Round Versus Straight
This question of which is faster round lines or straight, is a very moot point. The ‘shorter distance between two points being a straight line’ arguement is so much of a cliche these days that people mix up distance with speed as if they where the same thing.
The shorter path will only be quicker if the velocity of the straight line is the same as that of the curve or faster. If the velocity of the curved path is sufficiently higher then the speed will be greater even if the distance over the arc is longer.
It’s not just about velocity either.It’s about what you see or don’t see.
Anyone who has had enough real street fights will realise that the visual environment becomes very small and cluttered quite unlike standing off, posturing and exchanging ritualised or stylised geometrical movements with one another.
Round line combinations can come into the visual field with such speed and therefore momentum (as in force equals mass times acceleration f=ma) that they are only detected (if at all) when it is way, way too late.
Real fights are seldom about just straight or curved paths, they are about both, often at the same time, often in combination, and the added dimensions of 'timing’and ‘psychology’ mix the computation up even more.
One of my pai is Wing-Chun (although not my main one) and over the years one thing that has ‘struck me’ - forgive the pun please - is the effect of a systems principles or dogma on how the practitioner thinks about combat.
In Wing-Chun’s case they do certain things so very well that they sometimes adopt an almost trance-state belief (predicated on the ‘suggestion’ of the systems principles and some of its teachers) that round lines MUST be slower or that hooking attacks MUST be easy to stop. After all, if they were any good surely they’d be part of the staple technical armoury of wing-Chun, and they aren’t are they, so they are slow and ineffective. Q.E.D. …
Wing-Chun works extremely well against Wing-Chun - which is common enough for most styles - they usually structure their geometry and principles against themselves.
Wing-Chun’s defenecs against hooking or other round line attacks and combinations are IMHO and my pureley subjective and therefore very, very limited experienece, severely weakened because Wing-Chun people seldom know how to hook properly themselves - spending a lot of reflex argumenet time simply stating that they don’t work - on what are effectively dogmatic grounds.
It would after all be very inconvenient to fully admit to the power and mechanical efficiency of hooks when they don’t figure to any meaningful extent in the styles make up.
If Wing-Chun practitioners wouldtrain hooks - not to fail (predicatably) against their straight line structures, but instead train hooks to overcome their own system - train to beat themselves in other words, then they would have a healthy respect for the different mechanics and philosophies involved, and, maybe even start to question the wisdom of excluding them altogether from the style.
But that would be an excommunication offence for some…
Best Regards,
Steve Richards.