Crash the center / or flank

[nschmelzer]

I know the WC adage that to go up the center is better, but to flank is best. I also am a believer in the value of superior position (who isn't?). But when I am sparring or fighting - I cannot resist the urge to take control of and crash right down the center. It seems like flanking takes too much time - and I would rather take my lumps but surprise my opponent with strong forward energy on their center (forcing them back or to the side). I am a small but strong person (150 pounds) - and I usually surprise people by taking the center - and applying rapid and smothering footwork and paak-saus and chain punches. Anyone else have this "problem"?

[sihing]

Both have their time and place. I did the flank thing for 17yrs, it works when the circumstances are good and you have the timing and speed in footwork to make it happen. Presently I am working with the idea of chasing the center of the opponent, but also learning how to make my opponent not "FACE" me, which in all essence is the same as flanking. You have two choices, move to the flank or make him move so that you have the flank. In one instance you need speed and timing to make it work, in the other you need good root and sensitivity. I am liking the latter now as over time and with age you lose the speed and timing more than the rooting and sensitivity.

To me at this stage of my development and experience/wisdom with Ving Tsun, I have learned that it is a lazy man's Martial Art and should be felt more than seen. Economy of motion to me does not necessarily mean moving less, but using only what you need from the Art at the right time.

James

[Mr Punch]

I know the WC adage that to go up the center is better, but to flank is best. Which adage would that be?

Hitting the centre doesn't mean going straight up the middle.

[forever young]

Both have their time and place. I did the flank thing for 17yrs, it works when the circumstances are good and you have the timing and speed in footwork to make it happen. Presently I am working with the idea of chasing the center of the opponent, but also learning how to make my opponent not "FACE" me, which in all essence is the same as flanking. You have two choices, move to the flank or make him move so that you have the flank. In one instance you need speed and timing to make it work, in the other you need good root and sensitivity. I am liking the latter now as over time and with age you lose the speed and timing more than the rooting and sensitivity.

To me at this stage of my development and experience/wisdom with Ving Tsun, I have learned that it is a lazy man's Martial Art and should be felt more than seen. Economy of motion to me does not necessarily mean moving less, but using only what you need from the Art at the right time.

James
interestin thoughts and ones i totally share, if you care to read it here is a good article from nino bernardo regarding the subject of lazyness you might find interesting :D
http://www.ninobernardo.com/hardworkandlaziness.html

[sihing]

interestin thoughts and ones i totally share, if you care to read it here is a good article from nino bernardo regarding the subject of lazyness you might find interesting :D
http://www.ninobernardo.com/hardworkandlaziness.html

Sifu Lam says the same things, that VT is a lazy man's MA. Lazy not meaning putting no work into it, or that work is not needed to absorb what it is teaching us, that is just the training and a totally seperate thing. I am, and Nino too I think, talking about the useage and application of it.

James

[sihing]

Okay, read the article...and want to comment on what I think is the gist of it...namely this part right here:


"Successful people often do exactly what is needed and nothing more. They don´t waste energy by doing what is unnecessary. In the words of our adapted definition, they are 'unwilling to use excessive energy.' This is what I call being lazy and intelligent and is the kind of mentality we need to strive for in martial arts. We need to do just enough for a technique to work, but not so much that we get too tired to continue training.

As an example of what I mean, when we are practicing any technique, we should try and cut out all unnecessary activity. This could include bobbing up and down in our stance, shuffling our feet, twisting our shoulders, biting our lips, nodding our heads and so on." (Nino Bernardo)


***AND I'VE GOT TO SAY...that I think that this is a very unproductive (at best) attitude to have. At worst, it's downright second rate in that it will encourage and instill bad habits that could get you hurt if you ever have to fight for real. And it's an attitude that I've seen very often within my wing chun experience, both from people from other schools/lineages than the one's I've been a part of (and I've been involved in two different ones)...and I saw this attitude within the first lineage I trained in (spent years studying with Moy Yat way back in the day).

Why am I so down on this?

First of all, in today's martial arts world it's a no-brainer that you don't want to tire yourself out "doing what is unnecesary". The real issue is - what's unnecessary? a question that Nino seems to answer when he talks about bobbing the head, shuffling the feet, twisting the shoulders, and so on.

