Kenpo Backfist

[warrior-scholar]

Bill "Superfoot" Wallace's most recent article in Black Belt makes the following statement:
"With the arrival of full contact, we found out which punches and kicks worked
and which didn't. For example, the backfist was the No.1 technique in point
fighting, but the minute you put on a glove, it became null and void."

This statement in and of itself doesn't invalidate the use of the backfist for combat.
However, in an interview with Mark Wiley (Martial Arts Talk) Wallace responds to Wiley's statement, "In reality, though, with or without a glove on, there is no power in a backfist," by stating, "NOT AT ALL." Wiley goes on to say that the backfist is one of the biggest myths in the martial arts. Wallace continues this sentiment, "I agree, but it is a good weapon if you have a bare knuckle...which can tear skin or break a nose."

Although Wallace's words may seem self-contradictory on the surface, I think his intention is clear. How do you respond to these statements, keeping in mind the prolific use of the backfist in our curriculum?

[administrator]

The backfist is one of the arm's fastest strikes - that is why it has always been a favorite in point sparring. In the 70s, when we were not allowed to use pads for sparring, I witnessed, and delivered, knockouts with a backfist. Boxers and kickboxers have learned the most efficient strikes for their sport. Because gloves nullify the penetration of a backfist, the effectiveness is greatly reduced. Therefore, jabs, which have more back-up mass, are more favored for those sports. However, if you watch old films of Muhammed Ali, you will see him knocking out opponent's with a backfist (gloves on). Of course, he was an exceptional fighter.

The bottom line is, you have to think of what you are trying to accomplish with a backfist. A knockout can be made, but you have to have pin-point accuracy. The backfist should be considered a primary strike to bridge the gap for powerful follows ups and combinations that will do more damage.
Joe Lewis suggests using an open handed backfist to flick the finger tips into the opponent's eyes. His suggestion, if the opponent can't see you, he can't hit you.

Kevin Lamkin

[administrator]

Originally Posted by Xperience
a regular old backhand hits pretty hard, and is a great set-up shot; especially when followed by multiple open-handed strikes I agree, that what I said ;)

Originally Posted by administrator
The backfist should be considered a primary strike to bridge the gap for powerful follows ups and combinations that will do more damage. Kevin Lamkin

[administrator]

Gotcha,

The assumption that I made on the original post is regarding a whipping back fist. However, the outward roundhousing back knuckle strike definitely generates tremendous power.

Kevin Lamkin

[Xperience]

I agree, that what I said ;)

Kevin Lamkin


HI KEVIN ~
I see that we do agree, but all assumptions aside; As we may agree on technique, my hand is 'open', where your's is closed. However, according to circumstance, your hand may be open, where mine is closed. Yin-Yang is like that my friend.

:) RWL

P.S. As you may have guessed, I prefer open-handed strikes, to close-handed strikes. They seem to lend themselves to nerve center strikes, quite readily. However, don't get me wrong, fists are fine too.