Strongest punch?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

Embedded comments on Sanjuro’s post:

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995327]There are two types of “power” that one can produce, though they typically work together.

(Can if properly developed).

Momentum based impact force - Cross, hook, uppercut, round kick, etc.
Teh impact force of this strikes is based on the momentum generated, as such, the longer the limb, the faster the acceleration, the rigidity of the contact surface and much more, all play into how much impact force will be felt ( what is felt and what is generated are NOT the same thing by the way).

((Easier to demonstrate on heavy bags and similar things.The distinction you make between what is felt and what is generated is IMO a good one.Sometimes the generated power is not completely delivered))

The other type is “impulse” or kinetic energy based impact force- usually called “fa jing” in TCMA.

(Fa jing is probably Mandarin- in some Cantonese it could be" bau ja geng" or explosive power-easier to be felt by the recipient- not necessarily as evident on a hand held pad. The tacit knowledge of the observer more important in assessment than in the first type of power.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depends on training, skill and context))

Joy Chaudhuri

42

[QUOTE=Vankuen;995348]That’s the way I thought of fa jing [kinetic energy]…at least the way I interpreted it in terms of western science. I’d listen to the chinese theory and think about how it correlated with science to find the western “equivelent”.

I thought about this too…in terms of physics.

If we can agree that force = mass x velocity^2…
and we can safely say that the mass is the same…
than the only piece that can affect the amount of force is the velocity.
[INDENT]For the velocity piece, I think that the equation of initial velocity + acceleration x time would be appropriate. [/indent]

If we’re using these equations (generally of course since there’s no hard numbers)…I’d say that perhaps the fact that the wing chun punch doesn’t travel in as much distance, and hence not able to build up as much acceleration, that perhaps the punch is limited by design relative to the overhand or cross due to that punch’s longer pathway and thus higher level of achieved acceleration (assuming that the amount of acceleration isn’t maxed within the same distance as the wing chun punch).

Then again…if we’re talking impact force then the equation would change a bit to be m x v^2 / time of contact (time of contact being contact area / velocity^2). So the amount of time in contact could be a factor as well.

Either way…kinetic energy is developed through acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy an object has is related to its velocity (x 2). So if we can agree on that, would not the wing chun punch be a disadvantage unless the puncher could accelerate the same amount as the cross in that shorter distance?

Yes-No? I’m not a physics major I just thought it’d be fun to look at it in more structured terms.[/QUOTE]

Vankuen,
The time of contact is VERY crucial and is something that is typically over looked.
The harder the contact and impact surface, the less time the greater the kinetic energy transfer.
This is why, typically, short power ( inch power, fa jing, whatever) is applied to the head.

How much impact we can transfer to a target with our strikes is based on how well we strike ( if all else is equal) because the power we generate is not always All transfered to the target.
There has to be quite a bit of “perfect” conditons for all the energy to be transfered and typically that doesn’t happen in a real fight.

So we must, to begin with, generate as much force as possible.
Don’t get over “physics” on it because physics has to be tailored to biomechanics.
Suffice to say that, for a “powerful” strike one must:
Apply as much mass as possible.
Accelerate as much as possible.
Decelerate as least as possible.
Follow through enough.
Make contact “just” enough to penetrate the target.

43

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;995350][QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995327]There are two types of “power” that one can produce, though they typically work together.

(Can if properly developed).

Momentum based impact force - Cross, hook, uppercut, round kick, etc.
Teh impact force of this strikes is based on the momentum generated, as such, the longer the limb, the faster the acceleration, the rigidity of the contact surface and much more, all play into how much impact force will be felt ( what is felt and what is generated are NOT the same thing by the way).

((Easier to demonstrate on heavy bags and similar things.The distinction you make between what is felt and what is generated is IMO a good one.Sometimes the generated power is not completely delivered))

The other type is “impulse” or kinetic energy based impact force- usually called “fa jing” in TCMA.

