Air Shields and Ladies

[YongChun]

I was just wondering about physics. If a 5'2" , 115 pound lady is standing in the neutral Wing Chun stance and some guy is running at her with an airshield in front of him, then how heavy of a guy can she stop or send back with one punch? Maybe that can be on a highschool physics exam. Anyone know any physics?

How about for a 180 pound guy doing the same thing? I have heard Bruce Lee can make a 400 pound heavy bag swing with his sidekick. I am just getting quantitative here since much discussion very subjective and undefined at this point. So starting at least to define what a good punch is could be a first step. Maybe stop a 100 pound guy = yellow belt, stop a 150 pound guy= green belt,...,stop a 400 pound guy=black belt. The laws of physics may prevent certain underweight individuals from achieving these goals though.

I read some guy just bench pressed 1,000 pounds. Not too bad. I thought the previous record was about 750 pounds but I only remember that from 20 years ago. THat guy tried WWF wresling for one or two matches but then dropped out of sight.

[Ernie]

Power is relative my friend, different tools require different engines. I wouldn’t be concerned with what a 120-pound girl can do; her body is not built the same as a man of the same weight. Trying to correlate wing Chun effectiveness by focusing on the weakest link, will never really show the other side of the scale. Just like comparing a guy that trains full time and works out with skilled fighters, to a weekend warrior same system but different results.

A light chick needs to fight like a light chick and develop the attributes that fit her life style and frame, thus she will probably get ran over, better to have good footwork =)
Her hand is not built for that type of impact, unless she is highly conditioned, [I have been hit by professional female fighters that put a lot of guys to shame] but how many pro wing Chun ladies out there? Even guys?

Structure is structure and it will help maximize ones natural potential but that potential is limited.

This is similar to how will it work when you are old and you fight, first you’re a dumb a$$ for fighting when your old, second if your not in shape for your age, you will probably go down, even if you win the shock to your body might kill you ha ha.

[dfl]

Originally posted by YongChun
I was just wondering about physics. If a 5'2" , 115 pound lady is standing in the neutral Wing Chun stance and some guy is running at her with an airshield in front of him, then how heavy of a guy can she stop or send back with one punch? Maybe that can be on a highschool physics exam. Anyone know any physics?

How about for a 180 pound guy doing the same thing? I have heard Bruce Lee can make a 400 pound heavy bag swing with his sidekick. I am just getting quantitative here since much discussion very subjective and undefined at this point. So starting at least to define what a good punch is could be a first step. Maybe stop a 100 pound guy = yellow belt, stop a 150 pound guy= green belt,...,stop a 400 pound guy=black belt. The laws of physics may prevent certain underweight individuals from achieving these goals though.


Along the same line of reasoning, how about:
stopping a bicycle for a white belt
a scooter for the next level
a motorcycle for the one above
a mini for the next level
a beetle, a subcompact, a compact, a full-size car, a SUV, a Winabago, and a full size tank for the ultimate 11th degree of Master of almightiness?
The other night I caught part of the mythbusters on discovery channel. They shot a frozen chicken and a thawed chicken at the windshield of a plane to simulate impact with birds. The windshield was broken in evey case, but so was the chicken.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ernie
This is similar to how will it work when you are old and you fight, first you’re a dumb a$$ for fighting when your old, second if your not in shape for your age, you will probably go down, even if you win the shock to your body might kill you ha ha.
Ernie,

Just how old is "old" from your point of view? Just curious.
By the way, I agree with the sentiment of your post. Know your limits, and work within them.....

Bill

[Ernie]

Hmmm
when i was 15 , 21 was old
when i was 21 , 35 was old
when i was 35 , 45 looked old

ask me when i'm 45 i'm 36 now

this sounds like a frank sinatra song [ when i was 17 it was a very fine year .....]


i have seen strong wing chun men in there 50's and 60's

i have seen weak ones alot younger


old is when you let yourself go

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ernie
old is when you let yourself go Nice answer. :)
You're right though, being "old" is relative. I know some "old" 40 year olds, and some "young" 70 year olds.

Bill

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ernie
this sounds like a frank sinatra song [ when i was 17 it was a very fine year .....] I was thinking more of the Five For Fighting song - 100 Years to Live.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Ernie
Power is relative my friend, different tools require different engines. I wouldn’t be concerned with what a 120-pound girl can do; her body is not built the same as a man of the same weight. Trying to correlate wing Chun effectiveness by focusing on the weakest link, will never really show the other side of the scale. Just like comparing a guy that trains full time and works out with skilled fighters, to a weekend warrior same system but different results.


<...some deleted..>

.

I think so too. I'm just commenting on a comment by Terrence that any good Wing Chun person should be able to stop some decent size guy rushing in with a punch. It should be an easy physics question.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by dfl
Along the same line of reasoning, how about:
stopping a bicycle for a white belt
a scooter for the next level
a motorcycle for the one above
a mini for the next level
a beetle, a subcompact, a compact, a full-size car, a SUV, a Winabago, and a full size tank for the ultimate 11th degree of Master of almightiness?
The other night I caught part of the mythbusters on discovery channel. They shot a frozen chicken and a thawed chicken at the windshield of a plane to simulate impact with birds. The windshield was broken in evey case, but so was the chicken.

Master Wang Kiu said you can't stop a motorcycle with a Bong sau but maybe with a punch is possible?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by YongChun
Master Wang Kiu said you can't stop a motorcycle with a Bong sau but maybe with a punch is possible? Wise words. No doubt about it.....:)

[anerlich]

"Along the same line of reasoning, how about :
stopping a bicycle for a white belt
a scooter for the next level
a motorcycle for the one above
a mini for the next level
a beetle, a subcompact, a compact, a full-size car, a SUV, a Winabago, and "
The use of the term "reasoning" here requires a fair bit of leeway.

For some reason this reminds me of an Ali quote:

"Sonny Liston would sooner be dropped in the middle of Vietnam with a peashooter than fight me again".

A couple of my other fave Ali quotes:

"If they can make penicillin out of a piece of mouldy bread, then surely we can make something out of you."

"I'm so fast I can turn off the light and be in bed before it's dark."

I was tempted to say:

"Cars don't hit back," but then that wouldn't be right, would it?

Would you still get your belt if you took the beetle out with a right cross, or rolled it and then took out the fuel line with a rear naked choke?

[anerlich]

Anyone know any physics?

Um...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

E=mc^2?

[YongChun]

Originally posted by anerlich
Um...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

E=mc^2?

and F=ma

but your formula is better because it can be used to produce H-bombs. Maybe it can help to develop an atomic punch.

[anerlich]

Ive not seen an atomic punch delivered, but I have seen the atomic drop and atomic wedgie administered by experts.

[taltos]

Originally posted by anerlich
Ive not seen an atomic punch delivered, but I have seen the atomic drop and atomic wedgie administered by experts.

LOL. I needed that laugh. Thanks.

[blooming lotus]

I'm a 100 poundish chick usually give or take 1o - 15 either side any given day, and I agree with Ernie here...... last year people were bouncing off me literally, up to men more than twice my weight ( iron skills are a GREAT tool!!! though today, I'd wonder).............. aim for the opponent you can't measure is my advice.......fight shadow or theory on the most hairy challenger you could imagine and all else between 'll no doubt be covered.............

cheers

BL

[Stevo]

Originally posted by YongChun
I think so too. I'm just commenting on a comment by Terrence that any good Wing Chun person should be able to stop some decent size guy rushing in with a punch. It should be an easy physics question.

If someone is rushing at you and you can land a good square punch straight into their line of travel without any deflection, their velocity will add to the velocity of your punch, so the impact of your punch will be greater than if they were standing still.

[CFT]

I think ultimately the answer is in how much dynamic force (momentum) can your physical structure cope with.

Robert Chu's structure tests only (AFAIK) deal with static forces, not moving bodies, so I don't think that there are any answers there. Similarly, being able to lift more than your body weight is no indication of the abiliity to redirect momentum with your punch and structure.

There are at least two answers to the problem:

[list=1] The punch is so hard that it drops the attacker where they stand and the forward momentum of the attacker is either negligible or the attacker is in no state to do anything after they crash into you.

The attacker has a momentum of mv (mass x velocity). If you want to be the immoveable object, then all this momentum needs to be reflected back in an purely elastic collision. As long as you can wholely redirect the momentum (or force) into the ground via your whole body structure then theoretically there would be no limit.[/list=1]However, I don't believe there is anyone in the world who can really do this without moving in some way to deflect the force. So what I see is that it would be like pushing the top of a standing book - boom falls over.

What if we replaced the human attacker with a wrecking ball on the end of a crane? Think your structure would stand up? If not, why not?

[t_niehoff]

YongChun, to answer your question -- yes, a *trained* woman or small-framed man can easily pass this test. I've seen it (and experienced it!) firsthand. The power comes from the body via body-mechanics (not the arm), and even a small *trained* body will have sufficient power to stop and knock back a substantially heavier person. Go back and read my initial post on this topic and how I related it to learning the hip throw and the mechanics associated with it -- then you'll see how your question misses the point. Even a woman using the proper mechanics can hip throw a much larger person (that's what the mechanics are meant to do!!). The fact that there are limits on what she or any of us can do (can't make it work against a 600 lb. sumo wrestler) doesn't in any way detract from having good mechanics. The mechanics are her best chance; having bad mechanics give her no chance.

