Kung Fu or Tai Chi. Classes on the Northside

kenpo_dave

Actually, after reading Dr Yangs "The Essence of Shaolin White Crane" I was 100% positive that Shaolin White Crane was Internal. After all, Qi Gong and Jin are Internal, are they not?

But Paul, you are one of the last people I want to argue with.

Colm_OReilly

Paul, you are one of the last people I want to argue with.

Dave,

Given Paul's postings on this forum I'm sure he'll have no problem answering any questions you have about his areas of expertise.

Colm

kenpo_dave

Oh, dont get me wrong. If Paul tells me that White Crane is considered an external martial art then Im going to accept it. Its just Im a little confused as to why its considered external, because theres alot of internal training in it.

Niall Keane

Ah, you’ve brought up perhaps the most controversial aspect of CMA theory. My understanding (stressing ‘my’) is that external refers to Buddhist related arts brought to China from India and Tibet, for example Shaolin arts from India and White Crane, originally called Lion’s roar or Budda’s Roar from a monk in Tibet. Internal refers to Daoist Indigenous Chinese Arts such as Tai Chi Chuan, Hsing I and Ba Gua Zhang.

Now the essence of the confusion arises, (Soft) and (Hard) arts.

Basically this comes down to the focus or main thing stressed in an art. In the soft arts (the above 3 famous internal ones all are but not all external ones are hard) we stress giving up of the self to follow the opponent. In all the drills there is incorporated the learning of skills and strategies used to follow and control the opponent without allowing him to “hear” what you’re doing; “we borrow but leave nothing to borrow”.
In the ‘Hard’ styles the guiding expression is: “first bravery, second strength, third Gung Fu (technique/ skill)” (yi dan, er li, san gung fu). Here the building up of strength is paramount, with the feeling that eventually skill will follow.

Now we have the makings of a tedious row!

Hard stylists will argue that at least strength can be built up quickly and a strong person devoid of skill stands a better chance than a weak person with a little skill. Cannot argue with this premise. From this comes the expression “Tai Chi cannot go out for 10 years”. This expression was used at the time the Yangs were champions in Beijing. Kind of (they might be better but it takes ages.)
The false logic of course is that strength is not built up in the soft arts. This is where the expression ‘jin’ aforementioned on a previous post arises. The Chinese character for Jin contains the characters for Li (strength) and silk. Books at the time were written on silk, so Jin literally means educated strength, of strength in the correct direction, i.e. power. Nei Jin or internal power, developed through nei gung arises when breath, structural focus, intent and timing/aptness of technique all arrive together. It is about efficient power, strength not wasted, think of all the water metaphors alluded to throughout Daoist writings. The classics state: ‘Many error forsaking what is near, to pursue what is far.”
Strength is built upon, but it is not isolated, e.g. one typical everyday Tai Chi Chuan exercise is handstands for 2 mins on the fists. It does not simply mean being able to ‘pump’ your weight but conditions the fist and develops correct arm alignment that helps one to be able to deliver a powerful strike without breaking your hand. This is a really simple exercise so I’ve picked it, I’m not going to go into all the exercises and explain all of their benefits here, suffice to say they all provide strength increases, strengthen the will or intent, bring about with practice correct movement and teach us new skills, so to do many hard style drills the difference being what is emphasized as the purpose of the drill and the efficiency how many fighting attributes are trained at the same time.
So do you go down to the weights area 3 times a week and practice fighting 3 times a week or do you be efficient and practice fighting 6 times a week whilst building up strength?
Thinking is not as good as study, and it is difficult to convey a moving physical art with a few pen strokes. There are always exceptions and unorthodoxies and that’s what makes life interesting. Anyone seriously interested in this stuff feel welcome to contact me anytime up in UCD or Churchtown. Perhaps some kind of Kung Fu, meet/demo/open mat/event might be worth exploring?

All the best lads,
Niall

Michael O Leary

Your explanation is really interesting Niall and sounds very similar to the theory of force in Wing Tsun. According to Newton's law of motion, Power or force is Mass multiplied by acceleration. In Wing Tsun we already have the body mass and therefore all we have to add is speed or acceleration. We achieve the body mass by the correct alignment of the bones. We are taught that pure force travels in straight lines so by aligning the bones in a straight line they can channel the force effectively. Apparently the more dense that an object is the effectively it can channel energy or force. This is why bones act as a more effective conduit than muscles. The only reason why we use the muscles is to align the bones properly so that it can compress or release force effectively.

