Re: Punching
- From: "RichD" <r_delaney2001@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jun 2005 18:26:21 -0700
Mark Fergerson wrote:
> > You want to perform the standard right hand punch (with left foot
> > forward), as powerfully as possible.
>
> First consider what you mean by "power". You posted to
> sci.physics, so let's get dimensionally analytical.
Good idea.
> P=M/LT^3, which can be broken down into mass accelerating over a
> time period.
uhhhhhhh.......
> A punch is basically applying your fist moving at some velocity
> to some part of an opponent's anatomy which will absorb the kinetic
> energy by deforming, thus decelerating your fist. Generally you want
> to maximize contact velocity
Yes
> and minimize dwell time, no?
Except you can't control that.
It's determined by the vicsoelasticities of the objects in collision.
> You pose two scenarios with one major difference; the relative
> velocity between you and your opponent. In the second, you have to
> deal with the attacker's momentum; after a successful strike you
> don't want him knocking you down.
'successful' implies I do not get knocked down.
If I try to hit an onrushing elephant, chalk it up to bad judgement.
> So you have some options; you can
> plan on ducking aside and letting him go past you, you can redirect
> him so he goes past you, or you can stop him WRT you. ISTM that what
> you do with your feet depends on your choice.
>
> To stop him cold, you want to put your fist in front of his
> center of mass and brace yourself firmly enough to absorb
> all his momentum which seems to imply not lifting your rear
> foot at all.
That was the point of my question.
It's not at all so obvious as you seem to think; i.e. that not lifting
is correct
> Then you have to deal with a body folded over your fist. ;>)
Hopefully.
But why not deal with it with my rear heel up? That's the specific
question.
> >We consider two different stances: right foot flat (pushing off the heel),
> >or rising onto the ball of the right foot.
> >
> >Now imagine two scenarios:
> >a) You are attacking the opponent. The consensus is that rising is
> >superior, because it brings the calf muscles into play. Also, the
> >posture offers greater leverage (and reach).
>
> If I'm going to punch someone, I like to use Bruce Lee's Jeet
> Kune Do style; left foot flat, right foot semi-on-the-ball.
Why?
Pleeeze do not invoke Bruce Lee as the Ultimate Master. sheesh,
he was an ACTOR, not a boxer!
> > b) Opponent is running toward you, probably to attempt a football
> > type tackle. Now some argue that heel down is preferable, because you
> > get a sturdier base (in the asian styles, they call this 'drawing
> > power from the earth'), and you really want to impale him, rather
> > than strike in the usual sense.
> >
> > Now I argue that (b) should have the same solution as (a), using a
> > relativity argument. I.e. Force is force, momentum is momentum,
> > and the only that matters is relative motion; if (a) is stronger, it
> > should be stronger whether the opponent is standing still or in motion.
> >
> > Thoughts? Is this debate amenable to physics analysis, or only
> > empirically?
>
> The fact that we aren't rigid bodies does complicate things a
> tad, but much of physics is about masses in motion.
Thanks for your respsonse, but I'm afraid you shed negligible light.
--
Rich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Punching
- From: Mark Fergerson
- Re: Punching
- From: cnctut
- Re: Punching
- References:
- Punching
- From: RichD
- Re: Punching
- From: Mark Fergerson
- Punching
- Prev by Date: Re: The double slit experiment
- Next by Date: Re: Calling crankbusters: cranky David Thomson returns in Re: Secrets of the Aether now on Google Print
- Previous by thread: Re: Punching
- Next by thread: Re: Punching
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
