The REAL Reasons why some people punch harder

[eco1]

My uncle who is about 5'8" and might be 145 with wet clothes has put down everyone he faced when he was young.

I think no one really knows what makes anyone punch harder than someone else.

[real raw]

How you throw a punch is the most important factor. You have to create power through leverage. You can do that by setting your feet and using your hips and body to turn your body into a slingshot and your hand into the stone being propelled by the slingshot. Wilder learned how to do this well. Alot of skinny big power guys learn it.

Big guys, like Holmes, Foreman, etc, were so big that when they set down on their punches and put their hips into it, a punch was nasty.

Creating leverage and delivering at the end of the punch is the key. All people can deliver a KO punch if landed on the temple or jaw correctly. Most great punchers were very accurate. Landing a punch on the button is a real skill.

Being stronger, having big muscles, fast twitch, big hands, etc, can all make it easier to achieve. But learning how to create power through leverage and practicing accuracy is the most important thing in producing KO power.

The thread can end right here.

[real raw]

the most important aspect of punching power is who you are fighting. wilder has a 100 percent ko ratio against bums and non ranked fighters and only 25 percent against ranked fighters so the key is just to fight bums to be powerful

It amazes me when people make these statements because the couldn't knock out as many opponents as Wilder has if Wilder hit em first.

[Marchegiano]

Nope, it's kinematic chains.


Dunno why y'all love to guess at a physics question. It's simple and easy.


Why CAN'T nunchucks transfer as much power as an equally sized unbroken stick? Kinematic chains.

Why CAN'T a jab equal a jolt thrown by the same man? Kinematic chains.

Why would you use the much smaller weighed and sized ball-peen hammer to shape metals when the sledge is available? Kinematic chains.

Why would you sail into wind and expect to go forward? Kinematic chains



It's basic physics, I don't say that to point out y'all dumb, I'm sure it was just not presented to you, point is you can understand it, it's easy, just look it up and then watch boxing over again with new eyes.

[JakeTheBoxer]

Wilder`s power was the speed of his right hand punch. When he lost the speed, he lost everything.

Zhang`s power are his heavy hands. his power will be there even at 50+ of age. It is called old men`s strenght.

[crimsonfalcon07]

Nope, it's kinematic chains.


Dunno why y'all love to guess at a physics question. It's simple and easy.


Why CAN'T nunchucks transfer as much power as an equally sized unbroken stick? Kinematic chains.

Why CAN'T a jab equal a jolt thrown by the same man? Kinematic chains.

Why would you use the much smaller weighed and sized ball-peen hammer to shape metals when the sledge is available? Kinematic chains.

Why would you sail into wind and expect to go forward? Kinematic chains



It's basic physics, I don't say that to point out y'all dumb, I'm sure it was just not presented to you, point is you can understand it, it's easy, just look it up and then watch boxing over again with new eyes.

Kinda funny that you're talking about physics, and using a physics buzzword, but the physical laws behind your example are all very different, and some actually have fugh-all to do with kinematic chains.

For reference, a kinematic chain refers to an interconnected system of rigid bodies connected by joints that has a specific type of determined motion. While that would indeed apply to the human body, it has little to do with a sail in wind, as those are unconnected by a joint, and the explanation has everything to do with force vectors.

Nunchucks don't transfer power in the same way as a rigid stick because upon impact, the target exerts and equal and opposite reaction (Newton's third law) and force transfer is affected by structure. They're only impacting with effectively half as much mass, BUT they're also capable of moving faster than a stick, which can, when properly used, actually increase the amount of force relative to an equally sized stick. There's a very specific technique to using them, and frankly, they're IMO a less useful weapon if only because a stick is a much more accessible and straightforward weapon. But in any case, saying it's due to kinematic chains is rather silly, because they're both effectively kinematic chain systems, just one has an additional joint, or series of joints, depending on how you look at it, which affects the math. Just saying kinematic chains doesn't actually explain the phenomenon in the slightest.

The ball peen vs the sledge is about mass and efficiency at the task, and frankly, as someone who's been making knives and swords as a hobby for the last 15 years, many smiths use ball peen hammers far more often then sledgehammers. Work that would potentially involve a sledge is either done with a specific style of forging hammer if you're doing old school, or with a power hammer or press if you're serious. The type of hammer you use is much more about shape to determine HOW you move the metal, and the most common forging hammers are all 1.5 lb or under for most smiths, not heavy sledges.

