One good reason for an angled stance.

[JowGaWolf]

We need to hang out some time. Good stuff. I’m out of Austin if you’re ever in town.

I'm easy going. To be honest, I don't mind the math of things, so long as I don't have to calculate it lol. I've been studying the 45º angle as a "magic number" in martial arts for about 3 or 4 years now. Why 45º? What's so important about 45º? and what happens at 45º. I have discovered some things that I've put to the test and paid a serious price for it because it. One of my theories is that biologically our bodies, and animal bodies, are designed based on the best way to protect our organs. One would have to look at the animals in the world to see the variation of this and the truth of it. Long story short every animal has angle of weakness and 45º angles is where humans are the most weak.

Keep in mind the 45º angle is not an exact angle. It's the angle that we try for with the understanding that we won't be exact. But if we try for 45º then we will be within the ball part of the real "magic number" range. So far this only seems to apply to striking I would be interested to know if BJJ has a "magic angle" or if they are just a "bend stuff the wrong way" type system. For example, how do you tap someone out? Answer: Bend it the wrong way.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You’re asking a very brief approximation to accept vague variables unrelated to it. We could actually address those things with math - just a more complex and theoretical branch of math. I’m not sure it would always be useful to do so, but that’s a different question.

I only ask this because of the "math is kung fu" statement. There's a lot of vague stuff in kung fu and martial arts in general. Things are pretty uniformed in forms in and drills, but when things starts moving it's gets vague. Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water." If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.

 

[Martial D]

I only ask this because of the "math is kung fu" statement. There's a lot of vague stuff in kung fu and martial arts in general. Things are pretty uniformed in forms in and drills, but when things starts moving it's gets vague. Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water." If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.

You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art. Some things can only be learned and understood by doing.

As for the Lee quote, it's less vague if you're a WC guy. It refers to staying soft until the moment of impact then tensing. Many variations of WC(including the one I learned) teach this as foundational.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art. Some things can only be learned and understood by doing.

I'm a very analytical person and it would be so cool if we could have a chart to go with it, we could probably make one if we look at things that could be constant. For example, angle that is resisting force that is coming from one direction. While that chart would be interesting it wouldn't be of value outside the context of that small observation.

It's like you stated. "You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art."

As for the Lee quote, it's less vague if you're a WC guy. It refers to staying soft until the moment of impact then tensing. Many variations of WC(including the one I learned) teach this as foundational.

Thanks. It's was the only one that I could think of that had 500 interpretations of what he meant. Your explanation is one that has made me feel the most comfortable with. Many systems teach the same thing as well. I know for Jow Ga it as be relaxed until impact, which is the same concept that you just stated. But I've heard some crazy sfuff as well with that "Be like water" quote.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.

View attachment 21662

Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves? I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens. What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you. Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A. Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.

 

[pdg]

I'm going to use my real life experiences do give you an example of some ways that math does don't factor into. My desire to train and push through has nothing to do with math. My ability to relax when I need to and tense up when I need to have nothing to do with math. How I perceive a punch, kick, attack or defense has nothing to do with math. How I manipulate my opponent (bait, intimidate, mislead) has nothing to do with math. My timing of my striking and defending has very little to do with math and more to do with biology. Did I sleep well the night before sparring? Am I in a good mood? Do I feel lazy? Factors these into your angled stance and that 30% reduction of width in your gates may or may not be of any importance. It definitely won't have any importance if a person doesn't have any skills to make use of it. By this I don't mean a person can't fight. Because some BJJ guys will look at the 30% reduction in width and ask you how well did that work out for you when you were on your back lol.

All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.

It's still an equation though, with variables that can be measured and quantified.

Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water." If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.

Fluid dynamics maybe?

It's all numbers.

 

[lansao]

Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves? I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens. What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you. Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A. Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.

Oh no not at all. This is a very granular assumption. It would be one of many that would be factored into a way more complex model of trying to account for multiple opponents and over a time series. That said, I’m sure there’s some n-dimensional matrix of values that will describe it well enough over a time series.

 

[lansao]

All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.

It's still an equation though, with variables that can be measured and quantified.



Fluid dynamics maybe?

It's all numbers.

