# Shifting the Stance vs Turning the Waist



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

A short descriptive video on the MCM Wing Chun perspective on the differences between Jun Ma or turning stance, commonly used in the Ip Man lineage -vs- using turning waist which is a alternative method found in the MCM Wing Chun system as well as in the Fut Sao Wing Chun lineages. This shows how both methods are valid and how I apply them applied  at certain situations.. This time the framing is okay.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 17, 2015)

Well, I don't know anything about the Fut Sao stuff...but both of these methods are contained within the YM forms. 

Much better video quality than the last one though...


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2015)

Situational. As in all things it will be what is the situation.
What, When, Where, Who, Why, will determine the How.
We pivot based upon these and there may be a step, a pivot on the ball of the foot or on the heel depending upon the situation. Range, timing, pressure, all are determining factors. One may want to create distance and not be jammed up or the pressure is such turning on the ball of the feet is better. One may want to maintain the distance and only change the angle of attack, or one may be able to simple turn the waist because the opponent is giving any real pressure. Sometimes I will shift the body attempting to draw an attack to a specific direction stepping and shifting upon that attack.
It is always situational.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Well, I don't know anything about the Fut Sao stuff...but both of these methods are contained within the YM forms.
> 
> Much better video quality than the last one though...



I have learnt the Ip Man forms where it is?


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2015)

All in all I'd agree with your presentation. One point of clarification. Not all Yip Man WC advocates pivoting both feet as this_ can_ cause loss of root. In my core lineage, WT, only one foot is turned at a time which helps with the rooting problem you described. Then there is also the speed problem ...and the efficiency issue. IMO there is definitely a time and place for the waist flexion you advocate. As Danny said it's situational. And I learned this within a Yip Man lineage. So it _is_ there.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2015)

I've heard some Ip Man instructors state the turning is on the heels only, some on the balls of the feet. When watching his pivoting in the limited films of him there are times he does both. In his chum kiu he does both in his wooden dummy he does both. He even turns only a the waist a few times as well.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I've heard some Ip Man instructors state the turning is on the heels only, some on the balls of the feet. When watching his pivoting in the limited films of him there are times he does both. In his chum kiu he does both in his wooden dummy he does both. He even turns only a the waist a few times as well.



And we turn one foot at a time not both at the same time.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Situational. As in all things it will be what is the situation.
> What, When, Where, Who, Why, will determine the How.
> We pivot based upon these and there may be a step, a pivot on the ball of the foot or on the heel depending upon the situation. Range, timing, pressure, all are determining factors. One may want to create distance and not be jammed up or the pressure is such turning on the ball of the feet is better. One may want to maintain the distance and only change the angle of attack, or one may be able to simple turn the waist because the opponent is giving any real pressure. Sometimes I will shift the body attempting to draw an attack to a specific direction stepping and shifting upon that attack.
> It is always situational.




I agree it depends on the situation which is what I was trying to convey in the video.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I've heard some Ip Man instructors state the turning is on the heels only, some on the balls of the feet. When watching his pivoting in the limited films of him there are times he does both. In his chum kiu he does both in his wooden dummy he does both. He even turns only a the waist a few times as well.



That is a clue that there is not just one way of doing it. In my Bil Gee form there is a section where I move only one foot while the other remains rooted. I call this the half root.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 17, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I have learnt the Ip Man forms where it is?



2nd form


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2015)

Danny T said:


> And *we turn one foot at a time *not both at the same time.



_*Danny,*_ does your WC have any connection to WT? I ask because the WT people are the only ones I've run into who strongly preach the one foot at a time approach to turning, as Leung Ting demonstrates in this old video from the early 80s at about 7:00 to 8:30. Done faster, it looks more fluid, almost wave-like as the second foot already begins to turn as the first nears it's completed position.





_*
@Futsao: *_Notice when you do this method just turning to one side, the rear foot remains rooted exactly like what you described as "the half root". Also you asked where you might find the waist-turning in the_ forms._ I would suggest that this quality is evident in both Chum Kiu and Biu Tze. In the several parts of Chum Kiu (such as the "Lan-sau/Hacking Elbow" sequence with it's series of three 180 degree pivots) we turn our feet and knees to 45% but continue rotating at the waist and hips to achieve the full 90 degree turn to each side.

The waist flexion is more evident in Biu Tze in such movements as the return from side to center with the so-called "hook punch". Waist flexion really adds speed and power to this movement. Finally, there are plenty of our training sequences such as the "chi-sau sections" that also involve this waist flexion. The following clip is not from my organization, but is made by some guys who were also originally were linked to WT and still use much of it's curriculum. Check out the lengthy discussion of waist flexion and _He-man action figures_  from about 12:15 to 15:00. They sound kinda goofy, but it's almost exactly what I learned from Leung Ting:


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2015)

I don't study Wing Chun, but in the kung fu style that I train, our waist generates the power. It's less about the root of the stance and more about the amount of power that can be quickly generated by using the waist. It's amazing how much power you can easily generate with the waist alone. The concept is easy but it takes a bit of practice to learn how to connect the power from the waist into the punch.  This video definitely makes since to me. This technique should allow Wing Chun students to really generate some serious power to their punches without actually trying to punch hard.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

geezer said:


> All in all I'd agree with your presentation. One point of clarification. Not all Yip Man WC advocates pivoting both feet as this_ can_ cause loss of root. In my core lineage, WT, only one foot is turned at a time which helps with the rooting problem you described. Then there is also the speed problem ...and the efficiency issue. IMO there is definitely a time and place for the waist flexion you advocate. As Danny said it's situational. And I learned this within a Yip Man lineage. So it _is_ there.


Yes I agree not everyone does pivot both feet at the same time,but its safe to say the majority does. Myself, back in the day was taught this way also.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> 2nd form



the first section? all Ip Man CK forms I have seen move the stance 90 degrees to the left and right. Can you post a video of it?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> the first section? all Ip Man CK forms I have seen move the stance 90 degrees to the left and right. Can you post a video of it?



this is my CK form watch from .23 to .55 seconds you will notice the root does not move. I use only my waist. In th eIp Man 1st section they move their root and use shifting or rotation to generate power whereas I use hip and core to generate power..very different..I dont see any wing chun lineages doing this.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 17, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> this is my CK form watch from .23 to .55 seconds you will notice the root does not move. I use only my waist. In th eIp Man 1st section they move their root and use shifting or rotation to generate power whereas I use hip and core to generate power..very different..I dont see any wing chun lineages doing this.


 then link


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> this is my CK form watch from .23 to .55 seconds you will notice the root does not move. I use only my waist. In th eIp Man 1st section they move their root and use shifting or rotation to generate power whereas I use hip and core to generate power..very different..I dont see any wing chun lineages doing this.