Really???!!! :cool:

Well how much is too much? Is he saying that you should never move your head, body, and arms around as you're sizing up your opponent and looking for an opportunity to attack? Never do any kind of shuffling footwork? No level change whatsoever as you're setting up a situation for an attack - or as part of your counter to his move?

Let me just get right to the chase: It's this philosophy/attitude that usually translates into NOT MOVING ENOUGH...not attacking enough...(ie.- who says that wing chun has to be strictly a defensive let-him-make-the-first-move art?)

Not training hard enough in terms of cardio endurance, strengthening and conditioning, heavy bag work, kicking shield work, real all-out sparring with close-to-heavy (if not full) contact - ON A FREQUENT BASIS...and so on.

I've seen this again and again. And I think it's a big mistake, quite frankly.

Victor,

There are no concrete answers because each fighting situation is different. I'm not going to bob and weave when my opponent is out of range, so in that situation it is a waste of energy. The way I see Wing Chun, is that if I have to move my head I will, no big deal, as the goal is to win not perform WC perfectly. Use whatever works, but don't try to showcase something is the key. Lazyness in application is using what you need at the right time and place, and no more. Economy of motion if you ask me..

Gotta run..

James

[couch]

Victor,

There are no concrete answers because each fighting situation is different. I'm not going to bob and weave when my opponent is out of range, so in that situation it is a waste of energy. The way I see Wing Chun, is that if I have to move my head I will, no big deal, as the goal is to win not perform WC perfectly. Use whatever works, but don't try to showcase something is the key. Lazyness in application is using what you need at the right time and place, and no more. Economy of motion if you ask me..

Gotta run..

James

You and Vic are two heads of the same coin!

1. No wasted movement.
2. Move whatever you have to, to ensure maximum opponent damage and minimum defender damage.

Or

1. Don't waste time during your Wing Chun training.
2. Don't waste time during your attribute training.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

P.S. James, you seen to be doing a lot or running lately! ;)

[JPinAZ]

To comment on the initial question, I don't look at things like that - "which is better". That truely depends on the situation. Was the opponent occupying his center, or was his center wide open. Did they initiate the attack? If so, was it a hooking punch or coming right down the center?

In my training, we focus initially on occupying space with a certain intent. Maybe I encounter a bridge, and I end up on the outside, or maybe I end up on the inside. Or, maybe I had a slightly better position/angle in my setup which resulted in an advantageous position once the bridge was made (possibly outside in this case). Of course, there are many variables that may cause a different reaction each time.

It is my feeling that if I 'prefer' to do something, like say, always try to go to the outside, I have now put limits on the outcome (put myself intoa 'box'). I might run the risk of giving up my space and giving the opponent more chance to react. Isn't it better to have no preference?

[sihing]

To comment on the initial question, I don't look at things like that - "which is better". That truely depends on the situation. Was the opponent occupying his center, or was his center wide open. Did they initiate the attack? If so, was it a hooking punch or coming right down the center?

In my training, we focus initially on occupying space with a certain intent. Maybe I encounter a bridge, and I end up on the outside, or maybe I end up on the inside. Or, maybe I had a slightly better position/angle in my setup which resulted in an advantageous position once the bridge was made (possibly outside in this case). Of course, there are many variables that may cause a different reaction each time.

It is my feeling that if I 'prefer' to do something, like say, always try to go to the outside, I have now put limits on the outcome (put myself intoa 'box'). I might run the risk of giving up my space and giving the opponent more chance to react. Isn't it better to have no preference?

Hi JpinAZ,

I don't think it is about "preference". If anything the preference is not to fight at all. The idea is about a superior position, and what can you do when you obtain that position. Thinking in fighting shouldn't be happening IMO, that is done in the training. So if thinking is not involved, preference won't be there. You just hit, subdue, control, takedown, whatever you need to do in the situation at hand. I do think it is wise to know what positions are more advantageous, and train to obtain those positions. Hopefully they come out in the real thing.

James

[JPinAZ]

I understand what both of you are saying. I would agree, in the set-up timeframe, it is a great tactic to take an angle on my opponent, even if slightly. This would give an advantageous/superior position once we bridge that I can capitalize on.

