I know alot of eastern dodging techniques, but I know hardly any of its striking ones. I am a boxer, and I know, my word of mouth that it will not do much, but I also enjoy sparring, self defense, and enjoy eastern philosophy. Do you think I will get anything out of knowing how to strike ‘east coast style’ (lol). People tell me there is a big difference between western and eastern, this is what is prompting me to do. I have also noticed that when I have tried some of the striking techniques, that it never seems to do as much damage or have as much force as a western style punch, am I doing something wrong here?
I’ll say something that will get me into a lot of trouble with a lot of people here.
I don’t have much CMA experience, but I’ve trained with some JMA strikers, and here’s my opinion–there’s not THAT much difference in power generation from art to art.
They rely on proper body mechanics from the ground up.
And just for the record, boxing will serve you VERY well.
A punch is a punch man.
Hitting and being hit is the tricky part.
IME, from the foot to the hip, CMA and Western boxing are almost identical. The difference lies here:
The boxer will bring that force up his back and use his shoulder to power it.
A CMA punch will do all that except: it de-emphasise the hip/kua/Dan Tien more. This is why you see the dropped elbows, sunken shoulders, etc.
Neither one is better or worse, they’re just different. Each suits a different strategy.
Side note: IME, one of the biggest mistakes CMA people make is to try and graft boxing strategy into CMA technique. It just wont work.
Because at the end of the day, the power generation ISN’T that different. The arguments about it, in my mind are largely because everybody wants to feel like they are “right.”
Take the breakfall thread… we had Aikidoka, Shuai Chaio, Judoka, BJJers, Wrestlers and Sambo guys all posting. You know what? At the end of it all, we pretty much all agreed we were talking about the same darn thing; that at full speed under full execution, the breakfalls relied on probably over 90% basically the same principles.
I’m just messing around, but really…
How can you say they’re the same when they’re trained different and they look different? Yeah, you found out some similarities: you’re all trying to minimize damage to yourselves. Was this a surprise?
I never said any way is better. Just like Water Dragon said, different, not better.
Just look at the difference in shoulder movement. You say - everything is the same. I say - no it’s not, look at the shoulders for example. You say - That doesn’t count, because at the end of the day you’re both trying to do the same thing. But that’s exactly what the question is - are there different ways to do the same thing. Yes, there are.
I’m not. And I’m not trying to start a fight. I just think that, biomechanically speaking, you’re not doing anything THAT differently than anybody else. Hand turned over or vertical? Elbow in and down or more like a boxer’s straight right?
Sure it changes some details, but the bottom line is that the power transfers from the foot to the floor, with a biomechanically rigid structure creating the transfer from foot to fist.
It’s like saying oh, well, the cross and hook have different ways of generating power… ok, sure, but the punches are entirely different.
What I’m trying to say is a straight right from a boxer is probably not biomechanically THAT different from a straight power punch in another style… and a hook is probably not THAT different from a rotational punch in another style.
The back knuckle used in Tracy Kenpo might as well be a jab. The reverse punch might as well be a cross, etc.
And again–I have NO illusions about my striking background. It’s quite possible I’m speaking from my sphincter. I just happen to think the more you delve into it, the more alike it is in execution, than different.
Judo, Wrestling, BJJ, Sambo, Shuai Chaio—FAR more alike in execution than different because the same way of moving applies.
I just can’t fathom that striking is so radically different because you are using the same tool–the human body.
But there are DEFINITELY differences. Not east/west ones though. Even look within bagua. Some Yin Fu style bagua guys train constantly to root of their front leg (by root here just think - all your weight is there, and that’s where the path from the ground to your fist starts), the style I’m learning almost constantly roots off the rear leg. As you guessed, there’s always people from both camps going on about how their way is the best. Of course they’re wrong, it’s just different ways of doing things. And if you look at how the methods evolved, there’s even reason to it - Yin Fu trained alot to jam his attackers legs by stepping forward with his, so he wanted to strike with his weight forward; alot of the Cheng styles work alot of sweeps, grappling, and countergrappling, so they want their front leg empty. Which is better? Nonsense. You might say - Oh that’s the same though, same principle. But then I’d ask - what would you possibly accept as different? If there wasn’t this idea of the single path at all? Well, I can certainly think of plenty of examples of styles that teach to strike with both your feet ‘rooted.’
…
I’m not trying to start a fight either dude. I don’t mean to sound serious; just wasting time while these noodles cook. 
It’s all good.
