back fist

[delta1]

Next, there is more to power than having your body mass and structure behind it. Speed, torque, backup mass are all power principles.

And all are available to you in pretty much every type of hit.. they are therefore not useful on ctonrasting a backfist with another type of hand strike.[/i]

 

Of course they are available in other strikes! The point is that these same principles and concepts are available in the back fist, a point you seemed to have missed or misunderstood. I wasn't contrasting, I was favorably comparing.

And my term was 'potent', not just powerful. Included in that term is power and a lot more. Fast, flexable, versatile. They can be delivered from any angle, snaping, whiping or thrusting. They can lead or follow, are great off a spin, can go to front, back, or sides.

 

That would deal with some element of the problem... as "potent" means "powerful"... but I still see no shining advantage of a backfist over other techniques (as a general statement), while I can see general drawbacks.[/i]

 

I looked it up. The term potent relates to power and ability, particularly the ability to effectively exercise power. The terms I used with power were fast, flexable and versatile- all things that enhance the ability to use the power of that strike. I briefly listed some examples to support my point. Now, I'm curiouse. What drawbacks do you see?

And some types of backfist do have the body behind the 'hit', and in structural allighnmet. A whiping back knuckle is extremely resiliant, also. I don't know how you do back knuckles, but the ones I've seen and done are pretty potent.

 

Pretty rare breaking strike neh? I wonder why?[/i]

 

That is totally irrelavant to the use of the backfist in combat. Many effective strikes are not used to break bricks and boards. But they work. However, since you were wondering, the primary reason is: This is a penetrating strike. If you are going to assault innocent bricks, boards, and the like, you need to use dissipating strikes, or you'll break you instead of them.

[delta1]

G95champ, I'm only commenting on this one instructor. And you are right, except that I'd check on any instructor before investing time and money. The good ones won't mind, as they can stand the scrutiny and also have a vested interest in prospective students weeding out the bad ones. I'd be a little leery of an 8th degree teaching a regular class on a consistant basis, though. Not saying it isn't done, but by the time they reach that level most would have several instructors under them.

 

As for rank, it's a lot like a college degree. It isn't just the degree that counts, but the college that conferred it. You can buy a doctorate if you are willing to fork out the bucks, just like rank for sale in the ma mags. Doesn't mean any one will honor it. Mr. Parker said it simply, "Stripes show, don't mean you know." Doesn't mean you don't know, either.

 

Good point.

[JerryLove]

Of course they are available in other strikes! The point is that these same principles and concepts are available in the back fist, a point you seemed to have missed or misunderstood. I wasn't contrasting, I was favorably comparing.

So you assertion: The backfist is better than any other strike.

 

Your support: The backfist is better *because* it has the same characteristics as the strikes it's better than?

 

Forgive me, I thought the obvious support for claiming A was better than B involved contrasting the difference that made it better, not comparing the similaritites.

I looked it up. The term potent relates to power and ability, particularly the ability to effectively exercise power. The terms I used with power were fast, flexable and versatile- all things that enhance the ability to use the power of that strike. I briefly listed some examples to support my point. Now, I'm curiouse. What drawbacks do you see?

By definition, your body's not behid the hit; the musles involved in delivering (quadracep and back of the forearm) are not the strongest, waist movement is more limited, and the striking surface is less resiliant than in several other hits.

That is totally irrelavant to the use of the backfist in combat. Many effective strikes are not used to break bricks and boards. But they work. However, since you were wondering, the primary reason is: This is a penetrating strike. If you are going to assault innocent bricks, boards, and the like, you need to use dissipating strikes, or you'll break you instead of them

 

I'd love to see you support that claim... disappated force applies evenly over a alrge area, which would attempt to break by over-stressing the whole, as opposed to over-stressing a part.

 

The effect of placking a phone-book over someone then hitting it with a bat is to remove surface trauma and increase internal trauma... this seems to be "penetrating" by definition. Since putting a phone book on a slab makes it easier to break, penitration seems to be the best breaking hit.

 

Further, I find backfists generally superficial in terms of penitration... a backfist to a face tends to do a good deal of damage to the skin and upper skeletal structure while a slap (for example) tends to do very little to teh surface but rattle the brain (the for having penitrated better). .What support can you offer that a backfist represents a particularly penetrating strike?

