# An Observation on Pivoting



## Marnetmar (Oct 15, 2015)

I was playing around with a guy from another lineage and whenever I sensed incoming force from him I did a slight shift and "guided him" into my fists, so to speak. This really seemed to confuse him and he asked why I wasn't taking a big step back whenever he did an attack, to which I replied "in my style, we focus on making very small movements" which resulted in a nod and a confused expression.

I started thinking about this just recently and realized something: the reason he got so confused might have been because his style had a different way of shifting than mine. In my style, shifting is initiated at the knees and the pivot point is slightly towards the balls of our feet. In his style, shifting is initiated at the hips and the pivot point is on the heels.

*BOTH OF THESE METHODS ARE EQUALLY GOOD AND VALID, MIND YOU.*

Now, from what I understand, there is a conventional rhyme and reason to both of these methods:

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.
2. Shifting with the hips and pivoting on the heels eliminates unnecessary movement and allows you to stay in the same spot to make it easier to strike your opponent, while shifting on the balls of your feet moves you further away from your opponent.

Now then, I believe the reason that he got so confused was that if he were to attempt the same technique I did against an incoming attack, he would stay in the same place and would still get hit, while the method I was taught moves me out of the way a few inches off the line of attack.

From this I've concluded that a practitioner shouldn't use exclusively one method, but rather should use both methods in accord:

1. Shift with the knees and use the balls of your feet when an attack is coming in order to get off the line without bobbing and weaving.
2. Shift with the hips and use the heels if there's currently no attack coming and want to change directions without giving up your position.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on this. I'm just a student, after all. What are your guys' thoughts?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 15, 2015)

There is an element of fighting systems where one method is specifically advantageous to another. So like the paper rock scissors dynamic where you method beats a guy his method beats a guy but the third guys method beats you.

Learning how all that integrates is expands your understanding of how martial arts works.

So in short. Yes I agree.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 15, 2015)

Your buddy should change styles.


----------



## KPM (Oct 15, 2015)

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.

---Here is a key point biomechanically speaking....shifting near the balls of the feet (at the K1 point) makes it easier to maintain control of your balance.  You can actually sink your weight while pivoting this way.  Heck, you can sink so much that you are doing a "Gwai Ma" with the pivot.  You can't do that with pivoting on the heels.


2. Shifting with the hips and pivoting on the heels eliminates unnecessary movement and allows you to stay in the same spot to make it easier to strike your opponent, while shifting on the balls of your feet moves you further away from your opponent.

---Shifting on the  K1 point does not necessarily move you further away from your opponent.  You can maintain 50/50 weight distro and pivot through a central vertical axis and still be pivoting at the K1 point.  Therefore you don't need to learn two different ways of pivoting (heel vs. K1) to adjust your strategy as you are describing it.  This is how we pivot in Pin Sun.  Pivoting at the K1 point does not mean you have to swing your whole body around.


From this I've concluded that a practitioner shouldn't use exclusively one method, but rather should use both methods in accord:

---I think trying to pivot on the heels at some times and at the K1 point at others would just be confusing and not really necessary, as I noted above.   Just work on doing your pivot without shifting the weight onto the rear leg.  Keep your weight 50/50.  Once you do it a bit I think you'll find it is rather easy and a better alternative to trying to shift on your heels if you are used to shifting on the K1 point.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 15, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> I was playing around with a guy from another lineage and whenever I sensed incoming force from him I did a slight shift and "guided him" into my fists, so to speak. This really seemed to confuse him and he asked why I wasn't taking a big step back whenever he did an attack, to which I replied "in my style, we focus on making very small movements" which resulted in a nod and a confused expression.
> 
> I started thinking about this just recently and realized something: the reason he got so confused might have been because his style had a different way of shifting than mine. In my style, shifting is initiated at the knees and the pivot point is slightly towards the balls of our feet. In his style, shifting is initiated at the hips and the pivot point is on the heels.
> 
> ...



You are correct, both methods are valid. And both are contained within the Yip Man family.
I do disagree about the lack of mobility. Mobility is destined to hinge around the heel or the K1 or the ball. It has to do with where your adversary is located in reference to you.
I also disagree with heel shifting and staying in one place. That is certainly an option with the 50/50 mindset; however you can turn on your heels, and load the rear leg, thus getting 'off the line' and guiding him into your fist.
Responding to your post is difficult due to us not knowing more about you and your buddies current skill level and depth of knowledge about the WC you are learning. As for the "big step back"....perhaps that is just how he trains in his kwoon(?). [*if so, that seems a bit weird TBH]
Anyway, which method of shifting one uses to deploy tools from the toolbox involves lots of important things like timing, reach, getting offline while increasing distance of your own weapons, angles, and most importantly...power generation.
Thanks for the post dude...gives us all something to think about and discuss. It reminds me of a similar encounter I had once with a LT guy. Who also shifted on the balls of the feet.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 15, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> 1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.



I find heel pivoting can seamlessly drive into _seung-ma_ or collapse off line into _teui-ma_, both with use of hips and ground connection via the rear leg to deliver power punches from any position. Since we don't use rotating punches like a boxer, this is important in order to have knockout power in our VT punches.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 15, 2015)

We do both. 
Something I asked of my sifu many years ago while observing his movement. His reply, "Ahh, sometimes on the ball of your foot, sometimes on the heel. We use whatever we need to do depending on what is needed. After you learn it, understand it, then do what is natural, just move."