CFT, you misunderstand the nature of Robert's basic level structure tests (it's a good idea not to talk about things you don't understand, btw) -- they test body-structure (actually body mechanics) and are not limited to dealing with "static forces' ("force" or pressure is not static in any event).

It is pointless to "analyze" or "theorize" about the punch -- f=ma, etc. -- if you can't do it; that will lead you nowhere. Go find someone that can pass the test (the test gives you some objective standard by which to judge their "skill") and learn how to do it from them. Anything else -- making excuses why you can't do it, trying to figure out the mechanics of something you can't do, rediculing the test because you can't pass it, etc. -- is a waste of time. The punch from YJKYM is the cornerstone of our method. If you don't have the cornerstone, how do you expect the rest of your building to hold up?

Terence

[Marky]

Hi YongChun,

At the risk of sounding nerdy, you can get your answers using an equilibrium momentum equation, or (mass of woman) X (velocity of woman) = (mass of man) X (velocity of man). If you know the masses, and the velocity at which the man hits the woman, you can find out at what velocity the woman will be thrown back. Also, the momentum of the man equals the momentum with which the woman must hit the man to stop him in his tracks (or beyond that, knock him backward).

The problem you'll run into is in weighting factors, since a person doesn't neccessarily use 100% of their mass in an attack, AND only the fraction of the velocity that's going toward the target is considered in the equation. So while the above equation gives a GENERAL idea of what you want to know, it's not accurate and I doubt any of us here can determine the exact answer.


Be warned, there's physics below!

Suppose there's a woman of 100 pounds and a man of 200 pounds, both of which are guaging the momentum of their punches. The man is throwing his punch by twisting his waist and using his shoulder, so only 30% of his body weight is in play (simplifying the effect of torque by merely increasing the %). Similarly, he hits the target with a jab that hits at a 30 degree angle from the target surface (this is relevant because the attack is broken down into two component vectors... One component is entirely parallel to the target surface and is ignored, while the other component is perpendicular and is used as the "true velocity" moving toward the target), so rougly 60% of his velocity is in play. The velocity of the attack is 30 (another simplification).

At the same time, the woman steps forward as she hits, using as much of her body weight as she can (75%). Her attack has a velocity of 20, but the attack is direct and essentially the entire velocity vector is in the direction of the target (100%).

The end result is that, on his own, the momentum of the man is 60 (30% of 200) X 20 (roughly 60% of 30) = 1,200. The woman's momentum is 75 (75% of 100) X 20 (100% of 20) = 1500.

This is, of course, a contrived example to explain the theory behind how a woman CAN do more harm than a man who significantly outweighs. This is not to say the example above is realistic, I only included it to show the physics behind such claims. You don't have to believe such a scenario is possible (as I said, I made these numbers up, and they may not be a possibility). I'm pointing this out because I only wanted to show how physics CAN support the theories of Wing Chun, I'm not trying to say it MUST support those theories.

[CFT]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
CFT, you misunderstand the nature of Robert's basic level structure tests (it's a good idea not to talk about things you don't understand, btw) -- they test body-structure (actually body mechanics) and are not limited to dealing with "static forces' ("force" or pressure is not static in any event).The articles published by Robert Chu on his website refer to limbs that are already in contact with your body - not people rushing up at you with momentum. If there are other tests that cover this then I am indeed ignorant.

In mechanics the study of forces is divided into statics and dynamics. The tests published by Robert Chu deal with the static situation, i.e. it is an equilibrium situation where there is no motion - all the forces are balanced.

The situation described by Ray is not the same. We begin with the motion of one individual, who has mass, velocity and therefore momentum and ask the question what happens to the momentum. Can we bounce him off using a Wing Chun punch; in Physics terms can we realise an elastic collision between him and you?


It is pointless to "analyze" or "theorize" about the punch -- f=ma, etc. -- if you can't do it; that will lead you nowhere. Go find someone that can pass the test (the test gives you some objective standard by which to judge their "skill") and learn how to do it from them. Anything else -- making excuses why you can't do it, trying to figure out the mechanics of something you can't do, rediculing the test because you can't pass it, etc. -- is a waste of time. The punch from YJKYM is the cornerstone of our method. If you don't have the cornerstone, how do you expect the rest of your building to hold up?Hey I admit it, I probably can't do it. But there is no reason why I can't analyse it from a scientific viewpoint. If Wing Chun is scientifically sound, then it should stand up to scrutiny. You don't need to make personal attacks on my skill level because there is nothing to attack nor anything to defend.

I still say that there are physical limits to the Wing Chun body structure that will reached even before the purely scientifically determined limits of human muscle, tendon and skeleton strength are reached.

Again, what would happen if you replaced the human attacker with a mechanical ram? Or what if someone swung a heavy punch bag at you (must be heavier than you), can your punch bounce the bag back? If yes then brilliant. But note that you want to simulate the same momentum (mass x velocity) as your human attacker.

[KingMonkey]

A useful drill I suppose, I've done something similar although I was stepping with the punch to meet the airshield. Those of you who have trained this from YGKYM were these big guys running fast ? I think I'd struggle if that were the case.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Being old, fat, and lazy and not all that skilled I prefer to cheat ;) In other words rather than see if my structure will be able to withstand the incoming force I prefer to move out of the way and capitalize both on the forward motion of my opponent as well as the force I can add to theirs. Of course this does not answer your question but like I said I like to cheat and it always seemed easier and softer to avoid or evade rather than intercept. But then again maybe I am missing something here??? I always liked the idea of redirecting force and using agains the other guy, again I admit to being lazy :p

Peace,

Dave

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
I always liked the idea of redirecting force and using agains the other guy, again I admit to being lazy :p

Efficient, practical and honest solution. I don't see a problem with that. :)

Bill

[t_niehoff]

CFT wrote:

The articles published by Robert Chu on his website refer to limbs that are already in contact with your body - not people rushing up at you with momentum. If there are other tests that cover this then I am indeed ignorant.

In mechanics the study of forces is divided into statics and dynamics. The tests published by Robert Chu deal with the static situation, i.e. it is an equilibrium situation where there is no motion - all the forces are balanced.

**I said you "misunderstood *the nature* of the tests" -- and your latest post only serves to prove my point. A certain type of body-mechanics is being tested; it has nothing to do with whether one is stationary or moving or whether the forces are "static or dynamic". It's just easier for the rank beginner to do them stationary with constact pressure, that's all, so Robert teaches the basics that way.

The situation described by Ray is not the same. We begin with the motion of one individual, who has mass, velocity and therefore momentum and ask the question what happens to the momentum. Can we bounce him off using a Wing Chun punch; in Physics terms can we realise an elastic collision between him and you?

**My undergraduate degree was in physics; physics won't help you grasp WCK. Folks that think so are "theorticians" that can't make it work. Wong Sheung Leung, Sum Nung, etc. were great WCK exponents (they could do it) without having a lick of western physics. To throw a fastball one doesn't need to understand aerodynamics -- you just need to learn the mechanics and practice.

----------------------------

Kingmonkey wrote:

A useful drill I suppose, I've done something similar although I was stepping with the punch to meet the airshield. Those of you who have trained this from YGKYM were these big guys running fast ? I think I'd struggle if that were the case.

**When one steps it is too easy to fall into "bracing" instead of relying on mechanics. And the idea is not to "meet the airshield" but knock him backwards.

----------------------------


sihing73 wrote:

Being old, fat, and lazy and not all that skilled I prefer to cheat In other words rather than see if my structure will be able to withstand the incoming force I prefer to move out of the way and capitalize both on the forward motion of my opponent as well as the force I can add to theirs.

**The question the airshield test poses is: how good (strong) is your punch? It is irrelevant whether one dodges force, intercepts, whatever -- the point is when you do elect to punch, what is behind it? If you have nothing behind it, it will be ineffective regardless of your "strategy."

Of course this does not answer your question but like I said I like to cheat and it always seemed easier and softer to avoid or evade rather than intercept. But then again maybe I am missing something here??? I always liked the idea of redirecting force and using agains the other guy, again I admit to being lazy

**Your comments seem to indicate that you are missing a good deal IMO. For one thing, this is a test for the punch, not necessarily application (as my post to Victor explained). For another, if you think it's "easier and softer to avoid and evade" than try it -- actually fight and see how that works. You may find that hitting someone that is rushing in does "use their force against them" (when two cars collide, the impact is the combined speed) -- his rush gives your punch greater power and effect (not by moving away, as that involves a collision with two cars travelling in the same direction).

Regards,

Terence

[Vajramusti]

The airshield test is not the only way to test it- but I agree with Terence that a powerful char ken is a fundamental building block of wing chun.
Applications including footwork will vary with circumstances.

