# Engine(?)



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

A lot of you on this forum (and others) use the term 'engine' of WC, as if its a fairly common term; but I'd never heard of it until reading posts and threads here or on KFO. 

What does this term mean? Is it simply a reference to 'body structure'? Horse? How WC uses elbows? Other? etc?

Thanks.


----------



## geezer (Aug 23, 2017)

"Engine", as I hear it used, refers to the particular mechanism for power generation in a system. That's the product of the interaction of body movement and structure, passed through a kinetic linkage and ultimately transferred to the target. All martial arts have "engines", but like cars, different brands have different engines ...and very different ways of conceptualizing them.

BTW I hope the answer above is mostly correct, or else I have been misunderstanding a lot of posts over the years!


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

geezer said:


> "Engine", as I hear it used, refers to the particular mechanism for power generation in a system. That's the product of the interaction of body movement and structure, passed through a kinetic linkage and ultimately transferred to the target. All martial arts have "engines", but like cars, different brands have different engines ...and very different ways of conceptualizing them.
> 
> BTW I hope the answer above is mostly correct, or else I have been misunderstanding a lot of posts over the years!



Thx Geezer. 
So, could you provide an example of using the "LT engine" (for context)? As I understand it, your 'WT' emphasizes elbow...is that correct? So if I pair your "shift one foot at a time" with "elbow force" do I get the basic idea of a WT "engine"? 
Hope that comes through clearly...(?)


----------



## geezer (Aug 23, 2017)

The "engine" I use does emphasize "elbow power", but my elbow power ain't all that great by itself. I punch a lot harder if I combine it with the turn or step so that I get more body power into it.

Since the WT punch is short, you really have to put all the parts of the linkage together: ankle (or step), knee, hip, spine, shoulder, elbow, and wrist ...all in a relaxed way, timed to build on each other like a wave or whip.

Maybe those are the "seven bows" a certain person goes on and on about on those long videos where he never demonstrates anything? I prefer the following clip by Emin. At last I can understand him:


----------



## Cephalopod (Aug 23, 2017)

I like the way that Emin doesn't even glance over, at 2:22, to see that his Uke landed safely. 

No, scratch that. I don't like it.

Good power tho'!


----------



## Danny T (Aug 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> A lot of you on this forum (and others) use the term 'engine' of WC, as if its a fairly common term; but I'd never heard of it until reading posts and threads here or on KFO.
> 
> What does this term mean? Is it simply a reference to 'body structure'? Horse? How WC uses elbows? Other? etc?
> 
> Thanks.


Myself.
Engine in a human? An engine is a mechanically device that converts energy into mechanical motion for a specific purpose. I don't get it.
Power is the rate at which work is done or energy emitted or transferred over a specific length of time.
Power in the human body is generated by muscle expansion and contraction, the effects of that can be increased by causing the body to rotate and by causing displacement of the body increasing the effects of momentum. Muscle in the body is used to move any of the part of the skeleton which in turn is the mechanical motion. The elbow proper is unable to create energy or convert energy into mechanical motion therefore cannot be an engine (in can change the direction of mechanical motion).
How an individual utilizes the expansion and contraction of the muscles is the only thing I can understand as being an engine. Which muscles are use, when, and for how long are all of extreme importance.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Myself.
> Engine in a human? An engine is a mechanically device that converts energy into mechanical motion for a specific purpose. I don't get it.
> Power is the rate at which work is done or energy emitted or transferred over a specific length of time.
> Power in the human body is generated by muscle expansion and contraction, the effects of that can be increased by causing the body to rotate and by causing displacement of the body increasing the effects of momentum. Muscle in the body is used to move any of the part of the skeleton which in turn is the mechanical motion. The elbow proper is unable to create energy or convert energy into mechanical motion therefore cannot be an engine (in can change the direction of mechanical motion).
> How an individual utilizes the expansion and contraction of the muscles is the only thing I can understand as being an engine. Which muscles are use, when, and for how long are all of extreme importance.



Thx Danny.
Yeah, my conundrum with saying ___ martial art has ___ engine is my belief that the human body is one single unit and should be trained and used together as one single unit. 
I recall a post or thread somewhere on here that said "so and so" is using WC but with a different engine so I've always been a bit confused as to what an 'engine' is. 
Does boxing have its own particular 'engine' that is different to a WC 'engine'...which is different to a Karate 'engine'...a MT 'engine'...a Tai Chi 'engine' etc? 
Dunno........