SLT no movement, Chum Kiu we pivot on the ball, Bil Jee we pivot on the heel, after that just move.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 15, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I find heel pivoting can seamlessly drive into _seung-ma_ or collapse off line into _teui-ma_, both with use of hips and ground connection via the rear leg to deliver power punches from any position. Since we don't use rotating punches like a boxer, this is important in order to have knockout power in our VT punches.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. Heel pivoting does not mean that one leans back on the heel. ...for development... in application one adjusts as needed.
Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.


----------



## geezer (Oct 15, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> It reminds me of a similar encounter I had once with a LT guy. Who also shifted on the balls of the feet.



Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time _on the center of the foot _using the force of the knees. The weight shift is 100%. Now in practice, depending on the surface you are standing on, the type of shoes you wear, etc., the pivot point is often a little bit in front of the center, toward the balls of the feet, but _never_ on the toes.

I prefer this method of turning. I find it gives me greater stability and better power generation since, as KPM stated, you can keep your weight sunk and at least one foot is firmly rooted at any given moment. Where I differ from my old sifu is that I do not believe that a 100% weight shift is always optimal. But this turning method can be used with anything from 50-50 to 100% weight shift depending on the situation.

Turning both legs simultaneously with the weight toward the heels has other advantages, not the least of which is speed. But I'd rather stick with the method described above for the sake of simplicity and consistency. In other words, exactly what KPM said.


----------



## geezer (Oct 15, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
> This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.



In completing a turn and delivering a punch, etc. the rebounding force is indeed directed into the ground via the heel. This does not mean that _in turning_ you have to turn both feet simultaneously and weight only the heels. I have seen good Wing Chun using both approaches.


----------



## KPM (Oct 19, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yup. Heel pivoting does not mean that one leans back on the heel. ...for development... in application one adjusts as needed.
> Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
> This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.


 
Sorry.  But that statement is just flat wrong.  Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot.  For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.


----------



## Bkouba (Oct 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> There is an element of fighting systems where one method is specifically advantageous to another. So like the paper rock scissors dynamic where you method beats a guy his method beats a guy but the third guys method beats you.
> 
> Learning how all that integrates is expands your understanding of how martial arts works.
> 
> So in short. Yes I agree.


Well said, that's where the 'style makes fights' cliche comes into play. It's always interesting to see what appears to be a more skilled fighter lose to one that possess a certain skill set - even if very limited, but then again if they are beaten are they the more skilled in the first place? God I love martial arts haha


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2015)

Bkouba said:


> Well said, that's where the 'style makes fights' cliche comes into play. It's always interesting to see what appears to be a more skilled fighter lose to one that possess a certain skill set - even if very limited, but then again if they are beaten are they the more skilled in the first place? God I love martial arts haha



Mohumed ali Joe Frazier is often used as an example of this. By all accounts Joe was the better boxer. But got caught by better tactics.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 19, 2015)

KPM said:


> Sorry.  But that statement is just flat wrong.  Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot.  For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.



This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement. While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!

From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant. I do this all the time, and I don't have to 'lean back' to do it. It can be done quite easily while still having a 50/50 balanced weight and COG. In your above statement, I think you're forgetting about how our opponent can also influence things. When we have a bridge, we also have to take into account the amount of pressure we are receiving from out opponent, and it's direction. This greatly changes how and thru what part of the foot we 'ground' these forces.

In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'? Personally, I don't really do the feet-stay-on-the-floor type shifting anyway. In our lineage, we typically pick the feet up when changing facing. Would it be wise for me to then tell the entire Yip man lineage they are wrong regardless if they shift on the heal or the toes?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 19, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement. While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!
> 
> From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant. I do this all the time, and I don't have to 'lean back' to do it. It can be done quite easily while still having a 50/50 balanced weight and COG. In your above statement, I think you're forgetting about how our opponent can also influence things. When we have a bridge, we also have to take into account the amount of pressure we are receiving from out opponent, and it's direction. This greatly changes how and thru what part of the foot we 'ground' these forces.
> 
> In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'?


Yeap, Yeap, Yeap! 
Never say never. We may work for something specific but... it may not happen in reality.
You have to deal with what is not with what should be.


----------



## KPM (Oct 19, 2015)

This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement.

---It is simple biomechanics.  Nothing "silly" about it.

 While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!

---Uh....in case you didn't realize....we are talking about Wing Chun here, not ballet. 

From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant.

---But we were talking about pivoting in general.  A specific case scenario was not what was being discussed.  Joy made a general statement, and that general statement was flat wrong.  End of story.  You can nit-pick all you want.  It doesn't change the biomechanics of it.   In general, when you pivot your gravitational path does NOT go through the heels unless the majority of your weight is back over the heels. 

In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'?

---If you were actually paying attention, I did not say that the way they were pivoting was wrong.  I said that Joy's statement of the "gravitational path" was wrong.  There is a big difference there!


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 19, 2015)

geezer said:


> Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time _on the center of the foot _using the force of the knees. The weight shift is 100%. Now in practice, depending on the surface you are standing on, the type of shoes you wear, etc., the pivot point is often a little bit in front of the center, toward the balls of the feet, but _never_ on the toes.
> 
> I prefer this method of turning. I find it gives me greater stability and better power generation since, as KPM stated, you can keep your weight sunk and at least one foot is firmly rooted at any given moment. Where I differ from my old sifu is that I do not believe that a 100% weight shift is always optimal. But this turning method can be used with anything from 50-50 to 100% weight shift depending on the situation.
> 
> Turning both legs simultaneously with the weight toward the heels has other advantages, not the least of which is speed. But I'd rather stick with the method described above for the sake of simplicity and consistency. In other words, exactly what KPM said.


