Kung Fu or Tai Chi. Classes on the Northside

Cool.

Though I'm not sure about the whole "greater density efficient force path" thing I get the gist. I dont really know whether objects with a higher density are more able to transmit axial force tbh. Also some force is transmitted through the muscles its just that the muscle is at rest and therefore isnt strained.

Thanks for the answer,

Colum

Niall Keane

Man this thread has seriously drifted.

“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.”

Yea thanks, I finally understand why tigers, bears and gorillas are so weak, as they don’t spend time down the gym lifting weights to failure!

“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.”

Well said Mikel, just to add insult to it what they’re trying to reinvent incorrectly, by talking about centrifugal etc. forces, is a structural theory known as the middle third rule. Used extensively throughout gothic architecture famously in the form of flying buttresses, it states that when the resultant of all the forces acting upon a body act no more than a sixth of the width away from the centroid i.e. within the middle third all forces acting on the body are compressive. Important when a heavy cathedral roof is trying to push apart your walls. Tensile forces have the opposite effect of tearing the compressive masonry structure apart. However nowadays with RFC and steel technology tensile strength inherent in these modern materials have revolutionised architecture.
The body has muscles that can only flex, however by there location some of the minor muscles can twist about the bone structures providing us with a potential for dynamic tensile strength, this allows us to move and realign our supporting skeletal structure to channel force along the middle third of the bones and into the ground. This would by the way be part of the science to "rooting" in tai chi.
The straight line issue of attack being the only correct method as expressed by a lot of people here is nonsense. This is where science separates from art. T.S. Elliot once referred to poetry being the ability of the writer to engender a specific emotion in the reader. Sun Tzu tells us that the art of war is the art of deception. We have to be able to entice our opponents into opening up, and lead them the wrong way in order to be successful against an experienced fighter. Basically a martial scientist knows how to generate force; a martial artist is able to land those techniques under pressure.

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

I couldn’t agree more John; I’m loath to bring up science especially with regard to CMA, as it seems along with chi jargon to always be used by those who can’t, to justify their non-performing art. Here pseudo science has been used to attack my own dear art, this can’t be borne!
So I have relented and in keeping with the classics: “”when the opponent looks up I am still higher; when he looks down, I am lower still”.

An old Chinese expression comes to mind: “thinking is not as good as study”

“Ceaseless exertion is the method of self cultivation”

Regards,
Niall

Clive

This thread is like being back in college without the beer and sex!

Michael O Leary

columok wrote:

Cool.

Though I'm not sure about the whole "greater density efficient force path" thing I get the gist. I dont really know whether objects with a higher density are more able to transmit axial force tbh. Also some force is transmitted through the muscles its just that the muscle is at rest and therefore isnt strained.

Thanks for the answer,

Colum

Hi Colum,

I am glad that I was able to answer your questions and its been a pleasure writing to you. I know that you did not understand what I was talking about at first and some of it was my fault. When I talked about "pure" force this was just my own informal term to talk about something other than centrifugal force. And when I talked about gravity being compressed this was a typing error.Sometimes when people are writing late at night you have to make allowances for mistakes and try to see the gist of what they are talking about. However both you and anyone else are 100% entitled to ask me to clarify these mistakes. It just depends on how you do it. You can get hysterical like Mikel, copy a page from the internet like John or like Colm describe the fact that I can talk about the science behind my art as "iffy" while not being able to come up with anything himself. (All science seems iffy when it challanges your belief system) Or you can do what you did, and ask me politely to explain myself. Thanks also for explaining the straight line force in centrifugal force. I learned something from it which is what my idea of a forum is.

You are a rare breed of gentleman.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

"Good manners are the oils upon which the wheels of civilisation run".

Michael O Leary

Hi Niall,

Do you want to discuss any of the points or do you just want to say what you have to say and leave it at that?

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Colm_OReilly

This thread is like being back in college without the beer and sex!

Sounds like college to me, sniffle.

