18 posts / 0 new
Last post
JuhaK
JuhaK's picture
Okinawan fist

Just saw post about Donnie Abel newsletter and top 5 punching mistakes. Perhaps this has already been discussed here but I didn't found any. Anyway that video makes me think about Okinawan fist, I suppose you all know what that is and my question is quite simple. They say it makes fist stronger but does it really? Does someone have better knowledge about human anatomy and physic? What this kind of fist is supposed to do?

I have practiced karate 6-7 years and last 2 years Okinawan fist, so I know I still have lot to learn how to punch properly, but this Okinawan fist doesn't seem to make any difference. It was nice experiment but for me it doesn't matter how my index finger is folded.

-JuhaK

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

JuhaK wrote:
… that video makes me think about Okinawan fist …

The “Okinawan fist” may need defining because not everyone will be familiar with that term. Some people – a relatively small minority it seems to me – call having the index finger straight the “Okinawan fist”. The fist formation appears in a few places; perhaps most notably in Funakoshi’s books.

In his 1922 book (Ryukyu Kempo Karate), the drawing seems to show a standard fist … but it’s not the best of illustrations and that could be the tip of the index finger under the thumb?

The printing plates for Ryukyu Kempo Karate were destroyed in an earthquake in 1923. However, demand for the book was great enough to justify a new edition – complete with new photographs and illustrations – and that became the 1925 book “Rentan Goshin Karate Jutsu”. In that book, the photo clearly shows the index finger extended, but the text does not give a clear reason why. However, it does state that (my highlights):

“When striking a makiwara, the FOUR contact points are the knuckles and the MIDDLE JOINTS of the index and middle fingers.”

It is clear that the intent was to hit, not just with the front two knuckles, but also with the middle joints of those fingers too. The practicality of that strikes me as very questionable, but I’ll park that concern for a moment. Again, there is no explanation in the text for the straight index finger … but all becomes clear in Funakoshi’s 1935 book (Karate-Do Kyohan):

We can again see the FOUR contact points emphasised and Funakoshi explains how this is linked to the index finger:

“The photograph shows the fist. The index and middle fingers should be parallel [i.e. flat]. The four points on the index and middle finger (shown by the white dots) are to strike the enemy simultaneously. The reason why you don’t bend the fingertip of the index finger is to make it parallel [flat] to the index finger. In this way, the four contact points can strike the enemy at the same time, and there is no danger of hurting the hand. Although, at first, it takes an effort to make your fist in this way, it will be come easier when you practise it for a few days.”

This explanation is also repeated in the 1958 second edition of the book, and the 1973 English translation by Tsutomu Ohshima (that 1973 version being the one most people have).

Putting all of this together it seems to that the purpose of the straight index finger tip was to push the middle joint of that finger further forward to produce a flat surface made up of the proximal phalanges of the index and middle fingers.

JuhaK wrote:
They say it makes fist stronger but does it really?

Short answer, no! The more nuanced answer would be, possibly … IF, and only if, you are hitting another flat surface – such as a makiwara – as this “flat to flat” impact will spread the force across a larger area. This could allow repeated hits and harder hits because the pressure is not concentrated in the knuckles alone.

I am very confident this is a practise that developed as a result of the makiwara being the primary piece of impact equipment at the time. Also, worth noting that Funakoshi does link this fist directly to the makiwara in his original book: “When striking a makiwara, the four contact points are …”.

In Karate-Do Kyohan, Funakoshi also writes, “ … and there is no danger of hurting the hand” and I can’t see how this is true when striking the ununiform human body – with all its curves, lumps, bumps and hard bits – but I can see how the chance of damaging the hand could be reduced on the makiwara because of the larger surface area and the flat to flat contact.

People using this fist may be able to hit the makiwara longer and harder than those who were taking all the force on the front two knuckles alone … it could therefore "seem" to be stronger ... BUT that is entirely dependent on the fact it is the makiwara that is being hit. It’s effectively a “makiwara hack”.

The makiwara has its place, but when it’s the primary piece of impact we can have problems because it’s very poor analogue for the human body. We see this elsewhere too with things like, “you must keep the back leg locked and the heel down to deal with the “back shock”. Again, that’s specific to the makiwara alone.

I think this fist formation is the cart leading the horse in that people are now training to hit the training tool (hit the makiwara with a flat fist), as opposed to using the training tool to ensure good impact in reality (strike with a natural fist).