(Fa jing is probably Mandarin- in some Cantonese it could be" bau ja geng" or explosive power-easier to be felt by the recipient- not necessarily as evident on a hand held pad. The tacit knowledge of the observer more important in assessment than in the first type of power.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depends on training, skill and context))

Joy Chaudhuri[/QUOTE]

Agreed on all points.

44

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995357]Vankuen,
The time of contact is VERY crucial and is something that is typically over looked.
The harder the contact and impact surface, the less time the greater the kinetic energy transfer.
This is why, typically, short power ( inch power, fa jing, whatever) is applied to the head.

How much impact we can transfer to a target with our strikes is based on how well we strike ( if all else is equal) because the power we generate is not always All transfered to the target.
There has to be quite a bit of “perfect” conditons for all the energy to be transfered and typically that doesn’t happen in a real fight.

So we must, to begin with, generate as much force as possible.
Don’t get over “physics” on it because physics has to be tailored to biomechanics.
Suffice to say that, for a “powerful” strike one must:
Apply as much mass as possible.
Accelerate as much as possible.
Decelerate as least as possible.
Follow through enough.
Make contact “just” enough to penetrate the target.[/QUOTE]

Agreed on everything there, and to look at it another way…do you think that all punches are capable of the same power coming from the same individual? I.E. We can agree that the jab is not equal in power to the cross, hook, or uppercut, in power generation. If that is the case, it establishes the idea that non-boxing punches (E.G. gung fu punches) might also have varying degrees of power as well.

You and Joy were saying…the power effect felt by the focus mitt holder may not be indicitive of the actual transfer of force (like when I hit the heavy bag that was against the wall and it felt equal there as opposed to the mitt). I thought about that when I originally was mulling things over, but then started thinking that there’s no reason for it to differ either…force of impact is force of impact. It exists in the same realm of reality and thus is susceptible to the same rules of physics (though you’re right its not exactly the same given that we’re not simply “objects”). That’s when I started thinking that it was the pad holder that could be making things feel different in terms of feedback.

People have been hit with punches that didn’t damage the exterior, but the interior. Just like in car accidents or any other type of tremedous blunt trauma. Houdini died of a ruptured liver because he was showing his “iron stomach” and let some young guy punch him in his body a punch of times. No gung fu there, just a good strong punch (or punches). I give you that example to show that it’s not gung fu or boxing that really makes the difference, its just force and the person’s ability to transfer it.

That’s why I look at things from non-style perspective. I put everything on an equal playing field regardless of the origin. Punch to punch…which has more power. If we can determine why, we can also determine how to increase the power within the confines of the human construct.

45

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995357]
Make contact “just” enough to penetrate the target.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK…because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target…ok no jokes.. :slight_smile:

46

[QUOTE=YungChun;995390]Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK…because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target…ok no jokes.. :)[/QUOTE]

That reminded me of wedding crashers where the guy talks about playing the game of “just the tip” lol.

Why stop at just the tip when you can get that deep penetrating force!

47

I thought about that when I originally was mulling things over, but then started thinking that there’s no reason for it to differ either…force of impact is force of impact. It exists in the same realm of reality and thus is susceptible to the same rules of physics (though you’re right its not exactly the same given that we’re not simply “objects”). That’s when I started thinking that it was the pad holder that could be making things feel different in terms of feedback.

I think that, a person that can “throw” his 15 lbs arm at 35 mph will generate the same amount of force regardless of HOW he generates it, BUT how much of that force will “effect” the target is another matter.
Pulling the arm back to increase impulse, for example, can very easily compromise the amount of force and energy-
Pulling back to soon or the target moving for example will decrease impact.
While using momentum based force MAY allow for less issue as we are driving through the target with very little regard for “pull back”.
Of course, ideally, you want to use BOTH methods and that is what WC ( or any system) strike should be done as.
Not a “slappy, tappy” collection of strikes but also not a swinging basebal bat either.

