# Deflection and the cubic diagonal of a narrow rectangular prism



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

So that title is super long winded and I apologize. Also apologize if I'm posting too much and you all think I should take a breather, haha. Lots on my mind lately and just want to throw stuff out as it comes up.

One thought has been the use of cubic diagonals (of narrow rectangular prisms) as an approach to thinking about how deflection works and at what angles. Has anyone else found themselves using this idea when helping to explain hand positions like Tan Sao, Bong Sao, Fook Sao, and Lan Sao (or other analogies)?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 3, 2018)

I'm pretty cerebral in how I approach martial arts even though I'm not a Chun guy.  I'm interested to hear your concepts.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> I'm pretty cerebral in how I approach martial arts even though I'm not a Chun guy.  I'm interested to hear your concepts.


Hey, happy to share my thoughts. Can't take credit for the use of the property in fighting arts but wonder if we've ever had this particular discussion. We often talk about angles of deflection in Wing Chun. There's a sweet spot with that angle where if you come in with too narrow of an angle, your deflection is great but you're not filling enough space. If you fill too much space, you're not creating an angle of deflection. I struggled with finding that sweet spot until I landed on an analogy from geometry. I figured it out for our bong sao first (may not be the way we all train it but I'm sure some of us do). If I mark up the image above with a few labels it helps make the case.
 .

This is a little scattered but in the image above, line A represents the direction of an incoming strike from an opponent's left arm. It runs parallel with the long side of the rectangle highlighted in blue. The defender side steps/strafes slightly along line D while rotating his/her right arm's elbow along the direction of line C (the wrist is at the bottom left corner of the rectangle highlighted in blue) so that line B (representing the forearm) can impact line A with just enough force to set it's trajectory off course (toward the same corner line C is aiming for). It's a lot like nudging a comet off course, surprisingly little effort/energy needed to accomplish that (relative to the mass/velocity of the incoming object). Bong Sao is a little obscure (although I maintain it behaves a lot like a shoulder role but with your forearm). That obscurity is what led me to dig into this math and that's when I realized these diagonals are everywhere in the art. Flip this diagram upside down and you get Tan Sao's deflective angle, same thing with the capping punch, and other deflections.

Need to head out for work but will share a mockup of Tan Sao in a bit too.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 3, 2018)

i understand your concept with different vectors changing the angle of the punch. is this how YOU use Bong Sao, as a deflection?  like i said im not a wing chun practitioner but from my estimation using Bong Sao to actually change the course of the attacking arm is not effective.  the issue i see is that a deflection application is not taking into account the larger picture of the rest of the human body and its mechanics in relationship to the subsequent actions within the fight.  it would be much more effective to use the Bong Sao arm as a sensor to feel where the attackers are is in relationship to my own body and the brain can then use that sensory input to move my body off of the attacking vector line.  thus there is no deflection and the attackers arm remains almost on its original vector but my body will not be there to be hit, my arm will then roll over the attackers arm for my own counter.  this is efficient .  it has been my experience that a deflection needs more stability and rigidity in the arm and will slow a counter strick down enough to lose the opportunity.

just my thoughts but as far as the math and your concept seems solid.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i understand your concept with different vectors changing the angle of the punch. is this how YOU use Bong Sao, as a deflection?  like i said im not a wing chun practitioner but from my estimation using Bong Sao to actually change the course of the attacking arm is not effective.  the issue i see is that a deflection application is not taking into account the larger picture of the rest of the human body and its mechanics in relationship to the subsequent actions within the fight.  it would be much more effective to use the Bong Sao arm as a sensor to feel where the attackers are is in relationship to my own body and the brain can then use that sensory input to move my body off of the attacking vector line.  thus there is no deflection and the attackers arm remains almost on its original vector but my body will not be there to be hit, my arm will then roll over the attackers arm for my own counter.  this is efficient .  it has been my experience that a deflection needs more stability and rigidity in the arm and will slow a counter strick down enough to lose the opportunity.
> 
> just my thoughts but as far as the math and your concept seems solid.


