The Way of Least Resistance

Here is a topic I've been meaning to address for some time. I hear a lot about how karate and other traditional martial arts "have lost the plot" with all "all their chest punches". Most commonly I hear the refrain: "Who does that anyway?" Disregarding the fact that body blows occur, it does seem a bit odd to see so many punches seemingly directed to the chest in forms, traditional two-person sparring etc. So what's it all about? I've heard every "theory" under the sun - "They aren't really punches!" (yeah right), "They're hidden/secret techniques!" (not that again) and "There are death points on the chest! (so why aren't people dying around the world?). I believe the answer is rather more simple.  It's all about training at the at the correct range - and accordingly making your training more realistic and practical - and doing it with reasonable safety from injury . But what ...

I have previously discussed how traditional strikes are stopped by the practitioner at a pre-determined point; they do not rely on the target to stop the strike. [For the purposes of this article I shall simply refer to “strike”, but you can take this to refer to any kind of strike, punch or kick.] I have discussed how this needn’t mean that the traditional strike is “weak” – it may not carry as much force as a “follow through” but it makes up for this at least in part through concepts like “ kime ” (focus) and hydrostatic shock . But what is the imperative that causes virtually every traditional Far Eastern traditional martial art to stop strikes at a pre-determined point? Why not simply follow through with each technique until it is stopped by the target? The answer lies in priority. Unlike, say, combat sports or military disciplines, civilian defence does not prioritize hitting. It prioritizes not being hit. Accordingly, civilian defence strikes are inherently conservative ...

Choson Ninja and the question of "conditioned" knuckles The other day one of my colleagues at the Traditional Fighting Arts Forums alerted me to a fellow who calls himself Choson Ninja. He has a series of videos on Youtube and in this particular one he tells you about the dangers of getting "ugly" knuckles from hand conditioning. The general thrust of his argument is correct: conditioning can lead to deformed and ugly knuckles - especially so if you are doing it incorrectly. Certainly, even moderate makiwara practice will cause you to develop callouses. How "unsightly" these are will depend on how much and how "hard" you do your conditioning. However I disagree with Mr Choson about much of what he says in his video. To begin with, his knuckles are not really that conditioned . Rather, they appear to be damaged from breaks. Mr Choson certainly doesn't have anywhere near the kind of callousing one gets from regular conditioning such as st...

In my view the reason so many martial arts utilise the standard "corkscrew punch" (eg. karate, taekwondo, many shaolin schools, etc.) has little to do with a conscious effort at enhancement of power/stability, or because of fashion or aesthics. It is simply a function of our biomechanical design. Consider a very short, close range punch into the ribs - with an uppercut type action. Your palm will naturally face upward. Think of a handshake where you are middle distance (ie. your elbow is not fully extended). Your palm is side on and you have what is known as "vertical fist" punch. Now think of an extended "raise your arms in front" (as a doctor or physiotherapist might ask you to do) - or even a pointing action - ie. where your elbow is fully extended. The most natural position is palm down. Hence when you have a fully extended punch it will naturally end up with the full corkscrew. The standard "karate-type" punch covers all three of the above ...

Introduction In my article “ Kime: the soul of the karate punch ” I described the essential feature of the karate punch as being “focus” – ie. a combination of minimal deceleration before impact and optimum distancing – usually performed in karate with a straight thrust . Many have, and will continue to, argue that this straight thrust is less powerful than a boxer’s follow-through punches. This is true. But to understand why this does not necessarily mean that the former is less effective we’ll have to examine punching methods – what someone I know calls “delivery systems” – in greater detail. To the extent that karate punching is “less powerful”, I will then go on to examine why this is a tactical choice rather than a necessary failing. Categorising punches In a very general sense karate punches can be divided into 2 kinds: straight line and curved. In boxing, punches can be divided into 2 different categories that overlap with the karate ones, namely: 1. jabs (ie. punches which...

Over the last 6 months I have been staggered by the number of correspondents who say that karate and other traditional martial arts are ineffective because their practitioners "leave the hand in". By this they mean the arm is not retracted in a punch. Simply put, this issue is completely and utterly misconceived. It is so misconceived that I hardly know where to begin in terms of addressing it... Let me start by making this fundamental observation: Leaving the arm there or retracting it makes no difference in destructive terms . It's the outward speed that counts (and your ability to deflect it in its outward phase)! In my school we train traditional punches first (no retraction) so as to develop kime (focus). This is the concept I refer to in my article "Visible force vs. applied force" . After the students have developed focus they move to snap punches. Nenad demonstrating kime in reverse punch In the last 22 years of teaching I've found that if you go...

These questions were once put to me by a Shotokan karateka: "I would just like to ask your opinion. When I use the kick shields, the kick take the same form on the shields as they do in fresh air. However, whenever I use the focus mitts or bag. I seem to use more of a boxing style punch. By this I mean. jabs, straight right/left, and hooks. Now I know we can call them kizami-zuki, gyaku-zuki and mawashi-zuki. But its the way in which I strike the pad. Using the shoulder, plenty of hip and up on the balls of my feet. Also I breath through my nose. I feel very comfortable in striking this way and I can hit the pads/bags quiet hard. However, this is contradictory to the way I train and teach karate punches. Shoulders down, using the back muscles. Same hip movement, but heel down pushing to the floor. And breathing through the mouth. We do have access to makiwara. The Goju-ryu boys use these all the time. I have used one in the past, only for a short while. I do not use one now becaus...

Someone on an online forum recently wrote words to the effect of “Do you literally fight with you hands in a chamber position?” . To me the real question is: "Do you mean to say you DON'T fight using a chamber?" If you don't, you'd be one of a very few! What do I mean by this? Everyone - boxers included - use chambers. Chambers are nothing more than loading for a punch , in particular a punch that you wish to execute with power (ie. not a jab). Now this next point is critical: To view chambers statically is a mistake. It is as much a mistake as taking a snapshot of a jump and asking “Do you literally hang in the air during a fight?”. Chambers occur in a fraction of an instant in the context of continuous movement. But they nevertheless occur in every fighting discipline. If you don’t chamber your punch (ie. load it at all) then you must be peppering your opponent with little jabs and nothing more. No one does this, as far as I know. Instead all discipli...