I was originally taught the one foot at a time method. Now I use whatever's needed to move without giving up my balance/COG/ structure or any physical advantage I might have..My teacher once said after I asked why is our fighting stance 60/40? He said "it's not it's more of a reference or starting point. In fighting you'll always be transitioning..He used the example of walking and how weight is constantly being transferred from 0-100 to 100-0. If there was a rule that said we must walk at a maintained 60/40 we'd all look silly. So I feel the same about pivoting. The wrong way to pivot, is pivoting without forward intent and or over pivoting. Which to me is the exact same thing..


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 20, 2015)

geezer said:


> Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time _on the center of the foot_



Yes, I recall he did turn one foot at a time.



geezer said:


> but _never_ on the toes.



Never said toes...


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I was originally taught the one foot at a time method. Now I use whatever's needed to move without giving up my balance/COG/ structure or any physical advantage I might have..My teacher once said after I asked why is our fighting stance 60/40? *He said "it's not it's more of a reference or starting point. In fighting you'll always be transitioning.*.He used the example of walking and how weight is constantly being transferred from 0-100 to 100-0. If there was a rule that said we must walk at a maintained 60/40 we'd all look silly. So I feel the same about pivoting. The wrong way to pivot, is pivoting without forward intent and or over pivoting. Which to me is the exact same thing..



Correct! You have a wise teacher.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Sorry.  But that statement is just flat wrong.  Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot.  For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry too. Same old differences.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

Ok.  Just so everything is clear, here is a little basic lesson on biomechanics for those that might be interested.
When gravitational force acts on an object it causes it to fall directly downward to the ground.  When the object is long and relatively parallel to the ground, this force acts relatively equally on all parts of the object.  But if the object is long and oriented relatively perpendicular to the ground, then gravity does not act on all parts equally.  Instead, gravity will have its main effect on one spot within the object that serves as a sort of “balance point” where the object’s main mass is relatively centered.  This is known as the “center of gravity.”  For a human standing upright the COG is within the pelvis at approximately the spot Martial Artists refer to as the “Tan Tien.” 
The force of gravity will exert a “pull” on the COG that is directed straight down to the ground.  The vector line along which this “pull” is directed is variously known at the “line of gravity” the “gravitational line”, etc.  When a human is standing upright in a relaxed posture this gravitation line is directed through the arch of the foot just in front of the ankle.  This allows for balancing in the upright position with firing as few muscles as possible to maintain that posture.  The arch of the foot is reinforced by the “spring ligament.”  Thus the arch of the foot acts just like the strut on an automobile suspension.  It absorbs and redistributes downward force.  Your toes grip the ground and also contribute significantly to your balance.  In order for the gravitational line to go through your heels, you would have to be leaning back so that your COG was directly over the heels.  This would off-load the arch of your foot and take much of the balancing ability away from your toes.  In short, this is a precarious position!
When we bend our knees and assume a Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma stance, our COG shifts forward and is even further out over the arch of the foot.  The gravitational line goes through the center of the arch of the foot, not through the heels.  Again, in order for the gravitational line to go through the heels, the COG would have to be directly over the heels, which would require the person to be leaning back.  Balance would be compromised.
When doing the Wing Chun pivot, if you pivot through a central vertical axis keeping the weight distributed 50/50 between the feet, the most optimal way to shift from a biomechanical perspective is to use the center of the arch of the foot as the pivot point.  This is because the gravitational line is already going through this point.  You can even bend your knees and sink deeper in your stance without altering this pivot point.  You can bend your knees to the point that you are in a “Gwai Ma” stance and still pivot at the arch of the foot.  Therefore, the optimal way to pivot while maintaining the best control of balance is to pivot through the arch of the foot. 
If you pivot with your heels as the pivot point, you have to momentarily transfer the gravitational line from being through the arches of your feet to being through the heels.  If you don’t do this, then the front part of your foot cannot “swing” as you pivot on your heels.  Now when the front part of your foot is “swinging” with the pivot, then your toes are not engaged as well in controlling your balance.  For that split second of the pivot, your balance is vulnerable to being disrupted.  This is not to say that pivoting on the heels is wrong!  People that practice it get good at it and can make it work!  But from a biomechanical standpoint, it is not the optimal way to pivot. 
When an external force is applied, as in engaging a partner or adversary that is pressing back into your structure, force may very well be directed into the ground through your heels.  But this is no longer strictly the gravitational force and not the gravitational line. 
This is just simple biomechanics.  I hope everyone was able to follow along and understand what I am saying.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement.
> 
> ---It is simple biomechanics.  Nothing "silly" about it.
> 
> ...



Good grief you're a touchy sort! I really only want to make this point once here, so excuse the directness. First off, if you want to have a sincere conversation here, you would do yourself and everyone else a favor by dropping the tone right now. It's really not necessary and doesn't make you any more 'right' (since you prefer to talk in terms of right/wrong). There is a reason this forum is a lot more pleasant than the 'other one' and I think it's good if we all do our best to keep it that way.

Interesting you say you were talking specifics of WC ("were talking Wing Chun here not ballet") and then in the very next breath you are talking "pivoting in general". But you were_ also _talking 'gravitational paths' and biomechanics, neither of which is necessarily WC specific. So if you are going to take a condescending, passive aggressive attitude, it would be a good idea to at least be consistent. On second thought, again, it would be a better idea to drop the attitude altogether. 