Here is a simple excercise to illustrate the point for people. Stand up straight with your head over your shoulders, over your hips, over your knees, ankles, etc. At the moment gravity is pushing your body into the ground but you cannot feel it as the gravity is being compressed into your bones. Your muscles are quite relaxed and are only being used, not for force but merely to position your bones correctly.

Now lean back or to the side at about a 45 degree angle and you will suddently feel gravity kick in. You will also feel it where the straight line alignment of your body is broken. As the bones cannot compress the force instead your muscles now need to be utilised for force and you will not be able to hold the position for very long.

This is a very basic concept of how we utilise force in Wing Tsun and I suspect other likeminded arts.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Michael O Leary

Sorry guys, its me again. I am just home from class about an hour and I am always wired after. I guess its the same for everyone.

After my last post about 20 mins ago I had a look at some of the previous messages some of which were very interesting specifically the issue of strength. I think the point that Colm was making was defining STRENGTH. If I am not mistaken Colm, like myself is a qualified fitness instructor and trained with the NCEF. What we were taught is that according to sports science true increases in strength can only come about when the muscle "fails" or cannot do one more rep or movement. This is nothing to do with willpower, the muscle just cannot do anymore. Only with "failure" will you get an increase in strength.

However in the first few weeks of say for example someone going to the Gym they notice an increase in strength without their muscles failing, this is not a real increase in strength. The reason for this is that in the muscles are motor units of which we only use a percentage. When we do a new activity we activite the dormant motor units and end up using a greater percentage of them and this gives a false impression of increased strength.

So at the moment I would agree with Colm in that unless in Tai-chi you train so that your muscles fail by increasing the resistance continously then you will not see an increase in strength. However you will see an increase in power/force which is something totally different. I sparred with some of Niall's boys in 1996 and I can vouch for that :-)

So I agree with Colm, I just think there was a little misunderstanding.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

paul moran

Hey Kenpo Dave,

You should always argue what you believe or at least what you're interpretation of something is! I can only guess you have trained with me in the past but I am no expert on Whitecrane and Dr Yangs book "The Essence of Shaolin Whitecrane" is the culmination of 30 years work so is open to alot of interpretations because the art becomes your own the more you practice it.

The definitons of Hard and Soft and External and Internal have been alot more eloquently put by Niall than I could have have detailed, but the point of training Whitecrane Kung Fu is to fight. Jing is Martial Power, and how you manifest that power can be done in 2 distinct ways. 1 Emphasis on Muscles to generate power or 2 Emphasis on Qi to generate power.

As it is a rarity to find anybody who can use the Yin side of the Martial Arts (Qi) effectively in a fight I define Whitecrane as external. This is because no matter how advanced you become in the style you will still be confined to the basic body movements required to generate the whipping power used in Whitecrane. (I refer to Ancestral or Shaking Crane as there are alot more forms of Whitecrane other than what I train, eg, Shouting and Flying crane!).

Whitecrane by direct definition is a Hard/Soft style as in order for a whip to work it must be loose and flexible, other wise it would not generate the snap at the end of the strike to penetrate into the target. The "bows" of the body must be used to produce this sort of whipping power, these are the 2 legs, 2 arms, spine and the chest, this requires a strong muscular body otherwise you would injure yourself when striking with jing. This is where people start to refer to Whitecrane as internal because the strikes are designed to penetrate deeper than perhaps those of a Longfist strike.

If I strike the abdomen of an opponent with a Longfist punch, the force going forward would cause them to fall away from me. If I strike the same target with a Whitecrane strike they will fold over. This is because the whipping power going forward with velocity and conversely the whipping power coming back (also taking into account the different hand forms) will cause the power to go into the body as opposed to the impact spreading across the body.

Like all fighters and styles the more you train the less you should be focused on using your physical attributes and more on the technique and strategy of fighting. If you get to Master the Whitecrane style then it should be an internal art as you will learn to direct your Qi to hurt your opponent but until then the style has to be considered an external style as the majority of people will not reach this stage and the few that do should not set rule!?!?!

Of course this is only my interpretation of the style at this stage of my training, I simply like how it helps me to fight.

If you want to know more come and train with Dr Yang on the first weekend of March!

