Totally, I figure this is what this forum is all about. Swapping notes/thoughts, sharing examples, embarrassing ourselves, and ultimately coming out the other end with more knowledge.
Swapping lies and hiding secrets. You forgot those.
Side note too, I don't mean to throw around math like it's some kind of smarty pants thing. More than anything, I hope this makes that kind of math more approachable.
I can't use bridging because Wing Chun bridging is not the same as Jow Ga kung fu bridging. The concept is the same but the delivery isn't. In Jow Ga our bridging isn't in such a tight area because it's a circular system, so we have to be able to do bridge work that is away from our center. As an outsider looking in. Wing Chun seems to collapse the opponent with the bridge work. In Jow Ga we tend to open an opponent with ours.
Here's how Jow Ga sees that scenario without punching. If your left arm has made contact then I'm going to use my right arm to main contact and redirect your left arm so I can isolate it. I will either isolate it by grabbing it or repositioning it. I DO NOT, NOT EVER need to get my other hand into the bridge. My free hand is for punching, defending, preventing and escaping should an extra hand be required. This isn't a wrong or right issue. It is just one that would reduce the ability to follow up with a Jow Ga technique if I took the same approach as you described for Wing Chun. If you look at Jow Ga forms you will see a lot of one hand bridging. We do have two hand bridging techniques but each hand takes a hand vs switching bridges.
ha ha ha. I'll put it this way. The math that you put is small compared to some of the formulas and equations that have popped up around on Martial Talk.
I think this is more applicable to Forms. Forms tend to be more rigid and the student has to move into certain positions, punches have to be at certain angles, structure has to be certain way. Martial arts forms are great for concepts and approaches that one can build off of simply because they are constant. It's a good thing because it provides a solid starting point. It's a bad thing because some people think that's the only way to do it, and any variation of that technique is wrong or doesn't work. I've seen variation of Jow Ga techniques in both Korean and Japanese martial arts. It wasn't how Jow Ga teaches it, but the variation that they used was a working one.
ha ha ha..I've written a chapter on just how to make 2 types of fists. So far the second type of fist is 5 pages long simply on the structure of the fist and I'm not finished yet. So I've been trying to reduce it and making sure that I only include things that are needed.I need a great big blackboard to quantify a one punch, one kick exchange
Problem is most schools teach System A vs System A, so when it's System A vs System B. Those drills don't calculate. The abstract is rarely taught, students usually pick up that on their own through exploration. It seems like an easy thing, but from teaching martial arts, it seems that students make it harder than what it needs to be in terms of making that jump from drill concept to real world application. Some how it always tends to turn into "I'm waiting for my opponent to do A so I can do B." I used to be like that as well but that's before I sat down and really tried to understand what it is that I'm doing outside of what the drill is showing.
This is why the move toward your opponent's side door (blind side) is a good strategy.
I can see that spending time together, you and I will blather about many topics, Alan. I suspect, if you were to complete an assessment on motivators (based on Spranger/Allport model), you'd also be a high-Theoretical.Another thought! Machine learning could teach us something interesting too. There are ML algorithms that are able to classify video. We could feed ML algorithms footage of every recorded fight and it would be able to run an unsupervised learning algorithm against it to find clusters in time series. Like, there'd be a cluster for lead jabs that look similar. You could provide cleaner training data if two partners wore 3d gyroscopic trackers on their shoulders, elbows, wrists, forehead, chin, hips, knees, and ankles.
This kind of information would also feed well into what's called a Markov chain to tell us what the responses are that have most often led to successful counter. This would be less about trying to calculate movements from paper to action than recording action and feeding it into a computer that could find interesting patterns that we might not think of ourselves. Would also make for good video game/simulator content
And another thought! Learning Wing Chun for me was never about fighting competitively. It was always about trying to be a better version of myself by reducing fear through understanding and disciplined practice centered on something I was terrified of, physical violence. Math has reduced my fear dramatically through understanding and disciplined practice centered on another thing I was terrified of, intellectual inferiority. That others knew something I didn't and wasn't part of the smart kid's club. That I wouldn't see the world in ways that others could and would lose out on that experience; or that I would be tricked/taken-advantage-of by people who knew it and saw more than I did.
I'm word vomiting a bit but the wife just left for the beach with the 3-yo so I have time to wax poetic.
If you want, I can send you an assessment link.
Would love to!
Sent in PM.
Oh ok. I misunderstood before. That's why I was saying that for forms one could show the math because Forms would be constant enough.
No it's actually an accurate example. If I see that you are planning a specific attack or defense, then I already know that you are expecting a specific out come. I can literally show how this plays out through in one of my videos. In the video.