48

[QUOTE=YungChun;995390]Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK…because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target…ok no jokes.. :)[/QUOTE]

Just enough typically means about 2-4 inches of depth ( compression), the issue I am referring to is:
Too much = a push
Too little = girlie slap

49

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995393]I think that, a person that can “throw” his 15 lbs arm at 35 mph will generate the same amount of force regardless of HOW he generates it, BUT how much of that force will “effect” the target is another matter.
Pulling the arm back to increase impulse, for example, can very easily compromise the amount of force and energy-
Pulling back to soon or the target moving for example will decrease impact.
While using momentum based force MAY allow for less issue as we are driving through the target with very little regard for “pull back”.
Of course, ideally, you want to use BOTH methods and that is what WC ( or any system) strike should be done as.
Not a “slappy, tappy” collection of strikes but also not a swinging basebal bat either.[/QUOTE]

So in other words…you’re talking about maxmimizing the “POP” that we look for when striking? For example on the heavy bag–not tapping the bag and not pushing the bag, but the sweet spot in between. That’s something I constantly see in gyms…people pushing the bag and mistaking it for “power”.

Very good point.

So if one was to maximize the “pop” with both punches…which do you think would issue more power (in terms of kinetic energy transference)–the chung kuen or the overhand/cross?

50

[QUOTE=Vankuen;995396]So in other words…you’re talking about maxmimizing the “POP” that we look for when striking? For example on the heavy bag–not tapping the bag and not pushing the bag, but the sweet spot in between. That’s something I constantly see in gyms…people pushing the bag and mistaking it for “power”.

Very good point.

So if one was to maximize the “pop” with both punches…which do you think would issue more power (in terms of kinetic energy transference)–the chung kuen or the overhand/cross?[/QUOTE]

The PC version would be the whichever one is trained the best by the individual.
The facts though, are not PC.
You can look at fight science and see how hard Bas Rutten strikes and WHICH strike he chooses.
We can look at full contact fighting and see which strikes ROUTINELY get the KO’s.

I myself was involved in 2 studies at the York University in Toronto in which the force of strikes were measured on both a static target AND a moving one ( a padded suit with force gauges on it) and in that study were MA of various backgrounds - Boxers, KB/MT, Kung fu, etc and the strikes that consistently offered the greatest level of IMPACT force ( pounds of force) AND Kinetic Force (g’s) were momentum based strikes.

51

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995399]The PC version would be the whichever one is trained the best by the individual.
The facts though, are not PC.
You can look at fight science and see how hard Bas Rutten strikes and WHICH strike he chooses.
We can look at full contact fighting and see which strikes ROUTINELY get the KO’s.

I myself was involved in 2 studies at the York University in Toronto in which the force of strikes were measured on both a static target AND a moving one ( a padded suit with force gauges on it) and in that study were MA of various backgrounds - Boxers, KB/MT, Kung fu, etc and the strikes that consistently offered the greatest level of IMPACT force ( pounds of force) AND Kinetic Force (g’s) were momentum based strikes.[/QUOTE]

Well if that’s not proof in the pudding I don’t know what is. Studies done with objective and measurable data…doesn’t get much better than that. I like that the study was done with MOVING objects as well becuase then you can take into consideration when and how the strike occurred (timing) to aid in making useful information of the data (assuming that it was filmed to coordinate the numbers with the actions).

To make sure that no one misinterpretes this thread though…I know that the chung kuen is a strong punch, but I also know that I have stronger ones available. I figured it’d be good conversation fodder anyway.

BTW…you didn’t mention I don’t think which punch you have as your strongest?

52

Well if that’s not proof in the pudding I don’t know what is. Studies done with objective and measurable data…doesn’t get much better than that. I like that the study was done with MOVING objects as well becuase then you can take into consideration when and how the strike occurred (timing) to aid in making useful information of the data (assuming that it was filmed to coordinate the numbers with the actions).

