11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nate Tam
Nate Tam's picture
"Power Loop" and Kinetic Linkage

Hey guys, So I recently posted here on a topic regarding wing chun and shotokan cross-training, but it developed into an interesting discussion on power generation. i'd like to continue/focus that discussion here if you'd all ablige.

More specifically, I'd like to pick all your brains about the idea of kinetic linkage in general (mostly at the moment of impact) and generating a "power loop" that goes from the target- instantainously back to the floor- then back to the target. Rinse and repeat endlessly til preassure is either lost downwards, forwards (losing contact w/target), or backwards (losing rear-leg/ground connection)

Using gyaku-zuki as an example, The idea is that power is generated through a multitude of means (kime, stance, rotation, muscle expansion, hikite, bodyweight shifting, etc..), but unlike a boxer, this power is continually fed to itself at the moment of impact through internal connections from the target-through the body- and into the floor (kinetic linkeage). Same as power towards the target, but from the target side. A la "newtons thrid law of motion".

How do we feel about the power loop in general (besides it being difiult to test/use) in the confines of power generation/delivery. I'm purely asking about delivery of force, not about realistic usability.

I personally feel like if applicable, it can be immensely powerful, and really give the target side the feeling like your techqniue is really "penetrating". However, this is only from a grounded position. Being able to pull this off while sliding makes this much harder, as you'd need to shift your back foot in and ground it by the time the impact has rippled through your body and would need the floor connection to successfully redirect power back into the target. Of course the better internal connection you can make the faster and more purely that impact travels through your body, making it even harder if you're connecting well.

I know it's a long post, but wanted to ask the question with detail. So for clarity:

1. Do you feel that a "power loop" is obtainable and useable?

2. (i know i didnt write much on this but) Do you feel other means of generating power (like a boxer, or in forms of kung fu/other styles) you can generate power more effectively without causing yourself bodily harm?

colby
colby's picture

So I dont know if this will answer your question but these are methods of power generation that do not necessarily rely on hip rotation to generate or just dont rely on it for power which may feed into what your talking about in terms of a power loop. The 1st one, I think, discusses how to avoid injury though.

https://youtu.be/4idqjHd7kWE

https://youtu.be/QXRiZ5r6bN4

https://youtu.be/JthOnprX_DM

https://youtu.be/CLUA49R7zbw

https://youtu.be/YdvX2Pe81eU

https://youtu.be/VAEH0lamxuo

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Nate,

I think a video of this will help because it’s not really clear what you’re describing from the text. However, some thoughts from what I THINK you are driving at:

Nate Tam wrote:
More specifically, I'd like to pick all your brains about the idea of kinetic linkage in general (mostly at the moment of impact) and generating a "power loop" that goes from the target- instantaneously back to the floor- then back to the target.

That sounds something akin to “perpetual motion” and hence I’m sceptical. There’s no way to get “free energy” by recycling it in this fashion i.e. the power from the impact goes back into the floor and then back into the target, and so on.

Nate Tam wrote:
… and into the floor (kinetic linkeage). Same as power towards the target, but from the target side. A la "newtons third law of motion".

That comes up a lot, but the idea of impact “going back into the floor” is flawed in my view. The “equal and opposite reaction” (Newtons 3rd law) is mainly used to bring striking limb to a stop. Without that force coming back the other way, the strike would not slow down on hitting the target (Newton’s 1st Law).

If Newton’s 3rd law did work this way, then kicks would not work as we’d be blasted backward every time while standing on one foot. It would be impossible to retain our balance. However, we all know we can kick hard and remain upright. The reason being that the equal and opposite force slows the leg down, and once the leg stops, everything all balanced out … so there is no remaining force to drive us backward.

This was covered more in-depth in this thread:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/11854#comment-11854

Nate Tam wrote:
1. Do you feel that a "power loop" is obtainable and useable?

No. I think it would be a violation of the laws of physics. Unless I’m missing something in your description, it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Newton’s 3rd and a violation of the laws of Thermodynamics (i.e. begin able to endlessly loop energy).

Nate Tam wrote:
2. Do you feel other means of generating power (like a boxer, or in forms of kung fu/other styles) you can generate power more effectively without causing yourself bodily harm?

I can certainly generate power with the existing methods used. If a new method is developed, I’d need to see it used (or better yet feel it) in order to evaluate it.

Always hard to go off text alone, so I maybe misunderstanding what you’re describing. I do know the idea of the “energy doing back into the floor” is flawed though, so on that basis alone, I don’t what is being described is workable.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Like Iain, I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're getting at, but what it sounds like you're describing is simply not how kinetic energy actually works. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like overthinking it to try and come up with a more esoteric explanation than is necessary, or helpful. The idea of it bouncing back and forth like that is basically trying to describe power generation as being a series of linear pulses from the ground to the point of contact, which is not how a single technique is going to work. When you exert force against an object, that object does exert force back until it can't anymore, for one reason or another, but that is a constant pressure as long as contact is being made--it isn't a pulse that bounces. If you TRIED to generate power in short pulses, you would never be able to generate as much power as you can normally, because you would be interrupting any momentum you would build through the normal range of motion of your strike.

Nate Tam
Nate Tam's picture

Yeah guys...I'm over-explaining and thus confusing. MY BAD.

I'm not talking about a breach in our understanding of physics. I say "power-loop" only to talk about the connection between floor and target. The idea being that you are still involving pressure downwards and onto the rear leg (for a punch) to continually exert force.

