Reverse punch

Reverse punch

Joined: July 10th, 2004, 10:13 pm

May 5th, 2009, 10:22 pm #1

When training the reverse punch from a neutral bow position, what are the pros and cons of rotating into and maintaining a solid forward bow and rotating into a forward bow and lifting the heel of the rear foot a la Steve Sanders? (I always heard that he made this modification to Kenpo and many schools followed suit)

I always thought lifting the heel felt quicker and more natural/comfortable but i can see where it doesn't have the same back up mass as leaving the heel planted. Heel up seems like it might sacrifice some "rooting" and power for speed and mobility. Any thoughts?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2009, 8:54 am

May 5th, 2009, 10:42 pm #2

You really can generate substantially more power by lifting the heel. The reason is because of linear acceleration. This is fundamental to power generation. Nothing is gained by a rooted stance relative to power generation. If your punch generates a constant level of power and you place it on a forward translating structure you will plus up the power. Having the rear heel up and rotating the rear foot slightly forward allows one to push with the ball of the rear foot much as a runner braces to spring forward in a starting block. And of course I will leave you to experiment yourself with hitting with the punch from a relative neutral position as you step backward. It will not always apply then. But in the relatively stationary and forward translating positions you really have to lift the heel if you want the maximum benefits of linear acceleration. I mean even in the stationary position with the foot flat you can get the benefit to some extent by shifting weight from back leg to the front. But for substantial power generation propelling yourself forward like the runner in the starting block is the ball game. Remember stances are TRANSITIONAL POSITIONS and forward translation is a major plus factor in this punch and being "rooted" is counterproductive to that goal.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 24th, 2004, 9:07 pm

May 5th, 2009, 11:16 pm #3

When training the reverse punch from a neutral bow position, what are the pros and cons of rotating into and maintaining a solid forward bow and rotating into a forward bow and lifting the heel of the rear foot a la Steve Sanders? (I always heard that he made this modification to Kenpo and many schools followed suit)

I always thought lifting the heel felt quicker and more natural/comfortable but i can see where it doesn't have the same back up mass as leaving the heel planted. Heel up seems like it might sacrifice some "rooting" and power for speed and mobility. Any thoughts?
...is that this thread will generate more than 100 posts - and even more once Amen sees that the original poster has credited Steve Muhammad with making a significant change that improved kenpo. This is just the sort of thread that rockets into the stratosphere. This could be a record breaker.

Enjoy!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 4th, 2004, 8:13 pm

May 5th, 2009, 11:26 pm #4

When training the reverse punch from a neutral bow position, what are the pros and cons of rotating into and maintaining a solid forward bow and rotating into a forward bow and lifting the heel of the rear foot a la Steve Sanders? (I always heard that he made this modification to Kenpo and many schools followed suit)

I always thought lifting the heel felt quicker and more natural/comfortable but i can see where it doesn't have the same back up mass as leaving the heel planted. Heel up seems like it might sacrifice some "rooting" and power for speed and mobility. Any thoughts?
...on the situation.

One thing to remember, heel down provides a much better bracing angle; therefore, giving you better stability. The other is more mobile and quicker for follow up moves.

I think it is personal choice, however, and used differently when fighting in the ring vs. street self-defense.

Michael Miller CKF
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am

May 5th, 2009, 11:27 pm #5

When training the reverse punch from a neutral bow position, what are the pros and cons of rotating into and maintaining a solid forward bow and rotating into a forward bow and lifting the heel of the rear foot a la Steve Sanders? (I always heard that he made this modification to Kenpo and many schools followed suit)

I always thought lifting the heel felt quicker and more natural/comfortable but i can see where it doesn't have the same back up mass as leaving the heel planted. Heel up seems like it might sacrifice some "rooting" and power for speed and mobility. Any thoughts?
Should be the answer to questions like this. Depends on the context of application. A reverse punch can be used to thwack a guy, or to keep him at bay for a moment as a check against invasion of your depth zones.

If you're gonna thwack him and pick up the heel, I think you're better off throwing a cross that aims for his melon, and leaning your weight into it so you end in a 97%-to-3% weight distribution favoring the front leg through the depth of penetration on contact. If you're using the punch as a brace, you're better off in a FB, which has a 60-40 distribution built into it, and is more structurally sound ala bracing angles.

D.

There's one for ya, Tom. Now we just need about 96 more posts.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2005, 3:34 am

May 5th, 2009, 11:28 pm #6

...on the situation.

One thing to remember, heel down provides a much better bracing angle; therefore, giving you better stability. The other is more mobile and quicker for follow up moves.

I think it is personal choice, however, and used differently when fighting in the ring vs. street self-defense.

