Engine(?)

[wckf92]

A long fist punch require you to have your

- back shoulder,
- chest,
- front shoulder,
- punching arm,

are all in a perfect straight line.

Interesting. Thanks.
WC has this...it's called a pole punch, taken of course from the pole form. Probably not used or seen all that often but it's there.

For example, In order to have

- long reach (riffle), you need to rotate your body.

WC rotates the body...i.e. 2nd form. This has the effect of increasing range, amplifying power, changing angles, etc.

- fast shooting (machine gun), you can't rotate your body.

Agree.

- maximum power (grenade), you need to compress your body.

Well, I see your point on this one...but some WC families have a type of body attribute (sink? swallow? spit?... whatever) that may be similar to what you are calling "compress" (?)

 

[Cephalopod]

Yep. If I'm not mistaken you are referring to the long videos by the same "certain person" I referred to in post #4 above. That guy is the first I heard to use the term, and yeah, it was kinda sketchy. Probably what Danny and Nobody were thinking of too.

On the other hand, if people are just using the term "engine" simply as shorthand for "method of power generation", I don't really have a problem. I thought KPM's video was very clear and straightforward. And he used the term "engine" a lot.

Yes indeed. Thanks for dialing in to my innate ironic inclination.

On reflection of my post: I hope that my reticence for delving into terms like 'engine' is not mistaken for me advocating a dumbing down of the internal elements of our style. Quite the opposite. I was trying to make a broader point that, especially when it comes to relative beginners, teaching the internal elements with profound theories and explanations is often much less effective in the long run then letting them learn for themselves.

I find myself in that trap quite often, explaining ideas of power and such in terms that I am only beginning to relate to. I pause and look at the students face and realize that seven fifths of it has flown right over their coif. I have much more success when I dish out a single simple idea such as 'when you punch the wall bag, imagine driving your heel into the ground" and then walk away and let them train.

Conversely, sometimes I make an epiphany in my own training and I ask myself "why didn't sifu just tell me that?!".
I then realize that he'd been showing me all along, I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I find myself in that trap quite often, explaining ideas of power and such in terms that I am only beginning to relate to. I pause and look at the students face and realize that seven fifths of it has flown right over their coif. I have much more success when I dish out a single simple idea such as 'when you punch the wall bag, imagine driving your heel into the ground" and then walk away and let them train.

Conversely, sometimes I make an epiphany in my own training and I ask myself "why didn't sifu just tell me that?!".
I then realize that he'd been showing me all along, I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.

As an instructor, this is a balance I'm constantly trying to figure out.

There are a lot of important details and concepts that it took me many years to figure out. I think: "man, I could have been doing so much better if I had understood this 15 years ago".

Sometimes those details and concepts were never really explained to me before.
Sometimes they were explained to me, but I wasn't ready to understand them.
Sometimes the details were shown, but the reasons for them were never explained, which made it harder for me to appreciate and remember them.
Sometimes the theory was explained and I thought I understood it, but it was only an intellectual comprehension and my body didn't really get it yet.
Sometimes it was explained, but badly.
Sometimes the details were shown and I thought I was doing what I was shown, but I wasn't given the feedback to show me the difference between what I thought I was doing and what I was actually doing.
Sometimes I was missing one puzzle piece which was necessary to connect several other pieces and make them work.

I want my students to progress more quickly than I did. That means figuring out what level of theory and application detail they are ready to absorb and what ratio of explanation/exploration/correction works best for the individual. It's a tricky business and I've got a long ways to go.

 

[mograph]

... I just needed to lose some dumbass bad habit before I could really savvy.

Kind of an "empty our cup" thing, right?

This is one of the problems with being older than a child, isn't it? As we've gone through life, we've developed all these preconceived notions of how to do stuff. They've helped us in some ways, but they really bugger us up in other ways. "Letting go" is so necessary, but so hard.

 

[Cephalopod]

Kind of an "empty our cup" thing, right?

This is one of the problems with being older than a child, isn't it? As we've gone through life, we've developed all these preconceived notions of how to do stuff. They've helped us in some ways, but they really bugger us up in other ways. "Letting go" is so necessary, but so hard.

Actually I think that Tony stated best the hurtles in the learning process.
I would comment, however, that I have always been very willing, on an intellectual level, to empty my cup. Discarding my old reactions and instincts under duress and replacing them with new and better ones is the hard part.
Sometimes it has meant many, many hours of getting whacked around rather than using my old defensive programming in order find that elusive 'better way' and to move my skill up a notch.