It also worth pointing out that not all karateka of the past employed this fist when hitting the makiwara. Choki Motobu, when describing makiwara training in his 1926 book, “Okinawa Kenpo Karate-Jutsu Kumite” wrote:

“You should strike the makiwara with the first and second knuckles of the index and middle finger”

(more info on that here: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/16999#comment-16999)

We can also see a standard fist formation, with the points of contact being the front two knuckles, in Kenwa Mabuni’s 1938 book, “Kobo Kenpo Karate-Do Nyumon”:

It would be a mistake to think that the fist formation Funakoshi describes was universal in Okinawan karate (hence “Okinawan Fist” is an inaccurate label). Mabuni and Motobu are also hugely influential and important Okinanwan karateka, and they made use of the standard fist.

As I say, I am very confident this is a “makiwara hack” used by some karateka, and mistakenly seen as being combatively optimal as a result. It is not something that I feel has any combative utility, and it’s certainly substandard when compared to the standard fist.

The standard fist is more natural. It is quicker to assume, and it is in accord with our natural instincts and physiology. Curling all four fingers into a fist is one of the first things babies do after they are born. It’s also way easier to switch hand positions i.e. from grips, from parries, from open hand strikes, to the standard fist and back again. Keeping the tip of the index finger straight gives no discernible advantage, is fiddly and has many potential problems. I’d never use it.

There are a few other things worth mentioning about that fist formation.  

In his Dynamic Karate book (1966), Masatoshi Nakayama remarks that the fist was widely used up until the 1930s, but then fell out of favour. He puts the decline in its use down to its difficulty to form, and the fact he feels the resulting fist is loose in places. However, he does say that, with practise, both can be effective.

Some attribute a geographical location to the fist, but there’s not much to support this and the locations are often contradictory i.e. I’ve heard it referred to as a “shuri-fist” (“because the standard fist was used in naha-te”) and a “naha-fist” (“because the standard fist was used in shuri-te”). Funakoshi clearly used the fist, and I know of plenty of Goju people who have referenced it too. Mabuni trained in the karate of both areas, and he used the standard first. Attempts to link it to a specific region therefore fail on all counts.

One other “explanation” for the fist is that the finger is extended to press on nerve / chi points when the hand is used to grip the enemy’s wrist. This fails to explain why the formation is used for striking, and there are the usual problems of expectations of precision in combat, the total lack of evidence for meridians actually existing, etc. It’s is out there though and hence I felt I should include it here.

To summarise:

1) The simplest explanation for the fist is that it provides a flat surface, which is potentially useful for striking the flat surface of the makiwara. That in no way means it is better for combat; indeed, I would suggest it is far less useful.  

2) Although once widely used in karate – in many styles and geographic locations – it largely fell out of favour in the 1930s (although not entirely). It’s also important to note that the standard fist was also widely used; so the “straight index finger version" should not be seen as being the “historically authentic” one.

3) The standard fist is more natural and should be the default option; which is why the standard fist is the “standard fist”. Although the point of impact may vary (front two knuckles or back three) the fist formation is common across pretty much all combative systems (including much of the karate of the past and almost all of karate today) … and that should tell us something. The fact it was only used by some karateka, for a given period of time when the makiwara was the dominant tool for impact training, should also tell us something.

All the best,

Iain

MichaelB
MichaelB's picture

I was introduced to the Okinawan fist when I was practising shotokan as a young man in the 1970s.

Our Japanese instructors had all been students of Nakayama. Our only striking practice was on home made makiwaras. There was never a connection (no pun intended) suggesting the straight index finger enabled us to strike the makiwara more effectively and with less risk of damage to the hands. In fact, makiwara training was the opposite, as we all wore our blisters and calloused knuckles with some pride!

Iain’s comments about the disadvantages of the okinawan fist are comprehensive, but many were not obvious at the time, as 3K karate excludes throws and grappling.In Okinawa, it may have been a good idea to have the index finger extended for makiwara practice, but as with many of the karate myths that have developed, its use has been taken out of context and misrepresented. 

Slightly off topic to the question, it is the same line of thinking that keeps some believing there is some mystical advantage in hitting a pad of tightly bound straw on the end of a stick and enduring the consequential damage and pain. The masters who gifted karate to us were innovative and forward thinking. I am sure the makiwaras would have been dug up, if they could have accessed modern mitts and striking pads to hit with a natural fist.

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

Thank you. There was a lot of information.