[CFT]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**My undergraduate degree was in physics; physics won't help you grasp WCK. Folks that think so are "theorticians" that can't make it work. Wong Sheung Leung, Sum Nung, etc. were great WCK exponents (they could do it) without having a lick of western physics.I never said you needed physics to understand WCK. But in this case a physical model can be applied to the forces involved. Application is different from theory I agree, but then why are so many WC practitioners happy to claim that WC is superior because it is more 'scientific'?

When I learn and practice WC I don't think about physics, but when people say that you can do 'X' because of body structure then it just leads naturally to ideas about mechanics. Otherwise it just becomes jargon that people dismiss like 'chi'.


To throw a fastball one doesn't need to understand aerodynamics -- you just need to learn the mechanics and practice.But then so many modern sportsmen and women employ the use of sports scientists to help them improve their performance.

BTW, you haven't given me any feedback on my 'thought' experiment with the heavy bag.

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

**The question the airshield test poses is: how good (strong) is your punch? It is irrelevant whether one dodges force, intercepts, whatever -- the point is when you do elect to punch, what is behind it? If you have nothing behind it, it will be ineffective regardless of your "strategy."

**Your comments seem to indicate that you are missing a good deal IMO. For one thing, this is a test for the punch, not necessarily application (as my post to Victor explained). For another, if you think it's "easier and softer to avoid and evade" than try it -- actually fight and see how that works. You may find that hitting someone that is rushing in does "use their force against them" (when two cars collide, the impact is the combined speed) -- his rush gives your punch greater power and effect (not by moving away, as that involves a collision with two cars travelling in the same direction).

Regards,

Terence [/B]

Hello Terence,

While I understand the question is about how much force one can generate with the punch. However, force is not necessarily the best solution for all situations. In many cases the actual force resulting is a combination of the force coming in plus the force you add to the attack. For example, if A attacks me with 30 pounds of force and I can project 10 pounds of force, the combined force he/she gets hit with is about 30 pounds.

Perhaps I am missing a lot in my approach to Wing Chun. For example, I always thought it was a "soft" system wherein a smaller and weaker person could attack by using their opponents strength against them. I also thought that there was a component of fluidity and continuation which allowed for a cumalitve effect resulting in the injury to the opponent. Even the late WSL advocated striking two punches in rapid succession so maybe there is something to this????

As to my thinking that is is easier to evade and or avoid I certainly think it is safer :D Again perhaps I am missing something but I kind of got the impression that Stance Turning and Stepping were kind of in this catagory allowing one to not meet force with force.

FWIW I would challenge you, and anyone else, to tell me another way to deal with any attack other than the three methods of:
1) Avoid
2) Evade
3) Intercept

The question poses the method of using an interception to deal with an incoming attack. This is great as long as your strength is superior. My question is why would I want to meet his/her force if I do not have to? Perhaps if one trains to avoid or evade and developes this skill to a high level one will find these attributes useful even when the physical body fails.

Peace,

Dave
FWIW: I have used the idea/concept of avoid/evade/intercept in real life and so far Intercepting has always been the method least desirible. By utilizing the idea of not intercepting or meeting force with force I am able to deal with stronger opponents but again I may have missed many things. But as long as they work for me I am happy to be missing out. ;)

[t_niehoff]

CFT wrote:

I never said you needed physics to understand WCK. But in this case a physical model can be applied to the forces involved.

**There is no need and it is a waste of time. The question is can we do it or not.

Application is different from theory I agree, but then why are so many WC practitioners happy to claim that WC is superior because it is more 'scientific'?

**They claim this because they have no skills. Boxers, BJJers, MMAists, etc. -- fighters -- don't *talk* about how science proves they are better -- they prove they have better skills by fighting.

When I learn and practice WC I don't think about physics, but when people say that you can do 'X' because of body structure then it just leads naturally to ideas about mechanics. Otherwise it just becomes jargon that people dismiss like 'chi'.

**I don't like the term "body-structure" because it implies something static (though I understand why they use it); I prefer the term "body-mechanics" in the first place.

But then so many modern sportsmen and women employ the use of sports scientists to help them improve their performance.

**Take a look sometime at what these "sport scientists" actually focus on.

BTW, you haven't given me any feedback on my 'thought' experiment with the heavy bag.

**Sorry, I missed that. But FWIW, I don't place much stock in "thought experiments."

Regards,

Terence

[Matrix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Sorry, I missed that. But FWIW, I don't place much stock in "thought experiments." Terence, .....You are getting sleepy, verrrry sleeeeeppy. :eek:

[t_niehoff]

Dave wrote:

While I understand the question is about how much force one can generate with the punch. However, force is not necessarily the best solution for all situations.

**Running away may be a great solution too -- but if you need to punch, you must have a punch that is effective. Moreover, the body-mechanics behind the punch are the base-mechanics for everything in WCK. Thus, if your punch is weak, your mechanics are poor, and so will be the rest of your WCK.

Perhaps I am missing a lot in my approach to Wing Chun. For example, I always thought it was a "soft" system wherein a smaller and weaker person could attack by using their opponents strength against them.

**Whenever I hear the word "soft", it makes my @ss twitch. There is no such thing as "soft." You can't be "soft" and fight. This is a mistranslation of the chinese word for "flexible". Our body-structure in WCK is like a bow (as in bow and arrow). The bow is not "soft", it is flexible and the power of the bow comes from that flexibility (which allows the storage and sudden relaease of force).

I also thought that there was a component of fluidity and continuation which allowed for a cumalitve effect resulting in the injury to the opponent. Even the late WSL advocated striking two punches in rapid succession so maybe there is something to this????

**You can tap someone all day and it will have no cumulative effect. Two good punches will have cumulative effect.

As to my thinking that is is easier to evade and or avoid I certainly think it is safer Again perhaps I am missing something but I kind of got the impression that Stance Turning and Stepping were kind of in this catagory allowing one to not meet force with force.

**Whenever I hear "don't met force with force" it makes my @ss twitch -- another confused idea. Evading is one of many tactics in WCK. It is not our principal strategy however. Our kuit tells us to "stay as he comes, escort as he goes, charge in when free" --- not get out of the way as he comes or evade him or run away.

FWIW I would challenge you, and anyone else, to tell me another way to deal with any attack other than the three methods of:
1) Avoid
2) Evade
3) Intercept

**Go fight some skilled people and see if you can do what you think you can do. If so, great! I'm not going to try and tell you how to make your WCK work. That is up to you.

The question poses the method of using an interception to deal with an incoming attack. This is great as long as your strength is superior. My question is why would I want to meet his/her force if I do not have to? Perhaps if one trains to avoid or evade and developes this skill to a high level one will find these attributes useful even when the physical body fails.

**The power of the punch has nothing whatsoever to do with having superior strength -- it has to do with having a certain type of body mechanics. One can pass the airshield test easily being much smaller, much weaker than the person with the shield. If you don't have good body mechanics, then it begs the question of what you are hitting your opponent with (what's behind your punch?), regardless of your "strategy."

FWIW: I have used the idea/concept of avoid/evade/intercept in real life and so far Intercepting has always been the method least desirible. By utilizing the idea of not intercepting or meeting force with force I am able to deal with stronger opponents but again I may have missed many things. But as long as they work for me I am happy to be missing out.

**I've heard this many times before, the old "I've used it in real life"-so-it-must-be-good-argument. Lots of crap works in "real life" because most of the opponents we face in "real life" are crap (have no skills). The test of our fighting skill is not that we can make it work against scrubs but whether we can make it work against good, skilled opposition (the better our opposition, the better skills we need to defeat them). Go to yor local NHB/MMA gym and see whether you can make what think works, or worked for you in "real life", works against skilled opposition.

Regards,

Terence

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
FWIW: I have used the idea/concept of avoid/evade/intercept in real life and so far Intercepting has always been the method least desirible. Dave,

I would think that interception would be highly desirable. Avoid/Evade is useful to a point (e.g charging bull), but you will have to make contact in order to take control of the situation. You need to move to a strong offense sooner, rather than later. At least that's my take on it.

Bill

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
YongChun, to answer your question -- yes, a *trained* woman or small-framed man can easily pass this test.
Terence

I think just the test is unclear. Stopping a linebacker with a punch would certainly be a great feat for the Guiness book of world records. Also the limits are not clear. Would would be the criteria to say your punch is good? We have a 12 year old small school girl who is pretty good but no matter what she does there is no way she is going to stop this 220 pound guy that we have no matter what she does. It's purely a physics thing. A smaller force can't stay in the way of a larger force. If the smaller person doesn't do a punch and just stands there in a perfect stance then there are definite limits to the force she can direct into the ground from a head on clash with perfect structure.

So no doubt some of us are unclear about the test. In practice smaller people can redirect forces because there are weak angles. Judo people can go in the direction of the force and hence a smaller guy can do a variety of throws on a larger guy. In Aikido if you just catch the timing and balance right then you can go directly into the guy's incoming force and send him flying straight back. I saw this done by a Daito Ryu master. Tsui Sheung Ting has a demo on the Hong Kong get together tape where he support about a 250 pound push. His foot is on a scale to measure it. Beyond that he topples. Some students that tried it made it to about 220 pounds. A few people are pushing on you. Now if someone ran at him with a shoulder check like a linebacker would do then I doubt he would be standing there for long.

