Explosive Forward Movement (use your head!)

[Bhassler]

In both golf and baseball the head translates (moves in space without changing orientation) with the weight shift. The shift of the head happens before the club or bat hits the ball.

[everything]

you're right. here's a pic of tiger with some reference lines showing his head movement.

however, I think his hips lead and his head is shifted by that body movement. if he put his intent in his head to lead the movement, things would be screwed up. i have no idea how he does it, though... it's amazing.

[cdobe]

cdobe,

As for the Krav guys, whom I have tons of respect for, they aren't so much charging into an attack that they themselves are initiating so much as charging into a committed attack by an opponent, most of the time at least.

And that's exactly what I meant, Chris. What seems to be different to what you described earlier, is that they do not create an opening before they commit themselves, but while they are charging into the attack.

Under such circumstances, i.e., where the other guy has already made a committed attack of his own, responding with whole-body movement can be just what the doctor ordered. That very same strategy is mirrored in neijia as well, and can be extremely effective. However, if you watch how they train to initiate their own attacks (as opposed to countering one from the opponent), they typically follow the same general strategy that you will find in Western Boxing/Muay Thai/MMA. Sometimes it can be a committed attack, but often it's prefaced with an opening strike of some kind, such as a jab.

It's very true that a duelling or sport type of fight makes a huge difference. But again, one of the potentially succesful tactics in this scenario is to charge into your opponent to get into a grappling situation, in order to take his punching tactic away from him.

In that sense, I don't necessarily see what I'm advocating and what the Krav Maga guys are doing as particularly in conflict. If the other guy has already made his committed move, I would say it can certainly be appropriate to respond with whole-body movement, but IMO/IME, initiating a committed whole-body attack from long-range before the opponent has committed himself to anything at all, or without creating/opportunizing on an opening, quite often results in being slipped, evaded, dodged, blocked, parried, etc. and in being counterstruck. And without a whole lot of effort/luck on the part of the opponent.

This is where it's important IMO to take the IMA principle of whole-body movement in context with other possibilities which may be happening simultaneously. It's very much like the Baguazhang principle of 'Take the Center from the First Motion'. It's great when you can get it, but in reality, you can't always get it no matter how good you are. It's another of many Platonic ideals in IMA that, even if they can't be perfectly manifested at all times and under all circumstances, still represent goals of perfection worth training for.

I personally (and this is an information ) work with the concept of priorities to deal with this reality. That means the first priority, when I make contact with my attacker is not to get hit, the next priority is taking the opponents balance. It still happens simultaneously. But when I happen not to take the opponents balance, I still don't get hit. I use this concept for teaching as stages of a progression. The student first learns to deflect the attack and then, when he can do this very well he learns how to take the opponent's balance with the same motion. This way the student learns how to defend himself from day one and over time adds something to it as his skills develop.

CD

[DeusTrismegistus]

you're right. here's a pic of tiger with some reference lines showing his head movement.

however, I think his hips lead and his head is shifted by that body movement. if he put his intent in his head to lead the movement, things would be screwed up. i have no idea how he does it, though... it's amazing.

The head moves along with the center and the spine in the golf swing. The backswing is initiated by rotation of the hips and shoulders around the spine and the the shift of the weight to the right foot. The downswing is initiated by the shift of the weight forward which is followed by the waist unwinding, the arms turning over, the wrist following through, and just before impact the shoulders hips and arms should move as one unit again. The head only looks up after impact as the coiling of the body in the follow through pulls it up. When players think about consciously creating the weight shift they usually start with the head and move too far and sway back and forth.

[Sprint]

Sprint,

I worded myself, as I nearly always do, very carefully. I didn't say it was "OK" (or not), all I said was that it was not trolling, which it isn't. Whether it is "OK" or not depends entirely on whether or not the criticism is valid. If not, then it's not OK in that it is not accurate. If it is, then it is entirely appropriate to the discussion. It is a case of, "If the shoe fits, wear it." If it does not, then provide a convincing refutation and ignore it.

Your opinion OK if criticism valid ; not OK if invalid because it is inaccurate. So "You don't really understand whole body movement" is OK if valid and not OK if invalid. It is my opinion:

"If the shoe fits, wear it." If it does not, then provide a convincing refutation and [or] ignore it.

Capiche?

No, that's just you being an asshole and putting words in my mouth again.

So what? I 'm an asshole for asking questions? This is trolling by your definition. So OK for you but not anyone else.

Discuss something objectively, i.e., not ad hominem, and it's acceptable whether it is accurate or not....

Calling someone an asshole is ad hominem or not?

