power/change

[SPJ]

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.

1. power from us and the power from the opponent will interact. the dynamic of interaction is always a balance game. basically we are both maneuvering to get the upper hand over the other. either by changing steps, facing, hand movements, rotation of the waists etc etc.

2. power is not bigger the better. we only need the right direction and enough amount of power, to do the job, either a strike, a throw or a trip to fall, etc

3. Change is necessary when we are losing control of the opponent. such as the opponent is gaining upper hand at wrist/hand, we have to use the elbow, if we lose the elbow, we have to use the shoulder/back, etc

so the right way to say the statement/story would be

1. we are maneuvering our hands/forearms etc, we are in control of (overpower) the opponent, we may deliver strike, or throw.

if we lose control, we have to quickly change to something else. or get us out of trouble.

In Tai Ji, it is called wo sun ren bei. we are in our front side, we are able to rotate our waist and move more. the opponent is on his back side, he is not able to move further but fall or lose.

----





4.

[SPJ]

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.

1. true. part of your movement/posture is to generate certain type of power and deliver it to the opponent, however, the other big part of your move/posture is to balance yourself against gravity and counterbalance the power you generate. if your shenfa is style B, you are doing style B.

2. we practice to generate right amount of power from a right posture in a balance way. as pointed out by JW, we only have to generate enough to do the job, either a strike to a soft spot, or a throw.

3. Change is necessary, when we lost control, and the opponent has the upper hand/overpower/control over us.

[wiesiek]

everything:

Isn't the aim of CMA practice to become faster and stronger than your opponent?
.

he,he
where is THE Art then?

[TrainingDummy]

I would add that the Chu Shong Tin lineage of Wing Chun does things slightly different to other WC schools, with an extremely heavy emphasis on training the "mind force". I'm going to assume you're studying under this lineage since you posted the Jim Fung vids, and add that I studied with Susana Ho for 3 years, so I'm familiar with your premises.

This lineage places a large priority on training the mind to think forward and allowing this intention overwhelm the opponent. You then use sticky hands as a litmus test for how strong your structure is against a resisting opponent. Angles and complex techniques are downplayed since the primary attribute that you're testing is your forward force under pressure.

You're making the assumption that everyone wants to generate force in a direct forward way into their opponent, which isn't the way that many people on this board do things in touch practices. Tai chi guys train forces that go up, down, forwards and back. Bagua guys will be very happy to slide past your bridge to set you up for a throw, other guys won't bridge with you at all.

Chu Shong Tin openly acknowledges that his internal principals where taken from his early training in Tai Chi, so does that make what he does Wing Chun or Tai Chi in reference to question number one?

[Chris McKinley]

Dan,

Oy ve....you're right, it is kinda funny...and yeah, I did miss it as such in the text-only format thing. Too bad we don't have certain fonts available for sarcasm, humor, etc. Your further description really gets to the heart of where his thinking is just wrong. Powering your way through your opponent wouldn't necessarily be the optimal choice even if you could do it all the time. I think he's just frustrated with his current results. We've all been there. Munching on bitter kinda sucks. I think he's also defining change a bit differently than the rest of us usually do. I think he's referring more to a simple swapping out of one technique that isn't working for another that might. From a Ving Tsun beginner's perspective, that might seem to make a certain sense in that doing more of what isn't working certainly isn't likely to help.

If TrainingDummy turns out to be right about his style's emphasis on thinking forward pressure at all times, it might do him some good to train with some of this board's Taiji and Bagua practitioners, who will be more than happy to usher him forward into a trap. Under that circumstance, your earlier reference to keeping some balance of power in reserve would be even more necessary. That particular Wing Chun/Ving Tsun system might even seem a bit simplistic compared to others if that is truly the case. Of course, I have no idea if that's true unless chimerical tortoise confirms it.

[DeusTrismegistus]

If I decide I want to hip throw my teacher, and I step in and try to throw him and its not working immediately, and I try to power through it...I will probably end up landing on my head. If you don't change, and they do change, you will lose. If you both change then its whoever changes slowest loses. Power and speed are only useful after you have created the opportunity to attack. Against anyone with a modicum of skill from any discipline the majority of time will be spent trying ton create openings.

[everything]

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.

hmm, for me it is more about leverage. I suppose you could say that is using skill to increase your power - finding better angles, fulcrums, etc., as opposed to simply increasing your muscular strength (which is fine but not the "art")

[Dmitri]

I would vote for change (over power.) But in order to change, you need power -- i.e. the power to change. Oh crap...

[everything]

lol, don't get too philosophical on us, dmitri. next thing you know you'll post the taiji diagram and get all tai cheee hippie on us

[chimerical tortoise]

First off, thanks to all thus far for the input, I can see that I've got a long way to go to understanding anything. And sorry for the late response, I have no net at home at the moment.