Here's another old video of Leung Ting doing an earlier version of his "WT" Biu Tze form. In all the 180 degree turning movements, of course he shifts his stance (one foot at a time) which is one of his trademarks. But the feet only turn 45 degrees off center. In order to complete the 90 degree turn to each side, the hips complete the rotation. The waist is slightly flexible like a very strong spring. As he turns, there is torsion and release, adding energy to to the movement. It is a subtle movement, but can clearly be seen, for example, when he rapidly pivots to deliver the series of _kup jarn _(elbow strikes) around 0:18-22, or equally turning back from side-facing to center with the hooking punch after the double lap-sau movements (1:38-1:48). If you watch the very slight lag between the movement of the hip, the shoulder and the fist, you can see how the stance combines with the hips and waist to add tremendous torsional power to this very relaxed hook-like lateral strike.






Finally, a few thoughts on _Futsao's _Chum Kiu video showing 180 degree pivots with _no foot movement at all._ It may be fast, but it could be hard on the knees and ankles. I say that because sometimes our group works out in a studio with this weird, thin carpet that grabs your feet like nothing I've ever seen. My feet act like they are glued to the floor and consequently my Chum Kiu turning ends up looking a lot like his. Sure, it works, but ...at least for me... it's a pain in the  ...er _...joints! _I much prefer the 45 degree foot rotation.

Then again I have bone fusions in my ankles, and damaged knees. It might not be a problem for healthy joints.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 18, 2015)

geezer said:


> _*Danny,*_ does your WC have any connection to WT? I ask because the WT people are the only ones I've run into who strongly preach the one foot at a time approach to turning, as Leung Ting demonstrates in this old video from the early 80s at about 7:00 to 8:30. Done faster, it looks more fluid, almost wave-like as the second foot already begins to turn as the first nears it's completed position.


Geezer; not connected to WT. Our linage is Jiu Wan from Foshan. According to my Sifu (Francis Fong) Jiu Wan beginning at the age of 8 first learned from his uncle Jiu Jow who learned from Chan Wah Shun and then Jiu Wan trained directly under Chan Wah Shun and is where he met Ip Man. Both were in the Police Association in Foshan and became friends. They became associates again when Jiu Wan move to Hong Kong. He trained and taught in Ip's school for a while and then opened his own school about a year afterwards. He and Ip remained friends until Ip's death.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 18, 2015)

geezer said:


> Here's another old video of Leung Ting doing an earlier version of his "WT" Biu Tze form. In all the 180 degree turning movements, of course he shifts his stance (one foot at a time) which is one of his trademarks. But the feet only turn 45 degrees off center. In order to complete the 90 degree turn to each side, the hips complete the rotation. The waist is slightly flexible like a very strong spring. As he turns, there is torsion and release, adding energy to to the movement. It is a subtle movement, but can clearly be seen, for example, when he rapidly pivots to deliver the series of _kup jarn _(elbow strikes) around 0:18-22, or equally turning back from side-facing to center with the hooking punch after the double lap-sau movements (1:38-1:48). If you watch the very slight lag between the movement of the hip, the shoulder and the fist, you can see how the stance combines with the hips and waist to add tremendous torsional power to this very relaxed hook-like lateral strike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was originally taught the one foot at a time pivot too. Maybe LT learned this from Leung Sheung? I feel both can be beneficial. IMO weight distribution is more important in keeping good root.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 18, 2015)

You're all talking about applying this and it being situational how you pivot, but do you really think you will be standing squared with feet parallel in front of an opponent as he's seriously attacking you, and you will handle him standing still? That is how this is presented and how you're discussing it, like _chi-sau_ in a fight. 

For me, that's not at all what CK shifting is for. We don't take movements from the forms and try to apply them as-is in fighting. The forms are entirely abstract. Shifting in CK is done vigorously with sudden stops to purposely test our rotation and balance, even to the point of almost over rotating or losing balance, which are common mistakes beginners make and what we want to cause our opponents to do. And this is testing ourselves in solo training, not even dealing with a partner or opponent yet. Keeping the feet planted or shifting one foot at a time to maintain stability takes the testing out of it and is just considering applications.

CK shifting also develops torque for whole body knockout power. But it is not applied stationary as it appears in the forms. Forms and _chi-sau_ are just training. Fighting is dynamic and we need to be mobile or we get run over, taken down, or knocked out.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> The forms are entirely abstract.
> 
> CK shifting also develops torque for whole body knockout power.



Yep...correct!


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 18, 2015)

In my WT training, our Chun Kiu has the stance turning exactly 45 degrees and no more in some spots and then the stance turns a total of 90 degrees to square the upper body with the line of movement using the waist rotation in order to complete that 90 degree turn.

This might not be super articulate, but I'm at a loss as to why its beneficial to turn the waist and NOT pivot or turn the feet. There are times that if your reaction is not fast enough then you might turn more with the waist than using your feet to stay facing your opponent or to deflect pressure, but I can't see how that is nearly as stable. The way I was taught, any point in a turn can become a step to the side, back, or to circle around the opponent's leg if needed. But turning at the waist and just leaving your feet and knees contorted is kinda of comitting to a dead end street? Like a cul-de-sac with no way to get out other than the way you came, versus a street with side streets or other avenues to travel.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You're all talking about applying this and it being situational how you pivot, but do you really think you will be standing squared with feet parallel in front of an opponent as he's seriously attacking you, and you will handle him standing still? That is how this is presented and how you're discussing it, like _chi-sau_ in a fight.
> 
> For me, that's not at all what CK shifting is for. We don't take movements from the forms and try to apply them as-is in fighting. The forms are entirely abstract. Shifting in CK is done vigorously with sudden stops to purposely test our rotation and balance, even to the point of almost over rotating or losing balance, which are common mistakes beginners make and what we want to cause our opponents to do. And this is testing ourselves in solo training, not even dealing with a partner or opponent yet. Keeping the feet planted or shifting one foot at a time to maintain stability takes the testing out of it and is just considering applications.
> 
> CK shifting also develops torque for whole body knockout power. But it is not applied stationary as it appears in the forms. Forms and _chi-sau_ are just training. Fighting is dynamic and we need to be mobile or we get run over, taken down, or knocked out.