And likewise your continued asinine behavior after being very politely asked to have an objective discussion is also quite revealing. It looks like you simply confirmed that you were only trolling after all. Too bad.

Like I said who's calling who the asshole?

All I am doing is holding up a mirror pal, if you don't like what you see, whose fault is that?

[Wanderingdragon]

There ya go, Deus. Kudos for actually trying it out. What you experienced may be all there is to "feel". And yeah, the head isn't really going to go anywhere without having to drag the spine along with it. That's why, when we talk about exploring it, it's worth opening up your observations for discussion and new insights. You also experienced one of the possible exceptions to the principle....namely, that of rotating the whole body on the vertical axis. It is possible to include whole body movement without leading with the head if the movement involves rotating about the axis described and defined by the spine. Maybe that little discovery wouldn't have been made if you hadn't explored it a bit yourself.

Where we still generally do see the leading with the head/spine is when moving the whole body from A to B on a plane described by the floor or ground. One can rotate on an axis and move in place without moving to another point on that plane. Once you decide to move from A to B, though, you will likely see some involvement, however elegantly minimized, of the head/spine in initiating the body's movement.

I will try to pay more attention to this tidbit especially while sparring and watching others spar. I tried the walking thing as well and from standing in a shoulder width stance my head moves over whichever foot stay stationary while I step forward, however again the movement is connected with my spine and my center.

I think the confusion may lie in what we mean by leading. Leading can mean initiating a movement, which it sounds like that is what Steve Morris was referring to in his article that Tom linked, or it can mean the head moves in front of the rest of the body. I will explore more over the next few days.

Good work Deus, Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner, seems like you're into it though. Like I think I said it doesn't mean hanging your head out there like a troglodite, just that your head dictates the center, I look at it like a gyroscope. I would suggest that you will not be able to pay attention while sparring, yet this is why most internal arts are studied at differing speeds, in effort to recognize the machanics involved, when applying these machanics there will bew no thought necessary as they have been "internalized"... There I said it, any way on further study we start to understand more what center is and the connection involved , hence "sitting at your desk , pointing your finger" should involve whole body motion be it simply in connection. I think it takes us a while to understand whole body movement does not always mean big body movement. The greatest example is a baby grabbing your finger , it is his whole body that creates that amazing grip

[Chris McKinley]

cdobe,

RE: "What seems to be different to what you described earlier, is that they do not create an opening before they commit themselves, but while they are charging into the attack.". Ah, ok, I see what you're saying. I'll grant you this...if you're able to create your opening on the way in, then you pretty much are satisfying my prerequisites, so to speak. It's not so important when or how. But that is different than merely executing a committed attack from long range. How?

1) You are creating an opening on your way in. That kinda has to be done anyway, since in a real situation things move so fast that you don't have time to create an opening from the safety of long range, then move in and attack as a separate and distinct movement. So far, so good.

2) As I mentioned before, the Krav guys are taking advantage of an already existing opening in the other guy's defenses by virtue of the fact that they are responding to his committed attack when they do their charging in. They don't charge in when the other guy is still standing there uncommitted and ready for anything. They burst in, as they call it, when the guy makes his committed move. That commitment opens up a hole in his structure and momentum that can be exploited, which is generally what the Krav guys are doing there.

With those things being true, they're pretty much in line with what I'm advocating, or to be fair, you could also say that my recommendations are in line with what they are already doing.

RE: "But again, one of the potentially succesful tactics in this scenario is to charge into your opponent to get into a grappling situation, in order to take his punching tactic away from him.". Very good point, and entirely valid. This is why I didn't include initiating committed attacks from short range, for instance, because often there isn't the time to adapt, flow around, parry, block, counter, etc. in the same way that there is when the attack is coming in committed from long range. Closing the distance first, and then initiating your attack, whether striking or grappling or some combo thereof is a much better idea than initiating it from long range, generally, as long as you keep in mind that the advantage works both ways.

Still, it's worth noting that charging in from long range with the intent to force the opponent into grappling is the very tactic that got a lot of early UFC grappling-only guys clobbered once combo grappler/strikers like Bas Ruten arrived on the scene. The BJJ guy would attempt to go to grappling from long range repeatedly and get nailed on the way in. That's why it's considered de rigeur in MMA these days to close to clinch and draw a response from the opponent first, and then go for the shoot.

RE: "The student first learns to deflect the attack and then, when he can do this very well he learns how to take the opponent's balance with the same motion.". This sounds exactly like the strategy taught in Baguazhang: Get out of the Trajectory of the Weapon, and Take the Center from the First Motion. It's also known as moving to a position of "fence", in European martial terms. I think we are in fairly close accord in this. I'm glad you took the time to detail it, thanks.

