# Food for thought on the "Bai Jong" or "ready position"



## KPM (Feb 13, 2016)

Wing Chun Fight Club - Wing Chun vs Pure Grappler DVD Excerpt - Side Stance

I've long disagreed with the commonly held belief that the Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma is not a "fighting stance", that it is a "training stance" only.   Why would you spend so much time standing in a position that you aren't going to use in application?  Here are some of the objections I have heard:

1.  It is not mobile enough...being too slow to move out of.   Maybe if you are using that extreme "clamping" thing where you are trying the squeeze the crap out of some poor innocent goat!  ;-)  But that is not what I mean by a YGKYM.  I'm just  talking about a relaxed by solid neutral stance with both knees directed a bit inward.  This is pure potential.  You can step out in either direction or forward with either leg with equal ease and unpredictability.  You can pivot to either side equally.  You have not committed to either side being forward yet.  I train this to be a very mobile position.

2.  You are vulnerable to a groin shot from a kick.  Well, sure.   ANY position is vulnerable to one kick or another. Standing square makes you vulnerable to a front kick.  Standing with one leg forward in the typical "Bai Jong" makes you vulnerable to a round kick.  So what's the difference?  Both stances are equally vulnerable.  If I am in a YGKYM and someone throws a kick to the groin all I have to do is a fast 1/2 pivot to cover with one knee.  Or I simply time a forward step in the intercepts his kick with my lead leg as I angle my groin off the line of his strike. 

3.  But here is an ADVANTAGE to the YGKYM as a ready stance or fighting stance....it is less vulnerable to a shoot from a good grappler, as is explained in this video!   The video is showing the side stance.  But it applies equally to YGKYM, and to me....standing in YGKYM is as good or better than standing in the side stance.  ;-)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've long disagreed with the commonly held belief that the Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma is not a "fighting stance", that it is a "training stance" only. Why would you spend so much time standing in a position that you aren't going to use in application? Here are some of the objections I have heard:



Same reason we do raptor walks lizard crawls and jump squats.

Because strong fighters are better fighters.


----------



## KPM (Feb 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Same reason we do raptor walks lizard crawls and jump squats.
> 
> Because strong fighters are better fighters.



But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system?   I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."


----------



## Phobius (Feb 13, 2016)

You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.

I could be wrong and would gladly figure out how to make YGKYM more mobile without removing the crucial elements of it, meaning me being rooted or well structured.

Thirdly. You are not fighting a grappler, and whatever comes at you will risk going right through you when you focus on fending off a grappler. We can not sacrifize mobility for a good footing, because we can not dream to outrange our opponent. It is the nature of WC to always have the shorter hand. (Kicks not mentioned because how to quickly kick from YGKYM?)

Once more if you can give more information I would greatly appreciate it in order to reconsider my standpoint.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system?   I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."



I think BJJ use GI while training and sparring, this to help improve their balance when executing techniques. Could of course be wrong but it is what I have heard. Elements that are important in training may still only hold conditioning values.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 13, 2016)

Does anyone know if the "upcoming DVD" this excerpt came from was ever released?


----------



## KPM (Feb 13, 2016)

You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.

---Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance.  I've never used that in my training anyway.  I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM.  Relaxed but solid.  Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile?  It has one leg turned inward and one outward.  If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards?  Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system?   I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."



Yes there is a half and half element.  We do like to make the conditioning a bit martial arty.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I think BJJ use GI while training and sparring, this to help improve their balance when executing techniques. Could of course be wrong but it is what I have heard. Elements that are important in training may still only hold conditioning values.



Bjj do use the clothes to fight. Again a half and half element there.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.
> 
> ---Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance.  I've never used that in my training anyway.  I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM.  Relaxed but solid.  Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile?  It has one leg turned inward and one outward.  If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards?  Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.









Knees in line with feet to be structurally strong.

Strong so if you eat a leg kick you knee dosent collapse.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

By the way. If that stance is so good to defend takedowns why does wrestling which is all takedowns have a different stance?


----------



## KPM (Feb 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> By the way. If that stance is so good to defend takedowns why does wrestling which is all takedowns have a different stance?



The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward.  Did you watch the video?


----------



## guy b (Feb 13, 2016)




----------



## guy b (Feb 13, 2016)




----------



## wckf92 (Feb 13, 2016)

Guy, what's your point with these two photo's you have posted?


----------



## guy b (Feb 13, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Guy, what's your point with these two photo's you have posted?





			
				KPM said:
			
		

> The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward. Did you watch the video?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward.  Did you watch the video?



Yeah.  I watched the video. I dont think it is a bit less vulnerable. And instead of bogging down with the technicalitys of why.  And resulting in i think, you think posts.
I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.



This forum is slightly crazy in terms of the way nobody is able to admit it when they are wrong


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance.  I've never used that in my training anyway.  I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM.  Relaxed but solid.  Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile?  It has one leg turned inward and one outward.  If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards?  Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.



Problem is not with the clamping as you say, and if you dont use it perhaps try it out. It helps improve speed and bodily structure while moving. At least for me.

The side stance in the video is mobile yes, but it is not the same if you turn both knees, legs and feet inwards.In such a position I find it you have no tension built up to generate a moving force in any direction. You become rooted but unable to move forward without shifting weight, unable to move backward as well as sideways. All movement requires you to shift your weight. The only option I see is moving backwards from YGKYM stance, which is perhaps effecting if sprawling but in my view WC needs mobility far more than such a situational stance.

Could of course be wrong but I have not really found many directions to move into quickly from YGKYM without going into another stance first before moving feet.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  I watched the video. I dont think it is a bit less vulnerable. And instead of bogging down with the technicalitys of why.  And resulting in i think, you think posts.
> I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.



I think I will defer to the opinion of the guy in the video that has all the grappling credentials.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> This forum is slightly crazy in terms of the way nobody is able to admit it when they are wrong



Geez.  You guys really are something!   This is the "basic question" that Drop Bear asked:

* 
 By the way. If that stance is so good to defend takedowns why does wrestling which is all takedowns have a different stance?*

This is just a stupid question to begin with.  Nobody is being "crazy and not admitting they are wrong."  Guy is just being his typical a55hole self.  

First.  I never said that the YGKYM was "so good to defend takedowns."  I said it was less vulnerable to a takedown than having one leg forward....as was explained in the video.  Now you may argue that this is not true.  But I tend to go with the opinion of the guy with all the grappling credentials and experience.  Second, wrestling is indeed "all about takedowns"....so it makes sense that wrestling would also have a stance that is all about defending against a takedown....being specialized in that area.  Wing Chun is NOT specialized in that area, so why in the world would anyone expect it to use a wrestling stance?  That's just a stupid question right from the beginning, and Guy should recognize that as well.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

Still want to figure out how you get mobility out of YGKYM. It is just one of those things that I have hard time even accepting simply because I just can´t get close to that experience when trying myself.

Still eager to know what aspect I am missing and what things I have not tried out. What is the key?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

The side stance in the video is mobile yes, but it is not the same if you turn both knees, legs and feet inwards.In such a position I find it you have no tension built up to generate a moving force in any direction.

---But position has very little to do with tension.  You can generate tension in any position.

You become rooted but unable to move forward without shifting weight, unable to move backward as well as sideways.

---I don't find that true at all.  I can stand in my YGKYM and move freely in any direction, as I have already pointed out.  Maybe a difference in training?



Could of course be wrong but I have not really found many directions to move into quickly from YGKYM without going into another stance first before moving feet.

---I assure you, I do not pivot into a side stance before stepping out from YGKYM.  Like I said, if you know how to use this position, it is pure potential.  It is considered a "neutral" stance for a reason.  You don't have to shift through "reverse" before putting your car in "drive" from "neutral."   But again, I will say that for someone that is holding a lot of tension and maybe keeping their weight back near their heels this may not be the case.  But that is not how I do YGKYM.


Still eager to know what aspect I am missing and what things I have not tried out. What is the key?

---I keep the pelvis or Kwa "unlocked" or "floating" for dynamic balance.  I have my weight over the arch of the foot near K1, not near the heels.  The knees are bent and springy for that bit of tension needed to "spring into movement", but are not "clamping" and rigid.  It really is a lot like a tennis player waiting to return a serve....just upright and not bent forward, and the knees turned a bit inward rather than being straight....but the same kind of feeling of preparedness.  This is the same position that Robert Chu uses in his structure tests.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Does anyone know if the "upcoming DVD" this excerpt came from was ever released?



I get the impression that the group and the effort feel apart prior to any DVDs being released.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> I said it was less vulnerable to a takedown than having one leg forward



A wrestling stance has one leg forward


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> I have my weight over the arch of the foot near K1, not near the heels. The knees are bent and springy for that bit of tension needed to "spring into movement", but are not "clamping" and rigid.



Does anyone stand with their weight on the heels and knees locked into position? Can't say I have ever seen it.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> A wrestling stance has one leg forward



In a very different way, as your picture showed.  What's your point?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> Does anyone stand with their weight on the heels and knees locked into position? Can't say I have ever seen it.



But we've already determined that you don't get out much.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> But we've already determined that you don't get out much.



Which wing chun have you seen standing in this way?


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> In a very different way, as your picture showed.  What's your point?



You are stressing the leg being forward as changing the vulnerability to takedowns. Any grappler knows that you are more stable in terms of forward and backward forces with staggered legs, which is why they stand that way, given that backward and forward forces on the upper body are usually the way that balance is broken before an upper body, hip or leg throw. In terms of traditional freestyle wrestling leg shoot takedowns, standing square leaves you open to a double. Standing staggered you are more vulnerable to a single. I know which I prefer.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

^^^^^  Again, I will defer to the opinion and expertise of the guy in the video.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

Here is another expert for you to defer to:


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

Another thing to consider: why would you be standing still like this when you aren't even within striking range of your opponent? Wouldn't you be moving around, in which case your legs would be staggered?

Are you arguing that in a confrontation you will be waiting in your kung fu stance, until they either shoot for your legs, in which case you anti grapple them, or walk straight up to you, in which case you punch them? Sounds quite unrealistic.

If instead you are planning to use this equal leg stance within striking range, which is what I think you have mentioned before, then for upper body grappling it is also worse than staggered, unless you grab on and put your hips right back, in which case you won't be doing wing chun any more. I know that Alan shows himself absorbing force into his stance and so on, but as far as I have been shown this is a training idea rather than a practical method of dealing with grappling. If you leave your weak leg and hip forward you will be swept, tripped or thrown with it.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> Here is another expert for you to defer to:



And just what does that have to do with Wing Chun???

  I do note that the wrestling stance shown has the guy bending over and squatting down so that his upper body is just as far forward as his lead leg.  This negates the problem of having the lead leg forward where a grappler can easily snag it...as shown in the original video.  But this is wrestling, not Wing Chun.  Wrestling does not have to deal with striking.  This is why you seldom see this stance used by wrestlers that have gone over to MMA.  It invites a strike to the head.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Another thing to consider: why would you be standing still like this when you aren't even within striking range of your opponent? Wouldn't you be moving around, in which case your legs would be staggered?

---Good point.  I didn't mean to suggest someone would just stand there in YGKYM and wait for something to happen.  I'm just saying it is just as valid of a stance for fighting as the "side stance" that some use. 


Are you arguing that in a confrontation you will be waiting in your kung fu stance, until they either shoot for your legs, in which case you anti grapple them, or walk straight up to you, in which case you punch them? Sounds quite unrealistic.

---No, not at all.  Absolutely I would be moving around and looking for an opening.  But I may pause in YGKYM just as often as I would pause in Pin Sun Ma/Chum Kiu Ma (or whatever you want to call the side stance) or Bik Ma. 


If instead you are planning to use this equal leg stance within striking range, which is what I think you have mentioned before, then for upper body grappling it is also worse than staggered,

---I never said I would stubbornly maintain this stance.  I pointed out how I can freely step out of this stance in any direction.  If a standing grappling situation dictated that a staggered stance was better, then that's what I'd do!  I have only said that the YGKYM is as valid a stance to use in fighting as any of the others....not that it takes the place of any of the others.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

Just one question, You think it is just as quick moving around from that stance as any other? That is what I mean with mobility, because all stances allow movement but not quick enough to avoid being hit or reacting to incoming force.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> And just what does that have to do with Wing Chun???
> 
> I do note that the wrestling stance shown has the guy bending over and squatting down so that his upper body is just as far forward as his lead leg.  This negates the problem of having the lead leg forward where a grappler can easily snag it...as shown in the original video.  But this is wrestling, not Wing Chun.  Wrestling does not have to deal with striking.  This is why you seldom see this stance used by wrestlers that have gone over to MMA.  It invites a strike to the head.