Fact is, taking a higher-than-thou position talking about right/wrong in regards to how WC moves when changing facing _is_ silly if you are only talking generalities. And further silly if we also refuse to also see moving at all in WC is rather pointless _without_ an opponent to relate to (you don't move, I don't move). And, how we do it varies greatly based on input/pressure from the opponent. So yes, the 'gravitational path' (silly term also IMO) does in fact change depending on input from the outside world. So I hope you can see for someone to say another is right/wrong when speaking 'in general' with little-to-no context or reference is pretty pointless.

One final note: I am really only interested in showing mutual respect with those I'm discussing with, regardless if I'm in agreement with them or not. If we can't keep it along those lines, no need to reply.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I was originally taught the one foot at a time method. Now I use whatever's needed to move without giving up my balance/COG/ structure or any physical advantage I might have..My teacher once said after I asked why is our fighting stance 60/40? He said "it's not it's more of a reference or starting point. In fighting you'll always be transitioning..He used the example of walking and how weight is constantly being transferred from 0-100 to 100-0. If there was a rule that said we must walk at a maintained 60/40 we'd all look silly. So I feel the same about pivoting. The wrong way to pivot, is pivoting without forward intent and or over pivoting. Which to me is the exact same thing..



Great point! 
In HFY, we also typically move one foot at a time when changing position, as well as picking them up so we don't 'get stuck' and have better opportunity to land our second foot so we are preferably in a superior position (you don't move, I don't move - you move, I 'get there' first). This gives us better ability to react to the input we are receiving from our opponent.
If we 'fix' both feet and just pivot to change facing in relation to our opponent's actions and/or pressure, we may end up giving up some of our personal/structural space if our opponent is overpowering us. Or, we may have to lean out of the way to compensate. Neither option IMO is the best route when working towards a goal of fighting maximum efficiency. We need to be able to adjust our stance as necessary to both retain our own personal space & full body structural alignment, as well as adjust our facing & superior position in relation to our opponent.


----------



## geezer (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> If you pivot with your heels as the pivot point, you have to momentarily transfer the gravitational line from being through the arches of your feet to being through the heels.  If you don’t do this, then the front part of your foot cannot “swing” as you pivot on your heels.  Now when the front part of your foot is “swinging” with the pivot, then your toes are not engaged as well in controlling your balance.  For that split second of the pivot, your balance is vulnerable to being disrupted.  This is not to say that pivoting on the heels is wrong!  People that practice it get good at it and can make it work!  But *from a biomechanical standpoint, it is not the optimal way to pivot.*



KPM, that was a pretty clear explanation and I agree with almost all of what you said, ...except the bolded part above. In my experience, there are three ways WC pivoting is commonly taught. 1. On the center of the foot ...or slightly toward the balls and turning one foot at a time in fluid sequence, 2. Turning both feet simultaneously with the weight back toward the heels and the front of the foot sliding or as you put it "swinging", and 3. turning both feet simultaneously with the weight forward on the balls of the feet toward the toes, with the heels sliding or "swinging".

Each of the above methods presents certain advantages and disadvantages in application. As I stated earlier, I prefer the one-leg-at-a -time, center-of-the-foot method for reasons we have both already stated. My issue with turning both feet simultaneously is that I feel equally vulnerable when shifting my CG forward to pivot on the toes or when shifting back onto my heels. This is especially true in mid-pivot.

On the other hand turning both feet simultaneously with the weight shifted forward to the toes or back to the heels minimizes friction between the foot and the ground and allows for a very fast pivot. And, in my experience, it is significantly easier to teach, and faster to learn and apply than the one-foot-at-a-time method I use.  And, as you already noted, there are many experienced WC people who can make heel or toe turning work, So can you really say that these methods are biomechanically sub-optimal in all situations?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ok.  Just so everything is clear, here is a little basic lesson on biomechanics for those that might be interested.
> When gravitational force acts on an object it causes it to fall directly downward to the ground.  When the object is long and relatively parallel to the ground, this force acts relatively equally on all parts of the object.  But if the object is long and oriented relatively perpendicular to the ground, then gravity does not act on all parts equally.  Instead, gravity will have its main effect on one spot within the object that serves as a sort of “balance point” where the object’s main mass is relatively centered.  This is known as the “center of gravity.”  For a human standing upright the COG is within the pelvis at approximately the spot Martial Artists refer to as the “Tan Tien.”
> The force of gravity will exert a “pull” on the COG that is directed straight down to the ground.  The vector line along which this “pull” is directed is variously known at the “line of gravity” the “gravitational line”, etc.  When a human is standing upright in a relaxed posture this gravitation line is directed through the arch of the foot just in front of the ankle.  This allows for balancing in the upright position with firing as few muscles as possible to maintain that posture.  The arch of the foot is reinforced by the “spring ligament.”  Thus the arch of the foot acts just like the strut on an automobile suspension.  It absorbs and redistributes downward force.  Your toes grip the ground and also contribute significantly to your balance.  In order for the gravitational line to go through your heels, you would have to be leaning back so that your COG was directly over the heels.  This would off-load the arch of your foot and take much of the balancing ability away from your toes.  In short, this is a precarious position!
> When we bend our knees and assume a Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma stance, our COG shifts forward and is even further out over the arch of the foot.  The gravitational line goes through the center of the arch of the foot, not through the heels.  Again, in order for the gravitational line to go through the heels, the COG would have to be directly over the heels, which would require the person to be leaning back.  Balance would be compromised.
> ...



You can use the word "biomechanical" and other buzz words as often as you like within your post. It won't make you any more correct.
The COG of a body in motion is not necessarily through the arch of the foot, nor is it inherently unstable to have that COG on the heel or the ball of the foot, or even on the toes. Balance and stability can be excellent with the COG in ANY of those places.
The only time the COG is directly through the arches is when the body is upright, in a narrow, square stance, and not moving.





