Deflection and the cubic diagonal of a narrow rectangular prism

[pdg]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.