Closed fist striking for self preservation

[** Serge **]

Parallèlement aux principes qui régissent la protection personnelle cohabitent les techniques qui articulent physiquement celle-ci.

Un sujet classique de débat ( sans fin ) est celui de la main ouverte contre la main fermée; celui-ci anime et réanime régulièrement les colonnes de forums et les discussions de comptoir séminaire.

En ce qui me concerne, j'y apporte ma classique réponse de normand : cela dépend de la personne, du contexte et d'une myriade de facteurs qui empêchent d'apporter une voie, une réponse unique à la question.

Néanmoins, voici un essai de Cecil Burch, dont la crédibilité n'est plus à construire, sur Personal Defense Network :

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/about-us/#CecilBurch

                                                   

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/non-firearms-defensive-tools/closed-fist-strike/

The Closed-Fist Strike
By Cecil Burch

© - June 8, 2011 - http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/home


Example of a closed fist strike while protecting yourself.There are as many theories on what is the best “technique” in the world of self-defense as there are experts. Unfortunately, personal agendas and bias all too often get in the way. One area that is particularly susceptible to this is the issue of using closed fists in a self-defense/combat situation. There are a lot of standard catchphrases that get pulled out of the hat whenever this topic comes up. Let’s look at them and apply some logic without the emotion.

Generally, the negatives that are brought up are: you will hurt your hand, and it takes a long time to master how to use a closed fist. Let’s examine both of them in detail.

Injury to the Hand

 

Having been involved in this area as a student and instructor for over 30 years, it is my experience that most injuries to the fist arise from a failure in one of two areas: fist formation or precision of the strike.
Unfortunately, the actual matters of forming the fist and hitting with it too often get short shrift, even in a boxing gym. Everyone is in a hurry to actually hit something, and details occasionally get lost.

 
Example of a properly closed fist.
A proper fist: wrist flat, first two impact knuckles lined up with forearm.

                                                   

The correct way to make a fist is shown in this photo. The important points to note are that the back of the palm is level with the forearm, and the first two knuckles are lined up so the entire forearm is behind them. These two positions essentially turn the hand and lower arm into one unit, with the large bones of the latter supporting the smaller bones of the former. Consistently doing this will go a long way to minimizing any potential for injury.

The other things that help prevent injury are to make sure you have a clear focus on your target with the strike and a clear focus on what you are striking with. Most people settle for throwing the whole fist in the general direction of the total object. If you don’t try to be precise, is it any wonder that you might hit the top of the head? When I coach, I use the phrase “aim small, miss small.” It is as appropriate for punching as it is for shooting.

One of the concerns the pro-open-hand people often cite about striking with a closed fist is the chance of damage to the small bones of the hand. I believe this is a legitimate concern and something that should be taken into account. However, the open-hand people never seem to follow through on their logic by taking it a step further: they fail to address the fact that while you have a chance of doing damage to knuckles and the other (relatively) weak bones of the hand, I think the chance is even greater of causing serious harm to the extremely vulnerable fingers or wrist during an open-handed strike.

Open-hand proponents seem to imply that you have nothing to worry about by leaving all those weak digits dangling out there while you ram your palm with full force into the skull of another person. But it has been my experience that not only is it easy and very common to jam or torque fingers past the point of injury, it is also extremely debilitating.

As I write this, I am nursing a jammed thumb that is VERY painful. How did I injure it? During clinch work with an OPEN HAND! Let me tell you, with the pain I was feeling, it was not easy to get through the rest of the training session although going fairly light. And I didn't even do it on that hard a surface (the floating ribs and waist rammed my thumb). I shudder to think what would have happened if I had been driving it at full speed at solid bone.

Much of the training that open-hand proponents do is striking focus mitts, heavy bags, Thai pads, etc. The problem with spending all your time on those objects is that they have a smooth and consistent surface. Unfortunately, the human head does not. It is uneven with lots of weird ridges. It also has a tendency not to move in a smooth or consistent manner. It’s easy for the head to suddenly tilt forward, completely changing the type of surface that the open hand makes contact with. This alters the ease of use as well as its effects. Deriving all your ideas of how useful the chin jab/tiger claw/slap/etc are based only on hitting nice, smooth targets can lead to big surprises should you actually have to make impact on another person’s skull.

 
Many advocate this type of hand formation: bent wrist, splayed out and unsupported fingers.

                                                 

This is an exact copy of a photo of a well regarded and internationally famous proponent of open-hand strikes. Look at the formation of the hand that he advocates as superior to a fist. The hand is bent back, weakening the already weak wrist, and the fingers are splayed out without any structural support. Furthermore, this strike is targeted at the bony jaw – the same target the open-hand proponent says will destroy the hand! How is this stronger than a fist tightened together with all the bones locking together to form mutual support hitting to the same spot? It makes no logical sense.

This illogic is just as pronounced with the other open-hand blows – slaps, tiger claw, and edge of hand strikes – especially since they are all aimed at the head. I don’t understand the magic alchemy that says you can be incredibly accurate when the hand is open, and flail blindly the second you make a fist. Again, this is a major failure of logic.

The fact is that the hand is somewhat fragile regardless of what you are doing. There are a lot of little bones that are susceptible to breaking. However, it does seem to me, and is backed up by talking to any orthopedic surgeon, that when I make a fist, all the parts of the hand lock together into a tightly packed formation that feels much stronger than the looseness in any open-handed strike.

Learning Period

 
Straight “diving board” jab offers great protection against counterattacks.

                                                     

Critics often state that closed-fist striking takes a long time to learn and is tough to do with non-professionals. As an instructor who has taught in many formats (private, weekly group, and seminars), I can safely say that this is patently false. I generally have people capable of hitting hard objects with force within two to eight hours of training, and many times this is accomplished with people who previously have never had real training.

Taught properly and with the right methods, almost anyone can easily become proficient and functional in the use of a closed-fist strike in a short amount of time, and with no more risk of injury than using any open-handed blow. And this isn’t just one person’s anecdotal evidence. The group of trainers I am associated with in the Crazy Monkey Defense (CMD) system all have had the same results. In addition, the popularity of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) gyms has led to more people training with closed fists, and there has not been some meteoric rise in hand injuries. In short, the closed fist is not just for professionals.

Adding to the ease of learning how to punch is the fact that making a fist is instinctual. Just look at when a baby is hurt or angry. What does s/he do? Makes very tight fists. The human body will instinctively go to the best physical positions in order to protect itself as much as possible. That would be a fist, not a chin-jab formation.

Other Possible Negatives with the Open Hand

 

There’s a really important aspect that not one pro-open-hand person has ever successfully addressed (at least in my experience). For all their pushing of the virtues of the open-hand strike, they have yet to overcome the single most outstanding virtue of the closed fist. No matter how you throw it, no matter how fast and non-telegraphic, every single viable open-hand strike will be circular. Some might be less circular than others, but they are all circular to some extent. In stark contrast, a closed fist allows you to throw it in a tight, straight line that closes all the gaps where an opponent can hit you back. Circular open-hand strikes leave a large window of vulnerability.

Open-hand slap is powerful, but open on a number of angles to counters, including ones with KO potential.

                                                   

Don't believe me? Try it. Hit a heavy bag really, really hard with an open hand. Every possible way of effectively doing it that actually transmits some power has to open up at least slightly on the delivery. If you don't, you either hurt your hand/wrist or you only hit with partial power. Still don't believe me? Do this experiment. Videotape a sparring session with a partner. In the first round, use only open-hand strikes. In the second round, use only closed fists. I guarantee the punching in the second round will be more direct and leave you less open for counters. It is a fact that closed-fist strikes can be delivered incredibly straight, while keeping you defensively covered much better than the most efficient open-hand blow. Plus, it is much easier teaching someone to hit straight without exposing their head than it is teaching them the best method of open-hand striking and relying on distance or reflexes to defend a counterattack.

The Advantage of Boxing


The backbone of my personal self-defense striking game is the jab and cross. These two punches constitute probably 95% of any hand strikes I will utilize in a fight. Why? Because I know they will work essentially like I expect them to work, and that I can actually land them on my target. How do I know?

 
Example of closed fist strike protection.
A solid, powerful, protected strike that is easily duplicated by almost anyone in a high-stress situation.

                                                 

Because I have used them time after time, and have seen and felt the results. There is no guessing. Nor do I have to rely on stories my teacher told me about how a particular move was used by commandos/samurai/monks in the past and how effective it was for them. At any time, I can grab training partners, get on the mat, and attempt to apply the jab and cross on an active and resisting opponent who is trying to do damage to me at the same time. I would rather have two techniques I can count on instead of 50 that I only have theoretical proof of. It’s fine to think the chin jab is devastating, but if you haven’t actually used it in a live environment, how can you count on it? Can you land it consistently on a moving, resisting opponent? Does it always affect people the way you want it to? If any of the answers is no, I would suggest there’s a weakness in your plans.