BTW Dave Joyce is highly skilled in the Whitecrane style, he was the director of YMAA Galway afterall and some of the best Whitecrane guys in YMAA are from his old school!!!!

Goodluck,
Paul

Mikel

Michael O Leary wrote:

We are taught that pure force travels in straight lines

what the hell is "pure force?"

Michael O Leary wrote:

the gravity is being compressed into your bones.

WTF?? the gravity is being compressed??

Michael O Leary wrote:

As the bones cannot compress the force instead your muscles now need to be utilised for force and you will not be able to hold the position for very long.

how does a bone "compress the force"? How does anything "compress" a force? What does it mean to compress a force? Why is it when a martial artist tries to rationalise what they do with science is comes out like pseudo scientific gibberish?

Mikel

Michael O Leary wrote:

What we were taught is that according to sports science true increases in strength can only come about when the muscle "fails" or cannot do one more rep or movement.

Not true. Go to Hercs and ask the Olympic and power lifters and they will tell you otherwise. They don't train to failure.

Michael O Leary

Hi lads, :-)

If anyone wants to raise any of the questions posted by Mickl feel free to do so and I will explain as best I can. I won't bother replying to him directly as I feel it would be as useful as eating soup with a fork. He seems to be an angry young man.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

kenpo_dave

Mikel, i think what Michael means by 'failure' is the point at which the muscles being used simply cannot go any further and so to continue doing the exercise on a regular basis they must get stronger.

Michael O Leary

Hi Dave,

Nice to write to you. I have enjoyed reading some of your posts over the past few months.

This question of strength is an interesting one. Please note that when I talk about muscular strength I am not talking about the considerable force that most martial artists can generate through the co-ordination of their whole body. I am talking about the ability of a single muscle or group of muscles to contract in a powerful manner. A popular indicator or general strength is someones grip and many fitness centres have machines which give a reading on how powerful your grip is. So for example a bicep curl works the ???, oh yes, the biceps :-) So how do you make your biceps stronger and your ability to do a bicep curl using more weight and more times?

A very experienced personnel trainer called Mark Honeyman did a seminar for the Irish Martial Arts Commission about 10 years ago. He received his qualification with the American Council of Excercise (ACE) which is very well recognised and respected. He explained that for a muscle to get stronger it needs to "fail". I then went to him privately for some time. After that I qualified as a fitness instructor with the National College of Exercise and Fitness (NCEF) where they told me the same thing, namely that for a muscle to get stronger it needs to fail. I worked as a fitness instructor in "Total Fitness" and this was the strength training philosophy also. Now I am not saying that anyone else is wrong or that I am 100% right but what I have been taught is that for a muscle to get stronger it needs to "fail".

On page 63 of the book, "Serious Strength Training" (1998) by Tudor O.Bompa, Phd and Lorenzo J. Cornacchia, "in order to achieve optimum training benefits, it is crucial to perform the greatest number of repetitions possible during each set, therefore always reach the state of local muscular exhaustion that prevents him or her from performing one more repedition, even when applying maximum force".

One of the reasons why some people do not train to failure is that the connective tissue which attaches the muscles to the bones develop at a slower rate that muscles. Some while the muscles can do a powerful contraction the tendons are at risk of injury. That is why you should work on at a lower rate first.

Now I am not a scientist or a bodybuilder. I am not saying that I am absolutly right rather I am just relating one of the main current theories regarding muscular strength. If anyone has anything to add I would welcome their contribution. Also if anyone wants to raise any my other points regarding force, bones and muscles I will try to answer all questions.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Colm_OReilly

As someone who has studied this and spends a considerable amount of time talking to coaches and fitness experts in various sports let me add this.

Training to failure is too vague a term.

Example, if I wanted to build up strenght in my "push up muscles" and decided training to failure was the way to go I may fail at 60 or 70 pushups, higher for some, lower for others. This would not increase strength, but rather endurance. Also a nasty side effect of this would be I wouldn't be able to train for a few days (however, there are some athletes and coaches who use this methodology)

In Explosive Lifting for Sports the basic outline of training, wrt reps per set is:

4-6 Power
6-10 Strength
8-12 Hypertrophy (Growth)
12-20 Endurance

As regards failure, if you are struggling/failing between 8-12 with a weight then you are building strenght, provided of course you give your body adequate recovery and refuel it properly.