It just depends on how you do it. You can get hysterical like Mikel, copy a page from the internet like John or like Colm describe the fact that I can talk about the science behind my art as "iffy" while not being able to come up with anything himself.

Damn that BSc that both myself and John hold. BTW interesting point, I was talking to a friend this evening (another BSc holder) who was talking about this physicist (whose name I've forgotte) and how he wrote a book explaining phsyics to 'anybody willing to think' (his words) and how in eight pages described in such a way as to be able to tell your mother how blowing on soup cools it.

Now it sparked a thought in my head, I don't know the science behind blwoing on soup to cool it, though I could hazard a guess, but the point is I know blowing on soup cools it, and I don't need to know the science behind it to know something works.

Just a thought,
Colm

Michael O Leary

Hi Colm,

Thats not a bad point but maybe have a look at my point.

I practise and teach martial arts for the sole purposes of self-defence. (Some people think this is a bad thing but that is another days debate and has been covered already). As being attacked is a potentially life threatening situation (unlike eating soup although I haven't tasted your cooking;) ) I have a "duty of care" for my students. I have found both when being taught myself and also when teaching others that if you explain the "basic" scientific reason why something works then it can really illustrate the point. When people have a clearer understanding why the are practising something it tends to be more motivational for them and they work harder with more confidence in the technique.

Doing something and giving the reasons for it are not mutually exclusive. I have students who were quite high ranking in other arts. I am not going to just say to them that the best way to deal with a hook punch/roundhouse kick is to forget about blocking and instead do a straight punch/kick and then just leave it at that. I will instead explain to them the basic scientific reason which takes about 30 seconds and then they put on the helmet/body armour and train it for at least half an hour.

The reason why I find it so interesting is that I trained in another Wing Tsun/Chun organisation for 8 years without being taught any of this. I even had a school while training this way but did not have confidence in what I was teaching. Sure, I had all the movements but did not see the overall picture and could not really apply what I had learned. I had a good hard look at what I was training in, packed in my school and gave up martial arts for one year. I promised myself that I would only go back and teach if I believed in what I was teaching to my paying students whom I have this duty of care to. I found what I was looking for with the Irish WingTsun Organisation. They were able to "briefly" explain the reasons why what I did previously did not work in basic scientific terms. It only needed to be said once and now since the start of 2002 I have been working it ever since.

So in conclusion, yes it is not necessary to expain basic scientific theory to students but in my opinion it helps. However it is important for instructors to have and be able to display this knowledge.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

fianna.5u.com

Yeah that's all great but your ALL falacious by argueing through logic on this board to support a more scientific system.

Well which is it? You can't contradict yourselfs by using logic and science, it's on e or the other, no?


Hahaha

Peace

Hey Stokes,

would you break down the logic vs. science thing to illustrate your point please?

Cheers,

Colum

john kavanagh

"copy a page from the internet like John or like Colm describe the fact that I can talk about the science behind my art as "iffy" while not being able to come up with anything himself"

lol well sometimes i back up an argument with the ole 'copy and paste' but its more because i cant be bothered typing out the same thing every couple of weeks than an ability to form an argument.

as for 'science' - well i do hold a BSc in Engineering so i know a little about it. i'm more of an 'empirical' type guy - rather than overcomplicate things with pages and pages of theory i'll just see for myself who i think hits the hardest and also has the ability to land a strike on a resisting opponent. as far as i can tell all the empirical evidence points to the 'sports orientated' stand-up arts. but i've no emotional attachement to any of these training methods and if a better way comes along i'll jump on it:D

Colm_OReilly

I have a "duty of care" for my students.

You are probably the first ma instructor I've heard who has used this term. That NCEF is good for something!

On the way you stand and how that's an example of forces being conducted through your bones properly (sorry if any of the terms I'm using aren't correct here) I'm not convinced. You'll 'naturally' stand in such a way as your muscles have been built up, so the stronger muscles exert a pull over the weaker ones and 'settle' in a balance between the two. So, if you've done a lot of benching and other pushing motions, and not enough pulling motions, your shoulders will sag forward. To pull them back into perfect posture it will feel like a strain, because your back muscles will have to work harder.