As an instructor, this is a balance I'm constantly trying to figure out.
I want my students to progress more quickly than I did. That means figuring out what level of theory and application detail they are ready to absorb and what ratio of explanation/exploration/correction works best for the individual. It's a tricky business and I've got a long ways to go.

Your students are lucky to have your dedicated approach!

A lot of instructors, despite their best intentions, get a little caught up in their hubris, believing that they can develop a student faster than that student is actually able to internalize a whole new proprioceptive programming. In their best intention to clarify, they will actually make it more obscure, coming up with theories of 'engines' and such.
And yeah, I'm talking about myself btw.

Lucky for me, the bar is set low. I don't think any student can learn more slowly than I did.

 

[wckf92]

Thanks for all who responded about the 'engine' question. It was useful feedback. Cheers...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Your students are lucky to have your dedicated approach!

A lot of instructors, despite their best intentions, get a little caught up in their hubris, believing that they can develop a student faster than that student is actually able to internalize a whole new proprioceptive programming. In their best intention to clarify, they will actually make it more obscure, coming up with theories of 'engines' and such.
And yeah, I'm talking about myself btw

I think I still err on the side of over-explaining, because I'm naturally an analytic person. I'm trying to distill my initial explanations down to the essential elements and save the elaborations for those who are ready for them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The question should be asked is if you have cross trained WC, Karate, MT, Taiji, which engine will you use?

All of them, if you've actually integrated each.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The way power is developed in WC is the exact same as any other human movement.
It is in the how, when, and where one moves in relation to other parts of the body as well as the opponent. It is in how the force being applied to you is received, deflected or stopped. But it is still by electrical impulses which either expand or contract the muscles. The talk of 'engines' is a marketing term or just a different term to explain or make what you do different. We are human bio mechanical organisms that use electrical impulses to contract or expand muscles which pull or release tension on tendons. It is in the positioning of the body and/or the limbs in a particular configuration that by moving the skeleton creating the affect we are looking for. There is nothing special or different than using this recent term of engine to describe how a human moves differently in one system vs another.

The term Engine comes from the Latin ingenium, meaning ingenious...having a special skill or cleverness in design or designing contrivance causing something of special interest to seem to function in an unbelievable manner. It was meaning: skillfully and inventively to trick, to use pretenses, or to have dishonest plans...a ploy or hoax.

I think it's just a shorthand for things like a specific approach to the timing and angles. So, saying a long-fist engine doesn't work with boxing techniques (not necessarily true, but bear with me) is like saying a tank engine doesn't work with a racecar. They use the same physics, and even similar types of parts, but they apply them differently, so may be incompatible.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Lucky for me, the bar is set low. I don't think any student can learn more slowly than I did.

I feel ya' on that one, brother!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thanks for all who responded about the 'engine' question. It was useful feedback. Cheers...

You don't think we're going to stop now, do you? We haven't even had one significant off-topic swerve.

 

[Danny T]

I think it's just a shorthand for things like a specific approach to the timing and angles. So, saying a long-fist engine doesn't work with boxing techniques (not necessarily true, but bear with me) is like saying a tank engine doesn't work with a racecar. They use the same physics, and even similar types of parts, but they apply them differently, so may be incompatible.

Oh I understand. As I stated: "it is in the how, when, and where."
Using the term 'engine' is just another way to be different. In my opinion it is an incorrect use of the term and one still has to explain in much greater detail what that specifically means. Along with that, where the term has suddenly begun to be used there is a huge amount of verbiage that actually details very little so now it comes down to the 'me too' group of individuals attempting to describe it from different perspectives and different meanings.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh I understand. As I stated: "it is in the how, when, and where."
Using the term 'engine' is just another way to be different. In my opinion it is an incorrect use of the term and one still has to explain in much greater detail what that specifically means. Along with that, where the term has suddenly begun to be used there is a huge amount of verbiage that actually details very little so now it comes down to the 'me too' group of individuals attempting to describe it from different perspectives and different meanings.

I suppose it comes down to what you're used to. When I first heard "engine", it just sounded like a convenient shorthand that required no explanation. But then, many of the instructors I've trained with - both long-term and in seminars - had some sort of shorthand like that, so it just seems part of the way many people talk about the mechanics of kinesiology. I suspect part of the reason terms like that are becoming more common is that more schools (in the US, anyway) seem to be gradually moving away from language-of-origin terms. Each generation of instructors might only drop one word or two, but it seems to accelerate. And fewer of the instructors have a real understanding of the original terms (from a vocabulary/linguistic standpoint), so those original terms are just shorthand. So, when I say "kuzushi", that's a convenient shorthand for breaking structure and balance, rather than the word having its full original meaning and connotation (whatever it might be). "Engine" seems to operate the same way, in place of "power-generating mechanics".