Totally is! So when a jab comes in, I'm not thinking of whacking the arm so hard with the bong sao that it moves them away from me. I'm side stepping a short distance while rotating the bong sao into place so that the punch is missing my head with ~4 inches of clearance. The deflection happens when the bong arm makes contact early into its rotation, the rotational force of the forearm helps to alleviate/avoid any direct wedging that might happen. I wouldn't want to jam/wedge the bong sao into the incoming punch, but catch it with the rotation of the forearm to assist in sending the arm up and to the left (assuming it's my right bong sao off a left jab). You can totally use bong sao when already making contact to redirect, but it can serve really effectively as a linear deflection with little effort (just have to find the sweet spot) to protect you and help establish contact to go from there.

Generally however, it falls along what we call our second ring of protection (maybe specific to my school of thought) so I might not want to lead with it over Pak/Tan etc. First ring is lead hand wrist, second is lead elbow rear wrist, third is rear elbow (often off a lead t-step). Lots of jargon in there but happy to lay it out too if you're curious.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> is this how YOU use Bong Sao, as a deflection?


Oh and to make sure I answer this question: Yes, totally. This is in many ways the primary way I use bong sao in addition to redirection for stand-up grappling/chi sao.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 3, 2018)

The angle and timing of something such as a Pak Sau is very important. Too close to their wrist and they still smash in and around your Pak. Likewise, too far up to the elbow and there is not sufficient deflection. Tan Sau is often a first action, combined with a punch, and the angle is very important. Drilling and then more dynamic lat sau helps find and train that sweet spot.
For Bong Sau though, and maybe this is my LT/WT leaning training, but it is reactionary. I never think "Bong Sau", it just happens when there is an obstruction.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> The angle and timing of something such as a Pak Sau is very important. Too close to their wrist and they still smash in and around your Pak. Likewise, too far up to the elbow and there is not sufficient deflection. Tan Sau is often a first action, combined with a punch, and the angle is very important. Drilling and then more dynamic lat sau helps find and train that sweet spot.
> For Bong Sau though, and maybe this is my LT/WT leaning training, but it is reactionary. I never think "Bong Sau", it just happens when there is an obstruction.



That’s interesting. What this geometry is telling me is that my bong operates a lot like an upside down tan. It deflects up and opposite the arm while tan deflects down and opposite the arm.

In general I don’t think about hand positions as being very different from each other anymore either. They are all still my arms moving in weird deflective diagonal ways. But I find sometimes stepping out of that continuous analysis space and into a more discrete one (like from sound waves to music notation) helps me find patterns that I can test in practice.

Like, the reality is we deal in sound waves but the music notation makes good scaffolding for learning to navigate them.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 3, 2018)

just to be clear i am not really questioning whether Bong Sao works.  i am probing into whether or not your geometry analogy is accurate.
the key factor in this is ....

force = change in momentum 
            Time taken for change


the attacking arm has momentum, a defection is a change in the momentum.  the longer the time of contact, the smaller the force that is needed to deflect it.
as you explained in your second post ,,you make contact then using a rotational force you divert the attacking arm, thus more time on the target.  if you shorten the time of contact then you would need more force.  but i was also thinking about the rigidity of the defending Bong sao arm.  you model seems to be based on a 1 to 1 ratio of rigidity between arms. 
example;
if a ball is angle bounced off of a brick wall the contact time is short but the wall has a 100% rigidity.  if you try to bounce the ball off a hanging sheet there is close to 0 % rigidity and the ball will not bounce or deflect.
that being said i am questioning how much rigidity and time will it cost to actually deflect the arm VS using the arm on arm contact  as an axis point in time and space that you would rotate around for a counter punch.  i believe that a sacrifice of not actually deflecting the arm will allow a faster better counter punch, but the opposite would be true as well more defection would mean a slower counter.  using the Bruce Lee count/ beat concept you would be making a choice between one beat or two beats.
so if the attackers arm had way more mass then mine i would need more defection that needs to be done with time or rigidity


----------



## jobo (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> So that title is super long winded and I apologize. Also apologize if I'm posting too much and you all think I should take a breather, haha. Lots on my mind lately and just want to throw stuff out as it comes up.
> 
> One thought has been the use of cubic diagonals (of narrow rectangular prisms) as an approach to thinking about how deflection works and at what angles. Has anyone else found themselves using this idea when helping to explain hand positions like Tan Sao, Bong Sao, Fook Sao, and Lan Sao (or other analogies)?