In the initial post, the first sentence was "I know the WC adage that to go up the center is better, but to flank is best.".
This would be showing preference, even if a smart one. It all depends on the situation - ie. trying to go to the outside when a hook punch is thrown - this is much more difficult to do, as well as dangerous if your preference is to get the outside flank. So, I was just hinting that we should be careful with preferences.
But I do understand and agree that it is an advantage to end up there (flank/ouside) because you now have all your weapons available (both hands/feet) against almost none of his.

It was also said in the initial post:
"But when I am sparring or fighting - I cannot resist the urge to take control of and crash right down the center. It seems like flanking takes too much time - and I would rather take my lumps but surprise my opponent with strong forward energy on their center (forcing them back or to the side). "

Again, this is what I would call a case of preference. 'Would rather take my lumps' while 'crashing center' does not sound like a safe plan to me - because of a preference to 'crash center' he's admitting giving up some defence and willing to take lumps. Also because it seems it takes too much time to flank. IMO, you can flank and still attack center with forward energy.

Also, IMO, if you're 'crashing' into anything, it seems you are loosing your ability to flow. Maybe I am taking the term too literaly, but in the example of taking lumps as a result, I would say this preference is a bad idea.

Hope this makes sense, and I mean no offence to the original poster.

[nschmelzer]

Finally - a meaningful discussion about an important issue. The MMA talking heads have not found this thread yet! I appreciate all the comments. I find that flanking takes too much time - especially against someone with good footwork. I find that I do not have the patience - and at my size, I cannot afford to wait and see what happens. That's why I usually shoot up the center, fight to take that space, and stay in close - otherwise the bigger guys will pick me apart with jabs and kicks. It is a preference - but what is wrong with a preference that leverages my strengths (narrow shoulders; but strong elbow/forearms that I can keep in front of me) and minimizes my weaknesses (short arms; weak shoulders/hips making for weak jabs).

[JPinAZ]

Finally - a meaningful discussion about an important issue. The MMA talking heads have not found this thread yet! I appreciate all the comments. I find that flanking takes too much time - especially against someone with good footwork. I find that I do not have the patience - and at my size, I cannot afford to wait and see what happens. That's why I usually shoot up the center, fight to take that space, and stay in close - otherwise the bigger guys will pick me apart with jabs and kicks. It is a preference - but what is wrong with a preference that leverages my strengths (narrow shoulders; but strong elbow/forearms that I can keep in front of me) and minimizes my weaknesses (short arms; weak shoulders/hips making for weak jabs).

Again, I think this all depends on set-up, the situation, as well as awareness.
Say you're sparring another WC guy, and he has his hands set up on center from the start. Which is easier, crashing through his structure or taking just a slight angle and bridging on the outside of the lead arm, putting you at the total advantage?

Maybe you can give some examples where you feel flanking takes too much time? I'm having a hard time agreeing with you from what is written.

Let me give you an example of size/stregth vs. a smaller person. Last saturday, I was helping a junior student with some sparring. She is 130 pounds and I am around 205. Along with my WC background I have done some boxing. I was using different setups against her from perspectives of different boxing styles.
In one scenario, I took a left lead, kept my elbows down and in tight. I was trying to enter with straight jabs right down the middle (or close to it). At first she was trying to stand right in front of me and get in. Every time she did this, she ran right into my waiting right hand, and she 'took her lumps'.
What I shared with her is, since I had a pretty tight setup, I was protecting my center rather well. Once we changed her focus and had her set up just slightly to the out side with a lead right (matching), when I jabbed, she bridged on the outside (since this was easily available from her set up and my setup), ate up the space and took my weapons away. (She was lined up on my center to the outside of my lead and I was turned facing off to her left).
She is much smaller than me, and a lot weaker than me physically. But with proper understanding of the space, timing, and strucutre, she was able to deal with me without a lot of physical effort - the size meant nothing.

Of course, I then set up with a more of an open setup, giving up my center, and threw more round hooking punches. She quickly found the above method didn't work for her anymore. Now she had to enter to the inside because the outside was not available due to my setup and types of attacks. Even so, she didn't come crashing right down the middle. She still took a flanking position on the inside so she wasn't standing in front of all my weapons.