Michael Miller CKF
beat me to it by one minute!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 1st, 2005, 2:47 pm

May 5th, 2009, 11:37 pm #7

...is that this thread will generate more than 100 posts - and even more once Amen sees that the original poster has credited Steve Muhammad with making a significant change that improved kenpo. This is just the sort of thread that rockets into the stratosphere. This could be a record breaker.

Enjoy!
I'd like to aid that particular endeavour.

This argument is as old as Mr Bleeker's karate gi. Sure what David said is all true, but take that up with a shotokan 5th degree and he'll introduce you to some serious chest surgery!

I can tell you that having been on both sides of this debate, I now teach the raised heel version for various reasons.

Sanders introduced it to facilitate the deeper penetrating punch it afforded in tournament karate, it was quick to launch and covered a lot of distance meaning the exponent of that punch could remain outside the traditional punching range of his adversary. It is a perfect solution for tournament. It was also quicker to reset your position afterwards.

For the street, it offers dynamic equilibrium and the ability to change direction rapidly.

The heel down position is ideal for teaching beginners about hip rotation, establishing a base, weight transference and redistribution of mass. Among other things.

I always start with the Forward Bow until the student shows enough understanding of the principles. I find to go straight into the raised heel version can have the student seemingly walk a tightrope, having no width to their stance thus limiting their hip rotation.

Plus it teaches good physical discipline.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2005, 2:18 pm

May 6th, 2009, 12:08 am #8

When training the reverse punch from a neutral bow position, what are the pros and cons of rotating into and maintaining a solid forward bow and rotating into a forward bow and lifting the heel of the rear foot a la Steve Sanders? (I always heard that he made this modification to Kenpo and many schools followed suit)

I always thought lifting the heel felt quicker and more natural/comfortable but i can see where it doesn't have the same back up mass as leaving the heel planted. Heel up seems like it might sacrifice some "rooting" and power for speed and mobility. Any thoughts?
If it's a defensive counterpunch, I'd be more likely to keep the heel planted. Otherwise, I'll probably end up with the heel off the ground by a bit.

Of course this depends entirely on whose lineage you fall under and whether or not you teach with honor or not. Also might depend on whether or not you've actually had street experience. Are you an iron worked or a watchmaker? Then again, I don't think I've ever seen anyone throw a reverse punch from a true forward bow in the cage but then we know all fights go to the ground anyway.

There, Tom, that ought to help toward that 100 post goal.

Take it out on the heavy bag,

Chuck Peterson
peterson_charlie@hotmail.com

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2009, 8:54 am

May 6th, 2009, 12:30 am #9

I'd like to aid that particular endeavour.

This argument is as old as Mr Bleeker's karate gi. Sure what David said is all true, but take that up with a shotokan 5th degree and he'll introduce you to some serious chest surgery!

I can tell you that having been on both sides of this debate, I now teach the raised heel version for various reasons.

Sanders introduced it to facilitate the deeper penetrating punch it afforded in tournament karate, it was quick to launch and covered a lot of distance meaning the exponent of that punch could remain outside the traditional punching range of his adversary. It is a perfect solution for tournament. It was also quicker to reset your position afterwards.

For the street, it offers dynamic equilibrium and the ability to change direction rapidly.

The heel down position is ideal for teaching beginners about hip rotation, establishing a base, weight transference and redistribution of mass. Among other things.

I always start with the Forward Bow until the student shows enough understanding of the principles. I find to go straight into the raised heel version can have the student seemingly walk a tightrope, having no width to their stance thus limiting their hip rotation.

Plus it teaches good physical discipline.
but remember that the Shotokan Black belt also has a step and punch in his tool box and that punch serves to increase power (as well as close distance). And I am by no means saying that one cannot generate power without forward translation by pushing forward. In fact there is an entire art to hitting as you move backwards and it is not all that easy comparatively. Also those that knew Mr Parker may know that at one point he was entertaining the concept of how one hits differently when hitting a hard object that did not "give" like a board verses a body. And that shotokan punch works a lot better on a hard surface like a forehead that is owned by a person whose back is against a wall but I digress.

But yes for sure power can be generated even if you remove a factor. But remember that Shotokan guy's punch is substantially harder when he steps with it if he is at a correct distance and even when you are moving backward power can be generated but that power is even more if you have a moment to recoil back foreword after you step back if you can..
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2009, 8:54 am

May 6th, 2009, 12:34 am #10

...on the situation.

One thing to remember, heel down provides a much better bracing angle; therefore, giving you better stability. The other is more mobile and quicker for follow up moves.

I think it is personal choice, however, and used differently when fighting in the ring vs. street self-defense.

Michael Miller CKF
is always multiplied more when you are in transition verses fixed. In fact you NEVER should be out of transition so it is a moot point. parker was clear that you don't hit from a fixed position. I mean if you do not have the room to step you puch and the best way to push is to switch and press forward.
Quote
Like
Share