Punches: Recoil vs. Follow Through

[tonydee]

I'm struggling with the "sledgehammer on a chain" pull-back idea. I just can't see how an extra requirement to be able to reverse direction suddenly at the end of a technique can increase the strength/explosiveness of the forwards movement....

Have you ever been on the receiving end of a snapping wet towel? Well, that's a crude explanation of the bold type above.

If that wet towel doesn't snap back to serve its effectiveness, well, the only thing the wet towel will do for me is...well...get the other person wet.

Good example to raise, thanks. A snapping towel is indeed a fascinating phenomenon... very complex in the way contrary movements creates a whip of, and extra velocity for, the tiny proportion actually striking, at the expense of not having weight from the rest of the towel behind it. Still, viewed along the length of the towel, the fabric can bend left and right with remarkable freedom, while the human body is generally rigid with only a few joints. Some can straighten but not reverse direction (e.g. elbow), others have more free (wrist, shoulder), so there are limited human motions than can employ this principle.

The most obvious of those (to me) is a flicking backfist/backhand/outward-jab motion, where the elbow can reverse direction before the hand strikes. This creates a tendency for the fist to swing about the wrist at contact, rather than my normal backfist where the back of the hand stays in line with the arm. While I'm no expert on Bruce Lee, I think he tended to do this a lot with his front hand, especially when trying to illustrate striking from a relaxed position and unexpectedly, explosively covering a lot of distance. I'd hazard a guess that he didn't do it because the towel-like action increased power - rather, it was a natural consequence of getting the arm out there as fast as possible irrespective of power, and without starting from or waiting to get the fist positioned in front of the elbow (the way I maintain it in a guarding/fighting stance).

Decades ago, I used to experiment with flicking my fist out with the hand loosely clenched, and get a whippy sound from the finger tips striking the top of the palm. I think it's one of those movements where the hand speed just might be able to made a tiny bit faster than normal, but at the expense of having no power transfer or body weight beyond the hand itself behind the strike. Quite literally, I use this class of technique to swat mosquitoes - because the hand travels fast enough to smash through the air and get them before they're blown away - rather than hit targets or people.

Perhaps someone has made more of this principle than I, but I'm still doubtful that it can be applied usefully to striking anything where the weight of the fist itself isn't adequate to do the damage. Having everything whipping in during the strike, such that they're at maximum velocity (as per DWx) with muscles locking throughout contact produces a system of strongly connected forward-moving bodies that resist reaction forces, and keeps the target/elbow/shoulder/hip/knee/foot quite linear to prevent energy dissipation - to maximise momentary stresses on the target.

So, Sensei8, is there a specific movement you employ to get a more effective recoil punch? Is the early recoil operating up and down the spine, in the angular velocities around the spine at the hips and shoulder, or along the striking arm? I'm be curious to experiment with anything that you've discovered or learned....

Jay: not sure where you came in on the discussion. A punch should "snap" out (as in, not simply push), but the question for the thread is whether recoil (i.e. snapping it back), inherently increases power.

Re your arguments: let me begin by making a counter claim, so we can later compare ramifications of both our assertions in various scenarios. My claim (sorry - not well expressed - too tired tonight to spend twenty minutes to reduce this to something simpler to follow, but hopefully you'll follow): The effectiveness of a punch is a weighted sum of (the momentary power with which the target must resist/decelerate the punch, further weighted by the momentary penetrated depth), with a further adjustment for the striking surface area vs the rigidity of the matching target area. Lots of factors there, for example:

- a low-peak power, extended-time punch is what we'd normally call a push, as tends to drive the opponent backwards without injuring them so much, so peak power tends to be extremely important, but

- if a punch peaks at the surface of the target, the peak energy may still not be enough to break an unsupported rib, but if it uses some earlier less focused push to reach into the target for 5 cm before the "snap" energy peaks, the rib will then be pre-stressed and jammed back against its supporting cartilage etc, and hence more prone to breaking,

- if the flat of the front of the fist strikes across several ribs, it's less likely to break any one in particular than if the top of the specific striking knuckles manage to focus the impact along one rib.

You say decreasing the contact time increases force. This is only true of the time at which your contact is exerting force, and if you dissipate the same amount of energy during the strike. If you penetrate similarly, such that the expended strike leaves the fist resting against the target, you can't say that pulling the hand back then reduces contact time and hence makes the earlier strike more powerful. It doesn't work retrospectively like that. DWx wrote it up well. Likewise, if you punch and start to pull back before the strike has dissipated all its power, your strike remains weaker not stronger. Still, otherwise, I agree that a faster strike is more powerful and useful.

With the follow through punch you are spending longer in contact with the target which REDUCES FORCE. Which In turn reduced pressure=LESS damage.

That's where you really went wrong: during the period when the strike is doing its damage, the follow-through punch shouldn't be slower or spend more time in contact with the target. The only reason I can see this happen is if the follow-through punch is poorly delivered, or the recoil punch is being withdrawn before the energy has all transferred - in which case it's necessarily less effective.