Maybe the test can also be used in reverse. Take someone's best 100 pound female student and have her stand there and the rest of the students try to knock her down by stepping in or rushing in. Anyone that fails to knock her down would flunk the Chum Kiu stepping test as having no root and poor momentum generation skills.

If a small 80 pound student catches the timing right then just as I step I can be swept off my feet provided I step by transferring my weight to my front foot and not the empty weighted kind of step. It depends on the kind of step anyway.

The physics of body mechanics is very complex and can't easily be analyzed. So my physics question is not meant to turn into a formula discussion. Just on the surface if the model of the situation is a large billiard ball smashing into a smaller one, then the smaller one always moves back. Now if the smaller one was made out of rubber and sticks to the surface then it can bounce off a ball weighing much more because the force is transferred into the surface.

I think discussions should be plain and simple and based on some clear analysis. The test sounds valid if it is made clear. Also good structure does give a smaller person the best chance , there is no doubt about that and no one will argue that.

The image of a small lady knocking back a rushing in WWF guy just is not realistic. I would love to see that. That would be very good advertising for Wing Chun doing this thing alone on a 20 second infomercial.

Unclear discussions should not degenerate into insults by telling people that their Wing Chun obviously sucks if they can't do such a simple test. Instead, describe the test clearly and then people go and try it and report back. Then if they fail offer suggestions for how to make it work not by saying their teacher is crap and it's time to look elsewhere. Perhaps the test is good to point out some weaknesses in people's structures in which case the student and the teacher can learn something from this type of discussion.

As I understand the test, the student stands in the YJKYM stance. Someone runs straight into them from a distance of X (?) meters. The runners position is (Upright? Bent down like a tackle or grappler?). The speed of the run is X (?) meters per second. The puncher contacts the runner with the arm (bent? Straight?) or with a (double palm strike) to the middle of an airshield?. To knock the guy (1 foot, 2 feet, ... X feet back).

I remember telling a 240 pound guy to rush into me from close touching range. He collapsed my arm which ended up taking the shape of the Bill Jee elbow pointed right at his sternum. My stance happened to have held and so he ran right into the tip of my elbow with the result of the rib separating from his strenum. He stopped cold in his tracks. However he didn't let on that anything was wrong and the next day after checking with the doctor told me that his rib had separated from his sternum from running into my static elbow. I was 170 pounds then. I doubt any punch of mine could have sent him flying backwards unless he was top heavy and I managed to off balance him. However he came in quite rooted as trained in the Chum Kiu form.

We sometimes do the test of having the arms fully extended then step using the Chum Kiu stepping into a person standing in the YJKYM stance to knock them flying backwards. This is to show the momentum generated just by stance movement to which a punch would be added in combat. In Holland some very serious knockouts were caused from very fast rushing in footwork combined with actually soft controlled punches (they didn't want to hurt each other). But they learned the momentum of the rush generated some incredible forces. In Fencing the rush in also generates a lot of force such that the blade will snap and impale the other guy. A few deaths a year were reported from this.

How about, one person stands inthe SLT stationary stance. Another steps in with the Chum Kiu linear step. Both punch each other and make fist to fist contact (maybe wear some kind of protection on the fist). Then see who gets knocked backwards. If the SLT guy gets knocked backwards then his stance is no good. If the Chum Kiu guy gets knocked backwards then his stepping is no good.

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by Matrix
Dave,

I would think that interception would be highly desirable. Avoid/Evade is useful to a point (e.g charging bull), but you will have to make contact in order to take control of the situation. You need to move to a strong offense sooner, rather than later. At least that's my take on it.

Bill

Hello Matrix,

I wanted to point out that an interception is the use of your superior strength/structure to overwhelm your opponent but it is based on your ability to generate such "force" as being superior to theirs. In an avoidance you do not make contact and you end up in a position from which neither you nor you opponent can strike. In an evasion you avoid or redirect the incoming attack but are in a position from which you can strike the opponent. In many cases Wing Chun is full of examples of evasions; Taun Da with a turn for example would be a nice one, also consider the Bong Sau. I am not advocating not making contact!! I am advocating not trying to overpower my opponent. By using the idea of evasion I am able to not meet their force with my own but be in a position to hit them while they are not in an optimal position to hit me.

Interception does have its place. But if you rely on overcoming your opponent with force or your superior body structure without the element of change you may be in for a surprise. I do not believe in fully comitting to anything but to always keep something in reserve and thus be able to change my attack if I need to. However, it is possible to strike with power using this approach. Just that power is not the end all be all of the attack.

In the example given what would change if the "girl" struck the opponent in the eyes or under the jaw as they were coming in? Would their punch have more "power" or would the target placement increase the "perceived" power she is able to generate?

Consider something else; In some instances the attacker, while being incapacited by the punch may still have sufficient forward momentum to continue on and run into you. Consider the example of a hunter who shoots the target which is charging at him yet steps to the side. In some instances the "target" perhaps a bear, although fatally injured is able to reach the spot the hunter was standing. If they did not move they would be in danger as well. This is true if your human opponent has a knife as well. It is possible to kill them and yet have them still reach you and injure you as well.

For me, I do not care if he misses me by a mile or an inch as long as he misses me. Also the strongest punch in the world does not do any good if it never lands. However, slightly less powerful punches which land several times can do as much or more damages.

Peace,

Dave

[taltos]

Originally posted by Sihing73
FWIW I would challenge you, and anyone else, to tell me another way to deal with any attack other than the three methods of:
1) Avoid
2) Evade
3) Intercept

Does "Intercept" include redirecting? I only ask because at my kwoon we train interception as when I see it coming and can intercept it before it reaches full power, while redirecting is when it is already overtaking my space and I need it out of the way. I guess one is more proactive and the other is more reactive.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) the "ABC"s of confrontation:

Avoid
Back-off
Conquer

Seems parrallel to what you're saying, and makes sense to me.

-Levi

[_William_]

About the punching: are you torquing your body into the punch at all, or perhaps stepping into the punch? Or does your body not move at all?

Just curious.

[Sihing73]

Hello Terence,

By your explanation my deciding not to rely soley on strength means my punch is weak? There are several factors which can make a punch strong and body structure is certainly one of the most important factors. However, it is dangerous to assume someone does not have body structure or are weaker because they do not advocate the same things as you. FWIW my feeling is that the secret, if you want to call it that, to true WC power lies in the stance. As a part of the stance is the ability to shift/turn or step. The hands and the "punch" are secondary to the stance or it would be better to say they divise thier power from the stance.

Let me ask you this, suppose rather than choosing to meet my opponents rush with a stationary stance and a punch I side step and strike him/her with a fak sau. Would this be an ineffective technique? Though perhaps not as strong as your punch it allows me to combine my force with theirs and also permits me to be in a position wherein I am able to continue the attack while they now have to change their position to do so.

As to my use of the word "soft" in no way does this imply a limp noodle. We may be on the same page as far as our views on WC "Energy".

As to the matter of evasion and the use of the three principles I mentioned;
If WC does not use Evasion as its principle strategy then please define what method we do use. I would like you to explain how anything you do or advocate doing does not fall into one of the catagories of 1) Avoid 2) Evade or 3) Intercept.
As to fighting skilled fighters I again would ask you to explain how to react or fight them without utilizing one of these methods. Please don't tell me these don't apply tell me what you would do which does not fall into one of these catagories. ;)

Whether or not this works on the street is what matters to me. I have no interest in entering a NHB fight nor in fighting someone elses fight. What I am interested in is whether or not I am able to insure my own safety and ability to go home at the end of the day if I am attacked. I do admit to using the concept of Avoidance to insure I miss out on fights.

It is easy to say this approach will work or that one will not from the safety of your computer keyboard. I have no more desire to change your approach to WC then you have to instruct me on mine. Suffice it to say I know whether or not I have utilized WC in a real life and am not really concerned with whether or not anyone else even cares. I do believe that many people are in for a rude awakening if they are ever in a real life situation. I know many people who have better stances and maybe can pass all of the structure tests in the world but can not fight worth a darn.

Peace,

Dave

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
I wanted to point out that an interception is the use of your superior strength/structure to overwhelm your opponent but it is based on your ability to generate such "force" as being superior to theirs. Dave,
Funny how terminology can get in the way. I would certainly agree that attempting to use "force" to overwhelm an opponent is a no-no. However, superior structure is what it's all about in my book. I would also like to make a distinction between "force" and "power". I was thinking about starting a thread on that topic. I hope that I'm not getting too hung up on semantics. If so, that is not my intent.


I am not advocating not making contact!! I am advocating not trying to overpower my opponent.
Sure, in the sense that we do not want to use muscular force to overpower the opponent. If I can "overpower" them structure, then it's all good.

When you say you are not "fully comitting", but keeping something in reserve, I wonder exactly what you mean. I want to be fully commited, but not over-committed. Maybe were saying the same thing, just in a slightly different way.


Would their punch have more "power" or would the target placement increase the "perceived" power she is able to generate? I truely don't mean to be rude, but who cares? Is it effective? That's what I want to know.