Another example, I ripped my abs on Monday and had my bro (a phsyio) check them out. He asked to see my normal posture and said that my lumbar spine rolls too far inward. To correct it, it feels like exertion to me, because my erector spinae are used to submitting to the will of my abs, and so have to work harder to keep me in proper posture to prevent reinjury.

On the subject of creating force and aligning your bones into a straight line to properly channel force I don't get this. To me, it's the contraction of muscles which create the force. To me, aligning your bones, and then what? where does the force come from? I don't think I'm explaining this very well.

To clarify Stokes. It is a logical fallacy to presume that because something happened in such a way that it will happen again in the same way in the future. However, this is the basis of science, proof by induction. The two are incongruent belief systems. I'm sure Stokes could point us to a more detailed explanation of them, but I believe that's the thrust of it.

Peace and Love Y'All,
Colm

Mikel

fianna.5u.com wrote:

Yeah that's all great but your ALL falacious by argueing through logic on this board to support a more scientific system.

Well which is it? You can't contradict yourselfs by using logic and science, it's on e or the other, no?
Hahaha

Now, how did i know this was going to happen?

Columok wrote:

Hey Stokes,
would you break down the logic vs. science thing to illustrate your point please?

You don't know what you have just done!

So logic assumes nothing while science does?

Am I right?

Anywhere I could read further (dont mention fallacious reasoning or you'll be bludgeoned to death with the "f" section of the dictionary )

Michael O Leary

Hi John,

You talked about backing up your argument with the ole "copy and paste". The thing is however, you didn't make an argument. All you did was "copy and paste". Also if you have written about this topic (the methods for dealing with attacks using centrifugal force) before then it would have been more appropriate for you to direct me to the relevant post or thread. Can you do so now?

Congratulations on your BSc in Engineering and i'm not being smart when I say that. I'm sure it took a lot of work and you should be commended. The thing however is that just because you have a degree it doesn't automatically give you the last word on the subject. I am in the final year of a degree in Accounting and Finance. If I contest that a balance sheet gives you the most accurate view of a companies financial statement for a specific moment in time and you disagree with that, I cannot say "you are wrong, I have a degree in it". I would have to back up my point of view. Saying you can't be bothered is not a valid option.

The thing is John I did not set out to write pages and pages of theory. I wrote 299 words in roughly 3 paragraphs and that was to be the end of it. However some people wanted me to clarify what I said and that is what has taken me a few pages. I thought when Columok said that he now understood what I was talking about then that would be it. However now Colm O'Reilly has raised more valid points.

Regarding overcomplication, I don't see how in order to use centrifugal force you need to "hold onto" it, is complicated and that if you put straight line pressure onto the verticle axis then you remove the ability to generate centrifugal force.

Empirical evidence can be subjective. I agree with you that a good way of making you better at self-defence is to get into the ring. However I don't think that it is the best or only way. There are some people who would state the best/only way to become a fighter/good at self-defence is to work as a doorman, be a bodyguard, soldier. As you have said yourself that you have never been attacked. Does your lack of streetfighting experience invalidate what you have to offer in terms of self-defence? I don't think so. I think you have a lot to offer but then the same rule can also apply to people who do not train for competitions. I got into the ring with a Thai-Boxer a few years back and while I won my fight using Wing Tsun I did not feel the need to become a sportsman to make me better at self-defence.

