Paul Vunak on Power.

[arnisador]

I'm reading his "Anatomy of a Streetfight" and to define the attribute Power he writes:

Combination of strength and speed (ability to use your strength quickly)


I'm not sure whether I agree or not but I find the parenthetical part provocative! Power is quick use of strength--I'm chewing that over.

 

[arnisador]

Today I watched an episode of The History Channel's Conquest ("Urban Ops") that I had taped. It was on SWAT tactics and involved training at the Direct Action Resource Center (DARC, pronounced "D'Arcy") in Little Rock, AR.

One person, Jeff Martone, was described as an instructor of "tactical strength" (!). He showed how to use the "half-spear" technique to shove bystanders out of the way with the forearm across one side of their upper chest. They then showed some takedowns to handcuffing that were very basic HKE drills.

I thought that was interesting--an instructor whose specialty was the tactical use of strength to move people out of the way or get them down so they could be handcuffed!

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by arnisador
I'm reading his "Anatomy of a Streetfight" and to define the attribute Power he writes:

Combination of strength and speed (ability to use your strength quickly)


I'm not sure whether I agree or not but I find the parenthetical part provocative! Power is quick use of strength--I'm chewing that over.

Seems rather obvious. What's there that is provocative? Should have stayed awake during science classes, huh ?

 

[OULobo]

Power in scientific definition is energy per time or work per time, usually measured in Watts or horsepower. I guess Mr. Voo isn't very far off then.

 

[arnisador]

I hadn't thought of it that way before and found it interesting.

Certainly, it isn't the definition of power I learned in science!

 

[pesilat]

Personally, I prefer to look at power in terms of "proper relaxation" which includes body mechanics and relaxation (among other things). Good body mechanics enable us to put as much mass as possible into the strike (which is different, in my definition, than putting "strength" into it). And relaxation increases acceleration (which is related to speed, but not quite the same thing). For more on my personal take on it, check the article: "Diamond in the Rough" at http://impactacademy.com/articles

I'm not saying that my take is any more accurate than anyone else's, it's just my take on the subject.

Mike

 

[twinkletoes]

It's true....

perhaps his definition fits "explosiveness" better.

I can picture instances in which power is recruited slowly (like if you are bench pressing someone off of you).

They are both certainly necessary attributes!

~TT

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
It's true....

perhaps his definition fits "explosiveness" better.

I can picture instances in which power is recruited slowly (like if you are bench pressing someone off of you).

They are both certainly necessary attributes!

~TT

Even with explosiveness, I still prefer the term relaxation to strength. The word "strength" (to me, anyway) denotes muscular tension. Muscular tension is the enemy of acceleration and, by extension, to explosive action.

Not having read Paul's book, I can't even guess at exactly what he means by "combination of strength and speed" because I don't have the context for it. It's entirely possible that he and I are saying the same thing but using different words. Or, perhaps, our understanding of the situation is different. In which case, I'll give a nod to the fact that he's got a decade or so on me experience-wise and grant that he may see/understand something that I don't yet. But until I do, I'll have to stick with my own definition because it's what I've found to be true in my own personal experience and I'm a big believer in empirical evidence. Paul's experiences are, of course, different than mine and, as such, the evidence he's seen is different from mine. I can't really say.

Based on the fact, though, that my opinion jibes with that of several major martial players that I know leads me to believe that I'm on the right track. And, further, since I've more often agreed than disagreed with stuff I have read by Paul, that leads to believe that Paul is saying the same thing but expressing it from a different perspective. It sounds different, but boils down to the same essence.

Mike

 

[twinkletoes]

Mike,

I think you need to distinguish between "necessary" and "excessive" muscular tension.

Certainly SOME tension is needed to move the muscle. That is how the body operates.

I realize that you are speaking of "excessive" tension, which saps energy and is counterproductive, but we are merely discussing strength. Strength is the product of muscular tension, on a strictly anatomical level.

While you have mentioned back up mass and weight, this is also important. It will cut down on the required strength, OR it will serve to create a greater response coupled WITH strength. It depends what we are talking about.

Imagine an individual executing an armlock on you. If that individual had NO strength, would the armlock hurt you? I doubt it. Even with a proper understanding of the mechanics, some base level of strength must be used to hold the arm, to straighten the body, and to hold the rest of the body in place.

Imagine being punched by someone with no strength. Would that injure you, even if they had back-up mass and good mechanics? Again, I doubt it.

I want to strike a distinction here between the muscular tension used in producing "strength" and excess muscular tension. I agree with you wholeheartedly that excess tension is a bad thing. However, we need to be able to discuss "tension" in a muscle as a physiological phenomenon, in addition to the case when someone is "overly tense."

~TT

 

[progressivetactics]

One person, Jeff Martone, was described as an instructor of "tactical strength" (!). He showed how to use the "half-spear" technique to shove bystanders out of the way with the forearm across one side of their upper chest. They then showed some takedowns to handcuffing that were very basic HKE drills.

Jeff is part of Progressive Fighting Systems (paul Vunak's orginization).

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by progressivetactics
Jeff is part of Progressive Fighting Systems (paul Vunak's orginization).

I didn't know that! An interesting connection.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
Mike,

I think you need to distinguish between "necessary" and "excessive" muscular tension.

Certainly SOME tension is needed to move the muscle. That is how the body operates.

I realize that you are speaking of "excessive" tension, which saps energy and is counterproductive, but we are merely discussing strength. Strength is the product of muscular tension, on a strictly anatomical level.

While you have mentioned back up mass and weight, this is also important. It will cut down on the required strength, OR it will serve to create a greater response coupled WITH strength. It depends what we are talking about.

Imagine an individual executing an armlock on you. If that individual had NO strength, would the armlock hurt you? I doubt it. Even with a proper understanding of the mechanics, some base level of strength must be used to hold the arm, to straighten the body, and to hold the rest of the body in place.

Imagine being punched by someone with no strength. Would that injure you, even if they had back-up mass and good mechanics? Again, I doubt it.

I want to strike a distinction here between the muscular tension used in producing "strength" and excess muscular tension. I agree with you wholeheartedly that excess tension is a bad thing. However, we need to be able to discuss "tension" in a muscle as a physiological phenomenon, in addition to the case when someone is "overly tense."

~TT

I agree with the gist of this and I think that, largely, we're just debating the semantics of the word "strength" in this discussion.

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, muscular tension (in general) is vital - things get very messy (literally) if all the tension leaves a body. That aside, though, no one living is completely void of strength. But, a small child certainly doesn't have much strength. But if I'm laying on the floor and that little child toddles by, trips, and, in the effort to catch him/herself, lands on my throat and crushes my trachea, I'll be in just as much trouble as a person who's been hit in the throat by a 250 lb. bruiser. Timing and position

Mike

 

[arnisador]

Well, the semantics of "power" is the issue, and strength is certainly related!

 

[Mormegil]

Slightly off topic, but this discussion reminded me of this "mathmatical proof."

knowledge = power
time = money

power = work / time

therfore

power = work / money
or
knowledge = work / money

Turned around: money = work / knowledge

So, for constant work, money is inversely proporational to knowledge or the less one knows, the more they make.

 

[jujutsu1]

power=mass x speed

Thats Physics

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by jujutsu1
power=mass x speed

Thats Physics

Close, but not quite.

Power = Force x distance / Time = Force x Speed

 

[bob919]

Originally posted by OULobo
Close, but not quite.

Power = Force x distance / Time = Force x Speed

un fortunatey physics doesnt;account for strength whihc also increases power especcially in body punches for example before i did MA i threw arm punches but i could still wind people.