Consider something else; In some instances the attacker, while being incapacited by the punch may still have sufficient forward momentum to continue on and run into you. I absolutely agree, that's why I'm all for moving, as opposed to taking the charge head-on. After that though, you may need to be a little more direct.


For me, I do not care if he misses me by a mile or an inch as long as he misses me. I'd prefer "an inch", because he's probably that much closer to me, for me to do what I need to. ;)


Also the strongest punch in the world does not do any good if it never lands. However, slightly less powerful punches which land several times can do as much or more damages. Sure, and a strong punch that lands will most probably yield better results than "slightly less powerful punches". It's really all about staying within yourself. If you have the center and a clear target, let loose.

Thanks for the great feedback. These types of discussions really make you think about the finer points of what we're doing. It's why I show up.

Peace,
Bill

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by taltos
Does "Intercept" include redirecting? I only ask because at my kwoon we train interception as when I see it coming and can intercept it before it reaches full power, while redirecting is when it is already overtaking my space and I need it out of the way. I guess one is more proactive and the other is more reactive.

I read somewhere (can't remember where) the "ABC"s of confrontation:

Avoid
Back-off
Conquer

Seems parrallel to what you're saying, and makes sense to me.

-Levi

Hello Levi,

A quick rundown of the three methods/concepts which I am advocating:

1) Avoid
This is the method of totaly avoiding the opponents attack. You end up in a position where you can neither strike nor be struck by the opponent.

2) Evade
This is where you step off the line of the attack but are in a position to counter attack. In many examples your would make contact with the incoming attack but use its force to "guide" your body out of the way. If you chose to attack at the same time that is fine. My favorite example of this is Taun Da/Punch with a Turn or Step. You should be in a position to attack but your opponent will ideally be in a position from which they can not attack without adjusting their position.

3) Intercept
This is where you meet the incoming force and crush it or overwhelm it. Whether you do this with superior brute force or "body structure" the underlying principle is that you still meet their force directly. An example of this would be jamming a kick before it can reach full extension.

Hope that makes it a little clearer. FWIW I came across these ideas in a book, "LIVING THE MARTIAL WAY", which I highly recommend as essential reading.

Peace,

Dave

[taltos]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hope that makes it a little clearer. FWIW I came across these ideas in a book, "LIVING THE MARTIAL WAY", which I highly recommend as essential reading.

Perfect. Thanks!

I'll have to get a hold of that book.

-Levi

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hope that makes it a little clearer. FWIW I came across these ideas in a book, "LIVING THE MARTIAL WAY", which I highly recommend as essential reading. Dave,
Yes it's a pretty good book. The author, Forrest Morgan, has written an interesting guide that can certainly be applied to martial arts in general. However, I would be cautious about using these terms with reference to Wing Chun. What a Karateka would see as interception is different from Wing Chun, due to some of the basic concepts of the art, IMO. An Akidio player would have yet another perspective.

That's one of the limits of generalizations.

Bill

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by Matrix
Dave,
Yes it's a pretty good book. The author, Forrest Morgan, has written an interesting guide that can certainly be applied to martial arts in general. However, I would be cautious about using these terms with reference to Wing Chun. What a Karateka would see as interception is different from Wing Chun, due to some of the basic concepts of the art, IMO. An Akidio player would have yet another perspective.

That's one of the limits of generalizations.

Bill

Hello Bill,

Without being too critical I would be curious as to how you define the three terms in a way unique to Wing Chun, Karate and Aikido. How would an “interception” be different for each of them? While there are certainly conceptual differences between the various arts there remains some constants. For example, while there are many variations of kicking techniques, the basic definition of a kick remains the same. Thus the “definition” of the three terms, Intercept, Avoid and Evade would remain fairly constant despite variations in arts. Of course, you can certainly disagree, I would just ask for an explanation of the way they differ.

Peace,

Dave

[blooming lotus]

redirecting force is one thing........... absorbing it to no personal detriment is another ( eg ; iron skills : WC basics 101)............


also , becuase they expect you to react and alter position, upper hand then belongs to you.................

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by blooming lotus
redirecting force is one thing........... absorbing it to no personal detriment is another ( eg ; iron skills : WC basics 101)............


also , becuase they expect you to react and alter position, upper hand then belongs to you.................

Hello,

In which WC/WT/VT lineage is WC 101 about Iron Body Skills?? :confused:

In the real world how many have the time and dedication to devote to obtaining "realistic" iron body skills which can be used in combat not just for demos?? I am sure anything can be made to look good but to apply it, ah that is another thing. There is even a woman who claims to be able to project her students several feet without touching them. Looks good but somehow I would want more if I were to fight, at least someone who was not part of the in crowd. I also recal something about the Boxer rebellion and Iron Body skills. Seems like they needed a little extra and may have been better off learning to shoot a rifle. Consider me a cynic but I just don't believe the hype. Just like the combat KI group. Very impressive but what about full contact real fights??????

WC reacts differently than most people would expect. The ability to change and flow would IMHO be of greater value than being able to take a punch. Besides, I think you might be surprised at how many people in the REAL world can take a full force attack and still fight. I would be willing to bet that Mike Tyson in his prime most likely hit harder than most of us on this forum. While there were instances of a one shot knockout, most fights consisted of more than one blow being struck. I guess even someone as powerful as Iron Mike sometimes needed to hit for a cumaltive effect. Also look at him today, not so formidible anymore. Another thing to consider is the fact that many pro boxers with powerful punches actually end up breaking their hands in a real fight.

I am reminded of a story I once heard:
Thre were two masters training. One a very strong karateka the other a frail Tai Chi Master( I do not know why they always have the Tai Chi guy as frail but hey it aint my story :D ) Anyhow the Karate guy was breaking bricks and boards and said essentially; my punches and kicks are so strong how would you defend agains them? The Tai Chi guy replied, "Hit me!" When the karateka struck the Tai Chi Master shifted position and was no longer where the blow struck.

While I agree that you do need some umph in your strikes, I do not buy into the power beats all or one good punch will always do the job. Water wears down the strongest rock but does it over time. No, your blows should not be "taps" but those taps can lead to the opponents destruction. I also think that many who advocate "structure" actually supplement their technique with strength. Go meet Ben Der and see if you think he uses structure or not and then ask him to stand and allow you to run at him and meet your force. I am not of his lineage and do not want to speak out of turn but I would be surprised if he did not advocate moving out of the way and/or redirecting the incoming force even if he could absord the incoming force.

Peace,

Dave

[blooming lotus]

only the original one :rolleyes:

[CFT]

Ray's most recent post encapsulates most of what I was going to say, but I still want to offer some analogies to 'fuel the fire' of argument. This has actually turned into a very interesting thread on 'body mechanics' or 'body struture', whatever you want to call it - the underlying ideas are still the same.

Ray's original scenario was where the defender IS static so no evasion is allowed, and the attacker IS in motion. My original assertion that there are limits to the WC body mechanics/structure is illustrated by Ray's lineback attack - but why stop there? Why not a car travelling at low speed (say 5 mph), do you really think a human can stand up to it?

I think that there is a real difference between static loading and dynamic loading on the Wing Chun structure.

I'm changing the focus to weight lifting to illustrate this. Whether it is snatch lift or jerk and lift, it takes a combination of muscular strength and structure, right? At the end of the lift, the skeletal structure supports the weight, with muscles and tendons providing balance and stability.

If we have no problems with this, then I would like to present the next two scenarios (I'm assuming the weight is more than the lifter's body weight too):
[list=1] The weight is elevated to about 1.3 metres above the weight lifter's head. When the weight is released, it should accelerate due to gravity and reach the weight lifter's hands at a speed of about 5 m/s.

This simulates the speed of an attacker rushing you at 5 m/s. World class sprinters can run 100m in about 10s, so if we double the time, perhaps we mortals can comfortably reach 5 m/s.

The weight is taken off the lifter's hands, but is raised no more than a quarter inch - effectively still in his grasp but not loading his structure. The weight is then let go.
[/list=1]Does anyone think the effect on the lifter's elbows and shoulders will be the same?

I don't think so. There is now extra kinetic energy for the lifter to dissipate. That is why I think someone heavier than you, rushing at you with an airshield (the original scenario) should bowl you over, even if you are punching using WC body mechanics.

To take the human element out of the equation, I think that it would be valid to throw/swing a heavy punch bag (should be heavier than defender) at the defender instead (at about 5 m/s) and see if it is feasible to knock the bag back. This should be an easy experiment to perform shouldn't it?

My concluding remarks are that I believe there are real limits to the amount of force/momentum that the WC stance can support. I also believe that there is a difference between loading on the WC stance where the attacker starts:
[list=1] at close range (nearly static loading)
at medium range where the attacker may be stepping into you
and at long range where the attacker has time and space to run at you.
[/list=1]My ideas might very well be wrong, and you may think that the analogies are way off the mark. But I think the heavy bag experiment should be a pretty simple and repeatable way, that people can perform, and prove or disprove our theories.

I would like to try it myself, but I don't have access to a bag and secondly I freely admit that my stance would most likely not be up to it. So I can only disprove my arguments because my skills aren't up to scratch.