LFJ, I agree with you here and I am not talking about standing squared. I am talking about training and then using the training in a fight situation. We are using the video as the example for 'training'. Learning; which is what form work is about. Application is another thing.
As to the forms being entirely abstract. Naw they certainly present abstract ideas but much of the physical presentation within the forms are not. How those presentations are utilized are abstract.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You're all talking about applying this and it being situational how you pivot, but do you really think you will be standing squared with feet parallel in front of an opponent as he's seriously attacking you, and you will handle him standing still?


I didn't take it this way. Fights are fluid so there will be a lot of movement and I can't see a fighting system assuming that the opponent will stay still.  I think many people misinterpret the forms and in such will actually try to fight the same way that they do when they are doing the form.  In reality the forms make it easier to understand the technique.  Once you learn technique then comes the challenge of actually learning how to use it in a real fight situation which is almost never the same as the form.

From my experience with Jow Ga Kung fu (I don't take wing chun) the idea is to have a rooted stance before applying the technique.  If the stance isn't rooted then you run the risk of having the force of the technique push you away from the person instead of hurting the person. I can only assume that it's similar with WC. If the WC student isn't rooted then the technique will move the student.  In the video below you can see how the WC person is not rooted when the techniques art thrown.  Watch his feet. Now watch the feet of the other fighter and you'll notice that he's more rooted.







LFJ said:


> even to the point of almost over rotating or losing balance, which are common mistakes beginners make


 I agree. This is where the ability to quickly root comes into play.


LFJ said:


> But it is not applied stationary as it appears in the forms. Forms and _chi-sau_ are just training. Fighting is dynamic and we need to be mobile or we get run over, taken down, or knocked out.


I agree with this 100% many kung fu students assume that the attacks are stationary.  The majority of the attacks should be done when rooted, but rooted could mean staying there for 10 seconds or being there for only 1 second and then move.

I'm not sure if this would help for WC students but practice by moving around first, then quickly root for the attack, then move again.  By move I mean move both feet from the current location to another location and not just pivoted in one spot.


----------



## geezer (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> ...CK shifting also develops torque for whole body knockout power. But it is not applied stationary as it appears in the forms. Forms and _chi-sau_ are just training. Fighting is dynamic and we need to be mobile or we get run over, taken down, or knocked out.



True.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 18, 2015)

Danny T said:


> LFJ, I agree with you here and I am not talking about standing squared. I am talking about training and then using the training in a fight situation. We are using the video as the example for 'training'. Learning; which is what form work is about. Application is another thing.



The OP says this video shows how he would _apply_ it in certain situations, and demonstrates a scenario where he's standing squared and has an attacker come punching at him and all he needs to do is shift or turn his waist...

The video just posted by JowGaWolf may be sloppy, but it's a good example of the chaos of a fight. When, in such chaos, would you be concerned with pivoting one foot at a time to shift your body to one side or the other? Or when would you be standing still and only turning your waist?

I think you'll find when someone is really attacking you, you will be a lot more mobile and never be pivoting like that. So, I don't see the point in giving it such detailed focus in training.

What one needs is a mobile stance able to maintain rooting while in constant motion to deliver knockout or stopping force at any moment.

So, I don't agree with the one foot at a time thing. I think it limits mobility and creates bad position by taking yourself off line and weighting the rear leg, and I don't find it applicable in the chaos of a fight, and therefore don't see it's place in training. What exactly do you do it for?


----------



## LFJ (Aug 18, 2015)

> As to the forms being entirely abstract. Naw they certainly present abstract ideas but much of the physical presentation within the forms are not. How those presentations are utilized are abstract.



They are abstract to me in that the actions are not complete and can't be applied as-is, meaning they can't be 1:1 application ideas. They are often only training tools used to develop certain behaviors and attributes such as balance, timing, synchronicity of upper and lower body movements, etc.. They show us the limits of our actions, like how far we should rotate or raise or extend the elbows in relation to our own structure and the centerline, not in consideration of set responses to certain attacks. 

I understand that is not the common approach in many WC lineages. Many say one action can be applied in many ways against various attacks, and that makes it "abstract". But that's still dealing in application-based thinking and is not quite what "abstract" or "conceptual" means... to me anyway.


----------



## JPinAZ (Aug 18, 2015)

geezer said:


> _*Danny,*_ does your WC have any connection to WT? I ask because the WT people are the only ones I've run into who strongly preach the one foot at a time approach to turning,



Good point you brought up! moving the feet separately makes good sense to me!
In HFY, when we 'turn'/change facing, we also typically do it one foot at a time - and we are not even from Ip Man lineage  . One difference I see is that we also pick the feet up/turn the knee in when turning via our Yung Yee Ma footwork. One instance where we use this type of footwork would be to shift the line and dissipate incoming energy that is starting to disrupt our COG and/or structure. This also facilitates power generation from the hips. Another use is to change our facing in relation to our opponent (right-to-left or left-to-right).

This LYM footwork allows us to not have to give up structural space or lose our desired 50/50 neutrality for our self centerline and COG. We move one foot at a time so we don't lose our reference point and the pressure from our opponent tells us where our feet should go vs. trying to stand in one place and still risk getting overpowered.
So, We also don't typically shift/pivot in place on our center like futsau is showing when dissipating energy. This is mainly due to the fact that if the energy is already having an influence on my center and/or structure enough that I have to move in the first place, it doesn't make any sense to keep my center in place and allow the energy to keep on effecting our COG. This would just lead to being in the same bad spot as I started and is completely missing the point of why I'm changing the line in the first place!

Heh, as I mentioned already, while we always try to keep 50/50 weight distribution at all times, even in the LT clips, while not moving his foot position, he's still smart enough to get out of the way by leaning as he shifts!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> So, I don't agree with the one foot at a time thing. I think it limits mobility and creates bad position by taking yourself off line and weighting the rear leg, and I don't find it applicable in the chaos of a fight, and therefore don't see it's place in training. What exactly do you do it for?


