Urban said:
you're probably right now that I think about it. Going from nothing to something is a tremendous and sudden increase in accelleration which probably won't be matched at the end. But barring the very beginning and the very end of the strike, it's not SO unlikely is it?
No, it's not unlikely.
In fact, the more I thought about this, the more I realized how difficult it would be to maintain or increase acceleration at the beginning of a punch, especially because that's where leverage is poorest.
I think the point of confusion here was due to the fact that acceleration can be either a scalar or vector quantity depending on whether it is derived from distance or displacement.
I know all the technical language can suck the joy out these ideas, but it can also breathe life into them for me if I really focus on the concepts, not the language. For example, I too often fall into the habit of thinking that equal lifts by powerlifters reflects equal "strength", but being lazy, I am not concrete in my own head as to what "strength" really means. Because in reality, the force will differ depending on the distance the weight is moved. A powerlifter may lose a competition even though he is capable of producing the most force.
Another example: I too often think of the terms of physics as separate. I see "P=FV" and I think of force and velocity as being independent, but in reality, physics doesn't work like that at all. If something is moving, it is carrying energy. Velocity
is force. Force
is velocity. Nothing in the universe is truly mass-less, so thinking in those terms is counter-intuitive. This can be useful for the math- for the proofs- but it has never seemed a coincidence to me that most of the greatest physicists were actually mediocre mathematicians. They wouldn't get caught up thinking in numbers. From what I've read of string theory, maybe that won't be possible anymore, but...the next time you use string theory to plan your workout, bring that up.
. 
