Speed - The Mental Factor

[isshinryuronin]

1 - One energy/cardio capacity it's how much you can jump, punch and kick and how hard you can strike before getting fatigued and your performance declines.

2 - One damage/pain capacity, it's how many hard kicks and strikes you can eat, before you start to limp or before the pain is enough for you to give up, or start to just back off and shell upp due to pain.

When one relies on one or both of these, I believe technique and skill gives way to brute force and becomes less of an art. "Pummeling" seems to be an apt description of your 2 points. Is this TMA?

 

[Fungus]

When one relies on one or both of these, I believe technique and skill gives way to brute force and becomes less of an art. "Pummeling" seems to be an apt description of your 2 points. Is this TMA?

I am not sure what you mean by pummeling?

But what defines "TMA" I am not qualified to comment on after only 3 years in the game, I am happy to leave that to others.

But for ME, what consider that I study and that has my attention is not what I would label an "art" I prefer to think of if as combat/fighting science or at least some rational combat system. For me it's rathe tha NAME Martial ARTS that is traditional. I would be fine to just call it combat logic or combat science. If that is "traditional" or not is not something that is critical for me personally. I approach fighting and combat from an analytical perspective. Brute force seems to be a valid parameter, but it is not the only one. What is important is that it works, in actual fights (under different conditiions, weapons, no wepaons etc). If brute force gets the opponent down, then why not? If you happen to be strong, that is our strenght, and it would be irrational to not use it. Likewise, if you are superfast on your feet, that is a strengiht and it would be irrational to not use that. If you have a body of steel, it is a strenght, why not use it to your advantage?

One of our sensei use to say that in a real self defense situation kind of combat, whatever technique you can pull off that hurts or damages your opponent is an good one, wether elegant or not.

 

[Badhabits]

Mmmm- TMA fits both definitions. Art and science. Science is just a human method of figuring things out. An art is pretty much any human endeavor that has reached a high level of sophistication. Science is the method of figuring out how to reach a point of sophistication that can be called art.
Anybody with sufficient power can pummel someone into submission. Not very sophisticated. Until you get someone who's so good at it they've raised it to an art form.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Brute force seems to be a valid parameter, but it is not the only one. What is important is that it works, in actual fights (under different conditiions, weapons, no wepaons etc). If brute force gets the opponent down, then why not? If you happen to be strong, that is our strenght, and it would be irrational to not use it. Likewise, if you are superfast on your feet, that is a strengiht and it would be irrational to not use that. If you have a body of steel, it is a strenght, why not use it to your advantage?

Using physical advantage is a valid strategy, until you come up against someone bigger and stronger. If you have relied on your physical attributes at the expense of developing skills, you'll be in trouble. Isn't that why people take MA lessons? And while brute force and ability to withstand blows is good, not all people have been blessed with those gifts.

Slightly built and smaller individuals then would have no chance in a fight when physically outmatched.
Yes, training can build these qualities - but only up to a point. It might be a good strategy to learn how to avoid getting hit and to inflict damage using skillful technique - less painful too. And there's no reason a Hulk-like fighter can't do this as well. Another consideration is that physical strength wanes over the years, but skill and technique stick around longer. IMO, there is a time to blast into the opponent (very satisfying on a gut level) but also a time for finesse (satisfying on a skill-well-done level).

 

[isshinryuronin]

To be sure, you can improve speed/quickness by training neural-muscular ability. If you are not already familiar, search 'twitch' drills.

Yes, this is possible. But I believe the improvement would be minimal (5%-10%?) compared to all the other methods available (20%-30%?). I think time would be better spent working on positioning, timing, attitude, etc. to get the most bang out of your training buck. I really don't know the scientific data, but I know working on these other things can make huge gains in overall speed.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you can improve speed/quickness by training neural-muscular ability.

Here is a speed training "通三关 go through 3 joints" to share. It can help you to send energy through your

- shoulder joint,
- elbow joint,
- wrist joint,

and finally reach to your fingertips.

Stay in a horse stance and raise right palm next to your right ear with fingers facing up and palm face to your head.

1. Drop your right hand to the left of your left knee with palm facing to your left (loose shoulder joint).

2. Throw your right palm in front of your chest with palm facing your chest and fingers facing to your left (loose elbow joint).

