Peng Jin?

Michael O Leary

Hi all,

I had a question about Peng Jin which seems to be a way of using/producing internal force in Chinese internal martial arts. It is specifically directed to those who specialise in the area but while anyone is welcome to contribute, I would like to keep it on topic.

Peng Jin is not something we specifically train in Wing Tsun but from what I have read on the subject, it seems to be a by-product of what we train. Therefore I am interested in some contributions from anyone who can explain the bio-mechanics behind it using scientific terms rather than metaphors.

From what I have read, "Li" is a term to describe ordinary force while "Jin" might be described as a skilled or trained force.
http://cookdingskitchen.blogspot.co.il/2015/02/the-concept-of-power-in-martial-arts.html

For myself, I would see "Li" as using simple concentric contraction in a muscle/group of muscles. However I would see "Jin" as a complex combination of concentric and eccentric contraction.

Then "Jin" itself can be subdivided into "Fa Jin" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa_jin)

and "Peng Jin" (http://www.liverpooltaichi.com/internal-power-peng-jin.php) among others.

I am interested in the description of "Peng Jin" as a spring like/elastic force and this describes how we use force in Wing Tsun. For myself, this is my understanding of spring like force/forward energy in Wing Tsun.

When our opponent puts pressure on our arms (for example) using concentric contraction (Li?), we absorb their force while maintaining a forward spring using eccentric contraction (Peng-Jin?). To do this we apply deceleration to our opponents force and this absorbs mechanical energy (this being the sum of kinetic and potential energy). Mechanical energy can be dissipated, converted to heat or converted to elastic recoil energy which is the spring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric_training

I don't have the direct reference but I read that a muscle can withstand up to 40% more force than it can produce. So we can let our opponents arms push towards us and we can decelerate to a full stop to maximise the elastic recoil and they will have the feeling of being bounced back.

Alternatively, when our arms are in contact with our opponents, we can move closer to our own arms and our opponent with deceleration and all things being equal (Ceteris Paribus) we can produce up to 40% more power than our opponent using a combination of concentric and eccentric contraction.

Again, I would welcome any thoughts on this and I would love to meet someone who can demonstrate Peng Jin so that I can experience what it feels like and compare it to how we use "elastic/spring force" in Wing Tsun.

Regards,

Michael
Wing Tsun - Blanchardstown

Niall Keane

Peng is one of the 8 powers, part of the 13 tactics. the old name for TCC is Shi San Shi (13 tactics)

It means upward force.

This stuff is simply jargon used within the system as useful ways to communicate ideas to students / training partners.

In the early 80's the Chen village entered the fray again after long being shut down by the communist regime. They had lost alot.
Anyway... they came up with Peng being the be all end all jin (jin simply means educated force as it contains the character for li strength and the character for silk, but as books were once written on silk it means educated force in the correct direction)

They also made up (no harm in that how were any of the excercises invented?) sets of "reeling silk" tui shou exercises where their idea of Peng is developed and its uses trained.

However..... the older masters there, just like the WU and Yang lineage use the term Cai Lang (gathering the wave) which more accurately captures the essence of what they are doing with peng and reeling silk. So this idea of an outward expansion receiving force and using the core / dantian to rotate and transform - (recover / counter) whats being received.

There are many ways of doing this, not just with upward or even outward - expansive force, but this is way beyond the understanding of all but a few genuine masters worldwide, and certainly none without martial experience which is an absolute necessity in understanding and developing such skill.

There are traditional tuishou and sanshou methods of training such skill but in general they are lost. the only TCC school in this country that still teaches Cai Lang is my own as far as I know. Most now only have dalu and four directions tuishou etc. Its like relying solely on a skipping rope to become a proficient boxer.

Anyway, here's an article by my own Sifu highlighting what its about...

http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/new_wave.php

Of course its all simply academic without the nei gung training that programmes the bodies responses. That's what is meant by internal... basics like triple tip unity / three forwards, seven star coordination, rotation meaning everything rotates together, hence chin na becomes second nature. chi refers to the flow of yin yang, and we have the classics state "yin and yang aiding each other" so breath with movement, right and left, lower and upper, internal structure and external environment, opponents action and our counter... le bla bla habitual.... (another translation of nei gung would be inner potential, I like that one, it more aptly sums up what its really about)
put that into cai lang or the peng / reeling silk idea and you have a mental and physical structure to meet opposition and not oppose it but exploit it. The trick is to counter or recover or attack but without offering leverage / advantage to the opponent. "I borrow but give nothing to borrow" "I alone know them, they do not know me" etc. the nei gung programmes the body to move with such martial efficiency and security allowing greater access to unorthodox escapes and attacks which become one action....
Mentally / Spiritually you "negate the self to follow the opponent", its a tough thing to do, counter intuitive even? it takes alot of testing it out and micro epiphanies to gain the confidence to rely on ... well the yin side of our natures I guess, particularly in combat where every fiber in out being is screaming to impose our self on the situation. It takes a lot of experience to overcome that default urge, we gradually erode it away, from pure retard strength to elegance. Sh1t I'm starting to sound all new age! well... it cant be achieved without the crucible of combat, all else is dreaming, even if it is standing meditation or thinking real real hard about it all.

Michael O Leary

Niall Keane wrote: »

Peng is one of the 8 powers, part of the 13 tactics. the old name for TCC is Shi San Shi (13 tactics)

It means upward force.

This stuff is simply jargon used within the system as useful ways to communicate ideas to students / training partners.

In the early 80's the Chen village entered the fray again after long being shut down by the communist regime. They had lost alot.
Anyway... they came up with Peng being the be all end all jin (jin simply means educated force as it contains the character for li strength and the character for silk, but as books were once written on silk it means educated force in the correct direction)

They also made up (no harm in that how were any of the excercises invented?) sets of "reeling silk" tui shou exercises where their idea of Peng is developed and its uses trained.

However..... the older masters there, just like the WU and Yang lineage use the term Cai Lang (gathering the wave) which more accurately captures the essence of what they are doing with peng and reeling silk. So this idea of an outward expansion receiving force and using the core / dantian to rotate and transform - (recover / counter) whats being received.

There are many ways of doing this, not just with upward or even outward - expansive force, but this is way beyond the understanding of all but a few genuine masters worldwide, and certainly none without martial experience which is an absolute necessity in understanding and developing such skill.

There are traditional tuishou and sanshou methods of training such skill but in general they are lost. the only TCC school in this country that still teaches Cai Lang is my own as far as I know. Most now only have dalu and four directions tuishou etc. Its like relying solely on a skipping rope to become a proficient boxer.

Anyway, here's an article by my own Sifu highlighting what its about...

http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/new_wave.php

Of course its all simply academic without the nei gung training that programmes the bodies responses. That's what is meant by internal... basics like triple tip unity / three forwards, seven star coordination, rotation meaning everything rotates together, hence chin na becomes second nature. chi refers to the flow of yin yang, and we have the classics state "yin and yang aiding each other" so breath with movement, right and left, lower and upper, internal structure and external environment, opponents action and our counter... le bla bla habitual.... (another translation of nei gung would be inner potential, I like that one, it more aptly sums up what its really about)
put that into cai lang or the peng / reeling silk idea and you have a mental and physical structure to meet opposition and not oppose it but exploit it. The trick is to counter or recover or attack but without offering leverage / advantage to the opponent. "I borrow but give nothing to borrow" "I alone know them, they do not know me" etc. the nei gung programmes the body to move with such martial efficiency and security allowing greater access to unorthodox escapes and attacks which become one action....
Mentally / Spiritually you "negate the self to follow the opponent", its a tough thing to do, counter intuitive even? it takes alot of testing it out and micro epiphanies to gain the confidence to rely on ... well the yin side of our natures I guess, particularly in combat where every fiber in out being is screaming to impose our self on the situation. It takes a lot of experience to overcome that default urge, we gradually erode it away, from pure retard strength to elegance. Sh1t I'm starting to sound all new age! well... it cant be achieved without the crucible of combat, all else is dreaming, even if it is standing meditation or thinking real real hard about it all.

Thanks for the response Niall. I will read it properly and come back to you to dig a little deeper.