[Chris McKinley]

Sprint,

RE: "Your opinion OK if criticism valid ; not OK if invalid because it is inaccurate. So "You don't really understand whole body movement" is OK if valid and not OK if invalid. It is my opinion". You may be surprised, but my answer is "yes". It happens not to be true in my case, but if it were, it would be a valid criticism. The real point that seems to have escaped you, though, is that you have absolutely nothing to base that criticism on, and simply generated it out of the blue. That's what makes it subjective. That it's also derogatory to me personally, rather than as a categorical statement, is what makes it ad hominem.

RE: "So what? I 'm an asshole for asking questions?". No, dumbass, you're an asshole for putting words in my mouth and in the process of doing so, also accusing me of condoning racism. There wasn't even a question mark involved, you just flat stated it. Just so I don't forget to mention it, you're also an asshole for refusing to engage in civil discussion of the matter when explicitly and very politely asked to do so.

RE: "Calling someone an asshole is ad hominem or not?". Sure it is. It's just not an unprovoked attack like yours were. See, I didn't fire first, you did. If you're drawing some kind of moral equivalency between leveling an unprovoked ad hominem criticism at someone, and that person responding in kind to a personal attack, you are grossly mistaken.

I think I've wasted enough bandwidth on responding to an outed troll at this point. I'll go ahead and give you the opportunity to appear to have 'zinged' me by getting the last word in, since I'm done posting to you on this thread. If you want to start fresh, from a civil perspective, on another thread, I might consider responding to you again. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything to be gained for either of us nor any of the other readers by continuing this nonsense.

[Sprint]

Sprint,
The real point that seems to have escaped you, though, is that you have absolutely nothing to base that criticism on, and simply generated it out of the blue.

You have posted on the subject on this forum. After reading what you had written I decided your knowledge was probably lacking. I still think that. So again there is a lack of precision in what you write. Anyway I would not have bothered, but for your blanket assertion about neijia. Which as we now know was factually incorrect.

That's what makes it subjective.

Yes, that's right opinions usually are subjective. You think it's OK for you to say what you think. However when an opinion is voiced that you don't like, all your toys get thrown out the pram.

That it's also derogatory to me personally, rather than as a categorical statement, is what makes it ad hominem.

It is only derrogatory to you because you choose to view it that way. And you view it that way because you see yourself as an expert with nothing left to learn. Yet this so called expert gets hysterical when confronted by even the slightest criticism. That's impressive.

"So what? I 'm an asshole for asking questions?". No, dumbass, you're an asshole for putting words in my mouth and in the process of doing so, also accusing me of condoning racism. There wasn't even a question mark involved, you just flat stated it. Just so I don't forget to mention it, you're also an asshole for refusing to engage in civil discussion of the matter when explicitly and very politely asked to do so.

You are right, I missed out the question mark. But don't you think calling someone an asshole for not being civil is just a tad ironic? Just a thought.

"Calling someone an asshole is ad hominem or not?". Sure it is. It's just not an unprovoked attack like yours were. See, I didn't fire first, you did. If you're drawing some kind of moral equivalency between leveling an unprovoked ad hominem criticism at someone, and that person responding in kind to a personal attack, you are grossly mistaken.

See the thing is Chris you started it by making a criticism about a group of people. You confuse your opinion with fact. In your (limited) experience what you and some of your friends have found is that all the neijia people you have come across can't fight. And so for you this is a fact that applies to all Neijia. When presented with evidence that maybe what you had said was not quite as accurate as you had imagined, you tried to suggest that this exception was too tiny to give any weight to. And that's the flaw Chris, you are not dealing with facts, just your own opinion. But what you wrote about whole body movement is again based on your opinion - only your experience - not the facts.

[everything]

you're right. here's a pic of tiger with some reference lines showing his head movement.

however, I think his hips lead and his head is shifted by that body movement. if he put his intent in his head to lead the movement, things would be screwed up. i have no idea how he does it, though... it's amazing.

The head moves along with the center and the spine in the golf swing. The backswing is initiated by rotation of the hips and shoulders around the spine and the the shift of the weight to the right foot. The downswing is initiated by the shift of the weight forward which is followed by the waist unwinding, the arms turning over, the wrist following through, and just before impact the shoulders hips and arms should move as one unit again. The head only looks up after impact as the coiling of the body in the follow through pulls it up. When players think about consciously creating the weight shift they usually start with the head and move too far and sway back and forth.

ah, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!