Three concepts on the utilization of forces

[Gerry Seymour]

So far with what I have been taught, momentum goes forward, and keeps going. Block/parry and strike in quick succession. We don't actually use momentum in that way you have said. The trick for us not too allow it the first place. If we are in a position where the encounter needs to redressed, we go back and offer up ground to preposition and go again. Yes deflect and get them past, but would still be expected to quickly finish it by gaining more momentum tactically wise. We practice just going in mainly, but isn't at the detriment of our defence. Gan Sao for example would like delivering a sword cut to the arm. Hopefully I have explained it well enough.

The approach will always be a bit different for striking versus grappling (with mixed approach drawing on both). In striking, I really don't want them entering into my space - I fare much better when I enter into theirs...though I do best when I catch them starting to enter and close all the distance by borrowing some of their entry movement.

From what I understand in most cases WC is more direct, and aiki arts are more circumspect, even when we strike. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases.

 

[Transk53]

The approach will always be a bit different for striking versus grappling (with mixed approach drawing on both). In striking, I really don't want them entering into my space - I fare much better when I enter into theirs...though I do best when I catch them starting to enter and close all the distance by borrowing some of their entry movement. I see what you are saying here.

From what I understand in most cases WC is more direct, and aiki arts are more circumspect, even when we strike. Of course, there are exceptions in both cases.

Indeed. When the head Sifu decided to open the schools they did (initially two) they had refined, and in essence redesigned the approach. Keeping to core principles, but more licence towards doing other things. It is a lot different from VT that I do know from the first form and also we don't use chain punching. But yes essentially the Wing Chun directness is still there. In fact the basic philosophy is to put an opponent down hard, and if they are still standing and a capable threat, you ask yourself why you didn't put them away, and go again, and again until no longer needing to. While grappling isn't trained, because I know some, there is no reason why I couldn't in a threat situation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Gan Sao for example would like delivering a sword cut to the arm.

There are

1. metal strategy - use hard block to hurt the punching arm.
2. water strategy - redirect punch.
3. fire strategy - use footwork, dodge punch without blocking.
4. wood strategy - wrap the punching arm like vine on tree.
5. earth strategy - fully protected guard without any opening.

 

[Yeung]

Seems a bit contradictory to me. Give up your own, you have already lost (keep but unleash when necessary). Combine the forces, not necessary as you have lost control of the fight already. Give them back, that is a counter attack to minimise losses. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Not a theory I understand.You can't unload or neutralise a fight, or any force with the same.

The idea of give up your own force is from the website: wciworldwide.com and I think someone has sort of explained that a bit.

You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.

After many years of MA training, I still have no idea about what brute force or dead force mean. Is it just a term to look down on others?

I'm using live force. You are using dead force.

 

[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.

You have to look up 1RM and muscle contraction, and ask again if you still have no idea.

 

[Transk53]

There are

1. metal strategy - use hard block to hurt the punching arm.
2. water strategy - redirect punch.
3. fire strategy - use footwork, dodge punch without blocking.
4. wood strategy - wrap the punching arm like vine on tree.
5. earth strategy - fully protected guard without any opening.

Actually never heard of this one. Is this like Chinese?

 

[Transk53]

The idea of give up your own force is from the website: wciworldwide.com and I think someone has sort of explained that a bit.

You need to differentiate brute force or dead force from force that is all.

Dead force to me sounds like a Star Wars film. Tbh, brute force can fail quite easily, so really are two not the same.

Had a look and just seems another interpretation. Doesn't make anymore real.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

After many years of MA training, I still have no idea about what brute force or dead force mean. Is it just a term to look down on others?

I'm using live force. You are using dead force.

I think someone (maybe the OP) said earlier that dead force is when your own muscles are opposing each other, so basically that unnecessary tension that stops you from what you're really trying to do. That's something I see astonishingly often from new students.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

dead force is when your own muscles are opposing each other, so basically that unnecessary tension that stops you from what you're really trying to do.

