[QUOTE=TenTigers;1103086]in SPM, the hand is alive, It strikes but is relaxed, so if it encounters opposition, the energy changes angles and continues striking as the body moves forward, which allows the hand to always “recharge” as it moves forward. Since the strike is relaxed, it can deliver power at the end of the power chain.
easier said than done…[/QUOTE]
Thought i’d break this into a new thread from the main forum as i find this an interesting concept. Maybe TenTigers can shred more light on this. This sounds similar to the hung gar application of reserve. But the tricky thing here is how do you train and apply this.
[QUOTE=Brule;1115613]Thought i’d break this into a new thread from the main forum as i find this an interesting concept. Maybe TenTigers can shred more light on this. This sounds similar to the hung gar application of reserve. But the tricky thing here is how do you train and apply this.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
From my take on SPM, the hand (“bridge”) is not “dead”, it is reactive and “alive”, it/we read the pressure and lack there of we move in or around and when the hand feels the reaction it reacts, and attacks.
Think of when you are grappling and you try for a lock or choke and the opponent blocks you, you don’t “disconnect” but “effortlessly” go to the nest sub and the one after that and the one after that, always flowing with, but never following, more like leading.
I can tell you this-from personal experience, it’s not easy. Two-man drills such as chi-sao is definitely helpful, if you youtube Tim Tacketts trapping, he illustrates their “swinging gate” exercise, which I find helpful. Bruce Lee did some SPM and some of it seems to have crept into his training.
lao-reserve can be defined in different ways. In one way, it means not to over extend your strikes, your reserve then allows you to be able to redirect your hand.
It can also mean to have back up-to have more on hand to follow up with.
Gong-Hard, Yau-Soft, Bik-Crowding, Jik-Straight, Fun-Dividing, Deng-sinking, Chuen-inch,
Tai-lift, Lao-Reserve, Wun-Flow, Jai- immobilize, Deng-Finalize
Brule-I’ve heard lao as flow as well. I think in the other forum, we debated that, and came to the conclusion that everyone has their own take on it, and in the end, it doesn’t really matter, because it’s just a word, and the true understanding is in the hand.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;1115694]Brule-I’ve heard lao as flow as well. I think in the other forum, we debated that, and came to the conclusion that everyone has their own take on it, and in the end, it doesn’t really matter, because it’s just a word, and the true understanding is in the hand.[/QUOTE]
My teacher explains Lau / Lao: to roll to flow. I don’t think either is right or wrong though.
When you think of “LIVE” maybe you can expalin it as alert but not stiff, soft but not limp. In Tai Chi we call it “Song” but really your hand is relaxed and ready to listen to the opponent s energy.
I try to explain it to my student as when you spar… if your hand drops and just dangles at the thighs, it’s considered “Dead”. If you fight with 2 clenched fists and squeeze them too tight, they are considered “Dead”. Live hands are relaxed and ready to receive information.
This is a complex issue to explain to beginner students… I would wait until they have a couple of years before attempting to explain and teach “Live Energy”.
Might also be useful to remember that “alive” or “dead” qualities are not value judgements (i.e. alive=good, dead=bad). They are different techniques.
Alive hand is preparation for continuity of the fight. My Hop Ga teacher taught dead hand as the ideal method for the most telling blows. The arm is used as a flail with natural rebound from the target once the energy is gone. There is no attempt to modify the momentum once the target is attained. Often the preceeding or following hand will be more alive.
You might think of live hand as an epee, dead hand as a war hammer.
sorry,not trying to derail the thread toppic..about Lau Kiu some lineages use Flow others reserve..thats 2 different chinese characters. would be interesting to know how it became 2 different concepts…maybe another thread(?)
On toppic,i have no experience with spm but I visited Ng Hang Sifu in Hongkong and I pretty much liked what they do,very intense and far from dead (hands) very alive and powerful…
[QUOTE=jdhowland;1115952]Might also be useful to remember that “alive” or “dead” qualities are not value judgements (i.e. alive=good, dead=bad). They are different techniques.
Alive hand is preparation for continuity of the fight. My Hop Ga teacher taught dead hand as the ideal method for the most telling blows. The arm is used as a flail with natural rebound from the target once the energy is gone. There is no attempt to modify the momentum once the target is attained. Often the preceeding or following hand will be more alive.
You might think of live hand as an epee, dead hand as a war hammer.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post. Live hands are often better in theory than in practice. They are facilitated by the exchange of compliant structures, ‘facilitated’ but not determined, as in they can be imposed. It’s best to train both with and against, ‘live’ and ‘dead’ hands. Dead hands can be one shot winners or end-point finishers. Live hands teach a great deal about the geometry of structure, and even if over-engineered, they can still give a reserve of bandwidth to play with.
When you talk about dead hands, these are one-shot winners where all energy is put into the one strike to achieve the goal. When you talk about live hands, you allow for some redirection once it is met with a force it cannot overcome. With live hand, you are always holding back, and not re-charging the limb to strike again, correct? If this is the case, why practise this method at all as not all your energy is not put into the strike.
Not trolling here guys, just trying to understand these concepts and trying to have a civil discussion.
Yeah, in both lineages that I have experience in, Lao was always “restrain” to not over commit the strike or over extend the elbow and the reason was so that you could react quicker to counters.
[QUOTE=Brule;1116070]When you talk about dead hands, these are one-shot winners where all energy is put into the one strike to achieve the goal. When you talk about live hands, you allow for some redirection once it is met with a force it cannot overcome. With live hand, you are always holding back, and not re-charging the limb to strike again, correct? If this is the case, why practise this method at all as not all your energy is not put into the strike.
Not trolling here guys, just trying to understand these concepts and trying to have a civil discussion.[/QUOTE]
There’s a bandwidth of live-hands that run from a boxer’s feint to structured ‘sticking’. The former is probably more reliably applicable than the latter. The reduction of the concept of a ‘bridge’ from genralised interaction (including non contact interactions) to (say) arm bridges can lead to an overstatement on sticking or feeling. Whilst it’s good to develop these skills, in practice contact is seldom so structured or smooth as to allow them free play. They can become an absorbing abstraction and then lead to all sorts of dogmatic justifications. Clinch work (which is a kind of bridge) is less formal, and is usually just structured enough to be readily effective. The question for live-hand training is if it can be deconstructed, without losing any of the benefits derived from its compliant practice. I’m fairly certain that it can,
but this takes a development away from the usual live-hand training. Dead-hand hits are bandwidthed too. Some are more dumb-bomb than others. If our approach is principle led, rather than techique or dogma-led, then most of the decisions are taken for us, in other words the technique emerges in the moment: either dead or live-handed.
One thing I will add and to expand a bit on Indra’s mention of “clinch work”:
Over the years in the judo, wrestling, MT and BJJ I have done and had the previlage to face, I have found that bridging ( of the static sense) leads to stand up clinch work which quite often leads to throws,takedowns and ground work.
Live hand can be the “solution” to this problem buT ONLY if it is exposed to the shapes and feels that it will see under those conditions.
When you say live hand can be solution to this problem are you suggesting live hand skill will give a better chance of escaping the clinch and working into the striking range or are you saying it gives you a better chance within the clinch?