Regarding emotional attachments and adopting new methods I agree. However I went to one of your seminars a few years back and while I enjoyed it I didn't feel the need to adopt your training methods.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

john kavanagh

ok get what you are talking about now. tbh i haven't been following this thread, i only posted back on it because of my name popping up and i didn't realise you were talking about me posting the clip from NASA - i didn't even see your reply to me until just now.

the image was meant as a kinda light hearted joke!! if you want to get bogged down in various types of forces, how they work etc then a good starting point is Newton's laws of motion.

now i've gone back and read a couple more of the posts and here's a few observations

"Power or force is Mass multiplied by acceleration" power and force are 2 different things

"We achieve the body mass by the correct alignment of the bones" your body mass is your body mass and is constant everywhere. your weight is a function of gravity so would be different on say the moon, but thats not too important

"In Wing Tsun we already have the body mass and therefore all we have to add is speed or acceleration" same as in boxing/thai - the ability to use your bodyweight correctly is all based around rotating your body behind every strike (turning your hips). i made the observation while teaching the other night that all functional martial arts are based around 2 principles
1. Relax - keep your muscles relaxed (stops you getting tired and allows you to use your weight most effectively
2. Use your hips
but thats an aside...

this sentence 'the gravity is being compressed into your bones' does not mean anything. a better way to put it might be 'with correct alignment (posture) the effort exerted by your muscles to overcome gravity which is pulling you to earth can be lessened.'

"Also if you have written about this topic (the methods for dealing with attacks using centrifugal force) before then it would have been more appropriate for you to direct me to the relevant post or thread. Can you do so now?"

well my dissertation was on a topic related to centrifugal forces - i built a rig to test the efficiency of a Pelton Wheel Turbine. full of theory, derivations, formulae, discussion etc etc however if i you wanted to learn methods for dealing with attacks using centrifugal force (can we just say hooks or round kicks??) then i'd recommend training with people who are the (proven) best in the world at defending themselves against this type of attack.

"The thing however is that just because you have a degree it doesn't automatically give you the last word on the subject."

agreed...but in the same way you know a hell of a lot more about Accounting and Finance then me because you study it i probably know a little bit more about mechanics than you after 5yrs reading.


"The thing is however, you didn't make an argument"

well i disagree, i made a few arguments in that posting.
1. if you were going to get bogged down in discussions on axial, centrifugal etc forces and how they act/are calculated then i would first recommend a better understanding of the more 'basic' 3 laws of motion. especially 'for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action, boxers know all about this phenomenon. of course they would understand this empirically.

2. why re-invent the wheel or learn all this 'science' when the work has been done already?? as an empiricist that was the point i was trying to make when i said "of course you could just copy the training methods of the hardest hitters on the planet....". i fail to see how this "comes across as sarcastic, provocative and not very discussion friendly" its my opinion and one i stand by. you should be ready to read other peoples opinions on a discussion forum.

"As you have said yourself that you have never been attacked. Does your lack of streetfighting experience invalidate what you have to offer in terms of self-defence?

well while working as a doorman for about 2 years i was attacked, numerous times so i do have experience there - i meant i've never been attacked on a night out.

"I got into the ring with a Thai-Boxer a few years back and while I won my fight using Wing Tsun"

any more details on this? where, when, versus who etc? thanks. i've only ever seen WT in action once and that was the 'fight' between Emin Boztepe and the old man he jumped on at a seminar, neither looked like they knew what they were doing (just my personal opinion after watching the video a couple of times!) video here right click, save as

"However I went to one of your seminars a few years back and while I enjoyed it I didn't feel the need to adopt your training methods."

as a matter of interest i'm guessing you attended a 'ground work' seminar? if so then you 'didn't feel the need to adopt your training methods' thats because
a. you dont like doing ground work - cool, a lot of people dont (but this doesn't stop the training methods we use at SBG being very effective for improving someones ability to fight effectively on the ground should they want to know how to defend themselves there) or
b. you found different training methods that work better on the ground - to date i've not found a delivery system with as good techniques/training methods as BJJ but i'm always looking!

which is it?

Mikel

Michael O Leary wrote:

The thing is John I did not set out to write pages and pages of theory. I wrote 299 words in roughly 3 paragraphs and that was to be the end of it.

It would help if what you wrote made sense. It did not. It was gibberish.