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Does boxing have its own particular 'engine' that is different to a WC 'engine'...which is different to a Karate 'engine'...a MT 'engine'...a Tai Chi 'engine' etc?
> Dunno........


The question should be asked is if you have cross trained WC, Karate, MT, Taiji, which engine will you use?


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The question should be asked is if you have cross trained WC, Karate, MT, Taiji, which engine will you use?



I've trained in lots of styles/systems...but if I'm interpreting your post correctly you are saying that the entire 'system' or style is "the engine"? Is that correct?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I've trained in lots of styles/systems...but if I'm interpreting your post correctly you are saying that the entire 'system' or style is "the engine"? Is that correct?


Sometime an "engine" can only be used in that particular MA system. For example, the WC engine cannot be used in the long fist system and vise verse. If you want to experience more MA systems, you will need to know how to "combine different engines and make it into your own engine". That engine may have

- 70% WC and 30% long fist, or
- 50% WC and 50% long fist, or
- 30% WC and 70% long fist.

IMO, that will be your own final engine. That was also how the following MA systems were created:

- Xing Yi Liu He,
- Mizong Louhan,
- Taiji mantis,
- Baji mantis,
- ...

Is it possible to create a long fist WC, or WC long fist? I don't think it's possible. Both engines just have too much difference.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime an "engine" can only be used in that particular MA system. For example, the WC engine .



That's part of the issue...I'm trying to understand what constitutes the WC engine. 
Maybe it is different things to different practitioners or different lineages(?).


----------



## Danny T (Aug 23, 2017)

The way power is developed in WC is the exact same as any other human movement. 
It is in the how, when, and where one moves in relation to other parts of the body as well as the opponent. It is in how the force being applied to you is received, deflected or stopped. But it is still by electrical impulses which either expand or contract the muscles. The talk of 'engines' is a marketing term or just a different term to explain or make what you do different. We are human bio mechanical organisms that use electrical impulses to contract or expand muscles which pull or release tension on tendons. It is in the positioning of the body and/or the limbs in a particular configuration that by moving the skeleton creating the affect we are looking for. There is nothing special or different than using this recent term of engine to describe how a human moves differently in one system vs another.

The term Engine comes from the Latin _ingenium_, meaning ingenious...having a special skill or cleverness in design or designing contrivance causing something of special interest to seem to function in an unbelievable manner. It was meaning: skillfully and inventively to trick, to use pretenses, or to have dishonest plans...a ploy or hoax.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

Danny T said:


> . The talk of 'engines' is a marketing term or just a different term to explain or make what you do different..



Now this makes sense. Thx!!!


----------



## Cephalopod (Aug 23, 2017)

If I was forced to define 'engine' in the context of WC it would go something like this:

My awareness of the alignment of my bones and the tension of my muscles that allow me to receive force by directing it through my body, down my legs to my feet and into the ground. Conversely it allows me to deliver power by connecting to the ground and using it as a backstop from which to launch explosively starting at my legs and working it's way through my body to my, for example, fist.

Personally I think that talking too much about this engine gets confusing to a person who is genuinely trying to grok WC, and can be a bit of a distraction. Sort of like talking too much about chi.
It's something that has to be developed over time through dedicated training (kung fu anyone?) and everyone's development is a little different. I may have the best intentions trying to help a student understand what I feel when I receive and deliver power, but often I'm better off having them train the right exercises with the right people, emphasizing the right aspects, and letting them learn the feel for themselves.

However, talking about 'engine' does make for _excellent_ half-hour youtube vids with absolutely no action.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 23, 2017)

What's the difference between the following weapon design?

1. riffle - accuracy, far distance single shot (ex long fist).
2. machine gun, - fast multiple bullets (ex WC).
3. grenade - explosive power (ex Baji).

IMO, WC is more like the machine gun engine than the riffle engine, or the grenade engine.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the difference between the following weapon design?
> 
> 1. riffle - accuracy, far distance single shot (ex long fist).
> 2. machine gun, - fast multiple bullets (ex WC).
> ...



Interesting.
IMO, WC encompasses all three of your examples. But, to be fair I don't know much at all about long fist


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Interesting.
> IMO, WC encompasses all three of your examples. But, to be fair I don't know much at all about long fist


A long fist punch require you to have your

- back shoulder,
- chest,
- front shoulder,
- punching arm,

are all in a perfect straight line.

