What does Efficiency mean to you?

[geezer]

Good post! Back in the '60s and 70's I did a bit of ski racing. Never was any good, except at breaking my legs. Still, I met some top racers. Sometimes the best would look slower running the course, but if you checked the time they were way fast. Just so relaxed, smooth and efficient. They didn't "fight" or struggle like the rest of us. So to the untrained eye, they didn't seem as fast.

 

[yak sao]

One of my favorites quotes from my si-fu is "learn to get better and better at doing less and less".

 

[KPM]

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

---Specific as a strategy...yes. But relative in application as I pointed out previously.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

---Don't generalize to all Wing Chun. That may very well be true of WSLVT. But the Wing Chun I learned is broad enough to allow for "less than lethal" responses.

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

---Then that must be because your VT does not allow for those kind of situations. That's a shame. That makes it sound rather one-dimensional.

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

---I agree it would have to be an "adapted" Wing Chun and not "classical" Wing Chun because Wing Chun was not designed with that situation in mind. But it can be done. I think Danny would agree with that!


To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a jat or paak for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

---I agree. But what if you do NOT actually want to strike the opponent solidly in the face? Or what if he is throwing a wide "loopy" punch?


No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.

----What if the direct line to the opponent is free, but something is coming at you quickly from another line at the same time?


In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.

---This is true. But unfortunately if someone wanted to mug you on the street they are liable to sucker punch you before you realize they are a threat. If someone wanted to knock you down with little threat to themselves they might very well smash you with a bat or a board before you realized they were a threat. That doesn't mean one wouldn't train to defend oneself against an attack with a bat, or a board, or a knife.


If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

---Ideally yes. But would you want to bet your life on being able to "be out of there" without defending yourself first??

 

[marques]

So what is your concept of efficiency?

Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens)
If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but higher with "less and less" energy losses..
If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.

 

[geezer]

Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens)
If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but should be as high as possible.
If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.

Good, simple answer ...if you are talking about delivering a single punch. It gets a lot more complicated talking about a fighting system. For example, if you assume that you can't rely on one punch to end a fight, then you have to consider how that first punch sets you up in relation to the opponent for follow up attacks and/or counters. Also, can you channel some of that initial energy into the next technique, or is it all expended in the first attempt? These are important questions.


An analogy would be a game of pool played well, so that each shot sets up the next one till you clear the table. That's the kind of efficiency you need in a fight.

 

[JP3]

My concept isn't out of WC but out of judo. Maximum results with minimum effort = efficiency. More for less, like that.

 

[marques]

Good, simple answer ...if you are talking about delivering a single punch. It gets a lot more complicated talking about a fighting system. For example, if you assume that you can't rely on one punch to end a fight, then you have to consider how that first punch sets you up in relation to the opponent for follow up attacks and/or counters. Also, can you channel some of that initial energy into the next technique, or is it all expended in the first attempt? These are important questions.

An analogy would be a game of pool played well, so that each shot sets up the next one till you clear the table. That's the kind of efficiency you need in a fight.

Not sure if I understood, but I think I agree.
I was trained to strike or grab in the way that requires less and less force. And I was trained to have 'always' a second plan to follow every 'move'. So I should use the initial force to the following move (that is faster ans easier). At the end is the same Ef = Total Power Output in the fight / Total Power Input in the fight. In theory. In practice, maybe we can measure it in damage caused / energy used....

 

[LFJ]

Efficiency in VT's core strategy is specific, not relative.

---Specific as a strategy...yes. But relative in application as I pointed out previously.

Don't generalize to all Wing Chun.

VT was designed for one end only: to end a fight quickly and decisively.

---Don't generalize to all Wing Chun. That may very well be true of WSLVT. But the Wing Chun I learned is broad enough to allow for "less than lethal" responses.

I said VT and in response to a thread that asks what something means to me.

I would not use VT on Uncle Ed.

---Then that must be because your VT does not allow for those kind of situations. That's a shame. That makes it sound rather one-dimensional.

Whatever. Takes a multi-dimensional MA and a big man to put a drunk uncle in his place.

Any non MAist could drop him on the couch and leave the room.

I would not use VT against a crazed killer with a knife.

---I agree it would have to be an "adapted" Wing Chun and not "classical" Wing Chun because Wing Chun was not designed with that situation in mind. But it can be done. I think Danny would agree with that!

Have you done it? How do you know it can be done?

To illustrate, one arm used with dual functions of attack and defense in a single beat direct to the target is most ideal. When met with obstruction, a jat or paak for example to open the line with one arm while striking with the other would be secondary, but most direct and efficient for that circumstance.

---I agree. But what if you do NOT actually want to strike the opponent solidly in the face? Or what if he is throwing a wide "loopy" punch?