Doug Cartel

Concentric contraction is when you contract your muscles and they get shorter - like when you are picking something up. Eccentric contraction is when you contract and the length gets longer - kind of a weird idea at first but basically an external force is acting on the muscle and the force form the contraction is not enough to over-come it, it just lessens it a bit - so for example when you are putting something heavy down gently you are using eccentric contraction.

What is to be gained by taking a bunch of mysticism in the Chinese language and replacing it with mysticism in Latin?

Michael O Leary

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Concentric contraction is when you contract your muscles and they get shorter - like when you are picking something up. Eccentric contraction is when you contract and the length gets longer - kind of a weird idea at first but basically an external force is acting on the muscle and the force form the contraction is not enough to over-come it, it just lessens it a bit - so for example when you are putting something heavy down gently you are using eccentric contraction.

What is to be gained by taking a bunch of mysticism in the Chinese language and replacing it with mysticism in Latin?

Hi Doug,
I would really like to keep this on topic. I would like to understand my own style better by comparing/contrasting what it might have in common with other styles.

What might seem at first glance like mysticism in Wing Tsun, is easily explained using sports science.

I feel that some of the problems in relation to Chinese martial arts being taught to western students is that China would be an example of a high context culture whereas the west in general has a more low context culture.

Niall has previously explained that the written Chinese language is based on characters (metaphors) rather than a western alphabet which is more literal (low context). So the difference in teaching is less mystic versus,,,,, whatever and is more high versus low context.

I am not sure what the reference to Latin mysticism relates to but
eccentric contraction is just basic, bog standard sports science.

Doug Cartel

Michael, are you familiar with the term cargo cult science?

Michael O Leary

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Michael, are you familiar with the term cargo cult science?

Doug,
I don't want to get into nit picking. If you have a specific point to make then just make it instead of asking rhetorical questions.

I am trying to be very specific in what I write about and the whole point of this thread for me is to ask questions and maybe learn something from either you, Niall or anyone else.

Chinese culture is high context in contrast to more literal low context western culture. This has had an impact on how Chinese martial arts are taught as the latter is an extension of the former. I have been studying Wing Tsun since 1993 and a lot of the time we are told to be soft, give way, etc. I qualified as a fitness instructor in 1997 and since then have been able to reconcile the subjective /high context language used in Wing Tsun with the role low context/objective language used in sports science.

Maybe I am wrong and I would love to find out that this is the case so that I can discard my theory and move closer to the bio-mechanics behind Wing Tsun. The problem is that for all my looking, no one will discuss specifics with me.

They skirt around the specifics by asking me rhetorical questions instead.

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Doug,
I don't want to get into nit picking. If you have a specific point to make then just make it instead of asking rhetorical questions.

I am trying to be very specific in what I write about and the whole point of this thread for me is to ask questions and maybe learn something from either you, Niall or anyone else.

Chinese culture is high context in contrast to more literal low context western culture. This has had an impact on how Chinese martial arts are taught as the latter is an extension of the former. I have been studying Wing Tsun since 1993 and a lot of the time we are told to be soft, give way, etc. I qualified as a fitness instructor in 1997 and since then have been able to reconcile the subjective /high context language used in Wing Tsun with the role low context/objective language used in sports science.

Maybe I am wrong and I would love to find out that this is the case so that I can discard my theory and move closer to the bio-mechanics behind Wing Tsun. The problem is that for all my looking, no one will discuss specifics with me.

They skirt around the specifics by asking me rhetorical questions instead.

I think some of the problem is that the people who practice the arts you want to reconcile to western science don't actually have either a physiological or biomechanical understanding of what they are doing / the results of their actions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there seems, on boards at least, to be some resistance to questioning/ suggesting rationale for the results achieved.

Doug Cartel

So cargo cult scinece is where you try to dress things up to look scientific in an effort to give them legitimacy. Right now you have some concepts which many people do not really agree with which are described using Chinese words. In an effort to legitimise them you have adopted scientific sounding words instead. Really though all you are doing is replacing one set of incantations with another.

You use phrases like "concentric contraction" and "eccentric contraction" but you do not use them with a new meaning that suits your purpose. You basically just swap it in place of the Chinese words and carry on. This is not really any use to anyone.

Talking about eccentric and concentric contractions individually doesn't make much sense when we are describing complex movements. Any movement we make is going to be the result of a complex combination of concentric, eccentric and isometric contractions of our muscles. Trying to describe the individual parts of the movement in terms of the contractions going on leads to us not seeing the wood for the trees.

People do not have such fine control over how much each muscle fires as they move, that is not how we consciously control our movement. It all takes place at a much higher level. Even with robots, where it would be possible for the people who design them to program in all the muscle contractions (or whatever the robot equivalent is) they do not program that way. Look at this video of this robot dog thing:

See how it's able to take a kick and stay standing? That wasn't achieved by programming in eccentric and concentric contractions. That was achieved by 1) giving it the ability to tell if it is starting to fall, 2) giving it the high level instruction to stay standing, 3) getting it to learn through a process of trial and error how to stay standing when it detects that it is starting to fall over.

Trying to do that through programming individual contractions does not work. Doing things that way leads to something like this:

Now let's get back to something you said

I don't have the direct reference but I read that a muscle can withstand up to 40% more force than it can produce.

Now I have no idea if that 40% figure is right, but it's fairly well known that you can statically hold weights higher than you can actually lift/push/whatever. This does get used in martial arts a lot. In BJJ it's called framing. The basic idea is that your arms are too weak to push people and make space, but if you can make space using some stronger part of your body like the hips, your arms are strong enough to hold that space open. Here is the first video that popped up when I did a search:

I think he does an OK job describing the concept. Notice how he doesn't use any magic words. They don't add anything to the description. In fact, by sticking to plain English I think he does a better job than if he was to try throwing in some kind of sciency sounding stuff.

Niall Keane

coming close now...

the cai lang idea is kinda along the framing idea.
so we have for example the shoulders and hips being root control points of the limbs. in CMA we have a lot of spear play, some suggest spear is the foundation of internal martial art....
so theres an idea of adherence / sticking / reaching through and then rotation of everything form position to forearms etc. to align the opponent to basically do what the framing video seems to suggest, control and make space using those roots, and also deeper into the core / spine. anyway... at that point additional pressure is added in the most appropriate direction to illicit a response that can be exploited to the maximum. hence "raise something up to smash it down with increased force" is a maxim. or Cai Lang being "use the dao of the opponent and return it to him"
so with the spear we will try to keep the opponent at the tip, and entwine his weapons, align them and disarm through rotational forces and locks, but at that moment have perfect alignment to slice limbs and proceed through the body / head.
its kinda something that needs to be felt, there's a certain quality to the movement, an exactness, hence "seek the straight in the curve". see most take that classic line to mean be direct and avoid circular methods which is crazy, its about setting things up and timing the counter. and the pushing hand drills and pushin g spears / swords drills are all about getting the feel for that "moment", you are laying a trap, aligning the opponent without his knowledge to be at his weakest and then "fa jin"....hence ting, hua, fa...

Its not really about how you use muscle or even structure but a totality martial attributes and skill and the awareness / feel for it. Thats why I went on about combat experience being so necessary in this area of skill. its refined refinement.
peng as in upward force is a relatively easy way to explore the concept and I guess why its so often used and then inevitably confused for being the totality. but take liao another force, meaning to spiral or to use different forces in different directions all at once. the fighters song, one of the classics says of the diagonal* powers (*nothing to do with how they are used) that "they are even more amazing".. and absolutely .... when you twist an opponents upper frame and sweep him in another direction below and send him head over heals to smash into the ground on the back of his neck as one would in "single sweep lotus leg" and if you have incorporated the timing, angle and set up trap and executed such at the perfect moment... sure its absolutely devastating.
Im fairly confident that such quality movement is not unique to TCC, but being able to pull that kind of finesse off consistently is a "high level" skill, born out of good coaching and plenty of trials. In CMA often what seems unobtainable skillwise is mystified, and certainly in TCC Cai Lang, or particularily the new interpretation of Peng has become a "magic" 5 step exploding heart idea. ;-)

Michael O Leary

Doug,

So far you have described "concentric/eccentric/isometric yielding,etc" as "Incantations, sciency sounding, Latin mysticism, magic words".

