What does Efficiency mean to you?

[geezer]

It's often stated that efficiency is a core concept, perhaps even the core concept of WC. But efficiency can mean a lot of things. On another thread, LFJ pointed out that it is not the same thing as effectiveness. All Martial Arts seek effectiveness, yet not all stress maximum efficiency. Effectiveness is "getting the job done", while efficiency is "getting the job done for the least input". But that can mean many things. It isn't just "getting the most bang for your buck" or "the highest mileage". There are many kinds of efficiency. There's the efficiency of time, the efficiency of movement, the efficiency of energy, and even the efficiency of training methods. All are, to some degree interrelated, and all are considered -- at least in my WC/VT though all are not stressed equally. In my experience, the emphasis and understanding of "efficiency" what it is and how it should be achieved varies a lot between WC/VT lineages and branches.

So what is your concept of efficiency?

 

[PiedmontChun]

As Sifu sez... "It takes a lot of work to learn to move so little."

I like to think of efficiency followed to conclusion is "being expedient". Efficiency of movement means less risk of being trapped or beaten to the punch (no pun), and potentially being a step ahead by having more nuanced reactions. I sometimes find myself having to step or turn to dissolve attacks in chi-sau, and then will notice when someone more senior is able to dissolve with less movement or in a different way, and those are "aha" moments for me.

Chasing center and not limbs is a pretty obvious facet of being efficient that I think we can all likely agree on, even if it works itself out differently depending on the person.

 

[Danny T]

Efficiency in fighting and in particularly wing chun is much more than just striking the opponent in the most direct and effective manner. Efficiency is producing a desired result without a waste of time, energy, and movement with no damage to your self.

On a theoretical and strategic aspect it is simple and direct. In reality not so.
For instance; a punch deflected as you strike your opponent doesn’t strike you or if it does it has no damaging power against your shoulder but yours knocks him out or takes the fight out of him.
Efficient?

How about that same punch action but this time the opponent’s punch is not just a punch but a knife thrust. That same no damaging power becomes a stab into your shoulder but your punch knocks him out.
Efficient?

 

[geezer]

Danny, you make the excellent point that effectiveness is a component that must be factored into any definition of efficiency ...and effectiveness varies depending on the situation. So efficiency is not an unchanging absolute.

 

[guy b.]

Efficiency is not relative

 

[geezer]

Efficiency is not relative

Yes, it absolutely is. That is because efficiency boils down to getting the job done with the minimum input. So to be efficient, you have to effective as well. For example, I drive a Scion XB and my brother drives a Toyota Tundra 4 x 4. Of course, my little XB gets better mileage while carrying the same number of people.

But, is it more efficient? Certainly it is ...around town, and even on trips. But what about for camping or hunting in the back country, off-roading, or in the snow? Or, when you have to carry a lot of gear and pull a trailer? Then the Scion just won't get the job done. It's not effective. And if it isn't effective, it's no longer efficient! So, clearly efficiency can only be judged relative to the context. The same is true for WC/VT. Sometimes the situation demands that we modify our approach.

And this is exactly the point Danny was making.

 

[guy b.]

Yes, it absolutely is. That is because efficiency boils down to getting the job done with the minimum input. So to be efficient, you have to effective as well. For example, I drive a Scion XB and my brother drives a Toyota Tundra 4 x 4. Of course, my little XB gets better mileage while carrying the same number of people.

I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun

 

[Touch Of Death]

Efficiency is not relative

It is a relative of timing. I asked. LOL

 

[Touch Of Death]

I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun

Lay it on us. If it isn't about timing you are way wrong.

 

[Phobius]

I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun

If you say A you have to say B.

We can not guess what you think efficiency means in terms of WC/VT. Reason beng you have not shown to hold any experience with WC/VT. At least none so far that I recall.

Not saying you have no knowledge of WC/VT but that we simply can not know.

Besides, you should make sure your glass is not full already if you want to share knowledge. It is a perfectly good waste of knowledge if you just spill out everything.

 

[geezer]

Lay it on us. If it isn't about timing you are way wrong.

It's important to define and clarify your terms at the outset of a discussion if you are truly interested in a meaningful conversation. That, in part, is what I was doing, what Danny was doing, and what you are doing, T.O.D.

