Straight Strikes Vs Circular Strikes

[marks]

Each type of strike can be used for different situations but which types of strikes do feel tend to be more effective, straight or circular.


MarksChat Fighting and Training Methods for Unarmed Martial Artists

 

[Vector_X]

I prefer the straight over a looping strike. Basically the straight is quicker because a straight line is shorter than a circular one. Second, I can get my hips and shoulders behind a straight as opposed to just my shoulder and arm so it packs a bit more pain.

 

[Rinksterk**]

Weird question.

Depends highly on the individual and situation.

 

[Chonbody]

Do you plan on training, 'cuz you should.

To answer your question, it depends, I personally prefer the straight unless the dude you are hitting is wobblin', and even then you're taking the risk of him catching you with a "straight" punch.

 

[Soul Rebel]

Depends on the situation, generally I would chooses straights but hooks pack alot of punch and probaly have more KO power.

 

[Azy]

I would say the straight unless you are built like a brick and naturally feel better going for hooks. Ever seen an old man punch? Very straight, little effort and hurts like hell.

 

[Vector_X]

So my question is does he consider a hook a circular strike or is he talking about a real looping hook? My hook of course has a circular motion, but I tend to keep my hook in tight and since I don't do MMA I would rarely throw a really looping hook. This kind of question I think is probably being asked by someone who hasn't trained because everyone I'd hope knows that you really do need both so I guess the answer is yes please.

 

[marks]

I would say the straight unless you are built like a brick and naturally feel better going for hooks. Ever seen an old man punch? Very straight, little effort and hurts like hell.

Very true. The elder people do tend to pick there punches and generally use straight ones.

 

[No Quarter]

The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.

 

[Gavin Smith]

Personally I prefer circular (I'm assuming the ts means hooks and upper cuts, not just big over hand haymakers)
But thats just my style, I'm agressive and I like to fight on the inside.

Obviously you need to mix them in with straight punches to be effective, as someone already pointed out "the shortest distance between two points is indead a straight line"

 

[hulkout]

I think with straight punches, you have a better chance of landing it, but with circular punches, they pack more power. Jabs and crosses are faster, but if you get hit with a hard hook punch or a sow choy (from Choy Lay Fut), it's lights out.

 

[fightingrabbit]

This'll be somewhat of a lengthy lesson in history and fisticuffs. here goes..

Read in a book that a straight is where its at. It mentioned that years ago, when we were still using swords as main weapons of combat and war. There were many different sword designs used for war.

Some regions of the world developed round curve bladed swords designed primarily for slicing and cutting. These curved swords however had limited effect against the enemies armor. As they were meant for slicing and not penetrating. Thus making it only so effective in battle.

They mentioned that the Romans were on 'point' (no pun intended) with their Gladius short sword and shield. As this sword was made for cutting also but MAINLY stabbing and thrusting. It was also made shorter so its distance to the enemy in battle was less and it was quicker and more capable of thrusting through armor into the vital points because it had a 'straight' sharp point.

As opposed to the curved sword having to swing it sideways making it a slower path of travel to reach the enemy, and being only able to inflict lacerations but not being able to poke through armor.

Now lets take a look at how it correlates with boxing. You got your hook (circular strike) and you got your jab and straight right.

The way the hook is thrown only gives you so much penetration. As its thrown circular and on an arc. Those of you who box a little know a hook is relatively easy to negate and block with just a glove or arm up.

A straight or jab like the Roman Gladius however, offers much more power, thrust and penetration as well as being quicker on the draw. You can shoot the straight far into his abdomen, face, poke it through the openings in his guard. Where as the hook, you're limited to banging away on his guard just like the curved sword trying to slice through armor. You see the relation?

In theory our arms are like swords and we use them in almost the same way. To parry, to thrust, to swing. Just like we would in a sword fight.

Its amazing how sword combat and its theories influenced the science of Boxing so much huh? I found it fascinating myself.

 

[Rinksterk**]

This'll be somewhat of a lengthy lesson in history and fisticuffs. here goes..

Read in a book that a straight is where its at. It mentioned that years ago, when we were still using swords as main weapons of combat and war. There were many different sword designs used for war.

Some regions of the world developed round curve bladed swords designed primarily for slicing and cutting. These curved swords however had limited effect against the enemies armor. As they were meant for slicing and not penetrating. Thus making it only so effective in battle.

They mentioned that the Romans were on 'point' (no pun intended) with their Gladius short sword and shield. As this sword was made for cutting also but MAINLY stabbing and thrusting. It was also made shorter so its distance to the enemy in battle was less and it was quicker and more capable of thrusting through armor into the vital points because it had a 'straight' sharp point.

As opposed to the curved sword having to swing it sideways making it a slower path of travel to reach the enemy, and being only able to inflict lacerations but not being able to poke through armor.

Now lets take a look at how it correlates with boxing. You got your hook (circular strike) and you got your jab and straight right.

The way the hook is thrown only gives you so much penetration. As its thrown circular and on an arc. Those of you who box a little know a hook is relatively easy to negate and block with just a glove or arm up.

A straight or jab like the Roman Gladius however, offers much more power, thrust and penetration as well as being quicker on the draw. You can shoot the straight far into his abdomen, face, poke it through the openings in his guard. Where as the hook, you're limited to banging away on his guard just like the curved sword trying to slice through armor. You see the relation?

In theory our arms are like swords and we use them in almost the same way. To parry, to thrust, to swing. Just like we would in a sword fight.

Its amazing how sword combat and its theories influenced the science of Boxing so much huh? I found it fascinating myself.

no offense dude, but that's not a very good argument. The gladius was short because the technology at the time didn't have the ability to make long swords. Swords became much longer as technology advanced. Look at the swords from the medieval period. Roman swords got longer in the later period as well. If shorter swords were better, why would they make them longer and abandon short swords? and straight swords aren't necessarily better than curved swords either. the japanese katana is curved and samurai weren't exactly lightly armored.

I think just like anything else, each weapon or punch has its place depending on your opponent and situation. There's a reason people developed straight swords, curved swords, spears, flails, and so on. Some dudes are more susceptible of eating hooks, some dudes have trouble defending straights.

 

[WNYguy]

You clearly need both. Getting in/closing the distance is usually best done with straights, cause they have more reach, while in tight hooking punches can cover angles straights can't and catch an opponenent in a blind spot etc... One is not better than the other its like high kicks v low kicks, use them both and they both land more. :icon_twis

 

[Smw]

It's different for everyone, but for me personally it would be the straight punches. I'm a boxer for the most part and I rely on the quickness of my jab and cross.

 

[Stand-Up!]

You don't really need to throw too many hooks in MMA. The gloves are so small you can throw straight down the pipe all day. It's all really relative to whether you are doing boxing or MMA. We spar with 14 0z. gloves in our MMA class. Big-ass gloves change the game completely.

 

[right hand lead]

i prefer straight punches. suits me better since im taller than most people around my weight