I guess the analogy would be between a bullet fired and a spear thrusted. A bullet when making impact has all the kinnetic force from the energy that propelled it forward BEFORE it's reached the target. A spear has all the kinnetic force from the energy perpetually driving it into the target.

I'll change the question for clarity. Which method do you believe actually delivers more force/we should seek to accomplish the most when training?

1) A technique with no floor connection/pressure/alignment but potentially more mechanics/velocity?

or

2) A technique with good floor connection/presure/alignment (with a continual driving factor) but less mechanics/velocity?

I recognize that I'm using the word "mechanics" here very loosely, mostly restrain myself from getting wordy.

The power loop/kinetic linkage talk was to clarify the driving method of technique- to emphasise structure and alignment, not to create power out of nothing lol. I think of the differences between boxing vs. karate (in a very general sense) is the techniques use a lot of the same principles, but to me one of the more defining characteristics of karate's techniques (at least my style) is that they are produced using a continual energy transfer, while other martial arts (not all) do not.

My personal preference is #2 simply because it's more efficient, and think healthier.

By the way I'm NOT saying you shouldn't strive to have both great mechanics and speed while also having good connection- of course we should always be trying that. I'm simply curious which is more preferrable. I see so many karate styles (and martial arts videos) that abandon this floor connection for an emphasis on external force like mechanics, body weight, muscle activation and the like, it's been bothering me that people don't talk about having those qualities also being backed up by healthy posture, connection, and alignment. 

****EDIT**** VIDEOS- YAY!

Here's that famous fight science boxing video explaining the force coming from a boxers cross. 

 

I have all sorts of mixed feelings about DK Yoo, but here's a breakdown of his zero-inch punch that leans towards what I'm talking about. 

colby
colby's picture

Edit: Nevermind. I see what your putting down now. I would say that there is no difference between those two things. Ones just shorter than the other but the ground is still critical in the zero inch punch.

Use the power generation techniques that feels good with your body and for what you need them for. Some kinds of power generation are for punching or kicking, another is your already in close with someone and you need some way to create power from a relatively small distance to another person. You usually do this through the same mechanics you've already been practicing, your just reducing it, making the movement tighter and faster.

Like most things its dependent on you.

Nate Tam
Nate Tam's picture

Of course, yes you're right. It always depends on the practitioner. I Think Jesse Enkamp explains this idea pretty well "towel vs stick". Here's a video where he vaguely explains the two methods of power generation, and how it's really up to the user to deliver in whatever way works for them the most naturally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKs8NVZhh4

My question is more about the pros and cons of using gounding or "rooting" to deliver power vs a whip like, or pure kinetic tranfer from the floor into the target, but without the grounding- Just pure biomechanics.

I think fundamentally there IS a difference. 1 where you're constantly driving from the floor, and 1 where you're not. If were not talking about the same thing, and you do believe they are the same, please expand- unless I'm misunderstanding you Colby.

colby
colby's picture

Oh your talking about whipping power, in the different Chinese arts, its fajin power. So those are two different ways of generating power because normal rotating power with root are using the normal muscle groups for striking. The whipping power uses the ligament-tendon to deliver the power instead of the major muscle group, which you build up by building up your ligament tendon strength. That's what I'm working up, trying into develop that fajin whipping power. But eventually, it just becomes movement where your they are complimenting each other.

I dont know if you checked out the videos I posted earlier. But here is one that shows why developing strong ligament-tendon is a good idea

https://youtu.be/X8uzzq-PFek

But for what I was talking about before, there is no such thing as pure biomechanics either no interaction with the floor, besides a couple standing chokes, everything a human body does needs resistance from the ground to make work. Pure biomechanics would be be trying to do techniques in deep water or in the air.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Nate Tam wrote:
Here's that famous fight science boxing video explaining the force coming from a boxers cross.

Worth noting that the energy going into the floor (ground reaction force) is shown to be reducing at as the blow is being delivered. I’ve read a few studies that show this too. This is why I feel the “back shock into the floor” idea is flawed. We can certainly create forward drive by pushing into the floor though (like a sprinter in the blocks). Shigeru Kimura was big on this idea and Peter Consterdine introduced the concept to me. Crucially, we generate that force.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

If I'm understanding you correctly, now, this really comes down to whether you keep your rear foot planted or not while striking, which is something we have discussed on this forum previously: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/gyaku-zuki-back-foot-sliding-or-not

In fact, I made a couple videos related to the topic, although my specific points may be a bit different from what you're getting at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdkI2Qo2Eq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jIWgFU0p-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCtp-AMPsyE

Nate Tam
Nate Tam's picture

Wastelander, thanks for the forum link! - yeah this is more or less the same topic. I think what I'm referring to is the product/symptom of keeping your heel on the ground (while maintaining a good structure). 

The first and second videos you posted are more or less the right topic as well. Let's assume for argument sake the opponent is close enough that I don't need (or want) to extend my rear leg fully, but can instead continue driving into the target with my rear leg nearly fully extended. It certainly makes more sense to me to keep that foot planted (pivot or not) to continually drive through the opponent.

Now, if they're far enough away that I need to extend fully or lift the heel to reach the target- that brings up the question, is using footwork to get your positioning and distance more preferrable than that? Of course footwork is also dependant on the practitioner, but I'd assume tsugi ashi and suri ashi would work well to bridge the gap in distance to make up for lack of ground connection while not moving closer to the target.

These arguments of course are in the context of pure power generation/body-to-floor connection, and would obviously change depending on situational variables like timing, setting, personal strengths and weakneses, etc...(everything else beyond just this topic) and THUS, kind of makes the entire topic a purely academic one. - i know.