Peng Jin?

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.

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

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

We have already discussed this and I did answer you on it. As you didn't come back to me to discuss it further, I felt that you might have taken my point on board. I will answer again and if you disagree, then we can drill down further and the discussion can progress instead of coming back to it again.

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).

Are you saying there is no middle ground between literally telling the student what to do/using metaphors and explaining complex human movement in its biomechanical entirety?

I can live with the fact that you get the impression that I feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to my training. :rolleyes:

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

We have already discussed this and I did answer you on it. As you didn't come back to me to discuss it further, I felt that you might have taken my point on board. I will answer again and if you disagree, then we can drill down further and the discussion can progress instead of coming back to it again.

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).

Are you saying there is no middle ground between literally telling the student what to do/using metaphors and explaining complex human movement in its biomechanical entirety?

I can live with the fact that you get the impression that I feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to my training. :rolleyes:

OK.

I don't feel that you need to list every muscle used for stability and movement. Nor do I feel that you need to explain every type of contraction used by these muscles.

I do think that if you want to describe human movement, instead of using the contraction of muscles as your basis, you need to describe joint movement. The terms should be flexion, extension, adduction, abduction, depression, elevation, circumduction, inversion, eversion etc., as these more properly describe the movement effected by those muscle contractions.

I also believe that actually using these terms adds nothing to further the understanding of the general practitioner's understanding of any given activity. Why tell anybody to planter flex the ankle when you can tell them to point their toes.

There may be some benefit to this if a high level athlete is working with a biomechanics expert to fix certain aspects of a closed skill, but essentially what I am saying is I don't think you need to find a middle ground in your ma teaching. Plain English will more than suffice. It does for all other activities.

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

OK.

There may be some benefit to this if a high level athlete is working with a biomechanics expert to fix certain aspects of a closed skill

I think that was kinda the OP's intention. Save change it slightly....

There may be some benefit to this if a high level CMA practitioner is exchanging with a tai chi chuan expert (as the subject matter is "peng jin" ) to figure out certain aspects of a gung fu skill.

I think the use of sport science jargon was an effort to communicate accross styles, as cma styles are full of their own specialised jargon.
Clearly this didnt work as this whole thread is like John Wayne stepping off the train in "the quiet man".


Look, OP, im guessing you are suggesting that contracting the yin areas of the body to absorb force will necessarily produce a "bounce" "ward off" when put under pressure from an attack. Thats true, but its not peng , it would be considered "double weighted" as it restricts the ability to turn and change. And it can be used against the fighter as its reaction is predictable. And therefore contradicts the xuan xuan guideline.
The opposite in fact is used, a reaching out / espansion through the yang areas of the body, this allows a yielding transformation to take place in a circle and so to empty the opponent, redirect and issue him into the void. A key definition lies in the classic the fighters song that begins : "peng lu ji an must be taken seriously" (conscious action) .... so theres no deadness (yin) in the yi which a non-reactive but pre-reactive yin guard kinda is.
If the "jin can be broken but the yi unbroken" then it necessitates softness / ability to transform and change. That cannot be done when the yi is actively closing . For example the idea of the "suspended headtop" is all about agility, so an open spine is key to change. Drawing in / closing prior to the need to do so (you can of course during the process of hua jin, but there one has already adhered and has "ting jin") just to be able to meet a preceived attack goes against nei jia principal. it will restrict our ability to move in any direction, and prevent us from ting jin.
And that is a key difference between external and internal. its the whole idea of using softness to overcome hardness.

As for sending an opponent flying in tuishou.... the exaferated sh1t isnt worth considering, it is a misreadibg of the general theory of manipulating the opponet to align his structure so it is yin or dead and tied up and then at that precise moment to issue i the direction of his void. The simple idea being to prevent him from the ability to absorb the force.

Combined with subtle cai lang methods the effect can be dramatic o the opppnent but not hollywood dramatic. Just sweet moves.

Now i could be way off on what you were trying to say.... as sport science jargon aint my thing, so just use the cma jargon, if i dont get something ill ask.

And yea... im sure johnny jones or whoever never used such jargon either. though i know a few UFC and lads whove fought UFC lads would be very familiar with cma jargon. Fcukin book learning though! Why would you want to study your own delivery system? And those judo and bjj tossers using japanese terms for throws are just as bad. bet johnny jones stuck to his english pal! dont even get me started on the muay thai lads, ffs! Worse than the japanese terms, thats a third world language ffs!
Fcukon book learning!!!

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

I do think that if you want to describe human movement, instead of using the contraction of muscles as your basis, you need to describe joint movement,,,,as these more properly describe the movement effected by those muscle contractions.

In relation to our discussion, we seem to have three main options when it comes to explaining martial art movements. I underlined explaining as that is what we are disagreeing upon. Both of us would agree on the value of demonstrating movements and letting the student get a feeling for the movement by practising with us or with other student.

A - Using plain English
Sometimes you say this will more than suffice. Sometimes you say it is usually plain English that works best for you. (I would be interested in what you do when plain English does not work best for you).

B - Using terminology to describe the type of contraction which the primary muscles are under
I feel that this is necessary when plain English is not enough.