BTW Human Kinetics are probably the best publishers when it comes to sports training, and I'd recommend them over pretty much any other brand.

Colm

Michael O Leary

Hi Colm,

I was actually going to make the point about "failing" at around ten reps for strength but I didn't want to ramble on too much. You are absolutely right. So we agree on the main point that for the muscle to get stronger it needs to "fail" at about ten reps.

By the way the book that I quoted was published by Human Kinetics.

All the best,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Mikel

Angry young man eh? Of course i am, by pointing out you're posting gibberish I must be. Try opening a physics book once in a while.

Michael O Leary

Michael,

Maybe you could clarify some of Mikels questions. I'll put them to you instead. As a civil engineering grad I've spent years studying statics, mechanics etc so maybe we can clear up any bits and pieces.

Michael O Leary wrote:

We are taught that pure force travels in straight lines

I trust you just mean force. As in force travels in straight lines? Pure force doesnt really mean anything. Force is a product of mass and acceleration.

Michael O Leary wrote:

the gravity is being compressed into your bones.

Tbh, I dont follow. Are you saying that the bones have a compressive force exerted upon them and the compression of the bones by this axial force absorbs some of this force before your muscles have to take over?

Michael O Leary wrote:

As the bones cannot compress the force instead your muscles now need to be utilised for force and you will not be able to hold the position for very long.

I'm not sure if I understand this bit.

If youre saying that the compression force when axial can be taken straight down your leg with little muscle strain yet when the angle is changed and bending/flexure is introduced the muscles are required to resist the bending of the bone member.

Cheers,

Colum

Michael O Leary

Hi Columok,

Thanks for the good mannered reply. As you are an engineering student I would welcome any input you may have on the subject and you may help me clarify some of my opinions. This is what I (maybe naively) believe this forum should be about. We all talk about our area of expertise and maybe learn a little something from each other. Please note that Colm O Reilly got a terrible amount of abuse regarding whether tai chi would be good for strength. Now unless anybody has anything to add on the matter between the two of us we seems to have the last word by providing the best explanation of how a muscle gets stronger.

Do you mind if I answer your question one part at a time? When I talked about "pure force" I was talking about something different to centrifugal force. Centrifugal force, as far as I am aware is the force used when an object is being swung in a circle. The reason that it can travel in a circle is that the force is being restrained. For example the force generated by a hammer thrower in athletics. When s/he wants to swing it in a circle they need to hold onto it and this is centrifugal force. However when they let go of the force and there is nothing holding it back then the hammer does not continue to travel in a circle but instead goes in a straight line. It travels in a straight line as there is no restraining force.

So as far as I am aware force can only travel in a circle if it is being restrained but if there is nothing restraining it then it will go in a straight line. Can you tell me if I am incorrect in this before we go onto the other points?

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Hey Michael,

I've finished engineering actually so I'll try and dredge it all up in the memory banks.

Please people shame me and correct me if i'm wrong here. Centrifugal force is exerted, as in your analogy, as the force acting from the centre of rotation of the body (as in the hammer thrower) to the body itself. The force acts from the persons centre line to the centre of the hammer ball. The force acts along the line of the wire. Therefore the force is just a straight line and isnt travelling in a curved path at all.

All forces are really the same. Centrifugal force is really just a name for a phenomenon and is really like all forces. No different really.

Hope that helps and feel free to keep asking,

Colum.

Michael O Leary

Hi Colm,

Thanks for the quick reply. Phew, you are making me work. Fair balls to you;)

I understand what you are saying that "all" force travels in straight lines. I suppose what I am talking about is the force of the impact between the hammerball and another object anywhere along the 360 degree circle rather than the force between the body and the hammerball. The only way the hammerball can do this along a 360 degree angle is because you make adjustments (rotating) by holding onto the hammerball. If the hammer-ball is no longer attached to/held back by the body then the hammer-ball will travel in a straight line.

Would you agree with this?

Regards,

Michael
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

The ball is travelling in a circular path but any force it exerts should be in a straight line. As you say when it's released it travels in a straight line (well more likely an arc) but is has the centripedal force sending it far away and then the gravity force returning it to the ground around the 60m mark.