If you hold out a weight at arms length, gravity exerts a force on it. The magnitude of the force is mgl, and this is a torgue effect on your arms. This force does not "travel" anywhere, straight line or otherwise. If the force is not resisted the object will fall. To hold it up you use the muscles in your arms and shoulders (mostly). The further from the fulcrum the weight is, the greater the force and the greater the resistance required.

In the case of the weight on your head, gravity exerts a force of magnitude mg, resistance is required to support the weight, in this case it primarily done by the large muscle groups in the back and legs. These muscles are more accustomed to performing this task and they are stronger.

Less force is required to hold the weight up in the second case by a factor of l. This is because of the lack of a turning effect.

Now, what you said:

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.

Lets take this slowly:
The force does not travel into the ground, straight line or otherwise.
It does not "reach the ground and have nowhere to go"
Your bones do not "compress" any force, they are not a "conduit" for anything,

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
.

I can confirm that's gibberish, plain and simple.
A substance does not "channel" force, (except "chi" obviously )


Next time an instructor tells you any of that, call them on it, or open a book.
Its not complicated stuff.

On the other hand, you could dismiss science itself and argue it's self contradictory like fianna, ( he's right, I believe the technical term is "incomplete", but that may be mathematics I'm thinking of)

Mikel

Didnt see your answer in time John kavanagh, yours was better.:)

Edit: And speaking of boxers, they apply the principles of mechanics, maximising the effect of their punches through leverage, rotating their hips, relaxing their arms etc etc.
They might not know that's what they're doing, or the physical laws behind it,but as they would say, who cares?
Learn. To. Box.

ninjawitatitude

What's the history of that fight John? Or does anyone else know? Look's a bit scrappy to me. The title says it's William Cheung but surely he didn't just jump him? The takedown looks a bit soft, like he let him down gently. Anyone able to help?

DG

john kavanagh

dont know the history of it - google it and you'll read different stories

but i do agree with you that it looks scrappy - kinda looks like 2 guys doing MMA who are not very good at doing MMA

Musashi

I do remember the Emin Boztempe scrap being reported in the MA Mags at the time. Seems he just walked in to a seminar Cheung was giving and attacked him. Seemingly this "proved" that Boztempes' Wing Tsun was better or something in his own mind? After seeing them scrap that looked, well, playground!

Michael O Leary

The thing is that what actually happened is under dispute with both sides offering different accounts. What I did hear was that William Cheung wrote an article in a magazine claiming that his Wing Chun was the best and that Leung Ting Wing Tsun was crap. He apparently also offered to fight any person any where any time to prove this.

Emin Bostepe who for various reasons is no longer part of the EWTO claims that he was picked to fight William Chung as he was the best fighter. The EWTO claim that they picked him as he was a lighter and smaller fighter than Cheung and so size could not be a factor.

So apparently Bostepe walked into Cheung's seminar with the magazine article and basically said ok, we fight now. Some people say that Cheung turned his back on Bostepe and that Bostepe attacked him then and others say differently. Bostepe was in his 20s and Cheung I think his 40s, about the same age Bostepe is now. It was also claimed that Bostepe was pulled off his opponent when he was winning. I don't know as I wasn't there. I was probley in St. Annes Park in Raheny on my BMX bike.:D

If you want to have a critical look at two Wing Tsun/Chun guys on the ground you could also have a look at one of the Gracies fighting stand up on a beach recently.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

John, I will get back to you on your questions tomorrow.

dlofnep

Michael O Leary wrote:

If you want to have a critical look at two Wing Tsun/Chun guys on the ground you could also have a look at one of the Gracies fighting stand up on a beach recently.

Are you talking about Rickson's fight with Hugo Duarte? That was in the 80's. Nice try.

Michael O Leary

dlofnep wrote:

Are you talking about Rickson's fight with Hugo Duarte? That was in the 80's. Nice try.

So was the Bostepe/Cheung fight. 1986 actually.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

dlofnep

I don't think the Gracies ever pretended to be fluent in striking.. They won fights however.. always and often back in the 80's.