Dont see that stance anywhere but kung fu.  (which is fine. I am just arguing this take down idea that so far doesn't really add up)

Does you expert who endorses that stance use that stance?


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Does you expert who endorses that stance use that stance?



Of course not, he needs to move


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just one question, You think it is just as quick moving around from that stance as any other? That is what I mean with mobility, because all stances allow movement but not quick enough to avoid being hit or reacting to incoming force.



Yes, I do.  Does a tennis player have any problem moving around from a "squared" ready stance?


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> And just what does that have to do with Wing Chun???
> 
> I do note that the wrestling stance shown has the guy bending over and squatting down so that his upper body is just as far forward as his lead leg.  This negates the problem of having the lead leg forward where a grappler can easily snag it...as shown in the original video.  But this is wrestling, not Wing Chun.  Wrestling does not have to deal with striking.  This is why you seldom see this stance used by wrestlers that have gone over to MMA.  It invites a strike to the head.



It is a different expert for you to defer to about the vulnerability of leg positions to takedowns.

My guess is that the guy in the wing chun video was being paid to say something stupid that he didn't believe, was doing it as a favour to a friend, or something similar. Wrestlers tend to stand like wrestlers, which is a staggered stance, including our wrestling friend in the wing chun video.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dont see that stance anywhere but kung fu.  (which is fine. I am just arguing this take down idea that so far doesn't really add up)
> 
> Does you expert who endorses that stance use that stance?



I don't even understand what you are saying here.   Don't see what stance anywhere but Kung Fu?  The video was showing a wrestling stance!  Does the expert use what stance?  I'm sure the wrestler uses a wrestling stance...against wrestlers, and the Wing Chun guy obviously uses a side stance.  So what are you even talking about?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> It is a different expert for you to defer to about the vulnerability of leg positions to takedowns.
> 
> My guess is that the guy in the wing chun video was being paid to say something stupid that he didn't believe, was doing it as a favour to a friend, or something similar. Wrestlers tend to stand like wrestlers, which is a staggered stance, including our wrestling friend in the wing chun video.



Here we go again!     I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.  Again....your little video clip had nothing to do with Wing Chun.   Again..... I pointed out how a wrestler compensates for having one leg forward to negate the vulnerability.  Wing Chun doesn't do that.   The guy in the original video was simply pointing out how easy it is for a good grappler to snag the forward leg if you stick it out there.  That seems like pretty common sense to me.  Which, again, suggests to me that you are just arguing  for the sake of arguing.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Good point.  I didn't mean to suggest someone would just stand there in YGKYM and wait for something to happen.



The video shows a wing chun person standing statically waiting for a wrestler to shoot in. This seems suicidal, however you are standing. Yet you seem to support the video. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with it really?



> I'm just saying it is just as valid of a stance for fighting as the "side stance" that some use



Fighting when? At range you need to be moving surely so you will be staggered 99% of the time. Do you mean fighting within punching range or in a clinch?



> No, not at all.  Absolutely I would be moving around and looking for an opening.  But I may pause in YGKYM just as often as I would pause in Pin Sun Ma/Chum Kiu Ma (or whatever you want to call the side stance) or Bik Ma.



I don't see when you would ever pause in a stance in a fight?



> I never said I would stubbornly maintain this stance.  I pointed out how I can freely step out of this stance in any direction.  If a standing grappling situation dictated that a staggered stance was better, then that's what I'd do!  I have only said that the YGKYM is as valid a stance to use in fighting as any of the others....not that it takes the place of any of the others.



If you are coming from moving to not moving why would you bring your legs together in that way? When boxers set their feet to strike they stop in the advancing or retreating position they were in with staggered feet usually. Why bother bringing them together?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

^^^^^^ I'm not letting you suck me into another one of your pointless arguments when it is clear you aren't even trying to see what I've been saying.  You are showing your common tactic of nit-picking at every comment and trying to find fault rather then just carrying on a friendly conversation.  I'm sure in short order you would accuse of being "dishonest" or a "coward" or some such thing.  So I'm out.  Not going down that road with you again.  Steve....you should be proud of me!


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Here we go again!     I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.  Again....your little video clip had nothing to do with Wing Chun.   Again..... I pointed out how a wrestler compensates for having one leg forward to negate the vulnerability.  Wing Chun doesn't do that.   The guy in the original video was simply pointing out how easy it is for a good grappler to snag the forward leg if you stick it out there.  That seems like pretty common sense to me.  Which, again, suggests to me that you are just arguing  for the sake of arguing.



Not at all, I honestly think it is worse to stand with both feet equal because it means you are very unstable to forwards backwards force (unless you lean or crouch) and because it means both legs are reachable for the shoot style takedown resulting in a double which is much less easy to negate, usually results in a worse fall, and results in your legs being passed which equals defeat unless you are good on the ground.

It is false I think to say that standing staggered puts one leg closer - your front defensive hand is after all in the same place. Staggered stance actually means your back leg is further away and getting both legs is more difficult.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^^ I'm not letting you suck me into another one of your pointless arguments when it is clear you aren't even trying to see what I've been saying.  You are showing your common tactic of nit-picking at every comment and trying to find fault rather then just carrying on a friendly conversation.  I'm sure in short order you would accuse of being "dishonest" or a "coward" or some such thing.  So I'm out.  Not going down that road with you again.  Steve....you should be proud of me!



If you would like this kind of thing not to happen again then don't say silly things and run away when asked questions about what you said. Your ego is the problem. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Dont see that stance anywhere but kung fu.


Not in Kung Fu but only in southern CMA. In the northern CMA, the cat stance <-> monkey stance is more commonly used.

IMO, the YGKYM was originally designed to be only used on the boat. Old saying said, "If you can't get both, you get one first, you then get the other one later". The side stance is vulnerable for single leg but the YGKYM is vulnerable for double legs. When you opponent gets your single leg, you can still extend your leg between his legs and play with your counters. When you opponent gets your double legs, you will be down and there will be no counters.

I hope people can learn something from this clip.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> Of course not, he needs to move


The best way is to move in circle and try to move toward your opponent's side door. If your opponent has

- right leg forward, you want to move toward his right side.
- left leg forward, you want to move toward his left side.

The YGKYM is not suitable for circular stepping. Sometime even if you don't know how to attack, you still want to move. While you are moving, soon or later you will find opportunity to attack.


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 14, 2016)

Iv seen a few wing chuns lock in knees and have tight hips. Actually a lot do. 

I use YGKYM when im in the clinch alot though slightly modified. Pressure is always changing so your stance/ body should always be adapting to every inch of pressure that changes. Sticky hands to me means the whole body not just hand techniques. 

YJKYM is a good position to sprawl from I guess too. 

I know Duncan Leung lineage use there heel in a way to explode off YJKYM in a way I havent seen any other lineages do. 

What happened to that Wing chun fight club ? Did that dvd end up getting released ? The forum just died.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yes, I do.  Does a tennis player have any problem moving around from a "squared" ready stance?



Problem however is that a tennis player does not stand in such stance. They use even weight distribution and bent knees, but in parallell. Not inwards bent. Reason being that they need to stand on even ground to move either way fast which you do not need in WC. One side is good enough. If we do not bend inwards then this is a modified stance and while being non-traditional I want to see why there would be a value in such a modified stance not existing in any martial art I know today.

Not saying there are no value, just not believing the tennis player argument to be valid sorry.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Iv seen a few wing chuns lock in knees and have tight hips. Actually a lot do.
> 
> I use YGKYM when im in the clinch alot though slightly modified. Pressure is always changing so your stance/ body should always be adapting to every inch of pressure that changes. Sticky hands to me means the whole body not just hand techniques.
> 
> ...



Now here I agree in a clinch it would seem like easy way to move from YGKYM into a sprawl.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 14, 2016)

While the "outward bending knee" can be used to stop a foot sweep, the "inward bending knee" is vulnerable for a foot sweep. The best angle for foot sweep is to kick your leg behind your opponent's heel toward his toes direction. Since the YGKYM bends the knee inward (heel out), your opponent doesn't need to turn much to line up his foot behind your heel for his sweep.

IMO, the YGKYM has the following weakness:

1. vulnerable for foot sweep.
2. vulnerable for double legs.
3. vulnerable for low side kick behind the knee joint.
4. difficult to move in circle.
5. base is too small.
6. ...


----------



## guy b. (Feb 14, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> While the "outward bending knee" can be used to stop a foot sweep, the "inward bending knee" is vulnerable for a foot sweep. The best angle for foot sweep is to kick your leg behind your opponent's heel toward his toes direction. Since the YGKYM bends the knee inward (heel out), your opponent doesn't need to turn much to line up his foot behind your heel for his sweep.
> 
> IMO, the YGKYM has the following weakness:
> 
> ...



Absolutely correct from grappling point of view.

That is why it is best understood as a training stance, not a stance to use in fighting.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Iv seen a few wing chuns lock in knees and have tight hips. Actually a lot do.



Who stands on heels in the training stance with locked knees as KPM said? Do these people use the training stance as a fighting stance?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you would like this kind of thing not to happen again then don't say silly things and run away when asked questions about what you said. Your ego is the problem. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The YGKYM is not suitable for circular stepping. .



Why would you say that?  It is just as suitable for circular stepping as the side stance.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

While the "outward bending knee" can be used to stop a foot sweep, the "inward bending knee" is vulnerable for a foot sweep. The best angle for foot sweep is to kick your leg behind your opponent's heel toward his toes direction. Since the YGKYM bends the knee inward (heel out), your opponent doesn't need to turn much to line up his foot behind your heel for his sweep.

---Wing Chun does its best not to be in the range of a that kind of foot sweep.  Would not the lead leg in a "Bik Ma" with the knee and foot angled inward be just as vulnerable to the foot sweep?


IMO, the YGKYM has the following weakness:

1. vulnerable for foot sweep.

---The forward stance is also vulnerable to a foot sweep.  Every position is vulnerable to something.  There is no "unstoppable technique."   The side stance is also vulnerable to a foot sweep, depending on the situation.


2. vulnerable for double legs.

---And the forward stance is vulnerable to single legs.  Again, every position is vulnerable to something.

3. vulnerable for low side kick behind the knee joint.

---And the forward stance is vulnerable to a round kick behind the knee joint.   The side stance is also vulnerable to a low side kick behind the knee joint.

4. difficult to move in circle.

---Not the way I do it!

5. base is too small.

---Not the way I do it!


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Problem however is that a tennis player does not stand in such stance. They use even weight distribution and bent knees, but in parallell. Not inwards bent.

---Sure.  But I'm not talking about a YGKYM with knees turned so far in as to be "2 fists width" apart.  I'm talking about a very natural inward angling of the legs for stability without lose of mobility. 


Reason being that they need to stand on even ground to move either way fast which you do not need in WC.

---Why would you not need to move fast in either way in Wing Chun?  That's one of the advantages of the YGKYM.  Pure potential.  You should be able to move fast and freely in ANY direction.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Who stands on heels in the training stance with locked knees as KPM said? Do these people use the training stance as a fighting stance?

---This guy for one!  His knees may not be clamped in, but look how far he is leaned back.  His shoulders are behind his hips.  His weight can't help but be back near his heels.   And he got taken down, not because of his stance, but because he charged straight in on a grappler that ducked under his attack and took him down. 




Kung Fu Wang said:


>


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

How does the training stance get transported from wherever you start to a position directly in front of the opponent? How and why does it remain static in this position for any period of time, given what a fight is actually like? What is the advantage of being in it, given that the single reason identified so far (invulnerability to a wrestler shooting in), is irrelevant from wing chun punching range?


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Who stands on heels in the training stance with locked knees as KPM said? Do these people use the training stance as a fighting stance?
> 
> ---This guy for one!  His knees may not be clamped in, but look how far he is leaned back.  His shoulders are behind his hips.  His weight can't help but be back near his heels.   And he got taken down, not because of his stance, but because he charged straight in on a grappler that ducked under his attack and took him down.



If he'd only remained in that static position, he might have stood a chance with the anti grappling.


----------



## geezer (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ...That is why it (YGKYM) is best understood as a training stance, not a stance to use in fighting.



It is valuable for both training, and for _baiting.  _Stand just outside your opponent's range in YGKYM looking like a WC dork and wait for him to commit and launch an attack towards you. When he moves, you move ...shoot forward, close the distance in a single explosive step and get inside where you can apply your "science of infighting"!