I have no real issue with anyone who chooses to use open-handed blows to defend themselves. We all have to use what we personally trust. However, if you make the choice not to employ closed-fist strikes, please do so with real and valid reasons and not the false, worn-out clichés discussed here.

[** Serge **]

En complément, voici un florilège ( tiré du forum de Dennis Martin ) contrasté d'avis et opinions de personnes crédibles et expérimentées :

A very informative thread from the GT forum, 2004....
FROM ERNEST EMERSON
I recently had a pretty lively discussion with another instructor about the viability of the open palm strike in actual combat application. Not sparring, not training, not simulated combat with non-compliant subjects, but in actual fighting conditions, when the bad guy is trying to kill you.

I’m going to state my position and then qualify why my view is as such. The reason that I am concerned about this subject is because a large number of U.S. operators are being taught a system that denies use of the fist and stresses palm strike only.

The argument that is used is that a punch can result in a broken hand, which will compromise the ability to fire a weapon.

I disagree.

Now, the question that I always ask the operators (most having been through the training I described) is this. Have you ever been in a real fight? And I mean a real, in the dirt, shirt ripped off, bleeding brawl. Almost everyone answers yes. The next question I ask is; did you hit the guy with your fist or a palm strike? The answer – every time – “My fist.” Next question – did you break your hand? I’ve had one yes answer out of hundreds.

It is a natural reaction for the human being to clench their hand into a fist when they go to strike something. I have a three-year-old son who I have watched make a fist to hit something since he was able to stand up. He will slap things (the poor cat) but it is a completely different motion – a downward strike. Further, I need to say that I have broken my hand (3 times left, 4 times right) from punching. I’ve hit a lot of heads in my day and only once was it the result of me hitting someone’s skull. Now even further, I was never stopped because of the injury and it never – not once impeded my ability to pull the trigger on a weapon. The type of break that you usually suffer from striking something with your fist is a knuckle break, or a fracture leading back from the knuckle into the wrist. Personally I’ve never seen a compound fracture from a punch – yet. I’m not saying it can’t happen – just haven’t seen one.

I can hit pretty hard with a palm strike – way more than enough to cause a sudden rotation of the head. But I cannot come close to hitting as hard as I can with a good right cross or a good left hook. I’m not saying that you can’t hit hard with a palm strike I’m just saying you can hit harder with a good tight fist.

If I’m fighting for my life I want to hit the bad guy as hard as humanly possible. I may not get another chance.

I also believe that the natural tendency to clench the fist in a fight is just that – natural. It’s what you’re going to do anyway – so you better learn to do it right. I would not want to teach you anything that goes against your natural reactions. In the brief moments of an all out struggle you do not want to be processing information that is forcing you to override something your survival brain is telling you to do.

In spite of what I have just said and the stance I have taken, I believe the palm heel strike definitely does have a place – however, not when I’m fighting for my life. It is definitely a powerful strike and you can knock someone unconscious with it. The place for the palm strike is in a situation where you can make the choice to use it. For example, you come through a door and there he is in front of you, screaming and flailing about, only he’s not one of the bad guys – he’s one of the hostages. You don’t want to hurt him, but he could get you killed. A good palm heel strike to the chin brings him down, so you and your team can move through. Or, you’re in a crowd and some one rushes your principal. You move to clear a path as your teammates deal with the threat. There’s a woman in the way – she doesn’t know what to do, but you can’t get to the car. You don’t want to deck her with a crushing blow to the face. A good sharp palm heel to the chin will drop her like a bad habit.

Now I get to my final point. And it is simply – punch when you need to – palm strike when you need to. My problem is with the fact that these operators are being taught – don’t punch – only strike with the palm. My personal thought is that the palm strike sells well on paper to the administrative types. Your operators won’t break their hand, thereby compromising the mission. Or, your department won’t being paying medical bills for your officers or the victims. I’m not bagging on the palm strike. In my classes we teach both slaps and palm strikes that would rock your world. We also teach you how to punch so hard you’ll knock somebody into next week. It’s not black or white, one at the exclusion of the other. You better be able to do both. When I send someone into combat who might be forced to use what I am responsible for teaching, I want him to be able to use every tool in his arsenal.

Just my opinion. Let’s hear what you guys think.

Ernest
+++++++++++
FROM DEN
Ernest,
I'm a big advocate of open hand strikes. I have seen guys injure their hands by punching. I've seen a hand swell to the size of a boxing glove withing a short time, due to infection.
A guy I worked with punched a guy, knocked him out. Fine. Unfortunately, he damaged his thumb, the marrow was damaged, and he ended up losing the top joint.
We are all products of our experience. Of the cases I've seen, some would have had their ability to handle a firearm impaired, and some would not. Many, though, have long term hand damage.
There is no doubt that punches are powerful, but I have abandoned them for my own use, and don't teach closed fist, except for Hammerfist.
Thanks for your views, Ernest, they are always well presented, thought-provoking, and always welcome.I know mine is probably a minority view in the wider community.
Den
++++++++++++++
FROM AL BECKETT
Ernest/Dennis
I learn so much from you guys with REAL experience and I would say that what you are both proving to me on this thread is that it is not the technique that is good or bad, it is the operator who is using it and his ability to find out what works best for him and incorporate it in to his own make up.

Alan
++++++
FROM SLACKBLADDER
Another convert to the school of open-handed strikes here.

I particularly like the option to go to head control that open-handed strikes gives you. If you don't get the impact you're looking for, the hand is still on the head and you can push/grab to your heart's content. Add to this the possibility (and increased liklihood) of sticking a finger in the eye/nose in the vital quarter of a second after impact and gaining further control of the face and I'm still coming up trumps.

Finally, I was converted to open-hands early in my training experiences. I have no faith in punches any more. I simply cannot throw a right cross as hard as a palm heel, despite the body mechanics being the same. This may well be a pscyological factor asmuch as it is technique-oriented. If it doesn't FEEL right, it will never carry the same power. Confidence and intent are as much part of a strike as the leg-hip-shoulder sequence.

EDITED TO ADD:

Southnarc showed me his varient on palm strikes that he terms "palm boxing". This adds vinegar to the fish supper that is open-handed blows.
Simply, the impact area of the fist is arranged in a series of vertical striking surfaces.
The palm heel (thrown as a cross with the fingers pointing skyward) is a horizontal striking surface. To make the palm heel connect with more facial bone structure, turn your fingers 90 degrees inward as youi throw the strike, like you would corkscrew a jab or hook.

My palm strikes improved markedly after being shown that methodology.

Saying that, some people are just natural born punchers or have far too larg a backround in pugilism to abandon the fist altogether. The job of an instructor is to provide the student with the best skill-set for THEM, not to stamp a cookie-cutter on them and do away with personal preferences in favour of dogma.

Food for thought.
+++++++++++++++++++
FROM BELISARIUS
Ernie, are you referring to the Dieter syllabus in NSW?

For what it's worth, I believe that boxing is making a comeback.
+++++++++++++++++
FROM PAUL SCOUTHERN
Really important question, espicially when it cuts the top UK reality instructors right down the middle.

personally I used to be big on punching, and having boxed a bit I'm not argueing good boxers aren't very good fighgers, but personally now thinking about going back to it leaves me feeling somehow exposed, knuckles are so so vulnerable to hard surfaces.

plus open hand strikes are often multifaceted, taking the chin jab if the power doesn't KO them the the fingers going into eyes might stop them or the loss of balance from the follow through might give you an advantage, whereas a punch is mostly going for conciousness effect only.

non punching strikes can also be applied from 360 degrees, from all sorts of positions, and having a variety of tools gives better options from the random happenings of real encounters.

cheers

paul
++++++++++++++
FROM DEN
Good responses guys. Both sides of the debate have been put very well.
If you have a solid background in a punching system [boxing/Thai-style etc] then the urge to clench the fist when striking will be strong.Especially if you have used the punches with some sucess and have built up a confidence in them.
For guys coming into combatives with a clean slate, there is no compelling reason to learn clenched fist strikes; and I'd recommend only open hand attacks.
Again, just my view.
Den
+++++++++++++++++++
FROM JEFF MENAPACE
I believe one very distinct advantage of open hand over punching is when it applies to a novice. It has been my experience that people pick up some level of proficiency with open hand strikes much quicker than with punching.

