Yeah - and I'd also like to not hear the clearly artificially processed sound, to try and make him sound more powerful. Whatever they've done, I'm not sure - maybe just turned it up really loud. But - good point - I would like to see it done on a bag. Unfortunately, I rather suspect that you'll be told that it's not the kind of energy that can be seen on bag work *rolls eyes* - it can only be demonstrated on shirt sleeves.
I can, of course, keep my heel down if I want to. I used to. I find it to be much better to lift the heel in many postures - though not all. Ideas such as "root" in CMA are very often corrupt, in my experience - corrupt as in they've lost their real meaning. It doesn't mean solid, full foot connection to the floor, it means a strong stance that is also useable to generate power - nothing to do with how your feet are, flat or lifted, necessarily. I rather believe that only a small portion of power, actually, comes from using the floor - it mostly comes from structural movement itself. In my view.
Two things. First, keeping your heel down does in fact take away some power, but it also gives you versatility. Moving laterally and backwards is much easier with your feet rooted, and that split second in which you shift your weight slightly to put down your heel is very valuable. Second, I promised you a physics explanation, so here it goes (please excuse the long-windedness, and possible unreadability). Virtually all power comes from the ground. The force generated by your body is derived from the friction of the ground, and on occasion the normal force pushing back up (the only other force you can get is via gravity or normal force on a wall or something like that). Have you ever tried throwing a punch while floating in a pool? Resistance notwithstanding, it's pretty lame, right? No matter how much you rotate, there isn't enough friction there to grab power from. Here’s a very sad picture I drew to demonstrate: When you push off the ground, Newton’s third law takes effect and the ground will push you back in the opposite direction with equal force. The red arrow represents the force you’ve put into the ground, and the green is the resulting force with which it pushes back, via friction and normal force. When you break that down into x and y components (the blue arrows), you can see how much horizontal and vertical force that results. The horizontal is going to contribute to your punch. The guy on the right is suspended from a rope (no he isn’t being hanged ). He can apply as much force to the air as he wants, but he can’t generate any power because there’s nothing to push off of. Here’s how body position works: Since we already established that the goal is to maximize the horizontal force in a punch, thereby creating the most power, then the goal is to orient your body in such a way that you can generate the most horizontal push. Notice that the same red force can create very different horizontal blue forces just based on the angle of impact. The concept of “rooting,” in an attacking sense, is about making that vertical blue arrow as close to zero as possible and the horizontal one as long as possible. Flatter feet maximize friction and don’t direct as much force downward so you get less upward thrust. Obviously this is more basic that what actually happens, but it still accurately describes the overall movement and function. Whew. [/PHYSICS]
Interesting - thanks for the explanation, Sandus, and the pictures. I've tested the different punching methods with a variety of students of all shapes and sizes from different MA backgrounds and the results have unanimously concluded that (for a cross punch) keeping the rear heel down in a 100% front-weighted train-tracks posture and pivoting on that rear heel so that the toes and knee of the rear leg turn to face perfectly forwards as you strike (with no twist of the torso - hips and shoulders remain square to each other) is the most powerful punch anyone can generate. We'd have to test it all in a lab, I guess. I don't find any power loss from keeping the heel down because the stance dimensions we use are such that the weight keeps shifting forwards as the entire torso turns square on to the target. This, and the fact that we heel pivot, ensures that no part of the body is moving backwards as we deliver the strike. That's the rule for cross punches anyway.
Western boxers don't often move laterally and also bend their knees super low to get the most horizontal force possible out of them. If they had Achilles tendons stretchy enough to allow them to remain flat footed while getting that low to the ground, you can be sure that they would prefer it that way. This isn't what I was saying. I'll get back to this in a moment. This is where Newton's third law gets confusing. Your leg is not creating the force into the ground, but your whole body, via your legs. When your hips and shoulders rotate, your feet make it possible through friction. You can feel the friction of the floor pull as you twist. You don't even need to use the muscles in your legs. The ground, through friction provides you with the means of movement. It's not solely because you push off. We're talking about different things here. I'm not talking about pushing into the ground or kicking off of it. I mean that your feet in contact with the ground experience friction. There is no movement without friction. It's impossible to walk on a frictionless surface because there's nothing to propel you forward. No matter how much you use your muscles or contort your body, you can't take a step without the ground's help. Newton's third law says that for your arm to move in a direction like that, there has to be a balancing force, and in this case it's a combination of gravity and friction. Which kind of jumping kick are you speaking of? The kind where you jump toward a person and therefore already have momentum? Or the kind where you jump straight upwards Karate Kid style, which is generally considered ineffective because you don't get much power out of it? That's actually a great idea. Your goal should be to create as much horizontal force as possible, without wasting any of it to upward force. Actually the preference is the opposite. That push up is detrimental you your punch (unless you're punching upward). The greater the upward push, the more force you are losing horizontally, which makes your punch slower/weaker and also increases the chance you have of actually leaving the ground, which isn't what you want. Gravity can only counter so much upward force. Too much and you end up jumping. The horizontal force is the one you'd like to maximize. I think that's because we had a bit of miscommunication here. Hopefully this clarifies it.