Personally, I prefer not to stand still in YGKYM, but in my view, YGKYM is inside every other stance and step. There is the same adduction, structure and so on. Every time you turn or circle-step through to the opposite lead, you pass right through it. The adduction, hip, spine  and head positioning is still there even in advancing step. Others may not notice it, but YGKYM is always there, just like proper elbow position or covering centerline for the hands.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

geezer said:


> in my view, YGKYM is inside every other stance and step



I agree, and this is why we spend so much time in it.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> side stance is also vulnerable to a foot sweep, depending on the situation.



When are you in the side stance?


----------



## KPM (Feb 15, 2016)

----Ok.  I've probably been over-reacting recently.  So I'll give it another shot and see how far it goes.

The video shows a wing chun person standing statically waiting for a wrestler to shoot in. This seems suicidal, however you are standing. Yet you seem to support the video. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with it really?

---It's a demo.  It is simply showing a grappler shooting in on a Wing Chun guy in a side stance.  They may very well have been moving around leading up to this point.



Fighting when? At range you need to be moving surely so you will be staggered 99% of the time. Do you mean fighting within punching range or in a clinch?

---Any fighting.  Fighting in general.  Why try and complicate things?



I don't see when you would ever pause in a stance in a fight?

---Watch any sparring match.  You will see many "pauses" as the fighters regroup, size each up, transition to something else, etc.



If you are coming from moving to not moving why would you bring your legs together in that way?

---You mean in YGKYM or the side stance?  I guess maybe its a stylistic choice. Do you ALWAYS keep one leg forward?  You never use the side stance?  The TWC guys and other groups fight from a side stance a lot.  So does Pin Sun. 


When boxers set their feet to strike they stop in the advancing or retreating position they were in with staggered feet usually. Why bother bringing them together?

---Boxers only really train for one stance....that staggered feet stance.


I honestly think it is worse to stand with both feet equal because it means you are very unstable to forwards backwards force (unless you lean or crouch) and because it means both legs are reachable for the shoot style takedown resulting in a double which is much less easy to negate, usually results in a worse fall, and results in your legs being passed which equals defeat unless you are good on the ground.

---But as I have said already, no stance is perfect.  There is no unstoppable technique.  Standing with one leg forward makes you unstable to a sideways force.  If pressed, you simply step to recover.  Standing with one leg forward makes you more vulnerable to a single leg.  You can sprawl easier from legs in a feet parallel position than from a one leg forward position if it comes to that. 


It is false I think to say that standing staggered puts one leg closer - your front defensive hand is after all in the same place. Staggered stance actually means your back leg is further away and getting both legs is more difficult.

---But your front defensive hand is a lot higher than your lead leg.  Not like a wrestling stance where they are crouched forward defending that lead leg.  The guy in the original video showed how easy it was to dive under the lead hand and snag the lead leg.

---I've said only that the YGKYM (or the side stance) makes you less vulnerable to a single leg....as shown in the video.  The grappler is going to have to shoot even further in to get the double on someone in one of those stances.  And as you pointed out...your front defensive hand is out there.   You may be right that the consequences of someone getting the double leg on you are worse than the single leg.  But I do think standing with parallel legs is going to make it a bit more difficult for the grappler to get a takedown in general.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 15, 2016)

Specific stances are for training.
In a fight you will be moving unless clinched or pressed against something and for those "short moments" stationary other than that; stance is but a snap shot in time.
Dynamic mobility and stability is key.


----------



## KPM (Feb 15, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Specific stances are for training.
> In a fight you will be moving unless clinched or pressed against something and for those "short moments" stationary other than that; stance is but a snap shot in time.
> Dynamic mobility and stability is key.



I agree Danny.  My point has been only that YGKYM shouldn't be disregarded as a stance that can show up in and be useful as one of those "short moments" or "snap shots."  It doesn't have to be just a "training stance."  And as Steve pointed out, everyone passes through it if only for a split second when doing their Wing Chun!   I just believe that it is just as valid as the side stance for any place in which the side stance would make an appearance.

But again, to be clear, maybe what I am using as the YGKYM is not quite what others are calling the "training stance."  In a past discussion on another forum someone pointed out that he made a distinction between YGKYM...which he described as a narrow "clamping" stance for training....and a "neutral stance" for application or fighting.  I don't make that distinction.  To me they are just variations of the YGKYM.  To me, "neutral stance" implies feet parallel and knees pointing straight out like a karate horse stance.  I still have my knees directed inward and feet slightly converging.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2016)

KPM, do you have any clip that shows someone moves from a YGKYM stance into another YGKYM stance either

- forward,
- side way, or
- backward?

Do you think such footwork is fast enough to chase someone who moves back in fast speed?


----------



## KPM (Feb 15, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> KPM, do you have any clip that shows someone moves from a YGKYM stance into another YGKYM stance either
> 
> - forward,
> - side way, or
> ...



At some point I will try and make a video of myself showing how I use the YGKYM.  But no, I don't think that would be fast enough to pursue someone.  I would move out of YGKYM into at Bik Ma and using chasing steps.  I would likely not step from one YGKYM into another.  YGKYM is just a transition point.  Just like the side stance or Chum Kiu Ma is a transition point.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

The wrestler in the clip. Brian seraiah wood. Dosent use that stance.







He uses a normal stance just like everyone else. So my view would be that the kung fu stance that is supposed to give you an advantage. Probably dosent give you one in regards to stopping take downs.

Look if he could have made that stance work the good for him. I don't want that stance to fail. If it was better I would go learn it myself. But the proof is in the pudding.

If nobody can make it work to stop takedowns. Don't use that stance against take downs.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 16, 2016)

I'm brand new to WT and the YGKYM stance, so I have no useful opinion on its usefulness in stopping takedowns. I will toss out a few random thoughts for whatever they're worth ...

A wrestlers stance is at least as much about offense as defense. Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of a square stance in _stopping_ takedowns, it isn't effective for _taking_ shots. That by itself would be reason enough for most wrestlers to use a staggered stance. However, wrestlers do learn a square stance for defensive purposes.

The rationale in the video for using the squared stance is that the wrestler has to get past more of the chunners punching range to reach his legs. Maybe later in the planned video they were going to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different stances once the wrestler succeeds in getting past those punches.

The video clip was pretty short. I would love to watch  more of the intended complete video to see where they were going with it.

Regardless of whether the chunner starts in a square or staggered stance, mobility is going to be the key to stopping the shot. Pure forward movement is going to give the wrestler the range he needs for the takedown. Backwards movement isn't the chunners forte. That means angular/circular  movement (while maintaining barriers with the arms and striking) is the goal. My general experience with angular movement at close range to an opponent indicates that my stance relative to the opponent (more squared or more staggered) can shift back and forth in an instant based on how each of us is moving. I don't have the experience to say if that applies in WT/WC.

One thought on the WC/WT stances in general after a few weeks - it seems that the difference between a well rooted WC/WT stance and one that is easily off-balanced involves very subtle adjustments that are probably not very visible to the beginner. This is in contrast to wrestling, where even a beginner can pick up a reasonably solid stance in fairly short order.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The wrestler in the clip. Brian seraiah wood. Dosent use that stance.


In Chinese wrestling, the "cross stance" is commonly used. You have right leg forward but you have left hand forward. This way, both of your arms will have the same reach.

- body lean 45 degree forward.
- nose should not pass toes.
- back of the head should not pass back heel.
- both hands keep loose fist.
- front hand and back hand are 10 cm apart.
- 40% weight on front leg, 60% weight on back leg.
- both hands between nose and mouth level height.
- ...


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 16, 2016)

Regarding the video posted by Kung Fu Wang- If you pause the video RIGHT at 1:50, his stance really is not square any more as there is one leg significantly ahead of the other. He was in the process of shooting forward versus just standing there in a static frontal stance (something else altogether that is cringe worthy in some WC youtube videos).
The grappler was still able to get in deep enough to reach and wrap up both legs @ 1:51 anyway. I realize the shoot does happen quickly especially from a skilled wrestler, but the WC guy almost walked into it with his guard up for a body / head strike that never came, and he didn't do anything to recover once it started. I saw no jum elbow into the grappler's neck / collarbone, no downward pressure on the grappler or driving the front leg backward (chum kiu step) to make the double leg grab harder to complete, all things that are found right within the first 2 WC forms.

I agree with Geezer that the YCKYM stance is essentially present in all the WC footwork. Regarding YCKYM being mobile, I think exploding forward from that stance is just as effective as stepping forward from a lead leg stance. It also gives options in terms of being less committed and easier to move laterally. So therefore it only makes sense, to me, that it should be trained and viewed as more than just a training stance.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> Do you ALWAYS keep one leg forward? You never use the side stance? The TWC guys and other groups fight from a side stance a lot. So does Pin Sun.



Side stance, a lot. When and how do you use it though?


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Side stance, a lot. When and how do you use it though?


 
We use it as a "ready stance" when facing off with an opponent.  It can be the natural stance assumed with stepping to the side to angle around an opponent while looking for an opening.  Upon contact with the opponent it results from a pivot when used to deflect or do a Kum Na move, etc.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In Chinese wrestling, the "cross stance" is commonly used. You have right leg forward but you have left hand forward. This way, both of your arms will have the same reach.
> 
> - body lean 45 degree forward.
> - nose should not pass toes.
> ...



The difference would be that they use it successfully if they do it has merit.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

PiedmontChun said:


> Regarding the video posted by Kung Fu Wang- If you pause the video RIGHT at 1:50, his stance really is not square any more as there is one leg significantly ahead of the other. He was in the process of shooting forward versus just standing there in a static frontal stance (something else altogether that is cringe worthy in some WC youtube videos).
> The grappler was still able to get in deep enough to reach and wrap up both legs @ 1:51 anyway. I realize the shoot does happen quickly especially from a skilled wrestler, but the WC guy almost walked into it with his guard up for a body / head strike that never came, and he didn't do anything to recover once it started. I saw no jum elbow into the grappler's neck / collarbone, no downward pressure on the grappler or driving the front leg backward (chum kiu step) to make the double leg grab harder to complete, all things that are found right within the first 2 WC forms.



This is not a style thing. You can't punch effectively and defend takedowns effectively at the same time.

To punch your hands have to be away from your hips to defend takedowns your hands have to be near your hips.

That is not a stance thing. There is no stance fix.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> We use it as a "ready stance" when facing off with an opponent.  It can be the natural stance assumed with stepping to the side to angle around an opponent while looking for an opening.  Upon contact with the opponent it results from a pivot when used to deflect or do a Kum Na move, etc.



We use always with pivoting


----------



## geezer (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> We use always* with pivoting*



Us too. 


From what I've seen in pictures, William Cheung's TWC guys also assume a sidling stance as a pre-fighting posture or "ready position". Too me that seems to limit your options though, since if you are _already_ turned to one side, you can only turn one way, ...to the other side.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> Us too.
> 
> 
> From what I've seen in pictures, William Cheung's TWC guys also assume a sidling stance as a pre-fighting posture or "ready position". Too me that seems to limit your options though, since if you are _already_ turned to one side, you can only turn one way, ...to the other side.



Exactly!  That's why I say a YGKYM accomplishes the same thing and doesn't commit you to one side.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> Exactly!  That's why I say a YGKYM accomplishes the same thing and doesn't commit you to one side.



How and when do you pivot into the training stance?


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> How and when do you pivot into the training stance?



If engaged with the opponent there may very well be times when you pivot to neutral...YGKYM...rather than pivoting completely to the other side....a "half pivot."  We spend all this time training Chi Sau exchanges in YGKYM, so why in the world would anyone expect that the position wouldn't show up when engaging an actual opponent in Chi Sau range?


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Exactly!  That's why I say a YGKYM accomplishes the same thing and doesn't commit you to one side.



If a side stance commits you to one side, you may be using it at the wrong time/ without strategy. 

It's still neutral to me. Committed would be when taking a lead leg.



KPM said:


> We spend all this time training Chi Sau exchanges in YGKYM, so why in the world would anyone expect that the position wouldn't show up when engaging an actual opponent in Chi Sau range?



Because _chi-sau_ training drills in VT only relate to fighting in an abstract way.

One must learn how drilling connects to free fighting, so as not to try and apply it as is.

We don't extend both arms equally as in _chi-sau_ when fighting either. Do you see that as a problem too? 

If not, why should upper body differ between drilling and fighting, and lower body not?


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

We don't extend both arms equally as in _chi-sau_ when fighting either. Do you see that as a problem too?