Here’s a good one: if the transitive property (if a=b & b=c then a=c) weren’t true, bridging wouldn’t work. But it does work, because it is true, and it’s an axiom because its unit of truth is so granular it can’t be proven with more math, only by observation. You could say bridging in a way proves the transitive property to be true.

 

[lansao]

Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves? I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens. What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you. Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A. Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.

The other nice thing is that you can just wrap stuff that you know is complex into functions and take a load off. Like, just make up some function called “F” that takes in the set of all movements from an opponent along a 3D plane and returns for any given member of that set some set of movements that defends against it with some set of criteria defined by a constant variable of style/art.

The human body ultimately has limited range of motion so we can set the boundaries.

Then you have R and can start to express with it, forget about constructing a solution, just reason about the shapes the variables take when they interact. It’s really beautiful at its core, super expressive.

More important stuff helps with instruction too, like the idea of limits. “I want you to make this exaggerated circular motion first and then imagine the radius of that circle approaching 0 over time.

 

[JowGaWolf]

All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.

Show me. I would like to see it and I'm not saying that to be a smartass. If it's possible to do something that I didn't think was possible then I naturally want to see it because it helps to break down any limitations of thinking and perspectives that kept me from seeing what was actually possible.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Oh no not at all. This is a very granular assumption. It would be one of many that would be factored into a way more complex model of trying to account for multiple opponents and over a time series. That said, I’m sure there’s some n-dimensional matrix of values that will describe it well enough over a time series.

I was thinking more along the lines of .. If you come at me with one stance and I move horizontally to the right or left, What would be your follow up stance that you take as a response to my movement. What angle would your response have in relation to me. Would it be a squared off position or an angled position. If it's angled then what is the degree of that angle. I like to keep things simple.

 

[lansao]

I was thinking more along the lines of .. If you come at me with one stance and I move horizontally to the right or left, What would be your follow up stance that you take as a response to my movement. What angle would your response have in relation to me. Would it be a squared off position or an angled position. If it's angled then what is the degree of that angle. I like to keep things simple.

If your opponent side-steps horizontally and you've over committed, you're caught in check (like chess). You'd need to reposition or counter with footwork (t-step etc.) from where you are (the reciprocal line is useful for this in a few cases). So many words though, would be better to demo. I'm on vacation with family this week but will be happy to share a video when I get back.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fluid dynamics maybe?

lol. the only thing I know about Fluid dynamics is how much soda fits in a bottle lol. not really but you get the meaning of my limitations on that subject lol.

Here’s a good one: if the transitive property (if a=b & b=c then a=c) weren’t true, bridging wouldn’t work

I don't like that one and have been personally punched in the face because I followed that. In my mind (a=b only when b meets criteria 1. B = c only when b meets criteria 2. A and C may or may not be the same thing.)

A = a jab
B = a jab
C = a jab.
D = a jab

A = a Jab standing still
B = a Jab while moving forward
C = a Jab while moving backwards.

A,B,C, are all jabs, but they aren't the same thing. Just by adding simple movement, we have changed, the mechanics of the jab. It doesn't follow the same rules as math.

But it does work, because it is true, and it’s an axiom because its unit of truth is so granular it can’t be proven with more math, only by observation.

My person experience that there is a lot of stuff looks one way when observing and another way when actually applying it. All may look like they are the same from the outside, but a person who actually does these things, he or she will tell you that they are very different. Just because someone is good at jabbing forward doesn't mean they are good at jabbing backwards. Hitting a baseball looks simple enough, just swing the bat like the pros do right? Same with running, everyone knows how to run, but in reality running is very technical when you are the one who is doing it vs the one who is observing. By the way I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to provide some more information that may need to be considered when you are trying to do your math.

Like, just make up some function called “F” that takes in the set of all movements from an opponent along a 3D plane and returns for any given member of that set some set of movements that defends against it with some set of criteria defined by a constant variable of style/art.

We actually see many students try to do this and it doesn't work. The If they do A then you do B? A lot of times they just end up waiting for something that never comes and as a result they get hit with something else.

