Power from the ground?

[IRONMONK]

Hi.

I have many ppl mention that power is from the the ground-what does this mean and how do u train to transmit power from the ground?

regards,

Faze.

[Vegita]

I'll try to explain what I think this statement means, but you have to really think about my examples, and I can only do it by giving examples so here goes:
(1) When u push against a wall on a building, why can't u move it?
(the wall is connected into the ground by rebars that can take X amount of force before the rebars bend and the wall moves)
In essence the wall is "rooted" to the ground by the rebars that can take a lot more force than u alone can ever generate.
(2) When u push against another person, what makes him move instead of u?
(it's not the arm strength right? because the arms are not 'rooted' into the ground, the "power" in the arms are a direct result of how rooted ur feet are to the ground, that is, how much force ur body structure can take before it moves)
(3) therefore it dosn't matter if u can bench 500 lbs, but if ur structure can only take 40lbs of force before u move, when u punch/palm/whatever the other person, only 40lbs will go into the other person, the rest 480lbs will never come into effect because u are falling back from the force of ur own punch.
(5) so there u go, that's why power comes from the ground, and why it is of the utmost importance a person has their stance down before even bothering to learn how to throw a punch.
( I think this is why even though a little child who's only 100lbs, may have the "perfect" punch and "perfect" stance but still rarely a match for an adult)

[Atleastimnotyou]

Well, lets say that you were standing with you back touching a wall. If you have a guy stand in front of you and you push him, you will push him pretty far because you have the wall as your root. Now, power from the ground is basicaly the same thing. You use the ground as your wall. (but instead of shoving a guy, you'd punch him). And the way you train this is all the forms ecspecailly the first. But when you do this, you must be in your stance pretty low. That is how you get power from the ground.

[Atleastimnotyou]

also, your body needs proper structure and positioning

[Vegita]

if u want to explain the easy way.... :-)

[IRONMONK]

Ok i understand what u r saying but what about in a fight u will be moving about and not static??

[anerlich]

To me "Power from the ground" means aligning the body structure so that the joints, tendons, ligaments and musculature of the lower as well as the upper body can be put behind the punch, or brought into play to absorb or redirect incoming force vectors.

You can make it sound more complicated, but there's no point really. It's nothing mysterious - every decent Western boxer can generate "power from the ground".

To incorporate this into an arena where you are moving around, there comes a point/instant where you have to "plant" and "commit to" the punch, then immediately after release and start moving again.

Mobility without stability (at some point) robs you of the ability to hit hard. Stability without mobility OTOH turns you into a sitting duck.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by anerlich
To me "Power from the ground" means aligning the body structure so that the joints, tendons, ligaments and musculature of the lower as well as the upper body can be put behind the punch, or brought into play to absorb or redirect incoming force vectors.

All the previous descriptions have been good. This included.


You can make it sound more complicated, but there's no point really. It's nothing mysterious - every decent Western boxer can generate "power from the ground".

Not very many decent boxers around as compared to what there used to be.


To incorporate this into an arena where you are moving around, there comes a point/instant where you have to "plant" and "commit to" the punch, then immediately after release and start moving again.

In Ken Chung/Leung Sheung YM Wing Chun, we don't learn to plant to deliver force. Planting to me is reminiscent of the strong stance we used to use in karate or the boxer's quick change of direction. We in Leung Sheung's lineage do maintain a strong root always, though.


Mobility without stability (at some point) robs you of the ability to hit hard.
IMO, this speaks to the value of a good horse, which I realize means different things to different people.


Stability without mobility OTOH turns you into a sitting duck.

For me, this shows the value of YGKYM, which permits rapid permutations as indicated by one's opponent's energy (and its direction).

Regards,

[Atleastimnotyou]

ironmonk, you train in a low stance to develop the root, but in a fight you wont be as low as in SLT but you will still have a good connection

[yuanfen]

Grendel sez:Not very many decent boxers around as compared to what there used to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Not so IMO. Lewis, Tyson, Tua, Roy Jones, the current middleweight champ who beat Trinidad, Trinidad, vargas, Mosley,
Corrales, Barrera(sp)Mayweather, Forrest, and many more.
Its a sport- so better trainers, cut men, nutrition, etc....
they(the moderns) would wipe out the Dempseys, Tunneys, Galentos etc--- with a few exceptions... such as possibly Ray Robinson.
They dont bother with the low pay and payoffs in UFC and they would walk througha lot of wing chun folks- specially those who depend on muscle and athleticism rather than skill.
But the span of their glory is sadly short.