---No.  Because if I am close enough to the opponent, why wouldn't I extend both arms equally?   Maybe you don't get as close?  Many people do Wing Chun at "arm's reach" so to speak.  In Pin Sun and other mainland styles, you tend to get in a  bit closer than that.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

You don't have _man/wu _strategic concepts? 

It's just a "_baai-jong_" pose with no further meaning to you?

What happens when your two equally extended arms get deflected or trapped and you have no backup?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> This is not a style thing. You can't punch effectively and defend takedowns effectively at the same time.
> 
> To punch your hands have to be away from your hips to defend takedowns your hands have to be near your hips.
> 
> That is not a stance thing. There is no stance fix.


I assume "takedown" refers to a lower attack (I use it as a universal term but I think you use it differently). If that's the case, a definite yes to this. Having arms extended away (as during a strike) takes them out of the zone where they'd be best able to counter a low entry like a shoot. The point of most vulnerability (as is often the case) is right before the attack matures.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> why wouldn't I extend both arms equally



Because you aren't doing chi sau?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> If engaged with the opponent there may very well be times when you pivot to neutral...YGKYM...rather than pivoting completely to the other side....a "half pivot."  We spend all this time training Chi Sau exchanges in YGKYM, so why in the world would anyone expect that the position wouldn't show up when engaging an actual opponent in Chi Sau range?



Because fighting is not chi sau?

I am not understanding how you use the side stance or why you would substitute the training stance? What do you mean by "engaged with the opponent"? It sounds like you are talking about chi sau rather than fighting?


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Because you aren't doing chi sau?



I think the problem here is that sometimes both arms are extended, sometimes they are not.

If someone attempts to grab you equally on both sides of your centerline it may be advisable to have two arms extended. Depending on the situation of course. While in conflict trading punches or attempts to break your leg structure perhaps it is not.

I am terrible once again at explaining situations but given the discussion I would say bull to anyone saying "we never" or "we always" in regards to extending arms. This has to be same for all you as well as it is for me.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I think the problem here is that sometimes both arms are extended, sometimes they are not.



In VT both hands are not extended at the same time.

Some people might point to Po Pai usage, but I would say Po Pai is both a luxury and a risk. It is a thing you might do if opportunity presents, not something to chase after.



Phobius said:


> If someone attempts to grab you equally on both sides of your centerline it may be advisable to have two arms extended. Depending on the situation of course. While in conflict trading punches or attempts to break your leg structure perhaps it is not.



If we are starting from someone already having grabbed with both hands then our VT has already failed to a large extent and we are in BJ territory. Of course we might just punch them if they have hands on and no balance attack going on..unrealistic starting conditions might give rise to all sorts of funny conclusions.



Phobius said:


> I am terrible once again at explaining situations but given the discussion I would say bull to anyone saying "we never" or "we always" in regards to extending arms. This has to be same for all you as well as it is for me.



It is important to know how to approach the fight, normal strategy, normal way to finish it. If we always focus on extraordinary conditions then it is easy to get confused. In VT we have a forward hand and we have a back hand for a reason, and that is what we train 99% of the time.


----------



## JPinAZ (Feb 17, 2016)

Maybe I missed it, but this thread is really only about stances (ignoring the normal on-going personal quibbles that keep popping up on all of the threads lately). Having read Bai Jong in the title, I had hoped there would be more meat to the discussion seeing how 'Bai Jong' has a lot more detail/layers to it than just a single stance (set up, alignment, facing, matching, engagement, etc).


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Maybe I missed it, but this thread is really only about stances (ignoring the normal on-going personal quibbles that keep popping up on all of the threads lately). Having read Bai Jong in the title, I had hoped there would be more meat to the discussion seeing how 'Bai Jong' has a lot more detail/layers to it than just a single stance (set up, alignment, facing, matching, engagement, etc).



There is no such thing as just a stance, it is all about aligning body all the way to tip of fingers. In order to discuss one we have to understand all.

God, WC is such a mess to discuss.

Actually I am slightly bit bored as well waiting for my training session to start for today. Got to work a bit more before it does, to make a living. My wife would not support me if I told her I would go on instructor/teacher salary.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You don't have _man/wu _strategic concepts?
> 
> It's just a "_baai-jong_" pose with no further meaning to you?
> 
> What happens when your two equally extended arms get deflected or trapped and you have no backup?


 
You step.  You adjust.  Geez!  Fighting is dynamic motion.  Sometimes you will be staggered, sometimes you will be square, sometimes you will pivot, sometimes you will step in or through.  Again, do you stay are arm's length from the opponent and never get in really close?


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

In VT both hands are not extended at the same time.

---Again...in YOUR Wing Chun, maybe.  The first version of Wing Chun I learned has a double punch in the SLT form.  Both arms are certainly extended at the same time.   If I am stepping through and closing with a Pak Da that traps the arm and strikes at the same time, then both arms are extended at the same time and my shoulders are square. 


Some people might point to Po Pai usage, but I would say Po Pai is both a luxury and a risk. It is a thing you might do if opportunity presents, not something to chase after.

---Same is true of a lot of techniques.  There is a time and place for everything.  Anything can be risky if done at the wrong time.  But Po Pai is definitely part of Wing Chun and definitely has both arms extended.  So you've proven your own statement wrong.



If we are starting from someone already having grabbed with both hands then our VT has already failed to a large extent

---So you are saying you never train for a surprise "self-defense" type situation?  Because someone can certainly walk up and grab you unexpectedly with both hands if you aren't looking or expecting it.




It is important to know how to approach the fight, normal strategy, normal way to finish it. If we always focus on extraordinary conditions then it is easy to get confused.

---No one has mentioned anything "extraordinary."  If you think what I have said is "extraordinary", then I have to wonder about your experience.


 In VT we have a forward hand and we have a back hand for a reason, and that is what we train 99% of the time.

---Then I would say you must be staying at "arm's length" 99% of the time.  Maybe that's your Wing Chun.  But it isn't mine.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

Being within arm's length doesn't mean both arms have to be extended equally as in _chi-sau_.

It sounds like you are trying to fight from _chi-sau_ postures. YJKYM, parallel arms at equal extension. 

I've never seen anyone take drilling that literally before.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Maybe I missed it, but this thread is really only about stances (ignoring the normal on-going personal quibbles that keep popping up on all of the threads lately). Having read Bai Jong in the title, I had hoped there would be more meat to the discussion seeing how 'Bai Jong' has a lot more detail/layers to it than just a single stance (set up, alignment, facing, matching, engagement, etc).



Feel free to add to the thread


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Again...in YOUR Wing Chun, maybe. The first version of Wing Chun I learned has a double punch in the SLT form. Both arms are certainly extended at the same time. If I am stepping through and closing with a Pak Da that traps the arm and strikes at the same time, then both arms are extended at the same time and my shoulders are square.



Again, please notice that I am only talking about VT.

Do you do a lot of double punches? What does your pak hand do once the pak is done?



KPM said:


> Same is true of a lot of techniques. There is a time and place for everything. Anything can be risky if done at the wrong time. But Po Pai is definitely part of Wing Chun and definitely has both arms extended. So you've proven your own statement wrong.



I don't think Po Pai as a 2 handed push is something that the conceptual base of the system would advise us to do, as my answer indicated.



KPM said:


> So you are saying you never train for a surprise "self-defense" type situation? Because someone can certainly walk up and grab you unexpectedly with both hands if you aren't looking or expecting it.



No I don't train the surprise self defence situation of being grabbed by a person using both hands to grab me. What do they do next in your scenario training?



KPM said:


> No one has mentioned anything "extraordinary." If you think what I have said is "extraordinary", then I have to wonder about your experience.



VT isn't a grappling system, therefore grappling training tends to be minimal. It is extraordinary in the context of what the system is designed to do. We also don't train empty hands vs knives as I think was mentioned on another thread.

Please don't worry about my experience, I am fine thanks.



KPM said:


> Then I would say you must be staying at "arm's length" 99% of the time. Maybe that's your Wing Chun. But it isn't mine.



Don't you have man/wu hands?


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

Again, please notice that I am only talking about VT.

---Yes, I realize that from the other thread!  But you hadn't made that clear in the past.  Got it now.


Do you do a lot of double punches?

---No.  That was just part of the first version of Ip Man WCK that I learned.   I don't practice that version anymore.


What does your pak hand do once the pak is done?

---Cycle into another punch, transition to another defensive move, continue to press the opponent as I step in further.....it just depends.



I don't think Po Pai as a 2 handed push is something that the conceptual base of the system would advise us to do, as my answer indicated.

---We don't do it as a push.  It truly uses the "spit" concept and is somewhere between a shove and strike....as I pointed out in Gary Lam's videos were he sends his opponent sailing into the mattress behind him.   How then does WSLVT interpret the Po Pai Palms? It is still in your dummy form, isn't it?




No I don't train the surprise self defence situation of being grabbed by a person using both hands to grab me. What do they do next in your scenario training?

---Anything they want!  Its not scripted.



VT isn't a grappling system, therefore grappling training tends to be minimal. It is extraordinary in the context of what the system is designed to do. We also don't train empty hands vs knives as I think was mentioned on another thread.

---Yes, it seems that part has been "refined" out of the system over time.


Don't you have man/wu hands?

---I don't know.  That depends on what you mean!


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---We don't do it as a push.  It truly uses the "spit" concept and is somewhere between a shove and strike....as I pointed out in Gary Lam's videos were he sends his opponent sailing into the mattress behind him.



I've heard from many GLWC practitioners, that when they do this mattress training it's really more of way to safely release their punching power on a partner, because the structures they use are the same as their punching.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I've heard from many GLWC practitioners, that when they do this mattress training it's really more of way to safely release their punching power on a partner, because the structures they use are the same as their punching.



That's not what Gary Lam himself says in his instructional videos.  He has an entire DVD on "Po Pai Palms."  He certainly seems to use it as more than just a training for punching power!


----------



## LFJ (Feb 18, 2016)

There you go learning from instructional videos again rather than listening to the people who actually train it.  lol


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> There you go learning from instructional videos again rather than listening to the people who actually train it.  lol



If the man himself states it on camera knowing it is going to be preserved for posterity, I think that wins out over talking to someone that may have studied with him.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

KPM said:


> If the man himself states it on camera knowing it is going to be preserved for posterity, I think that wins out over talking to someone that may have studied with him.



To be fair KPM, there is a lot of nonsense which has been committed to video over the years by people that knew it was nonsense or at least misleading.

I think it is fair to say that GL has added quite a lot of "padding" to his system over the years.

Personally I would always be more inclined to trust the experience of people who have trained directly. You do seem to have a desire to show that WSL VT is not what people who train WSL VT say it is, wouldn't you say?

I think LFJ's interpretation of the Po Pai is interesting. Personally I have problems with Po Pai as discussed previously, after all if you can Po Pai then you can hit. Why not just hit?

Po Pai is like deliberately firing a blank (unless you happen to be standing next to a cliff edge or a vat of industrial chemicals), which makes LFJs explanation sound quite sensible

A "shocking" Po Pai is sometimes said to clear the way to hit. But again if you can Po Pai you can hit. Under this interpretation you would be exchanging hitting immediately for hitting "better" against a shocked opponent. Again problematical wrt WSLVT concepts but could make an argument in this direction I guess.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

To be fair KPM, there is a lot of nonsense which has been committed to video over the years by people that knew it was nonsense or at least misleading.

---These are not "mass produced" videos.  Gary Lam made these videos primarily for his people.  He shot them in his backyard during workshops he was doing for his people. 


I think it is fair to say that GL has added quite a lot of "padding" to his system over the years.

---Maybe so.  But what he showed for Po Pai made perfect sense to me and is in line with how other Wing Chun people use Po Pai.  So to say it is just another one of those "training for the punch" things seems a bit off to me.  Is everything in today's WSLVT only for training to punch?


Personally I would always be more inclined to trust the experience of people who have trained directly. You do seem to have a desire to show that WSL VT is not what people who train WSL VT say it is, wouldn't you say?

---Not at all.  I just have come to doubt what you and LFJ keep saying WSLVT is, because I keep seeing so many contradictions to what you guys have been saying.  So now I'm starting to wonder if maybe your comments should actually be seen as specific to PB's version of WSLVT.


I think LFJ's interpretation of the Po Pai is interesting. Personally I have problems with Po Pai as discussed previously, after all if you can Po Pai then you can hit. Why not just hit?