[delta1]

Definition: Straw man argument- a fallacy of logical discusssion wherein one person attempts to set up his opponents argument in terms and format that he can then easily defeat, but which do not accurately represent the argument set forth by his opponent.Example:

Of course they are available in other strikes! The point is that these same principles and concepts are available in the back fist, a point you seemed to have missed or misunderstood. I wasn't contrasting, I was favorably comparing.

So you assertion: The backfist is better than any other strike.

 

Your support: The backfist is better *because* it has the same characteristics as the strikes it's better than?

 

No, Jerry, I did not assert that. You said it was lacking in these principles. I said it was not. And I did not say it was 'better', I said it was more potent, and I said why I thought that.

Forgive me, I thought the obvious support for claiming A was better than B involved contrasting the difference that made it better, not comparing the similaritites.

 

OK, you're forgiven. Just try to think more clearly in the future. OK?

By definition, your body's not behid the hit; the musles involved in delivering (quadracep and back of the forearm) are not the strongest, waist movement is more limited, and the striking surface is less resiliant than in several other hits.

 

Ah, these again. I've already answered those concerns so I suppose we'll just have to disagree untill you come across someone who can demonstrate to you the proper methods of useing back fists. But again, your body is alligned behind some types of back fists. Muscular strength is not the only contributor to power in a strike. I can get much more waist movement in some back fist strikes than you can in most punches. And the striking surface in a backfist is as, or more resilient than that of other punches. I know you disagree, but there you are.

That is totally irrelavant to the use of the backfist in combat. Many effective strikes are not used to break bricks and boards. But they work. However, since you were wondering, the primary reason is: This is a penetrating strike. If you are going to assault innocent bricks, boards, and the like, you need to use dissipating strikes, or you'll break you instead of them

 

I'd love to see you support that claim... disappated force applies evenly over a alrge area, which would attempt to break by over-stressing the whole, as opposed to over-stressing a part. The effect of placking a phone-book over someone then hitting it with a bat is to remove surface trauma and increase internal trauma... this seems to be "penetrating" by definition. Since putting a phone book on a slab makes it easier to break, penitration seems to be the best breaking hit.

 

Wish gladly granted. But first we need to clear up our terminology, otherwise we'll end up arguing semantics. What you are talking about is an internal transfer of power, which can be one type of penetration. I used the term in a more simplistic form as in a small striking surface vs. a relatively larger striking surface. Similar to elbow strikes, where you can use the point to attack soft targets such as the solar plexus (penetration), or the flat bony surface just distal to the point to attack harder areas such as the spine (dissipation). Another analogy would be a nail. The hammer strikes the nail head, a relatively larger dissipating surface, and the nail point penetrates the wood. In a back knuckle strike the large center knuckle should lead and is the striking surface. Relative to the strikes you would use to break a brick, this is a small (penetrating) striking surface. Striking a brick with only one knuckle would likely cause 'reverse penetration' (if there is such a thing), i.e. a broken knuckle. Striking most body parts with a backfist using this same knuckle concentrates a lot of force on a small area and will more than get his attention. It will hurt and even injure him.

Further, I find backfists generally superficial in terms of penitration... a backfist to a face tends to do a good deal of damage to the skin and upper skeletal structure while a slap (for example) tends to do very little to teh surface but rattle the brain (the for having penitrated better). .What support can you offer that a backfist represents a particularly penetrating strike?

 

No more or less so than for any other fist strike. And I've had my cage rattled by back knuckles,so I can state that from experience!!!

[granmasterchen]

well i like the backfist and use it alot....one of my favorite moves

 

when i sparred him i didnt hit him hard just a quick snap to his temple to let him know that i could have hit him hard and hurt him....

 

after that little match he banned me from his school and all of his classes

 

then the majority of the students came to me to further their training

 

as for the effectiveness of the backfist....i have been in fights that only lasted one punch, a nice backfist to the temple, granted it is dangerous, yet it ended the fight and i feel the situation was necessary for it, yet the fact is that the backfist is not useless, but it is not the best either, it is just another great tech to add to your arsenal.....does everyone agree with that?????

[delta1]

as for the effectiveness of the backfist....i have been in fights that only lasted one punch, a nice backfist to the temple, granted it is dangerous, yet it ended the fight and i feel the situation was necessary for it, yet the fact is that the backfist is not useless, but it is not the best either, it is just another great tech to add to your arsenal.....does everyone agree with that?????

