Striking, Eastern/Western

[respectmankind]

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?

[Merryprankster]

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.

[yenhoi]

A punch is a punch man.

Hitting and being hit is the tricky part.

[Water Dragon]

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.

[Merryprankster]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Merryprankster]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Braden]

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?

[Braden]

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.

[Merryprankster]

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.

[Braden]

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?

[Merryprankster]

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Merryprankster]

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. :)

[Braden]

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? ;)

[WesternBoxer]

>>>spiralling strike to the temple
LOL!!!
What boxer would attempt something so unrealistic?
A hard fast hook to the jaw is more like it.

[SifuAbel]

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.

[red_fists]

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.

[Water Dragon]

Man, I want to get in on this, but I have a big report due for work tomorrow. Real Briefly, about 80 % of the mechanics are the same, IMO. The differences are due to the emphasis of one power vector over another. This leads to different strategy. I.E. A Chinese boxer will use his punch to achieve a different goal than the Western boxer.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--but that's not what was being asked, and it's not the question that's getting answered.

He's asking if the striking is very different.

I say it's not. I'm not claiming to ever be able to pull off the strike you discuss, straight out of boxing but principles, man, principles!

Let me provide a non-MA related example.

I threw shot, discus, and hammer in high-school and college. I tried javelin, but I can't do it without my rotator cuff giving me horrible problems...

Anyway, I did the glide step in shot, used the full rotation in discus and the hammer... well, the hammer is a heel-toe spin. The javelin is a run-up.

Now, the goal in each of these events is to throw the implements as far as you can.

Roughly speaking, in the glide step, you come straight back, turn and throw.

In the discus, you spin round twice and throw.

In the hammer, you spin as many times as you can, each time generating more speed and you release at the appropriate moment.

The javelin, you run REALLY fast, execute your cross-steps, and then launch.

You know what? 4 different looks to them, but on the release, they are all almost EXACTLY the same. On the outside, you'd be hard pressed to find any similarities. On the inside, they feel more alike than different.

The reason why is because the power transfer to the implement is precisely the same in each one. If you are right handed, the left leg blocks hard, extended as though you were vaulting over it, while the right leg provides the final push. The hips open up square to the release, followed by the shoulders, the power is transfered to the implement as you vault over the extended left leg getting every last bit of coil out of your right leg and the release is made. This movement is called "the block," and is the single most important event of the throw. Without it, power transfer is not maximized.

Four different events. Different body types excel in each, and you must train specifically for each event. Javelin uses "whipping" at the release point, discus comes around in one piece with the right side, to be spun out of the front of the hand, the shot uses a push, and the hammer release is a giant swing...and yet, they all rely on the block for power transfer from the ground to the implement.

We could go on all day about how different the specifics are, but at the core... at the heart of what those events are, and the biomechanics behind maximum power transfer, all four of the events are exactly the same. It would be almost impossible from pictures of the armpits down to determine what implement was being used at the moment of release. (except the hammer maybe, if you are familiar with the foot placement... it's a little narrower than the other three) :)

[Water Dragon]

Boxing is the discuss, CMA is the shotput.

[scotty1]

"Boxing is the discuss, CMA is the shotput."

Meaning boxing uses more torque (!?) to develop power and CMA goes straight, developing power in less of mechanically obvious way? Like Wing Chun short range power?

Sorry if that was bull****.



:)

[Nichiren]

I think there are differences! One is used purely for sport and the other for selfdefense. If you would use the same rules and the same equipment, it wouldn't take long for the two to be just alike.

[NafAnal]

Posted this before but is probably more relavant here:

Tim Catmell's thoughts on boxing:

"Western boxing is probably the best choice of all the martial arts when it comes to developing practical hand skills in a relatively short amount of time.

Western boxing doesn't need to be 'driven' by anything else, it works just fine as it is. When the Chinese army was researching and developing their hand to hand combat (which later evolved into the modern San Shou/San Da tournament fighting popular today), they researched all the popular forms of martial arts (including their own). The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques (when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time) were superior to all others (including their own). Other (Chinese) hand techniques were included to round out the training, but the foundation of San Shou hand techniques is Western boxing. The striking techniques of the IMA (especially Xing Yi Quan) are, in my opinion, on par with Western boxing, but for shear speed of skill development (and practical ability), you can't beat boxing (an interesting side note, the descriptions of generating force described in Jack Dempsy's book, "Championship Fighting," are virtually identical to those in Xing Yi Quan)."

Can't be bothered to comment. 'cept for this

Westernboxer, fu ck off.

laters

[BoxerChick]

I think kung fu could be good for a real fight but I have seen two problems.
Most kung fuey boys don't have much stamina and they wouldn't last too long in a real fight.
Next thing is they don't practice full-contact. They play patty-cakes in kung fuey class and then when it comes to a real fight they are screwed.

[shaolinboxer]

Boxing, as it stands, is not real fighting...it's a sport who's techniques can be applied to real fighting.

Kung fu practitioners do indeed spar full contact (unless I have been in a constant state of hallucination), and use their legs, grapple, box.....plus the do sensitivity and rythm drills, work the pads, work the heavy bag, etc.

Boxing work does give you crazy lungs.

[BoxerChick]

shaolinboxer,
I guess I am talking about those dime a dozen kung fu and karate schools you see everywhere. I am sure there are hard core kung fu guys out there like you who go full contact.

[Merryprankster]

Shaolin--would you agree that the regular practice that boxers have in hitting an unwilling target, day in and day out, plus in receiving blows in return, makes them opponents to be respected? Of course, it depends on the person, but I am assuming a decent level of competence.


Oh, and BoxerChick, I box, but I'm not KF.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by BoxerChick
shaolinboxer,
I guess I am talking about those dime a dozen kung fu and karate schools you see everywhere. I am sure there are hard core kung fu guys out there like you who go full contact.

BoxerChick is correct. Here's the paradox, a lot of the people who would make excellant Kung Fu exponents are going to the boxing and Muay Thai gyms instead. Until we get some good exponents, we wont draw fighters. Until we draw fighters, we wont produce soild specimens. Kinda su.cks, don't it?

[Daredevil]

A very good point. I often think about this when the MMA vs KF arguments rage on.

More often the guys with real fighting spirit go to modern schools, leaving many kungfu schools with the less combatative folks. Not always true, I know, but bears thinking of.

I've seen more than a couple of KF schools and some MMA action, so I know this to be true from my perceptions. Again, not true on every account, but often enough.

Of course, continuing with the generalizations, where KF is plagued by nerds, the MMA seem to be plagued by the occasional redneck types who like to think they're tough, but may not be more than bullies. :)

[Merryprankster]

And you would be right :) On both accounts!