----Why just hit when you can launch the opponent across the room and land him on his ****???  Maybe there is someone else quickly approaching and launching one guy away from you so you can deal with the other is the thing to do?  Maybe you are launching him into a wall or a parked car...which is going to do more damage than just hitting him with a fist!  Maybe you are launching him into that other person that is fast approaching so that you stop them both!  Why does EVERYTHING have to be about a punch???


----------



## LFJ (Feb 18, 2016)

KPM said:


> I just have come to doubt what you and LFJ keep saying WSLVT is, because I keep seeing so many contradictions to what you guys have been saying.



...in pictures and instructional tapes.

You don't bother asking people who actually train it and doubt what they say regardless, why?

I never said the action is only used to train punching. I only shared what I've heard many GLWC practitioners say regarding why they launch people into mattresses.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> ...in pictures and instructional tapes.
> 
> You don't bother asking people who actually train it and doubt what they say regardless, why?
> 
> I never said the action is only used to train punching. I only shared what I've heard many GLWC practitioners say regarding why they launch people into mattresses.



So how does WSLVT use the Po Pai Palms from the dummy form?


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

KPM said:


> Why does EVERYTHING have to be about a punch???



I respect that WSVT, at least according to what I understand from Guy and LFJ, is _very focused on punching._ Perhaps that narrow focus is it's greatest strength.  Some lineages are high quality, some are not...and some (like my own) are best described as a mixed bag.

In general, I admire coherent, high quality instruction, but I also embrace the diversity of different lineages. I see that breadth as an asset in the overall system.  Others obviously differ.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> I respect that WSVT, at least according to what I understand from Guy and LFJ, is _very focused on punching._ Perhaps that narrow focus is it's greatest strength.  Some lineages are high quality, some are not...and some (like my own) are best described as a mixed bag.
> 
> In general, I admire coherent, high quality instruction, but I also embrace the diversity of different lineages. I see that breadth as an asset in the overall system.  Others obviously differ.[/QUOTE
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have not read every post on this convoluted thread.And I don't do Bayer video wing chun. IMO- when your body and mind a coordinated ina wing chun way- short explosive shocking breaking  wing chun  power can be issued through po pai at very close quarters . Punching is not the only weapon in good Ip Man wing chun without mixing in weng chun, pin sum


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> I have not read every post on this convoluted thread.And I don't do Bayer video wing chun. IMO- when your body and mind a coordinated ina wing chun way- short explosive shocking breaking wing chun power can be issued through po pai at very close quarters . Punching is not the only weapon in good Ip Man wing chun without mixing in weng chun, pin sum



But why Po Pai rather than punch? In what way is it preferable?


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> But why Po Pai rather than punch? In what way is it preferable?



I would say that you can answer that yourself if you consider what the relative advantages of a palm strike over a strike with the fist are.

Consider the vertical palm in Dan Chi. Why a palm rather than a punch? Palms stick and control better than fists. You can use a palm more easily to open, divert, deflect, and control your opponent's arms as you slide through their defenses. Fists _can_ accomplish these tasks, but it takes a higher level of skill.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> But why Po Pai rather than punch? In what way is it preferable?


----------------------------------------------------------
Best weapon when the path is there-sometimes that's punching, sometimes palming etc


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> But why Po Pai rather than punch? In what way is it preferable?



I wrote just above:
_ Maybe there is someone else quickly approaching and launching one guy away from you so you can deal with the other is the thing to do? Maybe you are launching him into a wall or a parked car...which is going to do more damage than just hitting him with a fist! Maybe you are launching him into that other person that is fast approaching so that you stop them both! Why does EVERYTHING have to be about a punch???_

I think that if there is the opportunity to forcefully bounce someone off of a nearby wall or car or other large object this is far preferable than simply punching them.  Just seems like common sense to me!


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

Great times for po pai: into the path of a passing train, near a busy road, edge of the roof of a tall building, into the crossfire from battling criminal gangs having a shootout, near a dangerous wild animal that hasn't seen you yet, beside an open blast furnace, on the edge of a vat of strong acid, in an airlock which is about to be opened jettisoning bad guys into space, near large pristine looking plate glass windows, next to an operating piece of very dangerous machinery like a big circular saw that someone left on for some reason.

Places not so good for po pai: everywhere else


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

So the consensus is that po pai is either a strike (Joy) or a way of putting people into contact with dangerous things (KPM)?


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Great times for po pai: into the path of a passing train, near a busy road, edge of the roof of a tall building, into the crossfire from battling criminal gangs having a shootout, near a dangerous wild animal that hasn't seen you yet, beside an open blast furnace, on the edge of a vat of strong acid, in an airlock which is about to be opened jettisoning bad guys into space, near large pristine looking plate glass windows, next to an operating piece of very dangerous machinery like a big circular saw that someone left on for some reason.
> 
> Places not so good for po pai: everywhere else



You forgot about the _swimming pool_. When your drunk uncle Al needs to sober up and behave, po-pai him into the pool. Works best in the cooler months when the water temperature is below 50 degrees F. 

But seriously, didn't you get Joy's post?  A palm doesn't have to be a push. It can hit hard and deep.


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

^^^ Sorry, I guess you did see Joy's POV. I missed your last post while writing mine. No matter.

Anyway, there's the two things you mentioned and then the third thing is how palms can open up a line to attack more easily than a fist. Look how the po-pai section moves on the MYJ.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> You forgot about the _swimming pool_. When your drunk uncle Al needs to sober up and behave, po-pai him into the pool. Works best in the cooler months when the water temperature is below 50 degrees F.



Of course, Uncle Al needs to collide with less dangerous things than the above. Swimming pools, deck chairs, undergrowth, kids toys, queues of people, bags and coats, cheap collapsible tables laden with food. Those are the ideal situations for po pai-ing Uncle Al. You need to be careful selecting the right level of lethality when you po pai.

Worst case scenario is when you have a bad guy present who really merits a po pai into a sharp spikey object, and all you have around is a swimming pool or some chairs



> But seriously, didn't you get Joy's post?  A palm doesn't have to be a push. It can hit hard and deep.



No I saw Joy's post about po pai as a strike. In that case why strike with 2 hands?


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> .... *why* strike with 2 hands?


 ... Same as with double punches, or better yet two simultaneous punches _and_ a kick!  Why? To impress the ladies, of course.

Personally, I believe that most of the time, most people are better off focusing on _one_ good strike at a time. Simultaneous double shots, whether punches or palms seem like low percentage moves to me.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Of course, Uncle Al needs to collide with less dangerous things than the above. Swimming pools, deck chairs, undergrowth, kids toys, queues of people, bags and coats, cheap collapsible tables laden with food. Those are the ideal situations for po pai-ing Uncle Al. You need to be careful selecting the right level of lethality when you po pai.
> 
> Worst case scenario is when you have a bad guy present who really merits a po pai into a sharp spikey object, and all you have around is a swimming pool or some chairs
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------
!!! Maybe we are very far apart in our understanding of wing chun. In good wing chun the body acts as a unit. Two hands can work together 
ina subtle way not  doing the same thing. I am surprised that you have not learned that. Ask your sifu if you have a good one.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Places not so good for po pai: everywhere else



You mean to say that you are never standing near a wall?  You are never in a parking lot near parked automobiles?  You are never out and about near trees?  You are never inside near a restaurant table or pool table?  Just where do you expect to be if you ever have to use your WSLVT skills to defend yourself?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------
> !!! Maybe we are very far apart in our understanding of wing chun. In good wing chun the body acts as a unit. Two hands can work together
> ina subtle way not  doing the same thing. I am surprised that you have not learned that. Ask your sifu if you have a good one.



I don't think I said anything about any of that.

Its a pretty simple question, seems a bit extreme to bust out the old "Ask your Sifu (if you even have one)!!!"


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

KPM said:


> You mean to say that you are never standing near a wall?  You are never in a parking lot near parked automobiles?  You are never out and about near trees?  You are never inside near a restaurant table or pool table?  Just where do you expect to be if you ever have to use your WSLVT skills to defend yourself?



I'm only joking with you. You like to use po pai to push people into things; fine with me


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You like to use po pai to push people into things; fine with me


The "push" gives CMA a bad reputation. I have trained Taiji since I was 7 but I'm still allergy to "push". The reason is simple. One should keep his friends close but his enemies closer.

I got into a car accident once and I was involved with a serious argument. The guy tried to get back into his car. I got hold of him and didn't allow him to do so. When the traffic cops came, I was right. That guy had a gun in his glove compartment. A "push" will make you to lose control on your opponent. There is a good reason that BJJ guys don't "push". It's stupid to spend so much effort to get hold on your opponent, you then "push" him away.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I'm only joking with you. You like to use po pai to push people into things; fine with me



You haven't said yet how WSLVT interprets or uses the Po Pai Palms section from the dummy form.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "push" gives CMA a bad reputation. I have trained Taiji since I was 7 but I'm still allergy to "push". The reason is simple. One should keep his friends close but his enemies closer.
> 
> I got into a car accident once and I was involved with a serious argument. The guy tried to get back into his car. I got hold of him and didn't allow him to do so. When the traffic cops came, I was right. That guy had a gun in his glove compartment. A "push" will make you to lose control on your opponent. There is a good reason that BJJ guys don't "push". It's stupid to spend so much effort to get hold on your opponent, you then "push" him away.



Read my prior comments.  There are certainly situations where you may want to put distance between yourself and the opponent....ballistically!  ;-)   And it is definitely not a "push"!


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> So how does WSLVT use the Po Pai Palms from the dummy form?



The dummy form, like the other forms, is abstract, not about application. Main ideas are force delivery, footwork, synchronicity, two hands together to ensure equal reach with both arms/ facing upon entry.

Certainly, one could apply _po-paai_ by launching someone into a brick wall or down a flight of stairs. You'll be asking for a lengthy prison sentence though when the person dies or suffers severe brain damage from having their head forcefully bounced off a brick wall or when their neck snaps when they land at the bottom of the stairs. 

Kind of stupid to ruin your life by listening to a silly instructional tape.

GLWC practitioners say their mattress training is a way to safely deliver punching power into a partner because they're using the same structure as their punching. Sounds more intelligent. You can doubt it if you insist.

We may also use _po-paai _in training with a partner to check alignment and synchronicity or to test structure. It may be used to maintain ideal striking range while disrupting balance and posture. It can hurt too, but it's important that you're not launching the person away where you can no longer hit them. 

Mattress training = safe power release. Not application. Okay? 

Training ≠ Fighting


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

geezer said:


> Consider the vertical palm in Dan Chi. Why a palm rather than a punch? Palms stick and control better than fists.



As you know by now, our DCS isn't about sticking and controlling. It matters more what the elbow is doing. Not so much what shape the hand is in. Why does the other guy punch rather than palm?


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

The dummy form, like the other forms, is abstract, not about application. Main ideas are force delivery, footwork, synchronicity, two hands together to ensure equal reach with both arms/ facing upon entry.

---But I didn't think you extended both arms at the same time???  That whole section with multiple Po Pai palms is only for training force and footwork?  That same footwork is used through-out the form.  Seems kind of redundant and a waste of effort when what you are talking about is trained just as well or better by other sections.  Seems silly to have that whole elaborate section with Po Pai Palms if you aren't actually going to use Po Pai Palms. 



Certainly, one could apply _po-paai_ by launching someone into a brick wall or down a flight of stairs. You'll be asking for a lengthy prison sentence though when the person dies or suffers severe brain damage from having their head forcefully bounced off a brick wall or when their neck snaps when they land at the bottom of the stairs.

---If my life or the life of a loved one is at risk that would be the least of my concerns.   Are you routinely getting into "casual fights" where you aren't in fear of death or grave bodily harm?


Kind of stupid to ruin your life by listening to a silly instructional tape.

----I have learned Wu Dip Jeung/Po Pai Palms directly, hands on, in three different lineages of Wing Chun.  Each had essentially the same idea about how to use them.   I referenced Gary Lam as someone that many people here have seen do this on youtube videos, and when you said he didn't use it this way I pointed out that he does indeed teach to use it this way on his one instructional video.  So get off  of the middle school taunting posts.  You are the one sounding kind of stupid.



GLWC practitioners say their mattress training is a way to safely deliver punching power into a partner because they're using the same structure as their punching. Sounds more intelligent. You can doubt it if you insist.

---Oh, I don't doubt it.  I just doubt that this is the ONLY way they see the Po Pai and the mattress training.  Because I have friends that are GLWC and they have said so in the past and even shown it in their own videos.  You see, I am not going only by watching an instructional tape.


Mattress training = safe power release. Not application. Okay?

