11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paul_L
Paul_L's picture
Information / Thoughts on Hand and Forearm Strikes

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on, or can point in in the direction of any information regarding Karate hand and forearm strikes, with regards to my points below.

The punch is often seen as the primary hand strike but I am wondering if this was actually the case with Karate in its formative years. I have seen threads on here where it has been discussed that punches to the face and head do present a high risk of injury to the hand, and I guess that this was something that was understood at the time Karate was being developed.

So I am wondering if rather than the head and face being the primary target, as it is often today, the neck being struck with forearms (using the arms like swords) and elbows was seen as a more effective target that presented less risk of injury to the striker. Even an inaacurate strike could still hit the neck due to the large striking area the forearm presents, and potentially the forearm could ride up the chest and be caught under the jaw.

Also I do wonder if strikes such as ridge hand were not actually a strike with the hand but instead the forearm and the reason for the hand shape (ridge hand, as well as others) was to try to protect the thumb and fingers while and maybe allowing for quick grabbing and finger poking. 

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I once counted frequency of techniques in the Pinan forms.  The punch is most frequent, the knifehand strike to the neck is second-most frequent.  All  the punches are nominally to the solar plexus but in application I would think they typically go to the head.

In general I think we soft 21st century westerners underestimate what conditioning will do to a hand.  A well-trained hand can put a spearhand through cement.  (Check YouTube.  Not that I recommend this.)  I read an old karate story the other day that involved a one-knuckle punch to the forehead.    

The point about conditioning applies to forearms too.  A story about Chosin Chibana involves him raising a huge bruise on  a challenger in a demonstration with a simple forearm block.  

Since we soft 21st century westerners rarely condition our limbs in this fashion, it does raise questions about how to adapt traditional karate techniques and strategies.  Favoring palm strikes to the head over punches is one option.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

I think they used both to a large extent.

Some thoughts on the use of punches:

If you look at the kata, punches tend to be used very strategically. Punches in kata are preceeded by a movement that controls the opponent and sets them up for that punch. I believe the punches in kata are intended to target the head in almost all cases; including when you punch chudan. Often the movement before a chudan punch can result in the opponent's head dropping lower, hence you can target the head by punching chudan. This may also put them in an anatomically weaker position, making your punch more damaging. The use of hikite and heel down position suggests that a grip is established while you punch, so you are actively controlling them. Punches are also used somewhat sparingly and in conjunctinon with other techniques, which I think is a lot safer than strategies like throwing punch combinations from a guard. It is also worth considering that there are punching techniques in kata that are potentially less risky than conventional punches, for example striking with the palm up, like bareknuckle boxers did. Lastly, consider that hand conditioning would have been done, which further decreases the risk. Overall, I think there are strategies in kata to decrease the risk of injury while increasing the effectiveness of punches, and that punches are an important part of the kata.

Forearm and other hand strikes are also commonly used, however they are used in different situations to punches. This is because certain strikes work better than others in certain situations. Basically, I think you are supposed to learn both and use whichever one is most applicable to any given situation.

These are just my thoughts based on looking at the kata ... I am nowhere near as knowledgeable about the history as some of the others here on the forum, so I thought it would be better to leave that to them. But anyway, hopefully I gave you some ideas to think about.

Dillon
Dillon's picture

As Chris R commented above, I suspect it's not so much that punches go to the solar plexus in kata but would go to the head in application, it's that the head would be brought down and controlled as a setup for the punch. That makes it a safer target as well.

Paul_L
Paul_L's picture

I think at this point I have to stress that I am not saying that there are no punches in Karate, just that punches may not have been the primary strike and and the head may not have been the primary target.

Conditioning the hands is something that has always been practised. However, I also believe that Karate grew out from practical systems of fighting. Having strikes that require several years of constant hand conditoning before you can reliably use them with little risk of injury doesn't seem very practical and I think that this was something that would have been understood. This would also seem to be the case for quite a few of the other strikes that are in Karate, such as nukite and using the back of the open hand.

This is what makes me wonder that sometimes when we see a strike with the hand it may not actually be what it appears. If you see someone thrust a closed fist or a knife hand out in front of them it is very natural to visualise that as a strike with the hand where it could be a movement to just get you hand in the right place for the next move, such as a throw or an arm destruction. This is a separate point to the above though.

It is just my personal opnion that in kata I see a reoccuring theme. This is first you engage by moving in close to your opponent to control them. Then you deliver a debilitating strike. Then you make your opponent prone or effectively so by a throw, arm lock (with a finishing move) or a push.

If you have control and more vulnerable targets are available such as the neck or eyes it doesn't seem like a punch would be the strike to acheive your goal. As an aside - obviously today we would have to take into account the legal considerations as to the strike being proportional to the situation.

If it all went wrong and you didn't have control then a good punch to somewhere like the kidneys would be an option if that is what is open to you at the time as a set up to getting into a position of control for a more debilitating strike.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Paul_L wrote:
punches may not have been the primary strike and the head may not have been the primary target.