The differences between hitting a static target and a moving one weren’t that much, typically around a loss of 10-15%.
The padded suit was lightweight and allowed for the “dummy” to move very well, it was a specially modified SPEAR suit from Tony Blauer.
Everything was filmed with high speed digital film used to track speed in a FBS mode ( whatever all that means !).

BTW…you didn’t mention I don’t think which punch you have as your strongest?

Overhand right to the head and to the body was the left hook, although the stright to the body wasn’t that much less powerful.

53

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995402]The differences between hitting a static target and a moving one weren’t that much, typically around a loss of 10-15%.
The padded suit was lightweight and allowed for the “dummy” to move very well, it was a specially modified SPEAR suit from Tony Blauer.
Everything was filmed with high speed digital film used to track speed in a FBS mode ( whatever all that means !).

Overhand right to the head and to the body was the left hook, although the stright to the body wasn’t that much less powerful.[/QUOTE]

That’s good stuff. Though was anyone there using the wing chun punch? I know you said that there was varying styles being represented.

In addition comparisons from one punch to the other were made against the same individual? Because comparing from one person to the next leaves the argument that certain punches were stronger due to varying sizes, speeds, musculature, etc.

I figure Bas Rutten, having come from Kyokushin, probably didn’t have the chung choi in his arsenal either ya?

54

[QUOTE=Vankuen;995404]That’s good stuff. Though was anyone there using the wing chun punch? I know you said that there was varying styles being represented.

In addition comparisons from one punch to the other were made against the same individual? Because comparing from one person to the next leaves the argument that certain punches were stronger due to varying sizes, speeds, musculature, etc.

I figure Bas Rutten, having come from Kyokushin, probably didn’t have the chung choi in his arsenal either ya?[/QUOTE]

Their were many people in both studies, the first one ( static), in my group there were 20 and 3 were WC guys from Sunny Tang’s ( Moy Yat).
In the dynamic study the groups were smaller because of the time frame ( 5 people per group).
Typically, the biggest factor seemed to be skill level and that was directly related to experience/training time ( the guys that hit the hardest were the ones that trained full contact the longest), they simply knew how to hit hard, better.
Height, limb length and diameter, weight and strenght were all measured to see if they were factors.

55

Strike…

There are hammer type intended to smash.
There are chissel type intended to chip in.
There are boomerang type intended to whilpool retrograde
There are cross bow arrow type intended for penetrate
There are whip type intended to whip cut
There are thin razor blade type intended to paper cut fast…

What is strongest?

Perhaps it is time to ask what “tools” comes with SLT?
Different strike come with different power generation…different strike for different purpose..speed … tactic…size…

56

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995395]Just enough typically means about 2-4 inches of depth ( compression), the issue I am referring to is:
Too much = a push
Too little = girlie slap[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’m just wondering of for our purposes there might be elements of pushing and blasting.. In certain cases we want to take them out of there base while hitting them so perhaps seeking more full extension… Even the RP seems to have some element of that depending on how you do it.. Just something I have thought about/wondered in the past..

Anyone train to blast through the opponent?

57

[QUOTE=Hendrik;995408]Strike…

There are hammer type intended to smash.
There are chissel type intended to chip in.
There are boomerang type intended to whilpool retrograde
There are cross bow arrow type intended for penetrate
There are whip type intended to whip cut
There are thin razor blade type intended to paper cut fast…

What is strongest?

Perhaps it is time to ask what “tools” comes with SLT?
Different strike come with different power generation…different strike for different purpose..speed … tactic…size…[/QUOTE]

Very good observation Hendrick. There are indeed several types of strikes which serve a variety of purposes. Since you’ve brought it up, what is the intent of the chung kuen / choi?

58

[QUOTE=Vankuen;995434]Very good observation Hendrick. There are indeed several types of strikes which serve a variety of purposes.

Since you’ve brought it up, what is the intent of the chung kuen / choi?[/QUOTE]

1, It is not my observation. it is there to see.

