# Three concepts on the utilization of forces



## Yeung (Dec 4, 2018)

Yòng lì sān lùn 用力三論 (Three concepts on the utilization of forces)

I can across the following link on the subject with translation: 

*詠春梁國華 WingTsun Leung Kwok Wah*

June 3, 2012 · 

用力三論
詠春拳對「力」的運用有三個階段，分別是「捨力」、「卸力」和「借力」。相傳詠春拳為女性所創，考慮到女性體格往往比正常男性較弱，以剛力與之對抗，實為不智。故此，詠春拳提倡不以自身的體力，與對方抗衡。再者，即使不論性別，按照常理，恃強凌弱者亦會選擇體形比自己遜色的人下手，所以詠春拳對此的觀點其實十分合理。

一般人如遇力大者襲之，多數以死力硬頂，靠臂力擋格，又或拉扯糾纏，是為「束力」。此不但虛耗體力，而且有欠靈活。所以學習詠春拳，首要學懂「捨力」，不去大量浪費體力去抵禦敵人。尤其當對方力量比自己強橫，比力氣根本毫無勝算，所以便要捨棄自身用力抗衡的念頭，方可進入下一步「卸力」的階段，應付對手。
當學懂「捨力」後，便可以運用身、手、步的配合，順從對方的力量，再引導對方的攻勢落空，即是「卸力」。詠春有名的攤手、膀手和滾手等，就是「卸力」常用的手法。卸去對方的攻勢後，再利用對手的餘勢，加以利用，進而反擊就是「借力」。所以，若果對方的攻勢愈猛，能借的力便愈大，對其傷害亦會愈重。

(如需轉載，請列明出處：http://www.facebook.com/WingtsunLeungKwokWah)

Hard three
Wing Chun Punch has three stages in the application of " power "," " discharge "," " discharge " and " borrowing ". said wing punch for consider consider consider consider consider consider consider consider,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Weak, against the power of the force, it is not ji-ji. Therefore, wing chun muay advocates not to compete with each other with his own physical strength. Also, even if it is not gender, it is common sense that bullying the weak and the weak will choose to do more than themselves, so wing chun punch is actually very reasonable.

In General, people who have been attacked by powerful people, most of them are hard-to-die, they rely on arm-arm, or., are "Beam power". this is not only a waste of strength, but also a lack of flexibility So learn wing chun punch, first learn the "besides" and do not go to much waste of strength to resist the enemy. Especially when each other's power is stronger than yourself, it has no chance of winning more than strength, so we have to abandon the thought of its own hard-to-fight, and we can go into the next step of the "
When learning to understand the " besides ". it can be used, hand, step, and follow each other's power, and guide each other's offensive, that is, " Discharge ". Wing Chun's famous stall, hand-in-hand and Rolling Hand, etc, is the used method of " unloading After unloading each other's offensive, reuse the opponent's yu, and then the counter-attack is "borrow power". so if the Congo of each other's offensive, the bigger the power can be borrowed, the more it hurts. .

(for reposting, please specify: http://www.facebook.com/WingtsunLeungKwokWah)


----------



## geezer (Dec 4, 2018)

I think it loses a bit in translation. At least that's the peanut butter of my continuing Botswana, if compared to verily the postal of fortitude.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 4, 2018)

*Four Principle of Power*
A Wing Chun practitioner must learn to borrow the energy of the attack by way of deliberately yielding. The energy the Practitioner receives from the attack is redirected towards the attacker immediately adding his/her own force to it.

1.      Give up your Own force

2.      Make your opponent give up their force

3.      Combine these forces together

4.      Give them back

Wing Chun Theories

·        捨力論──捨棄拙力

·        卸力論──卸去來力

·        借力論──借用來力

咏春拳 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

Updated on 1st December 2018 Saturday 15:29

A rough translation:
捨力論──捨棄拙力 give up the use brute force or dead force
卸力論──卸去來力 unloading or neutralizing the incoming force
借力論──借用來力 utilizing the incoming force


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 4, 2018)

I find that ideas like this (wait...is it 3 concepts or 4 principles...?) are a bit like horoscopes. We can all, with a bit of imagination, think up a way that they apply to ourselves or the way that we train. 

Which means that the ideas, again like horoscopes, are kinda pointless, and don't tell us anything that we don't already know.

Words like "give up dead force" and "neutralize incoming force" can be useful as a way of helping a student understand what to feel for in a teachers physical response to an action, but the real learning happens proprioceptively, by feeling.
The words on their own are, frankly, a little pretentious. Kinda like the word 'proprioceptively'.


----------



## yak sao (Dec 4, 2018)

geezer said:


> I think it loses a bit in translation. At least that's the peanut butter of my continuing Botswana, if compared to verily the postal of fortitude.



My thoughts exactly


----------



## Yeung (Dec 5, 2018)

Awareness of position and movement of the body is not pretentious nonsense, but it is when one dose not know the difference between the use and non-use of brute or dead force. The Wing Tsun interpretation sounds like not to resist with any force. In general, most people do not aware of the elastic components of the body.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 5, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Awareness of position and movement of the body is not pretentious nonsense, but it is when one dose not know the difference between the use and non-use of brute or dead force. The Wing Tsun interpretation sounds like not to resist with any force. In general, most people do not aware of the elastic components of the body.


Most arts I've been involved with teach some component of not using force to resist - even those we'd think of as force-on-force arts.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 5, 2018)

I think you mean quick release rather than not to resist.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 5, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Awareness of position and movement of the body is not pretentious nonsense.


Of course it isn't.
I meant that a maxim _alone_ does not illuminate anything to anybody.

Words like "combine these forces together" or " give up the brute force" can be interpreted in a thousand conflicting ways unless they are accompanied by detailed analysis of anatomy, the positioning of limbs and the engagement of muscle groups. The details can be conveyed verbally, or even better by feeling the responses of an advanced practitioner. Once the details have been established over long practice, then a maxim such as "combine forces together" will take on a specific meaning to a student and the words can be used as a reminder to keep him on track.


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *Four Principle of Power*
> A Wing Chun practitioner must learn to borrow the energy of the attack by way of deliberately yielding. The energy the Practitioner receives from the attack is redirected towards the attacker immediately adding his/her own force to it.
> 
> 1.      Give up your Own force
> ...



The English version of this I've heard goes like this:

First, get rid of your own force
Then get rid of your opponent's force,
Then you cn borrow his force, 
and lastly, you put back in your own force.

-it was a description of the learning process in Wing Tsun, from novice to accomplished master.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 5, 2018)

In the past I have been exasperated at some who threw around fancy sounding maxims to make it seem as if their wing chun has the 'special sauce', but who left me very unimpressed when I actually touched hands with them. (None of our esteemed forum members of course).

Now I realize that I'm projecting and I sure don't want to be the one to stifle enriching discussion on principles.
So:



Yeung said:


> *Four Principle of Power*
> A Wing Chun practitioner must learn to borrow the energy of the attack by way of deliberately yielding. The energy the Practitioner receives from the attack is redirected towards the attacker immediately adding his/her own force to it.
> ...
> 借力論──借用來力 utilizing the incoming force


Can you describe a physical example of where in your training you effectively 'utilize incoming force'? What do you use it for? Where does it go?


