Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Delta said: But the better he moves in ballance, the harder it will be, and the quicker he will regain ballance and neutralize your positional advantage. Here you do understand what I'm saying, you just don't know you do. I see what you are saying, but the top analogy don't work it can't stand without moving and we can. Think of a very heavy barrel of water. If you tip it on it's edge you can move it around, but it would be very difficult to push it around without doing so. It's based is solid like our stances and when it is moving it is not as solid. Usually we move from a wide base to a smaller base when transitioning, we are weaker in the transition. The power comes from a relaxed movement into solidity at the point of contact and through. Yes? "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Ali Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Pushing through anything doesn't generate more power. Hitting through something does. Pushing something repeatedly help to train on intensification of muscle's extend and contract. In other word, to generate "Jin" or penetration force on punching or palm-attack. Darkness grants me pair of dark black eye,Yet I determine to look for Brightness
delta1 Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Usually we move from a wide base to a smaller base when transitioning, we are weaker in the transition. The power comes from a relaxed movement into solidity at the point of contact and through. Yes? OK, I think we are arguing semantics a little here. If I get you right, say you move through a cat in your transition. It is a weaker stance because of its narrower base. Therefore you are not in as stable a position at that moment. Right? My point is that you are still in ballance, though not as stable in the stance. You also must consider the effects of motion when talking about stability, so it's not as bad as you think. By the way, the top was intended as an example of inertia and the gyroscopic effect, not an analogy. These physical forces are at work as you move also, but admittedly not quite the same (unless you are a Whirling Dirvish ). Any way, we apparently aren't too far off on anything but our terminology. Moving through a narrow stance, like a twist or cat, is momentarily less stable but still in ballance. Freedom isn't free!
Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Yeah, but with true intent behind a strike if I counter you at that transitional moment you are going be thrown quite easily. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
delta1 Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Yeah, but with true intent behind a strike if I counter you at that transitional moment you are going be thrown quite easily. Oh boy! Here we go with terminology/semantics again! OK, when you talk about intent, it can have many meanings and applications. My intent may be to beat you to a pulp. But I can accomplish that by regulating speed, motion, maneuvers, any of the concepts inherent in application of techniques. I would (hopefully) not use the kind of commitment you are talking about unles I've set you up for the shot to where it is highly unlikely you could take my ballance. In fact, I don't like those overcommited type strikes regardless of the situation. Overcommitment robs ballance and so robs power, effectively nullifying your intent any how. And stretching, commited strikes are dangerouse for the reasons you point out. Do a foot maneuver, get in close, strike with as much or more power, and smell the fear as you work out your intent! But whatever you do, allways keep you balance and the option to quickly reestablish your base! By the way, I'm speaking East Texas Drawl English, modified by Pacific Northwest Bland English. Your California Colofrful English is just a little foreign, though I did three tours of duty there in the service. Freedom isn't free!
Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Hey this is a nice debate for a change. O.K. I think we kinda are arguing semantics. Let me see if I can make my point in a different way. The act of running is basically falling and constantly catching yourself as you use your legs to catch and propel yourself forward. There's photographs that show the feet at one point in the run completely off the ground. The off balancing, leaning, causes the movementum and your legs help it along. Take a horse for example that head juts forward to propel it faster and faster and we bipeds do a very similar thing. We are literally throwing ourselves forward and catching ourselves with the use of our structure. So basically we are in state of falling in a sense if you want to move with any real speed. That is natural speed, the speed of gravity added by your weight and some muscle to create a powerful strike. Now disagree if you want to, but that is how I've come to understand it and my technique as well as my strikes have become far more powerful than ever. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Phantasmatic Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Thank you guys very much for the info. I'm glad to be back on the forums again! "Which one is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Phantasmatic I like your screen name. What MA do you study? "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
delta1 Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Let me see if I can make my point in a different way. The act of running is basically falling and constantly catching yourself as you use your legs to catch and propel yourself forward. ...So basically we are in state of falling in a sense if you want to move with any real speed. Smart ( ! ) answer: I fight in balance, I run in blind panic! I see what you mean (I think). In many movements, there is a point of no return, or a plane that, when crossed, you cannot effectively go back. Your inertia and changing position of your center of mass commit you to that general direction. That is especially true with foot maneuvers that step through and combine with a strike. But still, if you move in ballance, you can alter the maneuver even after that plane is crossed. A hard run is a continued act of overcommitment. It takes more time to stop from a sprint than a walk, and corners round off more with direction changes as speed increases. Also, in a run, you pick up your feet more. In the martial arts, we usually don't pick up our feet unless to do something dasterdly, like kick him. And my body stays erect, not leaning forward, even when I move forward. Your example of a run is a good extreme example to make a point, but thinking about that kind of overcommitment in a fight makes me cringe. Freedom isn't free!
Treebranch Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 Well I guess if you are never the attacker you are right, but what if you have to be. If you are going to attack someone for whatever reason (hopefully a good one), I would think you will have to commit to some kind of movement. I can probably guess that your balance and movements come from your Tai Chi experience. Budo Taijutsu has many parallels to Tai Chi. So basically I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree with you, but nothing is immune to gravity. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Recommended Posts