In one example, coming down the middle made more sense, and in another situation, it was much easier to take the outside - and with little effort take advantage of the position. It all depends on situation.

My point being, the size shouldn't make too much of a difference. I agree, once you get into a wrestling match where it's body on body, strength and size can give a big advantage. But with the right focus, strategy, structures, energies, etc as well as understanding of the space and proper timing, size should mean less. This is what WC is all about IMO.

Jonathan

Jonathan

[sihing]

Again, I think this all depends on set-up, the situation, as well as awareness.
Say you're sparring another WC guy, and he has his hands set up on center from the start. Which is easier, crashing through his structure or taking just a slight angle and bridging on the outside of the lead arm, putting you at the total advantage?

Maybe you can give some examples where you feel flanking takes too much time? I'm having a hard time agreeing with you from what is written.

Let me give you an example of size/stregth vs. a smaller person. Last saturday, I was helping a junior student with some sparring. She is 130 pounds and I am around 205. Along with my WC background I have done some boxing. I was using different setups against her from perspectives of different boxing styles.
In one scenario, I took a left lead, kept my elbows down and in tight. I was trying to enter with straight jabs right down the middle (or close to it). At first she was trying to stand right in front of me and get in. Every time she did this, she ran right into my waiting right hand, and she 'took her lumps'.
What I shared with her is, since I had a pretty tight setup, I was protecting my center rather well. Once we changed her focus and had her set up just slightly to the out side with a lead right (matching), when I jabbed, she bridged on the outside (since this was easily available from her set up and my setup), ate up the space and took my weapons away. (She was lined up on my center to the outside of my lead and I was turned facing off to her left).
She is much smaller than me, and a lot weaker than me physically. But with proper understanding of the space, timing, and strucutre, she was able to deal with me without a lot of physical effort - the size meant nothing.

Of course, I then set up with a more of an open setup, giving up my center, and threw more round hooking punches. She quickly found the above method didn't work for her anymore. Now she had to enter to the inside because the outside was not available due to my setup and types of attacks. Even so, she didn't come crashing right down the middle. She still took a flanking position on the inside so she wasn't standing in front of all my weapons.

In one example, coming down the middle made more sense, and in another situation, it was much easier to take the outside - and with little effort take advantage of the position. It all depends on situation.

My point being, the size shouldn't make too much of a difference. I agree, once you get into a wrestling match where it's body on body, strength and size can give a big advantage. But with the right focus, strategy, structures, energies, etc as well as understanding of the space and proper timing, size should mean less. This is what WC is all about IMO.

Jonathan

Jonathan

Good post and good discussion going on here..

Jonathan, this sounds alot like TWC strategy, stuff I did for years and years. It can work in the right situations. Regarding the situation when you had a tight structure and the student came down the middle, when this is the case I used to try to simultaneously strike and hit, but have learned that this posture, the one you have taken is sort of a set up. Even if I deflect the jab, your right hand is waiting. At times, second timing may be necessary, meaning that when your jab comes in you just deflect and wait, sort of baiting you to throw your right, when this happens you "Force" a action, mostly likely a predetermined action to which you are ready for. Sifu Lam does this often and it works well, he likes to set up on the second action/timing instead of always attacking the intial attack, but this takes skill and timing. I've been playing with it and at times it is a worthwhile strategy. Regarding hooks, it depends on the angle and sharpness of the hook. Some say let it pass and follow it in, some say attack and step outside and defend. Like you said it depends on the situation and your skills.

Fighting has so many variables to it, you just have to train the ideas that are simple and direct, with the idea of hitting, taking someone out, rather than defending as a priority. I believe that VT has both concepts in most of it's movements, but it can be hard to apply if your training is not up to par.