Anyway… of course the power is always going to transfer from the floor - I mean, Newton’s Laws. Unless you have a nuclear reaction, the power ultimately has to ground out in the floor (unless I guess you fall over). But even in this regard, mechanics can vary - imagine if I had my weight all on my rear leg, I was tilted at a 45o angle facing you, I have my arm extended with palm on your chest, and then I contract into my rear leg and expand out from it pushing you - ALOT of power coming from the floor, right? Now, imagine a big messy roundhouse - is there the same idea of power coming from the floor, or is there more the idea of a swinging mass having kinetic force, independant of the floor? Of course, thanks to Newtons laws, something has to ground out into the floor (again unless the guy falls - which I bet we’ve all seen happen), but is it really the same?
Lets look at more differences - the six harmonies. Shoulder over hip, elbow over knee, hand over foot. In a nutshell, right leg forward = right hand forward. Boxing has this. And chinese arts do to. In fact, some people, eastern and western, are very die hard about this - calling this one of the basic and fundamental ideas of good structure. But have you ever seen someone step forward with their left foot while swinging their right fist at you? I certainly have. Did it work ok? I bet it did. What about stepping into a deep bow stance with right foot forward, are you going to strike with the right or left hand? What happened to the six harmonies there? What about in bagua, when you have a coiled posture and your arms are crossed, where are the six harmonies? Hell, there you can root off the same side that you strike with, which violates another principle. But it works.
Fair enough–I just find WAY more similarities than differences.
I find learning to be something of a loop anyway.
You get this principle and you grasp that. Then you learn all these little details about why each thing is different, then you recognize they’re all the same.
I mean-- an armbar is an armbar is an armbar… I’m not really DOING anything differently, it’s just that my position has changed a little. But, the fundamental principles, at least 80-90% of the very first armbar I ever learned, apply from all those positions.
And yes–when you jab, but you’re moving backwards, you root off the same side foot. That’s the biomechanically rigid part of your structure. But it’s still a jab.
Foot to fist. SOMEWHERE there is a biomechanically stiff structure. That is way more alike than it is different because the body can only do so many different things.
Water Dragon - sure, dropped shoulders. But you alluded to more stuff. What about opening and closing the ‘hips’, do boxers do this the way we do? Can they separate their hips from their waist so they can join centers while ‘shaking’?
At what point do you decide to call it different?
Braden–
Real quick–don’t compare straight shots to rotational ones. They aren’t the same at all…
Compare likes-- straight shots to straight shots and rotational ones to rotational ones, and I think maybe you’ll see more where I am coming from.
I would never consider a hook to be like a jab–but I would consider an elbow slashing, muay thai style across the face to be like a hook, and the back knuckles I have seen from the tracy kenpo types I’ve worked with to be like the jab.
I guess what I’m saying is that you’ve got to look at the training.
You’re kind of looking at it from a boxing perspective. It seems to me that you admit that two different kinds of punches have different mechanics - but you’re assuming that every striking art is going to have the same set of punches, only calling them different. What if that isn’t true? What if there’s some way of striking that isn’t in boxing? How would that fit into the equation?
( just paw through these http://www.blacktaoist.com/graphics/applications/gallerylist.html and you’ll find some striking mechanics that aren’t any variation of any boxing strike )
Plus, I tend to look at things holistically. I don’t think you can really isolate fighting into different techniques and stuff so easily as people pretend. Alot of what you actually do depends on the big picture - like the example with the rooting on front and back legs depicted - how they approached grappling and footwork affected how they trained striking mechanics.
Mix these two factors in, and I think you’ll find some differences.
My experience in grappling has led me to believe that principles are principles–and good principles carry over, and, more importantly, do not change from style to style in any vastly appreciable way.
I’ve not seen any principles of movement in BJJ that are fundamentally different than the way I moved in wrestling. Or the Judo I’ve done, for instance.
Based on that, I’ve come to believe that the principles are FAR more alike than they are different. That is, I don’t think that every style has the same set of techniques under a different name. I think they will have a remarkably similar set of biomechanics, organized differently, with a different emphasis, but not fundamentally DIFFERENT from a similar movement in another style’s arsenal.
So it’s not really a boxing thing. It’s a principle thing based on other experiences I’ve had. Which, just for the record, I think fits very well into the definition of holistic. 
Sure, principles are principles. But they’re not training.
A boxer won’t be able to pull of the spiralling strike to the temple seen in the fifth application on that page, no matter how well he understands his striking principles, because he’s never trained the mechanics.
Man, this is wierd, isn’t it usually the wrestlers telling the kungfu guys their principles are nothing without specific training?
>>>spiralling strike to the temple
LOL!!!
What boxer would attempt something so unrealistic?
A hard fast hook to the jaw is more like it.
Forget about cresent kicks, worry more about the foot that will go straight up your buttt. Troll. Worry more about clinching with the sub guts around here.
Hey Westernboxer:
An easy question for you.
Give me the reson why Boxers wrap their hands and wear Gloves.
If you do boxing you should know it.