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 5, 2018)

I can't totally embrace the words on the page, it could be translation, but I also get queasy about absolutes, like - "never use force against force."

I love techniques that enable me to use my opponent's energy/momentum/force and practice quite a few of them.
e.g.- Bong Sao to Lop Sao

But, sometimes I prefer force against force. 
e.g. - Front kick to the lead leg vs someone coming in hot. Their momentum combined with the opposing force of the kick is greater than the sum of it's parts.

They are both viable. Being able to do either makes a fighter less predictable, more adaptable, and more effective. IMHO, of course.


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> But, sometimes I prefer force against force.
> e.g. - Front kick to the lead leg vs someone coming in hot. Their momentum combined with the opposing force of the kick is greater than the sum of it's parts.



I agree with your overall sentiment, but to my thinking (don't know about the OP) although the example you give may use (your) force, it also uses the opponent's force since he is adding his energy to the power of your technique by running into it. Now that sure sounds like one good way to "borrow" his force, right?


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 5, 2018)

geezer said:


> I agree with your overall sentiment, but to my thinking (don't know about the OP) although the example you give may use (your) force, it also uses the opponent's force since he is adding his energy to the power of your technique by running into it. Now that sure sounds like one good way to "borrow" his force, right?



Right, I would agree. The opponents force is relevant whether I am receiving or opposing it. I used to know Japanese words for this, but I've never known the Chinese descriptors for this type of thinking. Unless my opponent is just standing there and I walk up and punch them, their force/energy/momentum is a factor in the result. 

Receiving/Blending/Swallowing/Gathering is a different approach than stopping or clashing. Both have merit.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 6, 2018)

Cephalopod said:


> In the past I have been exasperated at some who threw around fancy sounding maxims to make it seem as if their wing chun has the 'special sauce', but who left me very unimpressed when I actually touched hands with them. (None of our esteemed forum members of course).
> 
> Now I realize that I'm projecting and I sure don't want to be the one to stifle enriching discussion on principles.
> So:
> ...



*Four Principle of Power is from the following web-site:*
Wing Chun Theories

I  think we better start from the concept of brute force or dead force.

Brute force is a term commonly used by Taijiquan, Xingyiquan, Baguaquan, and other internal martial arts, while the dead force is used by Cantonese speakers if translated literally. So it is simply concentric muscle contraction contracted to the extreme where muscles became very stiff.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 6, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *Four Principle of Power is from the following web-site:*
> Wing Chun Theories
> 
> I  think we better start from the concept of brute force or dead force.
> ...



I think this is a case of ''where does the rubber meet the road?"

Vague terminology like you are using sounds nice, but there isn't much actual substance to work with.

Can you provide real world examples/demonstrations to illustrate your concepts a bit clearer?

I mean, I can make a statement like ''absorb the strike and return the force", but who would actually get anything from that? That could describe a million motions based in a million different styles.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 6, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> ...
> ...But, sometimes I prefer force against force.
> e.g. - Front kick to the lead leg vs someone coming in hot. Their momentum combined with the opposing force of the kick is greater than the sum of it's parts.
> ...


Interesting point.

Another example would be timing a punch to connect as the opponent shifts his body forward. His forward momentum will add considerable ouch to the punch. But even then, if I allow the impact to momentarily build forward tension in my arm, the reaction will shove me back a little regardless of how uncomfortable my punch was for my adversary.

That split second of tension is what I would refer to as 'force against force' with it's negative connotation.

In that moment I may have some kind of mechanical/structural advantage. Maybe my root is more powerful than that of my attacker and I don't get bumped back. But that is making assumptions that I have learned to regret as I've trained with larger or very skilled opponents.

I believe that, very generally speaking, 'emptying' power or striking energy into your opponent so that there is no tension left by which the opponents mass can affect your own is the safer, conservative way to go.
---
Edited to clarify that the arm is not devoid of any tension at the end of the strike. It's not flaccid.
It always maintains a forward intention. Point is that we emphasize never having that 'dead' force as the OP calls it, even at the moment of impact.


----------



## geezer (Dec 6, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I mean, I can make a statement like ''absorb the strike and return the force", but who would actually get anything from that? That could describe a million motions based in a million different styles.



As others have posted, these statements can become meaningful in the context of instruction in a Kwoon/dojo/dojang. But as mere words on paper, they can mean a million things. Clearly there are differences in the way different martial arts generate power and deal with incoming force. 

The clearest description of  the way the _Wing Tsun_ branch of Wing Chun does this is provided by the well known saying, _Loi lau hoy sung, lat sau jik chung, _which my old sifu, Leung Ting freely translated as "stay with what comes, follow the retreat, and thrust forward when the hand is freed".   Or, even more simply, be  flexible and springy, like bamboo or rattan. Alas, it is a long way from mere description to internalizing the action!


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 6, 2018)

Yeung said:


> I  think we better start from the concept of brute force or dead force.


Fair enough



Yeung said:


> Brute force is a term commonly used by Taijiquan, Xingyiquan, Baguaquan, and other internal martial arts, while the dead force is used by Cantonese speakers if translated literally. So it is simply concentric muscle contraction contracted to the extreme where muscles became very stiff.



True. But pretty much any martial art will advocate against extreme muscle contraction. Most other sports as well, for that matter, outside of the Mr. Universe circuit. Wing Chun, let alone any individual branch, cannot claim special status because it aims to avoid muscular contraction.

But of course the devil is in the details. It is one thing to train yourself not to use brute strength to achieve a given goal, say strike or unbalance your opponent. It is another thing altogether to train yourself _not_ to respond to a sudden stimulus from your opponent (a strike or shove) with even a fleeting moment of extreme muscular contraction.

Now this is something that Wing Chun, and indeed the other daoist styles you mentioned, can potentially excel at.

How do we train to not offer momentary muscular contraction in our physical responses?
This is something worth discussing.

Simply to say that your lineage "gives up brute force" is a little pointless, no disrespect intended.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2018)

Bill Gates doesn't have to borrow money from bank because he has money.

If you have a choice to train how to

- develop 1000 lb force, and
- use 4 oz force to deflect 1000 lb force,

which skill do you prefer to develop?

IMO, you should train how to develop your force first and then train how to borrow force afterward.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2018)

Cephalopod said:


> Simply to say that your lineage "gives up brute force" is a little pointless, no disrespect intended.


Agree with you 100% there. Old Chinese saying said, "Everything has counter. Only maximum hardness (power) and maximum speed has no counter". If you can swing a 100 lb long sword, nobody can stand 6 feet in front of you.



Cephalopod said:


> How do we train to not offer momentary muscular contraction in our physical responses?
> This is something worth discussing.


Two of my favor tricks are I

- throw a back fist, when my opponent blocks it, I'll borrow his force, spin my arm, and change my back fist into a hook (or hay-maker).
- pull my opponent, when he resists, I'll borrow his force, change my pulling into pushing.