2, Chung Kuen/Choi is just a thrusting force to open the gate like a water hose to open up a path into the fire.

Thus, it is not heavy weapon at all by nature.

There are other weapon of penetration and quick draw type which has been taken away from today’s WCK.
Those are serious stuff which even can break hard Qigong. But it is no longer here in general.

There are boomerang weapon which is similar to lock in missile once it locks in it retrogrates… those are for real close body/anti grappling weapon, Those too no longer here in general.

There are cross bow penetration weapon which is a much heavier weapon, it too no longer here in general.

Each weapon has its characteristics and its suitable condition. That is the 1850 colorfull WCK. IMHO

Thus, what is strongest punch? that is very misleading. Strongest punch can be the most useless punch because it is not suitable for the situation. IE using the Vertical punch against the grapper is a dead trap while your punch launch in a 30 deg upward trajectory.
and the grapper can come in with 0 deg level and totally out of your punch trajectory space.

59

hate to sound like a nerd, but force does not equal mass x velocity ^2

force = mass x acceleration

acceleration is the change in velocity over time (v- v0)/t, or the first derivative dv/dt of velocity

i think you are thinking of

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2

Kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared.

So Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to mass and to velocity.

Sanjuros explanation of “momentum based” impacts have high mass but low velocity. these are more push-like

His other explanation of fa jing are high velocity and low mass impacts

i would recommend high velocity because that is what is going to penetrate your target and hurt more

So to hit hard you really need to maximize velocity and mass AT THE TIME OF IMPACT. Does not matter how far your punch has travelled. Only the time of impact matters. Thats all there is to it.

WC attempts to maximize mass by using throwing the entire body into the strike, using the strongest muscles in the body, the legs, to propel it

WC attempts to maximize velocity by doing what any other style does and thats hitting as fast as possible.

WC attempts to be efficient in terms of energy delivery through body structure, so that as much kinetic energy is transferred into your target and minimal energy is “lost” due to recoil.

[QUOTE=Vankuen;995348]That’s the way I thought of fa jing [kinetic energy]…at least the way I interpreted it in terms of western science. I’d listen to the chinese theory and think about how it correlated with science to find the western “equivelent”.

I thought about this too…in terms of physics.

If we can agree that force = mass x velocity^2…
and we can safely say that the mass is the same…
than the only piece that can affect the amount of force is the velocity.
[INDENT]For the velocity piece, I think that the equation of initial velocity + acceleration x time would be appropriate. [/indent]

If we’re using these equations (generally of course since there’s no hard numbers)…I’d say that perhaps the fact that the wing chun punch doesn’t travel in as much distance, and hence not able to build up as much acceleration, that perhaps the punch is limited by design relative to the overhand or cross due to that punch’s longer pathway and thus higher level of achieved acceleration (assuming that the amount of acceleration isn’t maxed within the same distance as the wing chun punch).

Then again…if we’re talking impact force then the equation would change a bit to be m x v^2 / time of contact (time of contact being contact area / velocity^2). So the amount of time in contact could be a factor as well.

Either way…kinetic energy is developed through acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy an object has is related to its velocity (x 2). So if we can agree on that, would not the wing chun punch be a disadvantage unless the puncher could accelerate the same amount as the cross in that shorter distance?

Yes-No? I’m not a physics major I just thought it’d be fun to look at it in more structured terms.[/QUOTE]

60

one thing vt develops over ‘momentum’ strikes is the technical ability to deliver attacking actions constantly without stopping…iow the VT techniques are what they are due to the goal at hand…
I tell my student the same, I ‘could’ do a thai kick ..‘but’ if I miss your thigh im recovering back to starting point or spinning around from the follow through… if i miss etc…I can also deliver a spinning strike etc to follow a missed kick… ‘but’ i have turned myself…pivoted etc…no attack line.
The attacking idea of vt allows low straight kicks to compliment the forward pressure of the attacking…strikes are direct and cycling constantly for the same reasons…delivering an unbroken attacking line of force…until its over.
If I adopt a circular momentum strike thats fine too …its just the ‘missing the target’ part..in vt if i miss im still on my attack line …still attacking without an opening.
Why you see P Bayer doing a lot of striking …subtle angling using constant attack/deflection, with moving angles staying with the opponent until penetration/impact.

