We have evolved to be able to punch each other

I'd like to read the full paper. The news report on the paper stresses what is most likely a tiny bit of speculation within its contents.

 

Edit: Have now read the summary (would still like to read the full paper).

Personally I'd like to see
How much comparative focus they put on hand buttressing through making a fist (or the closest shape possible) in other apes.
How buttressing protects the hand in movement in other apes.
How other apes strike each other and in what proportion (ie open hand, closed hand, weapon).
How other apes strike prey and in what proportion (ie open hand, closed hand, weapon).
I would also like to see how the fist and open hand were used in these strikes.

All the above, but particularly the the first two, are significant when considering this subject area.

 

"We propose that the derived proportions of hominin hands reflect, in part, sexual selection to improve fighting performance."

There's a lot of assumptions going on here - who's to say that the human hand was not buttressed for other activities besides fighting? Yes, that's what we use it for now, but I think it's a leap to say punching hands were beneficial for that reason without more evidence. I think it's also an unfounded assumption that fighting ability is sexually selected for - although I would very dearly like to see that assumption bear out.

 

This article discusses some of their methodology:

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/2/i.1.full.pdf+html

I'm not particularly convinced. They've established that certain fist configurations allow trained martial artists to deliver more force than other configurations. While there are fist configurations and angles that are probably better than others, the configuration that a trained MAist will deliver the most power with is the one in which he/she has trained the most.

Overall I'd say that the benefits of buttressing support are a design carry over from our ancestors' use of hands as 'feet' and the shorter hand compared with chimpanzees is less to do with hitting and more to do with being bipedal.

 

It kind of reminded me of a youtube video about the most powerful kick in martial arts, I'm sure some people have seen it, the top 3 scoring kicks were quite an interesting comparison, but I was rather confused that the karateka used a front kick as his most powerful kick . . .

 

potentially it would go back to less civilised times when a better fist probably would have decided which males got to mate with which females =p

 

That's not what I got out of the article - eg:

"Asking the athletes to thump a punchbag with their hands in a range of shapes (from open-handed slaps to closed fists) using various delivery styles (over arm, sideways and head on), Morgan and Carrier measured the force of each impact. However, they were surprised to see that the punch did not deliver more force per blow. ‘In terms of the peak forces or the impulse, it did not matter whether the subjects were hitting with a clenched fist or open palm’, Carrier says."

Plus, I don't think it takes much training to form a fist, that seems like a pretty naive inclination for our species.

Not necessarily though, that would depend upon the reproductive behavior of our ancestors. Invoking sexual selection as a mechanism without regard to the ecology of prehistoric humans is premature. It could very well be more direct natural selection, eg, critters with punchy hands were able to survive intertribal skirmishes better than critters without punchy hands. I think it was inappropriate to not include other potential causes - to be honest, I think some evolutionary work on humans reveals more about the researchers' cultural baggage than it does about the fact of the matter.

 

Not wishing to go too far off topic, but biomechanically the front kick is likely to be the most powerful kick. Other kicks might 'feel' more powerful, but the front kick employs force in a manner closest to how the body is designed to move which also effects the speed of delivery and consequently the impact. This isn't just my opinion, it was also stated in The Shotokan Book of Facts authored by three of the UK's senior Shotokan Karateka (Kanazawa ryu): Clive Layton, Michael Randall and Michael Nursey.

 

I'll not say too much, as it is off topic (would possibly make an interesting discussion elsewhere) but most things I've seen and read people agree round kicks are the strongest because of the moments and torque involved =/ in the test I mentioned the karateka had his front kick measured at about 1/4 the force of the TKD round kick

 

I was referring to this bit:

"Next the duo tested whether buttressing the hand by curling the fingers and thumb stiffens the structure. They asked the martial arts experts to roll their hands into variations of the fist shape - two with the thumb extended sideways - and then push the first joint of the index finger against a force transducer to measure the rigidity of the knuckle joint in the presence and absence of buttressing thumb... And when the duo measured the amount of force that the athletes could deliver through the fist surface of the index and middle fingers, they found the presence of the buttressing thumb doubled the delivered force..."

 

The use of weapons is prevalent amongst apes so I'd say intelligence and strength are more likely to be selection factors than a better fist!

 

Why not start a new thread in the Karate section?

I'd be keen to see how the force was measured, whether it was a thrusting or snapping front kick, whether weight differences were taken into account etc...

 

i'll try and dig it out =)

 

I believe a "proper" fist is more cultural.

Many children place the thumb inside the fist, until told otherwise, and a fair proportion of women don't take naturally to hitting with fists at all.

I've noticed in ancient Greek art a propensity to show people striking with the second knuckles of the fist, in a similar way that some people who've only hit with big gloves do with hooks. That's a good way to break your fingers, though it could reflect the ignorance of the artists rather than the actual technique used.

Knuckles of course cut far more than palms or hammer fists, which could have been a big deal in the absence of antiseptics.

But at the end of the day, hands are used for so much it would be hard to pin down specific advantages. For instance, I've always wondered how much our species' proclivity for solo sexual activity influenced our manual dexterity...

 

This may be a bit off topic, but I thought it was an interesting read:

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewconten...I#search="incidence conflict hunter gatherer"

Lends some support that sexual selection may have played a role, but as JWT said, apes manage to resolve those conflicts, so I still am weirded out that they'd endorse that hypothesis so strongly.

Also, anyone else troubled by the fact that they used a martial artist who was probably trained in delivering force with a closed fist, and compared his punch with a closed fist to his punch with what sounds like a thumbs up? Just seems like a potentially confounding variable.

 

new thread to discuss the aforementioned video:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1074703264#post1074703264