IMO, you have to give before you can take. If you offer no force, you will have no force to borrow. If you worry about your opponent may borrow your initial force, the borrow force game may not be your game.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 6, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - throw a back fist, when my opponent blocks it, I'll borrow his force, spin my arm, and change my back fist into a hook (or hay-maker).
> - pull my opponent, when he resists, I'll borrow his force, change my pulling into pushing.



Good examples of 'utilizing your opponents force', I'd say. Thanks.

I'd like to comment on Bill Gates with a 100lb long sword but I'm still a little baffled.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 7, 2018)

I am not making a statement but providing a working definition of Si Li as follows:

Si Li (死力 dead force)is a form of extreme muscle contraction and one-repetition maximum (One-repetition maximum - Wikipedia) or 1RM is one of the examples. The textbook account of muscle contraction can be found in Wikipedia (Muscle contraction - Wikipedia) which is very detail; for our purpose of understanding 1RM, a general knowledge of static, lengthening, and shortening muscle actions should be sufficient.

If this definition is acceptable, we can go on discussing the various techniques and differences in power generation based on muscle actions. Otherwise, any improvement or alternative is welcome.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 7, 2018)

I don't believe that 'dead force', as I understand it, is so easy to define.

I would not agree that the 1RM analogy works. 100 percent exertion is not dead force if the right muscles are being used and if motion results from the effort. A strike may be delivered with 100 percent effort without being associated with dead force just as an Olympic lifter might break his clean & jerk record without using dead force.

Dead force occurs when muscles are engaged that are not helping any given movement. For example if you extend your arm at the elbow, your tricep does the useful work. If your bicep is engaged at the same time, it becomes an antagonistic muscle; it opposes the movement. If the goal is to extend your arm, your bicep isn't helping, it's just burning extra energy.

The extreme of dead force would be if both muscle groups are fully engaged, fighting against each other. Ergo the example of Mr. Universe flexing up on a stage. He will fire up 100% effort from both his bicep and his tricep against each other to make them both bulge appropriately.

But dead force doesn't have to be 100% effort. In Wing Chun, when you feel in your opponent even a small degree of flexion from the wrong muscle groups, that is something that could be exploited. 

Defining the 'wrong' muscle groups is the tricky part. Some muscles are primary drivers, others stabilize a movement...the human physique is wonderfully complex.

That's why ultimately 'dead force' is something that is best explained through sense of touch. Usually it manifests as a feeling of static rigidity.

Anybody else have a take on this?


----------



## Yeung (Dec 9, 2018)

The anatomical functions of the upper limbs are very complex, and to make it simple one can sense the differences between the pulling action and the lowering action of the tripod dumbbell rows as show in the following video:






The Wing Chun punch should be similar to lower the dumbbell in the rows without gripping tightly the fist, and lengthening the muscle fibres actively without dumbbell to the extreme with elbow pointing downward.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 10, 2018)

Cephalopod said:


> I don't believe that 'dead force',


I don't believe either. We should

- talk about the right way to do thing.
- not talk about the wrong way to do thing.

When people talk about "dead force", or "brute force", I truly don't know what they are talking about. Both terms are used to look down on other MA systems in order to show superiority.

If you can use your force to knock your opponent down, that's good force, otherwise that's bad force.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 10, 2018)

My thoughts on stuff like this is that a lot of it is taken out of context by people who don't actually use the techniques in their system to fight against other systems.  This is only natural when a system only trains to fight itself. (fight others from the same system).   Many of these concepts (as translated) become useless when fighting against someone from a different system.

  For example this "But dead force doesn't have to be 100% effort. In Wing Chun, when you feel in your opponent even a small degree of flexion from the wrong muscle groups, that is something that could be exploited."  This is a Style A vs Style A comment.   

Add a grappler or boxer into the mix and the concept of a punch as it currently understood within the system begins to less true.  Not because it's wrong, but because I think when people translated it or think about it, they are only thinking Style A vs Style A .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2018)

Some of the discussion going on is about communication. We should strive to use terms that help others understand what we mean. That means our language should change a bit when we're talking to people in other branches of the art, and more so when talking to folks outside the art.

Another part of the discussion is about how many arts seem to get into justifying their approach by rationalizing issues with other approaches. Being from a relatively traditional MA background, I've heard a lot of this about MMA and boxing. I hear it a fair bit in retaliation to the way the Gracies used it to promote BJJ. It's almost always crap. There's nothing wrong with force-on-force, muscular strength, going to the ground, absorbing force, being soft, or anything else...when used appropriately and effectively.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Some of the discussion going on is about communication. We should strive to use terms that help others understand what we mean. That means our language should change a bit when we're talking to people in other branches of the art, and more so when talking to folks outside the art.
> 
> Another part of the discussion is about how many arts seem to get into justifying their approach by rationalizing issues with other approaches. Being from a relatively traditional MA background, I've heard a lot of this about MMA and boxing. I hear it a fair bit in retaliation to the way the Gracies used it to promote BJJ. It's almost always crap. There's nothing wrong with force-on-force, muscular strength, going to the ground, absorbing force, being soft, or anything else...when used appropriately and effectively.


If someone grabs your legs or body, then there won't be a real choice.  Force vs force will be a reality.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> If someone grabs your legs or body, then there won't be a real choice.  Force vs force will be a reality.


Not necessarily. Aiki arts tend to specialize in dealing with grabs without force-on-force.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 10, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> If someone grabs your legs or body, then there won't be a real choice.  Force vs force will be a reality.





gpseymour said:


> dealing with grabs without force-on-force.


When your use your right hand to grab on my shirt (or hold on my neck), if I use my left hand to push on your right elbow joint to your left (deflect), it takes me very little effort to do that. it's not force against force. It's west-east force deflect north-south force.

The moment that you use your right arm to resist against my west-east force, the moment that I change my west-east force into east-west force (yield) and pull your right arm to your right. I then try to take you down to your right.

IMO, only resist is force against force. Both deflect and yield are not force against force. Unless you are much stronger than your opponent that resist (force against force) will work well. Otherwise a combination of deflect and yield will be the best strategy.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not necessarily. Aiki arts tend to specialize in dealing with grabs without force-on-force.


I don't know what that looks like.   
This is what I know
1. If you aren't in a position to yield force then it will be force vs force
2. If you aren't in a position to receive force then your force will be take through force.  This usually results in someone going for a ride.  This is force over coming force.







Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your use your right hand to grab on my shirt (or hold on my neck),


Ok Wang lol  not a good scenario for me.  I have a lot of videos of a lot of things, but I don't think I have one of me grabbing a shirt or a neck. lol.  



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Otherwise a combination of deflect and yield will be the best strategy.


This is where I live.  Sometimes it's force vs force and sometimes it's not.  Better fpr me to know how to do and manage both.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't believe either. We should
> 
> - talk about the right way to do thing.
> - not talk about the wrong way to do thing.
> ...



Daodejing Chapter 36: flexible and weak defeat stiff and strong (500 BC).

It is difficult to explain the rotational stretching method of training in traditional Wing chun; but try the 1RM in tripod dumbbell rows, and you will sense the difference between pulling up and lowering.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Daodejing Chapter 36: flexible and weak defeat stiff and strong (500 BC).