Punching, IMO, takes a long time to hone and fine tune to be effective (God given punchers excluded). It may be natural to clench the fist and punch, but how many people can REALLY throw a good one? I've been punching for close to 12 years now and I'm still looking to improve my technique.

Jeff
+++++++++

FROM MARCUS WYNNE
Hey guys -- great discussion! A couple of points:

1. Operational concerns around injured hands: I've broken my right hand three times -- once on a head, once while breaking bricks, and once after having it stomped after I'd been beaten unconscious. So maybe the last one don't count, except to the issue of hand injuries and recovery time.

Yeah, if you break your hand in a fight, you can fight through the pain and you may be able to still pull a trigger, but specifically in an operational context (and I'll use Ernie's paradigm of a deployed spec ops team or a SWAT team) there's the issue of recovery time and the ability of the operator to continue to function at FULL capacity. Broken hands heal slowly. If you're strapped up or casted, will you be able to function with all your capabilities? What if medevac is not an immediate possibility? What if the injured operator has a mission required skill like team sniper or demo that requires fine motor skills from the hand? What if you CAN'T step back on medical leave or be treated? I don't think we can dismiss the issues of injury. As a former team leader with a bit of experience (high risk BG teams, Federal Air Marshal teams, military Quick Reaction Force teams, and advisor to a whole slew of military, government, and police teams) I'll weigh in and say that we can't just dismiss the consideration of injury while executing a technique. I think that's a valid concern for any team leader or training administrator examining a new program, technique or approach. I'm not saying ban the punch because you might get hurt, because you can get hurt throwing ANY technique. Can you show me one technique you can throw at a human being in a fight that doesn't have SOME possibility of injury to the user? I'm not saying the open hand strike is the only answer, either. I just don't think it's appropriate to dismiss the risk of debilitating injury to an operator as a valid concern for a team leader or a unit administrator.

2. In terms of technique, well, I came up a puncher. Wasn't a very good one in terms of technique and precision, never was. My approach was pure kempo or wing chun ala JKD straight blast punches. I just ran forward punching till they fell down (or I did). I was a piss poor boxer when I played at it and used to just try and overwhelm my opponents with aggression. My hand techniques now are eye jabs, gouges, rips, elbows and an occasional punch. I spent a fair amount of time training OUT my default punching attack (basically the straight blast) and replacing it with the SEAL blitz series of eye jabs, gouges, rips and elbows with head manipulation for take down/breaks/chokes. That has worked very well for me on the street since I conscientiously applied myself to training it. The last unarmed fight I was in was four years ago, and it was one of the few instances in my life that met the true ambush scenario in that I did not expect to be attacked...it was overseas, the guy (AMerican civilian) was screaming at some locals, and when I passed by I made a light comment to the effect of "Having a bad day?" and as I walked by, he nutted out and hit me two pretty good shots to the head. Massive failure on my part in terms of avoidance and awareness, but my default response under that immediate stressor was to cover and immediately counter with cycling open hands and ONE fist, downward blow as a hammer fist, to open his guard so I could get my fingers in his eyes. Multiple blows with the elbow, and then I was busy walking away, as all the locals were on the cell phones callling the cops. So it is possible, even with a strong background in punching, to train out of it so you have other options under stress.

I agree with Jeff that it's easier to train a new student open hand techniques than make them a precision puncher.

So I guess, after all that rambling, that I weigh in on the need to configure training to the operator and operational constraints in the end use environemtn (see my mini-rant on that in Den's thread on Training Performance). If I was examining techniques for a crew today, I'd go with the techniques that met the criteria of being most effective balanced with least likely to incur injury to my boys.

Just my two cents worth! Great discussion guys!

cheers, M

edited to add: the criteria that I would be using as a training administrator or team leader of an operational unit for evaluation of an unarmed technique or concept or system would include:

The demonstrated effectiveness of the technique by the operator in the END USE environment under the worst case scenario -- ie. battlefield environment with the operator exhausted after humping a 120 pound rucksack up the Hindu Kush for a couple of days, so on...
The ease that the technique can be learned -- in other words, can they learn it in a short period of time and IMMEDIATELY apply it under stress/pressure?
The amount of maintenance necessary to keep the skill usable -- how much continual training is necessary? Can they learn it and drive on, not practice it? Or practice it in periodic refreshers? An operational unit has very little time, if any, to spend keeping hand to hand skills highly tuned up if you factor in operational considerations like weapons skills/maintenance, mission specific taskings, etc. etc.
Is the technique less likely than similar techniques to incur injury to the operator (this is what we've been talking about)? This of course depends a great deal on how the technique has been taught, retained, practiced, etc.
Does the technique integrate with the other aspects of combative techniques the operator is already using? Does it work with a handgun, MP-5, M-4, whatever? Does it work with a knife? And so on.

Food for thought!
+++++++++++++++++++++
FROM DEN
Marcus,
Good to hear those "alleycat" reflexes worked, and you can still fight your way out of an ambush mate.
Another point I'd throw in the pot, was one made by the late Pete Robbins. He reckoned that one of the reasons Fairbairn liked the open hand strike, particularly the AxeHand, so much was that it doesn't require precise hand/eye co-ordination. You can strike using peripheral vision [a subject which Marcus has done a ton of research on], and hit targets off your centre line, without having to line them up. We have tested this premise extensively and it is true.
Den


FROM MARCUS
Hey Den! I corresponded with Pete a lot on that very subject after I did that seminar in Liverpool. Pete did a bunch of evolution with knife and with combatives hand techniques based on the enhanced vision drills. Hadn't thought about that.

Great thread!

cheers, M
++++++++++++++++++
FROM ERNEST EMERSON
Hey Guys,

This discussion is the absolute reason why I am so pleased to be a member of the forum. I can have an elightened discussion about things that i feel are so important. I'm from a punching background, hence my basic preference. But, I was punching long before I ever took any training or put on any gloves. My question has also become - what is the natural striking position of the untrained? In a high stress situation, will an untrained individual use a fist or an open hand? Since one of the precursor signals of an iminent attack by an opponent is a clenching of the fists, is it not the way the hand would then be held in a strike? Which strike is learned and which strike is natural?

Great responses guys.

Best,

Ernest
++++++++++++++++
FROM BELISARIUS
My guess, based on infant behavior and the behavior of other primates, is that hammerfists are the closest thing to instinctive, as is grabbing. Everything else is a learned response. However, the learned response is so deeply ingrained that a low-road amygdala hijack does not preclude open-hands or punches. There is still a positive cognitive process going on---i.e., both types of striking are not subject to untrainable "flinch" reflex reactions and can be taught for use under extreme stress.

What is very possible, of course, is that the mind under stress goes into "replay" mode, anchors itself to one form of striking, and starts cycling. So I don't know that someone will normally switch back and forth between open hand technique regimes and boxing technique regimes, at least in a really balls-to-the-wall scrap.

This is all just a SWAG---Scientific Wild-Assed Guess.
++++++++++++++++
FROM SI SQUIRES
In my opinion it could also be down to risk assessing:--

I guess the more violent encounters you are in will up the risk of damage to your hand if you are using a closed fist. I still teach and use a straight blast as it is really useful for getting the aggression up.....

I figure that now, I don't really work in a violent arena -- (I work with disaffected youths on occasion, but these days rarely get anything other than threats and chest puffing!). So, I figure that if I do get into violence I am really unlucky as I try to maintain a good awareness state when out and about (so my risk factor decreases):--

I do two things...I keep the closed fist punching for myself and don't discourage students lose it if it is something they do well --- I do this knowing that if I do break my hand in a fight I will still do whatever it takes and worry about the rest later......lucky for me, I don't have to rely on my hand operationally the next day!

And I train with more pressure than most as I am not working in security or a violent arena any more!! (Hence the previous research questions on stress!!)

I agree that there are positives and negatives to each side of the argument, but if there is a chance of serious injury and it will affect your job/income AND the open hand option can be just as effective.....why not err on the side of caution?

Mind you when the adrenaline kicks in.........
Si
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM SLACKBLADDER
More SWAG here...(cheers for the useful anagram, Bel)

I've been looking at emotional anchors to my techniques and how they affect my physical responses. I've noticed that when my co-workers get angry, they start clenching their fists and waving them around, or punching the open palm of their other hand. This is a form of conditoning.