  You are correct it does limit mobility.  I think this is one of the cases where the stance is shown and people make the assumption that they are supposed to do this stance through the entire fight.  For example, I wouldn't try to do a cat stance through an entire fight.  A kung fu cat stance only has good forward mobility, ok backward mobility, and no side-to-side mobility.  The cat stance in my style of kung fu is similar to what I've seen in the videos where the WC practitioner pivots on one leg meaning making the supporting leg rooted.  When one leg is rooted like that then the mobility is greatly decreased.  Like Danny T touched on.  There's a time and place for the stance and the technique.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> The OP says this video shows how he would _apply_ it in certain situations, and demonstrates a scenario where he's standing squared and has an attacker come punching at him and all he needs to do is shift or turn his waist...


Agreed. That's the situation he show and how he would use the way he pivots or doesn't.




LFJ said:


> The video just posted by JowGaWolf may be sloppy, but it's a good example of the chaos of a fight. When, in such chaos, would you be concerned with pivoting one foot at a time to shift your body to one side or the other?


Nope. Wouldn't be concerned about it at all for if needed, due to the training and practice I have done, it would simply happen. Just as if I were to punch as a boxer using a jab/straight right/left hook combination I would pivot one foot at a time.



LFJ said:


> I think you'll find when someone is really attacking you, you will be a lot more mobile and never be pivoting like that. So, I don't see the point in giving it such detailed focus in training.


I think if you would view the video in slow motion you will see several points where feet are being pivoted one at a time.



LFJ said:


> What one needs is a mobile stance able to maintain rooting while in constant motion to deliver knockout or stopping force at any moment.


Yep.



LFJ said:


> So, I don't agree with the one foot at a time thing. I think it limits mobility and creates bad position by taking yourself off line and weighting the rear leg, and I don't find it applicable in the chaos of a fight, and therefore don't see it's place in training. What exactly do you do it for?


We simply disagree.
Keep sparring empty hands and vs weapons. You may one day see the practicality. If not, it's ok.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 18, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Nope. Wouldn't be concerned about it at all for if needed, due to the training and practice I have done, it would simply happen.



What I mean is pivoting one foot at a time versus same time or not at all. There is a lot of debate in training, but no one is going to be standing and pivoting like that in fighting anyway.



> I think if you would view the video in slow motion you will see several points where feet are being pivoted one at a time.



I didn't see even one point where any such pivoting was done. You saw familiar footwork in that clip? That's how you move?



> Keep sparring empty hands and vs weapons. You may one day see the practicality. If not, it's ok.



So no answer then? I'm just wondering where outside your training one would use this footwork. Are there any videos online of sparring empty hands and vs weapons that show it working?


----------



## jhexx (Aug 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Geezer; not connected to WT. Our linage is Jiu Wan from Foshan. According to my Sifu (Francis Fong) Jiu Wan beginning at the age of 8 first learned from his uncle Jiu Jow who learned from Chan Wah Shun and then Jiu Wan trained directly under Chan Wah Shun and is where he met Ip Man. Both were in the Police Association in Foshan and became friends. They became associates again when Jiu Wan move to Hong Kong. He trained and taught in Ip's school for a while and then opened his own school about a year afterwards. He and Ip remained friends until Ip's death.




glad to see there are others from Jiu Wan lineage here.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 19, 2015)

LFJ said:


> The video just posted by JowGaWolf may be sloppy, but it's a good example of the chaos of a fight. When, in such chaos, would you be concerned with pivoting one foot at a time to shift your body to one side or the other? Or when would you be standing still and only turning your waist?
> 
> I think you'll find when someone is really attacking you, you will be a lot more mobile and never be pivoting like that. So, I don't see the point in giving it such detailed focus in training.
> 
> ...



I would have to disagree. Some would argue that pivoting DOES make one more mobile. I can't count how many times I overcommitted or barreled in on one of my si-hings in chi-sau or sparring, only for a subtle pivot / turn on their part to expose my blindside to them and make me feel like I was punching thin air. Being able to shift and change the angle to your advantage when your opponent gives you the opportunity follows perfectly the principles of WC of not using force against force.
Pivoting one foot at a time is a subtlety or nuance that is hard to see when done at speed, but training it that way drills in the concept, for sure. I notice that my Chum Kiu is more stable when I consiously turn 1 foot at a time, so it is reinforcing a good habit in my opinion when trained that way.
The rear weighted leg versus closer to 50/50 is a whole debate on its own. LT/WT folks generally do it the former, myself included, and other's do it the latter. There is diverity of thought within the larger IP MAN family, so to each their own on if its one foot at a time or not and how its weighted. My point is that I DO think that to throw away purposely training something simply because under pressure it might falter is dismisssive though. That is true of everything within an art. Why practice anything with any precision if fighting is chaos?


----------



## Danny T (Aug 19, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Why practice anything with any precision if fighting is chaos?


Just go kamikaze. 



LFJ said:


> What I mean is pivoting one foot at a time versus same time or not at all. There is a lot of debate in training, but no one is going to be standing and pivoting like that in fighting anyway.


Do you practice any stances? YJKYM for instance? Why, you aren't going to just stand there and fight that way.
Stances are fleeting, footwork is movement in time. Pivoting is a part of footwork and is utilized when needed. One foot is always grounded: to maintain stability, to push off the ground for force or power etc. But you know this.





PiedmontChun said:


> I didn't see even one point where any such pivoting was done. You saw familiar footwork in that clip? That's how you move?


What I said was slow the video down and you will see some pivoting of one foot at a time.
Yes I did see some familiar footwork. Also saw a lot of ugly chaotic footwork as well.




PiedmontChun said:


> So no answer then? I'm just wondering where outside your training one would use this footwork. Are there any videos online of sparring empty hands and vs weapons that show it working?


No answer to how it is used or why. Video yourself sparring. I'm betting there will be times even you will pivot only one foot. 

I'm not a video savvy person and I don't spent time searching out specifics to show others what and why.

You know training is one thing, application is another. We do a lot of 8 count burpees and duck walks as well as several other things in training and I can't show you where we use them in fighting either.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Why practice anything with any precision if fighting is chaos?