What training can I learn "unnecessary tension"? Do I need to learn how to create "dead force"?

If you can't teacher me how to make something happen, how can you teach me how to prevent it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What training can I learn "unnecessary tension"? Do I need to learn how to create "dead force"?

If you can't teacher me how to make something happen, how can you teach me how to prevent it

I think the point is to learn NOT to provide dead force - it's not useful. But yes, I can easily teach you to create what I'm describing. Can't think for a moment why I'd want to.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think the point is to learn NOT to provide dead force - it's not useful. But yes, I can easily teach you to create what I'm describing. Can't think for a moment why I'd want to.

I like to know how to create "dead force". Please share your method if you know how. In another thread, I also ask people to show me how to create "double weighted".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like to know how to create dead force. Please share your method if you know how.

It's pretty simple. Grab someone's wrist, then lock your arm into place by tensing all the muscles on both sides of the arm.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's pretty simple. Grab someone's wrist, then lock your arm into place by tensing all the muscles on both sides of the arm.

If you can hold my arm in such a way that I can't move, why is it a bad idea? Should we judge it by the result instead of by the method?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you can hold my arm in such a way that I can't move, why is it a bad idea? Should we judge it by the result instead of by the method?

If I use that method I just described, I won't be very effective in retaining your arm unless I'm much stronger. I demonstrate to students how much easier it is to release a grip or move a shoulder when they lock up that arm.

By the way, I don't really agree with your premise that someone can't be taught how not to do something if they cannot be taught to do it. I've really never had to teach dead force - students bring that with them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If I use that method I just described, I won't be very effective in retaining your arm unless I'm much stronger. I demonstrate to students how much easier it is to release a grip or move a shoulder when they lock up that arm.

By the way, I don't really agree with your premise that someone can't be taught how not to do something if they cannot be taught to do it. I've really never had to teach dead force - students bring that with them.

Will you call the 'firemen's carry" as dead force (or brute force)?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

unless I'm much stronger.

What if you are much stronger than your opponent and your dead force can give him a lot of trouble?

 

[geezer]

In wrestling art, this can mean a lot of things. In striking art, this can only make sense as the following:
- Your opponent punches you.
- You block his punch.
- Pull his punching arm into you to meet your punch.

Actually their are about half-a-dozen ways to "borrow" your opponent's force in the striking art of Wing Chun.

1. Collision Principle: slip or deflect the incoming punch with your counterpunch so your opponent's forward momentum adds his force to yours as he collides with your fist.
2. Pivot Principle: You receive the incoming force with one arm pivoting with the force and return it simultaneously punching with the other arm, as in tan-da sau with a turn.
3. Rebound Principle: You parry, rebounding off the incoming strike borrowing its power to bounce directly into a counterstrike, as in pak-da or pak-sau to fak sau.
4. Borrowed Response: You jerk down on an opponent's arm and they resist, lifting your arm up adding power to your strike to a high target as in jut-da punching the face.
5. Augmentation Principle: They punch, you deflect and pull, augmenting their force with yours, leading them into a throw, or pulling them into a wall, post or other hard object!
6. Spring Principle: They charge in, with their force bending and compressing your limbs, so when released your arms snap back like bent bamboo, adding their force to your own as in bong-sau to fak-sau. This springy energy is at the core of the WT lineage I trained. It is how we understand the old kuen kuit: Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung.

BTW these ideas are my own breakdown of what I learned from LT back in the early 80s and put into an article I wrote for Inside Kung-Fu at that time. Golly, remember when people read magazines?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Will you call the 'firemen's carry" as dead force (or brute force)?

Done right, it needn't be either. Done incorrectly (wasting energy), it could be either. That's the point about those concepts - they are just about efficiency. Every art/system I've ever seen uses the concept of muscular efficiency. It's just approached differently in some.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What if you are much stronger than your opponent and your dead force can give him a lot of trouble?

Isn't that what I just said?

I can get away with using dead force (inefficient exertion) if I have enough strength advantage to overcome their skill. But there are more efficient ways to use that strength.