Circular vs. Linear

[White Warlock]

Well, this is getting silly.

 

Linear is not always hard, nor is circular always soft. As well, soft does not always beat hard. Polar generalizing is a good way to fixate and become mentally (if not physically) rigid.

 

Anyway, there seems to be some disagreement as to what linear is and what circular is. Clearly there are linear elements in any action committed, just as there are circular elements in any linear action committed. The human body is composed of both rigid (bone) and supple (muscle) elements. When we utilize our bodies to perform an action, we emphasize one aspect of our body over another... or apply all aspects evenly (depending on the degree of dominance one element may have over another, given the parts of the body utilized in an action or series of actions, and depending on the emphasis one system or other may encourage in training).

 

At the most basic, linear consists of actions which are defined as the endpoint (point of contact or control) traveling in a straight line, from point A to point B, while circular is defined as the endpoint traveling in a circular/semicircular pattern, oftentimes with no definite point A or point B. The manipulations of rigid or supple elements of the body serve to enforce the endpoint's actions, but do not redefine the actions in and of themselves. Linear is still linear, circular is still circular, despite the body contortions we must apply in order to implement these geometric concepts.

[Drunken Monkey]

you'll find the general remarks usually come from those with, let's just say, knowledge limited to what they've read....

 

for a start, where do you fit some of the techniques/applications that, in terms of hand/point to point is strictly linear whilst the body movement, be it stepping or turning or combinations thereof, results in the sum of the movements being circular?

 

(to clarify)

 

is it circular if you take a straight step to one side, turn and do a straight punch?

 

after all, the hand has taken a circular approach to deliver the punch.

 

in my mind, there is no real linear/cirular differentiation to hand movements unless you see things at a very basic level.

 

in the example of the wing chun punch, would you call it linear because the hand (usually) moves in a straight line or is it circular because it's source of power is circular?

 

what's more important, the punch or the power?

 

i have always regarded the linear/straight (and in terms of chinese styles that also includes the hard/soft debate...) as something to do with how your body moves in your style.

 

arghhhh....

 

can't one of the moderators merge the threads?

[White Warlock]

This is simplifying it beyond belief, but my instructor used to always tell me:

 

"Counter a circular attack with a straight line; counter a linear attack with a circle.."

i've heard the ol' adage of circular to counter linear and linear to counter circular. Listened to it, examined it, and found it too rigid... oversimplified, so yes... i agree. Circular can just as effectively counter circular, as linear can counter linear. All that is required is differences in training, perception, and an unwillingness to adhere to fixed concepts.

 

/tangent on

 

I suppose this touches upon one of my older peeves and i'm glad you brought it up TSG. That of systems imposing rules that become law, yet were only initially implemented as a means to assist those in learning the basics. I'm not keen with these rules, despite the initial benefits they may provide at the onset. At a later stage, they become significant obstacles. Rules defining how and what you should and should not do, locking you up to dance a certain dance.

 

Many systems impose such arbitrary rules, although some do this more than others (tkd, in my opinion, being one of the bigger culprits). When training large quantities of individuals, such as military units, such approaches make it far easier to get people up to speed. But, on an individual basis, i find it to be far more a disservice and it is unfortunate that so much instruction still focus heavily on such rigid 'shortcut' preconceptions.

 

Shortcuts that, in the long run, undercut.

 

/tangent off

[White Warlock]

(to clarify)

 

is it circular if you take a straight step to one side, turn and do a straight punch?

 

after all, the hand has taken a circular approach to deliver the punch.

The initial positioning was linear, the secondary positioning was circular (assuming i understood your example). However, the strike itself... was linear.

in my mind, there is no real linear/cirular differentiation to hand movements unless you see things at a very basic level.

Agreed.

in the example of the wing chun punch, would you call it linear because the hand (usually) moves in a straight line or is it circular because it's source of power is circular?

As i stated, i would call it a linear punch. A linear punch is dealt with and reacted to differently than a circular punch, regardless of its' initiate point.

 

A pistol is a linear weapon, a flail is circular in action. You can run around in circles, move the pistol in cute semi-circles, but once the trigger is pressed, the bullet only knows 'point A to point B.' As well, when wielding a flail you can run straight toward someone, but the weapon's effectiveness is only going to be realized if swung in a semicircle to its intended target.

what's more important, the punch or the power?

Neither. It is the end result.

i have always regarded the linear/straight (and in terms of chinese styles that also includes the hard/soft debate...) as something to do with how your body moves in your style.

I suppose that may be where we differ. I do not define hard/soft by body actions. I define them based on internal/external emphasis. To me, both linear and circular can be hard or soft, internal or external.

 

Well, here's where i lose everyone. Linear/circular... basic geometry. The body is not so basic, nor are the laws of physics so basic. When i stated earlier that it is an oversimplification, i wasn't being facetious. The martial arts is very much interdependent on an understanding of mechanics and physics. Geometry is taught right after basic algebra, yet when we utilize our physical arts, we encounter and perform complex mathematical computations, far beyond such simple math referred to in these discussions. Granted, the vast majority of us rely on 'fudge-factor' in a confrontation, but when you don't always have all the variables in advance, what else can you do?

[Drunken Monkey]

is it circular if you take a straight step to one side, turn and do a straight punch?

 

after all, the hand has taken a circular approach to deliver the punch

 

the thing is, the movements described are only so clear because they are written and analysed in words.

 

in execution, all of the movements are done at the same time.

 

the hand does indeed move in an arc, and in two planes as well.

 

the strike is indeed linear in relation to your body but in relation to an opponent, it is circular.

 

see the reason for the choice of my example?

 

also, in relation to the internal/external view of linear/circular.

 

if you know the chinese differentiations then you'll see that we are actually in agreement regarding

 

liner/circular/internal/external/hard/soft

 

 

y'know, i know that this is a valid topic of debate but i don't like it when some people use this as a way of saying my way is better than yours....

[White Warlock]

see the reason for the choice of my example?

I do, and i still contend it is a linear strike, despite the dance.

y'know, i know that this is a valid topic of debate but i don't like it when some people use this as a way of saying my way is better than yours....

Yeppers, a peeve of mine as well. Comparative studies, in the form of chest poundings, organ dimensions, and "my dad is bigger than your dad" ... all very shallow and simple-minded. I suppose one of the reasons i don't get into many conflicts these days is because i assume everyone can beat me up, and vice versa, under differing circumstances. Recognition of one's mortality helps to keep ego in check and attention fixed to self-improvement, instead of competing for superiority.

 

Who cares really, as long as you do what needs to be done... when it counts.

[michelUSSD]

Simplification is not always a bad thing. Using the circle to overcome the line and the line to overcome the circle is a strategy that can work for a fighter. It's not the only one that works, but it doesn't make it any less true or effective.

[White Warlock]

hmm... well how about the triangle to overcome the rectangle, or the square to overcome the curve?

[Drunken Monkey]

i would like to add that there is some confusion in this matter.

 

sometimes, you make his straight line into a circle (by using your own straight line)

 

and

 

sometimes you compress his circle into moving in a straight line (by using a circle).

 

so it isn't really circle overcomes straight line or vice versa.

 

it's not that fixed, not that simple.

 

if we list all of the ways to avoid a common stright line attack or a common circular attack (of any sized circle), chances are there are equal ways being straight as there are circular.

[michelUSSD]

the saying never says that line cant overcome line and circle cant overcome circle. it just states one option...its not the only option. try not to think of it as a rule but as more of a suggestion.