I. Not sure that refraction and deflection have the same geometry ? You might be better off with a pool table analogy ?


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> just to be clear i am not really questioning whether Bong Sao works.  i am probing into whether or not your geometry analogy is accurate.
> the key factor in this is ....
> 
> force = change in momentum
> ...


No worries, it's cool. This is helpful discussion. You can experiment with this using sticks. You can create the cubic diagonal with one stick, and slide another along that strike line in the diagram above. You'll find it wants to ride up and away almost forming an X between both sticks. I'll see if I can post a video about it tonight. Will also see if I can have a student punch for me Tuesday morning to demonstrate.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

jobo said:


> I. Not sure that refraction and deflection have the same geometry ? You might be better off with a pool table analogy ?


Rectangular prism or rectangular cuboid are just names of the shape  I know "prism" is normally associated with light refraction but it was between rectangular cuboid or orthotope at the time. Felt that "prism" would make the sentence less cubey.

"A three-dimensional orthotope is also *called* a right *rectangular prism*, *rectangular* cuboid, or *rectangular* parallelepiped. A special case of an n-orthotope, where all edges are equal length, is the n-*cube*."

Hyperrectangle - Wikipedia

In retrospect I guess "hyperrectangle" would have accomplished the same.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> No worries, it's cool. This is helpful discussion. You can experiment with this using sticks. You can create the cubic diagonal with one stick, and slide another along that strike line in the diagram above. You'll find it wants to ride up and away almost forming an X between both sticks. I'll see if I can post a video about it tonight. Will also see if I can have a student punch for me Tuesday morning to demonstrate.


To add to this, you'll also find that the end of the striking stick/direction it's pointing moves pretty dramatically with very little force/movement from the bong stick.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> if a ball is angle bounced off of a brick wall the contact time is short but the wall has a 100% rigidity. if you try to bounce the ball off a hanging sheet there is close to 0 % rigidity and the ball will not bounce or deflect.



Well...

A ball will bounce off a wall, yes. A ball won't bounce of a sheet.

But, say it's a tennis ball and a bedsheet - the trajectory of the ball will very definitely be altered - it will be deflected.

Off a wall could be considered linear, whereas 'off' a sheet is more partially parabolic. The sheet will yield somewhat but the ball will get deflected and it's energy dispersed.

Now up it, there comes a point where absolute rigidity leads to destructive failure - wrecking ball. It's a ball, but bounce off a wall it does not.

So with deflecting an incoming punch, you can think bounce, but that might lead to break - yours or theirs though?

Think parabolic dispersion, yield yet deflect.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well...
> 
> A ball will bounce off a wall, yes. A ball won't bounce of a sheet.
> 
> ...



My Sifu would say, and my experience confirms, that it feels almost like you’re filleting their arm with yours.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> My Sifu would say, and my experience confirms, that it feels almost like you’re filleting their arm with yours.



I've become much more circular with my blocking in recent months, tending more and more away from 'bounce'.

I've had (minor) complaints from almost every other student about "blocking too hard" during partner drills, and a few of them started putting their sparring shinguards on their forearms if they knew I was to possibly be their opponent... 

It's become more entertaining to deflect differently and have much more effect on their balance.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> I've become much more circular with my blocking in recent months, tending more and more away from 'bounce'.
> 
> I've had (minor) complaints from almost every other student about "blocking too hard" during partner drills, and a few of them started putting their sparring shinguards on their forearms if they knew I was to possibly be their opponent...
> 
> It's become more entertaining to deflect differently and have much more effect on their balance.



Sounds great, why not? Unification of movement right there.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> Sounds great, why not? Unification of movement right there.



It's taught as hard blocks, which I'm not denying can be effective. But I evolved my interpretation to include the option of effective softness.