James

[canglong]

sihing,

Fighting has so many variables to it, you just have to train the ideas that are simple and direct, with the idea of hitting, taking someone out, rather than defending as a priority. I believe that VT has both concepts in most of it's movements, but it can be hard to apply if your training is not up to par.As to the first part of your statement there is a lot of truth in there that we both agree upon. In Wing chun terminology though I believe it is best stated by pointing out that efficiency is the key component to training wing chun which reduces the variables in your favor. Newton's 3rd law states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." For good reason it does not state for some actions there are actually several reactions but one really good one (variables). Wing chun training should be taken up with the idea and intent that training WC concepts and principles leads to an understanding of the most efficient actions and equal and opposite reactions (Energy)per the given Time & Space. In hand-to-hand combat these things will not change, limited & known variables. In Shaolin Chan buddhism this is referred to as Saam Mo Kiu Tien Yaan Dei and you can find it practiced today in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen.

As to the second part of your statement no one should ever undertake a martial art training thinking in advance that 9 out of 10 opponents they face will have had sub par training for invariably you will find that 10th guy on your first time out. Everyone should try and train as hard as they personally can and not concern themselves with how their opponent trains knowing that his efficiency can Never be quicker faster or stronger than yours but only opposite and equal to it.

With that in mind keep up your training dude and much continued success to you and your training partners both old and new :)

[Marcelo-RJ]

A couple of years ago, when I seldom sparred during my training sessions, I had a great, great, difficulty in flanking. I still can hear my brothers screaming "take his side, take his side!" and remember myself in such a situation that I was trying to use my intellect in fighting. That was a time when "preference" had the meaning of "choosing a way and trying to go through it even against my instincts/reflexes/conditionings".
Nowadays, I always sparr and I've been exchanging a lot with practitioners of other martial arts. Now sometimes I find myself flanking very naturally, but there are other situations in which crashing the opponent's center also feels so much natural. I see "preference" in the light of "strategy", but I do not force myself to flank nor to crash the center. Who am I sparring with? A boxer, a thai boxer, a grappler, a wing chun guy? Does s/he use more circular or straight hits, or both? Am I running a severe risk to be taken to the ground? The strategy is set up during sparring, as things happen, but the mind and the body are free to flow, I do not force myself either way - flank or center.
Anyway, I must recognize that flanking got easier after I met Grand Master Garrett Gee in San Francisco, back in 2005, and received some interesting training from him. And, yes, crashing the opponent's center also got easier from then on. I'm not a HFY expert and I'm not comparing HFY to any other system/M.A., be it understood. What I'm saying is just that for me (at least) things hapenned that way.

[t_niehoff]

Newton's 3rd law states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." For good reason it does not state for some actions there are actually several reactions but one really good one (variables). Wing chun training should be taken up with the idea and intent that training WC concepts and principles leads to an understanding of the most efficient actions and equal and opposite reactions (Energy)per the given Time & Space. In hand-to-hand combat these things will not change, limited & known variables. In Shaolin Chan buddhism this is referred to as Saam Mo Kiu Tien Yaan Dei and you can find it practiced today in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen.


Without going into the merits of underlying the martial discussion, I'd like to point out that this is an entirely incorrect understanding of Newton's 3rd Law. That law pertains only to the realm of classical mechanics (physics) and does not extend into other physical realms or other activities (social, sportive, etc.). If you don't believe me, take this argument over to some physics forum and let the physicists have a good laugh. FWIW, I was a physics major as an undergraduate.

A good rule of thumb is that whenever you see pseudo-science or actual science misused or misinterpreted to support some theory of fighting, it only proves that the person using it does not have a good understanding of either the science or what's going on in the fighting. But this is precisely the sort of thing that sounds profound to people who don't know any better.

[Wayfaring]

I know the WC adage that to go up the center is better, but to flank is best. I also am a believer in the value of superior position (who isn't?). But when I am sparring or fighting - I cannot resist the urge to take control of and crash right down the center. It seems like flanking takes too much time - and I would rather take my lumps but surprise my opponent with strong forward energy on their center (forcing them back or to the side). I am a small but strong person (150 pounds) - and I usually surprise people by taking the center - and applying rapid and smothering footwork and paak-saus and chain punches. Anyone else have this "problem"?

The problem I'm having with this honestly is trying to intellectualize an answer. I mean there is the concepts discussion answer, but to me the answer really is more in your trained response, or body karma, or hard-wired patterns that really aren't at an intellectual level.

