im completely undecided on this, it seems that nobody can really give me a decent argument for either and i have thrown both and they feel exactly the same
arguments i hear
>it engages your shoulder
you can do that with both
>adds more power
the power comes from the body and specifically the adding of weight not the way the fist is turned
all i can really see is it might be more of a strategy thing to use one or the other depending on the context and not a one vs the other sort of deal, but im open to hear your guys arguments on it
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
The main reason old bareknuckled boxers punched using vertical knuckles was for defensive reasons of avoiding grappling which was allowed back then.
It allows you to keep your elbows tucked in a position that makes it harder for someone to get underhook grabs where they can throw you.
You are also slightly less likely to roll your wrist or hit with the wrong part of the hand and break it.
Horizontal knuckles are mainly used because gloves and wraps are used and you can get a extra inch or two of range. Also during the rotation it causes the punching arm to cover a tucked chin to leave less room for counter punches.
So which is best to use comes down to if you are wearing gloves and what you are most worried about defending against.
I learned both and use both.
this is a decent explination, thanks man when i usually ask this question nobody explains why vertical fists were used for so long and suddenly "oh horizontal fists were just invented and super good!" it makes no sense they would figure it out for 300 years of fighting but your explanation makes a lot of sense
It's not really something most people would know since all that stuff is over a hundred years old and not super relivent to most people who do modern combat sports.
Only reason I know it is because I have a interest in oldschool pugilism in particular.
I heard the version that vertical bareknuckle slips through easier. Then when gloves appeared people started adding a twist to horizontal to tear the skin to cause opponent to bleed. Eventually it just became horizontal. I don't see how it would add range, could you explain?
>Then when gloves appeared people started adding a twist to horizontal to tear the skin to cause opponent to bleed.
Haven't seen any source say that and I don't think it would have that effect.
>I don't see how it would add range, could you explain?
The biomechanics are kinda hard to explain in just text.
Get in a boxing stance next to a wall, uses a vertical style punch and leave it out there. Have someone mark the wall or use a refrence point to see how far your comfortable punching reach is.
Now do a horizontal style punch and leave it out there. Do the same as above.
Odds are there will be about a inch of difference between the two punches. Not a lot, but it can make a big difference when actually fighting/sparing. Especially when you are using modern boxing style punches that have more of a snap to whip the head back, rather then more of a weight transfer to get a knockdown of older style of boxing.
I did that thing with the wall and I am unconvinced. Vertical actually went further. Maybe because I use that primarily. And there was a lot of hip rotation involved. I don't know if the skin tearing thing is true, but I believe vertical does slip past the guard better without gloves.
>Then when gloves appeared people started adding a twist to horizontal to tear the skin to cause opponent to bleed.
IDK but that has the smell and trappings of a classic wives tale to me. Extremely small effect that kinda sounds cool, but doesnt really makes sense on a moment of thought. Kinda like blood groves on knives/swords.
If that was the case people wouldn't be doing it now, because yah, its a slight advantage to scrap up the opponent, but you dont go out of your way to scrap them instead of just punching them in the face hard.
>tearskin moron spotted
it's because of overextension. it's very unlikely to mess up your elbow if you finish with that twist, the tearing of skin will occur if you're using Fred Flinstone's boxing gloves
Adding to this, ventricle knuckle punches put a lot of pressure on the elbow if you go to full extension and miss your target. As a consequence, old times boxers would train themselves to stop shortly before full extension (some oriental styles like wing chin and isshin ryu karate do this also). This is not so much the case with horizontal punches and you can feel it yourself right now by just shooting your arm to full extension both ways in front of you. This is another reason horizontal punching gives you farther reach.
Yeah frick my joints do not like full extension on vertical punching. People into Wing Chun have said that the flurry of vertical punching associated with the style is to move an opponent into a position for power kick, pressure point hits, etc.
I still don't see any advantage to them vs a regular Western horizontal left jab and regular horizontal right cross which can do the same, say as set up for powerful left hook in Western boxing, a knee strike in Dutch/K1/modern Kickboxing, or knee strike into double leg takedown in MMA.
>I still don't see any advantage to them
Structurally ventricle fist is stronger and less likely to break than a horizontal fist. It’s why we hold a hammer vertically rather than horizontally, so the benefit is it’s less risky to your hands. Which was important before wraps and gloves were added to boxing.
Ah I see makes sense. Similar to bare knuckle fighters, say pre Queensbury rules, and traditional pre-modernisation Eastern striking styles without boxing gloves like karate have that low guard as non-gloved boxing strikes risk too much damage to the hands I guess.
>the power comes from the body and specifically the adding of weight not the way the fist is turned
the turning of the fist is for the transfer of energy from the bodyweight
explain how this works, i don't see how this makes any sense at all, are you saying that all the turning of the hips and the lets and dropping body weight doesn't do anything until you twist your fist somehow?
Vertical just feels so weak to me in jabs and crosses. Horizontal for those is a solid punch. One of the reasons I don't think Wing Chun is effective is its use of vertical punches.
For hooks tho I feel vertical is stronger, even though it's meant to be horizontal in standard Western boxing.
what's strange is I'm the complete opposite, when i do horizontal for straights i feel weak and don't land as well but for hooks i always do horizontal or a mix of both.
really? the horizontal for me synchs with body rotation when im engaging the hips and stuff.
Whatever you're comfortable with?
I punch with my fists facing in a diagonal with jabs and crosses
Same way I do dumbbell bench presses.
Hooks.... Situational?
When I throw body hooks it's usually vertical I guess
When I first started striking I was taught to throw hooks with the vertical fist to avoid getting a boxers fracture if I didn’t connect correctly with a horizontal. Range is irrelevant as hooks are a close range punch anyways so I don’t see a reason to use horizontal punches for hooks.
>expert village
Dropped, I skipped to a random point and watched this moron demonstrate uppercuts. He’s not even bothering to swing his hip out of the way. He’s all arm with both his vertical and horizontal uppercuts. Disregard moronic opinions.