This makes sense.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
1) The simplest explanation for the fist is that it provides a flat surface, which is potentially useful for striking the flat surface of the makiwara. That in no way means it is better for combat; indeed, I would suggest it is far less useful.

But whit this one, I am not sure do I fully agree

Iain Abernethy wrote:
3) The standard fist is more natural and should be the default option
I quess it depends what kind of fist is learned. Like I said I have practised Okinawan fist 2 years and it has come very natural way to make a fist and I don't have any problem with it. I mean both can be "more natural" but you are right Okinawan fist doesn't give any benefits.

JuhaK

ed1chandler
ed1chandler's picture

A question, Iain ...

Iain Abernethy wrote:
It also worth pointing out that not all karateka of the past employed this fist when hitting the makiwara. Choki Motobu, when describing makiwara training in his 1926 book, “Okinawa Kenpo Karate-Jutsu Kumite” wrote:

“You should strike the makiwara with the first and second knuckles of the index and middle finger”

But that is the same fist, isn't it?  The "first and second knuckles of the index and middle finger" describes the same four points.

If I'm reading it incorrectly I want to understand.

Thanks!

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

Something else that springs to mind reading this "The standard fist is more natural. It is quicker to assume" is Hikite.

Hikite is pretty much seizing the enemy by making a fist, but part of their anatomy or clothing gets gripped between the fingers and the palm.  

If we were to adopt the "Okinawan fist" for striking we would have to train with a two different fists, the standard fist for Hikite hand the Okinawan for striking, which would be unnatural, slow, and presumably so confusing as to be pretty much unworkable in a live situation.

Alex. E. Hamilton
Alex. E. Hamilton's picture

Evening All,

As well a karateka for over 35 years I am a Consultant Hand Surgeon.   I’ve never come across the Okinawan Fist before.

From an anatomical perspective I would be worried about the extended knuckle (distal interphalangeal joint - DIPJ, to give it its formal title).  

The joint being extended will tend to cause axial load transmission across the joint surface on hitting a target.  The IP joints in the hand are not evolved to cope with that well.   That type of load would tend to cause what’s called a pilon fracture as the ‘ball’ of the middle phalanx is compressed against the ‘socket’ of the distal phalanx. 

The classic example of this is axial loading while tying to catch a cricket ball or similar which hits the finger end on.  These are difficult often complex intra-articular fractures and can be very difficult to manage.

Starting slowly and gradually such as on a makiwara over an extended period would of course cause adaptive changes such as increase of bone density and the risk of injury from such a technique would decrease over time.

With a traditional fist as the IP joints are flexed the force is not loaded with as much cartilage-to-cartilage contact and is therefore less likely to damage the joint itself.

So, I would urge people not to see the forum conclude that a straight DIPJ is what all the cool kids used to do and immediately start punching differently.  I expect the scope for injury would be quite high.

A second consideration is effectiveness of a punch.  The pressure exerted by a striking object is calculated as Pressure = Force / Area.  So striking with four contact points will impart less pressure than two or one contact.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers All,

Alex

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

When I started training in karate, it was in a style that used that fist formation (they called it the "Shuri fist," as Iain mentioned some do, although I believe Funakoshi's original text called it a "farmer's fist") as the standard, which everyone was required to learn and use by the time they earned their 3rd belt, although I will say that they taught to hit with just the first two knuckles, rather than all four, the way Funakoshi illustrated in his books. I actually still use this fist formation for most of my punching, to this day, and actually don't use the "standard fist" for any of my strikes, that I can think of, so I may be able to provide some input from experience on the matter.

As I mentioned, I was not taught to use the fist for the "four points of contact," so that issue isn't relevant, at least outside of Shotokan, it would seem. One of the things that was told to me was that it made the fist "tighter," but not in the manner most think--it is tighter in that it allows you to pull the index finger further into the fist so that it doesn't stick out, making it LESS likely to make contact when you hit with the two large knuckles. For me, in particular, this was helpful, as making a standard fist leaves my second index knuckle sticking out far enough that I would jam it when I hit something. Now, as Iain has mentioned in a recent video, pretty much no matter how you hit, if you're hitting a body, you're probably going to touch a lot of things with most parts of the front of your fist as you sink into the target, but it's nice to work toward a more ideal option. Of course, not everyone has that issue, so that's an individual assessment.