 

Sure. I can go along with that. The 'best' move, or strike, is the one that works in the given situation. As I said earlier, I prefer a complete, ballanced arsenal, which includes the full repertoir (bet I spelled that wrong ) of back fists.

 

By the way, that guy sounds more like the clown than anything else.

[JerryLove]

No, Jerry, I did not assert that [the backfist is better than any other strike].

 

You said:

 

"A good back fist, properly executed, is the most potent fist strike in your arsenal." - delta1 posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:58 pm

 

If I'm equivocating when I link "most potent" and "best"; then feel freee to correct my generalization.. but it's not a straw-man argument.

Ah, these again. I've already answered those concerns so I suppose we'll just have to disagree untill you come across someone who can demonstrate to you the proper methods of useing back fists. But again, your body is alligned behind some types of back fists.

 

Not to an extent similar to many other strikes.

Muscular strength is not the only contributor to power in a strike.

 

I never said it was... it is a contributer which can offer a great deal less to a backfist than to many other hits.

I can get much more waist movement in some back fist strikes than you can in most punches. And the striking surface in a backfist is as, or more resilient than that of other punches. I know you disagree, but there you are.

 

Compare to a hammer fist on both fronts.

What you are talking about is an internal transfer of power, which can be one type of penetration. I used the term in a more simplistic form as in a small striking surface vs. a relatively larger striking surface. Similar to elbow strikes, where you can use the point to attack soft targets such as the solar plexus (penetration), or the flat bony surface just distal to the point to attack harder areas such as the spine (dissipation).

 

I agree that the backfist uses a smaller striking surface than the hammerfist or open palm... but unless you can tie this into a useful effect, this is hardly a claim which supports your position that the backfist is the most potent of all punches.

Striking most body parts with a backfist using this same knuckle concentrates a lot of force on a small area and will more than get his attention. It will hurt and even injure him.

For one centemeter until the rest of your hand connects...

No more or less so than for any other fist strike. And I've had my cage rattled by back knuckles,so I can state that from experience!!!

 

While I on't doubt the ability of any given punch on a given time to do that; I do disagree that backfists are generally even as cage-ratteling as many other strikes (hammerfist, open-hand, etc)

[delta1]

If I'm equivocating when I link "most potent" and "best"; then feel freee to correct my generalization.. but it's not a straw-man argument.

 

You are deliberately mis-stating my point. First, you said potent=powerful. Now it =best. Potent means potent, and I've told you what that means. Feel 'freee' to equivocate, but most here know what I said and meant, especially as I've clearly said there is no one 'best' strike at least twice in this thread.

...your body is alligned behind some types of back fists.

 

Not to an extent similar to many other strikes.

 

Vertical thrusting back knuckle- ever heard of this one?

Muscular strength is not the only contributor to power in a strike.

 

I never said it was... it is a contributer which can offer a great deal less to a backfist than to many other hits.

 

No, you didn't say it was, but you harp on it and infer that because the back knuckle doesn't have it, it can't be potent (or powerful, or best). Back knuckles can make use of other power principals, such as speed and torque, as can all strikes. Speed is the primary component of effective power, and most (not all) back knuckles make far better use of speed than any other fist strike.

I can get much more waist movement in some back fist strikes than you can in most punches. And the striking surface in a backfist is as, or more resilient than that of other punches. I know you disagree, but there you are.

 

Compare to a hammer fist on both fronts.

 

Excellent example! The hammer fist is the prime reason I said "most punches". And you are correct in that it has an extremely resiliant striking surface. But I'll match the resiliance of the meaty part of the hand with the resilience of an articulated arm.

I agree that the backfist uses a smaller striking surface than the hammerfist or open palm... but unless you can tie this into a useful effect, this is hardly a claim which supports your position that the backfist is the most potent of all punches...For one centemeter until the rest of your hand connects...

 

A strike that penetrates, even for only a centimeter (though usually you'd get a LOT more, depending on the target) can do a lot of dammage and cause a lot of pain. A back knuckle strike to the temple can cause unconsciousness or even death with just that centimeter. How much more effect do you want?