To clarify,
Trainingdummy is right, I do CST ving tsun/wing chun under Leo Lit, which afaik is similar to what Susannah Ho teaches. His description is probably alot better than what I'd be able to describe; thanks for doing so. I'm aware of what brute muscular force is, that's not what I meant.

What I mean by 'power' isn't described by most CST practitioners as nei li (afaik) but rather nian tou li , whichseems to be a semantic quibble since as stated above CST sigong did take principles from his earlier study of taijiquan. The "key" is in monitoring your balance, that there's negligible muscle use, but practitioners are relaxed and solid (in both ability to ignore outside power, and ability to deliver seemingly effortless but very big power). That's not to say that there isn't angles/fulcrums that everything mentions involved either, there are alot, in general the hand movement etc is more circular than most other VT that I've seen. Similarly my sifu has shown parts of CK/BG that are not straightline but rotational, but without the siu nim tau jibengong, his (and slowly, mine too,) opinion is that the rest is worthless or even illusory.

re: "just the right amount of power" (mentioned by SPJ and Deus)

For "just the right amount of power" I'd like to disagree. I realise I don't have the experience of many board members so feel free to call me out. From what I've seen, good VT produces through principles an obscene amount of power without effort. Obviously I'm nowhere there yet, it could be said I know very little about VT. But I fail to see where to be able to generate 'more' power would ever be a hinderence. My experience has been that good VT can chuck you around and unbalance, etc. by rolling straight through your defenses. So is there 'just the right amount' of force, or is it not preferable to overwhelm your opponent?

For change, I'm not talking about changing internally but rather as Chris said, using a zhao/movement to compensate for lack of structural integrity, i.e. changing from hand a to b because your structure has been compromised, then trying to execute chains of motion. With the above mentioned sort of 'power', changing is akin to evade, evade, evade but it's hard to do so (and ineffective) when the opponent is really pointed at you. Though I'm starting to question whether I'm limited because of my positionality, as many of the comments have made a great deal of sense from their respective perspectives.

Does this help clear up some stuff?

(and yes to those suggestions at looking at training outside of VT to gain a clearer understanding... as soon as school and work ease up a little! )

[EightExtremesBoxer]

You strike (yang). The opponent defends and you change your attack into a feint (yin). At the same time, your back hand (yin) changes into a strike (yang) to exploit your feint.

Simple example, look at the principle offered. Change is important - it's crucial.

However, if you don't have power, your feint won't be believable and your strike won't do anything.

Both are crucial. Both are basic.

That's my view.

[Chris McKinley]

chimerical tortoise,

RE: "From what I've seen, good VT produces through principles an obscene amount of power without effort.". There's no such thing. Seriously. It isn't physically possible. Now, you can optimize your efficiency such that, for the effort you do put out, there is a perhaps surprising amount of energy transferred and results produced. But Peter Ralston aside, there's no such thing as truly effortless power, even if it looks that way to the outside observer.

RE: "But I fail to see where to be able to generate 'more' power would ever be a hinderence.". You're right, you do fail to see it...because you're looking in the wrong place. Being able to generate more power isn't the hindrance; it's the reliance on power as the solution to every problem that is. Like I said previously, give me a knife, and you can have all the power you want....it isn't going to matter squat in saving your hide from me. Not every job calls for a bigger hammer.

[C.J.Wang]

Instead of treating power and change (the use of zhao/movement) as mutually exclusive attributes -- "if I have power then I don't need to change" or "if I lack power then I need to change" -- I prefer to see them as two sides of the same coin.

In order to change successfully, power is still needed. And for power to be directed successfully to the opponent, subtle changes are required.

[johnwang]

I was taught:

- Use your solo move to attack 3 times (use your power). If you fail,
- Use your combo to attack 3 times (borrow force - change). If you fail,
- Play defense and counter (borrow force - change). If you still fail,
- Run like hell.

[TrainingDummy]

chimerical tortoise,

RE: "From what I've seen, good VT produces through principles an obscene amount of power without effort.". There's no such thing. Seriously. It isn't physically possible. Now, you can optimize your efficiency such that, for the effort you do put out, there is a perhaps surprising amount of energy transferred and results produced. But Peter Ralston aside, there's no such thing as truly effortless power, even if it looks that way to the outside observer.

You obviously haven't crossed hands with Chu Shong Tin. He has an obscenely large amount of power for an old guy, same with Susana Ho. Susana Ho can still kick my ass any day of the week in touch practices and I would outweigh her by at least 20kg. I'm not saying it's magic, but it's an amazing accomplishment.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T