 So that the reaction will become habit. Like DannyT has stated often, what you do and how you respond is going to depend greatly on the situation.  You mentioned that you "overcommitted or barreled in on one of my si-hings in chi-sau or sparring"  The pivot worked well against you because you were overcommitted.  Never overcommit with an attack.  I'm always trying to bait people that I spar with to overcommit because it's much easier to counter an overcommitted attack.

My personal rule is to attack when someone isn't committed and to counter when they commit.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 19, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> So that the reaction will become habit. Like DannyT has stated often, what you do and how you respond is going to depend greatly on the situation.  You mentioned that you "overcommitted or barreled in on one of my si-hings in chi-sau or sparring"  The pivot worked well against you because you were overcommitted.  Never overcommit with an attack.  I'm always trying to bait people that I spar with to overcommit because it's much easier to counter an overcommitted attack.
> 
> My personal rule is to attack when someone isn't committed and to counter when they commit.



Haha. My question was very rhetorical, and a bit sarcastic. Sorry if that was not clear and got lost in translation: I DO believe that pivoting is an important part of mobility in WC/WT and I believe that precision training of those movements is crucial since you can only react under pressure with something that has been trained repeatedly. To think about it versus simply react naturally is too act too late.

My example of overcommitting is just me being honest that I train with people better than me, and they use my mistakes against me thru effective turning and footwork. That is good WC/WT! (on their part, and useful for me since it shows me what to work on).


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 19, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I have learnt the Ip Man forms where it is?



Saying you 'learnt the Ip Man forms' is pretty vague (unless you learned the forms from Yip Man himself?) 
Out of curiosity, from whom did you learn Yip Man's forms from? Moy Yat lineage?
And, do you have a video of yourself doing those forms? (specifically, 2nd form?).
Thanks.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

There are many uses for a pivot, the common use is to redirect.  Also know that in each of the pivots there is no mobility other than rotation which is what a pivot is in the first place.  If you want to beat the pivot then you have to attack towards the rooted leg that is pivoting.  If I had to sparr against someone that does WC then I would fake an overcommitted attack with the purpose of identifying which leg he would use to pivot on.  Or I would attack heavy on one side as a misdirection so that I could make him pivot on the leg of my choice.

Examples of pivot working as shown in Geezer's videos:
0:33 Mark, 0:56 Mark,





2:40 Mark,





Better examples of Pivots 7:28  too lazy to name the rest but by now it should be clear that pivots work when done at the right time against the right attack.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Haha. My question was very rhetorical


ha ha ha. I got it. It didn't fly over my head. ha ha ha. I only responded the way that I did just in case someone missed it.  I've been in a couple of discussions where people really didn't understand of repetitive practice.



PiedmontChun said:


> My example of overcommitting is just me being honest that I train with people better than me


  Overcommitting is really easy to do, it's more of a lack of patience than a mistake.  Even the best fighters will overcommitt from time to time.  People who seem to like power more than technique tend to be more willing to do it.

If you have the patience to be a counter fighter then you can bait them to overcommit to a block.  Feign a punch to the face then kick the leg, Feign a kick to the leg so that they drop their hand with the intent to block it, then punch them in the face.  You can also program your opponent.  In order to do this throw the same combination 2 or three times, this programs your opponent to expect a certain pattern for an attack. It usually takes 2 repeats for them to naturally respond and assume that the 3rd attack will be the same. Once you feel that are looking for that pattern, switch it up and hit them somewhere else.   Patterns of attacks could be, that you lift your foot up before you jab with your right hand. Do it twice to make sure he sees your pattern, then on the third pattern, lift your foot and just kick.

My kung fu brothers gave me the nick name "Pearl Harbor" specifically because I'm always doing things like this.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 19, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> You mentioned that you "overcommitted or barreled in on one of my si-hings in chi-sau or sparring"  The pivot worked well against you because you were overcommitted.



Many things could work against someone who has poor strategy. Doesn't make them good habits.

The problem with pivoting on the balls of the feet one foot at a time and swaying the central axis off line and weighting the rear leg is that if the opponent doesn't overcommit like dumb bull but knows how to reface and chase center, the person pivoting like this will be stuck with no mobility and nowhere to go and be run over. 



JowGaWolf said:


> If I had to sparr against someone that does WC then I would fake an overcommitted attack with the purpose of identifying which leg he would use to pivot on.  Or I would attack heavy on one side as a misdirection so that I could make him pivot on the leg of my choice.



Yup, big problem. But to be clear, not all Wing Chun was created equal. My lineage does not pivot like this. We maintain even distribution and are very mobile as if "gliding" as we move, never swaying our center axis and overloading one side. So your strategy would not produce the outcome you're looking for unless you were sparring a particular lineage that does that kind of pivoting. 



> Better examples of Pivots 7:28  too lazy to name the rest but by now it should be clear that pivots work when done at the right time against the right attack.



Couldn't really see the feet well in those clips, but they didn't show pivoting for the same reason that was discussed in this thread, and the last one looked like just stepping out and around, rather than pivoting and swaying the body to one side as some of these guys are talking about.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Do you practice any stances? YJKYM for instance? Why, you aren't going to just stand there and fight that way.



Not in fighting, but some people do use it (or think they'll use it) as a fighting stance and advance or pivot out of it, which is nonsense.



> What I said was slow the video down and you will see some pivoting of one foot at a time.
> Yes I did see some familiar footwork. Also saw a lot of ugly chaotic footwork as well.



I slowed it down. All I saw was ugly chaotic footwork; nothing I would call pivoting or want to do myself.



> Video yourself sparring. I'm betting there will be times even you will pivot only one foot.



Like LT or JW style? Certainly not.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 19, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Many things could work against someone who has poor strategy. Doesn't make them good habits.
> 
> The problem with pivoting on the balls of the feet one foot at a time and swaying the central axis off line and weighting the rear leg is that if the opponent doesn't overcommit like dumb bull but knows how to reface and chase center, the person pivoting like this will be stuck with no mobility and nowhere to go and be run over.



I think its a mistake to believe a pivot or turn is a dead end that ceases your mobility. A pivot / turn can easily become a step if needed, it all depends on pressure. For your opponent to reface requires movement you would sense since there is a bridge formed. So I don't follow the line of reasoning.



LFJ said:


> Not in fighting, but some people do use it (or think they'll use it) as a fighting stance and advance or pivot out of it, which is nonsense.