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by Matrix


When you say you are not "fully comitting", but keeping something in reserve, I wonder exactly what you mean. I want to be fully commited, but not over-committed. Maybe were saying the same thing, just in a slightly different way.
,
Bill

I read this twice, and I really like the way you worded that..........

nice post :cool:

[IRONMONK]

if a much bigger guy comes charging at you why dont u just step to the side (like in bullfighting and hit at an angle) instead of meeting his momentum head on?

[CFT]

Originally posted by IRONMONK
if a much bigger guy comes charging at you why dont u just step to the side (like in bullfighting and hit at an angle) instead of meeting his momentum head on? Yes, in a 'real fight' that may be the prefered option, and is advocated in many previous posts. But the original scenario was: 'what if you you stood up to that force? Can the WC punch supported by WC body structure/mechanics still be capable of bouncing back a physically superior opponent moving at speed'?

[blooming lotus]

either way, but are you guys really not paying Iron body skill as part of wc system???

[CFT]

Originally posted by blooming lotus
either way, but are you guys really not paying Iron body skill as part of wc system??? So what happened to the Wing Chun saying: 'Iron bridges, tofu body, glass head'?

Or should we not be so literal?

[t_niehoff]

Dave wrote:

By your explanation my deciding not to rely soley on strength means my punch is weak? There are several factors which can make a punch strong and body structure is certainly one of the most important factors. However, it is dangerous to assume someone does not have body structure or are weaker because they do not advocate the same things as you. FWIW my feeling is that the secret, if you want to call it that, to true WC power lies in the stance. As a part of the stance is the ability to shift/turn or step. The hands and the "punch" are secondary to the stance or it would be better to say they divise thier power from the stance.

**This makes no sense at all. Look -- either your punch has power or it doesn't. That power can come, as it does in good WCK, from body mechanics (which means the body and horse working together). Not "iron body" but using the body as a bow, a flexible bow. You can "have feelings' or "think" whatever you like but the real question is can you do it or not. If you can't do it, then what you "think" or "feel" or "believe" doesn't matter. The airshield test is a simple means to test the body-mechanics (horse and body) behind the punch. If you can't pass the test, it means you have a weak punch, hence weak body-mechanics . . . thus poor WCK. Period.

Let me ask you this, suppose rather than choosing to meet my opponents rush with a stationary stance and a punch I side step and strike him/her with a fak sau. Would this be an ineffective technique? Though perhaps not as strong as your punch it allows me to combine my force with theirs and also permits me to be in a position wherein I am able to continue the attack while they now have to change their position to do so.

**You still don't get it -- when you "fak sau" are you hitting with your arm (localized muscle) or body? Go out and hit a larger stronger opponent with localized muscle and see where it gets you (they'll soak it up and keep coming).

As to my use of the word "soft" in no way does this imply a limp noodle. We may be on the same page as far as our views on WC "Energy".

**IME there are "giveaways" -- signs -- that indicate "theoreticians" rather than fighters (words are tools for thought, so one's words giveaway how they think). Folks that use terms like "soft" can't have much experience actually applying WCK.

As to the matter of evasion and the use of the three principles I mentioned;
If WC does not use Evasion as its principle strategy then please define what method we do use. I would like you to explain how anything you do or advocate doing does not fall into one of the catagories of 1) Avoid 2) Evade or 3) Intercept.

**I don't intend to give instruction here on the internet. I merely am pointing out that if one doesn't have fundamental skills, one of which can be ascertained from the airshield test, then they have no real attainment in WCK regardless of how long they've been "doing" it. I already pointed you to the kuit; that should give you some clue to what you seek. If that doesn't help, then find a good WCK instructor.


As to fighting skilled fighters I again would ask you to explain how to react or fight them without utilizing one of these methods. Please don't tell me these don't apply tell me what you would do which does not fall into one of these catagories.

**See above. Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you." If you think you can make your strategy work, fine, go out and test it against skilled fighters. If you don't, you'll never know. Don't rely on me to tell you (then you're falling into the trap of believing or not believing someone). If you can't make it work, then find someone that can fight with their WCK to teach you.

Whether or not this works on the street is what matters to me. I have no interest in entering a NHB fight nor in fighting someone elses fight. What I am interested in is whether or not I am able to insure my own safety and ability to go home at the end of the day if I am attacked. I do admit to using the concept of Avoidance to insure I miss out on fights.

**If all you care about is "self-defense" then you don't need to waste your time with WCK. Why spend years trying to develop good fighting skills when you can take a good self-defense course, carry some pepper-spray, etc. and defend yourself? If someone wants to spend years and years continuing to refine and develop fighting skills, I'd think they would actually want to refine and develop *good* skills, effective skills -- skills that would work against good fighters. And besides, if you don't have the basics, like a punch with stopping power, you've got nothing anyway.

It is easy to say this approach will work or that one will not from the safety of your computer keyboard.

**Exactly. Just like it is easy to say crap has worked against a scrub.

I have no more desire to change your approach to WC then you have to instruct me on mine.

**Then why did you ask me the questions?

Suffice it to say I know whether or not I have utilized WC in a real life and am not really concerned with whether or not anyone else even cares. I do believe that many people are in for a rude awakening if they are ever in a real life situation. I know many people who have better stances and maybe can pass all of the structure tests in the world but can not fight worth a darn.

**The forms, drills, structure tests, airshield tests, etc. are all just prep work. No one learns WCK until they use it in fighting. You only learn to fight by fighting. If they don't fight regularly as part of their training, then they will have little to no fighting skills regardless of how long they've "practiced WCK." Our fighting skills grow when we try use them against better opposition. We can all "talk" about the punch, have theories, concepts, beliefs, etc. The bottom line is can you do it? The airshield test is a basic test to see if your punch has stopping power. It does not rely on brute strength but mechanics. If a person's punch doesn't have this power, then their WCK sucks, as does their understanding (if you can't do it, you don't understand it). And they will not be able to fight effectively since they will have no power.

---------------------------

The mechanics are not "iron body" -- it has nothing to do with iron body; the body remains flexible and resiliant. Small women can easily pass the airshield test. Once again what we have are folks that don't know what they are talking about -- evidenced by the fact they can't do it (pass the test) -- speculating or rediculing what they don't understand. It's simple, if you can't pass the test, you won't be able to figure out what is going on. Any speculation is a waste of time. If you can pass the test, you know what is going on so you won't need to speculate.

One way I explain "mechanics" is by analogy to a golf swing. You can try and hit the ball with sheer muscle or you can learn a certain mechanics that will permit you to drive the ball with maximum distance and accuracy without reliance on brute force -- through skill. To be a "good golfer" requires one have the ability to drive with distance and accuracy, and that skill is easy to test. For someone to say "they don't have the time to spend on iron body driving" misses everything -- the mechanics have nothing to do with iron body and without a good drive, your golf sucks.

And once again, the airshield test is not application -- it is a test to check the development of one's punch. That's all. There is no point talking about strategy (how to put one's tools to work -- "this is how I think we should use our drive") if one doesn't have the tools in the firstplace.

Regards,

Terence

[CFT]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
One way I explain "mechanics" is by analogy to a golf swing. You can try and hit the ball with sheer muscle or you can learn a certain mechanics that will permit you to drive the ball with maximum distance and accuracy without reliance on brute force -- through skill. To be a "good golfer" requires one have the ability to drive with distance and accuracy, and that skill is easy to test. For someone to say "they don't have the time to spend on iron body driving" misses everything -- the mechanics have nothing to do with iron body and without a good drive, your golf sucks.
Good point Terence, but don't you think that even with the 'good mechanics' there is still a limit to how much of the body's momentum you can impart to the ball via the club? There is still a limit to how far the ball can go.

So turning it around, even with good mechanics, isn't there a fundamental limit to how much force the WC stance can support?

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Dave wrote:

**This makes no sense at all. Look -- either your punch has power or it doesn't. That power can come, as it does in good WCK, from body mechanics (which means the body and horse working together). Not "iron body" but using the body as a bow, a flexible bow. You can "have feelings' or "think" whatever you like but the real question is can you do it or not. If you can't do it, then what you "think" or "feel" or "believe" doesn't matter. The airshield test is a simple means to test the body-mechanics (horse and body) behind the punch. If you can't pass the test, it means you have a weak punch, hence weak body-mechanics . . . thus poor WCK. Period.

**You still don't get it -- when you "fak sau" are you hitting with your arm (localized muscle) or body? Go out and hit a larger stronger opponent with localized muscle and see where it gets you (they'll soak it up and keep coming).

**IME there are "giveaways" -- signs -- that indicate "theoreticians" rather than fighters (words are tools for thought, so one's words giveaway how they think). Folks that use terms like "soft" can't have much experience actually applying WCK.

**I don't intend to give instruction here on the internet. I merely am pointing out that if one doesn't have fundamental skills, one of which can be ascertained from the airshield test, then they have no real attainment in WCK regardless of how long they've been "doing" it. I already pointed you to the kuit; that should give you some clue to what you seek. If that doesn't help, then find a good WCK instructor.