While I on't doubt the ability of any given punch on a given time to do that; I do disagree that backfists are generally even as cage-ratteling as many other strikes (hammerfist, open-hand, etc)

 

I understand that you disagree. The best thing I can tell you is to find someone in your area that knows how to use the back knuckle and work with him some. Then make an informed decission. You don't even have to come back here and admit if you find you are wrong, but at least you'll know. If your opinion doesn't change, I guess that won't matter much to any one else either, but feel free to tell me I'm wrong then. But at this time you show a marked lack of understanding of the strike as well as a penchant for distorting arguments to make your point.

 

I think we've both made our case, and I have no desire to subject the board to a war. So I'll let you have the last shot at rebuttal. Unless you come up with another valid point, or make such a wildly misleading claim that I can't ignore it, I'll leave this to the individual board members to decide for themselves.

 

G'day.

[stephen lee]

Id have to agree. the backfist can be used in a number of ways, and it can be thrown in 2 manners aswell. You can whip a backfist, or use your body&weight.

 

No doubt it is potent! I have to agree that many open hand forms can more effectivly strike soft and vital targets, and whipping hands is great too! but every form applied in reality is puerly situational, and such could be said about almost every form. all are tools.

[JerryLove]

You are deliberately mis-stating my point. First, you said potent=powerful. Now it =best. Potent means potent, and I've told you what that means. Feel 'freee' to equivocate, but most here know what I said and meant, especially as I've clearly said there is no one 'best' strike at least twice in this thread.

 

"potent" does mean "poweful"... and most people thing the "most powerful strike" and "best strike" are generally synonymous.

 

If you think that a backfist is the most potent, but for some reason not the best; just say so.

Vertical thrusting back knuckle- ever heard of this one?

 

Every push a car? Can you do it without your body behind your hands? Can you do it drom a backfist-strike position?

 

I can push a car from positions identical to those I would use for many other hits... but I can't find a backfist position I can push a car with... can't seem to get by body behind the car enough. Which one can you push a car with?

No, you didn't say it was, but you harp on it and infer that because the back knuckle doesn't have it, it can't be potent (or powerful, or best).

 

You mentioned a straw-man argument? What you just did there is a straw-man argument... I cannot infer that I belief a backfist is impotent, because I have explicitly stated that it is not.

 

A backfist is a good weapon.. I use them a decent amount. It is not as potent a strike as some others for the reasons I have mentioned.

Speed is the primary component of effective power, and most (not all) back knuckles make far better use of speed than any other fist strike.

 

This is another usupported premise.. and one I cannot agree on. The fastest hands are not neccessairily the most potent.

Excellent example! The hammer fist is the prime reason I said "most punches". And you are correct in that it has an extremely resiliant striking surface. But I'll match the resiliance of the meaty part of the hand with the resilience of an articulated arm.

 

But will you match it with the resilliane of the knuckles in a backfist.

 

That siad, if you want to play a game where you strike the bottome of my hand with the meaty part of your arm... then I strik the meaty part of your arm with the bottom of my hand... I'm happy to find out which is more resiliant.

A strike that penetrates, even for only a centimeter (though usually you'd get a LOT more, depending on the target) can do a lot of dammage and cause a lot of pain. A back knuckle strike to the temple can cause unconsciousness or even death with just that centimeter. How much more effect do you want?

 

I want an inprovement over other strikes that can be demonstrated to set the backfist as "most potent" as you have claimed.

I understand that you disagree. The best thing I can tell you is to find someone in your area that knows how to use the back knuckle and work with him some. Then make an informed decission.

 

I've worked with many noted names in several arts. Many like the backfist. I like the backfist.

 

 

I think we've both made our case, and I have no desire to subject the board to a war. So I'll let you have the last shot at rebuttal. Unless you come up with another valid point, or make such a wildly misleading claim that I can't ignore it, I'll leave this to the individual board members to decide for themselves.

Fair enough... let me make one retraction and one reiteration.

 

I realize (from two posts ago) that I was wrong in saying the backfist was more limited in waist useage than others... I left out one or two backfists in my consideration because of a power-reduction that I now realise stems from the structural connectivity, not waist. I would say that the backfist is "on par" for its ability to use waist movement to drive it.

 

Secondly, I want to reiterate that I am a fan of the backfist and consider it a useful tool. My disagreement is specifically with the claim it is the "most potent" of hand strikes. I can find no compelling reason to place the backfist on such a pedistal; and thing that none has been offered in this thread.