power/change

[chimerical tortoise]

If you have the power (from structure or relax or whatever you want to call it) then you can do it. Otherwise it is necessary to work on 'change'ing (like in sticky hands) to compensate and be familiar with certain contexts and escapes. Changing means you don't have enough power to do things in a more simple way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSRcJIxA_1M

(following para specific to VT, ignore if bored)
In sticky hands, "greet what comes, escort what goes, if the hands leave then plunge straight in"; upon contact the two partners are both attacking the opponent. If the hands lose contact one person should get hit, since both people should be going forward. But in that direct opposition assuming both partners are equal or roughly so, and noone just waltzes straight through, then you are going to have to 'change' the angles a little (tan, bong, fook are one movement, at different angles), if the opponent has a gap somewhere when changing then you go in. If the opponent has much greater power (i.e. collapse of one's bong sau) then it is necessary to further change (i.e. an elbow) in order to stay safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSRcJIxA_1M

1. Certainly there are structural considerations i.e. opponent that will change the exactitude of where your hands and feet are. But is a martial art defined by the movements that it uses, or the specific power generation those movements help you get? If you imitate a movement from style A using the shenfa from style B, are you doing A or B?

2. Skill in CMA, particularly in IMA, means that one can generate power disproportionate from their size. Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power.

Agree/disagee and why?

Edited twice because I talk too much and/or am too confused.

[shawnsegler]

That's a lot of words. Did you actually say anything?

[chimerical tortoise]

Cleared it up a little but not much, apologies if I'm pointing fingers at the moon. I do think that (as a beginner,) I have questions, might just be that I'm not using the 'search' function enough. BTDT?

[everything]

1. the movements come from and reinforce the shenfa. wing chun moves a certain concise way. then, what is jkd if the bruce mixed in boxing and fencing? not A, not B, but C? C is greater than the sum of its parts?
2. "art" is the naturally weaker and slower being able to win against faster and stronger via skill. there was a thread on "what is advanced" here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4785&st=0

[chimerical tortoise]

everything:

1. Thanks. Funnily enough, the thread you linked for #2 gave me stuff to think about for #1.

2. "naturally weaker and slower being able to win against faster and stronger via skill"

Sorry if I sound stupid, but I'm not too sure what is said here. Isn't the aim of CMA practice to become faster and stronger than your opponent? In my experience 'skill' is strongly related to the amount of power you can project.

What (in the clarifying edits) I'm trying to figure out is what's the relation between "changing" and "power" in practice, esp. two-man practice? If you have power why would you need to "change", why not (counter-)attack direct?

I'm not thinking change is 'low-level', rather playing with the idea that changing is only necessary if your own power is not enough for the situation faced, and maybe if you train at changing too much it could distract from training power (particularly zhan zhuang). It seems to be my problem right now.

[Bao]

But is a martial art defined by the movements that it uses, or the specific power generation those movements help you get? If you imitate a movement from style A using the shenfa from style B, are you doing A or B?

IMA is defined by how you use and handle your body (shenfa), not by what people think it might look like.

[Chris McKinley]

RE: "Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power.". Gotta call bullshit on this one. Power alone is never sufficient for real combat.

[Walk the Torque]

RE: "Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power.". Gotta call bullshit on this one. Power alone is never sufficient for real combat.

+1 , but change sure does help a lot.

[chimerical tortoise]

IMO 'change' and 'power' aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, sorry if I made it sound like that.

Chris:
Thanks for calling out the BS, that sentence you pointed out is problematic. I don't have real (life-threatening) combat experience, so I might be making armchair assumptions.

I'd like to know if you would call similar BS on the statement, "Changing means you don't have enough power to do things in a more simple way"?

What I'm talking from is that some VT players I've met that seem to focus far more on lap sau and/or wooden dummy than formwork or rolling hands/sticky hands, and they are very good at static demonstrations with a compliant partner and telling you exactly what this-this-that is for, but in sticky hands when finding that siu nim tau techniques don't work, will 'up the ante' to chum kiu/biu gee shapes or try to apply very specific movements from the dummy. I haven't learned CK, BG or the wooden dummy, so I'm wondering what is to be gained from practicing change if my basics aren't that great.

[Chris McKinley]

chimerical tortoise,

RE: "I'd like to know if you would call similar BS on the statement, "Changing means you don't have enough power to do things in a more simple way"?". Yep, I'd still call bullshit. The solution to every problem isn't more power. Cowbell perhaps...but not power. Give me a blade, for instance, and you can bring all the power you like.

RE: "...I'm wondering what is to be gained from practicing change if my basics aren't that great.". That might be a practical concern, but first I think it might be important to note that what you mean by "change" as a Ving Tsun practitioner isn't exactly what some of us mean by that term as IMA practitioners. It also seems to be implied by your statement that your basics as essentially based on power, which would seem confusing to me if your Ving Tsun is pretty much like what we all commonly know as Wing Chun. Is that an incorrect conclusion on my part? Whatever the answer...where exactly does this overwhelmingly large amount of power come in within the context of your art? I have a lot of respect for Wing Chun as an art, but it's not exactly known for powerhouse blows; it's more about speed and efficiency of movement.