Early morning mechanics. May not be accurate

Colum

Michael O Leary

Hi Columok

Ok. So all force travels in straight lines. But do you understand the underlying concept of what I am saying? That for the ball to travel in a 360 degree circle and exert force upon impact on another object anywhere along the 360 degree circle, the ball needs to be restrained/held onto. And that if you don't hold onto it then it will travel in a straight line (leaving aside gravity for the moment).

Aside from how I said it, do you understand now what I meant and do you agree with the above?

Regards,

Michael
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

I understand what you mean about centripedal force Michael but the other points I made about bone compression should maybe be clarified.

When I talked about your use of "pure" force I was clarifying that pure as a prefix was unnecessary and doesnt really say anything

john kavanagh

put most simply by this guy...


of course you could just copy the training methods of the hardest hitters on the planet....

Michael O Leary

Hi Columok,

I am glad that you understand where I was coming from.

One of the reasons why this topic of force is important is that in WingTsun it dictates the strategy we employ for different situations. For example when attacked with a roundhouse kick or hook punch where the fist or punch travels in an arc or circle, instead of trying to block the powerful attack generated by the centrifugal force we instead focus on attacking our opponent in a way which removes their ability to generate centrifugal force. This means attacking them along what I would call the "verticle axis" (a verticle line running though the centre of the body from top to bottom) and from where centrifugal force is generated from as you said, the rotation of the body. Try and block the limbs and you can get your arms/legs broken, attack them in a way that removes their ability to generate (centrifugal) force whilst also hurting them and you should be ok.

Here is a little test to illustrate the point. Get a training partner to put on body armour and get them to launch a roundhouse kick. At the same time launch a front kick at their torso. You will find that the pressure of the front kick will remove the power of the circular attack. Another way is to get your training partner to face you with his right arm raised in a hook punch position. Put your left hand up in any type of block and when he exerts circular pressure you will find it very hard to resist. Now this time do the same again but position a finger of your right hand on his chest and when he starts to apply circular force, press your finger against the middle of his chest (vertical axis) and you will find that he cannot exert the same pressure. You will have robbed him of his centrifugal force.

If anyone has any comments on this matter feel free to give me a shout otherwise I will address the other points raised (tommorow ).

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Michael O Leary

Hi John,

Nice to write to you directly. I met you a few years ago in DCU at one of your groundfighting seminars which was well presented and which I enjoyed.

Regarding your above post I am glad that you found the information provided by NASA simply put. It is just that while related to the discussion between myself and Columok regarding the difference between centrifugal and non-centrifugal force it doesn't really add anything. Normally when presenting evidence from a third party it can be helpful to write and show how the third party evidence links into the discussion.

Its the same with your 16 word, one sentence conclusion. "of course you could just copy the training methods of the hardest hitters on the planet...." It comes across as sarcastic, provocative and not very discussion friendly. However having met you and being charmed by your intelligence I am sure that this is not the case and you are not as articulate in writing as you are with speaking.

Regarding your suggestion however, I do feel it is a valid point. It is just not really related to the discussion that we are having at the moment and rather than me going off on a tangient, how about we use it as the starting point for another thread? I will post it and we can go from there.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Colm_OReilly

Michael,

I have to say all the talk about force and alignment seems to be a bit, err, iffy.

It seems like saying all these terms convinces people that your art/training methods work really well, because they're based on science. However, to me, they seem to be either backwards rationalisation or great salesmanship.

Certainly, the physics behind movements is an interested concept, but look how all the great fighters/athletes improve. Trial and error in the ring/gym, not theorising.

Colm

Michael O Leary

Colm,

I am pretty disappointed with you.

To feel there is something wrong with the fact that i have described the science behind my art is uneducated and I am surprised at you. To be honast I think your negative responce has something to do with my last post to John Kavanagh and your close relationship with him. I would have thought that as a moderator you would be a little more independent.

I am especially disappointed as I was the only one who backed you up when you were getting unjustified grief from other members regarding tai chi and strength increase. When I supported your point of view using what I knew about sports science you didn't have any complaints then.

When you look at some of the rubbish that people submit onto this forum I thought by contrast my submission would be interesting. Namely how we use force in WingTsun. The only reason why i am still talking about it is because Columok has asked me to clarify some points. So far I have been able to back up my points on how a muscle gets stronger and my points about centrifugal force. I have also shown the relevance of centrifugal force to its application in WingTsun. If anyone does not agree with me or does not understand what I am saying I will clarify it with them as I am currently doing with Columok. But you have to be able to back up your argument, don't just dismiss it because you feel that I have an ulteriour motive.

