When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.

[TwoManSaw]

Hello,

I was wondering how people interpret the following statement, and whether it is a common saying in their kwoons.

"when striking, the limbs do not vibrate". Taken from 'Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie and Y.Wu.

Thankyou

[watzun]

Could the author be speaking about the directness of the strike? Maybe he is expressing that, the striking movements of the style are practiced over and over, muscle, memory, and muscle memory evolve and create a more direct focused hit. Maybe he is trying to explain how, say, like how the degree of improvement of one's directness of hit from beginner to a mid level karate who can break a board, so should it be improved from a learning practicioner to an expert like himself.

Just thought I would give it a shot.

-WATZUN

[Mckind13]

Punch w/ localized muscle and with locking the arm all the way out... It Vibrates

Stay relaxed and push your punch out. Keep the shoulders out of it and thrust from the ground up... No Vibration, instead you have steady, powerful energy.




David

[Savi]

"When striking, the limbs do not vibrate."
---------------------------
I understand this quote as referencing energy use, whether it be a punch or kick.

A. Striking is a complete release of energy: to go from a state of emptiness, to a state of fullness, and back to a state of emptiness. To be either full or empty at the moment; continuously changing - no more, no less.

B. To me, 'vibrate' means to stay in the state of fullness. Constant tension in your muscles and being rigid/stagnate causes them to shake - to vibrate. If your strike vibrates, you have held on to more energy than you should have. Also, the full potential of the strike was not given to the receiver. 'Pushing' the punch/kick forward (as I interpret it) drags/forces the energy to become; as if fighting yourself and trying to slow Time down. But striking should have full force whip, thrust, and snap; to move as Time and Space move.

In the VTM family's Yip Man Curriculum there are six basic principles at the SNT level:

1) Go to and occupy center.
2) Continuous forward energy
3) Inside and Outside Gates
4) Hand replacement
5) Two parts work as one
6) Body unity; sinking the horse to the root

Punching should involve the entire body. Body Unity is the driving factor. There is no body part EVER working in isolation. One hand works with the other hand, the hands work with the feet, the limbs work with the torso, you work with your opponent. From your root to the tip of your fist (or any other striking surface), all 6 of the above should unify in the moment to effectively illustrate these Wing Chun principles. There is always a Yin and Yang.

So to me the above quote holds true.
Just my understanding ...
-Savi.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


A lot of interesting thoughts being presented, all making sense, and I thought I would give mine which is;

The punch should not rebound at its end. Basically it should not bounce back or shake.

This of course may be a kind of simple answer but I look at WC as simple genious!

Any thoughts?


Regards,

[reneritchie]

The way I meant it (not sure if Robert or Yewmun would agree) was that the power should be quiet (focused purely in the direction of its expression, not left to bounce around in all directions).

Jim - You can retract after you punch. IMHO that's an application question (eg. if you need to use the hand somewhere else immediately thereafter or you want to put power into rather than through a specific target).

RR

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Rene,


Point one: Totally agree. When sending out energy it has to go direct and smooth (yau ging) to and thru the point of direction. Hence, releasing like an arrow. If the fist vibrates it is not doing the proper job.


Point two: Totally agree again. This of course is "after" you punch. This concept is enhanced (or further developed) thru our Lin Wan Fai Jeung practice in PSWC.


Thanks,

[AndrewS]

Hey Rene,

alright, I'm confused. Do you mean power when expressed on a body or in air? In a punch from character two (goat clamping) into air, when force is expressed, as I understand it, the fist has a slight forward 'shake' to it.

In relation to a striking a body, I can relate to a smooth application of force going through, and proving useful for projections, throwing, and uprooting. Shocking forces seem to favor the use of contraction and sinking, either on their own, as the contrary of the uprooting force, or as a conclusion to the smooth flow of force (application time of either type of force seems to be one of the important modulatory components of force expression), producing the penetrating thing you describe.

The maintence of body unity against the momentum of the forward impulse of a punch in the air will always produce this effect to a degree when done at speed, as the connective tissue and muscle of the elbow, shoulder, shoulder girdle, rib cage, serratus anterior, black box which seems to be spinal flexion, abdominal wall, adductors, hip flexors, and anterior compartment of the lower leg act to decellerate the forward impulse of the punch from elbow extensors, arm elevators at the shoulder, posterior shoulder girdle, spine extensors, psoas, hams, gluts, and calves.