I think perhaps I'm just not quite understanding what it is that you're trying to communicate. I must need more caffeine.

[Bodywork]

RE: "Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power.". Gotta call bullshit on this one. Power alone is never sufficient for real combat.

Gotta call bullshit on the calling bullshit.
Aren't we really talking semantics.
Softness, control, the ability to change their force, and ...wait...the ability to generate penetraining power is still all power. Even negative, ghosty, drawing them in- is all about power. If you don't have power in balance in yourself, in holding it in yourself as you move negative to positive, you're just going to be doing what the other guy is doing and using muscle, and that isn't power, its strength.

Blade work involves speed and technique and not what is seen as power, but once again having retained balance of power gives a very free fast change in the body and that works really well for knife and stick, as well as sword and spear. So even in this case power is not about impact, power is about the ability to move free and fast with retained balance of power in your own body.
Cheers
Dan

[Ian]

Changing means you don't have enough power to do things in a more simple way.

Disagree.

Change is fundamental to going through the OODA loop faster and more frequently than your opponent(s). It's how you come out on top; it's not a compensation tactic.

But is a martial art defined by the movements that it uses, or the specific power generation those movements help you get? If you imitate a movement from style A using the shenfa from style B, are you doing A or B?

To me this is compartmentalising.

What is a martial art? Not something for me to respect, preserve, nurture etc. that's for sure.

Whether it's A or B is irrelevant.

Skill in CMA, particularly in IMA, means that one can generate power disproportionate from their size. Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power.

I see where you're coming from, but no. Life's too short to train one to the detriment of the other.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4867 << change and power in movement.

[Chris McKinley]

Dan,

RE: "Aren't we really talking semantics.". No, we're not. Or at least, I'm not. In fact, it is more the bit of linguistic legerdemain to impose a conceptual equivalency between...

RE: "Softness, control, the ability to change their force, and ...wait...the ability to generate penetraining power is still all power.". No, it's actually not. You might be making the argument that those things are all within a definition of power as the "ability to act or produce an effect" *, whereas the rest of us, and certainly I, are using the more common and contextually-appropriate definition of power as "physical might" *, or as I might addend it, the ability to deliver force through contact. Even if one changes the definition of power to the one you are using, then his statement, "Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power", still doesn't make sense because it now would contain an internal inconsistency, since being able to change would then be itself a form of power.


* www.merriam-webster.com

[Bodywork]

Dan,

RE: "Aren't we really talking semantics.". No, we're not. Or at least, I'm not. In fact, it is more the bit of linguistic legerdemain to impose a conceptual equivalency between...

RE: "Softness, control, the ability to change their force, and ...wait...the ability to generate penetraining power is still all power.". No, it's actually not. You might be making the argument that those things are all within a definition of power as the "ability to act or produce an effect" *, whereas the rest of us, and certainly I, are using the more common and contextually-appropriate definition of power as "physical might" *, or as I might addend it, the ability to deliver force through contact. Even if one changes the definition of power to the one you are using, then his statement, "Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power", still doesn't make sense because it now would contain an internal inconsistency, since being able to change would then be itself a form of power.

* http://www.merriam-webster.com

First up you missed the joke of me calling bullshit to the bullshit call.
Your call was contradictory. So going back to the quote; stated more cleanly it should read "Training to change IS training power"...of all kinds.
You called bullshit to Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power. it then changed the subject and meaning of the quote by immediately stating power is not enough. Which was not the point of the quote! So, what I called you on was humorous;D

Anyway
The fullness of his comments are expressed in two conflicting quotes contained in the OP are;
Changing means you don't have enough power to do things in a more simple way. That is simply wrong.
and follows up with a contradition in the last paragraph
Training on 'change' acknowledges that you haven't trained enough power. wrong again in a way. Training change IS training power it is THEE way to train for power in your own body.

The greatest power, is power that is not direct but is in itself change. Oh it feels like the punch is coming out the other side of his head or through his liver, (and I mean that from experience it's what I am told it feels like) but it is generated through change in me and has change in it. Why is that relevant as well? Because of the many times the punch goes right through the defensive block I encounter, Their best defense was powerless to stop it as it came right through. Thus negating the comment here that change means not ENOUGH power. It is simply...not true.
I am squarely arguing that the comments mistakenly reflect the approach of movement and technique on contact only and are NOT discussing real change being trained in internal power in the body.
"Softness, control, the ability to change their force, and ...wait...the ability to generate penetraining power is still all power trained through change."
If your goal was power- even what outsiders see as knock out direct power...you should focus on change but the change is internal-in you.
Cheers
Dan

[johnwang]

one can generate power disproportionate from their size.

MA is much more than just "power generation" It's "to find the right key to open the right lock". If you can find the right key, it takes very little effort, otherwise, you may have to use brute force.