I think the evidence is strong that the punch was the most used method, and that the head was the key target for those punches. A look through the literature makes that very clear I think.

I think the premise that hurting the hands was a major concern is faulty, and hence any assumptions that flow from that are also likely to be faulty.

Why should we care if we hurt our fists? I see it as a non-issue.

When you consider that our hands have to do finite work, and club our enemies, they are pretty well designed and work well for two very different objectives. In recent years, it has been suggested that the hands have even evolved for effective punching (this is disputed by some):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20790294

It’s certainly true that the head is well designed to protect the brain, and a closed fist to a skull can result in broken bones … but so what? It’s not like the pain is so debilitating that is prevents us from hitting again. We don’t even feel it.  We just keep on swinging as if nothing has happened.

It may hurt while it heals, but we should not let minor pain after the fact downplay the utility of one of the most effective combative methods.

If you leave a life-threatening situation with nothing but a broken knuckle or two then it was a good day.

A blow to the head is more likely to incapacitate than elsewhere. It is the primary target:

“In a real fight, one should seek to strike the head as this is most effective” – Choki Motobu

Sure, there are many other good targets, but the head results in unconsciousness and disorientation in a way that other targets don’t. It’s the primary target.

The primary tool will be the fist, because it is the most natural striking tool. It’s the one we go to innately.

There is a solid argument to be made for open hands strikes to the head because of the reduced risk of hand damage (and they look less violent to third parties), but the counter argument would be that keeping the hands open takes tons of training because we are fighting the innate instinct to make a fist. One methods does not have a clear advantage over the other. My “solution” is therfore to teach both. Everything we do with the fists, we also do open-handed. For example, the yellow belts learn both “jab, cross, lead hook, cross” and “lead palm-heel, back palm-heel, lead arcing slap, back palm-heel”. It’s the exact same body mechanics and we simply change out the striking tool.

The bottom-line is we don’t need to worry about broken knuckles. The only time we’d be punching a person in the head with full force would be in high-risk situations where we have much greater things to worry about. It’s a non-concern when compared against the overall effectiveness and instinctive nature of punching.

A broken knuckle may hurt after the fact, but mid-combat I guarantee you won’t notice, nor will it have any negative effect on your striking power. The chemical contrail flowing through your veins (adrenaline, etc) and the intensity of the situation will make it a complete non-issue.

Boxers and MMA fighters worry about breaking their hands in training because it can see missed paydays. Self-defence is fast, frantic and highly emotional. Boxing bouts are skilled exchanges over a far longer duration and they are far more cerebral.

A hand broken in training in the run up to a fight can definitely have a negative effect on a fighter’s ability to punch; and this is why they make it such a big deal and present it as such a disaster. However, that a million miles away from breaking a knuckle in the heat of an unavoidable self-defence situation, and then having it hurt for a few weeks while it heals. Even then, other potential injuries are likely to be of a greater concern.

For us, potentially hurting the hand is a total non-issue and I think “boxing concerns” make their way over into “self-defence thinking”. It’s not something we need to be concerned about though. It’s also something the past masters were not concerned about either. If we assume it was, it can lead us astray and I think that’s what is happening here.

Punching is innate and effective, but there is the risk of damaged hands. Not a guarantee of injury because the hand is well constructed for punching, but it is a distinct possibility. When we remember that those damaged hands will only result in a scenario when far more is at stake, and that it won’t have any real effect on our ability in that moment, then we can get things in perspective.

All the best,

Iain

Paul_L
Paul_L's picture

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. My main focus is to gather information and opinions, and this includes everything, just for continued learning. If there are any sources of relavent information such as books, articles, etc. I would be very grateful if anyone can point me in the direction of these. I do have some books but they tend to show the Karate that was being taught in the education system rather than what came before.

Also any opinions regarding strikes such as ridge hand, nukite, claw hand, koken (bent wrist), Hiraken (like a reverse backfist, striking with the finger knuckles rather than the back of the fist). Are these practical strikes or do they actually have another purpose or use, or maybe they are for specific vital points?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Paul_L wrote:
Also any opinions regarding strikes such as ridge hand, nukite, claw hand, koken (bent wrist), Hiraken (like a reverse backfist, striking with the finger knuckles rather than the back of the fist). Are these practical strikes or do they actually have another purpose or use, or maybe they are for specific vital points?

I think all of those strikes can be used effectively. They may not come as naturally or easily as punching, but we should definitely be working them too. As always, they need to be used in the right way though. For example, a spear hand to the solar plexus is going to be highly ineffective, but a spear hand to the pit of the throat will work well.

