Three concepts on the utilization of forces

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

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]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

- 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.

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.

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

 

[Yeung]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

- 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