I agree that anyone who wants to understand the physics of boxing better should read about kinematic chains, but they're not exactly simple and easy things. The human body has around 350 joints, so a chain equation for a punch or a kick that is done with proper technique would be quite long...

[Marchegiano]

Kinda funny that you're talking about physics, and using a physics buzzword, but the physical laws behind your example are all very different, and some actually have fugh-all to do with kinematic chains.

For reference, a kinematic chain refers to an interconnected system of rigid bodies connected by joints that has a specific type of determined motion. While that would indeed apply to the human body, it has little to do with a sail in wind, as those are unconnected by a joint, and the explanation has everything to do with force vectors.

Nunchucks don't transfer power in the same way as a rigid stick because upon impact, the target exerts and equal and opposite reaction (Newton's third law) and force transfer is affected by structure. They're only impacting with effectively half as much mass, BUT they're also capable of moving faster than a stick, which can, when properly used, actually increase the amount of force relative to an equally sized stick. There's a very specific technique to using them, and frankly, they're IMO a less useful weapon if only because a stick is a much more accessible and straightforward weapon. But in any case, saying it's due to kinematic chains is rather silly, because they're both effectively kinematic chain systems, just one has an additional joint, or series of joints, depending on how you look at it, which affects the math. Just saying kinematic chains doesn't actually explain the phenomenon in the slightest.

The ball peen vs the sledge is about mass and efficiency at the task, and frankly, as someone who's been making knives and swords as a hobby for the last 15 years, many smiths use ball peen hammers far more often then sledgehammers. Work that would potentially involve a sledge is either done with a specific style of forging hammer if you're doing old school, or with a power hammer or press if you're serious. The type of hammer you use is much more about shape to determine HOW you move the metal, and the most common forging hammers are all 1.5 lb or under for most smiths, not heavy sledges.

I agree that anyone who wants to understand the physics of boxing better should read about kinematic chains, but they're not exactly simple and easy things. The human body has around 350 joints, so a chain equation for a punch or a kick that is done with proper technique would be quite long...

Just because you got lost by what I said doesn't mean I'm wrong about anything I presented.

Funny how you correct me with incorrect verbiage while claiming some level of understanding above my own. So, rather than play your game I suggest we just present our credentials.

What proof have you that you are anything more than an internet schlub who didn't understand what he's reading while having the answer you are looking for in your own response?

You can watch me on your television for mine. Should you question if I am the man you see on these documentaries, that's as simple as my uploading a new photo isn't it? So, if you are going to step to me in such a disrespectful way, rather than, you know, asking what I mean; I really hope you're Neil DeGrasse Tyson or some ****. It's really the only mountain left to climb for me. Not get on television for my work, because I've done that, but rather be on television for my work often enough I am a household name like Neil or Carl.

Discovery Channel, TLC, Showtime, CBS, I can actually go on. What networks, what credentials, let's prove who we are right here. If you are big enough to actually win this, that's cool, at least we all get some insights for a massively famous physics authority.

But, I'm betting real hard you're just some ******* who might maybe have a degree, like I'll give you a four year, but do you really know what you're talking about or did you look up what I was suggesting and get confused as to why I used the examples I used?

Do, you, do you really want to go to bat on how kinematic chains can't be used to explain the difference between a stick and a nunchuck before you even ask me why that particular example was used?


Bet, betting pretty hard too, at this point you wish you didn't make this a pissing contest right out of the gate. What a ****.







Or, in short, all the homies done know me because I've been on your ****ing TVs like 10-15 times depending on where on the planet you live. Who TF are you?

[crimsonfalcon07]

Just because you got lost by what I said doesn't mean I'm wrong about anything I presented.

Funny how you correct me with incorrect verbiage while claiming some level of understanding above my own. So, rather than play your game I suggest we just present our credentials.

What proof have you that you are anything more than an internet schlub who didn't understand what he's reading while having the answer you are looking for in your own response?

You can watch me on your television for mine. Should you question if I am the man you see on these documentaries, that's as simple as my uploading a new photo isn't it? So, if you are going to step to me in such a disrespectful way, rather than, you know, asking what I mean; I really hope you're Neil DeGrasse Tyson or some ****. It's really the only mountain left to climb for me. Not get on television for my work, because I've done that, but rather be on television for my work often enough I am a household name like Neil or Carl.

Discovery Channel, TLC, Showtime, CBS, I can actually go on. What networks, what credentials, let's prove who we are right here. If you are big enough to actually win this, that's cool, at least we all get some insights for a massively famous physics authority.