That's an absolute statement. Absolute statements are always false. (See what I did there?)

Strong and stiff can overcome flexible and weak. And the other way around (assuming sufficient skill). More importantly, strong and flexible beats the heck out of weak and flexible.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there. Old Chinese saying said, "Everything has counter. Only maximum hardness (power) and maximum speed has no counter". If you can swing a 100 lb long sword, nobody can stand 6 feet in front of you.
> 
> 
> Two of my favor tricks are I
> ...





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Two of my favor tricks are I
> 
> - throw a back fist, when my opponent blocks it, I'll borrow his force, spin my arm, and change my back fist into a hook (or hay-maker).
> - pull my opponent, when he resists, I'll borrow his force, change my pulling into pushing.
> ...


I don't think this answers @Cephalopod 's question. It sounds more like a conservation of energy question.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's an absolute statement. Absolute statements are always false. (See what I did there?)
> 
> Strong and stiff can overcome flexible and weak. And the other way around (assuming sufficient skill). More importantly, strong and flexible beats the heck out of weak and flexible.



"The sun will rise tomorrow" is not a absolute true statement as well, as some believe tomorrow will never come. But 1RM is an experimental truth as it should work in every trial.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2018)

Yeung said:


> "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not a absolute true statement as well, as some believe tomorrow will never come. But 1RM is an experimental truth as it should work in every trial.


And what is it supposed to demonstrate? You've referred to it more than once, but I'm still not sure what your point is with the analogy.


----------



## Bruce7 (Dec 11, 2018)

While I training in Taekwondo and Kung Fu, I do not feel I have the knowledge to answer the question.
My experience in Taekwondo was about meeting force with force. Maybe if I had been a black belt it would have been explain differently.
When I studied Kung Fu it was about redirecting force, since my instructor spoke no English that is my best guess.
Interestingly boxing does both, the power of Taekwondo blocking punches and the ability of Kung Fu to slip punches.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 11, 2018)

Yeung said:


> I am not making a statement but providing a working definition of Si Li as follows:
> 
> Si Li (死力 dead force)is a form of extreme muscle contraction and one-repetition maximum (One-repetition maximum - Wikipedia) or 1RM is one of the examples. The textbook account of muscle contraction can be found in Wikipedia (Muscle contraction - Wikipedia) which is very detail; for our purpose of understanding 1RM, a general knowledge of static, lengthening, and shortening muscle actions should be sufficient.
> 
> If this definition is acceptable, we can go on discussing the various techniques and differences in power generation based on muscle actions. Otherwise, any improvement or alternative is welcome.



Maybe another example of utilizing maxing strength is the various breaking techniques in martial arts; the principle on 1RM is that after one execution one has to recover for a while before one can do it again. Maybe this is why most practitioners of forms just operating in certain percentage of 1RM. In practice one can left a weight 8 times with 80% of the weight of !RM.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 11, 2018)

- Boxers like to talk about offense techniques (such as jab, cross, hook, uppercut).
- WC guys like to talk about defense techniques (such as Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou).

Why one MA style likes to talk about offense while another MA style likes to talk about defense? 

When you punch your opponent's face, you want your opponent to move in toward you. It's force against force.

A + B > A


----------



## Denoaikido (Dec 11, 2018)

good old stuff op


----------



## Yeung (Dec 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Boxers like to talk about offense techniques (such as jab, cross, hook, uppercut).
> - WC guys like to talk about defense techniques (such as Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou).
> 
> Why one MA style likes to talk about offense while another MA style likes to talk about defense?
> ...


*If you cannot tell the difference between a sport and an art than you should have a look at Loi lau hoi song lat sau jik chong in this forum:*
*Loi Lau Hoi Song, Lat Sau Jik Chong*
Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou, or internal Tan Shou are used to entertain an incoming strike and then send the opponent away with lower side palm heel strike, upper palm heel strike, finger trust, or a knuckle strike. In real fighting, one cannot afford to trade of as in sport with protective devices.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Boxers like to talk about offense techniques (such as jab, cross, hook, uppercut).
> - WC guys like to talk about defense techniques (such as Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou).
> 
> Why one MA style likes to talk about offense while another MA style likes to talk about defense?
> ...


Then  you have the other side of that coin.  Sometimes I want to punch my opponent in the face where he's least able to resist it.  It's the punch you don't see,,,,,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 11, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *If you cannot tell the difference between a sport and an art than you should have a look at Loi lau hoi song lat sau jik chong in this forum:*
> *Loi Lau Hoi Song, Lat Sau Jik Chong*
> Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou, or internal Tan Shou are used to entertain an incoming strike and then send the opponent away with lower side palm heel strike, upper palm heel strike, finger trust, or a knuckle strike. In real fighting, one cannot afford to trade of as in sport with protective devices.


- Why do you want to send your opponent away? 
- I cannot tell the difference between sport and art. What's the difference? 
- Do you ever pull your opponent's head into your knee? Is that force against force?


----------



## Yeung (Dec 12, 2018)

Oh, I made a spelling mistake, it should be finger thrust and not finger trust. Sending an opponent with a strike is a sensible thing, and this is all about fighting. Without going into details of doing a grab or Lap Shou from a Tan Shou, pull the opponent to the side by turning to the side stance and punch and if he or she pull back then follow the direction of the pull with a strike to the face. This is strength add on strength, or as a form of borrowing force. In a way, meeting a strike with Tan Shou is already a form of force against force. I think you should find the entrance techniques of Wing Chun in this forum, as that is something practitioners learned before making use of the wooden dummy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *If you cannot tell the difference between a sport and an art than you should have a look at Loi lau hoi song lat sau jik chong in this forum:*
> *Loi Lau Hoi Song, Lat Sau Jik Chong*
> Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou, or internal Tan Shou are used to entertain an incoming strike and then send the opponent away with lower side palm heel strike, upper palm heel strike, finger trust, or a knuckle strike. In real fighting, one cannot afford to trade of as in sport with protective devices.


Not all sport uses significant safety devices. And not all "art" (I consider this a false distinction) is focused on effectiveness.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 12, 2018)

Yeung said:


> if he or she pull back then follow the direction of the pull with a strike to the face. This is strength add on strength,


Let's check on the math here.

When your opponent pulls back (A), he is moving away from you, if you strike to his face (B), it's

B - A < B (We all know that rear end collision doesn't cause too much damage.)

In

- striking art, borrowing force means "head on collision".
- throwing art, borrowing force means "rear end collision".

This is why Taiji push hand does not make sense to me. IMO, pushing is neither striking nor throwing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's check on the math here.
> 
> When your opponent pulls back (A), he is moving away from you, if you strike to his face (B), it's
> 
> ...


I suppose that depends somewhat on the purpose of a strike. If someone is moving away and the purpose of the strike is to keep them going in that direction (for defensive purposes, or perhaps to set up a power strike), then hitting them becomes B+A (adding to their "away" momentum). There are even some grappling techniques that borrow force via "head on collision" - you can see this a lot in some Aikido techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> There are even some grappling techniques that borrow force via "head on collision" - you can see this a lot in some Aikido techniques.