**See above. Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you." If you think you can make your strategy work, fine, go out and test it against skilled fighters. If you don't, you'll never know. Don't rely on me to tell you (then you're falling into the trap of believing or not believing someone). If you can't make it work, then find someone that can fight with their WCK to teach you.

**If all you care about is "self-defense" then you don't need to waste your time with WCK. Why spend years trying to develop good fighting skills when you can take a good self-defense course, carry some pepper-spray, etc. and defend yourself? If someone wants to spend years and years continuing to refine and develop fighting skills, I'd think they would actually want to refine and develop *good* skills, effective skills -- skills that would work against good fighters. And besides, if you don't have the basics, like a punch with stopping power, you've got nothing anyway.

**Exactly. Just like it is easy to say crap has worked against a scrub.

I have no more desire to change your approach to WC then you have to instruct me on mine.

**Then why did you ask me the questions?

**The forms, drills, structure tests, airshield tests, etc. are all just prep work. No one learns WCK until they use it in fighting. You only learn to fight by fighting. If they don't fight regularly as part of their training, then they will have little to no fighting skills regardless of how long they've "practiced WCK." Our fighting skills grow when we try use them against better opposition. We can all "talk" about the punch, have theories, concepts, beliefs, etc. The bottom line is can you do it? The airshield test is a basic test to see if your punch has stopping power. It does not rely on brute strength but mechanics. If a person's punch doesn't have this power, then their WCK sucks, as does their understanding (if you can't do it, you don't understand it). And they will not be able to fight effectively since they will have no power.

---------------------------

The mechanics are not "iron body" -- it has nothing to do with iron body; the body remains flexible and resiliant. Small women can easily pass the airshield test. Once again what we have are folks that don't know what they are talking about -- evidenced by the fact they can't do it (pass the test) -- speculating or rediculing what they don't understand. It's simple, if you can't pass the test, you won't be able to figure out what is going on. Any speculation is a waste of time. If you can pass the test, you know what is going on so you won't need to speculate.

And once again, the airshield test is not application -- it is a test to check the development of one's punch. That's all. There is so point talking about strategy (how to put one's tools to work) if one doesn't have the tools in the firstplace.

Regards,

Terence

Hello Terence,

I am not the one spouting "Iron Body" skills. As to not making sense perhaps not then again maybe it makes sense to some people not to others. According to you being unable to "pass" the test indicates a weak punch. You are welcome to your opinion and I will remain comfortable in my delusion based on the reaction of those I have hit. I still say it is the stance which is key.
BTW: I never said I could pass the test or could'nt I did say I feel there are better methods of dealing with this type of an attack.

Fak Sau is using localized muscle?? Not sure how you hit as my Fak does not rely on muscle for its power. As a matter of fact I usually apply the Fak with a turn or step. Just about everyone I train with is bigger and stronger than me so I have hit bigger guys. But hey maybe they were just being nice to me ;)

So my use of language has given away my lack of experience oh no :o you have caught me. Now what will I do??? IMO those that can not accept another pov may show the true lack of experience.

I thought forums like this were a way to communicate and grow. I also thought that those with knowledge would be willing to share such. Of course it is always easier to disagree and give vague references and answers then to put it on the line. What you claim is fine and good but if you were so sure that the three methods I stated are not applicable, you should be able to answer the questions posed. If I am wrong then tell me why and explain it so all can understand. Don't hide your light under a bushell :)

And if I can make it work but it does not fall into your realm is it no longer WC? Or is it perhaps that "classroom" tests do not always equal real world application?? I know many very good Computer Techs who consistently fail Microsoft Exams but can make a real world network run smoothly. I wonder if they know what they are doing??

The rest of the points equate the same response: If you are able to apply and confident of your skills then the opinions of others matter little. I am willing to discuss in detail my views and why I have them. I will not tell someone that they do not know simply because we dissagree. Again, if my views are wrong then explain why in detail.

Oh, your response is a nice example of using the concept of Evasion. You sidestep giving actual answers while giving the illusion of superior knowledge. :D

Peace,

Dave

[Redd]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Oh, your response is a nice example of using the concept of Evasion. You sidestep giving actual answers while giving the illusion of superior knowledge. :D

That is his modus operandi.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by CFT
This has actually turned into a very interesting thread on 'body mechanics' or 'body struture', whatever you want to call it - the underlying ideas are still the same.

Ray's original scenario was where the defender IS static so no evasion is allowed, and the attacker IS in motion. My original assertion that there are limits to the WC body mechanics/structure is illustrated by Ray's lineback attack - but why stop there? Why not a car travelling at low speed (say 5 mph), do you really think a human can stand up to it?


I think that there is a real difference between static loading and dynamic loading on the Wing Chun structure................


My concluding remarks are that I believe there are real limits to the amount of force/momentum that the WC stance can support.

I also believe that there is a difference between loading on the WC stance where the attacker starts:
[list=1] at close range (nearly static loading)
at medium range where the attacker may be stepping into you
and at long range where the attacker has time and space to run at you.
[/list=1]My ideas might very well be wrong, and you may think that the analogies are way off the mark. But I think the heavy bag experiment should be a pretty simple and repeatable way, that people can perform, and prove or disprove our theories.

I would like to try it myself, but I don't have access to a bag and secondly I freely admit that my stance would most likely not be up to it. So I can only disprove my arguments because my skills aren't up to scratch.



Great post and there are lots of truth.


My view,

1, Wing Chun Kuen ultimate is a dynamic structure with fast transient loading capability. and should be able to take your close range and long range without an issue. one can test this with 100 pounds moving or push heavy bag to see how speedy the......

2, Most static loading model show today is just a matter of tricks of lowering the CoG in a control condition.

3, If one cannot accerelate up or ride/flow with the incoming momentum. then one is in big trouble. Disregard of how nice looking one can perform the trick of static loading.

4, with most YJKYM, the body structure will breakdown collapse, either started in shoulder, waist/low back, or knees.

5, "Why not a car travelling at low speed (say 5 mph), do you really think a human can stand up to it?"----

even with a dynamic structure capable of fast transient. The bottom line is how far is the different of the weight of the human and the car. (speed also)



6, I am not satisfied with the methods ladies were train today. I think most body structure training based on static structure/ legend without a path to get to the dynamic structure training is giving ladies a false sense of Security. And that is fatal.

7, without the dynamic structure, acceleration...speedy power generation etc of Wing Chun Kuen being sort out. I dont believe in talking about "fighting". Why?

Lots of the people who talks about fighting is not using the dynamic structure, acceleration.. speedy power generation of Wing Chun Kuen. They are using Boxing, Tai Ji , or Hung Gar., physical training, or thier body strenght advantages form weight lifting or punching heavy bag.....etc. type of power generation or other technics which comes with the power generation type. Sure, they can be a great fighter, but does that using Wing Chun Kuen ?


just some thoughts.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by blooming lotus
I read this twice, and I really like the way you worded that..........

nice post :cool: Blooming Lotus,

Thank you.
You are too kind. :o

Bill

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by blooming lotus
either way, but are you guys really not paying Iron body skill as part of wc system???





Great for Demo, but One never see an iron body work well protecting its mater in ThaiLand vesus Mua Thai or Japan vesus Kyokushin world wide tournament.

with a well train VWHW, one can shock injured the internal organ with a short burst of power pulse with a control depth.

Wing Chun kuen system's snake body sensing adaptive reflex is more effective then Iron body as I have heard.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Without being too critical I would be curious as to how you define the three terms in a way unique to Wing Chun, Karate and Aikido. Dave,
No problem. I don't see it as critical at all. I made a statement. You're asking me to justify it. That's very fair. IMO.

First of all, let me say that I have some experience in Karate , Shotokan to be more specific. I also have done kickboxing and TKD, so I will speak based on what I have come to understand.

Based on the defintion provided; " Intercept - This is where you meet the incoming force and crush it or overwhelm it." I would say that this is very true of Karate. Physical strength, speed and timing are used to physically overwhelm the opponent. It is a strength versus strength situation. I'll refer to this as Force.

In Wing Chun we "intercept" and bridge, and we use biomechanical structure to take what is given. We do not force structure in an attempt to overpower. You use the Power provided from the ground through your structure to prevail. This power can in fact overwhelm your opponent, but in a way that differs significantly from the use of muscular force. This is what I will refer to as Power.

So what's the difference between Force and Power. Here's a defintion that I recently read in a book called "Power vs. Force". It is not a martial arts book per se. In fact it's a bit of a New-Age/Self-Help book. It deals alot with Human Conciousness and the like, so don't run out and look for it if you're put off by that kind of stuff. What struck me about this book is the definitions and concepts concerning Force and Power that the author (David R. Hawkins, M.D. Ph.D.) provides, and how I think they apply so well to martial arts and Wing Chun in particular.

Here are a few concepts that I think are so important. The distinction between Force and Power ;

" Power accomplishes with ease what force, even with extreme effort, cannot".

"Force is incomplete and therefore has to be fed energy constantly. Power is total and complete in itself and requires nothing from the outside. It makes no demands, it has no needs. Because force has an insatiable appetite, it constantly consumes. Power, in contrast, energizes, gives forth, supplies and supports."

"Power gives life and energy - force takes these away."