Hmm. I think I'm still mostly with Sandus on this one. The concept as I understand it is that you should get all of your force moving into the strike - don't waste an ounce of effort fighting gravity by rising up, in fact lower your centre of gravity as much as possible by sinking down into your strikes. Don't waste any power by having any of your body moving in an opposite direction. I was also taught that ungrounded kicks are less powerful than grounded ones, and they should be (so again, you'd sink into your kick). Your body should be able to (and can, I think) generate more effective power than just its own weight if the bones are aligned correctly and the muscle use is optimal. Rather than emphasising torque (we don't want to be all torque - I've waited ages to be able to crack that joke ), we emphasise momentum, relaxation and low centre of gravity - your torso can almost be in free-fall as you strike, but it is still being pushed by your leg as well. I believe that Bruce Lee commented that twisting was only responsible for 20% of the force of a strike. Not to be sniffed at, but not the most important factor. I know a freestyle kickboxing coach who does Taiji and he thinks it helps him produce greater power. FQ - I remember a while back you said that you thought Chen Zhenglei would be able to punch phenomenally hard - how do you think he'd compare with someone like Tyson. We really do need to get into a laboratory and spend some time experimenting with these different approaches. I seem to remember the fight science programme indicating that boxing and TKD punches were the most powerful (correct me if I'm wrong), but a better test might be to take the same human being and teach him / her different methods and test them against each other. You could maybe go through the list twice to allow for the fact that the person might be getting steadily more powerful through their training. You could test other people in the same way, but start the list in a different place. You could probably do every permutation if you had enough people. So for example person A would be measured throwing a Boxing punch, a TKD punch, a Taiji punch (or whatever). Then again in the same order. Maybe he'd spend a week or so practicing only that one sort of punch. person B would do the list in the order of TKD, Taiji, Boxing, TKD, Taiji, Boxing. person C would do Taiji, Boxing, TKD, Taiji, boxing, TKD ..or something. Anyone know any scientists?
What, you mean like Western Boxers have low stances,a nd fight from low stances? They don't, Sandus. I don't understand - they don't. They have bent legs, but no where near as low as youmight see in some taiji, say. Their legs are bent and springy because that's more efficient over all for moving about, in and out, and giving a bit of push behind the punch. Well, that's a case of using boxers to prove your point, even though they don't do what you say - you're saying that they would do it your way, if they could. I'm sorry, but if it was possible to get more power, don't you think every pro boxer in the world would be stretching their tendons? They don't not do it because they can't, they don't do it because their way is better. After all, there's like zero pro taiji style fighters, and thousands of pro boxers. Well, I don't see any reason why a person couldn't punch floating in a pool. Just like people can jump in the air and punch. Well, that, I have to say, isn't making any sense to me, and I doubt the validity of the science behind it. It sounds like you're saying that if my feet weren't on the floor then I wouldn't be able to turn my body in relation to my legs, which I understand - which is whati said, that the legs provide a solid base. Butthat's a long way from saying that any force comes from the legs. To me, the legs are mostly a two legged tripod, on which my torso rotates - most of the power comes from the rotation and body movement - NOT from any push up.In fact, I rather feel that there's very little energy expended in to the ground. But, maybe we punch in very different ways. Ah well,u nderstand then - you're not saying that power comed fromt he floor, merely that my body is supported by my legs. I do a lot of retreat training, jumping backwards lightly and kicking. There's not only no forward momentum, there's actually reverse momentum because I'm moving back. But I can still kick at the same power level, or very close. How do you explain that? In fact, how do you explain moving back and punching with power? Well,t hat's not correct theory for my kind of martial arts - I punch upwards on all my basic punches, and use my body to generate some upwards force on most techniques. Well, I think we'll have to think we've gone as far as possible with the words - it might be that we are talking about similar things, but not really visualising them the same way. It's possible.