---Ok.  I'm sure that's probably true in PB-WSLVT, since the only thing you do is punch.

Training ≠ Fighting

---You haven't heard the old adage?......"You fight the way you train."   The more realistic and the more your training matches how you are going to fight  the better.  Just common sense.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---If my life or the life of a loved one is at risk that would be the least of my concerns.   Are you routinely getting into "casual fights" where you aren't in fear of death or grave bodily harm?
> 
> ---You haven't heard the old adage?......"You fight the way you train."   The more realistic and the more your training matches how you are going to fight  the better.  Just common sense.



I think these two sentences together describe why some only want to train punching and what works in a self defense as well as casual situation. You might end your partners life also if you yourself end up in jail for killing someone when protecting your partner. Not all, especially not a jury, may find it a romantic gesture.

To some learning such options are not of interest which I can respect. Seems their version of WSLVT (it may be the only version, but I can never say without asking so many people I dont even know today) only focus on punching and by doing so they probably due to simply getting more experience in it are better than others of equal training.

Was no real input other than people want to master different things, and it all depends on situations.


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

Here is Sifu Lam showing how to use the Po Pai:






Here is Sifu Lam showing the use of the "Lung Na".....a double grab....something the resident experts said WSLVT would never do:






Here is Sifu Lam teaching his students.  You will see him use the Po Pai several times as well as the Lung Na / Double Lop:






Did Gary Lam not get the "special transmission" from WSL, even though he was a direct HK student for many years????


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

[I think these two sentences together describe why some only want to train punching and what works in a self defense as well as casual situation. You might end your partners life also if you yourself end up in jail for killing someone when protecting your partner. Not all, especially not a jury, may find it a romantic gesture.

---It doesn't have to be and  "either/or" choice.  It can be both.  And if you are not prepared to use lethal force to defend your life or that of a loved one, then your training is somewhat "one-dimensional."   And nowhere did I say that this is the ONLY way to use Po Pai Palms.  It is only one way.  You might very well use the Po Pai to get someone away from you if you don't know if they are a threat, or if you don't know whether they are armed with a knife, etc.  It may be to just create space between you and drunk uncle Ed without harming him at all.    And punching someone is no guarantee of NOT using lethal force.  That person may very well fall down and strike their head on a curb or on the edge of a table and end up dead.   


Was no real input other than people want to master different things, and it all depends on situations.

---True that!  Casual gym training?  Or a real martial art?


----------



## Phobius (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---True that!  Casual gym training?  Or a real martial art?



There are other criteria as well, only groundgame. Punching. Throwing. Iron body. Dirty tricks and so on.

I agree and disagree because I am not against anything either of you are saying, just that it is very individual with no right or wrong. You may focus on whatever you want but consider this. While there is no harm in training it all, that means you will have less time to focus on one single thing.

Like focus on Po Pai means less focus on punching perhaps. Just to relate to this topic.

Neither is wrong. I myself have some focus towards groundgame at this point and honestly don't have much thought on po pai. I do like open palm attacks due to palm being more resistant to injuries when your fists are out of the way and as such can punch with a more intentional force.
Does that mean I would ever push someone away from me? Probably not, at least it serves me little interest in terms of training.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 19, 2016)

The Po Pai is found in the dummy form, but the WT I am learning introduces similar type of "pushes" much earlier on via the chi-sau sections. Controlling the opponent's elbow upward and toward their face while palming to the chest to shock their structure and balance, palming the shoulder in conjunction with a circling step when you have their blindside to uproot them, low palm attacks that "push" forcefully rather than strike, since they make contact well before dissipating their energy.
Being able to "push" in a forceful way like the Po Pai palms has many uses, from "drunken uncle Al" scenarios to multiple attackers, to situations where you need to create space quickly (your opponent's buddy approaching from the side). I think its simplistic to say "If you could Po Pai then you could just punch" as to dismiss the usefulness, but I can respect that there is a spectrum that spans across the various WC lineages in terms of how narrow or wide the focus is. In a fight, the main goal is still to *hit* and *incapacitate* the attacker, and I think we can agree that is the *main thing*.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 19, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think I said anything about any of that.
> 
> Its a pretty simple question, seems a bit extreme to bust out the old "Ask your Sifu (if you even have one)!!!"


-------------------------------------------
Not intended to be sarcastic


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------
> Not intended to be sarcastic



I wouldn't have described it as sarcastic either. Innacurate and evasive might be what I would have said.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Oh, I don't doubt it. I just doubt that this is the ONLY way they see the Po Pai and the mattress training. Because I have friends that are GLWC and they have said so in the past and even shown it in their own videos. You see, I am not going only by watching an instructional tape.



What did your friends that trained with Gary Lam say? Why would you feel the need to post a video of Gary Lam when you could have just said so-and-so told you?

Let me know who you were speaking to please? I might ask their opinion on GL and po pai.



KPM said:


> Here is Sifu Lam showing the use of the "Lung Na".....a double grab....something the resident experts said WSLVT would never do



As mentioned before, Gary Lam has added quite a lot to his VT. This is no secret. I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve by telling me (or LFJ) what the VT I have experienced is actually like. It seems you are always on some kind of super sleuth mission to discredit people using Gary Lam videos, or pictures of WSL, or PB chi sau clips, or whatever. You appear to give more credence to such things than to experience. Why?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> But I didn't think you extended both arms at the same time??? That whole section with multiple Po Pai palms is only for training force and footwork? That same footwork is used through-out the form. Seems kind of redundant and a waste of effort when what you are talking about is trained just as well or better by other sections. Seems silly to have that whole elaborate section with Po Pai Palms if you aren't actually going to use Po Pai Palms.



The dummy form isn't a list of applications to bust out and use


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---But I didn't think you extended both arms at the same time???



I was clearly talking about in fighting, but in case you aren't just trying to argue for the sake of arguing...

You need to not see forms and _chi-sau_ as fighting. There are many places in training where we extend both arms equally to ensure proper facing, coordination, and symmetry. The arms lead each other in training, but we don't apply it literally. The second section of our SNT is the first example of that.



> That whole section with multiple Po Pai palms is only for training force and footwork?  That same footwork is used through-out the form.  Seems kind of redundant and a waste of effort when what you are talking about is trained just as well or better by other sections.



I listed more than that, didn't I?

The footwork is important. Important things are repeated often. Why we finish each section of each form with the same actions. Not redundant if you know the development purpose.



> Seems silly to have that whole elaborate section with Po Pai Palms if you aren't actually going to use Po Pai Palms.



Didn't say _po-paai_ isn't used, but the dummy form being the opponent does this and I do that then _po-paai_? No. "Single, double, triple _kwan-sau po-paai_"? lol, no! That's just curriculum filler.



> Are you routinely getting into "casual fights" where you aren't in fear of death or grave bodily harm?



Well, I've had fist fights but never felt the need to murder someone for trying to hit me.



> ---Oh, I don't doubt it.



You doubted it on the last page.



> ---You haven't heard the old adage?......"You fight the way you train."   The more realistic and the more your training matches how you are going to fight  the better.  Just common sense.



So long as you understand how abstract training drills relate to free fighting, and you are doing hard sparring, there is no conflict.

I want to see you try and fight from YJKYM with one fist chambered at your ribs and one _taan-sau_ extended if you actually fight the way you train DCS, for example.


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

What did your friends that trained with Gary Lam say?

---In discussions in the past we have talked about the ability to bounce an opponent off a wall or other objects as something useful to do with Po Pai Palms.  He was in total agreement.


Why would you feel the need to post a video of Gary Lam when you could have just said so-and-so told you?

---Because I haven't spoken to him recently and gotten permission to quote him or use his name.   And besides, if you don't know him you and LFJ could simply dismiss anything he has to say.  Seeing it on video being done by Gary Lam himself carries much more weight, don't you think?  A "picture is worth a 1000 words", and hard to deny. 



As mentioned before, Gary Lam has added quite a lot to his VT. This is no secret.

---Maybe so.  But interesting that he interprets this the same way as a whole lot of other Wing Chun people.   Again, did Gary miss out on the "special transmission" from WSL even though he was close student in HK for many years?



 I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve by telling me (or LFJ) what the VT I have experienced is actually like.

---I'm not.  It was LFJ that said I was wrong about how Gary Lam views the Po Pai palms.   So my question to you would be why you think every WSL student has to conform to your experience and LFJ's experience?



 It seems you are always on some kind of super sleuth mission to discredit people using Gary Lam videos, or pictures of WSL, or PB chi sau clips, or whatever. You appear to give more credence to such things than to experience. Why?

---I don't know you or LFJ.  I have never seen either of you do Wing Chun since neither of you care to share video.  So why should I trust your word when it contradicts so many other things that I have seen and read?   You and LFJ seem to be on some kind of a mission to say how poor everyone else's Wing Chun is and how great WSLVT is.   At least that is certainly how you both have come across here in the past.   I have just seen far too much from various people that have studied with WSL to believe that he had this one-dimensional "everything is about the punch" approach, and certainly too much to believe that this was Ip Man's approach and EVERYONE other than WSL got it wrong!   I think we are seeing some heavy Phillip Bayer interpretation in what you guys have been saying.  It least that is how it seems when all things are taken into account.   Gary Lam may have freely changed things around in his WSLVT.  But his basic Wing Chun is still WSL.  And his use of the Po Pai Palms is a pretty common one through-out Wing Chun.  I find it hard to believe that WSL didn't really teach him that.   Gary Lam learned wrong....David Petersen learned wrong....it all just begs disbelief.  Surely you can see how people would be skeptical of how you guys have been representing WSL?


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> It was LFJ that said I was wrong about how Gary Lam views the Po Pai palms.



I only made a comment about the main purpose of their mattress training as I've heard from many GLWC practitioners. If they want want to imagining killing people in addition, it's not "wrong" unless they actually do it.



> Gary Lam learned wrong...



Never said so. You can piss off with that line trying to sow discord all the time.

GL has openly reworked his WC into his own system, which differs from WSLVT. That's his choice.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Because I haven't spoken to him recently and gotten permission to quote him or use his name.



Ask his permission and see what he says.



KPM said:


> And besides, if you don't know him you and LFJ could simply dismiss anything he has to say.



I would have no reason to doubt the opinions of a direct Gary Lam student on the VT of Gary Lam



KPM said:


> eeing it on video being done by Gary Lam himself carries much more weight, don't you think? A "picture is worth a 1000 words", and hard to deny.



Gary Lam does lots of things on video. The word of a Gary Lam student would be much more convincing to me actually.



KPM said:


> But interesting that he interprets this the same way as a whole lot of other Wing Chun people. Again, did Gary miss out on the "special transmission" from WSL even though he was close student in HK for many years?



I think the Gary Lam po pai training with matresses is fairly unique. I have not seen many other people doing it. Have you (I mean before they saw it on a Gary Lam video)?

I don't think I have ever claimed that Gary Lam missed out on anything. I think he has changed his VT, it is no secret. But he has also taught some very good people. It is what it is.



KPM said:


> It was LFJ that said I was wrong about how Gary Lam views the Po Pai palms.



Actually I think LFJ just ventured an explanation for the emphasis on projection with the po pai based on what he had heard from someone who trained with Gary Lam. This seemed to get you into a bit of a frenzy of detective work on the Gary Lam video evidence available, rather than just being a piece of information to you.



KPM said:


> my question to you would be why you think every WSL student has to conform to your experience and LFJ's experience?



In the nicest possible way, I think you are projecting. I am interested in talking about VT and the reasons people have for doing things. I am happy to share, and I won't be annoyed if you do something differently. I ask questions because I would like to understand, not because I wish to make you look stupid or anything else.



KPM said:


> why should I trust your word when it contradicts so many other things that I have seen and read?



Have you trained WSL VT? I have not trained Mainland wing chun and I trust your word on it. Why would I not? I also trust that the explanation you gave about Weng Chun was your best. I have seen some videos of Mainland wing chun that don't look great, but I don't let it worry me that much.



KPM said:


> I think we are seeing some heavy Phillip Bayer interpretation in what you guys have been saying.



I don't represent Philipp Bayer. I think he is very good, that is all.



KPM said:


> Surely you can see how people would be skeptical of how you guys have been representing WSL?



I don't think anybody else has reacted with skepticism. Some people have reacted with interest, and some have not reacted. I guess they are not interested? I think you are about the only person I have encountered who makes it a personal mission to track down the truth and unmask wrong doers whenever a WSL VT discussion comes up.