One other aspect of the "tighter" fist that was mentioned was that it lays the connective tissues over your large index knuckle flatter, making it less prone to injury--specifically "boxer's knuckle," which is a small tear in the tendon going over the knuckle the makes it feel like a needle is poking into it if you put pressure on the knuckle. It does seem to lay flatter, if you feel for it, but I can't confirm whether that does anything for you or not. Personally, I have had boxer's knuckle several times (it's a pretty minor injury, really), but since I have been almost exclusively using this fist, I can't say for certain whether I would have had it more or less using a regular fist. No control group to compare against, as it were.

For me, the biggest benefit to the fist, in my experience, is in aiding alignment of the wrist. I find that it is easier to keep the alignment between forearm and fist flat when the index finger is laid flat in the fist, and this is something I have observed when teaching, as well as my own personal experience. Admittedly, I do not have an answer as to WHY that is the case--only conjecture. My theory is that the index finger, as usual, is acting as a guide, the same way it would if you pointed it at something. This is a mental explanation, rather than a physical one, of course. Physically, I know that my forearm feels different, almost like my flexor muscles in my forearm are pulled tighter, when I use this fist, and it could be that is pulling the fist slightly more into alignment compared to its natural position. As I said, I haven't gone about trying to test these theories with proper control groups and such, but those are my thoughts on the matter, at this point in my training.

Of course, as Iain points out, this is not a natural fist formation, so regardless of anything else, it takes a good deal of time to make it feel natural (I practiced it for probably 5-6 months before I got it down), so in the time it takes to do that, you may just be able to correct peoples' form with the standard fist and make sure their wrist is aligned properly. I still like the way that it feels more stable, so I continue to do it, regardless.

There are some mystical explanations, as Iain also mentioned, but I don't subscribe to those, at all. The most esoteric explanation that I've seen out of Okinawa has been that the fist more closely resembles the grip they teach for weapons in Motobu Udundi, which may be true, but I doubt that there is as strong a connection as Udundi folks seem to think.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

ed1chandler wrote:
A question, Iain ...

Iain Abernethy wrote:
“You should strike the makiwara with the first and second knuckles of the index and middle finger”

ed1chandler wrote:
But that is the same fist, isn't it?  The "first and second knuckles of the index and middle finger" describes the same four points.

Good point! That comes from Eric Shahan’s translation. I read it as “the first and second knuckles of the [fist i.e. the] index and middle finger". However, now that you’ve pointed it out, I can see how it could be read differently.

I also have Ken Tallack’s translation to hand, and he translated the same piece as:

“You should strike the makiwara with the knuckles of the first (index) and second finger”

Which would seem to be more in line with the way I read the other translation.

Time is short today, but I’ve had a quick look at Motobu’s book “Watashi No Karate Jutsu” (as translated by Patrick McCarthy). In the “How to make a clenched fist” section, Motobu writes:

“I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the correct way to clench the fists. First stretch out all four fingers and tightly fold them up under the palm of the hand. Then wrap your thumb around the index fingers and squeeze the first tightly.”

There is nothing about straight index finger, and the accompanying photo also shows a standard fist.

There’s therefore some ambiguity in one of the translations; the second translation suggests standard contact points; and Motobu is very clear he employ’s the “standard fist” in his other writings.

The point that the “straight index finger fist” was not universal, and that the “standard fist” was also widely employed, would therefore seems to stand; with Motobu and Mabuni being good examples.

Thanks for the help clarifying. A link to this post has been added to the relevant section in the one above.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Wastelander wrote:
There are some mystical explanations, as Iain also mentioned, but I don't subscribe to those, at all.

I learnt a few new ones yesterday after I posted the link to this thread! A few “interesting” emails received :-) Largely along the lines of connecting meridians, “energy development”, etc.

I long for the day when the martial arts are the sole domain of martial artists; and the “magicians” wander off to realise that LARP (live action role play) is what they were looking for all along. With LARP you are supposed to have grandiose titles, fantasy combat and people acting as if you have genuine magic powers … not so in the martial arts.

I wonder if we could start a support group? “MA-2-LARP”?

“I used to call myself “Grand Master” and claimed I could “chi” my way out of all violent situations with a combination of iron shirt and no touch KOs … but now, thanks to the support of MA-2-LARP, I am 'Dark Lord Vansadux: Troll Slayer and master of Thunder Magic' ... and I've never been happier!”

All the best,

Iain

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

Wastelander wrote:
There are some mystical explanations, as Iain also mentioned, but I don't subscribe to those, at all.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I learnt a few new ones yesterday after I posted the link to this thread! A few “interesting” emails received :-) Largely along the lines of connecting meridians, “energy development”, etc....