I don't know any throwing technique that use head on collision. Could you give an example, or put up a clip?

Are you talking about your opponent runs toward you, you use your arm to strike on his neck, he will then fall down?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know any throwing technique that use head on collision. Could you give an example, or put up a clip?
> 
> Are you talking about your opponent runs toward you, you use your arm to strike on his neck, he will then fall down?


Aikido’s irimi nage is a good case. This is a reasonably clear version (just ignore the context - I doubt that would work against a jab in that way).


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 12, 2018)

This is really similar to something I had people working on last night. I didn't think about it quite in these same terms, but maybe I'll revisit it tonight with this idea in my head and see how it feels.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not all sport uses significant safety devices. And not all "art" (I consider this a false distinction) is focused on effectiveness.



Rules,


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's check on the math here.
> 
> When your opponent pulls back (A), he is moving away from you, if you strike to his face (B), it's
> 
> ...



It gets a bit difficult if you can not activate the elastic component of your body to spring back after the your pull and follow the pull of the opponent and use additional force to strike.

Maybe you are talking the sport of pushing hand, as there are rules such as not putting the hands over the shoulder(s) to pull and no striking, etc. 

Most people use to practice using concentric muscle contraction to generate power do have difficulties in doing Wing Chun sticking hands of Taijiquan push hands.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Rules,


Not all rulesets are equally restrictive. Some allow a lot of what folks in SD circles (and I'm in that circle, so I get to hear a lot of it) say they could use in situations that sports folks wouldn't.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not all rulesets are equally restrictive. Some allow a lot of what folks in SD circles (and I'm in that circle, so I get to hear a lot of it) say they could use in situations that sports folks wouldn't.



Rulesets vary, of course, but one thing that is true of all is that they're intended to minimize unacceptable risk. So, in this context, it's reasonable to consider them a safety device.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Rulesets vary, of course, but one thing that is true of all is that they're intended to minimize unacceptable risk. So, in this context, it's reasonable to consider them a safety device.


It is, though I don't think that's what the poster meant, or they'd probably have referred to rules and devices. It seems a linguistic stretch for common conversation. Reference to the safety of sport is a common point made by SD-oriented instructors. There's some validity (as you pointed out in this post), but it's most often vastly overstated.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> It gets a bit difficult if you can not activate the elastic component of your body to spring back after the your pull and follow the pull of the opponent and use additional force to strike.
> 
> Maybe you are talking the sport of pushing hand, as there are rules such as not putting the hands over the shoulder(s) to pull and no striking, etc.
> 
> Most people use to practice using concentric muscle contraction to generate power do have difficulties in doing Wing Chun sticking hands of Taijiquan push hands.


Do you agree that "rear end collision" is A - B < A?

If your intention is to push your opponent away, A + B > A. But I assume we are not talking about pushing here.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

*Between proficient Wing Chun practitioners, a fight without rule will end up in some forms of sticking hand techniques and who ever achieve the first strike will be the winner. The name of the game is to demonstrate superiority by control but very often that is not the case with beginners. Most clubs have some sort of hierarchical system but to formalize this kind of contest is not possible, and has failed many time since the Foshan, Hong Kong and Guangzhou Chinwoo Rose Cup Yong Chun Sticking-hand Invitation Tournament, Foshan City, Guangdong, China, 21-22 October 2000. *


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree that "rear end collision" is A - B < A?
> 
> If your intention is to push your opponent away, A + B > A. But I assume we are not talking about pushing here.



There is a difference in pulling one's hand away and moving one's face away. Anyway, let get back to the fundamental of utilization of force. The example of tripod dumbbell rows is demonstrate


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> There is a difference in pulling one's hand away and moving one's face away. Anyway, let get back to the fundamental of utilization of force. The example of tripod dumbbell rows is demonstrate


I asked before: what does that example demonstrate?


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

the difference in pulling up and lowering a weight.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I asked before: what does that example demonstrate?



Try it and tell me if there is a difference.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *Between proficient Wing Chun practitioners, a fight without rule will end up in some forms of sticking hand techniques and who ever achieve the first strike will be the winner. The name of the game is to demonstrate superiority by control but very often that is not the case with beginners.*



You mean like this?






Only thing "sticky" about that fight is the guy's back on the floor as the other Wing Chun master hit him in the face over and over again.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> There is a difference in pulling one's hand away and moving one's face away. Anyway, let get back to the fundamental of utilization of force. The example of tripod dumbbell rows is demonstrate


Let me try this one more time.

You punch when your opponent is

1. moving away from you.
2. standing still.
3. moving in toward you.

Which one will hurt your opponent the most? IMO, 1 < 2 < 3.

Do you agree, or do you disagree?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> the difference in pulling up and lowering a weight.


That’s what it is. What does it demonstrate?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Try it and tell me if there is a difference.


I do that exercise regularly. What difference are you wanting to emphasize specifically with that example?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I do that exercise regularly. What difference are you wanting to emphasize specifically with that example?


That exercise is very good to build back muscle so when you get old, you won't have hunchback. It's a good exercise to keep forever.

IMO, this thread discussion can be as simple as:

- Your opponent punches you.
- You deflect his punch (such as comb hair, downward parry, ...).
- You then punch back at the same time.

What's wrong with this kind of simple explanation? Why do we have to use terms such as "dead force", "brute force", "absorb", ...?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That exercise is very good to build back muscle so when you get old, you won't have hunchback. It's a good exercise to keep forever.
> 
> IMO, this thread discussion can be as simple as:
> 
> ...


I tend to agree. Those terms can be useful within a school/group that already has their definition, so the word can incorporate more nuance. But in open discussion - unless the definition is provided - they tend to obfuscate things.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I do that exercise regularly. What difference are you wanting to emphasize specifically with that example?


It there a difference between pulling up and lowering?


----------



## Yeung (Dec 14, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let me try this one more time.
> 
> You punch when your opponent is
> 
> ...



As far as I concern the striking force is the same in different situation, and it is the question of what kind of force you are generating that is all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Yeung said:


> It there a difference between pulling up and lowering?


Yes. What are you using that difference to illustrate?

You keep asking questions in response to questions. I'm asking what YOU mean. You won't get to that by asking me questions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Yeung said:


> As far as I concern the striking force is the same in different situation, and it is the question of what kind of force you are generating that is all.


The force you exert might be, but not the force felt by the target.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 15, 2018)

*Si Li (死力 dead force) and Gu Li (谷力 compressing force) are Cantonese sayings which most teachers of Wing Chun tell their students to avoid in their training. Tan Shou for example is a rotational stretching of the arm and it is the basic method of generating strength without contracting or shortening the arm muscles. Actually this is more psychological than physical training, as most people will stiffen up their arm muscles upon contact due to fear which is habitual in some ways. The disadvantage of stiffening up muscles or a combine action of stretching and shortening will lose the ability to activate the elastic component of the body. The example of lowering a weight is a demonstration the possibility of activating the elastic component of the body as the muscles are lengthening. The experimental truth is that one can lower a weight that he or she cannot pull up like 30% over 1RM, and eccentric training or overloading is a popular technique for gaining additional strength in some sports. There are many advantages in knowing how to activate and to utilize the elastic component of the body; gaining additional strength, neutralizing force, and borrowing force are some of the examples.*


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2018)

Yeung said:


> elastic component of the body


I keep reading this and I have no idea what you mean.  There's a lot of stuff in the arm that's elastic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 15, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> There's a lot of stuff in the arm that's elastic.