[anerlich]

Tyson at his peak had AWESOME power from the ground.

Roy Jones Jr is still as slick as they come. I just wish he wouldn't make it look so **** easy.

[Grendel]

Hi Yuanfen,

Originally posted by yuanfen
Grendel sez:Not very many decent boxers around as compared to what there used to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Not so IMO. Lewis, Tyson, Tua, Roy Jones, the current middleweight champ who beat Trinidad, Trinidad, vargas, Mosley,
Corrales, Barrera(sp)Mayweather, Forrest, and many more.
Its a sport- so better trainers, cut men, nutrition, etc....
they(the moderns) would wipe out the Dempseys, Tunneys, Galentos etc--- with a few exceptions... such as possibly Ray Robinson.
As in most martial subjects, you know a lot more than I about this, but you're pretty quick to dismiss the greats of the past, especially those you named. :) IMO if they had come up today from the same antecedents, unlikely with the barriers to entry as they exist, they would have given more than a run for their money to Tyson, Lewis and whoever. Dempsey, Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Joe Lewis, Sugar Ray Louis grew up using their fists to survive. Even Smokin' Joe, Ali, and Foreman were terrific. Tyson grew up beating up old women for their groceries and social security money. Of course, he bounced ol' Robin Givens off the walls too. One tough guy, indeed. :rolleyes:

I do agree the SPORT of boxing has seen science based training and nutrition improvements, but there aren't as many young fighters as there were 50 years ago, because boxing as an amateur sport has declined by orders of magnitude, killed off by pro boxing on TV. There used to be boxing clubs and gyms in every American city. Many fewer today, and not many who remember the martial arts aspects of boxing to carry on the tradition.


They dont bother with the low pay and payoffs in UFC

I'm not sure what you mean.


and they would walk througha lot of wing chun folks- specially those who depend on muscle and athleticism rather than skill.

Yes, no argument here. :)


Corey,


AtleastImnotyou wrote:
ironmonk, you train in a low stance to develop the root, but in a fight you wont be as low as in SLT but you will still have a good connection
This is true, but as I said before, a well practiced yee gee kim yeung ma allows you to be well rooted and to adjust quickly. When we sense our opponent's energy, the YGKYM collapses in the direction we need to go, never losing the root and always instantly able to turn the tables and deliver with power from the ground.

In Ken's line, the YGKYM's our primary fighting stance, not the 0/100 advancing step. Once we bridge, we want to "invite" our opponent in and keep him close. Remember, closeness is one of the characteristics of the art and our Yip Man/Leung Sheung lineage. :D

Regards,

[Merryprankster]

The boxers adage of stick and move kinda gets at what anerlich was pointing out. Contact with the ground is necessary to throw and take, a proper punch. If you're bouncing around too much, not only can you NOT throw a good punch, but if you get hit, you'll probably get knocked to the ground.

yuan--nice analysis of the modern boxers. I wish more people would see that instead of revelling in the "golden years." I would suggest that those individuals that rely on technique vice sheer natural ability tend to stick around at a high level longer. Holyfield, while a shadow of his former self, is still a pretty good boxer, and James Toney also comes to mind. On the other hand, a guy like Roy Jones Jr, or Prince Naseem who relies almost solely on natural abilities, tends not to do so hot as they get on in years....

[yuanfen]

Grendel- I dont underestimate the old timers and their "toughness". But boxing is as "external" as any and requires incredible fitness. Contemporary trainers have made boxers more fluid than the old timers among other innovations including movement, angles and strategy. Makes a difference in any weight class. But in external systems- weight plays an important role... Dempsey was a 180 pound shrimp compared
to the moderns. And the modern biggies are not slow Firpos.

MP- naseem has got by with talent but Jones is a a combination of talent, skills and intelligence IMO FWIW. But he did the right thing in not going heavy...given the logic above ( role of weight etc
in sport boxing))

Thanks to both Grendel and MP and AN for their comments.

[HuangKaiVun]

Naseem has a lot of natural ability, but he's also got a ton of technique.

In fact, his fighting style is reminiscent of Tongbeiquan with its whipping jing.

He gets power out of the ground, but in a different way. Naseem has a tendency to use a whip-like explosion starting from his legs. The guy literally jumps into people, flicking out his hits at the very last second. Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali ("fly like a mosquito, sting like a bee") had a jing like this as well.