Cabelo

Sidenote: What is the question with centrifugal force here? I'm not seeing it at all and I've read the whole topic.

All I know is that I use centrifugal force like some kind of mad person... in fact, while playing my aim is often to turn my body into a kind of mad whirling cetrefuge beyond the control of anyone but myself. That means I can move away while still striking effectively and quickly. I'll grant that repeated spinning kicks are ridiculous but an unexpected tkd back reverse is all about centrifugal force and they're lovely

john kavanagh

Michael O Leary wrote:

If you want to have a critical look at two Wing Tsun/Chun guys on the ground you could also have a look at one of the Gracies fighting stand up on a beach recently.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

John, I will get back to you on your questions tomorrow.

yes i've seen that video too and i agree with you michael! the thing is though from that video you can clearly see rickson has enough stand-up to get him to the range he wants - the clinch. once there he is skilled enough to get a takedown and then when it hits the ground, well its rickson gracie so enough said!

but in the other video i fail to see any skill/ability in any range - scrappy stand-up (which is the range they claim excellence? it would be like seeing rickson struggle on the ground). emin does get a nice takedown but its against a fairly old man who has NO CLUE about the clinch range and then again on the ground there's no technique displayed by either of them - unless you count the 'schoolyard headlock' emin uses

Michael O Leary

Hi Cabelo,

Nice to hear from you again. The basic gist of it is that in order to do a circular attack you have to use centrifugal force. Wing Tsun belives that the best way to deal with the enormous power generated by the centrifugal force is to remove the persons ability to use centrifugal force. The way we would do it is to punch/kick someone repeatedly or in other arts maybe to take the person to the ground with "a quick, explosive movement that uses your weight to drive your opponent into the ground, when your opponent is in motion or his balance is shifting". (Inside the lions den: Ken Shamrock: p163)

The thing however as far as doing this is concerned is that it is not foolproof. I have been punched very powerfully in the head by Tai Chi guys using circular attacks and I know what it feels like to have a Thai-Boxer slam low roundhouse kicks into my legs. This is why we would not wait for someone to kick/punch us with a circular attack before launching a straight line attack. Instead we would step forward and kick/punch them as soon as they come into our distance.

Now it is not as simple as that I know but this is just one strategy to deal with a single situation within the complex environment of combat. Some people have made very big assumptions that I am using this one example to run down their arts. I am not! I do not think that Wing Tsun is the absolute answer to all combat. (As Master Yoda says, "only the Sith deal in absolutes" )This is why I enjoy my Escrima training. While it is very compatible to Wing Tsun it also has elements contary to what I have been taught in Wing Tsun. And my best friend and training partner in Wing Tsun/Escrima also studies and helps teach Capoira. We hardly have a lack of respect for other arts.

You called down to me before with regard to doing some training. Why don't you pop down for a once-off with no obligations to come back?

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

ninjawitatitude

Hey Gang,
Did anyone else think that takedown looked a bit soft? Like he was placing him on the ground? Or is that just me?

Michael O Leary

John,

Regarding the competition fight that I had with a Thai-Boxer I am reluctant to "bandy" other peoples names around the internet but I will send the details onto you in a private message. Feel free to tell your friends privately but I would prefer if you kept it out of the public domain. By the way some of the Thai-Fighters fighters beat some of our lads.

Regarding why after I attended one of your seminars I did not feel the need to adopt your training methods, to be honast it is the same reason as above. I feel uncomfortable talking about it in the public domain and it would bring us to an area that I would rather not go. However I tell you in the above mentioned private message and we will see where we go from there.

I suspect that despite "our" bickering we have more in common regarding martial arts than each of us realise at this time.

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

john kavanagh

ok

i wouldn't call this 'bickering' - just 2 people talking about martial arts:)

"we have more in common regarding martial arts than each of us realise at this time."

i very much doubt that....but thats ok too! we're allowed to have different opinions round here:)