You can't design a weapon that can have all functions as riffle, machine gun, and grenade because they are "mutual exclusive" in design.

For example, In order to have

- long reach (riffle), you need to rotate your body.
- fast shooting (machine gun), you can't rotate your body.
- maximum power (grenade), you need to compress your body.


----------



## Nobody Important (Aug 23, 2017)

Engine is a dumb term, all human bodies have the same basic framework. When discussing human movement we should refer to kineseology. There are optimal ways to move to maximize efficiency, power, speed etc. Most martial arts styles have a great deal of overlap in human movement , especially in basic training. Style specific movements are generally relegated to intermediate & advanced stages of learning, with little introduced in beginning phase, outside of core structure. Different types of human engine do not exist, why martial arts systems move they way they do are based on principles used and tactics. People interpret differently and try to maximize based on use of said tactics & principles. Some methods are better than others based on the context of environment or situation. There are only so many logical and useful ways a person can punch, kick, grab, push, pull etc. Anything beyond this is artistic interpretation and strategic approach. Simply because one person prefers method X over method Z doesn't mean the gross mechanics are completely different, just the nuances.


----------



## KPM (Aug 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> A lot of you on this forum (and others) use the term 'engine' of WC, as if its a fairly common term; but I'd never heard of it until reading posts and threads here or on KFO.
> 
> What does this term mean? Is it simply a reference to 'body structure'? Horse? How WC uses elbows? Other? etc?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## geezer (Aug 23, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> However, talking about 'engine' does make for _excellent_ half-hour youtube vids with absolutely no action.



Yep. If I'm not mistaken you are referring to the long videos by the same "certain person" I referred to in post #4 above. That guy is the first I heard to use the term, and yeah, it was kinda sketchy. Probably what _Danny_ and _Nobody_ were thinking of too.

On the other hand, if people are just using the term "engine" simply as shorthand for "method of power generation", I don't really have a problem. I thought KPM's video was very clear and straightforward. And he used the term "engine" a lot.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A long fist punch require you to have your
> 
> - back shoulder,
> - chest,
> ...



Interesting. Thanks.
WC has this...it's called a pole punch, taken of course from the pole form. Probably not used or seen all that often but it's there. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, In order to have
> 
> - long reach (riffle), you need to rotate your body.



WC rotates the body...i.e. 2nd form. This has the effect of increasing range, amplifying power, changing angles, etc. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> - fast shooting (machine gun), you can't rotate your body.



Agree.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> - maximum power (grenade), you need to compress your body.



Well, I see your point on this one...but some WC families have a type of body attribute (sink? swallow? spit?... whatever) that may be similar to what you are calling "compress" (?)


----------



## Cephalopod (Aug 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> Yep. If I'm not mistaken you are referring to the long videos by the same "certain person" I referred to in post #4 above. That guy is the first I heard to use the term, and yeah, it was kinda sketchy. Probably what _Danny_ and _Nobody_ were thinking of too.
> 
> On the other hand, if people are just using the term "engine" simply as shorthand for "method of power generation", I don't really have a problem. I thought KPM's video was very clear and straightforward. And he used the term "engine" a lot.


Yes indeed. Thanks for dialing in to my innate ironic inclination.

On reflection of my post: I hope that my reticence for delving into terms like 'engine' is not mistaken for me advocating a dumbing down of the internal elements of our style. Quite the opposite. I was trying to make a broader point that, especially when it comes to relative beginners, teaching the internal elements with profound theories and explanations is often much less effective in the long run then letting them learn for themselves.

I find myself in that trap quite often, explaining ideas of power and such in terms that I am only beginning to relate to. I pause and look at the students face and realize that seven fifths of it has flown right over their coif. I have much more success when I dish out a single simple idea such as 'when you punch the wall bag, imagine driving your heel into the ground" and then walk away and let them train.

Conversely, sometimes I make an epiphany in my own training and I ask myself "why didn't sifu just tell me that?!".
I then realize that he'd been showing me all along, I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 25, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> I find myself in that trap quite often, explaining ideas of power and such in terms that I am only beginning to relate to. I pause and look at the students face and realize that seven fifths of it has flown right over their coif. I have much more success when I dish out a single simple idea such as 'when you punch the wall bag, imagine driving your heel into the ground" and then walk away and let them train.
> 
> Conversely, sometimes I make an epiphany in my own training and I ask myself "why didn't sifu just tell me that?!".
> I then realize that he'd been showing me all along, I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.