To paraphrase from this thread - sometimes it's best to be the wall, other times you're better off if you can be the sheet


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> Now up it, there comes a point where absolute rigidity leads to destructive failure - wrecking ball. It's a ball, but bounce off a wall it does not


true but maybe not the greatest analogy since the wrecking ball has more mass.  
if you try to use Bong Sao on hulk hogan his mass will bull right thru you


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> But, say it's a tennis ball and a bedsheet - the trajectory of the ball will very definitely be altered - it will be deflected.


  yes it wont bounce but it will be in contact with the sheet for a very long duration.
there are some main components here and there is a trade off needed no matter how you look at it


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> true but maybe not the greatest analogy since the wrecking ball has more mass.
> if you try to use Bong Sao on hulk hogan his mass will bull right thru you



That's kind of my point...

Be the sheet.



hoshin1600 said:


> yes it wont bounce but it will be in contact with the sheet for a very long duration.
> there are some main components here and there is a trade off needed no matter how you look at it



Duration of contact does not negate deflection.

A sweep block can be just as effective as a bounce block, just differently so.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> if you try to use Bong Sao on hulk hogan his mass will bull right thru you



I disagree, no disrespect to his musculature. Maybe different for different implementations of it, but the the bong sao I practice relies on footwork/side stepping to largely take you off the line of force. This reduces the amount of deflective force needed to offset his arm. Especially if he’s throwing a good relaxed jab.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> I disagree, no disrespect to his musculature. Maybe different for different implementations of it, but the the bong sao I practice relies on footwork/side stepping to largely take you off the line of force. This reduces the amount of deflective force needed to offset his arm. Especially if he’s throwing a good relaxed jab.



That said, all of our deflections rely on footwork to help avoid force against force.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> That said, all of our deflections rely on footwork to help avoid force against force.



That's where I usually differ, especially in the partner drills I mentioned.

In my "be the sheet" technique (I'm keeping that, it's great ) it's more about curving and negating the force (or making use of it) rather than avoiding it or trying to outforce it.

Most of the drills are linear for a start, so stepping off line negates those particular drills - plus I can move my arm much quicker than use footwork to move my entire being. So, earlier and longer contact is the aim.


(Sidenote, I'm going to have to Google all these sao, because I haven't a clue what you're talking about )


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's where I usually differ, especially in the partner drills I mentioned.
> 
> In my "be the sheet" technique (I'm keeping that, it's great ) it's more about curving and negating the force (or making use of it) rather than avoiding it or trying to outforce it.
> 
> ...



I respect that. Will share some thoughts on how our footwork overcomes the speed issue in a bit. Largely rooted in 50/50 weight distribution and traveling a deceptively small distance with deceptively low energy.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> I respect that. Will share some thoughts on how our footwork overcomes the speed issue in a bit. Largely rooted in 50/50 weight distribution and traveling a deceptively small distance with deceptively low energy.



In any sort of "fighting stance", or if already moving, then the slightest shift of weight or twist of foot can take you off line sufficiently.

But, most of our partner drills start with the defender just standing. Not "in a stance". That being, it's much harder to do a little weight shift or twist and expect it to have the same effect. So that makes it quicker and more reliable to move my arm (body movement can still play a part, but not enough to be primary motion).


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> In any sort of "fighting stance", or if already moving, then the slightest shift of weight or twist of foot can take you off line sufficiently.
> 
> But, most of our partner drills start with the defender just standing. Not "in a stance". That being, it's much harder to do a little weight shift or twist and expect it to have the same effect. So that makes it quicker and more reliable to move my arm (body movement can still play a part, but not enough to be primary motion).



That’s really interesting. We’re inverted here. We rely so heavily on footwork and practice our linear drills incorporating a strafe along a straight line running perpendicular to the incoming strike. Will share, there’s a sweet spot that makes the footwork pretty instant. Of course it’s combined with hand positions but I think a video will help more than my jabbering.


----------



## pdg (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> That’s really interesting. We’re inverted here. We rely so heavily on footwork and practice our linear drills incorporating a strafe along a straight line running perpendicular to the incoming strike. Will share, there’s a sweet spot that makes the footwork pretty instant. Of course it’s combined with hand positions but I think a video will help more than my jabbering.