I've taken to deliberately opening my hand into the axe hand/tiger claw whenever I get really peeved. If I have to hit an inanimate object to vent my fustration, I axehand or slap it. The open handed position is starting to become natural and ingrained into me now. So much so, a closed fist now feels awkward and weak.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM DEN
quote:
________________________________________
the behavior of other primates, is that hammerfists are the closest thing to instinctive
________________________________________
Bel, I'd agree with that. I introduce the Hammerfist as "Ape-striking" on courses.
Den
++++++++++++++++++++
FROM NICK HUGHES
I'm going back through some old posts here adding bits...

Have to side with Mr Emerson here for one reason and that's because in his original post he said...

"The argument that is used is that a punch can result in a broken hand, which will compromise the ability to fire a weapon.

I disagree." Quote, unquote

Now some other stuff has been bought up since about ease of teaching, striking peripherally etc but the original argument was about broken hands compromising the ability to fire the weapon and not which one is easier to teach etc.

I've broken my hand several times - probably less than one percent of the time I've thrown it if I think about it - one of those was on a bike helmet and one was with the wrong knuckle when I clipped a guy with a hook as he ducked. The classic boxers fracture brought on by hitting with the wrong knuckle and the first one by hitting something that wasn't supposed to be hit by a human fist.

Neither of those times would I have been unable to operate a weapon...wouldn't have been easy, but it could have been done.

Re all the other stuff...yes, it's probably easier to teach someone to strike open hand, they're also probably easier to throw to peripheral targets. They're also - and I'm surprised no one mentioned this - better to use from a legal ramifications viewpoint because witnesses seeing a palm heel will swear you pushed him, and watching a power slap will just say you slapped him.

Having said that though I'm reminded of several other points. One, the worst hand injury I've ever seen was a mate who palm heeled a buck toothed fooker and ended up getting speared in the palm with his chopper's. Steve went home to bed at 5am, slept all day and went to work that night. That morning into bed at 5 again and, by the time he woke up, he had the dreaded red lines running up the veins in his hand. By the time he got to the doctors they told him if he'd waited another few hours they'd be amputating.

The other point someone brought up that I agree with totally is the instinctive reaction under stress. It is, without a doubt to clench ones fists. Even new born babies, dragged from the warmth and comfort of the womb, into the cold harsh lights and noise of the operating room, come out covered in blood, screaming with fists clenched.

There's also something about hitting someone with a clenched fist and getting that bone on bone contact that snap teeth off at the stumps or depress the cheek bones. Palm heels just don't do that to someone. Yep, granted they'll knock them out, have used them myself many times, but they just don't seem to have that same destructive force.

Of course there are benefits to the open hands which is why I use them too. One is, if given the choice of hitting a brick wall as hard as you can with a palm heel or fist, everyone I know will opt for the open hand shot. That would suggest that untrained people might hold back less with the open hand strike. Trained individuals however are a different kettle of shark.

Bottom line is I use both open hand and fists - at one point while working on the door I made it a point to use all the hand formations from an Oyama book I had at home. I tried nukites (finer spears), one knuckle punches, chisel fists, shutos, palm heels, hammerfists, slaps, tiger claws, the web between the thumb and index, forearms, elbows and even shoulders. They all have their place in combat but, back to what Mr Emerson said in his original post, I don't think the reason given by a lot of people for not teaching fists is valid.

If those instructors he's referring to said the reason we don't teach punching is because - and then threw in the reason you guys have listed here I doubt there'd be much of an argument. But, to say "because if it breaks you can't use your weapon...I don't buy it.

N
++++++++++++++++++
FROM NYTYME
Here's my two cents, take them for what they're worth.

Teapot... if that had been a punch, he might have severed his tendons. Or maybe you would've knocked the teeth down the guy's throat... don't know... "what ifs" abound.

Law Enforcement agencies stress Palm Strikes and Hammerfists because they are easy to teach, psychologically less inhibitted, and less likely to cause injury. Less likely is an abstract though, I think we'd all agree it's less likely... but we'll disagree on the likely hood of a punch injury.

My DT instructor said "if you know how to throw a punch the right way, it's impossible to break your hand. But it would take too long to teach it, so you'll learn hammerfists and palm strikes." This was in addition to the hurt hand explanation. It also has a better perception than a punch, looks like forceful to the uninitiated.

My cousin is a surgeon, he only throws open hand strikes and hammerfists... broken or injured hands are detrimental to a carreer. Maybe even moreso than for a cop/SWAT, because it takes less fine motor skills to fire a gun than to adeptly weild a scaple.

I reserve punches for soft body targets: thighs, abs, kidneys, lowerback, groin. Sometimes, if the person has some muscles or a lot of fat, I'll go for ribs with punches. Hammerfists and palm strikes go to bone areas.

I have broken my right ring finger every fight i've been in and bruised my knuckles... but when I palm strike, I don't hurt my hand or have telling bruises... muahahahah, try to prove i hit him officer!! where's my bruised knuckles? sure a hit that broke his eyesocket would leave a mark on my fist!

Fred Hutchinson
+++++++++
Personally I have many times used a trigger step to deliver a straight palm heel blow into a solid wall, as well as into heavy bags and such, many times I have hit so hard that the heel of my hand turned black and blue, yet I lost no function in the hand. If I delivered the same blow with a clenched fist I would break multiple bones for sure.

Frankly I am not very impressed by what might be "natural"...there's no way to prove it and besides, the whole point of training is to be better than merely "natural".

I have to confess, embarrassing as it might be, that I hurt my hand only once in a real fight, by using the axe-hand blow of all things! I had the other guy doubled over, kneeing him in the face, and intended to deliver an axe-hand to the back of his neck (I was very young, very rash, and very angry at the time!). He moved at the last second and my axe-hand hit him squarely in the back of the skull. That was the end of the fight, I heard from a third party that my "friend" had a headache that lasted a couple of days, and as for me my hand got quite swollen and hurt off and on for years afterward. I had just begun learning these things at the time, I consider it a valuable lesson learned, I would hopefully be more accurate today.

Fred
++++++++++++
Fred,
Good input, thanks.
Although there are highly expert opinions on both sides of the debate, my personal view, based on experience, is for open hand strikes.
Cheers,

_________________
Check Six,
Den
+++++++++++++
I see this as a question of preference. Reading the above posts shows that both techniques are equally well suited to the task, so to ask which is best is like asking which is the best fruit, oranges or apples, liking apples says nothing about oranges as a fruit only that you like apples. The important thing is to teach to others with conviction, so if you prefer to punch over using palm strikes(or if you out and out distrust its usefulness under stress conditions) then you should teach punches because they are what you honestly know works. Combatives is about the ends justifying the means, don't care how I win just that I win. I had no real preference when I started combatives with den so I'm of his opinion about open hand strikes, I feel comfortable using the techniques. Anyway everyone knows the "cry-like-a-giant-lass-until-he-turns-away-in-disgust-then-hit-him-with-something-heavy" move is the best move.

Si.
+++++++++++
In Karate there are several different specialised fist formations, such as the Ippon-ken ["one knuckle fist"]



Terry O'Neill was always keen to try all techniques, and over the years he had the opportunity to test every bit of the syllabus under street conditions.
He tested the Ipponken at the Victoriana Club. After grabbing a miscreant in a headlock, Terry realised that this was the ideal opportunity to try out the technique, so he made the fist, with first knuckle jutting, and whacked the struggling guy right on the temple, a supposedly "vital point" The guy struggled even harder, so Terry hit him again, then again. The technique was spectacularly ineffective, except that a huge bump, like a carrot, immediately swelled from the guy's temple.
Terry crossed that technique off his list.

_________________
Check Six,
Den
=======
+++++++++++++++
my opinion... clenched fist punching should never be utilized against the bony facial/head structure area. However, it may be employed to good effect against the sternum, solar plexus, bladder/hypogastrium, and sometimes, the nose.

Vik

++++++++++++++




Body shots can be great,[Pete Consterdine used them a lot, but for me the worry was always hitting the elbows of the guarding arms. Different strokes.

_________________
Check Six,
Den
+++++++++++++++++
As an interesting datapoint regarding people instinctively using one or the other under pressure : One of our guys down here got into a disagreement with two chaps on the underground a while back. He initially used his palm strikes, then, when one of the targets covered his head with his arms, switched straight to punches to enable him to hit through the guard. When that was solved he switched back to palm strikes (amongst other things). He said he never even missed a beat, just switched.
The target didn't make much difference, but the availability of the targets did.

Chris
++++++++++++++++


Food for thought Chris.

_________________
Check Six,
Den

+++++++++++++++
Dennis wrote:
Terry O'Neill was always keen to try all techniques, and over the years he had the opportunity to test every bit of the syllabus under street conditions.


There was a time in the past when a rather aging policeman used to turn out from parade and discuss with his partner which strikes and restraints they were looking to accomplish that week.