Can I ask what is it you disagree with?
1. The use of concentric/eccentric, etc to describe physical movement?
2. The use of these terms as they relate to martial arts?
3. The use of these terms as they relate to Wing Tsun?

Michael

Doug Cartel

Michael, I think that instead of using technical terms, you should try using plain English which everyone can understand.

Michael O Leary

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Michael, I think that instead of using technical terms, you should try using plain English which everyone can understand.

I think there are benefits and disadvantages for both technical terms and plain English. For me the benefits of using technical terms (together with plain English) outweigh the disadvantages and it seems that you would feel the opposite. However the issue is subjective and the best way for one might not be the best way for the other.

But before we could discuss whether to use terms like "concentric", "eccentric", "isometric yielding", "isometric overcoming", "co-contraction/co-activation" in relation to simple/complex martial art movements, I just wanted to make sure that we agreed that these are real words which have a specific meaning in relation to muscular contraction.

This is my understanding of muscular contraction and if anyone feels I am wrong on any point, please let me know.

• The body is made up of bones (amongst other things) but bones don't move by themselves. Muscles move bones.
  
• However muscles can only pull, they cannot push. So for example, if the biceps moves the lower arm closer to the body, it cannot return the lower arm to the original position. We need an opposite muscle which in this case would be the triceps pulling the lower arm back to the original position.
  
• The muscle pulls by shortening and is known as the agonist. The opposing muscle is known as the antagonist. When we use the biceps, they are the agonist and the triceps the antagonist and vice versa.
  
• If both opposing muscles pull/shorten, this is known as "co-contraction/co-activation". It is bad for movement but good for stability.
  
• When a muscle pulls/shortens against resistance, this is known as "concentric" contraction/tension. As an example, when we do a press up, the main muscles used for the movement are the triceps (back of upper arm), anterior deltoid (front shoulder) and pectoralis (breast/chest). On the upper part of the movement these muscles work concentrically. They shorten against resistance with the resistance provided by body weight/gravity.
  
• If at any stage the person doing the press up stops, the triceps, pecs and deltoids don't relax. They are still under tension but it is called "isometic yielding" and the muscles just match the resistance provided the bodyweight/gravity.
  
• This is in contrast to "Isometric overcoming" where the muscles try to shorten but cannot as the resistance is too great.
  
• During the downward part of the movement the opposite muscles (biceps, posterior deltoids and Latissimus Dorsi) are not under concentric tension. While they are shortening, it is not under resistance.
  
• If on the way down you just relax the deltoids, pecs and triceps then they also won't be under any tension. However, if you slowly lower yourself to your starting position then the deltoids, pecs and triceps lengthen under resistance and this is known as the "eccentric" phase of the movement.
  
• The eccentric phase can occur involuntary when the resistance is greater than the muscle can cope with or voluntary when the person applies deceleration to resistance that they can cope with. In the example of the press up, the person decelerates on the way down.
  
• The eccentric phase is about 40% stronger than the concentric phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_contraction
  
• This is not the same as "framing" in BJJ where from what I gather one part of the body is stronger than the other. This is where the same individual muscle is stronger when placed under one type of tension/contraction than another. As "eccentric" and "isometric yielding" tension can blend into each other, I feel that the same holds true with isometric yielding and the figure of 40%.
  
• For anyone who is interested, here is an article on Isometric Yielding in BJJ.http://jiujitsumag.com/isometric-strength/

So to summarise, I have discussed the various types of muscular contraction and I have used a simple movement (the press up) as an example. Before I go on to discuss whether we can or whether we should use these terms to describe Wing Tsun movements, if anyone feels that any of the above is incorrect, I would welcome specific feedback.

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

I think there are benefits and disadvantages for both technical terms and plain English. For me the benefits of using technical terms (together with plain English) outweigh the disadvantages and it seems that you would feel the opposite. However the issue is subjective and the best way for one might not be the best way for the other.

But before we could discuss whether to use terms like "concentric", "eccentric", "isometric yielding", "isometric overcoming", "co-contraction/co-activation" in relation to simple/complex martial art movements, I just wanted to make sure that we agreed that these are real words which have a specific meaning in relation to muscular contraction.

This is my understanding of muscular contraction and if anyone feels I am wrong on any point, please let me know.

• The body is made up of bones (amongst other things) but bones don't move by themselves. Muscles move bones.
  
• However muscles can only pull, they cannot push. So for example, if the biceps moves the lower arm closer to the body, it cannot return the lower arm to the original position. We need an opposite muscle which in this case would be the triceps pulling the lower arm back to the original position.
  
• The muscle pulls by shortening and is known as the agonist. The opposing muscle is known as the antagonist. When we use the biceps, they are the agonist and the triceps the antagonist and vice versa.
  
• If both opposing muscles pull/shorten, this is known as "co-contraction/co-activation". It is bad for movement but good for stability.
  
• When a muscle pulls/shortens against resistance, this is known as "concentric" contraction/tension. As an example, when we do a press up, the main muscles used for the movement are the triceps (back of upper arm), anterior deltoid (front shoulder) and pectoralis (breast/chest). On the upper part of the movement these muscles work concentrically. They shorten against resistance with the resistance provided by body weight/gravity.
  
• If at any stage the person doing the press up stops, the triceps, pecs and deltoids don't relax. They are still under tension but it is called "isometic yielding" and the muscles just match the resistance provided the bodyweight/gravity.
  
• This is in contrast to "Isometric overcoming" where the muscles try to shorten but cannot as the resistance is too great.
  
• During the downward part of the movement the opposite muscles (biceps, posterior deltoids and Latissimus Dorsi) are not under concentric tension. While they are shortening, it is not under resistance.
  
• If on the way down you just relax the deltoids, pecs and triceps then they also won't be under any tension. However, if you slowly lower yourself to your starting position then the deltoids, pecs and triceps lengthen under resistance and this is known as the "eccentric" phase of the movement.
  
• The eccentric phase can occur involuntary when the resistance is greater than the muscle can cope with or voluntary when the person applies deceleration to resistance that they can cope with. In the example of the press up, the person decelerates on the way down.
  
• The eccentric phase is about 40% stronger than the concentric phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_contraction
  
• This is not the same as "framing" in BJJ where from what I gather one part of the body is stronger than the other. This is where the same individual muscle is stronger when placed under one type of tension/contraction than another. As "eccentric" and "isometric yielding" tension can blend into each other, I feel that the same holds true with isometric yielding and the figure of 40%.
  
• For anyone who is interested, here is an article on Isometric Yielding in BJJ.http://jiujitsumag.com/isometric-strength/

So to summarise, I have discussed the various types of muscular contraction and I have used a simple movement (the press up) as an example. Before I go on to discuss whether we can or whether we should use these terms to describe Wing Tsun movements, if anyone feels that any of the above is incorrect, I would welcome specific feedback.

None of the above is incorrect, but it is terminology for very specific actions.

In order to continue to discuss functional movement in biomechanical terms, you would need a much larger repertoire of terminology than above, and even then it would be all but incomprehensible to the lay person, ie most people

It is impossible to describe any complex motor function in terms of simply muscle contractions. Try describing lifting a glass of water from a table and taking a mouthful. Now think about doing this with a kata/form etc. It becomes so unwieldy as to be next to useless for any day to day practicable purpose.

However using plain English to describe what we see, or what we feel can be understood by most people.

On a slightly related note, I wanted to agree with Niall Keane about having to feel movement sometimes to understand it. A good example is escaping side control in bjj. You can teach the technique 1000 times to somebody, but they will only get the "feel" for when to do it through live rolling. However, it can still be explained in simple language

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

None of the above is incorrect, but it is terminology for very specific actions.

In order to continue to discuss functional movement in biomechanical terms, you would need a much larger repertoire of terminology than above, and even then it would be all but incomprehensible to the lay person, ie most people

It is impossible to describe any complex motor function in terms of simply muscle contractions. Try describing lifting a glass of water from a table and taking a mouthful. Now think about doing this with a kata/form etc. It becomes so unwieldy as to be next to useless for any day to day practicable purpose.

However using plain English to describe what we see, or what we feel can be understood by most people.