IOW the system has techniques that allow us to develop the attacking idea…close quarter linear striking with simultaneous ability from angles of arms , controlled by elbows…low straight kicks that allows us to ‘walk’ forward as we attack kicking …symmetrical facing strikes that can shift sides of our centerline /strike / attack-line , seamlessly as the person moves across it…before us, side to side, along a cage or back to a wall..if they come we stay and angle as we strike…attacking always.

Everything is developing striking ..we train out tan strike against our own jum strike for the equilibrium of opposite arm strike energy…trained along our lines for alignement…

the unaligned forces we feel are the byproduct we use to our advantage of the untrained arm…:smiley:

Timing the strikes is with staying with an incoming force: head on crashes double the impact force proportionately… 600lb punch force meets head traveling inwards = :smiley:

I have used this very thing over and over in fights…IT NEVER FAILS.

Seung ma toi ma drills are dedicated to this attack or counter attacking point of impact…too close no force… too far no contact + elbows out & technique falls apart…like a heavy bag I will become the bag for my partner to train his/her timing, using my extended striking arm [tan] as the side of entry to angle offside…making it unthinking action, intuitive…1000’s of rep’s of a seamingly simple thing…ko

Seung ma ~ toi ma = point of impact / timing. plus flowing attacking , counter attacking drills…

Somehow this drill has become step in followed by wrist deflection + step back or do a ‘move’ only possible in chi-sao games, turning away from your attacking line to ‘deflect’ energy . WRONG…the idea is LOST ..not there anymore…all wrists, chasing, over trapping, over feeling…

timing is critical and easy to show how little movement is needed to steal your impact force…
this applies to the VT strike technique, so it has to be trained to stay in its impact zone, staying with what comes is your impact zone…as it moves away or comes to us..it is a heavy bag swinging at us, away from us, sideways across our lines and back …so we use pivoting, angling, shifting in small steps for force transfer…drills with timing and impact force as the goals re-enforce the idea of attacking throughout the system…dummy etc…

As seemingly simple drill for impact is to pusha heavy bag way from your self …enough so it swings back into your space, making it essential you move and angle sideon to it or it will knock you backwards…as it swings back you step back at 45deg, adopting a position as attacking the side of the dummy…lead leg, rear leg, angling offside…
Hit the bag as all the feet hips shoulders align & strike, make contact..the bag is the teacher here :smiley: watch for wrists, alignment is critical and not a drill for beginners …use a palm strike to avoid injury..vertical palms make the elbow spread as a tan teaches, horizontal palm brings the elbow in as jum strikes, use each to develop both either side…when you have hit the bag well you will stop its motion…
try to time the strikes as you would hit a guy moving in on your position…just a drill.

You will feel your stance so adjust your rear foot to drive energy into your hand>heavy bag…
as all forces… if you TIME them properly you harness all they have to offer and combine them in kinetic chains meeting at the hips
ie strike with extending arm AND extending leg into ground at exactly the same time you make an efficient action with no momentum swing required.

If you get this timing right, you hit a guy with the force an inch punch is capable of driving you away several feet … WITHOUT RETRACTION from the impact point …only now you have impact timing of incoming mass + timing adding the force capable of being generated with the inch strike aka no retraction striking…leg + arm+ timing = a whole lot of energy into a point

…accuracy drills help too, tennis balls on stretchy strings etc…

terence your rebuttal please :smiley: and dont hold back i want the whole mantra , no 1/2 measures…the "but you have to fight fighter who can really …er, fight " hah