Slaps were predominant, due to their success in the field - if it works you will use it again...and again.

Gooseknecks worked on some. Thumblocks really worked if you had the chance to get them on.

Hammerlocks worked well also - especially with a 'nose bar.' At times of emergency, the Japanese strangle or a guillotine had their place.

Knees - often

Elbows - rarely

Punches - This old cop was a wuss and was crap at punching. All it got him was broken digits, mainly due to his lack of skill.

But slaps really worked - every time:~)

Coops

http://combatives.forumotion.com/t784-open-hand-versus-punching

© - Dennis Martin - http://combatives.forumotion.com/

[Kilbith]

Merci Serge, 

Je me pose cette question depuis près de 40 ans. Et sur ce point j'ai tendance à ne pas être en accord avec ce qui s'enseigne à l'ACDS ou chez Lee (pour le peut que j'ai vu).

- On me dit : poing fermé tu vas te le casser. Ce n'est pas faux : je me suis fait mal à la main en tapant sur (une plaque de fer  ) il y a 30 ans et je le sens encore. D'un autre coté j'ai vu pas mal de doigts retournés lors des entrainements quand le gars ne fermait pas la main (doigt pris dans les vêtements de l'autre le plus souvent).

- Pour cette raison j'hésite à placer les manchettes avec le pouce à 90° comme dans les méthodes commandos WWII. Pourtant j'ai toujours trouvé que le coup était plus fort si on l'assénait de la sorte.

- Dans l'article on dit : fermer le poing est "naturel". Pas si sûr. Si les primates en colère ferment le poing, les enfant en bas âge avancent plutôt pour faire des "tapes" (les deux tapes de haut en bas, les directs et crochets c'est la boxe qui nous conditionne).

- Dans le chausson marseillais on frappait à main plate "pour ne pas blesser" alors que les boxeurs anglais (mais aussi les tenants de la savate) serraient les poings pour l'efficacité. Au passage je doute que les boxeurs modernes (habitués aux gants et bandes pour les meilleurs) aient les poings si solides à mains nues.

- L'ancien karate ou méthode chinoise pratiquait pas mal à main ouverte...mais les pratiquants avaient des mains de paysans ou d'artisans pas d'étudiants. Et à ma connaissance en taichi chen on pratiquait aussi pas mal le poing semi fermé.

Bref : je ne sais pas. Donc merci d'avoir apporté de l'information complémentaire qui va encore plus me perturber. 

[** Serge **]

Il faut connaître techniquement les façons de former une main ouverte et une main fermée.
Cela ne s'improvise pas.

Positionnement des doigts, du poignet, de l'avant-bras, du corps.

Les basiques.
Le problème, c'est que les basiques ne sont pas de bons produits commerciaux. Passer des centaines d'heures à répéter une frappe, cela dégoûte la plupart et enchante une minorité.

[tora]

Slt meme avec des gants tu peux te blesser gravement là ou je m'entraine l'un du club sait casser la main lors d'un sparring il sait pris le dessus du crane... Pendant 6 mois repos plus une plaque de metal dans la main... L'autre probleme avec le gant meme que tu mets le bandage tu peux blesser beaucoup neglige niveau debutant le positionnement du poignet surtout bien ferme le poing parce que le pouce prend plein... Le reste sait de la technique sinon tape sur le sac sans protection sait sur sac leger et non lourd sinon plein probleme surviennent apres niveau des mains voir des tendinites...

[Bomby]

Pour compléter les interrogations de Kilbith à propos du caractère selon certains "naturel" du fait de fermer le poing pour combattre, j'avais en tête, en lisant certains passages des citations amenées par Serge, le cas des Indiens d'Amérique, qui, semblerait-il, ne se battaient que mains ouvertes et non poings fermés...

Honnêtement, je ne sais absolument plus d'où je tire cette "croyance", ni si elle est fondée... Si quelqu'un a des éléments là-dessus, ça peut être intéressant...

Pour en revenir aux "articles", je trouve que c'était une très précieuse idée d'ajouter au texte de Cecil Burch les échanges faits sur le même thème entre personnes expérimentées sur un forum américain ad hoc.

Les échanges sont assez complets. Je ne sais pas si l'échantillon peut être considéré comme représentatif, et la plupart ayant apparemment commencé par des AM ou SC plus "classiques", le conditionnement initial de chacun à l'usage préférentiel du poing fermé paraît évident, mais il semble qu'il y ait un certain nombre de "convertis" du poing fermé à la main ouverte, un certain nombre d'adeptes du mixage, et quelques résistants fidèles au poing fermé mais aucun converti de la main ouverte au poing fermé...

Ca vaut ce que ça vaut, et sans doute pas grand chose, mais c'est déjà une observation...

Je trouve que le texte de Cecil Burch, s'il a le mérite d'apporter une intéressante et utile critique d'une solution parfois trop facilement présentée comme miraculeuse et facile (la main ouverte), sent parfois un peu l'auto-justification et est parfois également assez réducteur quant à l'usage de la main ouverte...

Pour lui, la main ouverte ne permettrait pratiquement que des frappes circulaires, voire essentiellement l'administration de baffes, ce qui donc exposerait beaucoup plus à un contre...

C'est une critique assez éclairante, mais c'est quand même très réducteur sur les usages et applications possibles des frappes main ouverte...

Autre point, en substance,  pour lui l'usage de la main ouverte ne pourrait pas être suffisamment travaillé à l'entraînement pour être fiable dans la rue, à la différence du poing fermé... Là, pour moi, on est plutôt dans l'auto-justification et le sophisme : quelle que soit l'arme utilisée (main ouverte, poing fermé, coude, tête, bâton, etc...), le problème est le même qui consiste à faire constamment des compromis entre la sécurité de l'entraînement et son réalisme...

Et s'il s'agit de s'entraîner plein pot poings fermés sans protection sur la tête du petit camarade, je ne suis pas sûr que l'on ait beaucoup plus de volontaires que pour recevoir des chin-jabs un peu appuyés à l'entraînement...

Dans le même ordre d'idées, Cecil Burch tire argument de ce que l'entraînement à des frappes main ouvertes sur les cibles le plus souvent utilisées (pattes d'ours, paos, sacs...) serait peu réaliste en raison de la constance et de la relative douceur de la cible, par rapport à l'irrégularité et à la dureté du corps humain... A mon avis, le problème est exactement le même que l'on tape main ouverte, avec le poing fermé dans l'axe du bras, en poing marteau etc...

Au contraire, il me semble plutôt qu'il est plus facile d'adapter une frappe main ouverte qu'une frappe poing fermé sur une surface irrégulière... En tout cas c'est notamment le fruit de ma modeste expérience sur mannequin de frappe...

Ceci dit et par exemple, moi qui suis devenu un chaud partisan, quasi-exclusivement, de la main ouverte, ces textes m'amènent à une utile remise en cause...

Et encore une fois, les points de vue échangés paraissent assez complets...

Je me demande cependant s'il n'y aurait pas encore un peu à dire à propos de notions de vitesse, de focalisation de la frappe et d'adaptation à une courte distance de frappe...

Sur tous ces points, il me semble que la main ouverte est plus avantageuse que le poing fermé, mais ceci est peut-être trop lié à un conditionnement personnel pour être un tant soit peu généralisable...

Pour ce qui est, comme le dit Serge, de la nécessité de passer des centaines d'heures à répéter une frappe, je suis bien d'accord avec ça, mais c'est naturellement compliqué à proposer à tous... Et c'est paradoxalement seulement en pensant à cet aspect que je finis par intégrer l'intérêt de développer l'usage des armes improvisées (revues, stylos, etc...), alors que personnellement j'ai toujours du mal à ne pas y voir, dans un premier mouvement, surtout un frein au plein usage de la main, ouverte ou fermée...

Cordialement,

Bomby

[Patrick]

Comme quoi la pignole polémique est une discipline d'avenir. Surtout quand il y a du pognon à la clé du fait de la crédibilité gagnée sur des espaces de discussion.

A mon sens, il y a des critères que je crois pertinent :

1. quand je cogne, en face ça tombe ou pas ?
2. quand je m'entraîne sur le long terme je risque plus des conséquences de l'entraînement ou du risque ?
3. je peux apprendre ou pas une relative efficacité avec ce principe dans des délais acceptables ?

Ce qui peut d'ailleurs m'amener à enseigner des choses différentes de ce que je pourrais faire moi en situation.

[Bomby]

(...)

A mon sens, il y a des critères que je crois pertinent :

1. quand je cogne, en face ça tombe ou pas ?
(...)