That'll be good, there's likely stuff to take from it for me.

If you're interested, I'll see if I can find any examples of what I mean too.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> That'll be good, there's likely stuff to take from it for me.
> 
> If you're interested, I'll see if I can find any examples of what I mean too.



More than interested! Grateful to be having this dialogue.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> That'll be good, there's likely stuff to take from it for me.
> 
> If you're interested, I'll see if I can find any examples of what I mean too.


Here's the video. It's a little long/long-winded but tries to cover on the points of how our footwork works:


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Duration of contact does not negate deflection.
> 
> A sweep block can be just as effective as a bounce block, just differently so.


I wasn't saying that time of contact negates a deflection.  I was saying the opposite.  The three components : mass , speed and time mix to create a balance that play out like a game of rock,paper,scissors.  Going back to my post the physics formula shows you need more time of contact to over come greater momentum / mass and speed.  But that time on contact robs you of time when you could be striking. So it's a trade off.  If you look at how wing Chun uses bong sao it's a transition movement leading into a strike.   I would prefer more body movement in trade to allow me to strike faster  or. Use a harder block ( more rigidity)  , sacrifice my beat time if the momentum and mass was to much.


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> Here's the video. It's a little long/long-winded but tries to cover on the points of how our footwork works:



Some sloppy supporting math for some of the stuff I say in the video attached.


----------



## pdg (Aug 4, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> But that time on contact robs you of time when you could be striking



If you're restricting and separating techniques into linear consecutive time 'bites' then yes, trade off. No argument there.

But if you combine sweep block and counter strike into the same flow, contact duration has less impact and could be beneficial.


Of course, combination could entirely negate the purpose of the exercise, and that's something I don't know - there's one potential downside to my argument


----------



## pdg (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> Here's the video. It's a little long/long-winded but tries to cover on the points of how our footwork works:



I'll watch it later...

As for me, I really can't find anything that properly illustrates what I mean.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that sometimes I'll only use arm movement - mostly I'll have body movement with the block, but without the block the body movement would be insufficient to avoid the strike.


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'll watch it later...
> 
> As for me, I really can't find anything that properly illustrates what I mean.
> 
> Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that sometimes I'll only use arm movement - mostly I'll have body movement with the block, but without the block the body movement would be insufficient to avoid the strike.



I hear you. I think at least one unifying theme between us is we keep moving/give our opponents a moving target.


----------



## pdg (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> I hear you. I think at least one unifying theme between us is we keep moving/give our opponents a moving target.



Indeed. A moving target is always harder to hit effectively.

The difference I think is when it's part of a drill from a 'normal' standing about position. Seems it's maybe not as common as I though seeing as I've been unable to find a reasonable demo...

That's for that type of drill though, it's hardly a sparring technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> So that title is super long winded and I apologize. Also apologize if I'm posting too much and you all think I should take a breather, haha. Lots on my mind lately and just want to throw stuff out as it comes up.
> 
> One thought has been the use of cubic diagonals (of narrow rectangular prisms) as an approach to thinking about how deflection works and at what angles. Has anyone else found themselves using this idea when helping to explain hand positions like Tan Sao, Bong Sao, Fook Sao, and Lan Sao (or other analogies)?


I don't care if you post a lot (just as long as you don't take my Postwhore of the Month title). And I've been eyeing this topic title for a while. I have an odd quirk that I like to try to figure out what a thread is about before I read it, then find out if I'm right. Frankly, other than light defraction, I could come up with nothing. Now I'm off to actually read the thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> just to be clear i am not really questioning whether Bong Sao works.  i am probing into whether or not your geometry analogy is accurate.
> the key factor in this is ....
> 
> force = change in momentum
> ...