As an instructor, this is a balance I'm constantly trying to figure out.

There are a lot of important details and concepts that it took me many years to figure out. I think: "_man, I could have been doing so much better if I had understood this 15 years ago_".

Sometimes those details and concepts were never really explained to me before.
Sometimes they were explained to me, but I wasn't ready to understand them.
Sometimes the details were shown, but the reasons for them were never explained, which made it harder for me to appreciate and remember them.
Sometimes the theory was explained and I thought I understood it, but it was only an intellectual comprehension and my body didn't really get it yet.
Sometimes it was explained, but badly.
Sometimes the details were shown and I thought I was doing what I was shown, but I wasn't given the feedback to show me the difference between what I thought I was doing and what I was actually doing.
Sometimes I was missing one puzzle piece which was necessary to connect several other pieces and make them work.

I want my students to progress more quickly than I did. That means figuring out what level of theory and application detail they are ready to absorb and what ratio of explanation/exploration/correction works best for the individual. It's a tricky business and I've got a long ways to go.


----------



## mograph (Aug 25, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> ... I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.


Kind of an "empty our cup" thing, right?

This is one of the problems with being older than a child, isn't it? As we've gone through life, we've developed all these preconceived notions of how to do stuff. They've helped us in some ways, but they really bugger us up in other ways. "Letting go" is so necessary, but so hard.


----------



## Cephalopod (Aug 25, 2017)

mograph said:


> Kind of an "empty our cup" thing, right?
> 
> This is one of the problems with being older than a child, isn't it? As we've gone through life, we've developed all these preconceived notions of how to do stuff. They've helped us in some ways, but they really bugger us up in other ways. "Letting go" is so necessary, but so hard.



Actually I think that Tony stated best the hurtles in the learning process.
I would comment, however, that I have always been very willing, on an _intellectual_ level, to empty my cup. Discarding my old reactions and instincts under duress and replacing them with new and better ones is the hard part.
Sometimes it has meant many, many hours of getting whacked around rather than using my old defensive programming in order find that elusive 'better way' and to move my skill up a notch.



Tony Dismukes said:


> As an instructor, this is a balance I'm constantly trying to figure out.
> I want my students to progress more quickly than I did. That means figuring out what level of theory and application detail they are ready to absorb and what ratio of explanation/exploration/correction works best for the individual. It's a tricky business and I've got a long ways to go.



Your students are lucky to have your dedicated approach!

A lot of instructors, despite their best intentions, get a little caught up in their hubris, believing that they can develop a student faster than that student is actually able to internalize a whole new proprioceptive programming. In their best intention to clarify, they will actually make it more obscure, coming up with theories of 'engines' and such.
And yeah, I'm talking about myself btw. 

Lucky for me, the bar is set low. I don't think any student can learn more slowly than I did.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 25, 2017)

Thanks for all who responded about the 'engine' question. It was useful feedback. Cheers...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 25, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> Your students are lucky to have your dedicated approach!
> 
> A lot of instructors, despite their best intentions, get a little caught up in their hubris, believing that they can develop a student faster than that student is actually able to internalize a whole new proprioceptive programming. In their best intention to clarify, they will actually make it more obscure, coming up with theories of 'engines' and such.
> And yeah, I'm talking about myself btw


I think I still err on the side of over-explaining, because I'm naturally an analytic person. I'm trying to distill my initial explanations down to the essential elements and save the elaborations for those who are ready for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The question should be asked is if you have cross trained WC, Karate, MT, Taiji, which engine will you use?


All of them, if you've actually integrated each.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

Danny T said:


> The way power is developed in WC is the exact same as any other human movement.
> It is in the how, when, and where one moves in relation to other parts of the body as well as the opponent. It is in how the force being applied to you is received, deflected or stopped. But it is still by electrical impulses which either expand or contract the muscles. The talk of 'engines' is a marketing term or just a different term to explain or make what you do different. We are human bio mechanical organisms that use electrical impulses to contract or expand muscles which pull or release tension on tendons. It is in the positioning of the body and/or the limbs in a particular configuration that by moving the skeleton creating the affect we are looking for. There is nothing special or different than using this recent term of engine to describe how a human moves differently in one system vs another.
> 
> The term Engine comes from the Latin _ingenium_, meaning ingenious...having a special skill or cleverness in design or designing contrivance causing something of special interest to seem to function in an unbelievable manner. It was meaning: skillfully and inventively to trick, to use pretenses, or to have dishonest plans...a ploy or hoax.


