Peng Jin?

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

I've tried to be as polite and respectful as possible on this thread, but the fact is you can't explain complex human movement biomechanicaly within the limited terms your talking about Michael. You're not discussing the mechanical systems involved, you're not talking about movement at any given joint, there's no discussion of anatomical planes, no use of anatomical direction.

It is almost always more beneficial to talk about the end movement as a whole. This is true of any sport or activity. If you do archery, the instructor won't talk to you about isometrically contracting your supporting arm's musculature while concentrically contracting the trap, supraspinatous etc, in order to move the bow string in directly away from the the bow, etc etc so an and so forth.

An even simpler example. If you were to teach somebody the concentric phase of a bench press, would you say "place your body in a supine position, glenohumeral joint horizontally abducted and rotated, acromio clavicular joint stabilising. Isometrically contract the traps to stabilise the scapulothoracic joint. 90° of flexion at the elbow joint. Now effect a curvilinear motion of the bar by horizontally adducting the glenohumeral joint while simultaneously extending the elbow joint"?


There is not much to be gained from talking to people like that. As mellor said, train the movement.

I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that you feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to your training

We have already discussed this and I did answer you on it. As you didn't come back to me to discuss it further, I felt that you might have taken my point on board. I will answer again and if you disagree, then we can drill down further and the discussion can progress instead of coming back to it again.

I think you feel that in order to teach a movement using sports terminology, you feel obliged to list all the muscles used for stability and movement.

Instead I feel that in order to teach the movement, as well as demonstrating, explaining in plain English and practising, we can also use terminology from sports science but only need to list the Prime Movers (The primary muscles used for movement).

Are you saying there is no middle ground between literally telling the student what to do/using metaphors and explaining complex human movement in its biomechanical entirety?

I can live with the fact that you get the impression that I feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to my training. :rolleyes:

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

We have already discussed this and I did answer you on it. As you didn't come back to me to discuss it further, I felt that you might have taken my point on board. I will answer again and if you disagree, then we can drill down further and the discussion can progress instead of coming back to it again.

I think you feel that in order to teach a movement using sports terminology, you feel obliged to list all the muscles used for stability and movement.

Instead I feel that in order to teach the movement, as well as demonstrating, explaining in plain English and practising, we can also use terminology from sports science but only need to list the Prime Movers (The primary muscles used for movement).

Are you saying there is no middle ground between literally telling the student what to do/using metaphors and explaining complex human movement in its biomechanical entirety?

I can live with the fact that you get the impression that I feel these sort of descriptions lend merit to my training. :rolleyes:

OK.

I don't feel that you need to list every muscle used for stability and movement. Nor do I feel that you need to explain every type of contraction used by these muscles.

I do think that if you want to describe human movement, instead of using the contraction of muscles as your basis, you need to describe joint movement. The terms should be flexion, extension, adduction, abduction, depression, elevation, circumduction, inversion, eversion etc., as these more properly describe the movement effected by those muscle contractions.

I also believe that actually using these terms adds nothing to further the understanding of the general practitioner's understanding of any given activity. Why tell anybody to planter flex the ankle when you can tell them to point their toes.

There may be some benefit to this if a high level athlete is working with a biomechanics expert to fix certain aspects of a closed skill, but essentially what I am saying is I don't think you need to find a middle ground in your ma teaching. Plain English will more than suffice. It does for all other activities.

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

OK.

There may be some benefit to this if a high level athlete is working with a biomechanics expert to fix certain aspects of a closed skill

I think that was kinda the OP's intention. Save change it slightly....

There may be some benefit to this if a high level CMA practitioner is exchanging with a tai chi chuan expert (as the subject matter is "peng jin" ) to figure out certain aspects of a gung fu skill.

I think the use of sport science jargon was an effort to communicate accross styles, as cma styles are full of their own specialised jargon.
Clearly this didnt work as this whole thread is like John Wayne stepping off the train in "the quiet man".


Look, OP, im guessing you are suggesting that contracting the yin areas of the body to absorb force will necessarily produce a "bounce" "ward off" when put under pressure from an attack. Thats true, but its not peng , it would be considered "double weighted" as it restricts the ability to turn and change. And it can be used against the fighter as its reaction is predictable. And therefore contradicts the xuan xuan guideline.
The opposite in fact is used, a reaching out / espansion through the yang areas of the body, this allows a yielding transformation to take place in a circle and so to empty the opponent, redirect and issue him into the void. A key definition lies in the classic the fighters song that begins : "peng lu ji an must be taken seriously" (conscious action) .... so theres no deadness (yin) in the yi which a non-reactive but pre-reactive yin guard kinda is.
If the "jin can be broken but the yi unbroken" then it necessitates softness / ability to transform and change. That cannot be done when the yi is actively closing . For example the idea of the "suspended headtop" is all about agility, so an open spine is key to change. Drawing in / closing prior to the need to do so (you can of course during the process of hua jin, but there one has already adhered and has "ting jin") just to be able to meet a preceived attack goes against nei jia principal. it will restrict our ability to move in any direction, and prevent us from ting jin.
And that is a key difference between external and internal. its the whole idea of using softness to overcome hardness.

As for sending an opponent flying in tuishou.... the exaferated sh1t isnt worth considering, it is a misreadibg of the general theory of manipulating the opponet to align his structure so it is yin or dead and tied up and then at that precise moment to issue i the direction of his void. The simple idea being to prevent him from the ability to absorb the force.

Combined with subtle cai lang methods the effect can be dramatic o the opppnent but not hollywood dramatic. Just sweet moves.

Now i could be way off on what you were trying to say.... as sport science jargon aint my thing, so just use the cma jargon, if i dont get something ill ask.

And yea... im sure johnny jones or whoever never used such jargon either. though i know a few UFC and lads whove fought UFC lads would be very familiar with cma jargon. Fcukin book learning though! Why would you want to study your own delivery system? And those judo and bjj tossers using japanese terms for throws are just as bad. bet johnny jones stuck to his english pal! dont even get me started on the muay thai lads, ffs! Worse than the japanese terms, thats a third world language ffs!
Fcukon book learning!!!

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

I do think that if you want to describe human movement, instead of using the contraction of muscles as your basis, you need to describe joint movement,,,,as these more properly describe the movement effected by those muscle contractions.

In relation to our discussion, we seem to have three main options when it comes to explaining martial art movements. I underlined explaining as that is what we are disagreeing upon. Both of us would agree on the value of demonstrating movements and letting the student get a feeling for the movement by practising with us or with other student.

A - Using plain English
Sometimes you say this will more than suffice. Sometimes you say it is usually plain English that works best for you. (I would be interested in what you do when plain English does not work best for you).

B - Using terminology to describe the type of contraction which the primary muscles are under
I feel that this is necessary when plain English is not enough.

C - Using terminology to describe joint movement
You feel this more properly describes movement/is more accurate but is less easily understood than my way of describing the contraction of the primary muscles.

I don't accept that joint movement as a description for human movement is more (or less) accurate than muscular contraction. It depends on what we are trying to describe. The use of the term "flexion" might describe the decrease in angle at the elbow and shoulder joint as the arm comes closer to the body but can it or any of terms in relation to joint movement describe the arm being pushed closed to the body under a spring like pressure? Terms to describe the various types of muscular contraction can!

Also remember that we are not comparing joint movement versus muscular contraction in isolation. Referring to muscular contraction by explanation alone to describe a movement would have its limitations. However referring to muscular contraction to describe a movement along with using plain English, demonstrating the movement and letting the student get a feel for the movement, will easily make up for any lack of what you feel is accuracy when compared to joint movement as a description.

Given that our aim as martial art teachers is to increase our student's understanding of martial arts movements, is it not logical that in those cases where plain English is not enough, you would not trade (what you feel is) accuracy for greater understanding?

Niall and Mellor - I will come back to later on your points.

cletus

Michael, with reference to point a, this is more semantics than a dichotomy on my behalf. Basically I believe plain English to be the best method of explaining any set of movements. This doesn't mean that I might not suggest to somebody that they " extend their arm more" when, for example taking a shot in basketball, but I think this is still substantially closer to everyday conversational English than the type of explanations for muscle contraction you used in opening this thread.

Re muscle contraction vs joint movement, its not that I think that its more accurate to use the terms I listed above to describe movement, it just factually is. However, I highlighted this to show that in abstract, if you wanted to speak about movement, this would technically be the terminology you would use, not that I prefer to use it in teaching than you muscle contraction explanations.

Finally, as to what I use when English isn't enough, I come back to the beginning of my post. Sometimes I may use the word extend when I want a student to straighten an arm or leg more fully than they are currently in a given skill/technique, but apart from that my instructions are in English, eg bring you arm back here, put your foot forward a little more, drop your hips. All of which are accompanied by a demonstration by either myself or another student

cletus

Niall Keane wrote: »

And yea... im sure johnny jones or whoever never used such jargon either. though i know a few UFC and lads whove fought UFC lads would be very familiar with cma jargon. Fcukin book learning though! Why would you want to study your own delivery system? And those judo and bjj tossers using japanese terms for throws are just as bad. bet johnny jones stuck to his english pal! dont even get me started on the muay thai lads, ffs! Worse than the japanese terms, thats a third world language ffs!
Fcukon book learning!!!

Niall, I didn't understand any of the rest of your post, but I know a dig when I see one .

I have never properly studied either muay thai or judo, but with regards to bjj, any technique named in either Japanese or Portuguese is simply that, named. There is no esoteric Eastern or South American explanation proffered by way of explanation of the technique.

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

Re muscle contraction vs joint movement, its not that I think that its more accurate to use the terms I listed above to describe movement, it just factually is.

Using joint movement (flexion, extension, etc) as a reference to describe movement, are there any terms to describe the arm being pushed towards the body while it maintains a forward spring?

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Using joint movement (flexion, extension, etc) as a reference to describe movement, are there any terms to describe the arm being pushed towards the body while it maintains a forward spring?

It depends on the position of the arm, the plane of motion and the direction of the external force.

If you stand with your arms away from your body laterally at 90°and your palms facing the ground, then have somebody push the back of your hands down and towards your body while you resist, that could be called eccentric shoulder abduction, in that it would be the equivalent of the negative phase of the weights exercise known as a lateral raise.


For a compound motion, say the arm being bent at 45° at the elbow, and the shoulder being flexed to some degree, then having your opponent perhaps pin your arms back and to your side, you'd have to discuss each joint being affected by the external force

However ranges of flexion and extension for the shoulder complex aren't really well defined, given the make up of multiple joints acting at once.

Really it would easier to say as an opponent forces your arm down, you maintain pressure or force against the movement

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

If you stand with your arms away from your body laterally at 90°and your palms facing the ground, then have somebody push the back of your hands down and towards your body while you resist, that could be called eccentric shoulder abduction, in that it would be the equivalent of the negative phase of the weights exercise known as a lateral raise.


For a compound motion, say the arm being bent at 45° at the elbow, and the shoulder being flexed to some degree, then having your opponent perhaps pin your arms back and to your side, you'd have to discuss each joint being affected by the external force

However ranges of flexion and extension for the shoulder complex aren't really well defined, given the make up of multiple joints acting at once.

Really it would easier to say as an opponent forces your arm down, you maintain pressure or force against the movement

We are not comparing "plain English" here with muscular contraction. We are comparing muscular contraction with joint movement as a means to describe describe movement. You said joint movement is more accurate than muscular contraction but didn't say why or back it up.apart from "it just factually is". I disagree with this and am challenging your statement.

The use of terms to describe motion according to the anatomical plane is limited as it does not distinguish whether the agonists/prime movers are under concentric or eccentric contraction.

The use of terms to describe muscle action does distinguish between concentric and eccentric. Therefore for the purposes of describing the spring effect in Wing Tsun, muscular contraction is more accurate than joint movement.

cletus

Grand

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Therefore for the purposes of describing the spring effect in Wing Tsun, muscular contraction is more accurate than joint movement.

Only if we ignore the fact that what is being described doesn't actually happen. (refering to the bounce back force).

Also, You can't push something with eccentric contraction. Not possible. You also can't move a joint with eccentric contraction.

The spring metaphor has a purpose. But what the guy on the video was suggesting happens is the equivalent to a jumping on a spring, compressing it, then being bounced off, while the spring says compressed.
That's some magic spring you have there.

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

Niall, I didn't understand any of the rest of your post, but I know a dig when I see one .

I have never properly studied either muay thai or judo, but with regards to bjj, any technique named in either Japanese or Portuguese is simply that, named. There is no esoteric Eastern or South American explanation proffered by way of explanation of the technique.

Ah. Im just "using the dao of the opponent" against him.... dishing back what ive received, cant help it been conditioned that way :-)

But... doesnt bjj come from judo, and judo from jujitsu? And i believe theres a fair bit of esoteric writings on the application of martial art and mindset written from takuan to musashi.
Id imagine any serious student of such methods has at least the curiosity to read and reread such?
And as jujitsu came from nei jia chuan with Chen Yuanbin in Nagasaki, i would be indeed surprised if specialised movement dynamics and drills for training such were not a part of the syllabus.
I do personally know a judo man who was an olympic bronze medalist who has deep knowledge of such. But he spent a long time in Japan too, and that was the 60s and 70s . Perhaps like so mich of culture it has been dumbed down to become salable comodities for the losest common denominator?
I dont know? The mma revolution was a welcome and necessary event, but if it goes too far and throws the baby out with the bathwater... perhaps we get another cultural revolution?
There certainly seems to be a lot o feinventing the wheel about with martial artists seeking "old school" methods to gain an edge.

Doug Cartel

The language barrier makes judo jargon sound a lot more complicated than it is. Basically you have a few key words like wheel, carry, lift and drop which refer to the basic shape/action of the throw, and a few words to describe directions and body parts. At a slightly higher level you have ideas like moving your body with one motion and the phases of throws (recognise/create opportunity, move into position, do the throw.)

Most of these things you just get a feel for. People like to talk about them in detail, but I don't think any amount of technical description is going to get someone who hasn't trained some judo first hand to understand what judo-people are talking about when they use the terms. I assume that someone with experience in another style that involves throwing would only need a few sessions to get a feeling for what they mean. For most beginners though it takes ages to understand, though once you do it all seems quite obvious.

Niall Keane

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The language barrier makes judo jargon sound a lot more complicated than it is. Basically you have a few key words like wheel, carry, lift and drop which refer to the basic shape/action of the throw, and a few words to describe directions and body parts. At a slightly higher level you have ideas like moving your body with one motion and the phases of throws (recognise/create opportunity, move into position, do the throw.)

Most of these things you just get a feel for. People like to talk about them in detail, but I don't think any amount of technical description is going to get someone who hasn't trained some judo first hand to understand what judo-people are talking about when they use the terms. I assume that someone with experience in another style that involves throwing would only need a few sessions to get a feeling for what they mean. For most beginners though it takes ages to understand, though once you do it all seems quite obvious.

Now just apply the same to cma and you have it exactly. ;-)

With the exception that there are hundreds of cmas with their own jargon. We call it all gung fu, but Chinas population dwarfs Europe, and we dont exactly all speak the same language here, so i guess we shouldnt expect otherwise there. But.... people do?
Im not refering to your post now but the general sad state of affairs of gung fu in the west.... too many "masters" borrowed this and that from here and there to sound knowledgeable and made simple skillful martial ability with useful jargon for the practitioners into newage rubbish.
Put it this way, ive more fingers than there are genuine gung fu teachers in this country .... yet we have a school in every village. People have been taught muck, no wonder they now view it all as dirt.

cletus

Niall Keane wrote: »

Ah. Im just "using the dao of the opponent" against him.... dishing back what ive received, cant help it been conditioned that way :-)

But... doesnt bjj come from judo, and judo from jujitsu? And i believe theres a fair bit of esoteric writings on the application of martial art and mindset written from takuan to musashi.
Id imagine any serious student of such methods has at least the curiosity to read and reread such?
And as jujitsu came from nei jia chuan with Chen Yuanbin in Nagasaki, i would be indeed surprised if specialised movement dynamics and drills for training such were not a part of the syllabus.
I do personally know a judo man who was an olympic bronze medalist who has deep knowledge of such. But he spent a long time in Japan too, and that was the 60s and 70s . Perhaps like so mich of culture it has been dumbed down to become salable comodities for the losest common denominator?
I dont know? The mma revolution was a welcome and necessary event, but if it goes too far and throws the baby out with the bathwater... perhaps we get another cultural revolution?
There certainly seems to be a lot o feinventing the wheel about with martial artists seeking "old school" methods to gain an edge.

Again, as I said, I can't speak for judo (Doug has that pretty much covered anyway), but in bjj there is no convoluted language to explain techniques or theories. I am aware of the connection to judo, and as a person interested in the sport, I would have read around the subject myself, but its not taught as part of class, and I can't say that I have any knowledge of the jujutsu / CMA connection you spoke of.

Completely out of curiosity, do you speak in class the same way you write posts on here

Also, meant to say, I would consider myself to be reasonably well educated and well read, likewise the other posters on this threas so I'm not sure the "lowest common denominator" comment was completely called for

Niall Keane

cletus wrote: »

Again, as I said, I can't speak for judo (Doug has that pretty much covered anyway), but in bjj there is no convoluted language to explain techniques or theories. I am aware of the connection to judo, and as a person interested in the sport, I would have read around the subject myself, but its not taught as part of class, and I can't say that I have any knowledge of the jujutsu / CMA connection you spoke of.

Completely out of curiosity, do you speak in class the same way you write posts on here

Also, meant to say, I would consider myself to be reasonably well educated and well read, likewise the other posters on this threas so I'm not sure the "lowest common denominator" comment was completely called for

Like Doug said about Judo....
Its not "convoluted" its simply jargon well understood by those inside a system.
I wouldnt speak like that in class to people who would find it "convoluted" but i would to adepts who understand the lingo. It adds a multilayered shorthand precision they relate to.

As for the lcd comment. It was aimed at the earlier trolls who "dont mean to... BUT..." the tap out brigade, who have done a handful of classes and sparring sessions and suddenly know all about everything. They are like a virus on this board. how many fcukin timea have i had to explain that ive fought and trained fighters..nearly every time i post abiut tai chi. Think about how tired that becomes, like im too old to deal with teenage bs. They pre-judge without any knowledge about a subject and so logically we have prejudice and that is a paragon of ignorance and belongs to the mob mentality.... its emotionally weak seeking safety in catch cries, it lacks education and abhores that which it lacks, it borrows the tigers terror, like "jon jones"... athletes who skill level is so beyond them that there is really no or infinticimal difference between them and jon jones and between the worst aikido or tai chi and jon jones. But they claim brand affinity in what they and jones does. Thats as pathetic a mentality any male could possibly exhibit, anathema to a fighter's whonstands on his own achievements. So sorry if you felt i was addressing you there, i wasnt , i have found your posts reasonable like i afore said .... "fair enough, cant argue with that".
I can see you are carrying baggage about tma. But... like you conveyed a hell a lot of it is total bs. And you actually poised questions rather than play the gallery with cheap generalisations.
On bjj. I could be well wrong. But didnt the gracies have some equivilent of "classics" they wrote on bjj methods?
And ive heard all sort of esoteric way out **** like 9th planet moves or somethibg etc. wtf??? ;-)

Doug Cartel

Niall, haters are always going to hate. That's just the way the world works.

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

Only if we ignore the fact that what is being described doesn't actually happen. (refering to the bounce back force).

Also, You can't push something with eccentric contraction. Not possible. You also can't move a joint with eccentric contraction.

The spring metaphor has a purpose. But what the guy on the video was suggesting happens is the equivalent to a jumping on a spring, compressing it, then being bounced off, while the spring says compressed.
That's some magic spring you have there.

Howya Mellor,

You have a valid point.

I clarified that the use of terms to describe movement according to the anatomical plane is limited as it does not distinguish whether the agonists/prime movers are under concentric or eccentric contraction. I also stated that as the use of terms to describe muscle action does distinguish between concentric and eccentric and therefore for the purposes of describing the spring effect in Wing Tsun, muscular contraction is more accurate than joint movement.

The problem however is that prior to this, you asked me to clarify some aspects of the spring effect in Wing Tsun and I have not done so yet. Therefore I cannot expect you to accept the relationship between muscular contraction terminology to describe the spring effect in Wing Tsun while there is still ambiguity as to what the spring effect in Wing Tsun actually is.

In the meantime I think we can agree that using Cletus' simple example in post 59, we can conclude that there are no terms using joint movement to describe the arm being pushed towards the body while maintaining a forward spring. However there are specific terms to describe this action using muscular contraction as a description.

Now I have to show you the relationship between Cletus's simple example and how it is applied in Wing Tsun. I will do so, but not tonight.

Michael

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

Are you saying what I described is not an example yielding? Or that it’s not the only example.
I’m aware that choosing to withstand its force is also yielding. I never said that it wasn’t. I was expanding on what you said as I felt your overcoming description was vague.

I never said smoothing out movement or deceleration wasn’t eccentric. It is eccentric of course. But I’m not sure how you are using that as grounds to “disagree” with my example. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Hi Mellor,
Coming back to your posts, you have written a lot, so to keep us on track, I will have to take it piece by piece. I won't aim to cover everything, but if there is something you want to bring me back to, fire away.

Regarding the above quote , the first paragraph that you wrote on post 41 strongly indicated that you felt isometric yielding and eccentric contraction were involuntary actions that occur when you cannot move the opposing resistance. I felt it was very important to clarify this as the opposite is true and has huge implications in how we apply these terms/actions to martial art movements.

You might know that the terms/actions can be applied voluntary bur maybe others reading /contributing to this thread don't know it.

Anyway, we will look at Cletus' model of a simple movement using eccentric contraction and show the relationship between that and Wing Tsun theory and practice.

cletus

Niall Keane wrote: »

Like Doug said about Judo....
Its not "convoluted" its simply jargon well understood by those inside a system.
I wouldnt speak like that in class to people who would find it "convoluted" but i would to adepts who understand the lingo. It adds a multilayered shorthand precision they relate to.

As for the lcd comment. It was aimed at the earlier trolls who "dont mean to... BUT..." the tap out brigade, who have done a handful of classes and sparring sessions and suddenly know all about everything. They are like a virus on this board. how many fcukin timea have i had to explain that ive fought and trained fighters..nearly every time i post abiut tai chi. Think about how tired that becomes, like im too old to deal with teenage bs. They pre-judge without any knowledge about a subject and so logically we have prejudice and that is a paragon of ignorance and belongs to the mob mentality.... its emotionally weak seeking safety in catch cries, it lacks education and abhores that which it lacks, it borrows the tigers terror, like "jon jones"... athletes who skill level is so beyond them that there is really no or infinticimal difference between them and jon jones and between the worst aikido or tai chi and jon jones. But they claim brand affinity in what they and jones does. Thats as pathetic a mentality any male could possibly exhibit, anathema to a fighter's whonstands on his own achievements. So sorry if you felt i was addressing you there, i wasnt , i have found your posts reasonable like i afore said .... "fair enough, cant argue with that".
I can see you are carrying baggage about tma. But... like you conveyed a hell a lot of it is total bs. And you actually poised questions rather than play the gallery with cheap generalisations.
On bjj. I could be well wrong. But didnt the gracies have some equivilent of "classics" they wrote on bjj methods?
And ive heard all sort of esoteric way out **** like 9th planet moves or somethibg etc. wtf??? ;-)

Fair enough, maybe my girly sensibilities were overly offended

But seriously, I don't really have baggage re tma (whatever that might actually mean, but that's a separate discussion), I just have a low tolerance for bull**** in life generally, and I happen to love ma, ergo my posts.

I have no problem with anybody training anything, as long as they are honest about what they are doing.

For myself, I trained karate, bjj, tkd, and mma. I fell in love with the sports of bjj and mma. I managed to get a blue belt in bjj, and fought twice in the mma league. Never placed higher than 3rd in any bjj comp I entered. I am completely aware of the extremely average set of skills I possess. I attribute that understanding to the type of training that fully resisting ma offers, there is very little room to lie to yourself. I imagine judo engenders the same honesty, as well as the type of training you do Niall.

Re the esoteric nature of 10th planet JJ, the names they give to certain positions were twofold, first it meant that in competition, if your coach shouted for "crackhead control" for example, the opponent would not necessarily know or understand what was coming, and secondly, the term meant you didn't have to shout "high guard, overhook the arm, crawl the legs up the back, close your guard behind the neck, control posture on the head" or whatever the set of steps would be.

I see it more analogous to the combination numbers that striking coaches use, than any deepseated meaning behind the phraseology. Crackhead control has no greater or deeper meaning in bjj than signifying a specific position

Mellor

Niall Keane wrote: »

On bjj. I could be well wrong. But didnt the gracies have some equivilent of "classics" they wrote on bjj methods?

What do you mean by "classics"?
There are numerous books on Bjj, by various Gracie's, and others. Marcelo Garcia, Eddie Bravo, Saudi Ribeiro. Any that I have read deal exclusively with the movements involved. Passes, sweeps, subs etc.
The medium gave way to DVDs a few years ago, and since then online content.

And ive heard all sort of esoteric way out **** like 9th planet moves or somethibg etc. wtf??? ;-)

10th planet, (although since then the 9th planet is no longer a planet) but as Cletus explained there is nothing exoteric about it, it's just a naming convention with slight cross references. I'd compare it to the use of line out calls in rugby for competition.
It's unique to a specific school. I think it's a good idea tbh. The usual Brazilian method used few names for anything, refering to moves as "this one" or "that one". It's something they left behind in judo, where names for thriws are very descriptive - that said judo newaza naming has a similar vagueness to it.

cletus

Mellor wrote: »

The usual Brazilian method used few names for anything, refering to moves as "this one" or "that one". It's something they left behind in judo, where names for thriws are very descriptive - that said judo newaza naming has a similar vagueness to it.

I remember watching an old Joe Moreira (I think) dvd, where the instruction was along the lines of " My name is Joe Moreira. I do zhu zhitsu all my life. I'm gonna show you some kind of choke (demonstrate technique). Now I'm gonna show you some other kind of choke

Doug Cartel

Mellor wrote: »

10th planet, (although since then the 9th planet is no longer a planet) but as Cletus explained there is nothing exoteric about it

Come on now, there's definitely something a little esoteric about it. Aside from the practical reasons already listed, part of the reason 10th Planet moves have strange names is just down to Eddie Bravo's sense of humour.

Mellor

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Come on now, there's definitely something a little esoteric about it. Aside from the practical reasons already listed, part of the reason 10th Planet moves have strange names is just down to Eddie Bravo's sense of humour.

I said exoteric.
In that there's philosophical exoteric knowledge underneath it all.

But the particular names being down to Eddie Bravo's personality. Absolutely. Stoner Control being the first that springs to mind.

Kenny Bania

Doug Cartel

Mellor wrote: »

I said exoteric.

My bad.

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

If you stand with your arms away from your body laterally at 90°and your palms facing the ground, then have somebody push the back of your hands down and towards your body while you resist, that could be called eccentric shoulder abduction, in that it would be the equivalent of the negative phase of the weights exercise known as a lateral raise.

While I am quoting Cletus here, I am trying to clarify a point Mellor made but of course everyone is free to query/comment/criticise. This is my understanding of the relationship between eccentric contraction, isometric yielding contraction and deceleration.

A key part of the eccentric phase is that the muscle acts to decelerate the joint and the eccentric phase is about 40% stronger than the concentric phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_contraction

During the eccentric phase, the muscle absorbs mechanical energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric_training#Energy

Mechanical energy is the sum of Kinetic and Potential energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_energy.

The sum of mechanical energy remains constant while kinetic and potential energy change in proportion to each other. I like the examples of the roller coaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy and bow & arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Therefore I feel that with greater deceleration, there is a decrease in kinetic energy and an increase in potential energy which is maximised when decelerating to an almost full stop. This almost full stop is isometric yielding which wavers into concentric and eccentric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_exercise#Overcoming_versus_yielding If we can keep isometric yielding on the eccentric side then we have maximised the potential energy.

In my opinion, this is what has happened in the 30 second video. It is not a case of the smaller guy being "stronger" than the bigger guy. It is that the big guy on the left tries to produce force concentrically by moving the smaller guys arm. They nod to each other at about the three second mark to begin and you can see the big guy try to contract concentrically at about the 5, 10, 15-17 and 25 second mark. During all this time, the smaller guy does not try to move the bigger guys arm. He holds it with isometric yielding/potential energy and only contracts concentrically/produces force at the 28 second mark when the bigger guys muscles have failed or he became distracted. The point is, the smaller guy did not try to contract concentrically while the bigger guy was producing a large amount of force.

Lastly, look at the lack of stability on the big guys part compared to the smaller guy who in my opinion is making good use of muscular co-contraction. Again, all of this, deceleration, eccentric/isometric yielding, mechanical (kinetic/potential) energy, stability (co-contraction) will be important when I next look at how all of this is used in Wing Tsun.

But again, if anyone has any queries, comments or criticisms on any of the above, fire away.

Mellor

That is simply more of the same issue Michael. You are taking basic concepts from physics and anatomy in isolation, but when stitching them together you are making some errors. Then when you apply this to martial arts, the errors compound further.
I’ve no real issue with using eccentric to describe the movement, but the scientific explanation you are using for the Wing Tsun, simply doesn’t exist.

Michael O Leary wrote: »

A key part of the eccentric phase is that the muscle acts to decelerate the joint and the eccentric phase is about 40% stronger than the concentric phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_contraction

That's fine. I understand that, I described the same in one of my first posts in the thread.

During the eccentric phase, the muscle absorbs mechanical energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric_training#Energy

You failed to mention that most of which is dissipated as heat.
Which is basically exactly what I said previously. Not all of it is absorbed to be reused. From the link above;

This mechanical energy is dissipated or converted into one or a combination of two energies.

1. Heat
2. Elastic Recoil

Heat
The energy that is absorbed by the muscle will be dissipated as heat if the muscle is being used as a “damper or shock absorber”.

Elastic Recoil
The energy that is absorbed by the muscle can be converted into elastic recoil energy, and can be recovered and reused by the body.

...But time matters in elastic recoil. If this energy is not used quickly it is dissipated as heat.

The last line is important, the time you have to use it is in the order of milliseconds. You can't yield isometrically and hold on to this energy.

The sum of mechanical energy remains constant while kinetic and potential energy change in proportion to each other. I like the examples of the roller coaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy and bow & arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Nope.
The sum of mechanical and kinetic energy remain constant in an closed system.
That is one where no energy gets in or out. So a pendulum, rollercoaster, newton cradle etc, this keep going under their own power as they are self contained.

The human body is not a close system. Even if you were you isolate one muscle, and one joint, it’s not a closed system. Not remotely. Muscles Muscles don’t work like mechanical objects, they leak energy all over the place.
Another reason why the above doesn’t apply is that our muscles are inputting addition energy to the system. Again, not a closed system.

Therefore I feel that with greater deceleration, there is a decrease in kinetic energy and an increase in potential energy which is maximised when decelerating to an almost full stop. This almost full stop is isometric yielding which wavers into concentric and eccentric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_exercise#Overcoming_versus_yielding

As for the stretch reflex;
If you lower a weight slowly (strong eccentric) you prevent the build up of speed and therefore kinetic energy, so there is no recoil.
If you lower fast (weak eccentric), it falls faster and there is a bit of recoil.
Both have the same deceleration to a full stop. The difference in recoil comes from the difference in input from out muscles. In all cases though, the full kinetic energy isn’t absorbed as recoil.
How could it be? If it were, we could jump once and bounce all day like a kids toy.

These oversights you made above basically cause your whole idea to unravel.

If we can keep isometric yielding on the eccentric side then we have maximised the potential energy.

That’s not possible. If its “on the eccentric side” then the result will be an eccentric contraction.
Isometrics might fluctuated between eccentric on a tiny scale, but these fluctuations HAVE to be equal. Or else they don’t cancel. And the force produced has to cancel the objects force or else it won’t yield.

It is that the big guy on the left tries to produce force concentrically by moving the smaller guys arm. They nod to each other at about the three second mark to begin and you can see the big guy try to contract concentrically at about the 5, 10, 15-17 and 25 second mark. During all this time, the smaller guy does not try to move the bigger guys arm. He holds it with isometric yielding/potential energy and only contracts concentrically/produces force at the 28 second mark when the bigger guys muscles have failed or he became distracted. The point is, the smaller guy did not try to contract concentrically while the bigger guy was producing a large amount of force.

The big guy failed to contract concentrically because the small guy was stronger. That’s the basic idea of force vrs force. The ONLY way the small guy can contract isometrically is if he is strong enough to equal the force produced by the bigger guy. That’s just a basic fact of forces..The small guy didn’t try and win until the 28 second mark, but it’s pretty obvious that he could have. His was stronger because his armwrestle technique was better. The fact he played around and held him isometrically has no bearing on the force he finally produced.
Furthermore, this doesn’t relate to the elastic recoil that you describe above.

Isometric yielding has nothing to do with potential energy. Yielding for a moment, doesn’t charge up your power. I’m not sure why you mentioned potential energy in the above. There’s no potential energy involved in the above.

Muscles themselves don’t have different types of contraction that you can elect to use. Muscles just contract. That’s it. They don’t have It’s the opposing force that determines eccentric, isometric or concentric – but within the muscle they are all just contractions.


Am I be right to assume that you were aware of the “spring-push” concept in Wing Tsun before you were aware of isometric/eccentric/etc?
Because the above the above really reads like an attempt to justify the Wing Tsun concept with actual bio-mechanics. And while I appreciate trying to relate it to science, it’s just not there. The stretch reflex/elastic recoil in muscles does exist, your theory ignores the magnitude of it. Which is why it doesn’t really work as described in the video.

Mellor

Michael,
I just thought of a simpler way to highlight it.

Theory and science is all well and good. But I think we all agree that nothing beats practical demonstration.

The guy on the video was using the “forward spring” to push an opponent who weighed in excess of 100kg a decent distance without extending his arms. If this works on an opponent coming forward, for the reasons listed in the previous post. Then it should work with inanimate objects. The simplest inanimate object that exerts a force back is a raised weight.
Take the bench press as an example. (The reason I keep referring to the bench press is that is closely replicates a two handed push as in the video. It also contains an eccentric phase & concentric phase (in that order like the video), and it’s a good example of muscle recoil.)
If this spring force is real, then you should be able to do the same with a bench press. It should work with heavy or light weights.
With an open palm, eccentrically lower the barbell to your chest, decelerate to a full stop, and keep your arms in that flexed position while the barbell is launched from your palms.

It simply won’t happen.
An elite bench presser won't be able to do it. The guy in the video won't ber able to do it.

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

Muscles themselves don’t have different types of contraction that you can elect to use. Muscles just contract. That’s it. They don’t have It’s the opposing force that determines eccentric, isometric or concentric – but within the muscle they are all just contractions.

Before we go further, can you expand upon/clarify this point and maybe give a simple example because I don't know what you mean? It sounds like we are going back to whether eccentric / isometric yielding contraction is voluntary/involuntary.

1. As in Cletus' simple example, if you raise your arms to the front of your shoulders then you have elected to use concentric contraction to get there.
2. Once there in order to maintain the position against gravity, you are electing to use isometric yielding.
3. If you lower your arms more slowly (decelerate) than they would fall, you are electing to use eccentric contraction.

Or maybe you are making a different point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Before we go further, can you expand upon/clarify this point and maybe give a simple example because I don't know what you mean? It sounds like we are going back to whether eccentric / isometric yielding contraction is voluntary/involuntary.

I can expand, no problem.
They can be voluntary/involuntary, it doesn't matter in this regard.

The reason I mention it was you was parts like the following;

... using a eccentric contraction...
...tries to produce force concentrically...
...only contracts concentrically/produces force...

My point was that these aren’t different contractions within the muscle. Your brain doesn’t decide (voluntary or involuntary) to use one type of a contraction to lift and object (concentric) and another to lower it (eccentric). It order to lift or set down and object it simply uses more or less force than the object exerts. It’s this external force that decides whether the resultant movement is Concentric, Eccentric or Isometic.

In relation to the last line above, It’s not only concentric that produces force. Isometrics and eccentric do too.

Using your example from above.

1. if you raise your arms to the front of your shoulders, your muscles generate a force greater than gravity
2. in order to maintain the position against gravity, they generate a force equal to gravity
3. If you lower your arms slowly, you are generating less force than gravity

Or look at this “arm wrestling” example.
He is pulling harder and harder and the other guy is opposing it. So it’s isometric yielding. But when the other guy lets go suddenly, removing the opposing force. It instantly becomes a concentric movement.
The force he was producing was the same in both phases. The muscles didn’t suddenly use a different type of contraction. He had no control over the sudden switch to concentric either. If was purely because the opposing force disappeared.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXvwAtVfAE

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

when the other guy lets go suddenly, removing the opposing force. It instantly becomes a concentric movement.

This is incorrect! The term "Concentric Contraction" is specific and is applied consistently. It is when the muscle shortens under resistance.

In your example below, "when the other guy lets go suddenly", while the biceps shorten, they do not do so under Concentric Contraction as the opposing force/resistance has been removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXvwAtVfAE

Doug Cartel

Michael O Leary wrote: »

This is incorrect!

It isn't.

It is when the muscle shortens under resistance.

It is when the effort of the muscle to shorten is enough to overcome resistance - leading to the muscle shortening. If the muscle is exerting enough effort to stay the same length against a certain level of resistance, and then that resistance drops, then the current level of effort is going to be greater than the level needed to cause a concentric contraction.

This is the problem with using "scientific" language. You can't just make up what it means to suit your preconceived ideas. No matter how much you want it to mean whatever you want it to mean, and no matter how many times you say it, it won't change to suit you.

Michael O Leary

Doug Cartel wrote: »

It is when the effort of the muscle to shorten is enough to overcome resistance - leading to the muscle shortening.

Yes. We have two elements. Muscle shortening and resistance. In Mellor's example there was no resistance after the hand was released so it was not Concentric Contraction.

Doug Cartel wrote: »

If the muscle is exerting enough effort to stay the same length against a certain level of resistance,

Isometric Yielding

Doug Cartel wrote: »

and then that resistance drops,

No resistance = No Concentric Contraction

Doug Cartel wrote: »

then the current level of effort is going to be greater than the level needed to cause a concentric contraction.

That makes no sense. Either write it again in a way that makes sense or/and better still, back it up with some type of specific reference.

Doug Cartel

In not sure why I tried in the first place.

Good luck with your contractions Michael - be they eccentric, concentric, or whatever may come.

cletus

This is becoming ridiculous. Of course there was resistance. There is resistance to every movement the human body makes. A reduction in resistance, sudden or otherwise, does not equate to no resistance.

Michael, why don't you move on from the science and present us with the oft promised proof of the "magic spring" whereby you can push people without pushing them.

As a side note, and out of personal interest, do you believe it is possible to do what the guy in the "spring" video does, or was that just a random YouTube video that presented your theory concisely.

Subcomandante Marcos

This thread epitomises the problem with traditional martial arts. The amount of nonsense is ridiculous.

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

This is incorrect! The term "Concentric Contraction" is specific and is applied consistently. It is when the muscle shortens under resistance.

I know what a concentric contraction is. I thought the example was pretty clear, and explain it well.
It's not possible to be in a situation where you are moving without resistance, at least while you still are on this planet.

In your example below, "when the other guy lets go suddenly", while the biceps shorten, they do not do so under Concentric Contraction as the opposing force/resistance has been removed.

Michael O Leary wrote: »

No resistance = No Concentric Contraction

The other persons hand was removed, but ALL resistance wasn't removed. The resistance from gravity/the weight of his arm is still there.

You already describe the same as concentric yourself

if you raise your arms to the front of your shoulders then you have elected to use concentric contraction to get there.

Which almost exactly describes the punch in the face.

TBH it’s another perfect example of regurgitating the science without actually understanding it.
At this point, we are going in circles. I’ve explained where the theory is falling apart.
I’ve said why I think the people in the video are acting. The “phantom spring push” isn’t real. The impossible bench press example highlights that.

Kenny Bania

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

This thread epitomises the problem with traditional martial arts. The amount of nonsense is ridiculous.

The saddest part is the stubborn refusal to let go of it. For all of the waffle & jargon and pseudoscience terminology, none of the techniques in the videos posted even work without a co-operating partner.
It's 2015, FFS.

Doug Cartel

Those are some great blanket statements guys.

This is not really a specific traditional martial arts problem. There are plenty of TMA practitioners that do not engage in pseudo-science and plenty of non-TMA practitioners who do.

Kenny Bania

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Those are some great blanket statements guys.

This is not really a specific traditional martial arts problem. There are plenty of TMA practitioners that do not engage in pseudo-science and plenty of non-TMA practitioners who do.

Apologies - of course I know it's not 100% of either group - should have clarified that. But it's certainly more prevalent in TMA than non-TMA. Look at this thread as an example - not the first time either. Aikido guys arguing about the effectiveness of it, and then posting demo videos of guys jumping around without being touched. Tai Chi is the same.
Even when I did TKD, we were told to punch with a 'sine wave' - which was just pseudoscience for "go slightly up, then drop into the punch for slightly more momentum", when the most important thing in TKD should have been (which they never do) is put your fookin hands up!! What use is a fist cocked by your hip, or hanging low? But I drilled the fook out of it for 4 years - 90% of my TKD training ended up being essentially useless - all I learned were bad habits & how to be given belts without earning them; that's all.

And it was TKD Centre on Exchequer Street too - arguably the best TKD school around at the time with 2 top class coaches (Gerry & Brendan). And they were top class at what they did - but unfortunately what they did had inherently bad form & technique. It wasn't their fault.

I mean, look at this - face open, body open, open to leg kicks, open for takedowns. I can't actually think of a position that would leave you more open to attacks.

Michael O Leary

cletus wrote: »

There is resistance to every movement the human body makes.

Mellor wrote: »

It's not possible to be in a situation where you are moving without resistance, at least while you still are on this planet.

That's not true. If at the end of the concentric phase of a bench press when your arms are straight using isometric yielding to hold the resistance and you suddenly relax, then your elbows will flex and your biceps will get shorter but there will be no resistance in your biceps to the movement. This is one example, there are many more.

cletus wrote: »

A reduction in resistance, sudden or otherwise, does not equate to no resistance.

But it does equate to less muscular contraction which means the muscle is in the process of relaxing. A muscle is either at rest where no resistance is being placed upon it, is contracting where more tension is being generated in the muscle fibres or relaxing where less tension is being generated by the muscle fibres. In the example used, the resistance disappeared and the biceps relaxed therefore there was no contraction, concentric or otherwise.

Mellor wrote: »

The other persons hand was removed, but ALL resistance wasn't removed. The resistance from gravity/the weight of his arm is still there.

This is only a factor if the movement of the arm was from a state of rest. In this case gravity and inertia would be forces to be overcome with the muscle fibres being placed under greater tension than at rest. Again, in your example the muscle fibres went from greater tension to less tension.

Doug Cartel wrote: »

If the muscle is exerting enough effort to stay the same length against a certain level of resistance, and then that resistance drops, then the current level of effort is going to be greater than the level needed to cause a concentric contraction.

I think I am beginning to see what you mean but if the current level of effort is going to be greater than the level needed to cause a concentric contraction, does this not mean that you agree that what took place was not a concentric contraction?

In order for a muscle to contract, the muscle fibres have to be placed under more tension than at rest and to do this they need resistance.
If you are lying on your back and abduct your legs, the resistance would be inertia.
If you are lying on your back and raise your leg, the resistance would be inertia and gravity.
If you are lying on your back and raise you leg with a weight attached, the resistance would be inertia, gravity and the weight.
The more resistance, the more tension generated in the muscle fibres (contraction).
The less resistance, the less tension generated in the muscle fibres (relaxation).
In the case of the arm being released in the arm wrestle, when the resistance from the opponent disappeared, so too did the tension in the muscle fibres which meant that there was no contraction but relaxation instead. No contraction = No concentric contraction.

Mellor wrote: »

My point was that these aren’t different contractions within the muscle. Your brain doesn’t decide (voluntary or involuntary) to use one type of a contraction to lift and object (concentric) and another to lower it (eccentric). It order to lift or set down and object it simply uses more or less force than the object exerts. It’s this external force that decides whether the resultant movement is Concentric, Eccentric or Isometic. Or look at this “arm wrestling” example. The muscles didn’t suddenly use a different type of contraction. He had no control over the sudden switch to concentric either.

For voluntary muscles, all contraction (excluding reflexes) occurs as a result of conscious effort originating in the brain. The brain sends signals, in the form of action potentials, through the nervous system to the motor neuron that innervates several muscle fibers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Physiology

cletus wrote: »

Michael, why don't you move on from the science and present us with the oft promised proof of the "magic spring" whereby you can push people without pushing them. As a side note, and out of personal interest, do you believe it is possible to do what the guy in the "spring" video does, or was that just a random YouTube video that presented your theory concisely.

As I explained, the guy in the video that I referred to did a reasonable job of explaining spring force at a basic level. We can't go into the specifics of spring force in the muscles when you don't even understand what concentric contraction is. Words are important because if two people don't agree on what a word means, the use of the word is meaningless. You, Mellor and Doug seem to have a poor understanding of muscular contraction which makes it very hard to explain the spring force in Wing Tsun. That's why I am trying to reach agreement on what the various types of muscular contraction are, so that I then use this as the basis of my explanation.

cletus

Michael O Leary wrote: »

That's why I am trying to reach agreement on what the various types of muscular contraction are, so that I then use this as the basis of my explanation.

No you're not. You're trying to force through your own interpretation of human anatomy an physiology, so that you can use it to support whatever pseudoscientific understanding you've reached from examining two guys playing cooperative pat-a-cake.

I told myself I was finished with this thread a week ago. I am now.

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

That's not true. If at the end of the concentric phase of a bench press when your arms are straight using isometric yielding to hold the resistance and you suddenly relax, then your elbows will flex and your biceps will get shorter but there will be no resistance in your biceps to the movement. This is one example, there are many more.

The resistance in that instance is the weight you are holding.
If your triceps don't oppose it, then obviously this resistance moves your arms. Not sure how this is supposed an example of a situation with no resistance?
Biceps aren't involved in bench press.

In the example used, the resistance disappeared and the biceps relaxed therefore there was no contraction, concentric or otherwise.

Simple question.
What made his hand move up to his face?

This is only a factor if the movement of the arm was from a state of rest. In this case gravity and inertia would be forces to be overcome with the muscle fibres being placed under greater tension than at rest. Again, in your example the muscle fibres went from greater tension to less tension.

Gravity has to be overcome at all time. Are you saying gravity was briefly switched off?
We don't need to include Inertia in the example. Gravity alone is proves you wrong.
But for the record, inertia does apply to his arm/hand.

If you are lying on your back and raise your leg, the resistance would be inertia and gravity.

Which is exactly what happened. This is really simple stuff.

The guy punched himself in the face. The resistance was gravity.

For voluntary muscles, all contraction (excluding reflexes) occurs as a result of conscious effort originating in the brain. The brain sends signals, in the form of action potentials, through the nervous system to the motor neuron that innervates several muscle fibers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Physiology

What's your point here? That backs up what I said.
The guy was consciously trying to overcome the other guy pulling his hand.
When that hand was removed, that same conscious effort cause him to punch himself in the face.

Words are important because if two people don't agree on what a word means, the use of the word is meaningless. You, Mellor and Doug seem to have a poor understanding of muscular contraction which makes it very hard to explain the spring force in Wing Tsun.

Kenny Bania

Michael O Leary wrote: »

You, Mellor and Doug seem to have a poor understanding of muscular contraction which makes it very hard to explain the spring force in Wing Tsun.

Unbelievable delusion - actually arguing with facts.

Michael - here's a simple solution - just post a video showing how it works. Show the spring force in action, and silence everyone.

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

Simple question.
What made his hand move up to his face?

Excellent question! I was waiting for you or someone else to ask it. I am going to help you answer it yourself by asking a question. What was the state of the bicep just before it was released? Was it lengthening, shortening or not moving?

Mellor

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Excellent question! I was waiting for you or someone else to ask it. I am going to help you answer it yourself by asking a question. What was the state of the bicep just before it was released? Was it lengthening, shortening or not moving?

Lmfao

I was making a point in response to your nonsense. It's fairly obvious which muscle is doing it.

If you want to continue your delusion that's your call. Best of luck in your zero-gravity martial arts endeavours.

Michael O Leary

Mellor wrote: »

Lmfao

I was making a point in response to your nonsense. It's fairly obvious which muscle is doing it.

If you want to continue your delusion that's your call. Best of luck in your zero-gravity martial arts endeavours.

Just before the arm was released at the 12 second mark, there was a clear lengthening of the biceps while it was under resistance. There is only one type of muscular contraction to describe this and it is eccentric contraction.

Now this is very specific, observable and verifiable. You cannot disagree with it.

Mellor

Nobody said it wasn't???? That has never been an issue, nor does it change anything.

The question was what muscle makes the hand rise AFTER its let go. The bicep. The resistance that you think doesnt exist is gravity.

At this point,It's complete denialism, I guess it's a defense mechanism.
Best of luck. I'm out.

Kenny Bania

I always wondered why they call them "Wing Tsun Dummies'.