C - Using terminology to describe joint movement
You feel this more properly describes movement/is more accurate but is less easily understood than my way of describing the contraction of the primary muscles.

I don't accept that joint movement as a description for human movement is more (or less) accurate than muscular contraction. It depends on what we are trying to describe. The use of the term "flexion" might describe the decrease in angle at the elbow and shoulder joint as the arm comes closer to the body but can it or any of terms in relation to joint movement describe the arm being pushed closed to the body under a spring like pressure? Terms to describe the various types of muscular contraction can!

Also remember that we are not comparing joint movement versus muscular contraction in isolation. Referring to muscular contraction by explanation alone to describe a movement would have its limitations. However referring to muscular contraction to describe a movement along with using plain English, demonstrating the movement and letting the student get a feel for the movement, will easily make up for any lack of what you feel is accuracy when compared to joint movement as a description.

Given that our aim as martial art teachers is to increase our student's understanding of martial arts movements, is it not logical that in those cases where plain English is not enough, you would not trade (what you feel is) accuracy for greater understanding?

Niall and Mellor - I will come back to later on your points.

cletus

Michael, with reference to point a, this is more semantics than a dichotomy on my behalf. Basically I believe plain English to be the best method of explaining any set of movements. This doesn't mean that I might not suggest to somebody that they " extend their arm more" when, for example taking a shot in basketball, but I think this is still substantially closer to everyday conversational English than the type of explanations for muscle contraction you used in opening this thread.

Re muscle contraction vs joint movement, its not that I think that its more accurate to use the terms I listed above to describe movement, it just factually is. However, I highlighted this to show that in abstract, if you wanted to speak about movement, this would technically be the terminology you would use, not that I prefer to use it in teaching than you muscle contraction explanations.

Finally, as to what I use when English isn't enough, I come back to the beginning of my post. Sometimes I may use the word extend when I want a student to straighten an arm or leg more fully than they are currently in a given skill/technique, but apart from that my instructions are in English, eg bring you arm back here, put your foot forward a little more, drop your hips. All of which are accompanied by a demonstration by either myself or another student

cletus

Niall Keane wrote: »

And yea... im sure johnny jones or whoever never used such jargon either. though i know a few UFC and lads whove fought UFC lads would be very familiar with cma jargon. Fcukin book learning though! Why would you want to study your own delivery system? And those judo and bjj tossers using japanese terms for throws are just as bad. bet johnny jones stuck to his english pal! dont even get me started on the muay thai lads, ffs! Worse than the japanese terms, thats a third world language ffs!
Fcukon book learning!!!

Niall, I didn't understand any of the rest of your post, but I know a dig when I see one .

I have never properly studied either muay thai or judo, but with regards to bjj, any technique named in either Japanese or Portuguese is simply that, named. There is no esoteric Eastern or South American explanation proffered by way of explanation of the technique.

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

Re muscle contraction vs joint movement, its not that I think that its more accurate to use the terms I listed above to describe movement, it just factually is.

Using joint movement (flexion, extension, etc) as a reference to describe movement, are there any terms to describe the arm being pushed towards the body while it maintains a forward spring?

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Using joint movement (flexion, extension, etc) as a reference to describe movement, are there any terms to describe the arm being pushed towards the body while it maintains a forward spring?

It depends on the position of the arm, the plane of motion and the direction of the external force.

If you stand with your arms away from your body laterally at 90°and your palms facing the ground, then have somebody push the back of your hands down and towards your body while you resist, that could be called eccentric shoulder abduction, in that it would be the equivalent of the negative phase of the weights exercise known as a lateral raise.


For a compound motion, say the arm being bent at 45° at the elbow, and the shoulder being flexed to some degree, then having your opponent perhaps pin your arms back and to your side, you'd have to discuss each joint being affected by the external force

However ranges of flexion and extension for the shoulder complex aren't really well defined, given the make up of multiple joints acting at once.

Really it would easier to say as an opponent forces your arm down, you maintain pressure or force against the movement

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

If you stand with your arms away from your body laterally at 90°and your palms facing the ground, then have somebody push the back of your hands down and towards your body while you resist, that could be called eccentric shoulder abduction, in that it would be the equivalent of the negative phase of the weights exercise known as a lateral raise.


For a compound motion, say the arm being bent at 45° at the elbow, and the shoulder being flexed to some degree, then having your opponent perhaps pin your arms back and to your side, you'd have to discuss each joint being affected by the external force

However ranges of flexion and extension for the shoulder complex aren't really well defined, given the make up of multiple joints acting at once.

Really it would easier to say as an opponent forces your arm down, you maintain pressure or force against the movement

We are not comparing "plain English" here with muscular contraction. We are comparing muscular contraction with joint movement as a means to describe describe movement. You said joint movement is more accurate than muscular contraction but didn't say why or back it up.apart from "it just factually is". I disagree with this and am challenging your statement.

The use of terms to describe motion according to the anatomical plane is limited as it does not distinguish whether the agonists/prime movers are under concentric or eccentric contraction.

The use of terms to describe muscle action does distinguish between concentric and eccentric. Therefore for the purposes of describing the spring effect in Wing Tsun, muscular contraction is more accurate than joint movement.

cletus

Grand