R127
Member
So you are going by plates rather than text for which knuckles are being struck with? I could argue for or against most any knuckle being used based on those and other illustrations. As I recall there are even a few plates in Walker that appear to have the middle joints striking the side of the face.
Actually, as far as striking with the "large knuckles at the base of the fingers", that is lifted straight from the text of the manuals. My reference to KPM was only when he was talking about aiming to hit with the center of the fist with an eye towards using all four, a position he may no longer maintain, I haven't talked to him in a long while. I brought it up because it was a reasonable alternative to the standard top 2 or bottom 3 argument.
The plates are a bit ambiguous about this subject, I can even point you to plates where it appears the wrist is being deliberately canted. Pre-20th century manuals, if they mention anything at all, speak of the large knuckles at the base of the fingers and say nothing about focusing on any specific subset. I have never heard a bottom 3 advocate ever find a pre-20th century text reference to using the pinky, ring and middle fingers, for that matter I've never heard them find any source for that other than Dempsey or someone quoting Dempsey. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying my top 2 is a historically valid argument either, it isn't. Just as there is nothing to support bottom 3 there is nothing to support top 2. If we were really being scholarly about it, we'd be using all 4. I like top 2 because it focuses the blow on a slightly smaller surface area and I can swing against steel and concrete without injuring my knuckles.
Actually, that kind of makes me wonder why there is debate about this subject at all. When I was a child it is great sport amongst the boys and even one or two of the rougher girls to take turns punching the brick walls of the schoolbuildings during recess to see who could take the most, not to mention games of bloody knuckles. Perhaps some people are just not so-constructed to have fists useful for duty as striking weapons. Or maybe it's just those who have been using their fists all their lives simply have better conditioning.
Anyway, if you're not breaking your knuckles and I'm not breaking mine, this debate is purely academic and aside from presenting my case I'm not worried about making any converts. If bottom 3 is working for you then I'd say you've found your answer.
Actually, as far as striking with the "large knuckles at the base of the fingers", that is lifted straight from the text of the manuals. My reference to KPM was only when he was talking about aiming to hit with the center of the fist with an eye towards using all four, a position he may no longer maintain, I haven't talked to him in a long while. I brought it up because it was a reasonable alternative to the standard top 2 or bottom 3 argument.
The plates are a bit ambiguous about this subject, I can even point you to plates where it appears the wrist is being deliberately canted. Pre-20th century manuals, if they mention anything at all, speak of the large knuckles at the base of the fingers and say nothing about focusing on any specific subset. I have never heard a bottom 3 advocate ever find a pre-20th century text reference to using the pinky, ring and middle fingers, for that matter I've never heard them find any source for that other than Dempsey or someone quoting Dempsey. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying my top 2 is a historically valid argument either, it isn't. Just as there is nothing to support bottom 3 there is nothing to support top 2. If we were really being scholarly about it, we'd be using all 4. I like top 2 because it focuses the blow on a slightly smaller surface area and I can swing against steel and concrete without injuring my knuckles.
Actually, that kind of makes me wonder why there is debate about this subject at all. When I was a child it is great sport amongst the boys and even one or two of the rougher girls to take turns punching the brick walls of the schoolbuildings during recess to see who could take the most, not to mention games of bloody knuckles. Perhaps some people are just not so-constructed to have fists useful for duty as striking weapons. Or maybe it's just those who have been using their fists all their lives simply have better conditioning.
Anyway, if you're not breaking your knuckles and I'm not breaking mine, this debate is purely academic and aside from presenting my case I'm not worried about making any converts. If bottom 3 is working for you then I'd say you've found your answer.