DWx: nice analysis, and a good, workable simplification. There are other factors touched on above re preparedness to keep force focused as target reaction forces intensify resistance, prior compression before releasing peek power etc., but that's quickly heading off into incomprehensible complexity.

So for a better punch, don't decrease the time you are in contact, decrease the time it takes you to make contact. Also decrease the time/increase the distance before you have to decelerate and you will maximise the amount of acceleration created.

The time to make contact is important for general fighting ability, but I think the thread's more about maximising power, e.g. for breaking? Initial speed and recoil are definitely much higher priorities for general fighting. Great point about not striking too close to your body because you haven't had time/space in which to reach maximum velocity. Particularly interesting because some arts (e.g. tai ji, wing chun), work hard on shorter-range punches. I do this too: they're useful in a fight for many reasons. But, while you can get a surprisingly high proportion of the full power into these limited-motion strikes, it's nonsense to suggest that artificially limiting the range of motion doesn't come at some cost.

Jay: can see from your last post that you've sorted it all out and summarised it nicely. Correct depth does indeed vary with the useful travel of the striking tool. Once the velocity of target and striking tool match you've indeed no reason to maintain contact, but as DWx says you gain no particular benefit from withdrawing either, and as above to withdraw/recoil any time before then is reducing power in the punch.

Cheers,

Tony

[sensei8]

So, Sensei8, is there a specific movement you employ to get a more effective recoil punch? Is the early recoil operating up and down the spine, in the angular velocities around the spine at the hips and shoulder, or along the striking arm? I'm be curious to experiment with anything that you've discovered or learned....

I employ my HIPS! No hips = Nothing! Drill until the cows fly over the moon, but, without proper hip usage, nothing is all one will achieve.

Everything must be in concert: start and end at the same time and traveling the same course: Out and back. I wish I had something long and fantastic to answer your question, but, I'm sorry, that's all I employ, it's just that basic and it's just as specifically speaking as I can be!

[DWx]

Great post tonydee.

Although the towel example is definitely interesting with regards to motion, how much does it apply to a punching motion regarding recoil? When I considered the punch earlier I simplified it down by assuming it travelled in a linear motion, but the towel definitely doesn't travel this way.

If you consider how the towel travels, on the forward movement of your wrist it arcs across as its dragged through the air with your hand. At this point the tip is travelling behind the rest of the towel because (like tonydee said) the material offers no rigidity, the towel itself is not straight and is in fact arced too. When you "recoil" your wrist you create a wave down the towel to get the end to bend round and snap. Its this flicking motion at the end which really creates the speed and power and the faster you flick the faster the end snaps round.

In essence I don't think you can apply this principle of "recoil" to the punch or many other techniques because they just don't behave in the same way. The towel whipping relies on the fact that you can create this wave down its length parallel (or do I mean perpendicular?) to where you want to impact. Its the bones and joints that are the problem, you just can't get the whipping effect unless you have a joint which is capable of bending one way and then the other freely. I'm struggling to think of anything other than the wrist which would allow for this type of movement and even then it can only be applied to movements like the backfist (if you don't lock the wrist) and not to anything where the power travels down the forearm e.g. punches.

Having said that though, I'm thinking that you'd lose a fair bit of the power doing the backfist this way as you're mainly relying on the speed and mass of the fist to create the power. With a more rigid hand you can bring more of the body into play on the mass side of things. (Besides, for me, my style recommends having joints rigid on impact to prevent damage, bent wrists and twisted anles and all that).

Regardless of whether it’s a snap/follow-through (strike/thrust) with either the foot or the hand, for it to be truly effective and efficient the return course must also be the same. When we send out a punch with the elbow behind the fist we must take care that the elbow returns first with the fist following. This sounds to be very obvious, but, it's frequently not done. Therefore, if the kick/strike/punch starts its life out as a thrust it must return as one. So, if a technique starts out in life as a snap it must return along the same path. This makes it possible to have a relatively effective hit along the entire course of the technique and not just at the end.

What would be your reasoning for this sensei8? As per my earlier post and tonydee's post, what happens after impact isn't really crucial as far as power is concerned.

[Kuma]

The shorter the time on target for a strike, the more "snap" it gets. Since the way you executed your technique should be the most efficient already, it makes sense that it then returns that way to minimize the time on target.

[joesteph]

The shorter the time on target for a strike, the more "snap" it gets. Since the way you executed your technique should be the most efficient already, it makes sense that it then returns that way to minimize the time on target.

This made me think of Phillip Starr's Martial Mechanics, which Kuma had posted about (first page in this thread). I re-read pp. 17 (Focused Impact) and 20 (Snap-Back Impact).

Regarding Focused Impact:

When contact is made with the target . . . It doesn't penetrate deeply nor does it snap back quickly. The power of the blow is focused through, rather than on, a particular point. The shocking force of this kind of blow will penetrate deeply into the interior of the opponent, causing severe internal damage.

Below this portion of the text are drawings of a water-filled balloon being struck by a fist, the struck area dented in, the opposite side bulging out. Obviously, the force went right through.

