surprising to me. My questions are these...did the subject do the punch correctly? Did the person using physics understand what's all involved in a 'martial arts' punch? What was the level of experience/knowledge of the one who is punching?

I'm just asking some questions....nothing else...just questions!

[joesteph]

I'm just asking some questions....nothing else...just questions!

I went back to the Brotherhood of Martial Artists web site, Bob, to see if I could find an email address with the article, but there isn't one. I thought if I joined the BHMA message board, then I could ask about the article, but when I joined I found I have a wait ahead of me before I can log in. Finally, I sent an email to kempoinstructor@yahoo.com, explaining that the article generated discussion on the KarateForums.com web board, and that I'd like to get in touch with the author/experimenter for more info.

For me, the main concern would be the number of martial artists involved in the five punches per type of punch. If it's one individual, in a sense it's the study of one person, even if the results would be true if there were a larger number of martial artists participating. Personally, I hope it was at least a dozen participants.

[Kuma]

There are two charts, each one containing the physics of each punch. The physics favors the recoil punch.

I just want to say this for now...IMHO, the 'punch', no matter which one it is, must be done correctly first! For the punch to be correct, imho, the SNAP must be solid, no snap, then it's a push! Therefore, to not recoil is to not snap is to not punch!

The physics favoring the recoil punch isn't so surprising to me. My questions are these...did the subject do the punch correctly? Did the person using physics understand what's all involved in a 'martial arts' punch? What was the level of experience/knowledge of the one who is punching?

I'm just asking some questions....nothing else...just questions!

I think it's more like comparing say the type of strike of a seiken (follow through) compared to a strike like a uraken (a more recoil type strike) if that helps.

[joesteph]

I'm just asking some questions....nothing else...just questions!

I sent an email to kempoinstructor@yahoo.com, explaining that the article generated discussion on the KarateForums.com web board, and that I'd like to get in touch with the author/experimenter for more info.

I received an email from Clyde Surrett, who writes for the BHMA magazine, and whose wife, Jamie, wrote the article. I asked him for more info, quoting Bob in particular ("What was the level of experience/knowledge of the one who is punching?"), and asked my own question about the number of participants.

Incidentally, I'm reading "Chinatown Jeet Kune Do" by Tim Tackett and Bob Bremer. I've read and I'm re-reading Chapter 3 ("Hand Tools") which starts off with a quote by Bruce Lee: "The best way to win the fight is to just reach over and knock him out." Easy to say/do if you're Bruce Lee or Jack Dempsey.

[joesteph]

An email from Clyde Surrett came to me later in the day about the magazine article published by the Brotherhood of Martial Artists in the May 2009 online issue. I was able to find an article about Mr. Surrett in the October 2008 issue, on pp. 6-9. This is from his response:

1. What was the level of experience/Knowledge of the one punching?

 

2. How many was punching?

 

 

 

Answer: There was only person punching, and that was me.

 

I have 20+ years in the martial Arts, I have trained and studied many systems and styles over the years, Such as Shotokan, Karakido, Judo, Jujitsu, Kickboxing and Boxing just to name a few.

 

Over the years I have learn that it not so much how ones throws a punch, but knowing when to use a certain punch, recoil or follow through.*

*The example he gave was:

I would use a recoil punch if a person was standing with nothing around them for maximum effect.

 

But if a person was let stay against a wall or on the ground I would use a follow through punch, and this is why, I punch would hit them and then as the power went through there body and into the ground, the ground would hit them again! With the same force that they hit the wall or floor with.

I would say that the martial artist performing the punches was qualified. I don't doubt the results, but the scientific method requires that others repeat an experiment to see if similar results are achieved. This is why reports of experiments are published; they serve to inform and invite others to participate.

[tonydee]

I'm sorry to say it, but I've learnt to be skeptical about these types of studies. There are just so many complications:

- results depends on which variety of punch the subject/s is/are better at, and may even be affected by the results they predict: if the subject already believes a recoil punch has more "snap", and a follow-through more "push", they are likely to deliver them that way even though it may not be inherent in the movements

- striking force is such a complicated thing to measure usefully, as it's a curve against time, at each point in the contact surface area, and the forces (and quickly surface areas) vary with the resistance offered. More explosive strikes invariably dissipate more energy local deformations, noise and other shock waves that may not transfer linearly to the sensors, and can actually provide a lesser reading. For example: a snap punch typically does not move a punching bag as much as a pushing punch, even if it has considerably more total power. Instead, the leather is quickly stretched and the ends pull together: if one end is on a chain the bag snaps upwards at the base, rather than swinging backwards.

- in this case, if my quick reading was correct, the subject had a G-force measuring device in his hand, and was not striking a target? If so, then only the speed and changes thereto are measured... a punch needs to have more behind it than the mass of the hand, so any such measurement is pretty useless....

- it's very hard to get a representative sample of martial artists, and it's also arguably(*) more useful to get the best exponents of each variety, in which case results may need to be normalised for weight, strength, age etc.. * arguably because some people don't care how good it might be for someone who spent 40 years practicing little else, as they know they won't do the same.

- brute force alone shouldn't determine which is used anyway, unless the opponent is helpless: generally techniques are characterised by the amount of time they take to deliver, the time and difficulty in recognising them, the recovery time, the ease of blocking them, the vulnerability to counters during execution, the ease and variety of possible follow up etc.

I realise this doesn't help much, but all I'm saying is analysing martial arts scientifically is very difficult to do meaningfully, which is one reason so many arts claim to be scientifically derived while reaching opposite conclusions. My advice is just hit a variety of targets, attempt a variety of breaks, and keep doing your best with each variation of a technique. It's not always best to only have the strongest techniques in your arsenal.

Cheers,

Tony