IMO, elastic is as simple as the end of your current move is the beginning of your next move.

For example, the end of your

- punch is the beginning of your pulling.
- roundhouse kick is the beginning of your side kick.

I'm very lucky to have an experience on this. The 1st day that I met my teacher's brother in Beijing back in 1980, he punched at my chest and then pull his punch back. His punch created a vacuum that pull my shirt away from my body. That was the only time that I have experienced with someone's punch like that. I tried to create that myself but I still can't do it. 

It makes me to believe that our generation is worse than our previous generation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I keep reading this and I have no idea what you mean.  There's a lot of stuff in the arm that's elastic.


I'm still working on that one, too. I think he's talking about the stretching that happens with a "soft" arm, where it can give without entirely yielding, and builds a feeling of elastic tension that can be fed back into technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm still working on that one, too. I think he's talking about the stretching that happens with a "soft" arm, where it can give without entirely yielding, and builds a feeling of elastic tension that can be fed back into technique.


If that's what he's talking about then it's a similar concept that Tai Chi uses and trains within push hands.  If it's what Kung Fu wang talks about then it sounds like something close to a snap punch, which I clearly don't use much of that.

I looked up Tan Shou and didn't like it. And I guess I don't like it because it's explained outside the concept of application. This is the video I watch.  Not sure if Tan Sao and Tan Shou are the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> If that's what he's talking about then it's a similar concept that Tai Chi uses and trains within push hands.  If it's what Kung Fu wang talks about then it sounds like something close to a snap punch, which I clearly don't use much of that.
> 
> I looked up Tan Shou and didn't like it. And I guess I don't like it because it's explained outside the concept of application. This is the video I watch.  Not sure if Tan Sao and Tan Shou are the same thing.


I'm not a fan of explanations and demonstrations like that. While the relaxation does have an effect, most of what's happening to the instructor there is his own doing - he's changing his own tension between iterations.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a fan of explanations and demonstrations like that. While the relaxation does have an effect, most of what's happening to the instructor there is his own doing - he's changing his own tension between iterations.


yep.  It's push into vs push away

I also don't like the method of how he's pushing. I can't think of any point in a fight where I would push against someone's arm like that, so explaining it that way just confuses me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> yep.  It's push into vs push away
> 
> I also don't like the method of how he's pushing. I can't think of any point in a fight where I would push against someone's arm like that, so explaining it that way just confuses me.


It's meant to simulate the direction of energy received, but I don't think it does. More importantly (as I think you are saying) it doesn't reflect the type of energy that would be received (hard vs. soft).


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 16, 2018)

WC contains this "elastic" energy stuff you guys are talking about...its contained in the forms. Whether one is taught it, or has it explained, or trains it / utilizes it is all up for debate but it is there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It's meant to simulate the direction of energy received, but I don't think it does. More importantly (as I think you are saying) it doesn't reflect the type of energy that would be received (hard vs. soft).


Yes that's what I'm saying.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> WC contains this "elastic" energy stuff you guys are talking about...its contained in the forms. Whether one is taught it, or has it explained, or trains it / utilizes it is all up for debate but it is there.


I'm not a wing chun guy which is why this stuff is foreign to me.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 16, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I keep reading this and I have no idea what you mean.  There's a lot of stuff in the arm that's elastic.


*Tan Shou 攤手 means open hand, and is often used to describe the springiness of Wing Chun; it is like a piece of wood floating in water, and came back up when it is pushed under. So simple stretching out the arm with the elbow pointing downward and palm turned upward, and maintaining that stretching even when it reached its limit; when being push downward without resisting it then the tension of the arm will increase and return to the starting position when it is released. This is just activating the elastic component of the arm and it should work with anyone.*


----------



## Yeung (Dec 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, elastic is as simple as the end of your current move is the beginning of your next move.
> 
> For example, the end of your
> 
> ...



Maximize the recoil effect of a strike is by maximizing the length of relevant muscle fibres.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 17, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> WC contains this "elastic" energy stuff you guys are talking about...its contained in the forms. Whether one is taught it, or has it explained, or trains it / utilizes it is all up for debate but it is there.



You can learn the forms in a very short time,  and it is the practice that makes it workable. The traditional method is just practice sticking hands until one can put up a good defense against the instructor and his assistants. Maybe people do not understand why Wing Chun work so well for some people by looking at the forms and a few simple duels.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 17, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *Tan Shou 攤手 ... the tension of the arm will increase and return to the starting position when it is released. *


I don't use the WC Tan Shou to block my opponent's punch. I use double Tan Shou to drill a hole between my opponent's boxing guard. After that, I don't pull my Tan Shou back. I change

- one Tan Shou to arm wrap (NW -> NE), and
- another Tan Shou to head lock (NE -> SW).

In other words, my Tan Shou will never come back the same way.

This is why I don't feel the need for that elastic motion that you are talking about here. Even if I use Tan Shou to block my opponent's punch, After my Tan Shou extension, I don't want it to return back to the starting position. When I move my hand out, I don't want my hand to come back for nothing.

IMO, in striking art, Tan Shou should always be followed by arm wrapping.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 18, 2018)

Thank you, that was a really good example of preempted sequenced routine. Now, let think about the possible retaliations starting from fist contact when a punch is blocked by a Tan Shou.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2018)

Yeung said:


> Now, let think about the possible retaliations starting from fist contact when a punch is blocked by a Tan Shou.


It doesn't matter who punches first, when your right arm contacts your opponent's right arm, either you will change your arm contact into a grab, or your opponent will change his arm contact into a grab. Do you prefer you grab your opponent, or do you prefer your opponent grabs you?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 18, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...either you will change your arm contact into a grab, or your opponent will change his arm contact into a grab.



Not necessarily...
you may pak and punch
you may pull and punch
you may simply retract that arm and replace it with another punch (i.e. "chain" punching)
you may grab onto his arm and pull while kicking low
you may .......


----------



## Yeung (Dec 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It doesn't matter who punches first, when your right arm contacts your opponent's right arm, either you will change your arm contact into a grab, or your opponent will change his arm contact into a grab. Do you prefer you grab your opponent, or do you prefer your opponent grabs you?


If you intercepted my right punch with a right Tan Shou from the blind side and attempt to grab; the response is subjected to the direction of your block whether it is across. straight, or diagonal. This is not taking the stances into consideration.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 29, 2018)

Yeung said:


> *Four Principle of Power*
> A Wing Chun practitioner must learn to borrow the energy of the attack by way of deliberately yielding. The energy the Practitioner receives from the attack is redirected towards the attacker immediately adding his/her own force to it.
> 
> 1.      Give up your Own force
> ...



Seems a bit contradictory to me. Give up your own, you have already lost (keep but unleash when necessary). Combine the forces, not necessary as you have lost control of the fight already. Give them back, that is a counter attack to minimise losses. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Not a theory I understand.You can't unload or neutralise a fight, or any force with the same.