All the best,

Iain

Philios
Philios's picture

Often people get stuck on categorizing techniques.  We should remember that tsuki literally translates to "thrust" and not "punch".  It's a much more broad description that is open to interpretation and context.  Just like a closed fist going to chamber (hikite) usually implies grabbing a limb or clothing to control, an outward thrust of the arm with a closed fist could similarly represent breaking your assailant's grip, making space, or manipulating a limb.  Quite rightly, the punch should be the default response (hojo undo practice included striking the makiwara with a assortment of hand strikes including the seiken), but the gross body movement of the arms, usually accompanied by a translation of bodyweight via stepping into a stance, can be so many things.

Regarding injuring the hands... I found myself nodding along in agreement to Iain's post.  Bareknuckle boxing or prizefighting is a completely different situation to civilian self-defense.  Not breaking one's hands in a duel that does not end until one person is knocked unconscious is a sound strategy, especially when matches could last an astonishing number (110!?!) of rounds.  A self-defense encounter would be much more brief and the top priority is survival and escape at all costs.  

Having said that, #8 of the Hosoku Joko (Advanced Rules) of the Kaisai No Genri states:

"Don't attack hard parts of your opponent with hard parts of your body.

The kata typically strikes hard parts of the opponent with soft parts of your body and soft parts with hard parts of your body."

This is advice I have heard time and again in my training from multiple sources.  I think for the most part it is good advice, but in the heat of the moment you will resort to whatever comes naturally to you.  For the untrained and even many of those trained in combative arts, the default is typically a closed-fist swinging punch to the head.  Palm strikes have their place of course.  The Gracies used them to great effect to distract and make openings for submissions by striking the ears, striking the skull, shaking the brain, etc.  As Iain pointed out, a spearhand strike to the body won't do too much good, but to the throat it is quite effective.  It can sneak through a guard in a way that a punch can't.

Great topic.  Cheers!

karate10
karate10's picture

I feel that those techniques are practical from hiraken to shotei (Palm strike), shuto strikes to the kneck or to the thigh muscle of the leg (which I see often) and onwards has been a lost art in modern Dojo today and I feel that we as practitioners can't ignore them. In addition, Kote (Forearm) is rarely ever use which I practice a lot using strikes on a heavy bag to strike to the side/in front of the head/face or even across the chest.Hiraken can be useful to strike between the eyes to disorient your opponent momentarily to give you time to run or to continue to attack. Nukite, even though some well trained karatekas can break boards or a cement block, but I would rather use that technique to strike to the throat area. Koken from what I've been taught from my Shihan is very useful to strike the upper jaw area, side of the head, for Haito (Ridge hand strike to the temple),e.t.c......I hope this gives some ideas for you sir....Regards...Gerald.

Paul_L wrote:

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. My main focus is to gather information and opinions, and this includes everything, just for continued learning. If there are any sources of relavent information such as books, articles, etc. I would be very grateful if anyone can point me in the direction of these. I do have some books but they tend to show the Karate that was being taught in the education system rather than what came before.

Also any opinions regarding strikes such as ridge hand, nukite, claw hand, koken (bent wrist), Hiraken (like a reverse backfist, striking with the finger knuckles rather than the back of the fist). Are these practical strikes or do they actually have another purpose or use, or maybe they are for specific vital points?

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

All of the striking methods have their place, and different people are going to have their preferences. I do think that tailoring your strikes to the target (hard vs. soft, soft vs. hard) is important for developing an ideal approach, but as Iain pointed out, that isn't a natural response, and in a real situation, you likely won't care that much until the fight is over. You can train to use your more durable striking surfaces when attacking the head, and punches to the body, of course, but it takes time.

Looking at the kata, we actually have an interesting division, at least as I see it, in the methods expressed. The older kata (Naihanchi, Kusanku Dai, Matsumura/Tawada Passai, Chinto, Uechi-Ryu Sanchin etc.) tend to feature far fewer explicit punches than newer kata (Pinan, Kusanku Sho, Goju-Ryu Sanchin, etc.)--of course, this is merely a tendency, and doesn't apply all the time. This could be merely coincidence, of course, but I do find it interesting. It is also interesting to note that Itosu was especially known for his body conditioning and powerful punches, likely as a result of his training with Nagahama, more than his training with Matsumura. It could be that an emphasis on punching in karate was pushed more by him than others, and as a result it shows up more frequently in the kata he developed or altered. This could be supported by the fact that not all old-style Okinawan arts make much use of conditioning practices--I know that Motobu Udundi and KishimotoDi, for example, do not really do any conditioning or body hardening training, or even make use of the makiwara (although that speaks more to the methods of striking than the conditioning factor).

Could all of that mean that old-style karate did not place much emphasis on punching? It could, although it may not. I tend to believe that the methods of kata were not the only methods taught, and that basic punching and kicking skills were likely taught, regardless of what kata were focused on. Of course, then you get into all the other strikes, such as the ones Paul_L brought up. I don't have a single kata that uses hiraken, or keikoken, or nakadakaken, and yet I work them, and make use of them in techniques as appropriate.