Three broad types of apparatuses for practicing punching, kicking, or other striking maneuvers by human athletes are in contemporary use. Such devices are often well-known and used by athletes involved in training for boxing- or martial arts-like activities, and may be subdivided into the distinct categories of speed balls/bags (FIG. 1a), double-end balls/bags (FIG. 1b), and heavy bags (FIG. 1c). While such designs have been used for training in various fields of boxing and martial arts for many years, their underlying designs each possess various key shortcomings.
One such shortcoming relates to installation complexity. The inventor has found that the aforementioned punching ball/bag designs typically involve considerable installation requirements. For example, the speed ball requires a platform with the necessary swivel mechanism that attaches to the ball. Likewise, the double-ended ball/bag requires lower and upper anchor points (typically for fixing, respectively, to the floor and to the ceiling) to which the top and bottom elastic cords of the ball attach. Finally, the heavy bag, given its inherently weighty nature, requires a very sturdy beam on a ceiling from which to be fixed and hung. An inbuilt disadvantage common to all three aforementioned apparatuses is the need for separate, specialized stand or mounting structures to be implemented to accommodate the installation of each apparatus. In addition to each requiring a dedicated floor area, such specialized mounting structures add to the installation time and cost of said apparatuses.
A second shortcoming, related to the first, pertains to the higher cost of installation itself. Just as mount structures and materials drive up the cost of each training apparatus, the more complex installation requirements of each design increases the total cost of owning the product. Very often, both of these—structural components and attendant installation costs—go hand in hand, with increased costs contributing to making the apparatus not only more expensive, but in certain scenarios prohibitively so.
A third shortcoming concerns significant constraints on the degrees of freedom for each of said apparatuses. The inventor has observed that said apparatuses, even once properly installed, operate about fixed and rather limited ranges of motions; accordingly, this limits the scope of possible training movements that each respective apparatus offers to athletes. For example, the speed ball, being very closely attached to the swivel mechanism of its required platform, is limited in its horizontal variance to a radius of less than twelve inches (30 cm), with practically no vertical variance. It enlists the athlete's reflexes but does not provide an intensive cardiovascular workout. Conversely, the double-ended ball/bag may offer greater horizontal variance than the speed ball/bag; however, it too provides little vertical variance. For its part, the heavy bag, owing to its large size and weight, provides a slightly greater cardiovascular workout but barely moves as a target and accordingly provides little in the way of reflex training.
A fourth shortcoming concerns the quality of training routines typically experienced using the aforementioned categories of apparatuses. As a result of the limited variation in their movement just described, athletes training with any of said apparatuses invariably experience particularly monotonous exercise sessions within only a few minutes of use. Here, a parallel to running on a treadmill may be made, with such experiences being viewed as not particularly engaging, lacking stimulation, or considered altogether boring for many athletes. Such lack of engagement often directly mars the enjoyment of the training routine often with repercussions on the perceived sense of achievement as well as the objective success of the athlete.