Fist at the Waist?

Another little probing question for some of you more TMA people.

Does anyone have a justification/explanation for the non punching hand being retracted to the waist in many Traditional systems?

I got an interesting one from my WC Sifu, but I wanted to hear everyone's thoughts if any.

 

Well, I always thought it was for elbowing someone in the gut that's behind you. It also could be for proecting the ribs. But I could be mistaken

*Velid*

 

To get KTFO?

 

Nope.

No 'other' thoughts from a Grappling expert Bon?

 

1/ pulling your opponent on to the strike (assuming you've grab thier arm or personage)

2/to stop you punching your outstretched hand - all strikes should land on the same spot.

3/ cos thats how the did in the big training scene in enter the dragon. ;-)

 

I was always told that as you punch from there plus hip movement gives you more power. But we only bring our hands back there when we are doing warmup punches

 

I was tought that pulling the non punching hand back at the same time the pnching hand extends adds a little more power. Always good to hear new ideas and insights though.

 

the punching hand at the waist draws power from the hips and your "hara." The twisting motion i think is supposed to direct internal force/ki in some styles of KF. I could be wrong though but this is what i've heard and have been told.

 

In TKD we are taught to chamber one hand while punching with the other, chambering (pull back of one hand and shoulder) can add power in your strikes)....both hands move simultaneously delivering the punch.

In forms/kata.... chambering can be seen as a strength drill so-to-speak, tightening the hand as you chamber builds a stronger grip.
Also in forms you are moving forward doing a technique and by chambering the one hand you are building an automatic response against a grab. The sharper you chamber, the sharper you can strike back.

 

I could... but I wouldn't believe what I was saying

The real reason (IMO) - Stylization, It looks "clean" is easy to get everyone looking the same, and its simple.

If it was done once and a while, maybe. But to retract every punch to the hip = bad habit.

edit - One other thing:

Considering that many of these arts are Buhhdist in origins, perhaps it was to seperate it from fighting. Punching from the hip doesn't look as "aggressive" or "fight-like" as punching from a high guard with a crouched posture.

No evidence whatsoever, just a though

 

Stylization...... well yeah i could see that. but i think it is a mix between that what what KC and i was sayin;

by chambering the one hand you are building an automatic response against a grab. The sharper you chamber, the sharper you can strike back.

 

and again, if it was just done a few times in a few kata maybe I'd believe that.

You are also building up a automatic response to drop your hands, and get punched in the face...

 

The hand retracting to the hip is the grabbing movement of grab and strike. Most often it is attacking the points on the lung meridean. This creates a two way action. If you look at almost any older, trad. form, this is used on most basic techniques. If you create a cross extensor reflex action, this keeps them from being able to counter your attack because their nervous system is scambled.
For those who are familiar with either pressure points (kyusho, keupso, chin na) or small circle jujitsu, the direction of rotation/ torque on the wrist is what is best for activating the nerve center.

 

Actually I dont think there is a correct answer, its just how you apply the technique.

 

Good point. All of these may be the reason. Its just like everything else in martial arts. everyone has their own reason for doing something.

 

Yes - pulling with the other hand is the most often cited traditional answer. It seems very odd to me to punch like that every time - even though there is no grab.

Retraction as a counterbalance makes logical sense - but retraction to a position where it is of some defensive use (the chin) make more sense to me.

 

My theory is that a lot of these traditional martial arts were or were at least derived from arts designed for people wearing suits of armor who had somehow lost their weapon, or something along those lines. I believe one of the Gracies had similar things to say of many TMAs. This is why so many seem to be so rigid. It is because that is how one must fight wearing a suit of metal armor, it is impossible to be very fluid while wearing such a thing, and still get any results from your actions. Drawing the fist back, when say, it had a gauntlet on, would actually add a good deal more power to the punch, because of the momentum carried over from the weight of the armor on the hand.. While at the same time, keeping it up as a guard was not only unnecessary (since one was already wearing armor), but extremely tiring. Punching needs to be done from a more relaxed position when you're in armor. Many of the blocks of TMA seem more tailored to curved-line strikes, and very hard, and they seem to take up the entire motion of the fighter, instead of more simple, quicker defenses preferred by many today. This is because, on such a battlefield, one is trying to block things like sword strikes. Because of the power that can be put into a strike with a sword, one must commit fully to blocking it in its path, as once again, the armor keeps you from being quick enough to hit the opponent swinging his weapon before it hits you. Another reason, I think, is that more traditional teachers had this nasty habit of keeping things from most of their students, and so what the students wound up with was often not very practical, or at least not as much as it could be. I read once about how Yip Man would not teach footwork to most of his students, and made those he did swear not to teach it to anyone else so long as he lived. I am sure there have been some instances down the line, where someone wound up going on to teach at their own school, but their teacher never got around to showing them the aspects they were hiding. And so, one finds things in heavily traditional schools that are not very useful or practical, this is probably a reason why. Whether or not this is where the fist at the hip comes from, I do not know. I would say that is more influenced by the aforementioned armor explanation.

 

Interesting post Tireces.

It amazes me how many arts still focus on what WAS instead of what IS.