I don't think it needs a 1:1, since he's also stepping off-line (side-step) and rotating from the center. That means he's putting lots of mass into the rotation, and the opposing arm (in this case) is traveling straight - a straight punch is easier to deflect than a round one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> Rectangular prism or rectangular cuboid are just names of the shape  I know "prism" is normally associated with light refraction but it was between rectangular cuboid or orthotope at the time. Felt that "prism" would make the sentence less cubey.
> 
> "A three-dimensional orthotope is also *called* a right *rectangular prism*, *rectangular* cuboid, or *rectangular* parallelepiped. A special case of an n-orthotope, where all edges are equal length, is the n-*cube*."
> 
> ...


Personally, I like "*rectangular* parallelepiped". I wouldn't have known what the hell it meant, but it would have sounded quite intellectual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I've become much more circular with my blocking in recent months, tending more and more away from 'bounce'.
> 
> I've had (minor) complaints from almost every other student about "blocking too hard" during partner drills, and a few of them started putting their sparring shinguards on their forearms if they knew I was to possibly be their opponent...
> 
> It's become more entertaining to deflect differently and have much more effect on their balance.


I'd like to feel the difference between those two approaches in blocking.


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'd like to feel the difference between those two approaches in blocking.


When we hang I can show you what it feels like. Really can't find a better word than my Sifu's "filleting."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> (Sidenote, I'm going to have to Google all these sao, because I haven't a clue what you're talking about )


Meh, knowing what you're talking about is overrated. I've been participating on the WC forum for a couple of years now, and so far I know what bong sau and biu jee are. Kind of. I figure 8 or 9 more years, I'll be able to participate intelligently in the discussions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> In any sort of "fighting stance", or if already moving, then the slightest shift of weight or twist of foot can take you off line sufficiently.
> 
> But, most of our partner drills start with the defender just standing. Not "in a stance". That being, it's much harder to do a little weight shift or twist and expect it to have the same effect. So that makes it quicker and more reliable to move my arm (body movement can still play a part, but not enough to be primary motion).


We typically start from "shizen tai" (normal stance), too. It's still possible to get small weight shifts pretty quickly to get off-line. Outside of demonstrating the technique, I won't do it without also blocking/parrying/deflecting.


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Meh, knowing what you're talking about is overrated. I've been participating on the WC forum for a couple of years now, and so far I know what bong sau and biu jee are. Kind of. I figure 8 or 9 more years, I'll be able to participate intelligently in the discussions.


"sao" just means arm, "gerk" means leg. bong, tan, wu, pak, fook, lan, tie, gum, fut, tut, jut, heun, lop, and bil are all proper nouns for specific single arm "sao" or arm movements (often called positions but I don't feel position captures their dynamic nature). Quan sao and Kan sao are two arm positions. The Sil Lum Tao teaches them moving along the median plane and behaves a lot like the alphabet song for memorizing each of them. Here are my Sifu's arms demonstrating each hand position:

Wing Chun Hand Postions


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> Here's the video. It's a little long/long-winded but tries to cover on the points of how our footwork works:


Some very similar principles to what I teach, Alan. You guys use different angles and fewer circles than we tend to look at, but the basic principles of how to move are pretty close. One major difference is that we rarely move directly sideways; we normally are either entering or exiting in classical movement (there's a good bit more sideways movement in what I teach, because that's more useful in sparring/striking).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> "sao" just means arm, "gerk" means leg. bong, tan, wu, pak, fook, lan, tie, gum, fut, tut, jut, heun, lop, and bil are all proper nouns for specific single arm "sao" or arm movements (often called positions but I don't feel position captures their dynamic nature). Quan sao and Kan sao are two arm positions. The Sil Lum Tao teaches them moving along the median plane and behaves a lot like the alphabet song for memorizing each of them. Here are my Sifu's arms demonstrating each hand position:
> 
> Wing Chun Hand Postions


Hey, quit ruining my ability to post by providing actual information!


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Hey, quit ruining my ability to post by providing actual information!



Sorry, I’ll make sure to hide and obscure it moving forward as ancient wisdom to be earned with years of subservient study and costly tuition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 5, 2018)

lansao said:


> Sorry, I’ll make sure to hide and obscure it moving forward as ancient wisdom to be earned with years of subservient study and costly tuition.