In none of the stances pictured above will the COG be directly through the arches. None. The knife edge, yes. The ball of one foot and the heel of the other, yes. The balls of both feet, yes. But never directly through the arches.
Of course, I only have 40+ years in the marital arts and a Masters in human physiology, so what do I know?


----------



## geezer (Oct 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Never said toes...



No, but you said _BALLS!  _


----------



## geezer (Oct 20, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course, I only have 40+ years in the marital arts and a Masters in human physiology, so what do I know?



Hey Dog, do you really have to keep reminding us of how OLD we are? 


That said I basically agree that there is no "biomechanical" law at play here. In fact there are a lot of effective ways to accomplish WC Pivoting.

BTW cute illustrations. Not WC, but still cute.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> You can use the word "biomechanical" and other buzz words as often as you like within your post. It won't make you any more correct.
> The COG of a body in motion is not necessarily through the arch of the foot, nor is it inherently unstable to have that COG on the heel or the ball of the foot, or even on the toes. Balance and stability can be excellent with the COG in ANY of those places.
> The only time the COG is directly through the arches is when the body is upright, in a narrow, square stance, and not moving.
> View attachment 19597
> ...


 
I was talking about Wing Chun.  Those illustrations are not Wing Chun.  So yes, it is biomechanically correct the way I described it.  With 40 years of experience and a masters in human physiology one would think you would be able to track the logic of what I was describing.  ;-)


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2015)

geezer said:


> Hey Dog, do you really have to keep reminding us of how OLD we are?
> 
> 
> That said I basically agree that there is no "biomechanical" law at play here. In fact there are a lot of effective ways to accomplish WC Pivoting.
> ...



I don't do WC, so I googled "wing chun stances" and that popped up.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> I was talking about Wing Chun.  Those illustrations are not Wing Chun.  So yes, it is biomechanically correct the way I described it.  With 40 years of experience and a masters in human physiology one would think you would be able to track the logic of what I was describing.  ;-)



I can track it. That's why I know it's wrong.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I can track it. That's why I know it's wrong.


 
Ok. Then explain what is wrong with what I described.  Keep in mind I was talking about the YKGYM stance and the Wing Chun method of pivoting.  Not any of the postures you illustrated.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

Good grief you're a touchy sort!

---Well, you did call me "silly"!  ;-) 

 I really only want to make this point once here, so excuse the directness. First off, if you want to have a sincere conversation here, you would do yourself and everyone else a favor by dropping the tone right now.

---Sorry, didn't mean to have a "tone."  When describing things that are technical, it just comes across that way.   And you did imply I told Joy that he does the pivot wrong, which I didn't.  I only said that his comment on the gravitational line was wrong.



Interesting you say you were talking specifics of WC ("were talking Wing Chun here not ballet") and then in the very next breath you are talking "pivoting in general".

---In Wing Chun.  Sorry, I thought that was obvious.


Fact is, taking a higher-than-thou position talking about right/wrong in regards to how WC moves when changing facing _is_ silly if you are only talking generalities.

---I don't think applying biomechanical principles to Wing Chun is silly at all.   And I was talking about Wing Chun, not life in general.  I thought that was obvious as well.

 And further silly if we also refuse to also see moving at all in WC is rather pointless _without_ an opponent to relate to (you don't move, I don't move).

---You don't maneuver around the opponent for position from an outside range?  You don't adjust your position and angling prior to contact?  You don't practice solo?  Sorry, but your statement sounds kind of silly to me! 


 So yes, the 'gravitational path' (silly term also IMO)

---That was Joy's term.  But it is an appropriate term.

 does in fact change depending on input from the outside world.

---It only changes when your relationship to the ground changes.  If another force other than gravity is being applied, then it is no longer simply just the "gravitational line."  Again, that's just simple biomechanics.

So I hope you can see for someone to say another is right/wrong when speaking 'in general' with little-to-no context or reference is pretty pointless.

---There was a context....standing and pivoting in Wing Chun.  I thought that was clear.  And the point was that the gravitational line does not go through the heels when standing.  I thought that was clear as well.  Did you read what I wrote?

One final note: I am really only interested in showing mutual respect with those I'm discussing with, regardless if I'm in agreement with them or not. If we can't keep it along those lines, no need to reply.

---I believe in mutual respect as well.  I simply pointed out a false statement when it comes to biomechanics applied to Wing Chun.  You chose to jump on that and say I was silly and that I was telling Joy he does things wrong (which I wasn't.)  So to clear things up as to why I thought Joy had made a false or inaccurate statement I wrote out an explanation.  I was trying not to be one of those guys that just criticizes and doesn't explain.  But rather than say "thanks for the explanation", I get this.  So gee Jonathan, maybe you're the one that is "a touchy sort"!   ;-)   And you know, that last I checked Joy is an adult and can speak for himself.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ok. Then explain what is wrong with what I described.  Keep in mind I was talking about the YKGYM stance and the Wing Chun method of pivoting.  Not any of the postures you illustrated.



I did. Apparently you didn't understand it. That's OK. 
I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.
The ONLY time the COG is through the aches is in a narrow, upright, stationary stance. That's it.
As soon as you start to move, the COG shifts out of the arch. Always. 
If you still don't get it, then I have to assume you're being intentionally obtuse.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

I did. Apparently you didn't understand it. That's OK.

---No you didn't.  You made statements.  You did not back them up by explaining the biomechanics.  You showed pictures that have nothing to do with Wing Chun. 