Ca, pour être pertinent, c'est pertinent, Patrick...

Mais comment fait-on pour vérifier ? On cherche à se trouver au mauvais endroit, au mauvais moment, en mauvaise compagnie?

Parce que c'est quand même un peu la quadrature du cercle de la SD qu'on aborde, là...

Surtout si tu rapproches cela de ton deuxième point, lui-même fort pertinent également, à savoir "quand je m'entraîne sur le long terme, je risque plus des conséquences de l'entraînement ou du risque?"...

Alors, à défaut d'avoir soi-même d'une grande expérience de terrain ayant permis, à l'instar de Terry O'Neil cité plus haut, de tester en pratique tout le syllabus des frappes possibles, les "pignolades" entre vieux briscards, même à visée commerciale, ça reste quand même intéressant à lire...

Même quand Cecil Burch entreprend de s'auto-justifier de continuer à privilégier le poing fermé en ramant à contre-courant...

Cordialement,

Bomby

[mrmagoo]

je ne sais absolument plus d'où je tire cette "croyance"

Du film "Little Big Man", et de la scène ou, lors d'une bagarre avec un jeune cheyenne, le héros provoque la surprise de son adversaire en frappant avec son poing fermé, non?
De mes jeunes années de kung fu, j'ai gardé à l'esprit l'adage prétendant que "On tape sur du dur avec du mou, et on tape sur du mou avec du dur", adage dont j'ai pu vérifier le bon sens à chaque fois que j'ai oublié de l'appliquer.
edit:"The target chooses the tool" comme il dit le monsieur plus bas.

[Kilbith]

Il faut connaître techniquement les façons de former une main ouverte et une main fermée.
Cela ne s'improvise pas.

Positionnement des doigts, du poignet, de l'avant-bras, du corps.

Les basiques.
Le problème, c'est que les basiques ne sont pas de bons produits commerciaux.

Oui c'est classiquement la "première leçon" : fermer le poing en enroulant les doigts.

Après il faut éviter le flambage (c'est le plus des pompes sur les poings exécutées sur surface douce) et enfin contrôler le coude en butée et la fixation de l'épaule (nombreux traumatismes à l'entrainement même sans rien toucher). Puis vient la position du rachis coordonné avec le souffle sur de bons appuis mais là je tâtonne.

D'un autre coté, c'est bien aussi la main ouverte particulièrement pour le "coup du serveur" ou "chin jab" (pensez quand il vous sert une pression). Et les tranchants de la main offrent des possibilités intéressantes (externe et interne). Les baffes aussi c'est pas mal.

En revanche les doigts (coup de fourchette, griffe, poing démon...) pour un occidental du XXIème siècle j'ai des doutes.

1. quand je cogne, en face ça tombe ou pas ?

Sans faire le pédant : les deux KO les plus nettes que j'ai infligé n'étaient pas vraiment une démonstration de puissance, plutôt une sorte de hasard. Donc aucune conclusion bien nette.

Passer des centaines d'heures à répéter une frappe, cela dégoûte la plupart et enchante une minorité.

Le sempiternelle : C'est quoi ce bruit la haut? 

[** Serge **]

The palm heel blow is the default highline strike that I teach initially, and I quite objectively stick to it as a benchmark of sorts - only really progressing once a person can deliver it with full-range arm and body function, maximal weight transfer, accuracy, and explosive commitment without power being 'leaked' on impact. This is more difficult than many believe, and plenty of individuals can't achieve it, even with decades of training - maybe because they are in such a hurry to skip past such mundane methods in favour of more 'advanced' material.

It may be simplistic, unexciting and not as interesting as other techniques, but I submit that it is without doubt the highest percentage and most versatile tool available, highly adaptable and will get you further in a fight than anything else - regardless of physical capability. Note that I only use the term 'further' and don't offer any guarantee of effectiveness. If you are smaller, lighter and weaker than your adversary then of course it will prove difficult, maybe even impossible, to prevail using such a technique - this is the reality check and fighting favours the bigger, heavier and stronger - always has, always will - but the probability of a fully committed series of blows to the head having a positive effect is greater than anything else.

As I've stated many times previously, for purely combative purposes, within a self-protection scenario, I only teach what I fear inflicted upon me - not what I favour doing personally. This works well for me, because even though I'm not indestructable, or the biggest and meanest guy out there, I can certainly testify to having a different perspective on what does and doesn't work for real, coupled with experience of both doing and having various unpleasent things done to me in return! It is all too easy to look at things from a purely subjective viewpoint - but what might stop you, might not necessarily stop me...

I maintain this highly objective approach without compromise, not letting my preferred tactics creep in at this initial foundation level as they can corrupt the material at this essential stage. Personal preferences can come later, but everyone has to start somewhere and I begin with the most 'probable' not just what is 'possible' and get great results in the process.

With regards to the hand position for a punch - use them all, but the target determines them, not the style.

There are a couple of older threads that contain relevant information here and here.

Elbow position is crucial with regards to punching - hand position means very little in comparison but is often the focal point of the technique.



As far as success with the palm heel is concerned - I've had plenty, in all manner of situations, but - and here's the thing - I've also had failures with it, and with every other technique I've used for real.

By rights I should be able to render someone unconscious each and every time, with any and every strike I employ - bones should break, joints should dislocate, brains should bounce - I certainly hit more than hard enough to make all this happen, and sometimes I do - but sometimes I don't. As I am fond of saying, and repeating, I don't assume that it will all be fine on the day, instead I assume that I won't perform at my maximum potential due to all manner of factors beyond my control - welcome to the real world of fighting people who don't like you! Mostly you don't have enough time, space or effect to land that perfect shot - so I never rely upon it.

Everytime I hear or read about some 'super-technique' that apparently has never ever failed a person I get the same thought - namely that either the person involved has barely used it and been lucky each time, or that he's simply lying!

I don't credit a thing simply because it once, or twice, worked for me, and then teach it as being the answer to everything - neither do I discard a thing because it failed once or twice. I am fortunate (actually quite the opposite, but you'll get my point) to have had to use force of various formats on a very regular basis, in completely live situations over a long period of time, so I don't have to base what I teach only upon what has proven to work in training environments - some are not so 'lucky' but guess who should be jealous of who in actual fact!

Scientists don't prove a theory when they make an experiment work once - the results have to be consistantly achieved, using both blind and double-blind testing so there can be no doubt. I try to use such means wherever possible, and don't sell anything that isn't proven in some such fashion.

I used to pride myself on my one-shot KO's, using all manner of blows, but I stopped getting them a long time ago. Now this isn't because I don't hit as hard, or have gotten less accurate - the opposite is probably true - but simply because I no longer fire off just the one shot anymore, so who knows which one takes the guy out! On occasion I would bang someone with a beautiful shot, and then stop to admire my handiwork - only to find the guy still standing, and have to mentally and often physically 'reset' myself to continue the job. It could have been bad luck, user error, a slight drift of the target from that 'focal point' of being a KO - whatever, but the fact remains that they don't always go down.

I realised that I was going about this wrong, and when I compared my unarmed tactics to my armed tactics there was a glaring difference. Any bullet hits harder than any punch, but when you engage a target with bullets you don't shoot once, check the target, shoot again, check the target and so on - it would be absurd to rely on just one round to do the job, so you put a volley of them into each and every target to get the job done. With this in mind I adopted the same tactical model with my unarmed work, and have not looked back since.

Knocking someone out with blunt trauma is usually down to head displacement, which can be either linear or rotational in application. Rotational force is the most common, as even linear displacement tend to become rotational seeing as how the head is anchored at the neck. Note that this rotational displacement is not necessarily just on a horizontal plane, the head can be rotated both vertically and horizontally, and at any angle between the two. The distance that the head is displaced is not the crucial factor, there are only a few millimetres between the brain surface and the inside wall of the skull, and not much between the top of the spinal cord and the small hole in the base of the skull through which it passes, so not much travel is required to cause impact, and subsequent trauma resulting in unconsciousness. Speed of displacement is what causes the brain to collide with the skull before the CSF can do its buffering and reset the brain in its proper position within the cranium - and this doesn't have to be an especially pronounced movement at all, just an extremely sudden one.

Using the hard bony knuckles is bound to cause more localised injury than the solid but more padded palm heel, but this can go both ways and the hand can be damaged - though this can mainly be due to the area of the head that is the target, or not as the case may be. I've bust my hand hitting people - but never on their jaw, or mastoid process, or neck!

Personally I train with the fist as well as the palm - I'm certainly no 'palm heel zealot' like others seem to be, but I know and teach the limitations of both methods.