The way I've seen it, Naseem fights like a hardcore traditional kung fu streetfighter. I've seen him flip guys in the ring, which is his natural tendency if no "rules" were in place. Naseem is not a traditional "Western" boxer - he stands in that side stance and will have either side forward depending on what he needs. His ability to twist his torso to dodge opponent's blows is very similar to what the good old school Chinese kung fu men will do.

I seriously doubt that Naseem studied kung fu, but I believe that he's a natural kung fu man who learned how to fight by fighting. I myself would NEVER want to go against him in a real fight.

[joy chaudhuri]

Re: Naseem... Barrera had his number down pat. I hope that he
has learned some humility and that Seward can teach him things before his next fight. He was humiliated by Barrera who just did good plain boxing...timing timing timing...

[8StalksOfRice]

Vegitas has got it right mostly..

As an professionally licensed mech engineer by the State of Pa and educated at a top-10 engineering school (shameless plug but hey you dont know me)..
I can say Wing Chun has to obey the laws of physics..
although crouching tiger/hidden dragon doesnt..
funny most mention the power of the ground and root and rarely do I ever hear a good explanation of it ..
I just listen and go "Uh huh"..

Funny also when people talk about structure.. I've seen it used in contexts of balance and everything under the sun
And who'd blame them.. most of them are not professional, scientific, or engineering types

Hell I'll attempt.. I'm at work and got nothin to do just right now.. in fact all week (see alot of posts this week huh?)
Without getting really technical here and confusing people (worse putting them to sleep), I'll use examples..

1) You'd agree a person standing straight up lacks "structure" in the eyes of most sifus.. hell I'll push him right over easily
but yet if he strikes me even standing straight he may still hurt me lacking structure depending where (hard striking soft is a good idea heh)
he strikes..without "structure".. ie.. if he chops me in the throat of darts into my eyes.. not much
"structure" needed there.. though its helpful..
Ah but if I knock him a lil he goes flying and what does he do first? The first thing he's thinking about is not usually striking me.. its regaining his balance..
Ok so there are styles which seem to fight off balance (monkey, drunken maiden) but its really balance in moving transition..(a bike is moving and yet balanced)
So I argue here what you really want is balance at all times.. without it, yer fumbling for it instead of deflecting or countering or attacking or doing things you should be doing

2) So now you say "but Mr. 8Stalks, a guy standing straight up has balance too!"..
Correct you are so theres more.. the stance spreads out giving you balance and some lateral support as well depending on which direction your shin(s) are pointing and to an extent the feet.
The stances allow us to balance and focus our bodily alignment towards achieving something
such as resisting being knocked off balance by a deflection or a "heaven forbid an opponent actually hits us, pulls/pushes us, or bumps into us" .. ok that never happens to us wing chun people because we're so good we're unhittable ;)
If you want to be a wooden dummy hell get into a choy le fut low stance and lick the ground although as I argue there'll still be areas of the stance an opponent could approach and it really destroys yer mobility in my opinion..
but you definitely are in a stance hard to knock off balance.. but at what cost..
Anyway I have never seen a stance which did not have a weak approach
(a bipedal stance is impossible not to have an approach weakness)
We are essetially like two legged tables which constantly need to balance to stay upright
The traditional wing chun triangle horse stance is very stable from frontal and frontal-side attacks
(no surprise here given wing chun theory touts your centerline relatively square towards yer oponent)
but try pushing a wingchun guy from the back of this stance and he goes flying