Its nonsense to think you can advance or defend from a squared stance? You can move forward, backward, backward at an angle, to the side, plum blossom to circle opponents leg.... all from traditional squared stance. In that respect, it is the least committed and versatile stance that there is.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 19, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> For your opponent to reface requires movement you would sense since there is a bridge formed.



Not all WC subscribes to having a "bridge" in order to "fight"


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 19, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Its nonsense to think you can advance or defend from a squared stance? You can move forward, backward, backward at an angle, to the side, plum blossom to circle opponents leg.... all from traditional squared stance. In that respect, it is the least committed and versatile stance that there is.



Kind of agree with this...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

LFJ said:


> But to be clear, not all Wing Chun was created equal. My lineage does not pivot like this. We maintain even distribution and are very mobile as if "gliding" as we move, never swaying our center axis and overloading one side


  My approach for dealing with Pivots is not the same as dealing with "gliding".  But you are right. The way that I would attack a pivot would not work on "gliding"



LFJ said:


> Couldn't really see the feet well in those clips


I know that the way a form looks in practice rarely looks the same in actual fight application, so I tried to pick movements that were similar to what was posted in regards to pivoting and swaying.  I didn't slow any of the videos down to be 100% sure so it's possible that I could have easily mistaken a movement.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 19, 2015)

Chiming in my thoughts on Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma as a fighting stance:

1) At long range it's not great. Leung Yi Ma side stance or Buhn Yuet Ma Forward stance are built for 6 gate fighting, better to use them.
2) Once you've bridged, it's essential if you're pull off any Loi Lau Hoi Sung/Move to a Deui Ying front facing body. If you're Jeui Ying (angled facing) you'll still use the body verbiage of Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma as an action in the different stances to receive and escort energy. 

That said, my lineage doesn't pivot like I learned in the Moy Yat branch of WC, nor do we turn the waist as presented by the OP. I've found some massive flaws in both TBH.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> That said, my lineage doesn't pivot like I learned in the Moy Yat branch of WC, nor do we turn the waist as presented by the OP. I've found some massive flaws in both TBH


I would like to know what flaws you see with using the waist as presented by the OP.  I'm not in argument, just curious just in case that this flaw exists in Jow Ga.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 19, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to know what flaws you see with using the waist as presented by the OP.  I'm not in argument, just curious just in case that this flaw exists in Jow Ga.


I see a lack of mobility and disconnection.

In the video he shows shifting as possibly loosing root? You loose root because the forward energy goes away. His energy isn't forward like when he shifts w/o moving the feet.IMO You can shift either way as shown in video and still maintain root if forward energy is present.

In fighting I prefer to have options. So as long as I ALWAYS have forward energy it really doesn't matter what my feet do. I think what my hip and knees are doing is more important than what my feet do. With proper structure my feet will align with hip, knee etc. IMO, A lot of WC people get too caught up with static structure. They are obsessed with how strong there stance is or how much pressure it can hold. Structure in motion is way more important. Moving around while being punched or taken down changes things.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

Thanks Jake104
This definitely doesn't sound like a flaw that exists in Jow Ga. It's probably because our movements are different from WC. I'm definitely learning more about WC and how people learn it.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 19, 2015)

I wouldn't call it a flaw. What's flawed is the training methods. I can make either way work. Although I'm not a fan of either... Now does this mean I don't do either, or I only do it some other way? No, I've  just learned how to move myself as a unit while constantly maintaining proper forward energy and structure. In a fight I take what I get, but I give the same regardless of what position I happen to be in. This comes from realistic training under pressure.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2015)

Jake 104
Thanks for the clarification


----------



## LFJ (Aug 20, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> I think its a mistake to believe a pivot or turn is a dead end that ceases your mobility. A pivot / turn can easily become a step if needed, it all depends on pressure.



Not all pivoting or turning is the same. As it is done in LTWT, for example, they let the opponent turn them as they sway their central axis to one side and overload the rear leg. Imo, that strategy is flawed and against a good center chaser, not hand chaser, or anyone not dumb as a bull, they put themselves in a vulnerable position that there is no time to step out of as their attacker seamlessly continues to pressure them over that weighted leg and socks them in the jaw. They are easily run over.



> For your opponent to reface requires movement you would sense since there is a bridge formed. So I don't follow the line of reasoning.



You think you will attach to someone's arm as they are seriously trying to hit you, and you will sense some movement and take your next step based on that all in the nanosecond it takes for another punch to be thrown? I think you spend too much time in _chi-sau_ and not out of it.



> Its nonsense to think you can advance or defend from a squared stance? You can move forward, backward, backward at an angle, to the side, plum blossom to circle opponents leg.... all from traditional squared stance. In that respect, it is the least committed and versatile stance that there is.



As shown in the video from the OP, he's standing in his squared stance as an attacker comes in trying to hit him. You seriously think anyone would get away with just pivoting and hitting them back, or not even pivoting, or even stepping straight into the attack to intercept? This only works when you have likeminded friends throwing uncommitted attacks for demos or dead drills. Try fighting a boxer or kickboxer like that and see how versatile you are. You will not be standing in this training stance when you face them. It's complete nonsense.

Too much _chi-sau_ with bad ideas and only playing with other WC guys is the problem.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Structure in motion is way more important.



Awesome statement, and quite true!


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> ...
> What's flawed is the training methods...
> I've  just learned how to move myself as a unit while constantly maintaining proper forward energy and structure...
> This comes from realistic training under pressure...



Another awesome post... 
YOUR BODY IS A UNIT, TRAIN IT LIKE ONE!


----------



## yak sao (Aug 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Not all pivoting or turning is the same. As it is done in LTWT, for example, they let the opponent turn them as they sway their central axis to one side and overload the rear leg. Imo, that strategy is flawed and against a good center chaser, not hand chaser, or anyone not dumb as a bull, they put themselves in a vulnerable position that there is no time to step out of as their attacker seamlessly continues to pressure them over that weighted leg and socks them in the jaw. They are easily run over.
> .