I think it's just a shorthand for things like a specific approach to the timing and angles. So, saying a long-fist engine doesn't work with boxing techniques (not necessarily true, but bear with me) is like saying a tank engine doesn't work with a racecar. They use the same physics, and even similar types of parts, but they apply them differently, so may be incompatible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> Lucky for me, the bar is set low. I don't think any student can learn more slowly than I did.


I feel ya' on that one, brother!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Thanks for all who responded about the 'engine' question. It was useful feedback. Cheers...


You don't think we're going to stop now, do you? We haven't even had one significant off-topic swerve.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's just a shorthand for things like a specific approach to the timing and angles. So, saying a long-fist engine doesn't work with boxing techniques (not necessarily true, but bear with me) is like saying a tank engine doesn't work with a racecar. They use the same physics, and even similar types of parts, but they apply them differently, so may be incompatible.


Oh I understand. As I stated: "it is in the how, when, and where."
Using the term 'engine' is just another way to be different. In my opinion it is an incorrect use of the term and one still has to explain in much greater detail what that specifically means. Along with that, where the term has suddenly begun to be used there is a huge amount of verbiage that actually details very little so now it comes down to the 'me too' group of individuals attempting to describe it from different perspectives and different meanings.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Oh I understand. As I stated: "it is in the how, when, and where."
> Using the term 'engine' is just another way to be different. In my opinion it is an incorrect use of the term and one still has to explain in much greater detail what that specifically means. Along with that, where the term has suddenly begun to be used there is a huge amount of verbiage that actually details very little so now it comes down to the 'me too' group of individuals attempting to describe it from different perspectives and different meanings.


I suppose it comes down to what you're used to. When I first heard "engine", it just sounded like a convenient shorthand that required no explanation. But then, many of the instructors I've trained with - both long-term and in seminars - had some sort of shorthand like that, so it just seems part of the way many people talk about the mechanics of kinesiology. I suspect part of the reason terms like that are becoming more common is that more schools (in the US, anyway) seem to be gradually moving away from language-of-origin terms. Each generation of instructors might only drop one word or two, but it seems to accelerate. And fewer of the instructors have a real understanding of the original terms (from a vocabulary/linguistic standpoint), so those original terms are just shorthand. So, when I say "kuzushi", that's a convenient shorthand for breaking structure and balance, rather than the word having its full original meaning and connotation (whatever it might be). "Engine" seems to operate the same way, in place of "power-generating mechanics".

EDIT: Look for a good description of "aiki", and you run into the same issue you mention in your last sentence. A single word in place of a concept is rarely terribly accurate.


----------



## geezer (Aug 27, 2017)

I get the impression Danny just likes to use plain language and call things _what they are_. So, if you want to say "this is how we generate power" ....just say_ that._ The term "engine" is not any clearer. Sure, it's kinda trendy, but some people use it in ways that are not nearly so cut and dry, investing it with other meanings that are questionable.

Me? I'm also a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to trendy terms in general.  For example, I still bristle at people responding to questions in conversation by starting their reply with _"So.... "_. I'm told that it started in the W. Coast tech industry and has become the new norm for at least a decade. I don't care. I hate it as much as "upspeak" and "vocal fry". And I hear it everywhere. Especially on NPR.

...Maybe there is an upside to getting hard of hearing as you age.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 27, 2017)

Geezer...Yep...that's about as straight as you can get. Just say what you mean.

Just love it when people say things like; "my definition is ....." 
What??? The definition of a term is what it is; It is not some random choice or personal whim. 

Seems some like to coddled and/or to be coddled with speak. Immediately makes me look for the bs or for the redirection of one's attention.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 27, 2017)

"Body method" may be a better term for "engine". In the high level preying mantis training, you should only see the body movement and you don't see the arm movement. Also if you can train your sword without using a sword but just use your body to express the sword movement, you will have good "body method".