The ONLY time the COG is through the aches is in a narrow, upright, stationary stance.

---Which is what I was describing. 

As soon as you start to move, the COG shifts out of the arch. Always.

--Unless you are doing a Wing Chun pivot with body upright and weight distributed approximately 50/50....which, again, was what I was describing.

If you still don't get it, then I have to assume you're being intentionally obtuse

---If you still don't get it, maybe it is because you don't actually do Wing Chun?   Or are you just being an ***?


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2015)

KPM, that was a pretty clear explanation and I agree with almost all of what you said,

---Well Steve, I'm glad someone was able to follow what I was saying!  Who is this "Dirty Dog" guy anyway?

 In my experience, there are three ways WC pivoting is commonly taught. 1. On the center of the foot ...or slightly toward the balls and turning one foot at a time in fluid sequence, 2. Turning both feet simultaneously with the weight back toward the heels and the front of the foot sliding or as you put it "swinging", and 3. turning both feet simultaneously with the weight forward on the balls of the feet toward the toes, with the heels sliding or "swinging".

---True.  I didn't address the differences between your #1 and #3.  But I would also have to say that #1 and #3 are both more biomechanical "optimal" than #2. 

My issue with turning both feet simultaneously is that I feel equally vulnerable when shifting my CG forward to pivot on the toes or when shifting back onto my heels. This is especially true in mid-pivot.

---But I'm not sure anyone really pivots with both feet at exactly the same time.  I certainly don't!  And the COG never shifts completely forward to the toes.  It shifts forward over the point you are pivoting around, which is not the toes.  It is usually close to K1. 


  And, as you already noted, there are many experienced WC people who can make heel or toe turning work, So can you really say that these methods are biomechanically sub-optimal in all situations?

---Yes, you can!  Being able to make it work well is not the same as saying as saying it is "optimal".   I'm sorry that others don't seem see the logic in what I am saying.  And I am not pulling this out of my ***.  I have trained in this.  Normal and abnormal gait mechanics is part of what I teach to our medical residents.  I'm just applying this to a Wing Chun structure.  Its really very simple....having the majority of your weight back over your heels (even for just a moment) is less stable than keeping the majority of your weight over the arch of your foot.  This is true when standing as well as moving around.


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Correct! You have a wise teacher.


Thanks! It was my first teacher, but I believe all have been in sync with this type of thinking.

Like I said in my last post. My preference is whatever works at that moment. I think where it's important is in teaching a new student. A foundation needs to be laid for that student, so id probably teach the one foot at a time method. Just cause that's how I learned. But with emphasis later on that there our other methods of pivoting and that the circumstance dictates the action


----------



## geezer (Oct 20, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> View attachment 19597



OK guys, let's be fair. Some of Dirty Dog's stance pictures_ do_ relate to WC, just not to the stances we're discussing. Gotta go to the pole form. For example, check out the first picture he posted above (a guy in a horse stance with his arm extended to the side) and compare it to our WC "Battle Punch" below (sorry for the dark photo. I had a hard time finding a good image on google...  this one's of a guy here in my town associated with Sam Kwok, I believe):

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uWqJGCaDMNM/hqdefault.jpg


----------



## Argus (Oct 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> We do both.
> Something I asked of my sifu many years ago while observing his movement. His reply, "Ahh, sometimes on the ball of your foot, sometimes on the heel. We use whatever we need to do depending on what is needed. After you learn it, understand it, then do what is natural, just move."
> 
> SLT no movement, Chum Kiu we pivot on the ball, Bil Jee we pivot on the heel, after that just move.



I rather like this approach.

I used to consider that I always pivot on the heels, but even when trained in a lineage claiming to do that, I found myself and others sometimes shifting on the balls when necessary. It kind of hit me in my own practice when I noticed that as I shift and step back/offline with tui-ma, for instance, the position is exactly the same as if I merely shifted on the balls of the feet. The only difference is that in the first method I pivot and then step back, and in the second, I accomplish the same thing by merely pivoting on a different point. But the first motion tends to kind of mesh into the second at speed, and you wind up doing essentially the same motion regardless. So, it seems quite suited for getting offline quickly you're out of contact.

I do prefer to pivot on the heels when striking, though, as it allows me to stay in range easier. I noticed that when I was doing some of the footwork we practiced in Pekiti, stepping offline and pivoting on the balls, I was consistently missing the target by a few inches, whereas I had been hitting with the tip before I moved, because I'm not used to pivoting there. And sure enough, when I did the same step and pivoted on the heels, I was hitting as I was before!

I don't guess we're allowed to pivot on the heels in Pekiti though, are we? Or are we?


----------



## Argus (Oct 21, 2015)

As for pivoting on the "K1 point," which I take to be the arc of the foot (not the ball or heel)...

Physically, I'm failing to see how this is possible. There's no point on which to turn, as the arc of the foot is not in contact with the ground. I have seen a Yuen Kay San guy describe and show me this method, and it just looked like he was pivoting on the balls to me.

KPM: "having the majority of your weight back over your heels (even for just a moment) is less stable than keeping the majority of your weight over the arch of your foot. This is true when standing as well as moving around."

Now, this I agree with! I think most practitioners with good structure keep their weight over their arches, regardless of where they shift. At least, this is what I do. The weight does not necessarily need to be directly over the pivot point.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 21, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course, I only have 40+ years in the marital arts and a Masters in human physiology, so what do I know?



