Yeah, it only hits less than half as hard as a regular side punch. However, I think you missed some of the point I was making. It's about the range of motion and not the amount of extension. Whatever technique used, within the range of motion, the effectiveness should be around 70-80% the range of motion, this gives you another 20-30% extra, in case you need it. Some techniques have the arm extended more than others, such as a spear hand to the eyes. Some have the angle at the elbow at 90 degrees or less, like the hook punch. Point here is it is dependent on the technique. If you look at the hook punch, there is really no extension of the arm, it is fixed angle at the elbow. If you look at the one-inch punch, there is also really no extension of the arm, it is a fixed angle at the elbow. If you look at the jab, the arm does extend. All techniques have movement, however, and thus they have a measurable range of motion. I could argue that having a fixed angle at the elbow for a punch hits the hardest. We could then determine the best fixed angle based on the power generating mechanics used. The only point that extension becomes a difference maker is if you are out of range and need to extend more or conversely, you are extending too much and risk injury. This is why in shadow boxing you tend to extend out about 50%, because you are striking in the air. If you go slower, you can extend out more safely. As for the effectiveness of one-inch punch, it is like breaking boards, it demonstrates mechanics but does not demonstrate application. A one-inch punch should have no "bounce back". Meaning that if you hit with X amount of force, then X amount of force goes into the target. Compare this to maybe a badly done karate reverse punch that might hit with Y amount of force, but due to bad structure and incorrect pivot points, half of that force actually is going in the opposite direction so really you are hitting with 50% of the potential force into the target. So IMHO, the application of one-inch punch mechanics is in situations and on targets where a "stiff arm" would make sense. Edit: I'm mean in situations as a follow-up to a stiff arm. For example, I chop/stiff arm to the inside of the opponents shoulder to stop their momentum. From there, after stopping their momentum, one-inch punch to the soft tissue on the inside of the shoulder OR to the chin (this is one of my favorites... in inch sucker punch to the chin done with a horizontal fist rather than vertical.)
I'd need to see some data for that. I'm not convinced it's anywhere near as simple as that. Every minute you waste on the one inch punch is a minute you could have been training. Replace "one inch punch" with "chi blast" and it becomes more silly.
No, you are right, it isn't that simple. It is only a test for technique. If your technique is effective at 70-80% range of motion, then it is considered good technique, because that gives you another 20% range of motion to add range and power beyond what is needed to be effective. If you need to extend to 90%, just to be effective, then that only leaves you 10% margin for error. Using grappling as an example, if you get the tap out on an arm bar at 70% range of motion, then that gives you another 30% range of motion to actually break the arm as necessary. If you struggle to get a tap out at 90% range of motion, then that isn't good because you would only have 10% left to actually break. So for punching, if you can stun or nearly knock out at 70% range of motion, that gives you the rest to actually knock out. I also use effort as the another measure of good technique. If your effort is 70-80% and your technique is effective, that is good. But that is a different conversation. In the case of effort, you want your 70-80% effort technique to be knock out as a sign of good technique. Why is it a waste of time unless you are building bad habits? One inch punch demonstrates a mechanic used by pretty much all lead straight punches. The one inch punch should be worked on at about 7 or 8 inches from the target (not one inch). Then progressively move closer. One issue is all the bad ways to train it. Most people pull their hand away, even Bruce Lee did this, and strike. The whole purpose of one-inch punch is to learn NOT to pull the hand away but to learn to align the body to strike (which can involve moving the hand) and then striking. Point being that once the body is aligned to strike, the punch should just happen... no extra movement to draw the hand away. This is important in striking because you want any movement away to be part of natural recovery, which is done with relaxation. If you purposely withdraw to add power to a strike, that becomes a bad habit that telegraphs your strikes rather than a subtle movement that does not reveal your next attack.
https://youtu.be/jvCHk_kKpVI In the 1920's Jack Dempsey wrote a book on boxing in which he describes what he thought of as nearly a lost art: knock out power punching as performed by bare knuckle fighters of the nineteenth century and as was vital to self defense. The description he gave was identical to the description of kime being discussed. Since I'm not aware of this concept pre-existing in karate before Nakayama sensei introduced it to JKA shotokan students, I'm pretty sure he took the idea from Dempsey. If this is correct (and even if it isn't) the video clip shows how applied kime should look.
You never used a hammer before? From my brief study in Shotokan, it was focus or concentrated effort. One of the main purposes of Tameshiwari. One may ponder; how can be this be done in a quick-fight-confrontation?
Much appreciated for the input. I want it so badly, hopefully I'll understand how to tense up at the end of my technique some day.