I mean conceptually, if the center is open and there is no bridge, strike. If the center is closed, find an alignment that helps you direct your opponents focus off of your center and your focus on his center. That could be what some call flanking, or aligning yourself on the circumference of a circle. That could be finding an inside line. It just depends. If there is a bridge, the contact and energy on the bridge helps determine the alignment and focus. If no bridge, there still is an alignment that's better.

The Newton's law I'd be wanting to set up there is the law of inertia. A freight train headed towards your center of mass tends to stay in motion. :D

[Knifefighter]

Without going into the merits of underlying the martial discussion, I'd like to point out that this is an entirely incorrect understanding of Newton's 3rd Law. That law pertains only to the realm of classical mechanics (physics) and does not extend into other physical realms or other activities (social, sportive, etc.). If you don't believe me, take this argument over to some physics forum and let the physicists have a good laugh. FWIW, I was a physics major as an undergraduate.

A good rule of thumb is that whenever you see pseudo-science or actual science misused or misinterpreted to support some theory of fighting, it only proves that the person using it does not have a good understanding of either the science or what's going on in the fighting. But this is precisely the sort of thing that sounds profound to people who don't know any better.

You see the same thing when WC people talk about speed, trying to extrapolate the force x accelaration formula into fighting, thinking that increasing speed increases force. In actuality, force produced by human muscle follows a force/velocity curve, which means that increasing speed after a certain level decreases force production.

[Kung Pao]

You see the same thing when WC people talk about speed, trying to extrapolate the force x accelaration formula into fighting, thinking that increasing speed increases force. In actuality, force produced by human muscle follows a force/velocity curve, which means that increasing speed after a certain level decreases force production.

How to test this theory? Go to a gym. Find the biggest guy there. He probably won't have any fighting training. Ask him to throw a punch at you, medium speed.

It's going to hurt like all hell. My brother is a weightlifter, and has no training. I ask him to spar with me sometimes. I can whoop up on him, because of years of training CMA and MMA, but one punch from him, even lazy, is a wrecking ball.

Consequently, he helps me weight train. I don't want to be huge, but having a strong foundation is key. Speed ionly allows you to hit first. but if the first hit you land has no meat on it, your opponent has the psych advantage, and he will destroy you.

When someone hits me with a weak punch right off the bat, and I know that's one of his best. I just barge in and do damage. I can take his punches and kicks, but 9 times out of 10, he can't take one of mine.

[Wayfaring]

You see the same thing when WC people talk about speed, trying to extrapolate the force x accelaration formula into fighting, thinking that increasing speed increases force. In actuality, force produced by human muscle follows a force/velocity curve, which means that increasing speed after a certain level decreases force production.

I doubt that's unique to WC. I've heard that attempt to apply F = ma in a few different TMA lessons. Speed is not acceleration. You're saying here that human muscle is only able to accelerate to a finite amount. That is true.

Acceleration is the INCREASE in speed. So if a fist goes 0-60mph in the first 6 inches of travel, travels another 6 inches to impact at 60mph, it will have far less force than a fist accelerating through the target increasing speed substantially at impact. That's also probably why the ideal range to hit somebody at is impact about 3-6 inches in front of full extension.

[Wayfaring]

Without going into the merits of underlying the martial discussion, I'd like to point out that this is an entirely incorrect understanding of Newton's 3rd Law. That law pertains only to the realm of classical mechanics (physics) and does not extend into other physical realms or other activities (social, sportive, etc.). If you don't believe me, take this argument over to some physics forum and let the physicists have a good laugh. FWIW, I was a physics major as an undergraduate.


You're saying activities and fighting is not simple motion therefore Newtonian classical mechanics doesn't suffice to model it? I'd buy that. What is, Lagrangian mechanics? I slept through most of my physics courses.

[anerlich]

^^^^

The problem I had with the statement wasn't the complexity of the moevents, but rather the illogical assumption that a simple law of physics can be taken way out of its appropriate context, out of classical mechanics and into tactics and strategy.

You don't get to choose how the laws of physics are going to apply to you, as Scotty (RIP) said.