----------



## geezer (Dec 29, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> Seems a bit contradictory to me. Give up your own, you have already lost (keep but unleash when necessary). Combine the forces, not necessary as you have lost control of the fight already. Give them back, that is a counter attack to minimise losses. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Not a theory I understand.You can't unload or neutralise a fight, or any force with the same.



There! You see what happens when you try to take a f_ortune cookie _literally! 


But as I mentioned in a previous post, I've heard these ideas presented a little bit differently by my old sifu, Leung Ting, and I think they have some merit. The way LT phrased these ideas in English was not as advice for fighting, but was intended to describe a _learning progression_ as you trained the system and went as follows:

*1. Get rid of your own force *(i.e. learn to relaxe and get rid of unecessary tension).
*2. Get rid of your opponent's force *(i.e. deflect, evade, and "dissolve" the oncoming force of an attack, don't oppose it).
*3. Borrow your opponent's force* (i.e. don't just throw your attacker's energy away, but redirect it to your advantage).
*4. Add back your own force *(i.e. when you can accomplish the above, you can add in all your own power on top of what you have "borrowed").

According to LT, this is the training progression to evolve from unskilled and inefficient brawling to highly skilled and efficient fighting. LT maintained that the goal of training exercises like _chi-sau_ is to enable us to gradually integrate this ability to "borrow the force" into our sparring and fighting, but I'd say that the same progression can be observed in all the fighting systems I know of. It applies to grappling for sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> Seems a bit contradictory to me. Give up your own, you have already lost (keep but unleash when necessary). Combine the forces, not necessary as you have lost control of the fight already. Give them back, that is a counter attack to minimise losses. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Not a theory I understand.You can't unload or neutralise a fight, or any force with the same.


My reading of "give up your own" (admittedly coming from a VERY different perspective) was that it was about giving up tension, using relaxation to absorb. There's a similar principle found in the aiki-based arts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2018)

geezer said:


> *3. Borrow your opponent's force* (i.e. don't just throw your attacker's energy away, but redirect it to your advantage).
> *4. Add back your own force *(i.e. when you can accomplish the above, you can add in all your own power on top of what you have "borrowed").


In wrestling art, this can mean a lot of things. In striking art, this can only make sense as the following:

- Your opponent punches you.
- You block his punch.
- Pull his punching arm into you to meet your punch.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> My reading of "give up your own" (admittedly coming from a VERY different perspective) was that it was about giving up tension, using relaxation to absorb. There's a similar principle found in the aiki-based arts.



Yes of course, I see what it alludes to now. I call it the coiled spring affect, take a bump, then give it back. At least I think I am on the right road here. To remember things mainly, I have to give them names until I get the terminology right.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

geezer said:


> There! You see what happens when you try to take a f_ortune cookie _literally!
> 
> 
> But as I mentioned in a previous post, I've heard these ideas presented a little bit differently by my old sifu, Leung Ting, and I think they have some merit. The way LT phrased these ideas in English was not as advice for fighting, but was intended to describe a _learning progression_ as you trained the system and went as follows:
> ...



Yes, the more I read it now, then it makes sense. Probably been doing this in class with Sifu. We don’t get to do any sparring though until a higher grade, due to safety for our fellow class mates, and having to be very proficient in what we know. Some of us have clocked in class, but not in a reckless way of course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling art, this can mean a lot of things. In striking art, this can only make sense as the following:
> 
> - Your opponent punches you.
> - You block his punch.
> - Pull his punching arm into you to meet your punch.


I teach redirection in the block, itself, which can help set up grappling. So, a punch coming straight in, if I'm able to use a block (as opposed to just covering or letting it hit guard), I can send it down, which disrupts the attacker's structure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> Yes of course, I see what it alludes to now. I call it the coiled spring affect, take a bump, then give it back. At least I think I am on the right road here. To remember things mainly, I have to give them names until I get the terminology right.


I take a different view on the "give it back", in that we (in the aiki arts) will allow their momentum farther in (getting ourselves out of its path) and add our own to it as we change its direction, or just add to it and send them off in the direction of their momentum.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I take a different view on the "give it back", in that we (in the aiki arts) will allow their momentum farther in (getting ourselves out of its path) and add our own to it as we change its direction, or just add to it and send them off in the direction of their momentum.



So far with what I have been taught, momentum goes forward, and keeps going. Block/parry and strike in quick succession. We don't actually use momentum in that way you have said. The trick for us not too allow it the first place. If we are in a position where the encounter needs to redressed, we go back and offer up ground to preposition and go again. Yes deflect and get them past, but would still be expected to quickly finish it by gaining more momentum tactically wise. We practice just going in mainly, but isn't at the detriment of our defence. Gan Sao for example would like delivering a sword cut to the arm. Hopefully I have explained it well enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> So far with what I have been taught, momentum goes forward, and keeps going. Block/parry and strike in quick succession. We don't actually use momentum in that way you have said. The trick for us not too allow it the first place. If we are in a position where the encounter needs to redressed, we go back and offer up ground to preposition and go again. Yes deflect and get them past, but would still be expected to quickly finish it by gaining more momentum tactically wise. We practice just going in mainly, but isn't at the detriment of our defence. Gan Sao for example would like delivering a sword cut to the arm. Hopefully I have explained it well enough.


The approach will always be a bit different for striking versus grappling (with mixed approach drawing on both). In striking, I really don't want them entering into my space - I fare much better when I enter into theirs...though I do best when I catch them starting to enter and close all the distance by borrowing some of their entry movement.

From what I understand in most cases WC is more direct, and aiki arts are more circumspect, even when we strike. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The approach will always be a bit different for striking versus grappling (with mixed approach drawing on both). *In striking, I really don't want them entering into my space - I fare much better when I enter into theirs...though I do best when I catch them starting to enter and close all the distance by borrowing some of their entry movement. *I see what you are saying here.
> 
> From what I understand in most cases WC is more direct, and aiki arts are more circumspect, even when we strike. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases.



Indeed. When the head Sifu decided to open the schools they did (initially two) they had refined, and in essence redesigned the approach. Keeping to core principles, but more licence towards doing other things. It is a lot different from VT that I do know from the first form and also we don't use chain punching. But yes essentially the Wing Chun directness is still there. In fact the basic philosophy is to put an opponent down hard, and if they are still standing and a capable threat, you ask yourself why you didn't put them away, and go again, and again until no longer needing to. While grappling isn't trained, because I know some, there is no reason why I couldn't in a threat situation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> Gan Sao for example would like delivering a sword cut to the arm.


There are

1. metal strategy - use hard block to hurt the punching arm.
2. water strategy - redirect punch.
3. fire strategy - use footwork, dodge punch without blocking.
4. wood strategy - wrap the punching arm like vine on tree.
5. earth strategy - fully protected guard without any opening.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 30, 2018)

Transk53 said:


> Seems a bit contradictory to me. Give up your own, you have already lost (keep but unleash when necessary). Combine the forces, not necessary as you have lost control of the fight already. Give them back, that is a counter attack to minimise losses. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Not a theory I understand.You can't unload or neutralise a fight, or any force with the same.