"Force always creates counterforce; its effect is to polarize rather than unify. Polarization always implies conflict; its cost therefore is high."

"For our purposes, it's really only necessary to recognize that power is what makes you strong, while force makes you weak"

So, what I'm saying is that Structure has a natural Power that defies brute Force.

If someone punches and I intercept with a Jong Sau. I will not try to force that hand beyond where it can go, I will replace hands or Lap or whatever until I have the center and a clear line to strike. I am also using my structure to take the opponents balance. With Force, I will hammer away like a jack hammer, hoping my force is stronger than the opposition's counterforce, so that I may prevail. With force, there is no sensing of the opening. With force you are not letting your opponent tell you how to defeat them. You are simply trying to smash your way in....

I am not an Akido person, So I am not qualified to say too much. However, I do respect that art's ability to intercept an attack and move with it and redirect it - not force against it. In effect they use the opponent's force to work against themselves.

While you say "while there are many variations of kicking techniques, the basic definition of a kick remains the same."

Yes, that's true. If you do not look beyond the basics. A kick is not just a kick, just as a punch is not just a punch. How you kick and when you kick is so important, but it has more importance than simple "technique". It ties into everything else. It is the refinements and details that make an art great, or not so great. At least that's my experience. As always, your mileage may vary.

Peace,
Bill

[Sihing73]

Hello Bill,

Thank you for your replies.

Based on the definition of Interception as found in the dictionary:
(I will use Merriem Websters Online Resource: http://www.m-w.com/)

Main Entry: 1in·ter·cept
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'sept
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin interceptus, past participle of intercipere, from inter- + capere to take, seize -- more at HEAVE
1 obsolete : PREVENT, HINDER
2 a : to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course or before arrival b : to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly
3 obsolete : to interrupt communication or connection with
4 : to include (part of a curve, surface, or solid) between two points, curves, or surfaces <the part of a circumference intercepted between two radii>
5 a : to gain possession of (an opponent's pass) b : to intercept a pass thrown by (an opponent

Based on this definition it seems that intercept involves the stopping or interuption of something, in our case force, prior to its arrival. Thus the concept of interception involves the disruption of the incoming force or the stopping of the same.

In Wing Chun there are examples of intercepting an attack. However, this is a very crude method and relies on being able to absorb or counteract the incoming force in some manner.

I would ask you to provide an example of a Wing Chun "Interception". I would also ask you to explain whether or not you would consider a Taun/Punch with a shift/turn or step an interception and avoidance or an evasion and tell me why it fits into that catagory.

See the bottom line is that while there are variations in how to deal with any attack the response will fit into one of those three catagories. If they fit into another one then I would like to know the catagory they fit into.

Consider the Taun Sau; the basic definition of the Taun remains fairly consistent. It has the palm facing up and is usually extended forward sometimes level sometimes at an angle. Now the application of the Taun may differ based on the energy being received or issued but the concept of the Taun remains the same.

What I am getting at is that you can discuss variations all day but the essence remains the same. Thus a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick. The Taun Sau is considered one of the three seeds of WC. While there may be many variants the basic definition of Taun remains constant.

Peace,

Dave

[Sihing73]

Hello Bill,

The definition for Avoid:

Main Entry: avoid
Pronunciation: &-'void
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French avoider, alternative of Old French esvuider, from es- (from Latin ex-) + vuider to empty -- more at VOID
1 : to make legally void : ANNUL <avoid a plea>
2 obsolete : VOID, EXPEL
3 a : to keep away from : SHUN b : to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of c : to refrain from
4 archaic : to depart or withdraw from : LEAVE
synonym see ESCAPE
- avoid·able /-'voi-d&-b&l/ adjective
- avoid·ably /-blE/ adverb
- avoid·er noun

This one should be fairly simple to define no matter what the style. :D

Peace,

Dave

[Sihing73]

Hello,

The defination for Evade:

Main Entry: evade
Pronunciation: i-'vAd
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): evad·ed; evad·ing
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French evader, from Latin evadere, from e- + vadere to go, walk -- more at WADE
intransitive senses
1 : to slip away
2 : to take refuge in evasion
transitive senses
1 : to elude by dexterity or stratagem
2 a : to avoid facing up to <evaded the real issues> b : to avoid the performance of : DODGE, CIRCUMVENT; especially : to fail to pay (taxes) c : to avoid answering directly : turn aside
3 : to be elusive to : BAFFLE <the simple, personal meaning evaded them -- C. D. Lewis>
synonym see ESCAPE
- evad·able /-'vA-d&-b&l/ adjective
- evad·er noun

Consdering this definition would WC techniques be considered to be evasive??
Again Taun Da and Turn.

Peace,

Dave

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Based on the definition of Interception as found in the dictionary:
(I will use Merriem Websters Online Resource: http://www.m-w.com/)

Unfortunately, the authors of this definition are generalists. Martial arts and more specifically different arts, such as Wing Chun or Karate, have their own definitons. I prefer to look at it in more detail than what Mr. Webster had in mind, but I guess that's just me. ;)


What I am getting at is that you can discuss variations all day but the essence remains the same. Thus a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick. The Taun Sau is considered one of the three seeds of WC. While there may be many variants the basic definition of Taun remains constant. A Tan Sau? Sure. There is no Tan in Karate, so it does not follow. Like you say, we could discuss this all day. Since I haven't bought into the premise of definitions for Avoid-Evade- Intercept, I don't believe that I can subject tan-da, or any other hand we would care to mention to these classifications. For me, it would be square-peg, round-hole.

I'll let my past comments stand.
Sorry.

Best Regards,
Bill

[Shadowboxer]

I learned Aikido for about 3 years. I encountered 2 main concepts. Irimi "entering" or Tenkan "turning". It was stressed to get off the line of attack, thereby not meeting force with force. However, when you entered with an irimi attack you tried to time it so well that you weren't clashing. For example, in the overhead knife attack, you try to enter in and catch the arm right before it's apex, when it is still going backwards. This would be intercepting in an Aiki way, or "blending/harmonizing with energy"-- you used their own momentum against them.

Tenkan techniques stressed turning and getting off the line or evading, redirecting force usually in a circular manner. In dealing with the wild haymaker, you move and turn the body to blend with the arc the punch would be traveling. The punch is coming at me from the left, I move to the right getting off the line and turn my body to the left adding to the punches force, at the same time unbalancing and re-directing.

Here I think Intercepting is a bit different.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Shadowboxer
I learned Aikido for about 3 years. .......Here I think Intercepting is a bit different. Shadowboxer,

Thanks for adding some Aikido perspective. I think that "intercepting" can be quite different from one art to another. What it is in Karate, is different from Wing Chun and different again in Aikido. At least that's how I see it.

Regards,
Bill

[Matrix]

Dave,

I may have been a little rash in my previous post. Sorry about that. Please accept my humblest apologies.

Let me try to add to what we've been discussing.


Originally posted by Sihing73
Based on this definition it seems that intercept involves the stopping or interuption of something, in our case force, prior to its arrival. Thus the concept of interception involves the disruption of the incoming force or the stopping of the same.

You should not assume that you are intercepting force with more force. Power can meet force and nullify it.


In Wing Chun there are examples of intercepting an attack. However, this is a very crude method and relies on being able to absorb or counteract the incoming force in some manner. If you assert that interception and force are interrelated then yes, it would be a crude method. I think that the power of structure changes the dynamics of that relationship.


I would ask you to provide an example of a Wing Chun "Interception".
I believe that I've already done that in my other post. I said "If someone punches and I intercept with a Jong Sau. I will not try to force that hand beyond where it can go, I will replace hands or Lap or whatever until I have the center and a clear line to strike. I am also using my structure to take the opponents balance."


I would also ask you to explain whether or not you would consider a Taun/Punch with a shift/turn or step an interception and avoidance or an evasion and tell me why it fits into that catagory. Based on the definitions that you provided, I would say that Tan-da is an evasion, because you are maintaining contact, yet offline of the direct attack. The problem I have is that we are trying to freeze moments in time, and pigeon-hole them into categories. The way I see it, while you are evading the direct force, you are simultaneously attacking. Possibly intercepting with the punch, since I am taking the center from their punch.

My main point of contention is that if Interception is predicated on force, then there is no Interception in Wing Chun, IMO.

Sorry, I gotta get back to work for a while. :)

Best Regards,
Bill

[Hendrik]

Avade? Tan Sau.......intecept?

HOw can one pick up the speed? and momentum? big questions

[Sihing73]

Hello Bill,

I think that one of the limitations of the net is that some things may be missinterpreted on the web. I have a feeling that many people who claim differences may find that when meeting in person they are in fact much closer than they thought.

It would be nice to meet and compare notes and methods to see if we are using different terminology or methods.

If you ever visit Philly be sure to look me up. Of course, as Phil can tell you, having six kids can make meeting very difficult.

Peace,

Dave

[Matrix]

Dave,

I suspect that you're right with regards to the limitations of the net. Hopefully we can compare notes someday. That would be great.

By the way, how do you have time for Wing Chun when you have six kids?? Two is enough for me.

Peace,
Bill