Don't forget the secret of power generation...almighty hikite

JuhaK

AndreaO
AndreaO's picture

Here is why I decided to switch to the "Okinawan fist".

The most commonly mentioned reason, why to use this fist is, that the wrist is more available and there is more dynamic relaxation. It seems to be effective  to knock people out even with boxing gloves on You gain speed and snap.

Coming from Aikido, for me the main reason is, that with this fist you can add a weapon and you have already practiced the right fist. A kubotan you are supposed to hold with the three smallest fingers mostly and this will be practiced with every fist you make. Moreover, also a stick or sword you grab in a similar way. The three smallest fingers move naturally together to form a firm grip, index finger more straight and relaxed.

Also grabbing the opponent's arm or clothes, I always teach to grab this way. Even when you can't quite hold tight, you have some control with the heel of your hand.

And if you want to change the fist to push a nuckle out, it is very easy.

It was awkward at first to make this fist until I figured out to think about the grabbing  movement with the small fingers, instead of trying to just make a fist.

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

I've always been puzzled by this fist. I've experimented with it off and on in the nearly five decades since I first read the Kyohan, and I've never had much success with it. I haven't found any real advantages to it and it's always felt weaker to me (especially on a makiwara). That might be due to personal idiosyncracies, I suppose (e.g., I just might be doing it wrong).

I've never seen any high ranking (or low-ranking, for that matter) Okinawans use this fist, and I've trained with more than a few of them. I don't know if that's just because it fell out of favor after the war, or if it was just peculiar to Funakoshi and his teachers (maybe Azato, because Mabuni and Itosu's other seniors never seem to discuss this fist in the written works I've seen).

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Steve,

Steve Gombosi wrote:
I've always been puzzled by this fist. I've experimented with it off and on in the nearly five decades since I first read the Kyohan, and I've never had much success with it. I haven't found any real advantages to it and it's always felt weaker to me (especially on a makiwara). That might be due to personal idiosyncracies, I suppose (e.g., I just might be doing it wrong).

This week I have tested my “makiwara hack” theory and whacked the makiwara with it … and if I seek the flat fist then it does feel “OK” and it does take pressure off the front two knuckles. It does not feel like a “real punch” to me though.

I’m with you that I too can’t think of any advantages to it combatively … which is probably why it is not widely practised across all martial systems; and not even that widely in karate these days either.

The reasons given for the fist formation are inconsistent too i.e. everyone has their own pet theory. If there was an advantage, then one would expect it to be clearly identifiable.  

Steve Gombosi wrote:
… or if it was just peculiar to Funakoshi and his teachers (maybe Azato, because Mabuni and Itosu's other seniors never seem to discuss this fist in the written works I've seen).

That’s a good point. It’s unlikely to be something Itosu pushed because he had a massive influence on numerous systems, and we know most of them don’t use that fist. Azato could be the source, but we also know it was / is used by quite a few other schools, and not just Shotokan. Information can move sideways as well as down of course. It could be that those other schools copied the method from Funakoshi (being the first to get it in print and set the standard?) or that Funakoshi copied it from others as opposed to from his teachers? Or even that Funakoshi came up with it himself?

It’s also possible that differing schools developed the fist independently; BUT it is such an unusual and unnatural thing to do that a common source and dissemination from there is probably more likely.

We will probably never know, but these are always fascinating things to ponder!

All the best,

Iain

Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi's picture

I sometimes wonder if Funakoshi had some issues with the distal joint in one of his index fingers that he accommodated by adopting this fist. Probably not (I think he would have used someone else's hand to model the fist if that were the case), but I am puzzled that nobody else seems to do it.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I have used a makiwara for most of my Karate career (going on 30 something years now), and I have never found a use for this fist. I remember someone once upon a time telling me it had something to do with ippon-ken applications, but that sounds questionable to me. I have actually hurt myself trying this on a makiwara.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:

I have used a makiwara for most of my Karate career (going on 30 something years now), and I have never found a use for this fist. I remember someone once upon a time telling me it had something to do with ippon-ken applications, but that sounds questionable to me. I have actually hurt myself trying this on a makiwara.

Actually, for purposes of nakadaka-ippon-ken, you generally do want the index finger laid flat, because it helps add support behind the middle finger--if you don't lay it down flat, you have a gap. Not a super-important consideration for the vast majority of karateka, though.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Yes, you mentioning this makes me remember the exact conversation. As I make the fist I can see why.