This makes me think of a fighter in orthodox stance firing off a perfect-form right cross to the solar plexus. Like the photo of Joe DiMaggio called "The Swing," everything is thrown into it; there is no snap-back, and a tremendous amount of force is generated.

Regarding Snap-Back Impact:

Although they're in contact with the hard surface of the target for only a fraction of a second, these whip-like techniques create a very sharp and focused form of shock. . . . This is due to the large amount of force generated due to impulse . . . Italics in text; reference to Chapter 6 in the book is made regarding impulse.

There are drawings below this portion of text showing a water-filled balloon being struck by a fist and having only a slight dent made in it, but the second drawing has the fist retracted and a large bulge formed where there had been that small dent.

While this obviously makes me think of a backfist, which lashes out and retracts just as fast, I also think of a well-executed jab to the face of an opponent, done not just as a setup for the cross punch, but performed rapidly and with damage in its own right in mind.

[RichardZ]

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

I agree. One should not trely on such things as pressure points, a certain kick, a certain strikes, or certain targets. In a nutshell, the situation is going to unfold to a unexpected path. Just block, strike multiple, and run.

[sensei8]

sensei8 wrote:

Regardless of whether it’s a snap/follow-through (strike/thrust) with either the foot or the hand, for it to be truly effective and efficient the return course must also be the same. When we send out a punch with the elbow behind the fist we must take care that the elbow returns first with the fist following. This sounds to be very obvious, but, it's frequently not done. Therefore, if the kick/strike/punch starts its life out as a thrust it must return as one. So, if a technique starts out in life as a snap it must return along the same path. This makes it possible to have a relatively effective hit along the entire course of the technique and not just at the end.

What would be your reasoning for this sensei8?As per my earlier post and tonydee's post, what happens after impact isn't really crucial as far as power is concerned.

I thought my post you quoted explains my reasoning.

Everything about any said technique is CRUCIAL. From the start to the end "it" must return as "it" left; flapping elbows are great if I'm trying to fly like a bird, but, not in a technique. The quickest way from point A to point B is a STRAIGHT LINE. Anything else is wasted motion and ineffective.

What happens after impact is the beginning of the recoil/return of said technique. If after the impact is considered mute, then two things happen, imho. One: The technique is just a push! Two: My next technique isn't aided at all by the returning technique NOT returning.

A technique birthed as a backfist, for example, MUST return AS a backfist the same way/course that it took to the previous target. Flapping, excessive sine waves, and the like aren't helping/aiding in the technique at all. To stop a technique prematurely only can arrest the power curve.

But, if I've snapped my wet towel at you but I just let my arm drop which will prevent my arm/hand from returning to me on the same course, well...again...my wet towels going to just get you wet. Yet, if I do with the towel as I've explained in the post of mine that you've quoted, well...OUCH because that snapping towel is going to take a big bite RIGHT AFTER IMPACT!

[DWx]

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean about returning along the same path. Do you mean do the same action in reverse?

When we send out a punch with the elbow behind the fist we must take care that the elbow returns first with the fist following.

I'm just failing to see how this would make a difference with regards to the power/effectiveness of that particular punch. It may look better with regards to form and neatness but will a punch's power really be all less efficient if I just let it swing down to my side after or some other movement. I mean obviously its probably not wise to just let the arm drop after hitting someone but with regards to power, I just don't understand.

A technique birthed as a backfist, for example, MUST return AS a backfist the same way/course that it took to the previous target.

Same with the backfist. From a mechanics point of view, albeit fairly limited in my case, I just can't see why it must.

[sensei8]

Shortest distance between point A and point B IS A STRAIGHT LINE! Flapping arms and excessive sine wave destroys the power curve. Why? The STRIAGHT line is now elongated and no longer provides the SNAP/POP because the sharpness of the same course line has been interupted.

STRAIGHT LINE....STRAIGHT LINE...STRAIGHT LINE!!!!!!!!!....

This can't be and it shouldn't be ignored! Again...regardless of whether it’s a thrust or strike, for any striking blow with foot or hand to be truly efficient the return course must also be the same. In other words when we send a punch, for example, with the elbow behind the fist we must take care that the elbow returns first with the fist following. This sounds obvious, but, it's frequently not done.

A punch should not thrust out and return looking like an backfist. A side thrust kick should not thrust out and return as a snapping kick or, equally commonly, looking like a roundhouse kick.

Don't ignore the obvious importance of how vital a STRAIGHT LINE is to a technique! Even a hook kick/punch must follow a straight line at THAT point that the straight line DOES exist. Being TOTALLY AWARE of the punch, for example, from its start to it's finish is required to understanding the punch. Drill the very point just after the punch contacts its target including the returning path UNTIL it is more understood.

A snapping towel analogy is about as crude and is about as accurate as I can explain it to you.

[RichardZ]

Actualy, it is not the recoil of the towel that gives it the snap and/or sting. It is the weight, per water satuation and forward moment. The recoil of the towel, the returning action, has little to no power or attribution. Recoil is not the result, but beginning and ending of a launch sequence