Hi FQ, I follow basically the same rules when moving from either leg to the other one, so if my opponent is in front of me and I want to throw a bog-standard lead punch, I'd typically be opening the rear foot (or jumping back with it) and driving my body backwards, driving off my target with my punching arm. The backwards shift also initiates a turn to a more side-on orientation. I would finish with all my weight on the rear leg - I've seen photos of Ali's lead "jab" where he obviously is doing this too. I think the optimum stance allows mobility and rootedness, so the size should allow 100% weight bearing on either leg. You sink as low as possible down "through" the weighted leg - as if the leg is just an inconvenience preventing you from sitting down on the floor. Every boxer, kickboxer and karateka that has come through our doors has agreed that they can produce more power our way, though they haven't necessarily stayed because many find our methods too exacting and technical. We don't allow foot alignment to be out by even 1cm because that's 1cm worth of power loss and 1cm worth of full power force taken by the misaligned knee. Or maybe they leave because they don't like being stood around with set squares and protractors. That's a little joke. ha ha!
I think, keep your mind open on this one for now. Gravity is a very weak force; correct technique more than compensates for any energy lost by, say, lifting your arm up. When I punch, I use what is caled in Yiquan "opposite energy", meaning that if I rotate my torso on the punch, half of my body is going back, while the other half is going forwards. In fact, the sceince of rotation is such that both sides are going round in the same way - same as one half of a wheel goes up, the other down, but both are rotating in the same way. (Incidentally, that's binary thinking in action creeping in!) Not only do I turn, but I also I lift up, partly, like, if I jab, my jab shoulder comes up - usually, if I'm hitting full power. Consequently, I get energy from torque from more than one direction - I squeeze out every ounce of power from my body. The principle is actually ancient - like a scrunched ball opening - expanding force. A kick like a jumping back kick - jump, spin, thrust your heel out straight in to the opponent, is hugely powerful. I mean hugely - probably more powerful than any other kick in my opinion. But it can be done mid-air. Look at Benny The Jet drop people with it, lol - almost all the power comes from the spin, not from sinking. What it is, there are other laws of physics and motion that can come in to play, other than just having a rooted physique. Somethig like a spinning back hook kick, say, might be on a tippy-toe, with almost floating root - but the spin around can generate face breaking power. I am open to new ways and ideas, of course. I know Steve Morris, for example, recommends dropping in to punches. I do sometimes - there's different rules for different kinds of movements. Momentum, torque, body movement - what I look for is the total sum of all possible contributions to power. I believe, in fact, that in many cases, opening the body, letting the torso rise is more powerful. And I also believe that it is more combat efficient to punch someone's head up, than straight back, if possible. I think Tyson would punch much harder. But Tyson is massively bigger - massively. But, I also know for a fact that Chen Zheng Lei sees Chen family level taiji as the equivalent of Western boxing, as in, Western Boxing and Chen taiji are two professional level fighting arts. Been there, done that. After twenty five years of research I've trained with people of almost every style - except Capoeira. Yiquan method, such as I can do it, is the best way for me. Problem is, say, for my way, you couldn't just learn it - you'd have to spend time, and also practice ZZ and shi li I think. Best thing to do is for us, as serious martial artists, to contrast and compare, see who has achieved what. I've yet to meet any martial artist, of any level, who didn't teach me something of value.
I'd have to see you hit the bag with power to really have an idea of how you generate power, I think.
That was my first thought as well- sometimes it's not the "technique" per se that is powerful or not, but the shenfa supporting it. And that's something you have to build over time, you can't just "learn" it in one go. I'm starting to think that a thread with vids of everyone hitting the bag with power might be a fun way to look at and compare methods and mechanics.
Hi FQ, we sort of have that too - well the rotation half of it. Traditionally it is covered by the Taiji rule of "avoiding double heavy and double light". I use something I call "one circle theory" in it's place because it is easier to understand. But we don't use any opposing force. We train that out of our bodies on purpose, so when I discovered Yiquan focussed on it, I decided not to pursue it. I think Taiji may allow a little bit of play in the machine, but I still seek to eliminate all unnecessary opposing force. We don't need to get into arguments about it though. Maybe now that we are getting along better, we should arrange to meet up and test our theories at some point in the future. I don't have a very open mind just now, because I've already tried and tested the different approaches myself, but I am open to you showing me precisely what you mean and me trying it out, if you'll do vice versa. We should probably rope in a third party or two as well. I hate to be picky, especially now we're getting along, but you once said that Chen Zhenglei would be able to kill with a single punch and Tyson didn't do that in the ring. Was he holding back?