3) The trick is having balance and bodily alignment to quickly be able to deflect from an attack or transmit maximizing force into the intended target when you strike
without losing your balance to be able to follow through into further action..(also means dont overcommit)
Ok ok Mr 8Stalks missed out on the body alil. generally 8Stalks sees the body as a bunch of interconnected sticks with muscles/tendons holding them together..
take away the muscles and you got the tendons toldin them together but it'll fall apart cause the joints are flying all over the place
you could take an arm of this skeleton and fling it/ whip it at someone and depending where you hit him you could hurt him too(we humans are so delicate ;) )
In whipping action, the entire body doesnt need to be stiff oh yes its true..yer stiffness counters the flexibility needed to whip a backhand(a bullwhip is not stiff nor rigid yet could rip yer face apart)
Well ok ok it does pay to be stiff though .. at the instance of impact.. yea its hard cause the instance of impact is so short.. but thats what practice is for!
Punch in the air all you want you lil wing chun students (I can see the rows of students now punching in the air) but you wont learn this doing that!
Theres a reason you see people punching on the bags and slappin the iron palm pillows. The body needs to be one when this impact goes and when practiced correctly its the difference between a 15 lb arm slamming into you (which is already scary) and a 15 lb arm together with the force of a 140 lb body together as one.. slamming into you
Ok so stiff is one thing but certain bodily alignments allow one to use bone positioning to faciltate this.
Its the lateral support of your stance in conjunction with the weight of your body and the friction of the shoes yer wearing(if yer standing on ice wearing skates forget it) which allows you to push from a support (the ground) into your target..
Ok its just a lil more complicated than that but im simplifying..theres angles of forces involved and impact (rapid change in momentum) and other nice terms going on but you get the picture

So there it is.. structure is balance, bodily alignment/positioning, and (that hard stiffness thingy heh) which allows yer 150 lb frame moving like water to strike as ice!
These things said structure in a moving fight is elusive..
even Jacky Chan (ok hes not a real fighter but may still whip most of yer butts including mine.. he did grow up in the street fight environment of 50's/60's/70's HK)
said the structure in fights like in films he makes are real tough.

Ali put it best "float like a butterfly but sting like a bee" .. dont think he took any wing chun classes.. could be wrong..


By the way, Boxing is considered an internal style by chinese masters.. funny huh(not really).. so is Taichi and wing chun

[Grendel]

Originally posted by joy chaudhuri
Re: Naseem... Barrera had his number down pat. I hope that he
has learned some humility and that Seward can teach him things before his next fight. He was humiliated by Barrera who just did good plain boxing...timing timing timing...
I haven't seen the fight, but timing and position are as important in boxing as in Wing Chun. I see a lot of boxing where one boxer gets the advantage and in his excitement, he unleashes a flurry at his opponent, but just can't put him away. The timing of punches in that situation is often the key to a knock-out.

Regards,

[reneritchie]

I'm not sure about "power from the ground" in that, depending how its being used, it may conflict with WCK's usage of force. IMHO, we don't hit with "power from the ground" in that there is no wave of force coming up from the ground, through us, and into an opponent, for the same reason we don't haul back before we punch - it is inefficient, telgraphic, and allows time for an experience opponent to move (we strive to adapt, to be flexible, and to apply power in the instant we touch).

With "power from the ground", I'm not sure if people are talking about bending force vectors (which is probably not reasonable), utilizing the 'normal force' in some way, smashing someone into the ground (fun but maybe not practical), or bracing with the ground in the instant of contact to ensure optimal force goes into the opponent (rather than equally/more back into us). The latter is where my thinking is currently. I don'y want to give my opponent anything they can use against me unless they are disrupted to such an extent it nullifies the possible use.

RR

[8StalksOfRice]

Rene,

The normal force is simply the force of your weight upon the ground.
1) When you are standing the normal force holds you in place otherwise the ground is unstable and unable to and you go crashing through the floor usually
The normal force is straight up at your feet (normal means 90 degrees from parallel..in this case the ground surface) unless yer standing at and angle to the earth
But under normal circumstances (when yer standing) its simply there holding you up..does almost nothing else
Lets say you push against a concrete wall, it'll actually flex a lil believe it or not but not enough you can perceive with yer eyes and not enough anyone will care here.
Assuming the wall is 90 degrees verticle, yer normal force does nothing for you except provides you the maximum frictional force which you can push into the wall with without losing your footing
(ie..if yer standing on ice.. forget it..unless you got cleats)
2) Even when you exert an uppercut your normal force does nothing because its just holding you up and yer oponent isnt falling down onto your fist
However, the uppercut is potentially very powerful BECAUSE you now are not limited to the frictional force limit when pushing parallel to the ground
because you are pushing now up off over the normal force perpendicular against the ground up through your opponent
Case in point Mike Tyson's uppercut is near-lethal.. I dont know how many fights I've seen where the fight pretty much ended after he landed his inside uppercuts.

Ive never heard of bending force..
the force vectors through yer body are generally up through the shin bones and then up through the thigh bone and is tough on the ankle and knee and assuming the rest of the body is "black box" up the spine.. I wont go further than that but the forces via the shin and thigh are very important..
Going back to the uppercut upward force is also held much better by the spine than a force perpendicular to the spine as in a horizontal strike,..