I'd agree that one key aspect of efficiency, as applied to my WC/VT, has to do with time and distance. I'm talking about finding the shortest distance between weapon and target which is a straight line, or at least the straightest line possible (in case you have to detour around an obstruction). This is certainly one of the more obvious aspects of efficiency in WC/VT that is integrated synergistically with "other efficiencies", to engineer a fighting system that is intended to be as mechanically efficient as humanly possible.

Some other areas in which efficiency is sought include an efficiency of structure, position, stance, and steps that allows for maximum protection (defense) while also being optimal for delivering offense. There is the efficiency of power generation and delivery, allowing for developing linear, non-telegraphic "short power". Then there is the efficiency that comes from generating this power in a relaxed way that is not totally dependent upon size and strength. Of course, there is the efficiency of technique, using the smallest movements possible to achieve the greatest end, with mottos such as "simultaneous attack and defense" and "attacking hand is defending hand". In my lineage, there is the efficiency of shortened response-time created by combining forward intent and forward pressure with "elastic muscular rebound" or "springy energy". And finally, there is the efficiency of being able to borrow your opponent's force. I can think of at least six distinct ways to accomplish this. In fact, at my old sifu's prompting, I wrote a feature article on this subject for a magazine called Inside Kung-fu back in the early 80s.

I'm interested in learning about what each of us can share about these different aspects of WC/VT efficiency as practiced in our separate lineages, branches and kwoons. And if people have other concepts of how efficiency applies to WC/VT, I'm all ears.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It's important to define and clarify your terms at the outset of a discussion if you are truly interested in a meaningful conversation. That, in part, is what was doing, what Danny was doing, and what you are doing.

I'd agree that one key aspect of efficiency, as applied to my WC/VT, has to do with distance and time. I'm talking about finding the shortest distance between weapon and target which is a straight line, or at least the straightest line possible in case you have to detour around and obstruction. This is certainly one of the more obvious aspects of efficiency in WC/VT that is integrated synergistically with "other efficiencies" if you will, to engineer a fighting system that is intended to be as mechanically efficient as humanly possible.

I'm interested in learning about what each of us can share about these different aspects of efficiency as practiced in our separate lineages, branches and kwoons.

I would agree with what you just said, "Go straight, unless you need to go around something", as a general rule, but know that puts speed ahead of power. And, that is a good thing.

 

[KPM]

I agree with what Steve and Danny have said so far. Efficiency absolutely is "relative", even in the specific case of Wing Chun!

If I am using Wing Chun to defend against an empty-handed attacker, I can be very direct and "chase center", as the saying goes. I can go in with a punch in the usual Wing Chun fashion. However, if the attacker has a knife I have to make sure I gain control of the knife-wielding limb before I go into his center with a punch or I will very likely end up dead or seriously injured! What I do against someone with a knife would likely be considered "chasing hands" if I did the same thing against an empty-hand attacker. Therefore my Wing Chun response....including effectiveness and efficiency....is relative to the situation. In other words....what I have trained empty-hand in the kwoon may not be at all efficient when it comes to dealing with someone with I knife if I end up dead or seriously injured in the process!

And effectiveness has to be a factor when talking about efficiency. It might be very efficient to step directly into an opponent with a hard punch. But if he connects with a haymaker to the side of your head before you can stop him...it wasn't very effective!

Your goal must be taken into account as well. If your system contains some Chin Na or controlling methods and it not just about punching someone out, then you have the ability to choose the level of "lethalness" of your response. I've used the case of drunk uncle Ed in the past. Now if good ole uncle Ed is harassing me at the New Year's eve party to "show him my Kung Fu", the most efficient thing to do would be to punch him out! Deflecting a punch and putting him into a joint lock would be considered "chasing hands" and inefficient from the viewpoint of pure fighting. But if my goal is not to hurt uncle Ed, then the most efficient thing to do is to toss him on the couch with a joint lock and convince him to back off with the champagne! So my end goal in the confrontation is a factor in how efficient my response is judged to be.

Efficiency is getting the job done with the least amount of investment of time and energy. An efficient machine is one which puts out the highest amount of work while consuming the least amount of fuel or energy. But if the work being performed is not accomplishing the end goal desired, then the machine is not very effective and its level of efficiency is a moot point. However, the machine may be put to a different task that it performs very well. Therefore its actual efficiency in terms of getting the job done is relative to the task.

 

[drop bear]

Efficiency.

 

[Danny T]

I believe that your opinion is based upon a misunderstanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun

Please advance your thoughts with us. What is your understanding of what the term efficiency means in terms of wing chun and as to wing chun strategy and tactics.

 

[LFJ]

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.