If I'm in a serious scrap, I will want to strike the opponent solidly in the face, and I won't go chasing loopy punches.

No running outward to meet or guide attacks or taking wide detours when the line is free or can be made free with a more direct action.

----What if the direct line to the opponent is free, but something is coming at you quickly from another line at the same time?

Depends on the situation what I'd do, but it won't entail running outward to meet attacks.

---This is true. But unfortunately if someone wanted to mug you on the street they are liable to sucker punch you before you realize they are a threat. If someone wanted to knock you down with little threat to themselves they might very well smash you with a bat or a board before you realized they were a threat. That doesn't mean one wouldn't train to defend oneself against an attack with a bat, or a board, or a knife.

And if someone wanted to shoot me, they'd do it from a distance. What Wing Chun training ideas have you got for that?

If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

---Ideally yes. But would you want to bet your life on being able to "be out of there" without defending yourself first??

I'm not gonna fight a guy with a knife who's not attacking me. If he wanted to stab me, like I said, it would likely happen before I knew there was a threat.

Given response time, I'd be giving up my wallet or using an equalizer, not chasing a knife hand. Even if you got control of the hand, the knife could switch hands very quickly and you'd be full of holes before you noticed.

Fortunately, I live in a safe place that is densely populated but with 0 gun crime and very low violent crime rates, especially against foreigners.

 

[KPM]

Impressive! LFJ, you responded to an entire post and I don't think you answered a single question I asked or responded with any real information to any point that I made. You called me several choice names when you thought I had done exactly what you just did in your response! But I won't repeat them here. Talk about ironic!

 

[LFJ]

You mean you want me to give you a specific response to a hypothetical situation? That's not how VT works. Sounds like you are fishing for ideas on dealing with looping punches, since your idea is impractical. Why don't you ask your kung-fu-online mentor you give money to?

 

[KPM]

You mean you want me to give you a specific response to a hypothetical situation? That's not how VT works. Sounds like you are fishing for ideas on dealing with looping punches, since your idea is impractical. Why don't you ask your kung-fu-online mentor you give money to?

You are pathetic man. You really are!

 

[guy b.]

You are pathetic man. You really are!

KPM please stop trolling these threads.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You are pathetic man. You really are!

Is this an efficient way of martial talking?

 

[Danny T]

No. I'd probably just push him down on the coach and leave the room.

That is a possibility if he is so drunk as to be just stumbling around.
I don't know your uncle Ed, my uncle Ed is just a hot head who looses his cool a lot. We don't just push him down and we don't just finish him.

In all likelihood, if someone wanted to stab me, the knife would be between my ribs before I ever knew there was a threat.

If someone flashed a knife at me, it'd probably be to intimidate more than to actually kill me, in which case I'd be out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Yes this is a strong likely hood... And is why I specifically asked "even if you are unable to get away?"
I'm still here having been stabbed in the right side (thought I had been punched). I stopped the guy by fighting back. So I reiterate the question. Even if you can not get away?

Well, I see a lot of the opposite in Wing Chun.

Instead of jat or paak or a sharp bong to open the line and continue direct striking when a punch is interrupted or line obstructed, people will sometimes change to bong-sau and try to divert the incoming force "passively" and even rotate themselves off line, changing footwork, structure, and angles, then laap before getting another strike in.

Typical Wing Chun move. It's much more than necessary. A lot of superfluous movement and two consecutive defensive actions when unnecessary. Inefficient.

Agreed, "IF" the line is controlled or opened. If not then something else happens.
I think others do the same. It is the old 'what if' that is always there. What is the situation, what is the pressure, where is the force going, what is the opponent doing (how are they adjusting as well as how are you adjusting? We deal with what is actually happening and I believe you so as well. As that happens you will do something that in relation to the original move is not so efficient but is because of the every changing dynamics of fighting.

 

[LFJ]

That is a possibility if he is so drunk as to be just stumbling around.
I don't know your uncle Ed, my uncle Ed is just a hot head who looses his cool a lot. We don't just push him down and we don't just finish him.

I don't associate with drunks or hotheads, even if it were Uncle Ed. If he attacked me and I couldn't just drop him on the couch and leave, I would be fine ending his night early. Might upset Aunt Edith, but I'd probably be better off without them around.

Yes this is a strong likely hood... And is why I specifically asked "even if you are unable to get away?"
I'm still here having been stabbed in the right side (thought I had been punched). I stopped the guy by fighting back. So I reiterate the question. Even if you can not get away?

2nd Amendment or other equalizer is better than VT (more efficient too).

Agreed, "IF" the line is controlled or opened. If not then something else happens.

That something else doesn't have to be an abandonment of VT strategy. Some abandon principles at step 1.

 

[KPM]

KPM please stop trolling these threads.