I guess I like to talk about WSL VT because I am interested in it. Please believe that I don't do it to make you feel worthless or to denigrate your wing chun in any way. Questions are just questions. If you feel that they make you angry then please, just don't answer.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Actually I think LFJ just ventured an explanation for the emphasis on projection with the po pai based on what he had heard from someone who trained with Gary Lam. This seemed to get you into a bit of a frenzy of detective work on the Gary Lam video evidence available, rather than just being a piece of information to you.



Exactly. No idea why this person is always so confrontational. I was simply sharing a piece of information.


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

I only made a comment about the main purpose of their mattress training as I've heard from many GLWC practitioners. If they want want to imagining killing people in addition, it's not "wrong" unless they actually do it.

---Well.  After I mentioned the Po Pai and Gary Lam you felt the need to write:

_I've heard from many GLWC practitioners, that when they do this mattress training it's really more of way to safely release their punching power on a partner, because the structures they use are the same as their punching._

--I apologize if I misinterpreted, but that sure sounded to me like you were saying I was wrong about how Gary Lam uses Po Pai.


Never said so. You can piss off with that line trying to sow discord all the time.

---Every time something is mentioned about a WSL student that doesn't conform to your beliefs about what WSLVT should be, you say they didn't learn properly or have changed things.  So who is sowing discord?


----------



## KPM (Feb 19, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Exactly. No idea why this person is always so confrontational. I was simply sharing a piece of information.



And you are the one making snarky comments about instructional videos.   So don't try and act all innocent here.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> --I apologize if I misinterpreted, but that sure sounded to me like you were saying I was wrong about how Gary Lam uses Po Pai.



Just clarifying the main purpose of launching people into mattresses, as I've heard from them.

The primary function of _po-paai_, to me, is not to push people away. There are many ways it can be used in abstract training drills though. It's important to understand how the abstract relates to free fighting.



> ---Every time something is mentioned about a WSL student that doesn't conform to your beliefs about what WSLVT should be, you say they didn't learn properly or have changed things.  So who is sowing discord?



There are some who are known to have not learned fully. Nothing we can do about that. Many others have changed things, but done so openly. That is their choice and their right. I don't appreciate the way you spin things to make me say they are all wrong or have poor VT when I have not.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Just clarifying the main purpose of launching people into mattresses, as I've heard from them.
> 
> The primary function of _po-paai_, to me, is not to push people away. There are many ways it can be used in abstract training drills though. It's important to understand how the abstract relates to free fighting.



Clearing the way to keep punching, and opening new attacking lines are 2 ways it can be used. Not possible if you launch your opponent across the room or down the stairs. But I would agree, it has more to it, e.g. training facing. 



> There are some who are known to have not learned fully. Nothing we can do about that. Many others have changed things, but done so openly. That is their choice and their right. I don't appreciate the way you spin things to make me say they are all wrong or have poor VT when I have not.



Absolutely. Wan Kam Leung would be another who has changed the system. Again no secret. Nobody is saying that these guys didn't learn properly or did something wrong in terms of the changes they made. I am sure they have their reasons and it is up to them what they do. Importantly neither of them pretends they didn't make changes. 

KPM you are really barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Every time something is mentioned about a WSL student that doesn't conform to your beliefs about what WSLVT should be, you say they didn't learn properly or have changed things. So who is sowing discord?



So far you have given us David Peterson, pics of WSL messing around, someone called Steven Joffe, and Gary Lam. I think what is happening is that you are searching high and low for pictures and videos that look different to what LFJ or I say. Because you are doing this, you are cherrypicking people who have changed things, seminar students, people who have a tangential relationship with WSL VT, people who have mixed it with other things, and so on. You seem to be seeking to verify a pre-made conclusion you have about what we say on the forum; i.e. that we are talking nonsense.

You did exactly the same thing when we having a discussion about Southern Praying Mantis: I posted a series of clips demonstrating what I felt as a former practitioner of this style to be a good solid representation of the way it works. I think I mentioned that it was pretty rare to find this for SPM, and that mostly what is presented is complete nonsense. 

You then scoured the internet for things that looked different. I don't really understand why you do this? Do you have a need to "know" more than everyone about everything? It must be difficult to learn things if you approach all information in this way?


----------



## geezer (Feb 19, 2016)

Personally, I rather like it when KPM throws out some of that contrarian stuff. Like shots of WSL, David Peterson, and others demonstrating _tan-da _when LFJ was saying that it wasn't used in WSL-VT. Then you guys came back and explained those clips from your PB-WSL-VT perspective. You may find KPM's posting style annoying, but it has given you the opportunity to clarify your position on a lot of things. 

The problem comes when both sides get locked into a back and forth and nobody is willing to say, "OK, I've made _my_ point. You can take it or leave it. Let's move on!" --Well, sometimes you've done that. I'd like to see that happen more often. From everybody.

Now I've made MY point. You all can take it or leave it. Let's move on!


----------



## geezer (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Here is Sifu Lam showing how to use the Po Pai:








OK, Here's an old clip of Leung Ting teaching the 1st section of his "WT Chi-Sau Sections" in Germany. It involves one palm pinning the opponent's arm across his body and the other, lower palm striking. In WT this is_ not_ seen exactly as the "po-pai palms" from the dummy, but it is very similar to what Gary Lam demonstrated above. The result in practice is the same kind of powerful push. I have done demos of this bouncing students off mats stacked against the wall the same way GL's guys use the mattress. Skip the long intro and check out the technique at around 9:00 - 9:15.






Now to my point. In practice, this is trained as a push. In a fight, you can adjust your timing and energy so that the lower palm drives deep and is a penetrating strike. So all that debate a few pages back about whether a palm _push_ is useful is moot. You don't like pushing? Then _strike_ with your palm. Palms can really hurt!


----------



## Danny T (Feb 19, 2016)

geezer said:


> Now to my point. In practice, this is trained as a push. In a fight, you can adjust your timing and energy so that the lower palm drives deep and is a penetrating strike. So all that debate a few pages back about whether a palm _push_ is useful is moot. You don't like pushing? Then _strike_ with your palm. Palms can really hurt!


Po-Pai and palm actions can also be punches or a palm with one hand and a strike with the other or a push with one and a punch with the other. For us anyway it is trained as such.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> Personally, I rather like it when KPM throws out some of that contrarian stuff. Like shots of WSL, David Peterson, and others demonstrating _tan-da _when LFJ was saying that it wasn't used in WSL-VT. Then you guys came back and explained those clips from your PB-WSL-VT perspective. You may find KPM's posting style annoying, but it has given you the opportunity to clarify your position on a lot of things.



I've got no problem with genuine questions. It is the seeming desire to prove some kind of systematic disinformation that gets tiring after a while.



> Now I've made MY point. You all can take it or leave it. Let's move on!



Good advice


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I've got no problem with genuine questions. It is the seeming desire to prove some kind of systematic disinformation that gets tiring after a while.



And it is sweeping statements that seem to be far too generalized ...... and that are obviously inaccurate in that context ..... that gets tiring to me.  But Ok.  I'll just try and ignore such things in the future.


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Exactly. No idea why this person is always so confrontational. I was simply sharing a piece of information.



Now this!  This is trying to rewrite forum history!      But whatever you need to believe to keep a clear conscience.  Pointing out your little games is getting far too tiresome as well.   Again, I will try and ignore such things in the future.


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think I have ever claimed that Gary Lam missed out on anything. I think he has changed his VT, it is no secret. But he has also taught some very good people. It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now, ALL of this is big turnaround for you.   And don't act all innocent and claim this has been your attitude all along.  Because people that have been here and have been following along will see right through you.  But if you stick to what you say above as we go forward now, you and I will have no problems.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 20, 2016)

KPM said:


> And it is sweeping statements that seem to be far too generalized ...... and that are obviously inaccurate in that context ..... that gets tiring to me.  But Ok.  I'll just try and ignore such things in the future.



Just so that we are on the same page, if you are unsure which VT group I am talking about, then assume it is the one I train with. I will make every effort to identify who I am talking about as precisely as I can in future, but I would also ask that you step back a bit when you feel yourself getting worked up about something posted on the forum.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 20, 2016)

KPM said:


> Now, ALL of this is big turnaround for you.   And don't act all innocent and claim this has been your attitude all along.



I haven't ever said GL missed out on any teaching from WSL. And I do trust your statements about what constututes the Mainland WC in which you train. Why would I not?

I believe that most of our arguments have been about the history of wing chun, which I think belong to everyone. But I will try not to argue with you about this again.



> Because people that have been here and have been following along will see right through you.  But if you stick to what you say above as we go forward now, you and I will have no problems.



I don't think there is anything to see through. Again I feel like you have some kind of detective mission to out me for making incorrect statements about VT? I feel like this is a warning that you "have your eye on me", or something? I don't understand why you feel this personal vendetta towards me.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 20, 2016)

KPM said:


> Now this!  This is trying to rewrite forum history!      But whatever you need to believe to keep a clear conscience.  Pointing out your little games is getting far too tiresome as well.   Again, I will try and ignore such things in the future.



Forum history? Can you not just let past disagreements go for fucksake?

All I did when I came to this thread was share a piece of information.

Never said anyone was wrong or didn't learn correctly. You've been trying very hard to sow discord once again by putting words into my mouth. _Your_ little game is not appreciated.

Please just stop trying to make an argument out of every goddamn thing. Otherwise, normal discussions here will be impossible. There's no reason we should be doing this.


----------



## geezer (Feb 20, 2016)

KPM said:


> And it is sweeping statements that seem to be far too generalized ...... and that are obviously inaccurate in that context ..... that gets tiring to me.  But Ok. * I'll just try and ignore such things in the future*.



...er ...How about ignoring them in _the present? _



guy b. said:


> I believe that most of our arguments have been about the history of wing chun, which I think belong to everyone. But* I will try not to argue with you about this again.*



Yay! That's the spirit! 



LFJ said:


> Forum history?* Can you not just let past disagreements go* for fucksake?



OMG! an F-Bomb!  ...But in spite of that, I have to agree with the bolded part above. 



LFJ said:


> Please just stop trying to make an argument out of every goddamn thing. Otherwise, normal discussions here will be impossible.* There's no reason we should be doing this*.



...And I definitely agree with this last part! Are we moving on yet?


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2016)

^^^^^ Moving on!


----------



## KPM (Feb 28, 2016)

The weather was nice today so I finally got around to shooting that video I promised.  But no training partners were available, so BOB will have to do!


----------



## Phobius (Feb 29, 2016)

I agree that my view on mobility was at fighting range, not close quarters. If you close the distance prior to using YGKYM I agree the need for more mobility than YGKYM gives may be neglected.

One question that I need to raise though. At such close quarter, you leave your knees vulnerable to kicks. You knee in angle inwards means it would be perfect target to kick and without reacting faster than your opponent does this not cause a high risk of injury? (Given that you have 50-50 dedicated weight in that stance)

Second question is, your feet are further apart from one another than I am used to as well, at least it seemed that way. More than a shoulder width. Is that intentional?

Thanks for showing on video, you do have more mobility from YGKYM than most people I have seen. Means it does have a different meaning to you than to me and a different way of utilizing it.


----------



## KPM (Feb 29, 2016)

I agree that my view on mobility was at fighting range, not close quarters. If you close the distance prior to using YGKYM I agree the need for more mobility than YGKYM gives may be neglected.

---First, Wing Chun is a close quarter fighting system.  Second, I would still maintain that YGKYM isn't any less mobile than say...Bik Ma, Chum Kiu Ma, etc.....regardless of the range. 


One question that I need to raise though. At such close quarter, you leave your knees vulnerable to kicks. You knee in angle inwards means it would be perfect target to kick and without reacting faster than your opponent does this not cause a high risk of injury? (Given that you have 50-50 dedicated weight in that stance)

-- Knees are vulnerable to kicks at mid-range.  At close range where I believe Wing Chun works well you are more at knee and elbow range, not kicking range.  An opponent would have to take a step back away from you to be able to kick your knee.  And in that case your knee is vulnerable regardless of how you have it angled.  In fact, one could make the argument that angling inward actually protects the knee.  If I take a shot with my knee angled inward, that is pretty much going with the natural bend of my knee.  So I may be able to absorb the shot without a problem simply by sinking my stance and bending my knee.  If I take a shot with my knee in any other position, I risk the chance of my knee being "locked out" or forced into a direction it doesn't normally bend.  In both cases I'm more likely to sustain damage to my knee.


Second question is, your feet are further apart from one another than I am used to as well, at least it seemed that way. More than a shoulder width. Is that intentional?