Not as much as me. I wrote this post with MY MIND.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 21, 2015)

Argus said:


> I do prefer to pivot on the heels when striking, though, as it allows me to stay in range easier. I noticed that when I was doing some of the footwork we practiced in Pekiti, stepping offline and pivoting on the balls, I was consistently missing the target by a few inches, whereas I had been hitting with the tip before I moved, because I'm not used to pivoting there. And sure enough, when I did the same step and pivoted on the heels, I was hitting as I was before!
> 
> I don't guess we're allowed to pivot on the heels in Pekiti though, are we? Or are we?


Ohhh Yes, we do pivot on the heel. IF the situation is right for it.
Because of the blade we teach to make the first response moving the body, 'Get Off The Line Of Attack'.
As one grows with in training and learns to use the proper Parrys, Controls, Counter-attacks we tend to pivot more toward the heels 'If' that is best at that moment. What range are you working with, what length weapon are you using, what length weapon are you working against? All will be a deciding factor.


----------



## KPM (Oct 21, 2015)

geezer said:


> OK guys, let's be fair. Some of Dirty Dog's stance pictures_ do_ relate to WC, just not to the stances we're discussing. Gotta go to the pole form. For example, check out the first picture he posted above (a guy in a horse stance with his arm extended to the side) and compare it to our WC "Battle Punch" below (sorry for the dark photo. I had a hard time finding a good image on google...  this one's of a guy here in my town associated with Sam Kwok, I believe):
> 
> http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uWqJGCaDMNM/hqdefault.jpg



Sure.  But that's not what I was talking about, and not what Maretmar was talking about when he started this thread.   So what are we being fair about?


----------



## KPM (Oct 21, 2015)

As for pivoting on the "K1 point," which I take to be the arc of the foot (not the ball or heel)...Physically, I'm failing to see how this is possible. 

---K1 is an acupuncture point (Kidney-1) also known as "bubbling spring."  It is located approximately 1 inch back from the ball of your foot and centered on the sole.  So it is actually at the front part of the main arch of the foot and does make contact with the ground when you are putting weight through it.  You should be able to find a picture of it pretty easily with a google search if that is still unclear.

 The weight does not necessarily need to be directly over the pivot point.

---True!  But when pivoting on your heels you have to off-load the front part of your foot enough to allow the toes to "swing" side to side.  To do this you have to have the majority of your weight back on your heels, if only for the brief second that you are in motion with the pivot.  If you didn't do this and kept the majority of the weight forward over your foot, then you wouldn't be able to overcome friction and get the toes to "swing."  So for the brief second during the pivot when you have shifted your weight back onto your heels, your balance is vulnerable and your structure can be more easily broken.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 21, 2015)

KPM said:


> As for pivoting on the "K1 point," which I take to be the arc of the foot (not the ball or heel)...Physically, I'm failing to see how this is possible.
> 
> ---K1 is an acupuncture point (Kidney-1) also known as "bubbling spring."  It is located approximately 1 inch back from the ball of your foot and centered on the sole.  So it is actually at the front part of the main arch of the foot and does make contact with the ground when you are putting weight through it.  You should be able to find a picture of it pretty easily with a google search if that is still unclear.
> 
> ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I differ on much of KPM's statement- but he can do whatever he wants,


----------



## KPM (Oct 21, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I differ on much of KPM's statement- but he can do whatever he wants,



Then please share with us where you differ and why.  I am perfectly willing to hear an alternate explanation of the biomechanics if you think I have described it inaccurately.  How would you describe it?


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 22, 2015)

KPM said:


> Then please share with us where you differ and why.  I am perfectly willing to hear an alternate explanation of the biomechanics if you think I have described it inaccurately.  How would you describe it?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to be tedious. I keep the soles of my feet flat on the ground. The whole foot helps control my balance and stability. If I pivot for power generation  both from the slightly bent knees to the ankles and toes turn together. I do not turn on the acupuncture K1 point which is slightly buried past the balls of the feet.-an important point for aspects of chi flow

. I do NOT lean back on the heels. The toes are part of the system of balance..The leg bones are over the heels.  The slightest pivot of the heels, almost invisible if I am wearing shoes can help create great spiraling power through the body's axis and available to the arms.

These are not mere words. I have handled charges by top quality wrestlers.

My university- Arizona State has one of the top ten exercise science-kinesiology departments in the country. Years ago as a service-not by job as an associate dean or a professor- I taught an introductory wing chun class for them. Their top biomechanics people found no fault with my mechanics. So much for proof by authority.
Real proof- it works for me and my kung fu brothers and sisters-Danny, Dan, Van, Corina

Ip Man, WSL, HKM, AF  all turned on their heels.

If K1 point, balls of the feet or other work for you- great.

I don't have missionary compulsions.

Of course I am talking about development. In applications you do what you need to do.


----------



## KPM (Oct 22, 2015)

Not to be tedious. I keep the soles of my feet flat on the ground. The whole foot helps control my balance and stability. If I pivot for power generation  both from the slightly bent knees to the ankles and toes turn together. I do not turn on the acupuncture K1 point which is slightly buried past the balls of the feet.-an important point for aspects of chi flow

---Understood.  But does the front part of your foot not swing side to side as you pivot on your heels?  Regardless of the fact that your feet maintain contact with the ground during the pivot, you have to transfer more than 50% of your weight back onto your heels to off-load the front part of your feet enough to overcome friction so that the foot can slide across the ground.

. I do NOT lean back on the heels. The toes are part of the system of balance..The leg bones are over the heels.  The slightest pivot of the heels, almost invisible if I am wearing shoes can help create great spiraling power through the body's axis and available to the arms.