The idea of give up your own force is from the website: wciworldwide.com and I think someone has sort of explained that a bit.

You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

Yeung said:


> You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.


After many years of MA training, I still have no idea about what brute force or dead force mean. Is it just a term to look down on others?

I'm using live force. You are using dead force.


----------



## Yeung (Dec 30, 2018)

Yeung said:


> I am not making a statement but providing a working definition of Si Li as follows:
> 
> Si Li (死力 dead force)is a form of extreme muscle contraction and one-repetition maximum (One-repetition maximum - Wikipedia) or 1RM is one of the examples. The textbook account of muscle contraction can be found in Wikipedia (Muscle contraction - Wikipedia) which is very detail; for our purpose of understanding 1RM, a general knowledge of static, lengthening, and shortening muscle actions should be sufficient.
> 
> If this definition is acceptable, we can go on discussing the various techniques and differences in power generation based on muscle actions. Otherwise, any improvement or alternative is welcome.



You have to look up 1RM and muscle contraction, and ask again if you still have no idea.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are
> 
> 1. metal strategy - use hard block to hurt the punching arm.
> 2. water strategy - redirect punch.
> ...



Actually never heard of this one. Is this like Chinese?


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2018)

Yeung said:


> The idea of give up your own force is from the website: wciworldwide.com and I think someone has sort of explained that a bit.
> 
> You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.



Dead force to me sounds like a Star Wars film. Tbh, brute force can fail quite easily, so really are two not the same.

Had a look and just seems another interpretation. Doesn't make anymore real.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> After many years of MA training, I still have no idea about what brute force or dead force mean. Is it just a term to look down on others?
> 
> I'm using live force. You are using dead force.


I think someone (maybe the OP) said earlier that dead force is when your own muscles are opposing each other, so basically that unnecessary tension that stops you from what you're really trying to do. That's something I see astonishingly often from new students.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> dead force is when your own muscles are opposing each other, so basically that unnecessary tension that stops you from what you're really trying to do.


What training can I learn "unnecessary tension"? Do I need to learn how to create "dead force"? 

 If you can't teacher me how to make something happen, how can you teach me how to prevent it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What training can I learn "unnecessary tension"? Do I need to learn how to create "dead force"?
> 
> If you can't teacher me how to make something happen, how can you teach me how to prevent it


I think the point is to learn NOT to provide dead force - it's not useful. But yes, I can easily teach you to create what I'm describing. Can't think for a moment why I'd want to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think the point is to learn NOT to provide dead force - it's not useful. But yes, I can easily teach you to create what I'm describing. Can't think for a moment why I'd want to.


I like to know how to create "dead force". Please share your method if you know how. In another thread, I also ask people to show me how to create "double weighted".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to know how to create dead force. Please share your method if you know how.


It's pretty simple. Grab someone's wrist, then lock your arm into place by tensing all the muscles on both sides of the arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It's pretty simple. Grab someone's wrist, then lock your arm into place by tensing all the muscles on both sides of the arm.


If you can hold my arm in such a way that I can't move, why is it a bad idea? Should we judge it by the result instead of by the method?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can hold my arm in such a way that I can't move, why is it a bad idea? Should we judge it by the result instead of by the method?


If I use that method I just described, I won't be very effective in retaining your arm unless I'm much stronger. I demonstrate to students how much easier it is to release a grip or move a shoulder when they lock up that arm.

By the way, I don't really agree with your premise that someone can't be taught how not to do something if they cannot be taught to do it. I've really never had to teach dead force - students bring that with them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If I use that method I just described, I won't be very effective in retaining your arm unless I'm much stronger. I demonstrate to students how much easier it is to release a grip or move a shoulder when they lock up that arm.
> 
> By the way, I don't really agree with your premise that someone can't be taught how not to do something if they cannot be taught to do it. I've really never had to teach dead force - students bring that with them.


Will you call the 'firemen's carry" as dead force (or brute force)?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> unless I'm much stronger.


What if you are much stronger than your opponent and your dead force can give him a lot of trouble?


----------



## geezer (Dec 30, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling art, this can mean a lot of things. In striking art, this can only make sense as the following:
> - Your opponent punches you.
> - You block his punch.
> - Pull his punching arm into you to meet your punch.



Actually their are about _half-a-dozen _ways to "borrow" your opponent's force in the _striking art _of Wing Chun.

*1. Collision Principle:* slip or deflect the incoming punch with your counterpunch so your opponent's forward momentum adds his force to yours as he collides with your fist.
*2. Pivot Principle: *You receive the incoming force with one arm pivoting with the force and return it simultaneously punching with the other arm, as in _tan-da sau_ with a turn.
*3. Rebound Principle: *You parry, rebounding off the incoming strike borrowing its power to _bounce_ directly into a counterstrike, as in _pak-da_ or _pak-sau_ to _fak sau._
*4. Borrowed Response: *You jerk down on an opponent's arm and they resist, lifting your arm up adding power to your strike to a high target as in _jut-da_ punching the face.
*5. Augmentation Principle: *They punch, you deflect and pull, augmenting their force with yours, leading them into a throw, or pulling them into a wall, post or other hard object!
*6. Spring Principle: *They charge in, with their force bending and compressing your limbs, so when released your arms snap back like bent bamboo, adding their force to your own as in _bong-sau_ to _fak-sau. _This_ springy energy _is at the core of the WT lineage I trained. It is how we understand the old kuen kuit: _Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung.
_
BTW these ideas are my own breakdown of what I learned from LT back in the early 80s and put into an article I wrote for _Inside Kung-Fu_ at that time. Golly, remember when people read magazines? 
_
_


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 31, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will you call the 'firemen's carry" as dead force (or brute force)?



Done right, it needn't be either. Done incorrectly (wasting energy), it could be either. That's the point about those concepts - they are just about efficiency. Every art/system I've ever seen uses the concept of muscular efficiency. It's just approached differently in some.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 31, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if you are much stronger than your opponent and your dead force can give him a lot of trouble?


Isn't that what I just said?

I can get away with using dead force (inefficient exertion) if I have enough strength advantage to overcome their skill. But there are more efficient ways to use that strength.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 31, 2018)

geezer said:


> Actually their are about _half-a-dozen _ways to "borrow" your opponent's force in the _striking art _of Wing Chun.
> 
> *1. Collision Principle:* slip or deflect the incoming punch with your counterpunch so your opponent's forward momentum adds his force to yours as he collides with your fist.
> *2. Pivot Principle: *You receive the incoming force with one arm pivoting with the force and return it simultaneously punching with the other arm, as in _tan-da sau_ with a turn.
> ...


Just an aside, #5 is nearly identical to how I teach working with over-extension to lead an attacker into a throw/takedown.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Isn't that what I just said?
> 
> I can get away with using dead force (inefficient exertion) if I have enough strength advantage to overcome their skill. But there are more efficient ways to use that strength.



Agree. I am lucky enough to be very strong and take quite a bit to body. IE, if they slammed in to me. But yes not so efficient, or wise on many levels.


----------