To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a jat or paak for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

The attack line is maintained so that each hand can immediate follow up from the next hit position, cyclically working from point to point. No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.

 

[Danny T]

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

Agreed.

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

Why not? Are you unable to control your movements, power, and force?

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

Interesting.
Even if you are unable to get away?

In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.

To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a jat or paak for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

The attack line is maintained so that each hand can immediate follow up from the next hit position, cyclically working from point to point. No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.

Agree
I don't believe anyone disagrees with this being your referring to 'when the line is free or can be made free'.
It may well be that your skills are simply much better than mine or that the skills of those I experiment with are better than those you experiment with so you have more moments of success with having open lines and therefore are able to use a single direct tactic.
In my case I feel about 50% of my attacks get redirected enough that I often have to use a secondary or even a tertiary action. It isn't that I want that but if I don't go to a secondary or tertiary action then I get hit. And for me that isn't very effective or efficient For Me.

 

[LFJ]

Why not? Are you unable to control your movements, power, and force?

No. I'd probably just push him down on the coach and leave the room.

Interesting.
Even if you are unable to get away?

In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.

If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

I don't believe anyone disagrees with this being your referring to 'when the line is free or can be made free'.

Well, I see a lot of the opposite in Wing Chun.

Instead of jat or paak or a sharp bong to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to bong-sau and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in.

Typical Wing Chun move. It's much more than necessary. A lot of superfluous movement and two consecutive defensive actions when unnecessary. Inefficient.

It may well be that your skills are simply much better than mine or that the skills of those I experiment with are better than those you experiment with so you have more moments of success with having open lines and therefore are able to use a single direct tactic.
In my case I feel about 50% of my attacks get redirected enough that I often have to use a secondary or even a tertiary action. It isn't that I want that but if I don't go to a secondary or tertiary action then I get hit. And for me that isn't very effective or efficient For Me.

Never said I would land every punch either!

Your secondary or tertiary actions could still be efficient as long as they are the least necessary to accomplish the task after being interrupted. If you're using steps beyond what is necessary, as above, then it's inefficient.

 

[geezer]

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative...


In a serious hand-to-hand combat situation– the specific problem VT was designed to handle– efficiency means using the least number of tools and steps and the least action needed to end the fight. It necessarily goes hand-in-hand with directness.

To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a jat or paak for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

I agree. Efficiency as a strategy is specific, what constitutes the most efficient response varies.

One can objectively determine if a given solution to a problem is the most direct and efficient approach or not. When I previously stated that efficiency is relative, I was referring to how what constitutes the most efficient response or "answer" will depend upon the exact nature of the "question". In other words, what you described in your second sentence above regarding using jut or pak to remove an obstruction.

Finally I'd like to address the following:

...Well, I see a lot of the opposite (of efficiency) in Wing Chun.

Instead of jat or paak or a sharp bong to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to bong-sau and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in.

You have accurately described a well known training sequence in LT's "WT" system. I practiced this when I trained under LT and still use it in my class curriculum. It trains certain attributes and response patterns such as a springy bong-sau and turning stance which we find to be useful. And, as you pointed out, it is also an obviously inefficient movement. It is far more direct, efficient, and effective to deflect the oncoming punch with bong and simply strike your opponent with the other hand.

The point is, that is a drill done for specific reasons. It has been also shown (incorrectly IMO) as a fighting move, even by LT himself. Well, as you pointed out, people can find plenty of old pictures of WSL demonstrating classical tan-da as a fighting move. But that is not how you apply your system. I believe you. What I don't know is why these Chinese Sifu's would show this stuff publicly and train their "disciples" differently. But they did.

 

[ShortBridge]

Watch one of the masters of jazz double bass playing a bit of blues here in the beginning. Pay attention to how little movement in his right hand happens that isn't absolutely necessary for what he's doing. Now watch the student (7:14) who plays fairly well herself, but look how much more movement and tension is clearly present. The difference is relaxation and efficiency and it's one of the things that enables Mr. Brown to play more complex, more deliberate things, perfectly in time and in tune and do so for hours on end without his skills degrading.

Now watch how little un-necessary movement his happening in the body with these expert moguls skiers:

Compared to this amateur:

Efficiency is a universal quality of expertise in any endeavor from public speaking to martial arts. Quietness, stillness, economy of motion should all be trained and aspired to regardless of the endeavor or discipline. It's not mystical, it's just a component of mastery.

In my humble opinion, of course.