On a slightly related note, I wanted to agree with Niall Keane about having to feel movement sometimes to understand it. A good example is escaping side control in bjj. You can teach the technique 1000 times to somebody, but they will only get the "feel" for when to do it through live rolling. However, it can still be explained in simple language

Hi Cletus,

You are right. To list every single muscle used in a movement and categorise the type of tension they are under is impractical and of no use to anyone. But this is not the goal. The goal is to bridge the gap between our current ability to do a movement and how the movement should be done. When we identity how a movement should be done, we can then work backwards by demonstrating the movement to the student, using plain English to describe the movement, using metaphors as examples and then letting the student feel the movement through practice. Then, when appropriate, we can break down complex movements into simple ones and using technical (objective) terms, identify the main muscles used and describe the tension they are under.

There is a time and place for using technical terms and it is not when teaching beginners/lay persons. I usually only point out what specific muscles should be used when the beginner has a problem with a movement or posture and I do this gradually. For example, in Wing Tsun we want to keep our shoulders low. Most beginners hunch up their shoulders and no matter how you much you tell them to relax the shoulders they can't. However if you explain that they are using their traps to hunch up the shoulders, as the Lats are the opposing muscle group, if they gently focus on contracting their Lats, this will relax the Traps and therefore lower the shoulder. They then find it much easier as they have specific information instead of just being told "to relax".

Then I only refer to eccentric tension when I want to contrast it with concentric tension and vice versa. For example when introducing students to the idea of "elastic recoil" in Chi-Sau. However by this time they are no longer beginners. I can give them a basic idea of what concentric and eccentric tension is and then give them the example of the upward and downward phase of a press up.

I will use the terms concentric, eccentric, isometric yielding/overcoming more frequently with advanced students. Teaching is not just introducing a new technique or exercise but observing and correcting students on existing ones. Sometimes their mistakes and the required corrections are very subtle and its not enough to use metaphors or tell them to relax/be soft. People talk about softness vs hardness in Wing Tsun and those who try to be soft end up being limp. Then when their softness does not work, the proprioceptors in their muscles kick in and they go hard. I don't feel it is a case of soft versus hard, more a case of eccentric versus concentric. But again this is for advanced students who have been training a few years.

As an aside, Niall previously wrote that there is the same problem for some Tai Chi people. They try to be soft but are just limp. There seem to be a lot of articles on the internet that state eccentric contraction is a fundamental part of Tai Chi. The beauty of eccentric tension is that it facilitates "elastic recoil" and this seems to be an important part of Tai Chi. Hence, this is the reason for my first post on this thread.

Michael

cletus

Perhaps you find it useful to teach using these terms Michael, but I wouldn't in all honesty. Considering the different roles individual muscles play in controlling/ stabilising various movements at a joint, telling them to contract a muscle seems pointless.

Taking your example of the traps, while they have a role as antagonists to the lats, they are also responsable for stabilisation of the spine during movement of the scapulae, as well as the reverse. They are also antagonists of the pectoralis during horizontal adduction of the shoulder joint.

As a PE teacher, and former personal trainer, I would have much more anatomical, physiological and biomechanical knowledge than I would ever give to my students, and while it informs my understanding of a given movement, it is usually plain English that works best for me

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

Considering the different roles individual muscles play in controlling/ stabilising various movements at a joint, telling them to contract a muscle seems pointless.

Taking your example of the traps, while they have a role as antagonists to the lats, they are also responsable for stabilisation of the spine during movement of the scapulae, as well as the reverse. They are also antagonists of the pectoralis during horizontal adduction of the shoulder joint.

Is it pointless to state that the traps raise the shoulders towards the ears? It depends on the context of why the statement is being made in the first place.

If the aim is to describe the function of the traps then yes, the statement is inaccurate and pointless as the traps also perform other actions.

If the aim is to identify which muscle raises the shoulders to the ears then the statement is accurate and useful.

I like the quotation in the following article. "To train movement, not muscle"
http://www.bjjee.com/articles/essentials-of-strength-training-in-brazilian-jiu-jitsu/

cletus

I think I probably haven explained what I mean very well. If we are talking about describing movement, talking in terms of muscle contraction is ineffective. We really need to be talking about type of movement at the joint effected by the muscle.

Sometimes this can be a simple matter, eg contraction of the biceps results in flexion of the elbow joint.

However, most movements we would want to describe are vastly more complicated than this, involving multiple joints and agonists, stabilisers, co-contractors etc.

Even if we use just a single joint (altough in reality we know it is a combination of a number of stabilising joints) movement, the shoulder. If we want to raise our arm from our side to the front (along the frontal plane) we talk in terms of flexion of the shoulder joint, rather than contraction of the anterior deltoid, serratus anterior and upper (clavicular) portions of the pec.

This is without going into, for example, stabilisation of the a acromioclavicular joint to prevent internal rotation at the same time

All of the above is much more easily communicated by raising your arm in the manner you require, while saying to your student 'raise your arm like this'.

The above is a simple isolation movement, which almost never exist in normal everyday human movement, and are even less common in a complex sporting environment.

So to say to a student that we should be contracting the traps / lats for movement at the shoulder (which would be more accurately described, but less easily understood, as elevation and depression of the scapulothoracic joint) is probably less beneficial than simply demonstrating how you want the to move, accompanied by a simple description ,' lift your shoulders to your ears like this'.

This is just my take on it of course, but I think I didn't communicate it very well in other posts ( and perhaps not even in this one )

Niall Keane

Overloading or using the major muscles to overcome an attack would be external / hard gung fu, the opposite of internal / soft gung fu.
Stillness defeats motion....
We use structural alignment and so micro muscles providing a twisting latus matrix - network of minor muscles to hold joints in place. Hence we reach through remain "open" ... and never use purposful contraction to hold position.
The counter is always some other part of the body that ties naturally with the loaded limb etc. so as we "empty it" it through movement and following it powers the counter... hence....
"When moving is simply adhering / following and followibg simply moving" and "yin and yang must mutually aid each other" and " the body is strung together like a 9 hole pearl, without the least break"
All form key lines from the classics
Im sure that means nothing to non- tcc people and also the same to most tcc people....
It has to be felt!
Like yku said earlier chinese is a langiage born ot metaphor and allusion.... its rich and deep, and simultaneously contains many precise meanings.
The classics also state:
"To pass through the gate and walk the path oral instruction is necessary."
So much can be misinterpretated.

Now ive mentioned "internal v external".....
Can open.....
Worms all over the place....
;-)

Niall Keane

And please notice is said "purposful"

I of course acknowledge the use of muscle even major muscles and that they contract .

Im talking "yi" intent.....

There goes another can....

cletus

Nial, I've read your post a couple of times now, and have to admit I don't understand what you are saying . I am (obviously) one of the non tcc people to whom you make reference, but I think it would be much appreciated if you could simplify the post above so that it makes sense to the lay person.

Just to point out that I agree certain movements must be felt to be understood, particularly those that pertain to judgining an opponents balance and movement, however, the technique itself, I feel, can be explained in plain English

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

I think I probably haven explained what I mean very well. If we are talking about describing movement, talking in terms of muscle contraction is ineffective. We really need to be talking about type of movement at the joint effected by the muscle.

Sometimes this can be a simple matter, eg contraction of the biceps results in flexion of the elbow joint.

However, most movements we would want to describe are vastly more complicated than this, involving multiple joints and agonists, stabilisers, co-contractors etc.

Even if we use just a single joint (altough in reality we know it is a combination of a number of stabilising joints) movement, the shoulder. If we want to raise our arm from our side to the front (along the frontal plane) we talk in terms of flexion of the shoulder joint, rather than contraction of the anterior deltoid, serratus anterior and upper (clavicular) portions of the pec.

This is without going into, for example, stabilisation of the a acromioclavicular joint to prevent internal rotation at the same time

All of the above is much more easily communicated by raising your arm in the manner you require, while saying to your student 'raise your arm like this'.

The above is a simple isolation movement, which almost never exist in normal everyday human movement, and are even less common in a complex sporting environment.

So to say to a student that we should be contracting the traps / lats for movement at the shoulder (which would be more accurately described, but less easily understood, as elevation and depression of the scapulothoracic joint) is probably less beneficial than simply demonstrating how you want the to move, accompanied by a simple description ,' lift your shoulders to your ears like this'.

