MightyBands, home gym system

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

What makes WC so great?

I find it interesting that many describe the reasons of wing chun, wing tsun, etc as great because it's "scientific" or it's based on geometry, angles or "multi-vector forces". So say the economy of motion is the key or sensitivity training.

To me, wing tsun is not a better martial art for any of these reasons. All martial arts have some degree of economy of motion, geometry, multi-vector forces, uses the opponents strength, etc. Sure there are some that deviate but in doing so they gain other benefits at the expense of "economy of motion" or whatever point you want to insert there. All martial arts are limited by the physics of this earth, by the physiology of our attacker and ourselves - we are bound to geometry, angles and whatnot.

Wing chun is not good because it has simultaneous attack and defense. It is not good because it has bong sao or has a high stance, etc etc. All these benefits are found in any successful fighter in any other art because again, they are bound by the same rules as we are. Those that know how to apply their art will adjust it so that, although the training may be different, in application, the stance may be high, the movements are more "economical" and the kicks are lower...it just comes with experience. That goes true with karate, kick boxing, kung fu, etc. It's just that there are few that can apply it well, as a result, this commonality is lost.

WC is just as good as silat, which is just as good as bjj which is just as good capoeira. They all end at the same point, but very few people ever get there. The majority of us confuse the training regimen as true application, and judge the art as so. We think, oh karate doesn't have simulataneous attack/defense or there's no economy of motion in choy lay fat kung fu...what is this based on? the forms we see people practice? or better yet, the teacher that has no understanding of how it's supposed to be used (but may have a lot of knowledge of the forms)?

Until then.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Chain Punch

When practicing my chain punching, I’ve noticed that in times of fatigue or simply just “brainless” chain punching, my punches are faster during the last 2/3 of the punch than the first 1/3 of the punch. I’ve noticed it’s not delivered in consistent explosive 100% committed bursts. If I look carefully, it seems that the first few inches of “punch-delivery” is slower than when the punch is nearing completion.

Why is this? My thoughts – in weight training, when you lift a weight (let’s say 45 kg plates during bench press), the majority of stress on your muscle occurs during the initial push and as you gradually continue the push, the weight gets “lighter” in the sense that muscles aren’t stressed the same way. This is why you see many people cheat when they perform an exercise – they only go down less than half way but are able to stack on the weight plates. I believe this effect is due to leverage, angles inherent in the positioning of our arms in relation to chest during the exercise, as well as pre-existing muscle conditions. As you continue with the push the amount of weight exerted on your muscle decreases since the angles change as you continue with the push, thus leverage changes thereby decreasing the force required to push the weight.

If this idea can be extended to the chain punch, this may explain why the chain punch is relatively slower in the first part of the punch compared to the last part of the punch. To counter this, what I’ve tried to do is focus on exerting more initial burst so that the speed of the punch at the beginning of delivery is consistent with that at the end of delivery. In class, I sometimes ask students to imagine the scenario that their forearms are chopped off and they have to hit w/ the ‘stubs” of the elbow. This might help you get the idea of the type of driving force I’m trying to replicate.

Popular Posts