Question 118: Horizontal v. Vertical fist

Counter Reply

As for the Vertical vs. Horizontal fist debate, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. However, I just can't let it go without clarifying some of my ambiguous comments. I don’t want my main point to get lost in all tverbiage. My only point was this. You implied that because boxers don't use a vertical punch it stands to reason that it is no better than a horizontal punch. That sounds reasonable to me since punching is a boxer’s profession. 

I was pointing out that in fact when boxers fought bare knuckles most boxers did use a vertical punch. It was only after gloves were added to the sport that horizontal punching became the norm. To show this I included links to boxing manuals from that time. Following your reasoning in the article, I would assume that there was a reason for that? Can you tell me why they punched vertical before gloves and horizontal after? Is it because those old guys who just did not figure it out? My belief is that it was to protect the bare hand and wrist (based on my experience, with bare knuckle fights) what do you think the reason is? I'm not saying it is good because it is old, but punching bare knuckled was their profession, why would they do it vertically? Lastly I just want to clarify; I conceded that personally I do not think it is possible to say which is more powerful. There are too many variables in a given situation. I was only giving the "standard" explanation that Bruce Lee, and others give. That is that less energy is lost through the elbow with a vertical punch. (Again, I won't say that because it depends on to many angles, movements, positions bla, bla, bla...