Much appreciated.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> I've become much more circular with my blocking in recent months, tending more and more away from 'bounce'.
> 
> I've had (minor) complaints from almost every other student about "blocking too hard" during partner drills, and a few of them started putting their sparring shinguards on their forearms if they knew I was to possibly be their opponent...
> 
> It's become more entertaining to deflect differently and have much more effect on their balance.




Becoming more circular are you meaning by that that you are generating more power as you and drawing that from your centre there by the deflection as you put it is much more pronounced ?


----------



## pdg (Aug 5, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Becoming more circular are you meaning by that that you are generating more power as you and drawing that from your centre there by the deflection as you put it is much more pronounced ?



Power generation wasn't a concern as to why I started doing it (as long as enough was still there to successfully deflect).

What I mean is that in a 'normal' forearm block, it's a hard linear move that meets forearm to forearm at about mid point.

Instead of that, I started leading with my elbow and turning my arm into the block, so there's more of a slide than an impact.

It means I need to be faster to initiate and have better timing, otherwise they punch my elbow (which I don't mind, but apparently they do )


----------



## now disabled (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> Power generation wasn't a concern as to why I started doing it (as long as enough was still there to successfully deflect).
> 
> What I mean is that in a 'normal' forearm block, it's a hard linear move that meets forearm to forearm at about mid point.
> 
> ...




I get what your saying but I would assume that in doing that you will employ more from your centre ...


----------



## lansao (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> Power generation wasn't a concern as to why I started doing it (as long as enough was still there to successfully deflect).
> 
> What I mean is that in a 'normal' forearm block, it's a hard linear move that meets forearm to forearm at about mid point.
> 
> ...



Would you be willing to record a video demo?


----------



## pdg (Aug 5, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I get what your saying but I would assume that in doing that you will employ more from your centre ...



No, yes, maybe... 

You'll have to define "employing your centre" - is it like engaging your core or something else?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> No, yes, maybe...
> 
> You'll have to define "employing your centre" - is it like engaging your core or something else?




something like that lol 

using your hips and drawing the power from the centre and ground up more than just using your arm and shoulder


----------



## now disabled (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> No, yes, maybe...
> 
> You'll have to define "employing your centre" - is it like engaging your core or something else?



think of swinging a sword upwards say from your right side to upper left side in one movement to get it there with maximum power etc you have to employ your centre and your hips and your legs drawing all upwards while remaining balanced


----------



## pdg (Aug 5, 2018)

lansao said:


> Would you be willing to record a video demo?



I'll see if I can come up with something sensible and not too cringeworthy...



now disabled said:


> something like that lol
> 
> using your hips and drawing the power from the centre and ground up more than just using your arm and shoulder



Well, I stand by my "no, yes, maybe" then.

Depending on the start position, the direction of body movement (if any) and anything that's intended afterwards, that sort of "hip twist" can be applied, or not, to either 'version'.

I mean, it's possible to not move, or step back/forward/off line/across line. All or none can include a wind up or not.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'll see if I can come up with something sensible and not too cringeworthy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok just a different approach and nothing wrong with that at all


----------



## lansao (Aug 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'll see if I can come up with something sensible and not too cringeworthy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I figure all of my videos are cringe worthy. I post them, then feel the cringe haha.


----------



## lansao (Aug 5, 2018)

lansao said:


> I figure all of my videos are cringe worthy. I post them, then feel the cringe haha.



On top of that the worst thing that can happen is I get called a fat, skill-less, attention-seeking, pretentious fake. But there will always be the select few who pay attention and offer real input/feedback. Worth wading through the muck to find them and grow understanding that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 5, 2018)

lansao said:


> On top of that the worst thing that can happen is I get called a fat, skill-less, attention-seeking, pretentious fake. But there will always be the select few who pay attention and offer real input/feedback. Worth wading through the muck to find them and grow understanding that way.


Don't worry, Alan. I won't ever call you pretentious.


----------



## lansao (Aug 5, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Don't worry, Alan. I won't ever call you pretentious.


I swear I almost edited that to "Worth wading through the muck (gpseymour) to find them..."


----------

