iNow Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Think of the impact as creating a ripple in the target. That ripple will cascade and ultimately diffuse until equilibrium is reached again. The diffusion process will either include the striker or it will not, in which case more of the energy stays with the target and damage is maximized. If the striker quickly withdraws their fist or foot, clearly they will be less likely to be a factor involved in helping to diffuse the energy of the strike. Add to that the act of snapping the punch or kick will engage many smaller muscles in the attackers limb and you realize it actually does make physical sense. Edited April 12, 2015 by iNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Think of the impact as creating a ripple in the target. That ripple will cascade and ultimately diffuse until equilibrium is reached again. The diffusion process will either include the striker or it will not, in which case more of the energy stays with the target and damage is maximized. If the striker quickly withdraws their fist or foot, clearly they will be less likely to be a factor involved in helping to diffuse the energy of the strike. Add to that the act of snapping the punch or kick will engage many smaller muscles in the attackers limb and you realize it actually does make physical sense. I don't buy it, but as John pointed out you can certainly sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 At least in so far as saying an inelastic collision delivers more energy than an elastic one, iNow is right. Whether or not either of those cases is applicable is another matter. Elastic collisions can do very odd things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) At least in so far as saying an inelastic collision delivers more energy than an elastic one, iNow is right. Whether or not either of those cases is applicable is another matter. Elastic collisions can do very odd things. snip... John, John, John...to quote another here, getting a straight answer from you is like herding cats. To herd cats, one must focus their Chi qí. Edit: Correct speeling air and add link. Edited April 12, 2015 by Acme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 At least in so far as saying an inelastic collision delivers more energy than an elastic one, iNow is right. Whether or not either of those cases is applicable is another matter. Elastic collisions can do very odd things. I wonder if that would work when playing golf? That was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR-549 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 These fighting techniques have been practiced and studied for centuries. If your instructor tells you to recoil, I would listen to him. I wouldn't spend time questioning it. I would consider it fact. Your instructor does not care why. And neither should you in class or practice. The inertia reaction force has a delay depending on the elasticity of the object. Even the skull is a bag of water and will have delay. As previously stated, I believe the principle is to remove fist before it can reabsorb. This would be a difficult experiment with a human body, because no two strikes are the same and therefore the reaction will be different. A hollowed out Q ball filled with water might demonstrate the principle. If this proves false, then consider what restoring Your inertia with fast recoil, does to the process. Fast recoil might enable a faster duck or block. In any case, it would be wise to listen to experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 These fighting techniques have been practiced and studied for centuries. If your instructor tells you to recoil, I would listen to him. I wouldn't spend time questioning it. I would consider it fact. Your instructor does not care why. And neither should you in class or practice. The inertia reaction force has a delay depending on the elasticity of the object. Even the skull is a bag of water and will have delay. As previously stated, I believe the principle is to remove fist before it can reabsorb. This would be a difficult experiment with a human body, because no two strikes are the same and therefore the reaction will be different. A hollowed out Q ball filled with water might demonstrate the principle. If this proves false, then consider what restoring Your inertia with fast recoil, does to the process. Fast recoil might enable a faster duck or block. In any case, it would be wise to listen to experience. Which hurts more: flick a wet towel and not recoil or flick it and recoil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR-549 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I believe it's only a flick with recoil. I don't think you can compare a punch with recoil to a bullwhip crack. Please explain. A punch is a mostly straight on force.......tending to directly puncture. A flick has a large lateral(sideways) component. It's more like a cut. A cut can be much more painful than a puncture. Lets compare force delivered, not pain inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now