3. Swing your right palm 45 degrees up above your right ear with palm facing your front (loose wrist joint).

4. Drop right palm straight down on the right side of your right knee with fingertips down and palm facing to your knee (send Qi to your fingertips).

5. Repeat your left hand.

The day that you can do this training and only see your hands as blur, you have developed some good hand speed.

 

[Fungus]

I actually agree with you.

I really wanted to just to say that I think that for me the "elegance" in all this, is the ability to adapt the strategy to the situation, meaning both do your opponent and to your own strenght and weakness. The main focus wasn't "brute force", it's just some detail that appeared.

And the opponent you can't decide, so all I can do is to try to find an "adaptive strategy" for any oponent, that is adapted to my own cabablities. These capabilities can evolve over time (ie over the years), as you both learn MA, and as you age or catch an injury.

So for me the "art" or "beatuty" in this is to find the adapted flexible strategy that works best for me. So I guess I am more for seeking constructing principles formulated not in terms of "average karateka" but the deeper ones that can be formulated relative to each individuals strenght and weakness. So the adaptive system here is the beauty for me

Using physical advantage is a valid strategy, until you come up against someone bigger and stronger. If you have relied on your physical attributes at the expense of developing skills, you'll be in trouble. Isn't that why people take MA lessons?

That's not what i suggest. Brute force can be a valid strategy, but I think no strategy is universal. It depends on both you and your opponent, just as you say.

And while brute force and ability to withstand blows is good, not all people have been blessed with those gifts.

Exactly, which is why it cant be universal. But the same logic, not all peopl are are blessed with fast feet, or extraordinary flexibility or reaction times. But those that are, are doing the right think to use it to their advantage.

When I go fight stronger people, that then also not unexpected are heavier than me, then I am often relatively speaking much faster; and this ALLOWS me to use a different strategy. It works due to the relative capabilities. I'm not fast in the absolute sense, but my may well be faster than the hulk. This is why it's great to treat with a mix of people, that are both bigger, smaller, faster, stronger than you. There is no way I can step around a smaller fast figher - I tried. But I can do the same trick for the bigger guys, because they TEND to be slower! But if I face the exception, a hulk that is also fast as a lizzard, then I am probably smoked anyway.

One of the reasons I think I analyze this more relative to only having a few years training is that I also feel limitations due to age, and so far this limits by mobility more than my strength. It is also easier to be fast and jump when you have no back issues, but I do so I have to utlize more tools.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The main focus wasn't "brute force", it's just some detail that appeared.

I now better understand your post.

So for me the "art" or "beatuty" in this is to find the adapted flexible strategy that works best for me. So I guess I am more for seeking constructing principles

Being adaptable is certainly one of the main principles of strategy. Letting go of and changing one's mindset midstream can be very difficult without a calm and open spirit. I agree there is a certain "elegance" in this.

I really wanted to just to say that I think that for me the "elegance" in all this, is the ability to adapt the strategy to the situation, meaning both do your opponent and to your own strenght and weakness.

Knowing yourself and the opponent ensures victory, to paraphrase Sun Tzu.

 

[Fungus]

Being adaptable is certainly one of the main principles of strategy. Letting go of and changing one's mindset midstream can be very difficult without a calm and open spirit.

It is also hard to invent new strategies "live", mid-fight, unless you have a set of strategies to switch between. The set of different strategies is what i am currently try to learn or "find out" for myself, and I have a long way to go to please myself. That is essentially the "goal" of my MA journey (not belts ranks or medals).

Instructors asked me why I am sometimes a bit passive, in a fight, and I reply "I am thinking", and then they just laugh.

For example when the opponet is pushing in a certain way, I often eat and think at the same time, ideally for seconds to try to fiture out "what to do"... here i need a larger set of strategies pretrained, where i can simply switch between as required, rather than trying to "invent tings" in the heat. Although I can admit at trying to invent strategies, while under beating, often gets you some insights. Sometimes I COULD counter with brute force, but i dont', because i think its not as elegant as you also put it. But one insight was that, given that the cognitive processing isn't fast enough to find teh new strategy, countering with force is an option, that often works better. But the long term goal is to learn more stratgies for faster condition switching. But in a dynamical situation, you can not refer to "future insights", brute force may also be the only think I come up with in a split second, and if that is the case, it is they way it is. Not necesarly "wrong". This is intriguing at also the abstraction layer that is decision making under cognitive pressure, and that is intrisically a "game", including taking calculated risks.