Ummm- agree, disagree?

These are a couple of ideas, I've been toying with. Thoughts?

Andrew

[reneritchie]

Hey Andrew,

In the air, and I'm referring to shaking in directions perpendicular to the expression of power (shaking in a circle up, down, and around, for example). To help with this, we train Da Yeung Juk (punching at the candle), but not always to extinguish as some do, but to get as clean an effect on the flame as possible (make it move straight back, not just jump around chaoticaly).

I agree with you on striking the body. I'm currently playing with both the Chum (Sink) and Yiu (Waist) methods of doing this, trying to get my body and brain on the same page.

I think maybe we're playing in similar sand boxes 8)

RR

[AndrewS]

Hi Rene,

thanks for mentioning the candle punching. I've never worked that before, but in this context it seems like a useful tool. I'll play with it.

On similar sandboxes- to me, the nastiest bit of non-target dependant power evolution I can do single-handed, is a waist turn and weight drop (with or without switching weighting, though the switch makes things bigger and more obvious, and hence easier). This seems to produce the greatest 'bite'. Is this your experience?

An observation- it seems to me that punching with short power at extension in the air allows much more relaxed expression, than punching with short power with the fist just off the body (and without significant forward travel). This seems to hold true when striking a body but to a much lesser degree, as you can use the body to provide a good bit of decelleration, which, midair, must be entirely provided by the architecture of the body.

Dunno where this leads, but it seems a number of traditions Wing Chun and otherwise, seem to claim to develop power primarily from striking air. The one's I believe generally seem to hit the air with something pretty heavy, but I'm generally of such a mind that I have great difficulty believing in power that doesn't come strongly linked to hitting stuff.

I *think* only bits can be trained without a target, and some bits are less suited to that training than others (i.e. hitting short at positions less than extended).

Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?

Wish I could contribute something useful, but I'm not even sure I understand the question let alone the ensuing discussion.

My inclination is pretty simplistic, much as David's (McKind13).

As for short power/long power, etc. I pretty much avoid that in general discussions, and rarely if ever assume we're talking the same language (the general "we"). I have often wondered if different groups use same words for opposing things.

From my perspective, a relaxed, non-muscular, fully extended strike (in the way I train) should have what is referred to in our circles as "long bridge energy." (The kind of power which is fully and completely transmitted through long bridges, in a "long and lasting" manner for full and maximum expression and impact, and relies on relaxation with proper structure and positioning, rather than muscular strength.)

I would agree that it is more difficult to apply and rely on [the same degree of] muscular strength with long bridges, so this seems somewhat consistent with what you (AndrewS) describe as "short power," no? (E.g., Long bridges travel short distances to strike.)

I don't know if or how this relates to what others are describing, but toss it in the hat, FWIW. And mainly to let you know someone is out here paying attention, even if feeling a bit useless, and in hopes to keep the thread alive awhile longer.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[teazer]

Originally posted by AndrewS
An observation- it seems to me that punching with short power at extension in the air allows much more relaxed expression, than punching with short power with the fist just off the body (and without significant forward travel).

Perhaps something to do with the vector's angle to the ground?

[AndrewS]

Kathy,

our branches of the family seem to use fairly different terminology for long/short bridge, as I understand things. For me, working with a long bridge means working at the outer limit of 'good' for my positions (which has some tactical advantages, and refines one's pressure exquistely). Pressure expressed from the body in this extended position is referred to as 'long-bridge force'. From what I've heard, y'all like to keep the arms way tight to the body and work what I'd consider a very short bridge (near the inner tolerance of good position, and aren't fans of positions further out than that.

I've heard the same term used by other lines to describe segmental power from the arm, so, yeah, I think we (Wing Chun in general) often talk about different things here under similar names.

The short/long power thing- I go with the ' force over time' (*not* the force as in Newtons, btw, force as in colloquial usage) description. Long power, as I understand it, is exerted smoothly and through the body acted upon. Short power is exerted for a shorter time, either by briefly exerting long power then ceasing to do so, or by briefly exerting long power then 'cracking the whip' by contracting in the opposite direction. There seem to be a number of ways to do this both locally and globally.