This is just my take on it of course, but I think I didn't communicate it very well in other posts ( and perhaps not even in this one )

Hi Cletus,

I think you have expressed yourself very clearly and now we are getting to the root of what is is we disagree upon. Rather than a complete difference in mindset, I feel we disagree on one point. If we were face to face it would take five minutes as opposed to a week over the internet. :-)

Like you, when I initially teach a technique, I start by explaining it.
Like you, I then demonstrate it.
Like you, I then let students get a feel for it by training with me or each other.

But teaching is not just about initially demonstrating/explaining a technique. It is "observing & correcting" the student as they practise the movement.

A key part of Wing Tsun is creating and maintaining a bio-mechanically effective neutral spine. To do that (in common with Pilates, Yoga and maybe Tai Chi) the distance between the shoulder and ear should be maximised. When I initially teach a movement, I will tell the student to keep their shoulders low. However when I observe them, despite initially telling them to keep their shoulders low, they sometimes still involuntary raise their shoulders. So using plain English does not work all the time.

So then I get more specific and tell them that the muscle that is involuntary scrunching/hunching up their shoulders towards their ears is the Trapezius (Traps) muscle and the way to relax the Traps is to contract the Latissimus dorsi muscle (Lats). I also contract my own Lats and invite them to touch my Lats where they can feel the change in tension.

And this is where we get to the root of our difference.

I think you feel that in order to teach a movement using sports terminology, you feel obliged to list all the muscles used for stability and movement.

Instead I feel that in order to teach the movement, as well as demonstrating, explaining in plain English and practising, we can also use terminology from sports science but only need to list the Prime Movers (The primary muscles used for movement).

Niall Keane

I really really dont want to go down this rabbit hole.
First we have an issue with terminology....
For example i quoted about a "nine seated pearl" ....
Wtf is that?
And what has it to do with "internal" movement"
What is meant by "internal"?
If "chi" is the flow of yin and yang, well.... what does yin and yang refer to? Or what doesnt it refer to? It is contextual.
What is meant by "jin"?
What is meant by "giving up the sepf to follow the opponent"?
What then is "ting" "hua" "fa"? Some tcc people think they are acutal "powers" - incorrectly.
What are the three forwards and what then is meant by balance and dynamic balance? How does it relate to counter amd recovery dynamics? Hows that trained?
What is nei gung and tuishou?
What is jibigung?
Ehat is chi gung?
Whats the difference?


Basically it took me near on 20 years to decipher and decode internal gung fu.... and it required physical and mental study.
It is impossible to portray anything but confusion to a lay person over the internet.

In fairness i can undsrstand what is being said by Michael, when he uses the typical "lose" translation of chinese concepts. It would become a bit ridiculous to try and translate everything precisely. For example many nei jia / tcc terms allude to specific daoist writings or general mythology and legend. They contain a "poetic" meaning , as in a whole bunch of specific meanings. Without the knowledge of the works to which they refer, misunderstanding is guaranteed. In my opinion this is a major factor as to why chinese martial arts in the west are generally of poor quality. Lots of misunderstanding and madey-up theories and worse still much of it covered up and adultrated with non related arts.

And then it gets real tedious to explain terms ....... think english poetry, it can be read on one level or one can study a poem and poet and his allusions and philosophy and then you have a completely different animal.
and as im talking poetry. Think of heanys "the riddle". In it he alludes to mythology but tweeks the legend a bit. This itself has an effect. it displays a truth through what he calls a "via negativa".
CMA is just like this. Heany asks what is more important? .... what remains or what falls through?
When dealing with a language and culture that is deeply metaphoric we are in this territory. When it is uses to communicate a martial art, and given the first lines of Sun Tzu describe the art of war as the art of deception...... well....

Kenny Bania

All this waffle & discussion of semantics & phrasing, and the only thing that actually matters is whether or not it works in practice against a resisting opponent. Everything else is irrelevant. And we all know the answer to that...

Niall Keane

Kenny Bania wrote: »

All this waffle & discussion of semantics & phrasing, and the only thing that actually matters is whether or not it works in practice against a resisting opponent. Everything else is irrelevant. And we all know the answer to that...

I hope noone is disputing the need for practical ability?
I dont think that they are. But i also feel to get past one two uniflu journeyman phase one must be conscientious about ones method.
But what would i know?

cletus

I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.

Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me

*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post

Kenny Bania

cletus wrote: »

I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.

Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me

*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post

Agreed, but my point was more that it's clearly overthinking something that doesn't need overthinking - analysing certain muscle controls & reactions that you can't even control or discern between. I don't even know what he's talking about to be honest. And what's the end game here? Is any of this pseudoscience even applicable? I just can't help thinking that all this time spent on nonsense would be better spent on practical technique that works.
The proof is always in the pudding - I don't know this guy - does he fight? Does he win? Do his techniques, for all the waffle involved, actually work when applied?

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.

Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me

*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post

So my point is well made then ;-)

Niall Keane

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Agreed, but my point was more that it's clearly overthinking something that doesn't need overthinking - analysing certain muscle controls & reactions that you can't even control or discern between. I don't even know what he's talking about to be honest. And what's the end game here? Is any of this pseudoscience even applicable? I just can't help thinking that all this time spent on nonsense would be better spent on practical technique that works.
The proof is always in the pudding - I don't know this guy - does he fight? Does he win? Do his techniques, for all the waffle involved, actually work when applied?

In fairness, everyone virws the world through a different lens.
Take chemists and quantum physists...
Both are effective. One may be more "real" than the other. The chemist may know how to sublimate, distill and mix ingredients and have formulas based on molicular understanding, the physisit may well prove that until the flask is opened the ingredients are neither mixed nor unmixed. (I refer to a cat in jest)

My point is that the subject matter of this thread "peng" is a part of specialist jargon and at that one that is often misused, and the peng idea being got at here really refers to cai lang which is the highest level of tcc skill. It is taught last as it requires a thorough understanding of tons more concepts, drills and martial experiences.
Like complex formula to a chemist or equations to a physist it demands a prior expert knowledge.
And as its a martial art this necessitates what you call fully resistant training (nothing new at all) and a lot of post mortums and practical skill development before it approaches usefullness.
It may be accademically interesting to try to map one disiplines language with another and in the effort try to avoid mistranslation..... but.... who really wants to break their balls doing that.... like you implied it wont generate superpowers... best be traditional about it..... in cma that would be cross hands with as many as possible on the lei tai ..... where all secrets are revealed......... eventually.... for those with eyes to see.

Kenny Bania

I still have no idea what you just said. And you spelled 'physicists' wrong twice, as well as 'molecular' - and I don't think you know what a physicist does, because it has nothing to do with Schrodinger's cat, as you implied - that's philosophers.

If you're more into pretentious waffle than practical application, which seems to be the case, then fair enough. Not having a go - but we both speak English and you're making no sense at all to me. I tried reading your posts a few times and they meander off into nonsense.

cai lang which is the highest level of tcc skill. It is taught last as it requires a thorough understanding of tons more concepts

Yeah, I'm sure Jon Jones studied the fook out of it.

Niall Keane

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I still have no idea what you just said. And you spelled 'physicists' wrong twice, as well as 'molecular' - and I don't think you know what a physicist does, because it has nothing to do with Schrodinger's cat, as you implied - that's philosophers.

If you're more into pretentious waffle than practical application, which seems to be the case, then fair enough. Not having a go - but we both speak English and you're making no sense at all to me. I tried reading your posts a few times and they meander off into nonsense.


Yeah, I'm sure Jon Jones studied the fook out of it.

How's the tap-out t-shirt ? should pull all the girls when youre old enough to get your national id.

"Spelling" really?
Thanks for pointing it out.... type it up there for me so good man. Keep it up and maybe ill hire you as a pa.

Also educate yourself on quantum physics

Btw suggesting i have no idea about "fully resistant training" wont make people laugh with you but at you.

As they say assumption is the mother of all fcuk ups.

Feel free to highlight the typos , we are all so impressed.

Kenny Bania

I wasn't just highlighting typos for the sake of it - I was highlighting them because you were using those specific words to make your point. You essentially said: "Come back when you understand quantum psychics, dumbass" - yet you couldn't even spell physicist. I thought it was amusing you were claiming an understanding of something you couldn't even spell. It's like saying: "Yeah, Led Zeppelin are totally my favourite band - Roger Plant is the best singer of all time!"
I left out all your other typos because they were irrelevant - anyway - let's move on from that. My main point still stands.