If I am hemmed in close, as long as it's not so close to warrant an elbow shot - which I employ with identical dynamics as a straight punch - then I will probably use the palm. The fist gives an extra 3-4" of reach, which isn't very useful up close - being a distinct disadvantage to be honest as it cuts into the amount of available 'travel' your hand has, and therefore negatively affecting your potential to hit faster and harder as a result.


I am fairly certain that the problems of replacing the fist with the palm - when required - stem largely from the boxing-derived equipment used to train with, and the base tactical plan with is also generally boxing-based.

If you hit flat surfaces, such as found on a heavy bag, or concave surfaces such as presented by most focus pads, then you should......drumroll please.......use the fist!

Never mind all this changing the mechanics so you can hit such targets with the palm in some contrived format, the target chooses the tool, in the same way that a question chooses the answer.

If you are hitting something hard and convex then use the palm - the respective composition/profile of the target and tool compliment each other perfectly.

Training should condition your actions, learn to hit a target with exactly what suits it best - before the point is made about having small skillsets and retention under duress....yes, I know you should, but a point is reached where you can't have a magic wand and some hard training has to be invested in. Believe me, I am as combatively lazy as they come - if I could get away with just one strike for all events I certainly would, but I can't - and judging from the laughable attempts from those that think they can, no-one else has managed it either!

Hitting flat surfaces with the palm will achieve very little - you will 'reprogramme' yourself to ignore the target and focus on a favoured tool, employed regardless of the situation. You will be thoroughly unimpressed with the potency of the palm vs. the fist because the target is all wrong - hit a hanging bowling ball instead and this will be reversed! You will have to rework the mechanics on the strike so as not to injure yourself - since when do you train to hit equipment as the priority?

I teach only the palm at the default foundation level, as I only teach targeting the head - try and hit someone in the neck with a straight palm heel, or the groin with the same - the many 'combatives' types (don't get me started......) that push the open hand as the only way are deluded, most of them taking a handful of dirty tricks - that were taught to guys in order to enhance their existing fighting abilities - and trying to make a complete personal combat system out of them.

Learning a language by set phrases only will always mark you out as a tourist, and you had better hope that the situation you find yourself in matches the phrase that you've prepared. Learning from the base up, having a delivery system, is what gives you the necessary fluency to be spontaneous.

If you are sparring at 'just out of reach range' in a semi-boxing stance, using jabs, hooks and crosses, my advice is to use the fist - if you are steaming in and unloading repeated blows to the head, then I'd go with the palm.

Training this asymmetrical model is difficult, I'll be the first to admit, it isn't fun like symmetrical sparring - being on the receiving end is harsh and limited in practice from a safety angle and it's all over in seconds - but the flipside is that it's exactly what is required for a real fight.

Plenty of inconsistant theories abound within 'combative' circles, as they do everywhere else - just often not so rigorously denied!

Take for instance the combative zealots that deride the use of the fist, due to it being fragile and prone to injury, yet covet the even more fragile axe-hand/edge of hand blow instead - some even ridiculously regurgitating the classic sound-byte 'hit with anywhere from the tip of the little finger to the elbow' because it sounds 'gross-motor cool' but has no critical depth.

Initially I only teach people to hit the head, but to hit it as hard as physically possible and give them the ability to do so beyond the capability of the knuckles and wrist to withstand the impact - for this I advocate the palm heel. For most people this is all they actually need to do, as a bare minimum, so why bother with the fist at all for them.

For other applications - target driven of course - or personal preferences, the fist is required, so this gets taught too.

When using a closed-fist hook with bare hands, there can be a problem being able to get the knuckles on target whilst having enough structural stability in the wrist and arm to transmit the required body mass into the shot.

Wearing gloves reduces this problem - the padding is very forgiving and allows impact with almost any part of the hand, at ranges much further away than when the hands are bare and the knuckles have to be the sole point of contact. Gloved hooks often completely ruin the technique for bare handed efforts, and care must be taken when training with this in mind - the glove/wrap should not become a crutch.

The most ergonomic and structurally supportive hand position for most hooks is when the fist is 'vertical' or thereabouts, with the elbow following the line of application - this same position/alignment can also be observed when performing dumbell flyes - forget the initial appearance of being an unrelated activity, the bio-mechanic requirements are identical.

As for the wrist being curled in, it depends on the angle/range of the blow - don't ever try to 'forward engineer' a target for a favourite technique, always start with the selected target and 'reverse engineer' the solution. In this case simply put your fist, knuckles in contact, against a solid representative target - angled offset obviously hence the need for a hook - at the point of application and push on the line of application, hard, and noted the 'leakage' of power/effort throughout the various component parts of the body. Play around with hand and elbow angles, and body position, until you find the optimum structure that will be able to support the shot - where no matter how hard you push, nothing moves.

Even better, if you want to get into the finer points of this process - use a set of bathroom scales as the point of application, the better your alignment, the more the gauge will register. The fashionable inverted-hand hooks won't pass this test, the position, and subsequent blow, is simply weak - KOs are obviously possible if you can be surgical to the jaw with such a shot, but it'll never produce the 'religious experience' that a real hook will! A simple way of reverse engineering optimal body mechanics - based on proof, not promise or personal preference!

A word on delivery, as far as I'm concerned a hook isn't a curving blow as such, more of a straight shot fired in to an offset target from an angle - like firing a gun around a corner, not swinging an axe. Follow-through is on the line of application, as is the recovery - I don't advocate arcing the shot and clipping the target, instead I 'bounce' the hook out, good to go again if necessary.

© - Mick Coup - http://www.corecombatives.com/

[Thanos]

Henry Plée, pour la communauté francophone, en parlait déjà il y a plus de 20 ans...   

Comme quoi, nihil novi sub sole !! 


Sinon, le précepte de "Dur sur du mou, mou sur du dur" semble plein de bon sens, non ?

[ulysse]

Du film "Little Big Man", et de la scène ou, lors d'une bagarre avec un jeune cheyenne, le héros provoque la surprise de son adversaire en frappant avec son poing fermé, non?
De mes jeunes années de kung fu, j'ai gardé à l'esprit l'adage prétendant que "On tape sur du dur avec du mou, et on tape sur du mou avec du dur", adage dont j'ai pu vérifier le bon sens à chaque fois que j'ai oublié de l'appliquer.
edit:"The target chooses the tool" comme il dit le monsieur plus bas.

j'ai tendance à etre d'accord pour dire que ça dépend de la cible.
Le soucis etant que ça entraine une variable et une necessité de précision dans un moment de stress ou il faut agir vite.
peut etre tenir compte à l'entrainement de cible "contre-indiquée" en fonction de la technique privilegiée?

[remy b]

Perso, j'ai toujours travaillé les 2, notamment au kyoku.

Le fait est qu'en kuyokushin, on combat en frappes réelles et à poings nu : on apprend donc à fermer et à frapper fort, sans aucune protection sur la main (importance soulignée plus haut de l'alignement parfait des segments, vers les "tseken", aka joitures dos-doigts des index et majeur).

J'ai plus de réserve pour des gens qui ne travaillent pas poings nus (notamment toujours avec des gants), car l'apprentissage d'une position efficace est moindre. On voit beaucoup de gens frapper avec le poing non-fermé, voire avec les parties "doigts", lorsqu'ils ont des gants de boxe.
Les même avec des mitaines MMA commencent à se faire mal.

J'aime les frappes mains ouvertes pour toutes les raisons déjà citées.
Elles exposent forcément les doigts, c'est logique.

Bref, les 2 demandent un certain travail spécifique, une autre évidence.

Wala!

Rémy

[Leif]

Le fait est qu'en kuyokushin, on combat en frappes réelles et à poings nu : on apprend donc à fermer et à frapper fort, sans aucune protection sur la main (importance soulignée plus haut de l'alignement parfait des segments, vers les "tseken", aka joitures dos-doigts des index et majeur).

précisément dans ce style ou il est interdit de frapper la tete, en somme pour taper sur le torse et le ventre:

resultat meme les avancés se cassent les mains sur les coudes a force de vouloir frapper le foie
entorse du poignet quand tu tapes sur la poitrine et dans le combat l'alignement n'est plus vraiment de mise.

pour la boxe la présence des gants fausse tout , le poignet n'est plus fort, les doigts sont fragiles d’où la nécessite de bien protéger sa main avent de combattre.
comment faire un bandage en boxe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ku-nSeGpVY&feature=related

comme vous pouvez le voir ce n'est pas tout simple.

le problème avec le poing c'est que l'on tendance a le lancer directement vers la bouche(la ou il y a des dents) lors que la main ouverte c'est plus que rare de voir une personne lancer sa main tendu vers la bouche , naturellement elle prend un chemin vers la joue ou le coté du crane (la ou il n'y a pas de dents).