[8StalksOfRice]

All this force discussion is getting boring and also belates the fact just a little force applied at the right parts of the body can cause much damage and pain.. and unfortunately suffering :(

[joy chaudhuri]

Funny also when people talk about structure.. I've seen it used in contexts of balance and everything under the sun
And who'd blame them.. most of them are not professional, scientific, or engineering types
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad the wing chun masters were not certified mech. engineers., systems analysts, philosophers, folks with honorary degrees scientists and other titled professionals. And they couldnt paradigm-but there still emerges the wonders of wing chun gung fu!!!

[8StalksOfRice]

Obviously I cant post nearly anything without some smart a** pickin it to death..

Obviously the developers of Wing Chun knew what he/she/they were doing.. the system oozes physical understanding.

Are you gonna pick this statement to death too?

[Grendel]

Originally posted by 8StalksOfRice
Obviously I cant post nearly anything without some smart a** pickin it to death..

Obviously the developers of Wing Chun knew what he/she/they were doing.. the system oozes physical understanding.

Are you gonna pick this statement to death too?
To answer the last rhetorical question, I hope to. :)

I think you've over simplified the biomechanics. The body is too complex a machine to quantify as you have described.

I think the earlier explanations had more authority in having been empirically based.

Regards,

[8StalksOfRice]

I did state in my post I am simplifying.. and obviously I am not going to write a dissertation on the subject full with mathematical proofs and a complete breakdown of human physiology here in a post on the Kung Fu message board. Its true the human body is complex but the biomechanics are less so since I specialize in it.. and i've only furnished simple physical statements here.
No argument Wing Chun development was much more empirical.
However, if noone wishes to hear this type of explanation I shall pen it no more.. I certainly get no cookie for writing it.. just thought some people would like to hear another explanation for "ground"

My next assignment comes next week so you'll likely see my posts no more.

Train on..

[yuanfen]

8stalks of rice sez:


(no surprise here given wing chun theory touts your centerline relatively square towards yer oponent)
but try pushing a wingchun guy from the back of this stance and he goes flying
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good yee gee kim yeung ma- should be equally stable from
the back as well for testing stance purposes. Of course the stance has to be ajusted by stepping, turning or both at some point when dealing with overwhelming force.

[8StalksOfRice]

>Of course the stance has to be ajusted by stepping, turning or >both at some point when dealing with overwhelming force.
True..but my point is simply.. every stance structurally has weaknesses

The horse is weak from generally the backside
blindfold a wingchun practitioner and tell him to give you his best YGYKM stance
If you walk a circle around his stance you will find areas where your shove will knock him off stance primarily in the posterior.. and you wont need overwhelming force
As I said its a moot point if an opponent gets to your backside you are in trouble anyway.

If the horse were so universally invulnerable, you'd see martial artists horsin around fights.. it doesnt happen. Watch any good REAL fight and tell me how many horse stances you see.. maybe in transition

[Atleastimnotyou]

8 Stalks, yuanfen is right.
Also, in order for your oppent to get all the way around you, he has a long way to travel.. you have a shorter distance when turning to make sure he is infront of you. therefore, your opponent getting all the way to around you is unlikely

[8StalksOfRice]

no kidding..
does anyone read posts thoroughly anymore?

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
8 Stalks, yuanfen is right.
Also, in order for your oppent to get all the way around you, he has a long way to travel.. you have a shorter distance when turning to make sure he is infront of you. therefore, your opponent getting all the way to around you is unlikely

Depends on who you're fighting I spose. If the guy's got any experience, then to "get around you" he's probably not gonna run around a circumference with you in the center. Better methods could be where they simply turn YOU to expose your back (my personal fav), or maybe just cut up the diameter of the "circle" and pop out on the other side.

-BP-

[HuangKaiVun]

Boxing's rules severely limit what a guy can do to another guy. That's especially true for Naseem, based on the illegal stuff I've seen him pull in the ring.

That guy knows how to "use the ground" to flip guys out of the ring, as I saw him do to a hapless opponent. Good ba gua and tai chi guys (as well as wing chun men) will do that to opponents given the right opportunity.

Barrera is the better boxer by the rules of the ring, but I'll take Naseem (and his illegal moves) in the STREET. I consider Naseem the vastly superior natural fighter.