But, I'm betting real hard you're just some ******* who might maybe have a degree, like I'll give you a four year, but do you really know what you're talking about or did you look up what I was suggesting and get confused as to why I used the examples I used?

Do, you, do you really want to go to bat on how kinematic chains can't be used to explain the difference between a stick and a nunchuck before you even ask me why that particular example was used?


Bet, betting pretty hard too, at this point you wish you didn't make this a pissing contest right out of the gate. What a ****.







Or, in short, all the homies done know me because I've been on your ****ing TVs like 10-15 times depending on where on the planet you live. Who TF are you?

Whoa there. I'm not claiming a level of understanding beyond yours. I'm saying that I think kinematic chains are not as straightforward as you claimed and explained why I believe that. I don't have any idea who you are. Your screen name appears to be a reference to a famous boxer who died in 1969, and if you're some extremely knowledgeable person, I'd honestly really appreciate a more detailed explanation from your vast wealth of knowledge. I'm not such a small minded person that I'm not interested in learning from an expert. I've spent the last 12 years teaching how to maximize striking power in the USAF, so if you've got some special insights to share, then please have at it. I happily bow down to your great expertise, great expert who's been on TV, and I apologize for not knowing who you are, even with your mentions of popular TV channels.

The definition of kinematic chain is what I said it was, to the best of my knowledge. I've also done enough forging with the likes of Jason Knight, Dan Keffeler, Kyle Royer and more to know a fair amount about that, and to know that lighter hammers are much more common in blacksmithing and more widely used than sledges. As far as sticks and nunchucks go, I literally said they were indeed kinematic chains, but that they're both effectively kinematic chains, so just calling them that doesn't really provide relevant information. So I'm certainly unclear on why you're upset about any of that.

One of the things that drives me nuts here is that I provide details and concepts that are independently verifiable to back up my arguments, and get responses like this, which are completely absent ANY kind of verifiable details of any kind, non responsive to the argument at hand, and textbook logical fallacies to boot, in this case the common fallacy "appeal to authority". Feel free to look that one up. The intent wasn't to claim supremacy over you, although your initial post certainly seemed that way. Since you have some deep knowledge, feel free to have at it. This specific topic is my job and passion, and I get challenged by boots and other instructors all the time who have prior experience in martial arts gyms, and love to use catch phrases about kinetic chains or old truisms about "power comes from the ground up", but it's rare to get someone who really understands the concepts behind that and has the knowledge to elucidate them in such a way that a trainee can easily grasp it. I really love discussing the topic, and I get that I sometimes come off wrong.

For my part, claimed credentials on the Internet are completely worthless. I need the detailed explanations to improve my knowledge, and would really appreciate your time in providing me the opportunity to benefit from your knowledge. In return, I deeply apologize for having made you feel you were being challenged and kowtow to your TV mountains that you've climbed. I'm happy to accept the notion that you know more. But perhaps if someone who gets paid by the DOD to teach about unarmed combat can misunderstand your examples on kinematic chains, they're not as straightforward as you suggested, and maybe you're just actually smarter than everyone else, and you could go easier on us forum peons?

[billeau2]

These traits give people more punching power (correct me if im wrong )
• Fast Twitch muscle fibers
• Strength
• Flat stomach
• Big hands
• More weight
• Short Torso
• Small waist
• Big hands
• Big arms
• More weight
• stable joints

A lot of punching is technique. As a martial artist I notice that there is a tendency to preselect a fighter's capability. In other words, we assume paulie Malinogi was never going to be a slugger, and Wilder never a boxer. Explosiveness is just a form of muscle memory. If you learn to explode into your shots, the body will create your fast twitch fibers, and more important: your tendon strength will increase. Strength is also relative. Punching is better for useable strength like that of a rock climber who has to use every muscle down to his fingers when climbing, as opposed to a weight lifter. Big hands do help.

Weight can be very important keeping in mind, where we place our weight on impact has a lot to do with effectivness, perhaps more than how much we weigh. The other categories are redundent with the exception of the last (stable joints). Joints stabilize with proper form and technique. There are many ways to develop punching technique that is effective and all of them require using the joints as intended.

[billeau2]

the most important aspect of punching power is who you are fighting. wilder has a 100 percent ko ratio against bums and non ranked fighters and only 25 percent against ranked fighters so the key is just to fight bums to be powerful

You know how silly that sounds? I believe that you think this is true which is sad Duhgum...