[Lycaon]

Henry Plée, effectivement,  a souvent abordé le sujet.
Le coup poing fermé ne prend plus de vitesse à mi parcours alors que, main ouverte, il y a une accélération constante.
La main ouverte nous mettrait plus facilement en "contact" avec le cerveau reptilien (survie) alors que le poing fermé, avec le système limbique (rituel).
Au delà de la vitesse, il y a également une question de puissance. CF l'exercice de tony blauer: vous serrez le poing très fort bras tendu et quelqu'un essaye de replier votre bras. et vous essayez ensuite main ouverte. En ce qui me concerne, toutes les personnes à qui je l'ai fait tester sont unanimes: beaucoup plus de force mains ouvertes (pas de "conflit" musculaire entre muscles fléchisseurs et extenseurs).
Enfin, le test sur sacs, pattes d'ours, etc, ne reflète pas la réalité d'une tête humaine. Depuis 3 ans, je bosse avec un hammer head. Reproduction de la forme d'une tête humaine en caoutchouc très dur. L'option main ouverte vient assez rapidement, même si j'ai déjà frappé comme un sourd dessus avec le poing fermé sans rien me casser.
En ce qui concerne les frappes à l'abdomen, je préfère toutefois le poing fermé, qui me semble plus évident. (Dur sur mou et mou sur dur à dit richard dimitri je crois).
Enfin, j'ai une pensée émue pour le coup de poing marteau dont la générosité et la solidité  ne cessent de me ravir. :-)

[remy b]

 

[Eric Lem]

'Tains , tu fais chier Sergio...

LE sujet que j'espérais arrive enfin et pour une fois j'ai un temps de connexion limité (pour de bonnes raisons  )
Je prendrai le temps de lire tout... I'll be bacik...

[tora]

Par contre la frappe en marteau est tres efficace à main nue et aussi avec gants de boxe et gants mma... A fait l'expérience  sa marche...

[** Serge **]

Quasi tout le système d' Eddie Quinn est basé sur cette frappe ( hammerfist ) :

http://www.the-approach.com/

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eddie+quinn+the+approach&aq=1L&oq=eddie+quinn
http://www.youtube.com/user/agogcouk#p/u

[Bomby]

(...)


Sinon, le précepte de "Dur sur du mou, mou sur du dur" semble plein de bon sens, non ?

Et bien, justement, personnellement ça me semble plus que discutable...

Je pense qu'en fait c'est un raccourci sans doute utile pédagogiquement mais largement faux stricto sensu...

Quelle est la probabilité, in abstracto, de "faire mal" à du dur avec du mou ?

Par ailleurs, qu'appelle-t-on du mou ? Le talon de la paume ? C'est quand même plutôt bien solide pour du mou...

Un des intérêts de frapper avec cette partie du corps, un peu comme avec le talon pour les coups de pieds, c'est d'ailleurs qu'on est directement dans l'axe d'un membre long avec des os relativement solides... Il n'y a que peu de risques de déperdition d'énergie du fait d'un verrouillage insuffisant, surtout si, à l'impact, on rajoute une "claque" du talon (ce qui peut d'ailleurs, même à courte distance, dégager pas mal de puissance)... Décidément, on trouve plus typique comme "mou"...

Il me semble qu'en fait, plutôt que "dur sur mou et mou sur dur", le critère est plutôt celui de l'adaptation de l'outil à la cible, et notamment à la forme et à l'accessibilité de celle-ci... Le texte de Mick Coup cité plus haut par Serge  (très bon texte, au passage) est à mon avis particulièrement éclairant de ce point de vue...

D'ailleurs, dans cet ordre d'idées, je me demande si la prédilection apparente pour le coup de poing marteau dans le système de combat qu'on voit en vidéo dans le lien d'un précédent post de Kilbith  -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IzUXoNF9Sw&feature=related- n'est pas en partie liée à la forme des équipements d'entraînement utilisés... Pour pouvoir secouer un peu les "martiens" de service à travers leur gigantesque casque de protection, difficile de trouver mieux que le "hammerfist" bourriné à répétition...

Ce type d'équipements est certainement intéressant (personnellement j'essaierais volontiers), mais ne s'entraîner qu'avec ça conduirait probablement à un conditionnement un peu trop restrictif à pas mal d'égards...

Point sans doute à garder en tête car, sans même parler des conditionnements culturels qu'évoque notamment Mick Coup, la façon dont on va "driller" les frappes portées (sur sac, pao, pattes d'ours, mannequin, partenaire avec tel ou tel type de protection, etc...) va forcément plus conditionner notre façon de frapper qu'on ne le souhaiterait...


Cordialement,

Bomby

[** Serge **]

Eddie Quinn ne provient pas du tout du moule FAST ou RMCAT, mais bien du domaine de la Muay Thaï.

Son approche ( The Approach ) vient de sa volonté de fournir ( entre autres ) un outil unique, facilement configurable, résilient dans un canevas technique limité, sur une base de principes simples.

C'est un pur city kid, un street brawler brit' de la meilleure espèce. En cela, son opinion et sa vision sont intéressantes.
Donc, il n'a pas été ' formaté ' par le Bullet Man, mais a ajouté celui-ci à son cursus, par après.

[Bomby]

(...)
Le coup poing fermé ne prend plus de vitesse à mi parcours alors que, main ouverte, il y a une accélération constante.
La main ouverte nous mettrait plus facilement en "contact" avec le cerveau reptilien (survie) alors que le poing fermé, avec le système limbique (rituel).
Au delà de la vitesse, il y a également une question de puissance. CF l'exercice de tony blauer: vous serrez le poing très fort bras tendu et quelqu'un essaye de replier votre bras. et vous essayez ensuite main ouverte. En ce qui me concerne, toutes les personnes à qui je l'ai fait tester sont unanimes: beaucoup plus de force mains ouvertes (pas de "conflit" musculaire entre muscles fléchisseurs et extenseurs).
(...)

Ce n'était pas avec Tony Blauer, en ce qui me concerne, mais j'ai plusieurs fois constaté, à l'occasion de stages, l'étonnement unanime de ceux qui découvraient cette différence de puissance...
On s'éloigne un peu du sujet mais on enchaînait ensuite sur un exercice un peu similaire qui met en évidence de façon similaire la différence de puissance importante que l'on a dans les bras selon qu'on les plie à plus ou moins de 90°...
D'où l'intérêt par exemple de bloquer l'attaque adverse avec le bras ouvert à au moins 91°... Et celui, pour frapper, d'utiliser plutôt le coude que la main si l'espace ne permet pas d'ouvrir l'angle du bras à plus de 90°...

Cordialement,

Bomby

[Bomby]

Eddie Quinn ne provient pas du tout du moule FAST ou RMCAT, mais bien du domaine de la Muay Thaï.

Son approche ( The Approach ) vient de sa volonté de fournir ( entre autres ) un outil unique, facilement configurable, résilient dans un canevas technique limité, sur une base de principes simples.

C'est un pur city kid, un street brawler brit' de la meilleure espèce. En cela, son opinion et sa vision sont intéressantes.
Donc, il n'a pas été ' formaté ' par le Bullet Man, mais a ajouté celui-ci à son cursus, par après.

Merci de la précision, Serge... J'avais été tenté de faire une confusion entre l'orientation du système d'Eddie Quinn et le formatage par le Bullet Man (au passage, merci pour le nom de l'attirail) mais un petit regard sur son site m'avait fait douter d'un rapport trop direct...

Néanmoins, je me trompe peut-être mais il me semble quand même, pour caricaturer, qu'à force de travailler sur un Bullet-Man, la probabilité d'utiliser largement le "hammer-fist" me semble plus élevée que celle d'utiliser prioritairement un direct du poing fermé au menton ou une pique aux yeux...


Cordialement,

Bomby

[** Serge **]

C'est le revers de l'entrainement au Bulletman.
On peut induire le stress chez le trainee et protéger au mieux le porteur ( et encore, le trauma cérébral et la fatigue nerveuse sont toujours au rendez-vous ). Mais, de fait, l'éventail des techniques se réduit comme peau de chagrin.

Mais, le Bulletman est conçu, essentiellement, pour travailler le mindset, le forward drive sous inoculation intense de stress .
Ce n'est pas un outil fait pour développer des techniques.

C'est pour cela que le Bulletman doit être induit dans des cursus et ne pas devenir l'unique cursus.