Three concepts on the utilization of forces
- Thread starter Yeung
- Start date
Try it and tell me if there is a difference.
Hanzou
Grandmaster
You mean like this?
Only thing "sticky" about that fight is the guy's back on the floor as the other Wing Chun master hit him in the face over and over again.
Last edited:
Let me try this one more time.
You punch when your opponent is
1. moving away from you.
2. standing still.
3. moving in toward you.
Which one will hurt your opponent the most? IMO, 1 < 2 < 3.
Do you agree, or do you disagree?
Thatās what it is. What does it demonstrate?
I do that exercise regularly. What difference are you wanting to emphasize specifically with that example?
That exercise is very good to build back muscle so when you get old, you won't have hunchback. It's a good exercise to keep forever.
IMO, this thread discussion can be as simple as:
- Your opponent punches you.
- You deflect his punch (such as comb hair, downward parry, ...).
- You then punch back at the same time.
What's wrong with this kind of simple explanation? Why do we have to use terms such as "dead force", "brute force", "absorb", ...?
Last edited:
I tend to agree. Those terms can be useful within a school/group that already has their definition, so the word can incorporate more nuance. But in open discussion - unless the definition is provided - they tend to obfuscate things.
It there a difference between pulling up and lowering?
As far as I concern the striking force is the same in different situation, and it is the question of what kind of force you are generating that is all.
Yes. What are you using that difference to illustrate?
You keep asking questions in response to questions. I'm asking what YOU mean. You won't get to that by asking me questions.
The force you exert might be, but not the force felt by the target.
Si Li (ę»å dead force) and Gu Li (č°·å compressing force) are Cantonese sayings which most teachers of Wing Chun tell their students to avoid in their training. Tan Shou for example is a rotational stretching of the arm and it is the basic method of generating strength without contracting or shortening the arm muscles. Actually this is more psychological than physical training, as most people will stiffen up their arm muscles upon contact due to fear which is habitual in some ways. The disadvantage of stiffening up muscles or a combine action of stretching and shortening will lose the ability to activate the elastic component of the body. The example of lowering a weight is a demonstration the possibility of activating the elastic component of the body as the muscles are lengthening. The experimental truth is that one can lower a weight that he or she cannot pull up like 30% over 1RM, and eccentric training or overloading is a popular technique for gaining additional strength in some sports. There are many advantages in knowing how to activate and to utilize the elastic component of the body; gaining additional strength, neutralizing force, and borrowing force are some of the examples.
I keep reading this and I have no idea what you mean. There's a lot of stuff in the arm that's elastic.
IMO, elastic is as simple as the end of your current move is the beginning of your next move.
For example, the end of your
- punch is the beginning of your pulling.
- roundhouse kick is the beginning of your side kick.
I'm very lucky to have an experience on this. The 1st day that I met my teacher's brother in Beijing back in 1980, he punched at my chest and then pull his punch back. His punch created a vacuum that pull my shirt away from my body. That was the only time that I have experienced with someone's punch like that. I tried to create that myself but I still can't do it.
It makes me to believe that our generation is worse than our previous generation.
Last edited:
I'm still working on that one, too. I think he's talking about the stretching that happens with a "soft" arm, where it can give without entirely yielding, and builds a feeling of elastic tension that can be fed back into technique.
If that's what he's talking about then it's a similar concept that Tai Chi uses and trains within push hands. If it's what Kung Fu wang talks about then it sounds like something close to a snap punch, which I clearly don't use much of that.
I looked up Tan Shou and didn't like it. And I guess I don't like it because it's explained outside the concept of application. This is the video I watch. Not sure if Tan Sao and Tan Shou are the same thing.
I'm not a fan of explanations and demonstrations like that. While the relaxation does have an effect, most of what's happening to the instructor there is his own doing - he's changing his own tension between iterations.
yep. It's push into vs push away
I also don't like the method of how he's pushing. I can't think of any point in a fight where I would push against someone's arm like that, so explaining it that way just confuses me.
It's meant to simulate the direction of energy received, but I don't think it does. More importantly (as I think you are saying) it doesn't reflect the type of energy that would be received (hard vs. soft).
Latest Discussions
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
-
-