Wing Tsun and Escrima are great arts the same as you practise great arts. Both need to be worked hard in the gym or ring but it is important to also understand the theory. When Leonardo De Vinci invented the prototype for the parachute he did not first jump off a cliff with a tissue and hoped for the best. He looked at what he wanted to do and made sure it was compatible with scientific theory. We, like many other martial artists do the same. What I have talked about can be applied to any art and not just Wing Tsun.

By the way regarding strength increase you said that if the muscle failed at about 70 reps then you would not increase your strength but only endurance. This is wrong. Strength and endurance are linked and are not mutually exclusive. By failing at 70 reps the main benefit will be endurance but you will see a marginal increase in strength. By failing between 6 and 10 reps however you will achieve optimal strength gain with a marginal increase in endurance. The only reason why strength and endurance seem mutually exclusive is to make a clear point when teaching fitness instructors. So while you were on the right track you were wrong to state that you will not see increased strength by failing at about 70 reps.

Columok, can I get back to you on my other points tomorrow? I know I said it would be today.

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Colm_OReilly

Michael,

While that wasn't my most succinct and eloquent of postings the idea behind it remains. I've often heard a lot of martial artists claim they were effective/realistic/the dog's by saying they were the oldest, so everything is derived from them; or they use Newtonian principles in their training. yet I've never heard this from the likes of Boxers, Thai fighter, Judoka, etc.

As for the rehashing of the strength debate, I had already stated on this thread exercise has knock on consequences to all areas of fitness. I really didn't see the need to clarify my points further.

It has been my observation that anytime someone has posted a question or comment which isn't the most polite, or supporting of your views, you take offense to it. It's a discussion board, and a pretty active one at that. You will get attacked, and your opinions and believes will be challenged (and perhaps ridiculed) repeated. Everyone on this thread has had their views and believes treated in this manner.

Colm

Mikel

Its all very simple really, hitting hard is about timing balance and leverage. boxers/ thai boxers use technique that allows them to maximise the leverage they generate, similar to how someone in bjj uses technique, to get the most "bang for their buck". Of course these techniques are based on balance, posture, and footwork, this allows a striker to open their hips, rotate their shoulders etc, and it allows a bjjer to apply maximum force with little effort. If you want to analyse it further it comes down to physics, but you will rarely see a boxer sitting in the gym calculating the acceleration of his fist (everyone knows boxers suck at calculus).
The point is everything talked about above is determined by Newtonian mechanics, that is not to say that by dressing up what you said with terms such as compression of force, and pure force lends any more credibility to what you said. It's like putting lipstick on a pig, and i stand by my earlier remark that it's gibberish.
Like John Kavanagh said, take your lead from the hardest hitters on the planet, why reinvent the wheel? Unless you're trying to justify to yourself what you do by dressing it up as "scientific". It's not.
Three little words,
Learn. To. Box.

It might also make you less defensive.

Michael O Leary

Hi Columok,

Anyway where were we? I clarified the point about muscles failing and the whole issue of centrifugal force and we seem to agree on the matter. Now for the other point of compression.

I looked at gravity initially however let us swap it for something more tangible. Look at when you see women in Africa carrying a heavy pot on their heads. It is less physically demanding than carrying the heavy pot in their arms. Why is this? What I am saying is that gravity is pulling the pot towards the ground. Between the pot and the ground is the person and therefore the pot being pulled to the ground exerts force on the head of the person who is carrying the pot. We have established that force travels in straight lines. If you align your spine in a straight line then the force exerted by the pot will travel in a straight line towards the ground through your bones. When it reaches the ground as there is nowhere else for it to go then you have a feeling of compression in your bones.

Therefore we use the bones as a conduit to channel the force between the pot and the ground. As far as I know the more dense a substance is the more effectively it can channel force. Can you confirm this? As bones are more dense than muscles using the above logic they act as a more effective conduit. However in order to position the bones in the right place we need to use the muscles. And that is really the only role the muscles play. However if the spine is moved out of alignment then the force will have to be chanelled through the muscles which is more physically demanding.

What do you think? Unlike you I have not done an engineering degree and am a layman so (for the moment) don't focus on too much on my terms. Do you understand the gist of what I am saying and do you agree with it and if not why not?

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie