Generating power - a boxing perspective

[Bill Glasheen]

But what does it have to do with Chi?

I don't worry my pretty little head over such heady issues.

- Bill

[Guest]

You don't believe in Chi Bill?

Hell us highland folk invented it.

You can see it and feel it man.

Didn't you ever stubble across some while you were playing with the dogs ? Thats why they put handles on blades, so you don't get zapped when your sticking someone.

Look here is proof :



Look at all that chi ....can not deny it now can you.

[Bill Glasheen]

Maybe it's the jacket, Laird. Who knows?



You know what the difference is between you and me?

I make this look good!

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

2) There's no need to invoke the mystical in teaching internal arts such as taijiquan and xing yi.

Well in my art the word chi was not emphasized. Still, I dare say that using terms like chi, etc in the teaching of art X would depend on how well one understands X and what exactly is meant by the word 'chi.' Since no one here has an in-depth and complete understanding of either the term or art X, I would suggest that whether or not words like chi are needed, would depend solely on understanding the role that term has within the scope of the lesson.

Science is still in its infancy...a little over a hundred years ago we were riding not BMWs around but horses, and later making medicine from moldy bread. Most degenerative diseases that killed you then still do and much of these new super duper high tech medicines treat symptoms, then create new ones and don't actually cure jack schit, which is fine and dandy since the main objective of their creation is to make money. Science has a long, long way to go and in many areas we are just now learning how much we don't know and can't do yet.

The mind DOES lead the body and makes so much of a difference in how we use our body and how our bodies perform or not. There are still far too many unknowns in the human equation for anyone to say words like chi are obsolete, only when we know everything there is to know about how the body and mind work together as one can we throw out that word and others like it without quite possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Guest]

Not only did we invent chi, and we also have lead the fashion world with our lovely tartans...but we were the original minimalists. Just look at the design frenzie we created when we removed some color from tartan and turned it kitty corner. The rest of the world is lucky they have out fine example to copy.
















Everything from socks to flooring were would they be with out us mate?



We make everything look good!

[Ruiner]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to hear about your science, mate! Perhaps you learned something more useful during frosh week, eh?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should have specified the western scientific mindset where everything can be measured and physically quantified.

Just because I socialized for a frosh week (wasn't much time after that week) doesn't mean I haven't learned anything useful.

Laird you are toooo funny. There can be only one Laird thats for sure!

And as for the PHD comments, I meant no dissrespect, I've just had bad experiences with proffessors who talk down to people.

I agree Laird we lost track of the threads origonal theme.

My Tai chi instructor never ever mentioned chi, but there was a peaceful strength in him you could sense.

Cheers

[Stryke]

Many coaches mistakenly believe that most of the power generated by the punch comes from the muscles of the arm. However, biomechanical analysis has demonstrated that the straight punch is delivered by a movement that is a combination of ankle plantar flexion, knee and hip extension, trunk rotation, and arm extension (the kinetic link system). The relative contribution of the arm muscles was found to be only 24%, as compared with 37 and 39% for the trunk and legs, respectively (13). As with most sports, it is the coordinated, sequential summation of forces that ultimately dictates the impact of the force delivered and therefore the potential for injury.

Actually I have some issues with the science ....

Maybe these are the results of testing specific individuals but I cnat see where these percentages are obtainable and measurable .

It`s just much more complicated than saying x body part does y amount of work .

If these results were true youd see boxers with massive lower body development and small upper body ... doesnt sound like many boxers I know . the trunk development I`ll give .

It`s inexact science versus inexact chisters , I stil see nothing worng with translating the word chi as energy or force , or perhaps even grounding or alignment .

I personally dont use the word , but can relate to the better descriptions .

It`s a tool , and sometimes a usefull one .

I just got through a weekend working and talking with Patrick McCarthy. Now there's a fellow who can see the physical patterns in the choreography. And because he can, he can run with it all. No, his goal isn't to dis the traditional. Quite the contrary, it's to help us walk the paths that the original choreographers walked, and then send us on to our own journeys.

he`s got a healthy humour towards the mystical , I just dont think it always is so mystical , I think the mysticisim is a lack of understanding that can go both ways .

[Bill Glasheen]

I should have specified the western scientific mindset where everything can be measured and physically quantified.

On the contrary, my friend. Ever heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (a title prefered by Niels Bohr ... ), expresses a limitation on accuracy of (nearly) simultaneous measurement of observables such as the position and the momentum of a particle. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the dispersions of the measurements.

- Wikipedia.org

Or perhaps you saw the movie Jurassic Park, where Jeff Goldblum played a mathematician specializing in the field of mathematical chaos. Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

The Butterfly Effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. ... The practical consequence of the butterfly effect is that complex systems such as the weather or the stock market are difficult to predict over any useful time range. This is because any finite model that attempts to simulate a system must necessarily truncate some information about the initial conditions—for example, when simulating the weather, one would not be able to include the wind coming from every butterfly's wings. In a chaotic system, these errors are magnified as each unit of time is simulated until the bound on the percent error of the result exceeds one hundred percent. Thus the predictions of the simulation are useless after a certain finite amount of time.

- Wikipedia.org

I've just had bad experiences with proffessors who talk down to people.

Apparently you are not alone.

When we grew up and went to school
There were certain teachers who would
Hurt the children in any way they could

"OOF!" [someone being hit]

By pouring their derision
Upon anything we did
And exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids
But in the town, it was well known
When they got home at night, their fat and
Psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives.

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

- Roger Waters, The Wall

When I was partway through graduate school, this album came out. In a sleep-deprived mood late, late at night, I drew a brick wall up on our office noteboard, with the names of my office mates on each of the bricks. We graduate students all secretly understood the dark humor.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The mind DOES lead the body and makes so much of a difference in how we use our body and how our bodies perform or not.

I agree! Ever wonder why folks like Grossman, Siddle, and Laur are quoting neurology, psychology, and physiology researchers all the time? Check out Grossman's most recent book (On Combat). It's got several whole chapters dedicated to psychology and physiology.

Science is still in its infancy...

On the contrary, the scientific method is centuries old. Meanwhile, our knowledge base increases exponentially - largely due to science as a process of investigation.

Talk to someone like Mr. Laur online. He will tell you that he is driven by science, meaning that he looks for solid evidence from a reputable process as source for his methods.

The mind DOES lead the body and makes so much of a difference in how we use our body and how our bodies perform or not. There are still far too many unknowns in the human equation for anyone to say words like chi are obsolete, only when we know everything there is to know about how the body and mind work together as one can we throw out that word and others like it without quite possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm fine with the use of the word chi until better words can be found, so long as you're fine with me interchangeably using the phrase "fuzzy bunny" instead.

But I will have to admit that Laird's making quite a compelling case with his Celtic fashion statements. We scientists are human, after all. I vote for further investigation on the matter...

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

On the contrary, the scientific method is centuries old. Meanwhile, our knowledge base increases exponentially - largely due to science as a process of investigation.

That may be I don't feel like looking up the date that the scientific method was first developed..

However I and others feel that the goal of science is essentially to explain our universe and provide understanding, so, that through technology created by this science, we may exercise greater control over our environment..

Given the percentage of 'stuff' we know vs that which we don't and moreover the percentage of control we have developed over such, I still contend we are quite in our infancy...

Nevertheless when cavemen first invented the BBQ I'm am sure they thought they were quite advanced, and they were

BTW: I know a Neural Psychologist who works for ARPA and is well versed in many areas of science and medicine who continues to tell me ad infinitum that science, even recent advances in genetics are barely scratching the surface, and that it will be well after we are all dead and buried that much of the present "knowledge" we possess will be of much real use.

Call this level of achievement what you will, but on a scale of 1 to infinity I see 'modern science' as just a hares ass ahead of stone knives and bearskins..

[Bill Glasheen]

Maybe these are the results of testing specific individuals but I {can't} see where these percentages are obtainable and measurable .

Perhaps we should read the paper and check out his methods. That's always a good start. I'll see what I can do about digging up the source.

It`s just much more complicated than saying x body part does y amount of work .

You're absolutely right. But why start at the ground level here with information that - to some - seems obvious? Well...

If these results were true youd see boxers with massive lower body development and small upper body ... doesnt sound like many boxers I know . the trunk development I`ll give .

Now we're getting somewhere. To hear statements like these makes even this most basic reasearch essential.

It`s inexact science versus inexact chisters

You can't have it both ways, Marcus. Quite the contrary, you are arguing with the numbers here. Right? And that's a good thing, because we've got you thinking.

Let's do some back-of-the-envelope investigations and calculations.

* I think we can all agree that the squat and deadlift are exercises that largely uses the bigger muscles of the legs (such as calves and quadriceps), and the hips (the glutes). Other muscles are involved to a lesser extent for stabilization.

* I think we can all agree that biceps curls or triceps extensions largely use the bigger muscles of the arms (biceps and triceps respectively). Other muscles are involved to a lesser extent for stabilization.

So, how much can you squat, Marcus? How much can you dead lift? Now... Contrast that with how much you can curl, or how much you can do on a triceps extension exercise. If you want to throw more upper-body muscles into the equation, well... Look up any powerlifting contest results. What's the typical ratio for the amount deadlifted vs. the amount bench pressed?

So what does it all mean? Well...

Years ago (1970s) when I was first teaching martial arts, we all were struggling with what made people hit and throw better. Beyond technical proficiency, there was the issue of how to make the athlete hit harder.

Most people back then didn't have access to modern gyms. I was lucky in that I knew the right people, and got to schmooze with some pioneers in the field. Before then I was making all the wrong conclusions and doing all the wrong things.

Like many, I was impressed with how many knuckle pushups someone could do, how big the arms and chest were, etc. Whenever I got one of those "Big Bird" athletes in my class, I thought 'Fantastic! Here's my next Student-o-DoomTM.' Well... It NEVER turned out that way. I went through thousands of students though, and looked for the ones who made it to the top in the process. And I was simultaneously learning what I could from leaders in the field of strength development for sports.

At the end of the day, we Uechika need to understand that hitting hard with your hand has less to do with the strength of your arms. It has a lot more to do with the strength of core muscles, the legs, and the ability to put it all together (essential synergy).

Knowing that is very powerful. Knowing that means we shouldn't be wasting our time in class seeing how many knuckle pushups someone can do at the expense of doing other fundamental exercises FIRST.

he`s (Patrick McCarthy) got a healthy humour towards the mystical

I'd go a lot farther than that. I talked extensively with him through the weekend. Early on, he was careful to feel me out about what I believed or didn't believe concerning chi and the sort. Once he got my background, he relaxed and "the real McCarthy" came out. And Patrick never used terms like "chi" or "internal energy". Instead, I probably heard the phrase "class three lever" used at least half a dozen times throughout the weekend.

We talked specifically about strength development. We did so while being able to view all the fancy chrome "Strive" machines being used by the yuppies through the glass doors of the dojo. These machines isolate muscle groups so folks can safely work on them - one at a time. And they allow folks to concentrate more on their "vanity muscles." Meanwhile, the freeweight group was off to the side doing their own thing.

I discussed my own love of the classic olympic-style lifts, and why I thought they were so important. McCarthy meanwhile talked about what he ran across in his studies. Chinese lifting rocks to get strong. Farmers and fishermen developing stregth in the field doing their every-day manual labor chores. Another (Shotokan) student chimed in about the mid-western boys who had to hurl hundreds of bails of hay a day, and get up the next morning. These folks learned to do it right and use the right muscles, or they weren't able to feed their families.

These folks were nothing like the bench-and-curl crowd I always saw Friday afternoon in the weightroom at U.Va. And why were they there? To bring their puffed-up, Big Bird bodies to Graduate Happy Hour. You know... to impress all the undergraduate chicks.

A lad has to get laid, you know...



- Bill

[Stryke]

You can't have it both ways, Marcus. Quite the contrary, you are arguing with the numbers here. Right? And that's a good thing, because we've got you thinking.

Well yes and no , I think the numbers probably arent far off , but I`d suggest that theres a condition in there somewhere to obtain this result .

Someone with a strentgh imblance for example would the rule still apply ? .

Perhaps we should read the paper and check out his methods. That's always a good start. I'll see what I can do about digging up the source.

Would be interesting to get the full story .

At the end of the day, we Uechika need to understand that hitting hard with your hand has less to do with the strength of your arms. It has a lot more to do with the strength of core muscles, the legs, and the ability to put it all together (essential synergy).

Absolutely and I agree , I just question the simple percentages , there has to be more to it . Like some sort of necessary strength ratio .

So, how much can you squat, Marcus? How much can you dead lift? Now... Contrast that with how much you can curl, or how much you can do on a triceps extension exercise. If you want to throw more upper-body muscles into the equation, well... Look up any powerlifting contest results. What's the typical ratio for the amount deadlifted vs. the amount bench pressed?

This would be interesting too , i currently think im a little imbalanced with deadlifts ... But I dont use straps so it keeps the totals down I`d presume

but currently D 396 S 396 B 297 , I think it`s alittle lopsided

I guess this is why i question the results , I`d find it a lot easier to increase say My Squat 50 % and increase my punching power accordingly , however I dont think I would improve by x percent , If the others also didnt develop proportionately

[MikeK]

Hey, who you calling a Shotokan student?

[Bill Glasheen]

Someone with a strentgh imblance for example would the rule still apply ? .

Ahhh... Now it gets interesting. You see, researchers are preaching that many injuries happen because of strength imbalances.

Out on the sports playing field (or on the street), your body eventually will figure out one way or another what proportions of effort are required to create that whole which is greater than the sum of the parts. If not, then you don't get to play (because you ******), or you get your arse kicked (because you ******). One way or another, those proportions work out.

And your limitations often are due to your weakest link. A person may think they know how to increase strength in their body through various exercises. But if they don't get it right and they push themselves, next thing you know you have a pulled hamstring, ACL injury, torn rotator cuff, sprained wrist, etc

Well-trained athletes have several advantages. To start with, they perform at levels that seem to defy logic because all the parts work well and they understand how to use them together. Furthermore, they also understand their limits, which in many cases is just as important as maximizing those limits.

- Bill

[Stryke]

Hey Bill you probably just missed my edit