---No, I never said leaning backwards.  Only that you have to transfer your weight back over your heels.  How else would the gravitational line go through the heels as you said before?  And no doubt the toes are still engaged in controlling balance.  But their ability to do so is somewhat reduced when they are THE part of the foot that is moving the most during the pivot!  Isn't that just logical?  If your toes are swinging their ability to help maintain balance is reduced compared to if they were staying relatively in the same spot.  If you have to transfer your weight back onto your heels, even if only for a second, compared to leaving your weight forward over the arch of your foot....for that second when your weight is further back and your toes have a lessened ability to control your balance because they are "swinging"....at that point you are more vulnerable.

These are not mere words. I have handled charges by top quality wrestlers.

---And as I said before, people that practice this can make it work well.  And of course I would include you in that category!  But that does not mean it is "optimal" from a biomechanics perspective.   

My university- Arizona State has one of the top ten exercise science-kinesiology departments in the country. Years ago as a service-not by job as an associate dean or a professor- I taught an introductory wing chun class for them. Their top biomechanics people found no fault with my mechanics. So much for proof by authority.

---Did their "top biomechanics people" know Wing Chun?  Did they see the alternative to the way your pivot for comparison? If not, that doesn't prove anything.   Look Joy, I'm just talking simple common sense.  Please point out to me where my explanation doesn't make sense to you.  


Real proof- it works for me and my kung fu brothers and sisters-Danny, Dan, Van, Corina

Ip Man, WSL, HKM, AF  all turned on their heels.

---And again, proof by authority doesn't mean is it the "optimal" way to do it. Just that it is the "traditional" way to do it!   Fung Chun didn't do it that way, Yuen Kay Shan didn't do it that way, Sum Nun didn't do it that way, Henry Mui doesn't do it that way, etc.....

---I don't have missionary compulsions either.  And everyone is free to do things as they please.   Its just disheartening to see so many people willing to ignore common logic and simple biomechanics because "sifu sez."


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 22, 2015)

I'd also like to point out that, if you look at Yip Man's Foshan students along with Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu, Yip Man probably didn't always pivot on his heels. Not trying to fall back on the "appeal to old ****" fallacy, just pointing it out.


----------



## geezer (Oct 22, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> I'd also like to point out that, if you look at Yip Man's Foshan students along with Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu, Yip Man probably didn't always pivot on his heels. Not trying to fall back on the "appeal to old ****" fallacy, just pointing it out.



Grandmaster Yip turned however he felt like. It's the rest of us who argue and imitate what we feel is the "correct" way. As far as Joy not caring to engage further in this _old_ debate yet again ... can you blame him? He learned an effective method that was used by his well respected sifu and si-gung, a method learned from GM Yip. And we've been over this stuff countless times. So, enough is enough!

Some of the rest of us use _different_ methods. The method I use also works, it was used effectively by _my_ sifu, and by his instructors, Leung Sheung and Yip Man. That's enough too. 

....Except that I happen to_ like _these kinds of discussions.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 22, 2015)

LOL, really, if someone from outside WC were to read thru this thread, this whole argument would appear quite a bit silly with how miniscule of details are being argued, or for how long this is being debated 

In WC, as in any other physical activity, we are constantly shifting pressure and how our COG/weight transfers through our feet all the time when moving (and also when not whne we are supposedly 'standing still' - it's how we maintain balance). In 'reality' when under pressure you're never going to do it 'only this way or that way' - you're body is going to naturally do what it has to to maintain balance, weight distribution and to receive/send energy. We're not robots! There is no possible way we will only do it one single way. We're constantly going to be using all parts of the foot - toes, ball of foot, heals, outside/inside edge, etc. It shouldn't really be this complicated. Why is it WC guys always tend to do that?

Oh, and just for the record:


KPM said:


> ---No, I never said leaning backwards.





KPM said:


> For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back



Lol - carry on, if you must


----------



## geezer (Oct 22, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Why is it WC guys always tend to do that?



Hmmm, my guess is OCD?


----------



## KPM (Oct 23, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Oh, and just for the record:



Ok.  You got me there!     "Shifting the weight  back" would have been a better statement!

But really guys....Joy made a comment about the gravitational line that I disagreed with.  So I pointed that out.  Then I made the effort to explain WHY I disagreed...not once, but twice.  That is what makes for discussions!  No?

But Joy (and JP and "Dirty Dog" to an extent) has said essentially "No, I don't care what you think I disagree"....but WITHOUT explaining why he disagrees other than "because that's the way we do it" or explaining where they think my logic is wrong.  That doesn't make for a good discussion.

And of course weight transfers, COG, gravitational lines....these are all dynamic when you are moving around.  But they do occur within certain parameters.  What I have described is pretty basic and pretty "baseline."    I welcome anyone to explain where they think the logic of what I have said is wrong.


----------



## geezer (Oct 23, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...But Joy (and JP and "Dirty Dog" to an extent) has said essentially "No, I don't care what you think I disagree"....but WITHOUT explaining why he disagrees...    I welcome anyone to explain where they think the logic of what I have said is wrong.




Geez, _KPM, _you must be one of those guys who isn't satisfied by just being right.

You want everyone else to know it too! 

In my experience, the first part ....you know, "getting it right" is doable. The second part, on the other hand, is asking a lot. Maybe that's why_ really_ wise men, ...the truly "enlightened", laugh a lot.


----------



## KPM (Oct 23, 2015)

You make an excellent point Steve!  ;-)


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 24, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Oh, and just for the record:
> 
> KPM said: ↑
> ---No, I never said leaning backwards.


----------