In Yiquan, if I may presume to speak for it, the idea of opposite energy isn't really opposing force, as in, no movement is used to oppose or hinder any other movement - it means exactly the principle of the wheel: one side is going up, the other is going down, but the wheel itself is rotating all in the same way. In that sense, opposite energy means not opposing your energy, but contributing to it. But that comes from whole body theory - if the whole body is behind a left jab, the right side of the body is turning back to allow th eleft side to go forwards, however, the body also lifts up from the shoulder - actually it's the whole torso lifts at a diagonal angle - the shoulder doesn't rise up on its own, and at the same to the whole phsyique itself moves forwards - and a push off the foot. If you're not allowing the body to move in that way, it may be that you are actually opposing your own energy - same as keeping the foot on the floor actually, in truth, opposes your energy. Sure. Do you have a punch bag? Where I train there is a heavy bag - a pro boxer's bag - but it is expensive to sign in where I train, lol. 16 pounds per person, can you believe? I couldn't! But it has everything - rooms, bags, everything. Yes, I think you should organise a Northern MAP meet! Well now - did I? Heh... I must have been having a "Glorious Quan" moment. Tyson could easily kill a man with one punch - no doubt about that. No gloves on, smack to the head in a rage - easy. Seasoned boxers, and gloves on are another matter. People wouldn't be fighting Tyson if they weren't ofd an equivalent ability to take his shots. I think Chen Zheng Lei could maybe kill an average man with a clean head shot. I don't think he'd kill Tyson, lol. Chen Zheng Lei, I think, is a lot more dangerous than people might think, but whether he'd beat a good boxer - ?? It's not my call - I don't support taiji much. I think his punches are powerful though.
Ah - I think you're talking about "Tongbei" or "through the back" principle - the idea of your arms working like pulleys - one pulls back to add force to the one punching forwards. We turn everything the same way - legs, torso, striking arcs everything... Well, we'd have done that in Bagua, but in Taiji, I train "without bending or leaning" and now my Bagua follows the same rule. No I'm not and no it doesn't. Reserve judgment until we've met up and I can show you. Sadly not any more. When I was doing all my student training I had access to a University gym with great bags and a huge space all to myself most days. 25 hours a week of glorious training. It even had a sound system so I could put on music and do an occasional little dance. Big problem there - I don't mix with anyone who believes in qi or anyone who talks about energy or things being internal or external. I've had enough of that insidious talk. Occasionally one of my students gets sucked in (when they do something crazy like reading a book or going on line) and it can take quite a bit of effort to undo its befuddling brainwashing effects. I had one recently who really thought it all sounded reasonable until I pressed him to explain what he meant and he found that he couldn't.
My punching method is pretty much identical to that which Yao Cheng Rong demonstrates on the thread in the Internal MArtial arts Forum that I posted - only, a much inferior version, naturally. I do loads of things in my movement that people say you shouldn't - like I bend my wrist when I punch, heh... you can see it when I practice without gloves - it's the orthodox Yiquan method - and everyone tells me it can't possibly work - until they see me do it. And I don't believe in most cases that you should have your hands close to your head, especially if you haven't got gloves on. It's difficult to visualise! Opens up an interesting subject though - if you find the right body mechanics which work for you - and there are many different types, and they do benefit different people in different ways - are you better off altering everything you do that's fight based to incorporate those principles? Like, I wouldn't want to incorporate roundedness in to a chang quan form, but in terms of all my stand up fight based stuff, I wouldn't want three or four different ways of moving my body - I steal stuff from other styles, but I don't usually steal movement principles - they all adapt in to the one movement principle set. Which is one of the things I don't find useful, for me personally, about JKD - the idea of learning three or four arts, each with completely different body mechanics. I think, in the long run, that's bound to hold people's level back - far better to find the best body mechanics for you, and make everything else adapt to your method - unless there's a specific improvement that can be made from adapting something new. OK - I'd have to see it, for sure. Sounds like my training now! A big, heavy bag is a very useful asset if you can get access. Ah - those qiky monkeys! Well, I can sign two people in, if they want to pay sixteen pounds each - I think that's outrageous but what you gonna do? There's a bag, and rooms and space. We need a bag - a big heavy bag - to really see.