I will defend myself when you guys keep calling me names and accusing me of things I didn't do. So YOU stop trolling these threads with things of that nature and we won't have a problem!

 

[Danny T]

If he attacked me and I couldn't just drop him on the couch and leave, I would be fine ending his night early. Might upset Aunt Edith, but I'd probably be better off without them around.

But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)

2nd Amendment or other equalizer is better than VT (more efficient too).

Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?
You've been attacked you may have been stabbed and the guy is still attempting to introduce new holes in your body? Come now what do you do? The second amendment doesn't automatically place your firearm in your hand or any other equalizer. And even then you have to be able to deploy whatever. What allows that to happen for you? Your wc doesn't manifest in some form right? No footwork, no body movement or mechanics, no wc isn't used in any manner...

That something else doesn't have to be an abandonment of VT strategy. Some abandon principles at step 1.

...and some don't.

You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.

 

[mograph]

Efficiency = Power Out / Power In
If you transmit all your power in your target (or you do what you want without power (energy...) losses), 100% efficiency. (what never happens) If you lose energy heating too much your body or contracting useless muscles, <100% efficiency obviously, but higher with "less and less" energy losses. If you miss your target (or a good target by chance), nearly 0% efficiency.

Agreed: it's akin to a signal-to-noise metaphor. A process is efficient if the energy spent in actions in aid of its purpose (the signal) is greater than that spent in its actions contrary/orthogonal/irrelevant to its purpose. The punch moves from here-to-there very smoothly, without wavering or unnecessary tension, for example.

But effectiveness is (mostly) unrelated to efficiency: it measures the effect of the process on the object. It measures how much the opponent is affected by the technique: the opponent is stopped or injured, for example. If a punch killed the opponent, it could be argued that it is highly effective even though it may have involved a lot of tension and unnecessary movement. It could also be argued that such an effective punch might have to be delivered by a muscular hulk, while the thinner and lighter among us would need efficiency to deliver such an effective punch, since we have limited physical resources.

I see a Venn diagram with two circles intersecting: one represents efficient techniques, the other represents effective techniques. A good technique, useful to a broad range of martial artists, may lie in the intersection, being both efficient and effective.

 

[guy b.]

But you already stated you wouldn't use wc chun so again what would you use? (that you are fine with ending his night early with)

Lol, where are you trying to get with this? He's already said that silly drunk old uncle Ed would get pushed back down on the couch, no VT required, while nasty dangerous drunk uncle Ed would get treated just the same as any other violent attacker. I'm guessing in the second case that they wouldn't be invited back for Christmas next year.

It is literally insane to try and split hairs and identify reasonably dangerous drunk uncle Ed that I still want to keep in touch with as the ideal victim for this kind of crazy wing chun as grappling/restraint thing the forum seems to want to give birth to.

Provided you had an equalizer and even more importantly could access it. What happens in the mean time?
You've been attacked you may have been stabbed and the guy is still attempting to introduce new holes in your body? Come now what do you do? The second amendment doesn't automatically place your firearm in your hand or any other equalizer. And even then you have to be able to deploy whatever. What allows that to happen for you? Your wc doesn't manifest in some form right? No footwork, no body movement or mechanics, no wc isn't used in any manner.

As any other surprised potential murder victim you attempt to fight or plead for your life against massive odds, and 99 times out of 100 you lose and die. Not many people come off best against weapons without weapons. Just doesn't happen. Again not really a big gap into which wing chun can be inserted as the answer.

You are playing same aloof game in your answers as your complaints of others now.

I think he's just being realistic. Why torture reality in these scenarios and assume you are going to get point by point replies?

 

[geezer]

Mograph, You presented a good way of looking at it. Mechanical efficiency + effectiveness at accomplishing your objective = good technique. I was using the term "efficiency" more broadly to describe accomplishing an objective with the least net input of energy ...or pretty much the same thing as what you defined as the intersection of simple mechanical efficiency and effectiveness i.e. "good technique".

Efficiency of a given technique is pretty simple to judge. What is far more complex is the efficiency of a martial arts system. Some martial arts aren't really "systems" at all, but rather a collection of techniques that cover a variety of situations executed with a particular flavor or flair. According to the perspective of my old WT sifu, this kind of martial art is more accurately referred to as a "style". Other martial arts have greater degrees of coherence, being built on a unifying foundation of specific principles, and could merit the term "system". WC/VT is in this latter group, and IMO good WC/VT is one of the most tightly integrated martial systems out there. And, properly done it demonstrates a high level of systemic efficiency.

Honestly, I've got a head-cold and attempting to explain WC's systemic efficiency is more than I'm up to. I will say that emphasis on this varies, but tends to be strong in all the WC lineages I have seen. I know that some of you guys believe very strongly that your particular branch has the most refined and effective systemic efficiency. Feel free to pick up from here. Or anybody else...