I don't wear TapOut - sorry - never have. You don't have my number at all. I do train - just on stuff that works though - I fully endorse being in tune with body mechanics and how subtle movements work - but IMO the stuff you're on about is pretentious. It can all be explained in tangible terms and does not need to be over-complicated with useless ancient jargon and pseudoscience. I spent years in the TKD Centre on Exchequer Street with Brendan & Gerry - from 11 years old until I was 17 - I enjoyed it but learned nothing really effective (except some flexibility) even though I graded up to red belt. The technique was junk - nobody keeps their hands up. I then trained in Amateur Wrestling in Hercules Gym, D1. I also trained with Mugendo Kickboxing in Chanel College with was great. I trained MMA with Andy Ryan in Killester and when he was running SBG Northside - Andy is the man. And I currently train in Kokoro MMA club. Been training my whole life. Not that I even brought that up unprovoked though - I'm only replying to your "TapOut guy" accusation.

But whether or not I train, or I'm just a TapOut shirt-wearer, does not make your points any more or less valid. So why would you even bring up TapOut & my ID card? Does that substantiate your posts or something? "See - my posts do make sense, because that guy wears TapOut! Snared!!"

Kenny Bania

Look - I'm not trying to annoy anyone on here - apologies. I digress. Best of luck Niall.

Niall Keane

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I wasn't just highlighting typos for the sake of it - I was highlighting them because you were using those specific words to prove your analogy. I left out all your other typos - anyway - let's move on from that. My main point still stands.

I don't wear TapOut - sorry - never have. You don't have my number at all. But I do train - just on stuff that works though. I spent years in the TKD Centre on Exchequer Street with Brendan & Gerry - enjoyed it but learned nothing really effective even though I graded up to red belt. I trained in Amateur Wrestling in Hercules Gym, D1. I trained Kickboxing in Chanel College. I trained MMA with Andy Ryan in Killester and when he was running SBG Northside. And I currently train in Kokoro. Been training my whole life. Not that I even brought that up unprovoked though.

Whether or not I train, or I'm just a TapOut shirt-wearer, does not make your points any more or less valid. So why would you even bring up TapOut & my ID card? Does that substantiate your posts or something? "See - my posts do make sense, because that guy wears TapOut! Snared!!"

Ah. Come on.... you tried pull the tcc is ineffective card. Normally you would be right in ireland. Just this time you pulled it on someone with 87 international sanda fights, who was ranked 4th in the world in pro sanda in 2005, whos had over 150 international chinese nogi wrestling bouts who has coached and cornered over 200 sanda international fights of his students and who is chief coach for the irish sanda team....
"We all know" you said..... but the rest of people posting on this thread actually did.... you didn't, even though it was alluded to.
Fine, like i said i understand your sentiments..... believe me i get alot mote flak from the tcc world because i am and my students are effective.
My whole point and as martial cv does and should come into it.... just like it should in any area of expertise, is that the subject matter is too dependant on expert level ability for a general discussion. If you dont understand the "waffle" you prove my point, as was intended.

The op probably should have posted on rum soaked fist or something and not a general martial arts board.

All this dick measuring on whats effective or even worthy of consideration is irrelevant to the question. it fails to progress the query and only promotes another agenda.

By shear accident it does serve a useful purpose in displaying how impossibe it is to communicate non-anglo-centric culture to those habituated to it and nothing else.

Confirmation bias will necessarily kick in here with the above statement.

Like only practical experience with other styles can dispell the myth of martial superiority, so too with cultural exposure. All else is white mans burden rascist sh1t, my proof? Lets see an average ufc "superior" athlete dominate at thailands main events under their rules?

Anyone with real experience at a high level understands specialisation, and so..... doesnt make assumptions and respects and bows out of subjects unfamiliar to them.

And doesnt expect that every subject should be open to all even without an education in it.

Sure everyone is entitled to an opinion.... but not all carry the same weight.

cletus

The only problem with your post above Niall, is that for a long time the "you wouldn't understand, your not super gaiden ninja level 500" and the "I cant explain it, you have to feel it to understand" were the go to statements of people teaching ****e under the guise of martial arts.

A lot of people feel they were stung by this, and as the poster above alluded to, supposed experts hid behind it.

As I said earlier in the thread, I am aware of your achievements, but I'm still not totally convinced that a simpler explanation of the concepts broached in this thread can't be reached.

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

The only problem with your post above Niall, is that for a long time the "you wouldn't understand, your not super gaiden ninja level 500" and the "I cant explain it, you have to feel it to understand" were the go to statements of people teaching ****e under the guise of martial arts.

A lot of people feel they were stung by this, and as the poster above alluded to, supposed experts hid behind it.

As I said earlier in the thread, I am aware of your achievements, but I'm still not totally convinced that a simpler explanation of the concepts broached in this thread can't be reached.

Fair enough.... i cant argue with that. Ill do my best with a btoad stroke explanation....

Peng jin (upward force) used in a cai lang (gathering the wave) specifically "yong lang" (from below to above) fashion as often taught and trained as peng is a way of meeting force by becoming expansive or "open" , like reaching out wih the entire body from its centre (dantian) ....
One necessarily connects and "adheres" to the opponent, but softly , just enough so "we can borrow but we give nothing to borrow" we "ting jin" (listen for force) , "hua jin" (transform his force) with a dragging movement that encourages the opponent into te trap, over extends and so "empties" him and we then "lead him towards the void" (where he is absent of supporting structure and awareness) and then "fa jin" discharge our force - trained, educated strength in the right / most efficatious direction.

There are drills called tuishou which isolate typically common martial movement and programme responses, defences, footwork and techniques. So all this occurs effortlessly and without having to think about it when it counts.
In the cai lang tuishou drill which has been refered to as "the highest level of tuishou" in several publications around the turn of the 19-20th century, techniques as such like sweeps throws strikes are not practiced, there is a cooperative pattern of movement that captures the essence of the skill and this is applied with resistance and can vary enough wih changes of direction and footwork to ensure it is morw than possible to knock your training partner.
Once the "feel" of this is internalised, its clear to the practicioner that it can be inserted into all techniques (sanshou methods)
So for a single example....
"Step up seven stars"
We catch a round kick . Normally one then lifts the leg as one steps forward to tgrow the opponent.
In cai lang fashion as one catches, the leg is dragged back very subtly to over stretch it and lock the knee joint with a subtle twist. Then a tiny circle is applied (the wave) back and around .... (not sure if this is clear at all?) Anyway the result is instead of the opponent being shoved down in a single direction on to his side if he has skill to fall, he is instead lifted and spun with twisting dynamics to land on his neck / back and overcome any breakfall skill.


So its used to help absorb force and to add to the power of issuing force.

It what is called in gung fu "fine work, neatly done"
And of course the real important thing is not to try and "do it" to the opponent with your arms , they hardly do anythibg , but to use the core and spine to generate the wave. Often described as (dantien) (the core and spine not the wave)

cletus

The single example above makes most sense, Niall. I think most people who train can understand the benefit of subtle manipulation to assist in unbalancing your opponent, particularly in grappling arts.

You can teach, for example, a sweep in bjj, but to actually apply it in a live situation requires "feeling" the opponents movement in order to sweep when the opponent is unbalanced.

The technique behind it can be explained to a brand new student, though.

shutup

Niall. Quick question about the rule set of the Sanda you were ranked 4th in the world at.

Did you wear head gear, chest protection and shin pads in your fights?

Is the fight allowed go to the ground or is it immediately stopped and stood up?

Niall Keane

shutup wrote: »

Niall. Quick question about the rule set of the Sanda you were ranked 4th in the world at.

Did you wear head gear, chest protection and shin pads in your fights?

Is the fight allowed go to the ground or is it immediately stopped and stood up?

Pro rules are fairly standard. No protection bar groin guard. 5 x 3 min round. No ground . Stood up and continued. elbows and knees allowe

Btw in amateur shinpads are not allowed either.

Michael O Leary

Concentric vs Isometric Yielding?