[Knifefighter]

You're saying here that human muscle is only able to accelerate to a finite amount.

No. I am saying that muscle produces less force as it increases in speed past a certain point. That is why you have to lift your maximum bench press weight much slower than you would lift a bench press of 20 lbs... force/velocity curve.

[Wayfaring]

No. I am saying that muscle produces less force as it increases in speed past a certain point. That is why you have to lift your maximum bench press weight much slower than you would lift a bench press of 20 lbs... force/velocity curve.

What point is that where muscle produces less force as it accelerates past a certain speed? Does it break basic laws?

I always was under the impression my max bench is a slower lift because when the weight is on your chest you have the least amount of leverage with triceps and shoulders. There's a sticking point between max pec effort transferring over to back/shoulders/arms at 3-4 inches above the chest that is more effective slow - you can't blast through it.

I'm not an expert on all the physics stuff. Some laws probably apply there. I do know to get a heavy bag to move I have to accelerate through it and focus power on the other side of the bag. Not hit it slow. Well, you can push the bag but that doesn't have impact power

[mpark]

I doubt that's unique to WC. I've heard that attempt to apply F = ma in a few different TMA lessons. Speed is not acceleration. You're saying here that human muscle is only able to accelerate to a finite amount. That is true.

Acceleration is the INCREASE in speed. So if a fist goes 0-60mph in the first 6 inches of travel, travels another 6 inches to impact at 60mph, it will have far less force than a fist accelerating through the target increasing speed substantially at impact. That's also probably why the ideal range to hit somebody at is impact about 3-6 inches in front of full extension.

Unfortunately, that last paragraph is a perfect example of what t_niehoff was talking about:


A good rule of thumb is that whenever you see pseudo-science or actual science misused or misinterpreted to support some theory of fighting, it only proves that the person using it does not have a good understanding of either the science or what's going on in the fighting. But this is precisely the sort of thing that sounds profound to people who don't know any better.

[Wayfaring]

Unfortunately, that last paragraph is a perfect example of what t_niehoff was talking about:

So you and I can square off. I'll hit you with accelerating force. You can hit me with another type of force. I'll hit you from 3-6 inches from full extension. You hit me from some other range.

You are a perfect example of a nutrider with nothing to contribute to a conversation. Unfortunately. Please either refute a point with logic or at least pry yourself from TN's nutsack.

[t_niehoff]

So you and I can square off. I'll hit you with accelerating force. You can hit me with another type of force. I'll hit you from 3-6 inches from full extension. You hit me from some other range.

You are a perfect example of a nutrider with nothing to contribute to a conversation. Unfortunately. Please either refute a point with logic or at least pry yourself from TN's nutsack.

As I pointed out, people refer to the physics involved without really understanding the physics. F=Ma from a physics standpoint has really nothing to do with striking power. What is involved in any projectile is the transfer of kinetic energy. A car travelling steadily at 60 kph has zero acceleration so when it hits you no force is involved (F=mass of car x 0 = 0), but the kinetic energy transferred will rip you apart. When physicists talk about "force" they are talking about a very specific thing, something very different from when layman (the nonphysicists) talk about force (which can mean all kinds of different things to different people). So the laymen put oranges into equations that refer to apples.

Looking at these things from a physics perspective isn't helpful in my view.

[Wayfaring]

As I pointed out, people refer to the physics involved without really understanding the physics. F=Ma from a physics standpoint has really nothing to do with striking power. What is involved in any projectile is the transfer of kinetic energy. A car travelling steadily at 60 kph has zero acceleration so when it hits you no force is involved (F=mass of car x 0 = 0), but the kinetic energy transferred will rip you apart. When physicists talk about "force" they are talking about a very specific thing, something very different from when layman (the nonphysicists) talk about force (which can mean all kinds of different things to different people). So the laymen put oranges into equations that refer to apples.

Looking at these things from a physics perspective isn't helpful in my view.


That I will buy regarding the F=ma formula. The car description reminds me vaguely of some elastic / inelastic collision problems, which probably would apply to studying impact in striking.

I agree with you that for the most part a physics perspective doesn't really help develop fighting skill. And that attempts to apply physics in martial arts many times are comparing apples and oranges.