EDIT: Look for a good description of "aiki", and you run into the same issue you mention in your last sentence. A single word in place of a concept is rarely terribly accurate.

 

[geezer]

I get the impression Danny just likes to use plain language and call things what they are. So, if you want to say "this is how we generate power" ....just say that. The term "engine" is not any clearer. Sure, it's kinda trendy, but some people use it in ways that are not nearly so cut and dry, investing it with other meanings that are questionable.

Me? I'm also a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to trendy terms in general. For example, I still bristle at people responding to questions in conversation by starting their reply with "So.... ". I'm told that it started in the W. Coast tech industry and has become the new norm for at least a decade. I don't care. I hate it as much as "upspeak" and "vocal fry". And I hear it everywhere. Especially on NPR.

...Maybe there is an upside to getting hard of hearing as you age.

 

[Danny T]

Geezer...Yep...that's about as straight as you can get. Just say what you mean.

Just love it when people say things like; "my definition is ....."
What??? The definition of a term is what it is; It is not some random choice or personal whim.

Seems some like to coddled and/or to be coddled with speak. Immediately makes me look for the bs or for the redirection of one's attention.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"Body method" may be a better term for "engine". In the high level preying mantis training, you should only see the body movement and you don't see the arm movement. Also if you can train your sword without using a sword but just use your body to express the sword movement, you will have good "body method".

In other words, "body method (or engine)" is how your body should move and not your arm.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I get the impression Danny just likes to use plain language and call things what they are. So, if you want to say "this is how we generate power" ....just say that. The term "engine" is not any clearer. Sure, it's kinda trendy, but some people use it in ways that are not nearly so cut and dry, investing it with other meanings that are questionable.

Me? I'm also a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to trendy terms in general. For example, I still bristle at people responding to questions in conversation by starting their reply with "So.... ". I'm told that it started in the W. Coast tech industry and has become the new norm for at least a decade. I don't care. I hate it as much as "upspeak" and "vocal fry". And I hear it everywhere. Especially on NPR.

...Maybe there is an upside to getting hard of hearing as you age.

So, (that one's just for you, Geezer), I agree the one term is not really any clearer than the other. We have a lot of alternative terms in MA that are equally clear (or equally vague). And I'm okay with folks preferring more precise language - as Danny seems to. I tend to pass back and forth between shorthand (quicker for mentioning a concept, where the shorthand is already understood or readily understandable) and being (sometimes needlessly) precise in my use of words by denotation only.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"Body method" may be a better term for "engine". In the high level preying mantis training, you should only see the body movement and you don't see the arm movement. Also if you can train your sword without using a sword but just use your body to express the sword movement, you will have good "body method".

In other words, "body method (or engine)" is how your body should move and not your arm.

Interesting. That leads me to consider the Japanese term "tai sabaki", the actual definition of which I've forgotten, but it means something like "body movement" and is often used to refer to different methods of using structure and bodyweight in throws. I've applied it sometimes when discussing putting more "body" into a punch. In that context, my usage of "tai sabaki" probably equates to "engine" or "body method".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Interesting. That leads me to consider the Japanese term "tai sabaki", the actual definition of which I've forgotten, but it means something like "body movement" and is often used to refer to different methods of using structure and bodyweight in throws. I've applied it sometimes when discussing putting more "body" into a punch. In that context, my usage of "tai sabaki" probably equates to "engine" or "body method".

Here is an example that "body method" is used in Chinese wrestling. You use "hip rotation" to shift your body weight from one leg to another. The key point is, when shifting weight, your mind start from the body and not start from the leg.

In striking art such as WC, when you punch/kick, your mind start from the body and not start from your arm/leg, you are using "body method (engine)".

I always liked to rotate my waist as the following clip when I was not doing anything. One day my friend started to pick up that habit. I then realized that his body rotation just made me to feel dizzy.

 

[anerlich]

The way it's been used in Wing Chun in recent times, is to add an aura of mystery and intrigue where none is necessary, unless you are trying to create a type of clique or cult from which outsiders can be patronised or condescended to.

As Geoff Thempson said, and as an article by Phil Bayer I read recently also alluded to, the most important thing is to learn to "HIT F***ING HARD".