---Yes.  I explained before that I don't take that very narrow "pinched" version of YGKYM.  My feet are at shoulder width and might end up a little wider as I move around.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 29, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---First, Wing Chun is a close quarter fighting system.  Second, I would still maintain that YGKYM isn't any less mobile than say...Bik Ma, Chum Kiu Ma, etc.....regardless of the range.



Yes, but you are not without need to close distance whether you are in close quarter or not. Nothing is ever constant, no matter where we are best suited to fight. Reason being that we will not face an opponent that desires close quarter fighting / grapplers prefer clinch. And if you are that close, was it not the discussion that you become vulnerable to a takedown. Reason was according to some video here I think that YGKYM left no leg vulnerable to takedown since both were equally out of range. Going close in a position like that both become within range and requires two movements to get out of range.

This is all just theoretic discussion since my interpretation is different. Not saying YGKYM does not exist, I see it in every transition I do pretty much (truth with a lot of modification of course).



KPM said:


> -- Knees are vulnerable to kicks at mid-range.  At close range where I believe Wing Chun works well you are more at knee and elbow range, not kicking range. An opponent would have to take a step back away from you to be able to kick your knee.



An opponent is never stuck at mid-range. A wing chun stance for instance allows you to kick the knees or lower already from close quarter when weight is shifted to rear leg.



KPM said:


> And in that case your knee is vulnerable regardless of how you have it angled.  In fact, one could make the argument that angling inward actually protects the knee.  If I take a shot with my knee angled inward, that is pretty much going with the natural bend of my knee.



Also the bend of each knee in YGKYM is towards the center of your opponent, and his kicks in close quarter would most likely be from center. This means a frontal hit on your knee with nowhere for you to absorb or move. If you had no weight on that leg of course the foot itself would move without resistance if kicked. So how is this mitigated or am I missing something?



KPM said:


> ---Yes.  I explained before that I don't take that very narrow "pinched" version of YGKYM.  My feet are at shoulder width and might end up a little wider as I move around.



Which is the reason I am curious and asking questions, since you dont do it like I do I cant say you are wrong. It is completely untested by me, and as such interesting to discuss.


----------



## KPM (Feb 29, 2016)

Yes, but you are not without need to close distance whether you are in close quarter or not. Nothing is ever constant, no matter where we are best suited to fight.

---Yes!  Very true!  I didn't mean to imply I wouldn't use all the other stances and footwork when appropriate!


 . And if you are that close, was it not the discussion that you become vulnerable to a takedown.

---If you are close enough to hit the opponent at all...you are within range of, and therefore vulnerable to a takedown.  I'm not much of a grappler, but it seems that people get taken down by a good grappler that suddenly shoots in and gets under them.  If you are as close as I have been talking about, the grappler has no room to shoot.  He would have to drop straight down to go for your legs, which would be pretty obvious.  So it seems to me you may be a bit LESS vulnerable to a takedown when this close, not more vulnerable.  Of course, a good grappler would just tie you up and toss you on the ground rather than doing a takedown!  


Reason was according to some video here I think that YGKYM left no leg vulnerable to takedown since both were equally out of range. Going close in a position like that both become within range and requires two movements to get out of range.

---But if you are standing with one leg forward and can get out of the way of the takedown in just one movement, then you probably weren't close enough to strike...and therefore you were staying at the wrong range!




Also the bend of each knee in YGKYM is towards the center of your opponent, and his kicks in close quarter would most likely be from center. This means a frontal hit on your knee with nowhere for you to absorb or move.

---Good point!   I was visualizing a round kick...like you would encounter from a non-Wing Chun fighter.  I never think in terms of fighting another Wing Chun guy.   But....when you are in the Bik Ma stance with one leg forward, is not your lead leg also angled inward a bit?  Wouldn't it have the same vulnerability? 


If you had no weight on that leg of course the foot itself would move without resistance if kicked. So how is this mitigated or am I missing something?

---You're worried about takedowns, but standing with all your weight on one leg??  Somehow that doesn't add up to me.  Am I missing something?



Which is the reason I am curious and asking questions, since you dont do it like I do I cant say you are wrong. It is completely untested by me, and as such interesting to discuss.

---If we all did everything the same, we would have little to discuss!


----------



## Phobius (Mar 2, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---If you are close enough to hit the opponent at all...you are within range of, and therefore vulnerable to a takedown.  I'm not much of a grappler, but it seems that people get taken down by a good grappler that suddenly shoots in and gets under them.  If you are as close as I have been talking about, the grappler has no room to shoot.  He would have to drop straight down to go for your legs, which would be pretty obvious.  So it seems to me you may be a bit LESS vulnerable to a takedown when this close, not more vulnerable.  Of course, a good grappler would just tie you up and toss you on the ground rather than doing a takedown!



True, but I was thinking this entire thread was to prove that YGKYM is good because it hinders takedown or at least makes it harder to do for a grappler, against you. If you are saying that one has to be very close (elbow and knee range) before using YGKYM then we have been missunderstanding each other.

Also my view is that YGKYM exist in all stances and nothing is constant due to us always being in motion. So I can not disagree too wildly, only when people call it a stance they think stand as if doing SNT which in my view is good for training purposes and learning body structure but less so when being in motion.



KPM said:


> ---But if you are standing with one leg forward and can get out of the way of the takedown in just one movement, then you probably weren't close enough to strike...and therefore you were staying at the wrong range!



The range where you can do a straight punch is also a position where a grappler can do a takedown. Of course else might be said about elbow range but I don't really prefer to go into elbow range because of my size. I lose the advantage I have over my opponent in pure height if I do.



KPM said:


> ---Good point!   I was visualizing a round kick...like you would encounter from a non-Wing Chun fighter.  I never think in terms of fighting another Wing Chun guy.   But....when you are in the Bik Ma stance with one leg forward, is not your lead leg also angled inward a bit?  Wouldn't it have the same vulnerability?



Stomps, straight kicks and so on exist in nearly all martial arts styles. Difference with Bik Ma is that my forward leg will move with the opponents kick. We hold no weight on that leg. Of course this gets a lot easier if you have reflexes but leg will move backwards no matter what, it will still leave you bruised and injured but depending on force but you can still continue the fight as the real pain does not come until afterwards when the fight is over and your knee gets really swollen (in case of bad hit).




KPM said:


> ---You're worried about takedowns, but standing with all your weight on one leg??  Somehow that doesn't add up to me.  Am I missing something?



One can never be safe from takedowns, at least not with ease. But by offering up a forward leg without putting weight on it I can easily move back to a sprawl. Not saying there are not other weaknesses in terms of standing with a forward leg and weight on back leg. But then again I am pro constant motion. If I want to stand still I would not chose a close quarter fighting style.


----------



## KPM (Mar 2, 2016)

True, but I was thinking this entire thread was to prove that YGKYM is good because it hinders takedown or at least makes it harder to do for a grappler, against you. If you are saying that one has to be very close (elbow and knee range) before using YGKYM then we have been missunderstanding each other.

_---Fair enough!    The thread has drifted back and forth as long threads tend to do.  I think we started by pointing out how YGKYM could be less vulnerable to a takedown as explained in the video clip in the OP.  Then I expanded on that by saying there were other reasons why I considered the YGKYM more than "just" a training stance.  Then we began to talk about mobility and other factors._ 


Also my view is that YGKYM exist in all stances and nothing is constant due to us always being in motion. So I can not disagree too wildly, only when people call it a stance they think stand as if doing SNT which in my view is good for training purposes and learning body structure but less so when being in motion.

_---Agreed.  In Pin Sun I think we maybe spend less time trying to drive through an opponent with a Bik Ma step, and more time angling off the line and being more evasive.  So this means we spend more time in YGKYM or at least something very close to it than other Wing Chun systems may when moving about.   Also, it seems to me that in Ip Man Wing Chun the primary step used is the "chasing step" or "step-slide" or whatever terminology you like.  But in Pin Sun the primary step used is really what we call the "Biu Choi" footwork, because it comes from the Biu Choi set.  This involves pivoting from the YGKYM, but allowing one foot to advance so that you are moving forward with the pivot. I think a lot of Ip Man lineages don't even learn this until the knife form.   But you can see, that if we are using Biu Choi footwork rather than Bik Ma footwork, we are going to be more square to the opponent more often...therefore more time in YGKYM when moving about.  Does that make sense?_



The range where you can do a straight punch is also a position where a grappler can do a takedown.

_---Not really.  The range for a straight punch is the length of your extended arm.  Perhaps a bit further if you are allowing for a Bik Ma step into the opponent.  The distance that a grappler shoots in for a takedown is a bit further out than this._ 



Stomps, straight kicks and so on exist in nearly all martial arts styles. Difference with Bik Ma is that my forward leg will move with the opponents kick. We hold no weight on that leg.

_---Yes, but if your timing isn't quite on the mark, your leg could easily end up hyperextended.  I really don't see the leg forward position as any advantage over the YGKYM position as far as vulnerability to kicks.  Of course I don't ever stand with all of my weight on one leg...so I haven't played with it in that way._





One can never be safe from takedowns, at least not with ease. But by offering up a forward leg without putting weight on it I can easily move back to a sprawl.

----_How are you going to sprawl from a standing on one leg position?  Especially if the grappler has ahold of that lead leg?
I'm not a grappler, but from what I have experienced, these guys love to catch someone standing relatively upright with their weight on one leg.  The guy that is hard to take down is the guy in a low position with his legs wide._


----------



## Phobius (Mar 3, 2016)

_


KPM said:



			---Agreed.  In Pin Sun I think we maybe spend less time trying to drive through an opponent with a Bik Ma step, and more time angling off the line and being more evasive.  So this means we spend more time in YGKYM or at least something very close to it than other Wing Chun systems may when moving about.   Also, it seems to me that in Ip Man Wing Chun the primary step used is the "chasing step" or "step-slide" or whatever terminology you like.  But in Pin Sun the primary step used is really what we call the "Biu Choi" footwork, because it comes from the Biu Choi set.  This involves pivoting from the YGKYM, but allowing one foot to advance so that you are moving forward with the pivot. I think a lot of Ip Man lineages don't even learn this until the knife form.   But you can see, that if we are using Biu Choi footwork rather than Bik Ma footwork, we are going to be more square to the opponent more often...therefore more time in YGKYM when moving about.  Does that make sense?
		
Click to expand...

_
Interesting, will consider what this actually means but as for now I say no further comment. Need to grasp the full picture of what you are saying and at work I shouldnt do that. 

_


KPM said:



			---Not really.  The range for a straight punch is the length of your extended arm.  Perhaps a bit further if you are allowing for a Bik Ma step into the opponent.  The distance that a grappler shoots in for a takedown is a bit further out than this.
		
Click to expand...

_

Never said a grappler does not prefer to shoot from proper range, just saying if you are within punching range a grappler will not move out before shooting in. Or you are saying there are no takedowns once you get inside kicking range (extended arm)?

_


KPM said:



			---Yes, but if your timing isn't quite on the mark, your leg could easily end up hyperextended.  I really don't see the leg forward position as any advantage over the YGKYM position as far as vulnerability to kicks.  Of course I don't ever stand with all of my weight on one leg...so I haven't played with it in that way.
		
Click to expand...

_

Try it out, or don't depending on what you feel like. But you do not end up with hyperextended knee, not unless you missed to learn something about your own stance. Still we don't follow a strict rule about having all weight on rear leg. It is just what we practise when being kicked on the knees as if reaction is too slow. Part of understanding the kick itself without damaging your opponents knee. (Of course it is not just about being lose, body structure and sense of touch needs to be there, so I can't really explain any details or help you figure it out. Truth be told I am terrible at explaining in words so I never usually try)

To me however movement is a flow of motions. Not locking into a specific stance. Body structure is the key. Which is why I am curious but not really that invested into any stance. I need to train them all. Good or bad, I don't know. It is just what works for me in order to not get stale behaviour.



KPM said:


> ----_How are you going to sprawl from a standing on one leg position?  Especially if the grappler has ahold of that lead leg?
> I'm not a grappler, but from what I have experienced, these guys love to catch someone standing relatively upright with their weight on one leg.  The guy that is hard to take down is the guy in a low position with his legs wide._



As I said, there are no perfect stances to protect against grapplers. There is however an idea that if you only leave your opponent with a single lucrative offer, you will be ready to counter it. Moving into a sprawl is not hard even with limited time frame because it comes naturally and without doubt. Of course body has to be invested in a sprawl, arms as well. You need to have your opponent help you sprawl, without their approval of course. Anything else would just be stupid.


----------