In other words, "body method (or engine)" is how your body should move and not your arm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> I get the impression Danny just likes to use plain language and call things _what they are_. So, if you want to say "this is how we generate power" ....just say_ that._ The term "engine" is not any clearer. Sure, it's kinda trendy, but some people use it in ways that are not nearly so cut and dry, investing it with other meanings that are questionable.
> 
> Me? I'm also a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to trendy terms in general.  For example, I still bristle at people responding to questions in conversation by starting their reply with _"So.... "_. I'm told that it started in the W. Coast tech industry and has become the new norm for at least a decade. I don't care. I hate it as much as "upspeak" and "vocal fry". And I hear it everywhere. Especially on NPR.
> 
> ...Maybe there is an upside to getting hard of hearing as you age.


So, (that one's just for you, Geezer), I agree the one term is not really any clearer than the other. We have a lot of alternative terms in MA that are equally clear (or equally vague). And I'm okay with folks preferring more precise language - as Danny seems to. I tend to pass back and forth between shorthand (quicker for mentioning a concept, where the shorthand is already understood or readily understandable) and being (sometimes needlessly) precise in my use of words by denotation only.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "Body method" may be a better term for "engine". In the high level preying mantis training, you should only see the body movement and you don't see the arm movement. Also if you can train your sword without using a sword but just use your body to express the sword movement, you will have good "body method".
> 
> In other words, "body method (or engine)" is how your body should move and not your arm.


Interesting. That leads me to consider the Japanese term "tai sabaki", the actual definition of which I've forgotten, but it means something like "body movement" and is often used to refer to different methods of using structure and bodyweight in throws. I've applied it sometimes when discussing putting more "body" into a punch. In that context, my usage of "tai sabaki" probably equates to "engine" or "body method".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. That leads me to consider the Japanese term "tai sabaki", the actual definition of which I've forgotten, but it means something like "body movement" and is often used to refer to different methods of using structure and bodyweight in throws. I've applied it sometimes when discussing putting more "body" into a punch. In that context, my usage of "tai sabaki" probably equates to "engine" or "body method".


Here is an example that "body method" is used in Chinese wrestling. You use "hip rotation" to shift your body weight from one leg to another. The key point is, when shifting weight, your mind start from the body and not start from the leg.

In striking art such as WC, when you punch/kick, your mind start from the body and not start from your arm/leg, you are using "body method (engine)".

I always liked to rotate my waist as the following clip when I was not doing anything. One day my friend started to pick up that habit. I then realized that his body rotation just made me to feel dizzy.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 28, 2017)

The way it's been used in Wing Chun in recent times, is to add an aura of mystery and intrigue where none is necessary, unless you are trying to create a type of clique or cult from which outsiders can be patronised or condescended to.

As Geoff Thempson said, and as an article by Phil Bayer I read recently also alluded to, the most important thing is to learn to "HIT F***ING HARD".


----------



## wayfaring (Aug 29, 2017)

anerlich said:


> The way it's been used in Wing Chun in recent times, is to add an aura of mystery and intrigue where none is necessary, unless you are trying to create a type of clique or cult from which outsiders can be patronised or condescended to.
> 
> As Geoff Thempson said, and as an article by Phil Bayer I read recently also alluded to, the most important thing is to learn to "HIT F***ING HARD".



OK so I'm probably guilty of using the word "engine" talking about wing chun punching power.   But that is probably because I work on feel a lot more first than visuals.  To me the wing chun "method of producing power" (to be politically correct) feels more like a wave and boxing feels more like crank rotation.  YMMV.  No intention of mystery or intrigue just describing a feel difference for me.  Can't speak for anyone else w/r to auras and condescension.  

I think that both boxing and wing chun have an aim to hit hard.  Heavy bag uppercut bag for boxing - part of daily is bag work.  

Do you have a link to that article?  Would be interested to read.  TBH I never have thought of PB as a power puncher no offense.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 30, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> OK so I'm probably guilty of using the word "engine" talking about wing chun punching power.



I was referring to a specific individual, a maker of long rambling videos who was banned from this forum and a number of others, rather than any respondent to this thread.



wayfaring said:


> Do you have a link to that article? Would be interested to read. TBH I never have thought of PB as a power puncher no offense.



Nor have I, though I have no way of finding out that wouldn't involve an international long haul flight. Just happened to be reading the article when this thread caught my attention. Here it is. 

https://www.wingchunillustrated.com/2016/01/21/make-punch-count-power-development-part-1/


----------