Teazer,

I see what you're saying- the angle is much more acute. Still, I can give a decent little shoulder strike at the same distance (nothing great, but a meaningful shot), and hence with the same angle. Walking is basically practicing this in the air. . .

What I was getting at, and dunno if is right or not, is that to practice that close hit midair without going to extension, pretty much seems to require that 'contraction' thing to decellerate it, particularily muscle local to the arm, instead of letting connective tissue, various stabilizer and core muscles, and a variety of stretch reflexes to provide the decelleration. When hitting a body, the arm can stay relaxed, and the 'contraction' element can be performed either by the shoulder girdle alone, or using the shoulder girdle as a connector to torso action.

Again, please don't take this seriously, these ideas are not in any way polished, well tested, or well understood by me at the moment. Just stuff I'm playing with.

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Kathy,

our branches of the family seem to use fairly different terminology for long/short bridge, as I understand things.

This is my general assumption in conversations until proven otherwise, LOL.

For me, working with a long bridge means working at the outer limit of 'good' for my positions (which has some tactical advantages, and refines one's pressure exquistely). Pressure expressed from the body in this extended position is referred to as 'long-bridge force'.

That sounds like what we refer to as "long bridge energy" as well, especially in light of your "pressure" comment.

I tend to think of "long bridge" as a relative position, and "long bridge energy" as more of a quality. But I might be the only one who thinks of it that way, LOL. If any of my seniors lurking here would speak up more often, then perhaps we'd know. <hint hint>

From what I've heard, y'all like to keep the arms way tight to the body and work what I'd consider a very short bridge (near the inner tolerance of good position, and aren't fans of positions further out than that.

All kidding aside, I never heard that before. Indeed, we do practice to be comfortable and functional at positions where our own bridge and elbow is close to the body as may be appropriate, necessary, or forced upon us. However, our nominal/central position is with elbow about a fist distance from rib cage, which I think is fairly typical, at least in conversation, if not in practice. We very much enjoy extending through the longer bridges when and as appropriate (with due caution of course); at least I do.

We also enjoy being very close to the partner/opponent, and with a shorter mutual bridge than many folks seem to prefer. I think that could easily be a point of confusion in dialogs such as these.

I've heard the same term used by other lines to describe segmental power from the arm, so, yeah, I think we (Wing Chun in general) often talk about different things here under similar names.

Yeah. And on that account there's a fair to middling chance we're all still talking past each other, LOL.

The short/long power thing- I go with the ' force over time' (*not* the force as in Newtons, btw, force as in colloquial usage) description. Long power, as I understand it, is exerted smoothly and through the body acted upon. Short power is exerted for a shorter time, either by briefly exerting long power then ceasing to do so, or by briefly exerting long power then 'cracking the whip' by contracting in the opposite direction. There seem to be a number of ways to do this both locally and globally.

What you are describing as "long power" sounds very much like our preferred "long bridge energy" and for which we also say "long and lasting." What you are describing as "short power" sounds more like what we would call "short bridge energy," and is something we don't much go for, at least not for striking. I can't even relate to the notion of "contracting in the opposite direction" anymore.

Having said all of that, I realize and regret I still haven't been able to contribute to your query.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

Andrew S's postunno where this leads, but it seems a number of traditions Wing Chun and otherwise, seem to claim to develop power primarily from striking air. The one's I believe generally seem to hit the air with something pretty heavy, but I'm generally of such a mind that I have great difficulty believing in power that doesn't come strongly linked to hitting stuff.

I *think* only bits can be trained without a target, and some bits are less suited to that training than others (i.e. hitting short at positions less than extended).

Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?
---------------------------------
I am not Bueller. But FWIW I think that proper air punching develops both long and short power. Proper is the key word.
What hitting something like a bag does is to help prevent injury to the joints from the contact.

In non WC- Ali had the power needed for getting the job done-
not just Foreman but the so called invisible punch that got Liston.
He spent more time in airpunching and shadow boxing than in
all out punching of the heavy bag.

joy chaudhuri