You are taking this one concept of WT and isolating it. There is more footwork in LTWT than simply pivoting/shifting.
Not to mention that while we are doing this we are not passive; there are attacks taking place.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Not all pivoting or turning is the same. As it is done in LTWT, for example, they let the opponent turn them as they sway their central axis to one side and overload the rear leg. Imo, that strategy is flawed and against a good center chaser, not hand chaser, or anyone not dumb as a bull, they put themselves in a vulnerable position that there is no time to step out of as their attacker seamlessly continues to pressure them over that weighted leg and socks them in the jaw. They are easily run over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we will have to agree to disagree: I believe you describe a caricature of WT. Even allowing your opponent to shift you is not completely passive. There should still be forward pressure toward the opponent even though the facing angle has just changed. Maybe you've watched too many bad videos of people shifting as they deflect an attack and then stop to pose there with an "AHA" look on their face as if there there is nothing that follows, or with their pressure directed AWAY from the opponent,. A shift is often momentary, transitional, and leads into a step if needed, but above all it deflects while finding an opportunity to strike. 

It seems like most of the threads you comment heavily on go down the rabbit hole of dismissing chi-sau, dogging other lineages, and bashing WC people who train mostly against WC people, etc. *Yawn*


----------



## LFJ (Aug 20, 2015)

yak sao said:


> You are taking this one concept of WT and isolating it.



It's the topic of this thread.



> There is more footwork in LTWT than simply pivoting/shifting. Not to mention that while we are doing this we are not passive; there are attacks taking place.



Yeah, equally as uh, questionable.

@3:44 in this video he tries to show the pivot and it fails. lol Then he asks the guy to come slowly so he can show what he meant to do, but then tries to cover the goof up by saying "who cares" if he gets knocked out of position so badly. Well, he'd better care if he were really being attacked...

LTWT followers think people are going to go sailing past them if they just pivot and shift their weight over like that. It's clueless noob strategy. Who is going to completely run by like that, besides maybe a drunken idiot? And it becomes a central idea in that system.

Even using simultaneous attacks, it puts you in a bad position where mobility is hampered and posture is vulnerable. Don't forget the attacker has hands too and can change direction seamlessly and take you right over, by striking or grappling. If you think you're going to shift to the side and weight the rear leg and they'll just go sailing by, you're a dreamer.

@7:53 his kicking technique also fails in exactly the same way he criticized another method would. lol

Lastly, the "stance inserting footwork" works maybe on your WT mates, but against a boxer you're stepping right between their arms and into the "pocket", the worst place to be! Good luck getting there, and surviving if you do!

It's much more intelligent to fight their flanks and prevent them from refacing or let them over rotate as you stay squared and fight half a man, rather than having to worry about which side he's going to be punching from as you're moving right up the middle.

When I see strategy like this, I genuinely question the fighting experience of its advocates.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 20, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> It seems like most of the threads you comment heavily on go down the rabbit hole of dismissing chi-sau, dogging other lineages, and bashing WC people who train mostly against WC people, etc. *Yawn*



I've never dismissed _chi-sau_, only certain approaches to/ understandings of it. But what can I say? Rarely are threads started on good ideas, so I comment on those bad ideas. Maybe my point of view gives some readers something to think about.

What is the OP's approval rating amongst other posters here anyway? He has generally not earned many supporters of his method with what he shows and describes in most of his clips.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> What is the OP's approval rating amongst other posters here anyway? He has generally not earned many supporters of his method with what he shows and describes in most of his clips.



True.
Most of his vids _(while appreciative for him posting them, for discussion sake)_ are what appears to be him dealing with students of his. Hard to judge whether this guy can handle himself or not based on the stuff he posts.
The one thing I like about his vids is that he is starting to restrict his views and comments to his "modified" MCM interpretation of WC... (since I think he said he has learned an Yip Man version and a Fut Sao version)... instead of to the entire WC community as a whole.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 20, 2015)

I will allow that most of what is shown as to Chi Sao is presented as this is how to fight. And I disagree with that chi sao is nothing more than an exercise and drilling. Bits and pieces may be use from time to time but it certainly isn't about fighting. It is about feeling and not much more. I've seen several approaches and understand what and why but again it isn't about fighting it is about play their chi sao game. 
As to pivoting and footwork we have far more than just standing in YJKYM and pivoting. There is the learning to pivot stage, learning to shift the body stage, there is turning the body from a 50/50 weight distribution to a 90/10, a 80/20, a 70/30/, a 60/40, and to a 50/50 all depending upon what is needed based upon the situation at any one particular point in time. If one needs to step off line and turn into the opponent then that is what we will do. 
There is forms and drills. Training and practice. Then there is practical application. What one does with the attributes one has developed. Every situation will be different and require a different response.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> It's the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My first-hand experience of Wing Chun is limited, so I have no opinion on the merits of the various lineages and variations of the art. I've seen a number of WC/WT advocates who seem to have solid technique, but I wouldn't know how to recognize their lineage.

That said, I do understand structure and balance. The gentleman doing the demonstration in that particular video has ... issues with both. His basic stance is fundamentally unsound on multiple levels. I don't know if that has anything to do with his lineage or whether it's just an example of someone with no real fight experience developing bad postural habits.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 20, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My first-hand experience of Wing Chun is limited, so I have no opinion on the merits of the various lineages and variations of the art. I've seen a number of WC/WT advocates who seem to have solid technique, but I wouldn't know how to recognize their lineage.
> 
> That said, I do understand structure and balance. The gentleman doing the demonstration in that particular video has ... issues with both. His basic stance is fundamentally unsound on multiple levels. I don't know if that has anything to do with his lineage or whether it's just an example of someone with no real fight experience developing bad postural habits.



The instructor in the video is SiFu Alex Wallenwein, who is in the Leung Ting, or WT lineage.
Some of the posture is a bit exaggerated, possibly or likely to make a point. Many in that lineage do practice forms / drills with knees heavily bent and the weight sunk and biased to the rear foot. In sparring or even just free practice, the emphasis is less obvious.
As someone from outside WC/WT but a practicioner of another MA, I'm curious on your take since you bring it up- what specifically do you find issue with as far as structure and balance?


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Another awesome post...
> YOUR BODY IS A UNIT, TRAIN IT LIKE ONE!


You're awesome too! Woohoo, I'm on a roll Yak Sao! Finally out of my slump.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> do you really think you will be standing squared with feet parallel in front of an opponent as he's seriously attacking you, and you will handle him standing still?