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

• If at any stage the person doing the press up stops, the triceps, pecs and deltoids don't relax. They are still under tension but it is called "isometic yielding" and the muscles just match the resistance provided the bodyweight/gravity.
  
• This is in contrast to "Isometric overcoming" where the muscles try to shorten but cannot as the resistance is too great.

So to summarise, I have discussed the various types of muscular contraction and I have used a simple movement (the press up) as an example. Before I go on to discuss whether we can or whether we should use these terms to describe Wing Tsun movements, if anyone feels that any of the above is incorrect, I would welcome specific feedback.

I'd agree with that list mostly. I'd perhaps add that Isometric overcoming, is when the force is applies against an immovable object, like an inanimate frame. The force can be greater than what required, but there is nowhere for it to go.
If it’s simply too great a force, but you can hold it, then that’s yielding. After a second or two when you can’t hold it, it becomes eccentric.

But overall, i’ve no issue with that list of science/movement terms. I do however have issue with how they were used in the OP, which was very different.

Michael O Leary wrote: »

I don't have the direct reference but I read that a muscle can withstand up to 40% more force than it can produce. So we can let our opponents arms push towards us and we can decelerate to a full stop to maximise the elastic recoil and they will have the feeling of being bounced back.

Eccentric is stronger than concentric, that’s true. And the stretch reflex is can add force to movement (which is why we can lift more without pausing at the “bottom).
But in order to bounce your opponent back you have to engage a concentric contraction. A loaded up eccentric will not push back on its own.

Alternatively, when our arms are in contact with our opponents, we can move closer to our own arms and our opponent with deceleration and all things being equal (Ceteris Paribus) we can produce up to 40% more power than our opponent using a combination of concentric and eccentric contraction.

This part is incorrect. You can’t suddenly produce more force.
The “40% stronger” only applies in the eccentric direction. Your muscles can absorb more force than they can produce. You’ve made the jump to say they that and in turn produce the absorbed force. They can’t.
The stretch reflex mention above its a tiny increase, nowhere near 40%. And in order to benefit from any stretch reflex, it would have to really stretch the arm into end range, and im not convinced that happens. Sweeping, and parrying strikes will dissipate the force, but they won’t increase output.

Michael O Leary wrote: »

I like the quotation in the following article. "To train movement, not muscle"
http://www.bjjee.com/articles/essentials-of-strength-training-in-brazilian-jiu-jitsu/

Train movement not muscle, would appear to agree with what Cletus was saying, rather than what you were saying (indicating direction via reference to agonists and anagonists).
But you clarified that somewhat later.

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Concentric vs Isometric Yielding?

Wouldn’t that be isometric vrs isometic, as neither is moving, initially.
As the guy on the right starts to win, its concentric vrs eccentric. Concentric overcoming eccentric as it was a greater force.

Subcomandante Marcos

The absolute bang of waffle off this thread.

If you want to explain the mechanics of movement and energy transfer, why would you prupously make it overly complicated instead of using the vernacular?

Let's be honest, you're not writing academic papers on this stuff, it's nonsense. You're trying to turn simple human mechanics into some sort of hoohaa eastern mystic sillyness, for god knows why.

The only things that matter are "do this, not that, this works because of this reason, that doesn't because of that reason" and "does this work in real life application or against someone who is trained in a sporting setting".

If you can't answer the first in simple language it probably means you don't actually understand it fully yourself.
We all know the answer to the second. I think the traditional arts like Okinawan Karate and the various Kungfu strands are interesting in their own merit and they they look cool, and there's absolutely no denying that some of the techniques are extremely effective. But in real world or sporting application against trained fighters, I'll take the traditional eastern arts seriously when I see some 7th dan Karate grand master or a Chinese monk beating the Jon Jones' and Jose Aldo's of the world in a fight.

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

I'd agree with that list mostly. I'd perhaps add that Isometric overcoming, is when the force is applies against an immovable object, like an inanimate frame. The force can be greater than what required, but there is nowhere for it to go.

If it’s simply too great a force, but you can hold it, then that’s yielding. After a second or two when you can’t hold it, it becomes eccentric.

But overall, i’ve no issue with that list of science/movement terms. I do however have issue with how they were used in the OP, which was very different.

Eccentric is stronger than concentric, that’s true. And the stretch reflex is can add force to movement (which is why we can lift more without pausing at the “bottom).
But in order to bounce your opponent back you have to engage a concentric contraction. A loaded up eccentric will not push back on its own.

This part is incorrect. You can’t suddenly produce more force.
The “40% stronger” only applies in the eccentric direction. Your muscles can absorb more force than they can produce. You’ve made the jump to say they that and in turn produce the absorbed force. They can’t.
The stretch reflex mention above its a tiny increase, nowhere near 40%. And in order to benefit from any stretch reflex, it would have to really stretch the arm into end range, and im not convinced that happens. Sweeping, and parrying strikes will dissipate the force, but they won’t increase output.

Train movement not muscle, would appear to agree with what Cletus was saying, rather than what you were saying (indicating direction via reference to agonists and anagonists).
But you clarified that somewhat later.

Wouldn’t that be isometric vrs isometic, as neither is moving, initially.
As the guy on the right starts to win, its concentric vrs eccentric. Concentric overcoming eccentric as it was a greater force.

Hi Mellor,

Regarding the video of the two arm wrestlers, I feel concentric vs isometric yielding is a better description as it shows the intention of the two participants. Yes, the big guy on the left ends up using isometric overcoming, but he is trying to use concentric tension and this with the smaller guy intentionally using isometric yielding is the deciding factor.

I would disagree with you that isometric yielding is used when force is too great but you can hold it. Isometric yielding can also be used when you could move an object but withstand its force instead. If you hold your arm in front of your shoulder, the primary muscle used is the anterior deltoid working under isometric yielding tension. You could lift your arm higher but instead you merely resist the downward force applied by gravity.

Similarly, I would disagree that eccentric tension is used when you can no longer hold the force under isometric yielding. Eccentric tension is also used to "smooth" out a movement by applying deceleration as the muscles lengthen under resistance. So to use the simple example again of a press up, when you apply deceleration to the downward phase of the first press up, this is eccentric tension.

A benefit to using eccentric tension is that it can develop elastic recoil energy and the key is applying deceleration to a movement. As far as I am aware, the more deceleration applied, the more elastic recoil available. You can apply so much deceleration to a movement that you come to a full stop and you still have elastic recoil when using isometric yielding. Rather than you bouncing your opponent back, your opponent will have the feeling of being bounced back to varying degrees. It is a subtle distinction but an important one.

Yes, the "40% stronger" applies eccentrically and that is why I referred to a combination of concentric and eccentric tension. While the arms, as an example, are under eccentric tension, the legs which move the torso towards the arms would be working concentrically. Here is a video that does a reasonable job of explaining it on a basic level.

Here is another video of a guy that did Wing Tsun/Chun for about three years using the same idea. At the 30 and 45 second mark, he moves his body towards his arm which is in contact with his opponent and applies deceleration/eccentric tension which loads up the spring/elastic recoil which is then released with his other hand applying a Pak-Sau (Slapping Hand).

Sometimes we are a little limited in what we can write about when a face to face discussion/demonstration/feeling would be better. All beginners in Wing Tsun - Blanchardstown get a free month so if anyone wants to come down, we can go through it. :-)

But in the meantime, keep the questions/comments coming.

Michael

cletus

I've tried to be as polite and respectful as possible on this thread, but the fact is you can't explain complex human movement biomechanicaly within the limited terms your talking about Michael. You're not discussing the mechanical systems involved, you're not talking about movement at any given joint, there's no discussion of anatomical planes, no use of anatomical direction.

It is almost always more beneficial to talk about the end movement as a whole. This is true of any sport or activity. If you do archery, the instructor won't talk to you about isometrically contracting your supporting arm's musculature while concentrically contracting the trap, supraspinatous etc, in order to move the bow string in directly away from the the bow, etc etc so an and so forth.

An even simpler example. If you were to teach somebody the concentric phase of a bench press, would you say "place your body in a supine position, glenohumeral joint horizontally abducted and rotated, acromio clavicular joint stabilising. Isometrically contract the traps to stabilise the scapulothoracic joint. 90° of flexion at the elbow joint. Now effect a curvilinear motion of the bar by horizontally adducting the glenohumeral joint while simultaneously extending the elbow joint"?