 

[lansao]

Show me. I would like to see it and I'm not saying that to be a smartass. If it's possible to do something that I didn't think was possible then I naturally want to see it because it helps to break down any limitations of thinking and perspectives that kept me from seeing what was actually possible.

It would start with something along the lines of the image attached (just defining variables based on the nature of the thing being measured). From there you'd iterate until everything that could be reduced is reduced and relationships between variables have been established. Much of what you're seeing here is poorly defined because I'm lazy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If your opponent side-steps horizontally and you've over committed, you're caught in check (like chess). You'd need to reposition or counter with footwork (t-step etc.) from where you are (the reciprocal line is useful for this in a few cases). So many words though, would be better to demo. I'm on vacation with family this week but will be happy to share a video when I get back.

Awesome. I would like to see that, especially because I know we don't train the same system, and it'll give us a chance to analyze the same visual and not the one that goes on in our head. I don't mean to ask for much, but try to do one as a demo and then try to do one during free sparring.

 

[lansao]

I don't like that one and have been personally punched in the face because I followed that. In my mind (a=b only when b meets criteria 1. B = c only when b meets criteria 2. A and C may or may not be the same thing.)

A = a jab
B = a jab
C = a jab.
D = a jab

A = a Jab standing still
B = a Jab while moving forward
C = a Jab while moving backwards.

A,B,C, are all jabs, but they aren't the same thing. Just by adding simple movement, we have changed, the mechanics of the jab. It doesn't follow the same rules as math.


My person experience that there is a lot of stuff looks one way when observing and another way when actually applying it. All may look like they are the same from the outside, but a person who actually does these things, he or she will tell you that they are very different. Just because someone is good at jabbing forward doesn't mean they are good at jabbing backwards. Hitting a baseball looks simple enough, just swing the bat like the pros do right? Same with running, everyone knows how to run, but in reality running is very technical when you are the one who is doing it vs the one who is observing. By the way I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to provide some more information that may need to be considered when you are trying to do your math.

We actually see many students try to do this and it doesn't work. The If they do A then you do B? A lot of times they just end up waiting for something that never comes and as a result they get hit with something else.

No worries, I didn't specify the analogy. Not talking about punching but a wing chun concept called "bridging." Here imagine my left arm (a) has made contact with your right arm (b) (loosely the position of a = the position of b). If my right arm (c) can bridge from my left arm (a) near where its making contact with your right arm (b) to your right arm (b), then my right arm can take my left arm's place (a = c). In other words, if my left arm knows where your right arm is through contact, my right arm knows too and can reference itself to get there. But that's just a simple example with plenty of variance baked in.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think many in the martial arts world forget that each system is an option and with that option certain opportunities are available while other options aren't. I would be willing to bet that few have even thought what's options are available from various positions and how that plays into the function of the system that they train. I guess I blame the teachers of the past for being such a hardass about "This is the way to do it. Everything else is wrong." or "Don't question, just do."

Yeah, it bugs me when I hear "that's wrong", when what they mean (or should mean, anyway) is "that's not the way I'm teaching, and won't emphasize the principles you're learning to use right now".

 

[JowGaWolf]

It would start with something along the lines of the image attached (just defining variables based on the nature of the thing being measured). From there you'd iterate until everything that could be reduced is reduced and relationships between variables have been established. Much of what you're seeing here is poorly defined because I'm lazy.

View attachment 21674

lol. yep. I skimmed about 5 lines and was like "too complicated." show me the short route. Get some sleep, eat well, train hard lol.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

lol. the only thing I know about Fluid dynamics is how much soda fits in a bottle lol. not really but you get the meaning of my limitations on that subject lol.

Just don't ask the Hobbit - you don't want to get her started on fluid dynamics.

 

[lansao]

We actually see many students try to do this and it doesn't work. The If they do A then you do B? A lot of times they just end up waiting for something that never comes and as a result they get hit with something else.

Less about trying to think up the if/then in the moment, too much thought in the moment of execution is a bad idea. Have to have already trained the right small units of abstract movement and hope your training lets you adapt fluidly without being restrained by any specific drill or form ("be like water"). More about appreciating that there exists some definable space/set of responses that fit a defensive criteria. Math as language versus math as calculator.