There is not much to be gained from talking to people like that. As mellor said, train the movement.

I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that you feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to your training

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Regarding the video of the two arm wrestlers, I feel concentric vs isometric yielding is a better description as it shows the intention of the two participants. Yes, the big guy on the left ends up using isometric overcoming, but he is trying to use concentric tension and this with the smaller guy intentionally using isometric yielding is the deciding factor.

You may feel that way, but I’m afraid it’s incorrect. In order to be a concentric contraction, the muscle is greater than the resistance and it shortens by definition. Intention is irrelevant. As an example, a guys tries to bench press 100kg, he lowers the weight and presses about halfway he stalls, the weight isn’t moving. This is an isometic contraction (yielding), his force is matching the resistance. Soon the weight will start to drift back down, now its eccentric. The fact his intention was to lift it is irrelevant, these words describe physical actions, not intentions.

FWIW, I’m not sure what you meant by the deciding factor. But the arm lifter on the right won because he was stronger, not because he use yielding or anything to that effect. He was simply stronger.

I would disagree with you that isometric yielding is used when force is too great but you can hold it. Isometric yielding can also be used when you could move an object but withstand its force instead. If you hold your arm in front of your shoulder, the primary muscle used is the anterior deltoid working under isometric yielding tension. You could lift your arm higher but instead you merely resist the downward force applied by gravity.

The above post is worded very confusingly. Are you saying what I described is not an example yielding? Or that it’s not the only example. In the latter, then “disagree” makes no sense.
I’m aware that choosing to withstand its force is also yielding. I never said that it wasn’t. I was expanding on what you said as I felt your overcoming description was vague.

Similarly, I would disagree that eccentric tension is used when you can no longer hold the force under isometric yielding. Eccentric tension is also used to "smooth" out a movement by applying deceleration as the muscles lengthen under resistance

Same issue here. I never said smoothing out movement or deceleration wasn’t eccentric. It is eccentric of course. But I’m not sure how you are using that as grounds to “disagree” with my example. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Simple question, is what I described an example of eccentric contraction?

Your post is the confusing equivalent of;
I disagree that an apple is a fruit. A banana is also a fruit.

A benefit to using eccentric tension is that it can develop elastic recoil energy and the key is applying deceleration to a movement. As far as I am aware, the more deceleration applied, the more elastic recoil available.
You can apply so much deceleration to a movement that you come to a full stop and you still have elastic recoil when using isometric yielding. Rather than you bouncing your opponent back, your opponent will have the feeling of being bounced back to varying degrees. It is a subtle distinction but an important one.

Just on this point, you keep saying stuff like “using eccentric tension”. It’s eccentric contraction, not tension. The describing the reaction in the muscle, not the tension or force produced. I’m not sure if you simply using a different phrase with the same intention, or you are suggesting that eccentric tension is another special force/tension that the muscles can utilise.
And yes, energy absorbed can be converted to elastic recoil. This is the stretch reflex I mention above. It happens all the time when walking running jumping.
How much elastic recoil available depends on time. With a slow deceleration to a full stop, there might be no recoil available, but a more freefall and then rapidly change direction at the end, this loads up the stretch reflex. Like a weightlifter rapidly changing direction at the bottom of a bench press or squat. But I disagree with the part in bold. You can’t pause in a state of yielding and maintain this recoil. Again time is a factor, the energy dissipates as heat almost instantly. You need to rapidly convert in to an concentric movement or else you lose it. A simple way to illustrate this is a regular squat verses a pause squat. You will be able to lift significantly less by pausing (yielding) at the bottom of the movement.

Yes, the "40% stronger" applies eccentrically and that is why I referred to a combination of concentric and eccentric tension. While the arms, as an example, are under eccentric tension, the legs which move the torso towards the arms would be working concentrically.

But the arms can’t ever produce that 40% more strength. No matter what position the legs get them to. It’s input strength, not an output strength. To put it in a real world terms, we can lower with control a weight that is 40% heavier that one we can lift – which is hardly surprising. What you said was “we can produce up to 40% more power than our opponent”, which is simply not how it works.

This is all what I’m getting at, taking real scientific terms, that you clearly understand (eccentric, concentric, isometric, basic anatomy etc) and applying them bizarrely in martial arts scenario. The way you are talking about "using eccentric" here and "concentric there" has no real application.

The video above don't really help your case here in my eyes. I'm sorry is I sound rude or blunt here, but I consider that to be essentially martial fluff.
I get the spring example, not really useful, but I get it. When he is pushing his opponent, its fairly obvious that he is actively forcing his hands to stay back, once or twice he almost forgets. I understand he is trying to use the recoil alone - "pushing without pushing" - but that's not how forces involved work. actively hold his hands back is counter-productive.
It's also obvious that he isn't even pushing the guy on his own. The black guy is moving back himself, this is evident by the fact that he moves first at the hips despite being pushed in the chest. He is acting, and badly at that.
Towards the end, he is just playing it up, he adds a few claps and stamps.

Niall Keane

"Bouncy bouncy" tai chi is up there with empty force for woowoo.

It likewise relies on emotionally compromised fawning students to feed the "masters" ego or it is outright trickery. (Remember entertaining theatrics and martial arts have gone hand in hand in China for centuries)

Ive described above the use of peng amd cai lang which are legitimate tcc methods.

Please post a video of what you describe so at least we cam rule out the fake demo style where students jump up off the ground and backwards .

All sorts of nonsense surrounds this stuff.... like adhering the yi- intent to the opponents centre which can be "outside" of the body and using the yi like a jedi force to make the training partner fall over. The falling over also denotes progress in "feeling" the chi ..... and of course we can all see where this ****e leads.
All of it.. all of it is born of poor undsrstanding of the classics and madeyup bs being promoted by "master" salesmen. And all of them share at least one common point.... they have never ever fought.

Ive seen so called famous masters even here in ireland at an imac demo back in the 90's demo pushing a line of students who took the cue, but not as well rehearsed at the chinese opera would and so ended up falling back out of sync with each other.... it was shameful. I think that was John Ding's introduction to Irish martial arts community.


My Sigung (Cheng Tin-Hung) often said:
"The world of martial arts is the world pf truth and lies, very many lies and very few truths."

cletus

OK, so I hadn't watched the video in the last post, because the main issue I had was with descriptions of movement, rather than the movements themselves, but nothing in that video makes any sense from a biomechanical standpoint, or a martial standpoint. The disclaimer for serious spinal injury is ridiculous

Doug Cartel

cletus wrote: »

nothing in that video makes any sense from a biomechanical standpoint, or a martial standpoint.

The spring is a good metaphor to get people to understand the timing needed to get a good smooth push that will send people flying. The guy in the video doesn't seem to understand it though. If I had to guess he heard someone say it once and just started repeating what he could remember.

cletus

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The spring is a good metaphor to get people to understand the timing needed to get a good smooth push that will send people flying. The guy in the video doesn't seem to understand it though. If I had to guess he heard someone say it once and just started repeating what he could remember.

I meant in terms of the movement being demonstrated, and the effect of the movement

Doug Cartel

cletus wrote: »

I meant in terms of the movement being demonstrated, and the effect of the movement

I know. My point was that terms like "spring" can help people understand the effect they are trying to create. These terms are just metaphors though, and when you try and extend them to explain what is actually going on in people's bodies as they perform the actions, the metaphor breaks down.

Also, his video was bad and he wasn't even using the metaphor he was talking about.

Mellor

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I know. My point was that terms like "spring" can help people understand the effect they are trying to create. These terms are just metaphors though, and when you try and extend them to explain what is actually going on in people's bodies as they perform the actions, the metaphor breaks down.

Also, his video was bad and he wasn't even using the metaphor he was talking about.

As I said, I got the spring part. It started ok, but rapidly fell apart as soon as it came to the technique.

I find that stuff baffling. But also curious as to how it's "passed on". Are they fully aware its a bluff, or do they believe it on some level. Is the partner aware he is paying along, or is it subconscious. I've seen extreme compliance from people, who furiously defend the "powers" when a skeptic refuses to plays along.