That's my concern as well. Sometime it's better to move out of your opponent's attacking path and lead him into the emptiness. In order to do so, you will need some "footwork" and that means you need to move at least one of your feet from point A to point B.

From a wrestler point of view, to keep both feet parallel is very dangerous when dealing with "double legs" attack. When you stand with one leg forward and one leg backward, if your opponent attacks you with "single leg", you can still play valid defense and counter. There is a good reason that different percentage of weight distribution exits in CMA. The least amount of weight that you can put on your leading leg, the faster that you can pull that leg back when your opponent attacks with "single leg". The "double legs" attack is very difficult to counter and you should try to avoid it as much as possible.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 20, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I will allow that most of what is shown as to Chi Sao is presented as this is how to fight. And I disagree with that chi sao is nothing more than an exercise and drilling. Bits and pieces may be use from time to time but it certainly isn't about fighting. It is about feeling and not much more. I've seen several approaches and understand what and why but again it isn't about fighting it is about play their chi sao game.
> As to pivoting and footwork we have far more than just standing in YJKYM and pivoting. There is the learning to pivot stage, learning to shift the body stage, there is turning the body from a 50/50 weight distribution to a 90/10, a 80/20, a 70/30/, a 60/40, and to a 50/50 all depending upon what is needed based upon the situation at any one particular point in time. If one needs to step off line and turn into the opponent then that is what we will do.
> There is forms and drills. Training and practice. Then there is practical application. What one does with the attributes one has developed. Every situation will be different and require a different response.


I just don't see it that way. If chi sao is nothing more then a drill. Then why are we wasting so much time on something that may or may not work in a fight? I think fighting is all about chi sao. Everything I do in the clinch is chi sao. Chi Sao is my forward energy. Chi sao is my body, chi sao is my wing chun. Otherwise WC is crappy kick boxing. Other arts do chi sao too. They just don't call it chi sao. Problem is chi sao rarely goes beyond "drill" form. People get caught up in mastering a drill instead of transitioning a drill into combat.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 20, 2015)

I love chi sao! I do chi sao in the rain. I do chi sao on a plane. I do chi sao in a pinch. I do chi sao in the clinch. I do chi sao on a mound. I do chi sao on the ground. I love chi sao that much!


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I love chi sao! I do chi sao in the rain. I do chi sao on a plane. I do chi sao in a pinch. I do chi sao in the clinch. I do chi sao on a mound. I do chi sao on the ground. I love chi sao that much!


-----------------------------------------------------
Dr Seuss would agree
almost to a tee


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2015)

The real fight doesn't look like this.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Saying you 'learnt the Ip Man forms' is pretty vague (unless you learned the forms from Yip Man himself?)
> Out of curiosity, from whom did you learn Yip Man's forms from? Moy Yat lineage?
> And, do you have a video of yourself doing those forms? (specifically, 2nd form?).
> Thanks.



Long discussing..I have learnt Chum kiu form Moy Yat lineage and also Lee Moy Shan school which comes from the same place, but I have a lot of Wing Chun friends and have also learnt, exchanged a lot of information their version also which include Augustine Fong lineage, William Cheung lineage, Pan Nam lienage and others. But I just do all my forms the same way. Its based on the Fut Sao system and Ip man lines and my own ideas. I dont have a video of me doing the other versions of chum kiu I could do it if you really want to see it. I really don't practice all those other versions anymore.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 20, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to know what flaws you see with using the waist as presented by the OP.  I'm not in argument, just curious just in case that this flaw exists in Jow Ga.



if there is a flaw then all the internal arts must be flawed to because they all turn the waist like that. look at push hand practice as one example..they yield with the waist yet maintain their rooting without moving their feet. this is very common and very basic training.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The real fight doesn't look like this.



They have some really good leg strength and good knees.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> You're awesome too! Woohoo, I'm on a roll Yak Sao! Finally out of my slump.



I am very proud at this moment.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 20, 2015)

Danny T said:


> It is about feeling and not much more.



Whoa... WSL used to say sensitivity is a byproduct of the training, but not the goal. There is feeling simply because we are in (mutual) contact during _chi-sau_, but that's not what we're focusing on or trying to develop. Why not? Well, because if you've ever had a proper fight or spar with someone who knows how to punch, you'll know that there is no prolonged arm contact at speed. There is no chance to attach to your opponent's punch and feel his energy and determine your next moved based on what tactile information you get from his arm. It'll already be too late. It's not realistic, so that can't be the focus of the training. To me, you have taken a mere byproduct in a drilling platform as almost the sole purpose and goal of training.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 20, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From a wrestler point of view, to keep both feet parallel is very dangerous when dealing with "double legs" attack. When you stand with one leg forward and one leg backward, if your opponent attacks you with "single leg", you can still play valid defense and counter. There is a good reason that different percentage of weight distribution exits in CMA. The least amount of weight that you can put on your leading leg, the faster that you can pull that leg back when your opponent attacks with "single leg". The "double legs" attack is very difficult to counter and you should try to avoid it as much as possible.



Yes, that is another danger to the LTWT footwork. Their knees are kept pretty close together and feet narrow in the forward stance, and when pivoting to the side from a neutral stance their feet are parallel with the rear leg overloaded. Very susceptible to single and double legs.

Now, what is done in the system I train is keep a side stance without committing a lead leg until in range to enter. First of all because we don't know yet which side we will attack, but the stance allows for quick entry from either side and is very mobile. By not committing a lead leg too early, it's also not presented for low Thai kicks (which only kill worse on a limp leg) or leg shoots.

Once the opponent "shows us" which side to attack, we enter with a lead leg and fight their flanks, maintaining a squared body able to attack from both sides equally and turn only to face the target. We never turn to avoid the target, or worse, allow them to turn us! As some do. Allowing us to turn you would only facilitate the accomplishment of our goal.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 21, 2015)

Chi Sao is the drill for learning sticking and feeling. Directing and countering pressure but it is not fighting.
Chi Sao is not fighting it is drilling... And I agree people master the drill even to the point of developing tricks that work only in the Chi Sao platform. Chi Sao is a great drill but again it is not fighting.

It is like plummeling drills for wrestling just at a different range. Plummeling is an important drill for wrestling but there is far more to wrestling. Same with wing chun and chi sao. It is an important drill but there is far more to wing chun.

Several years ago had a very nice lady, 35-40 yrs come in to train for a couple of weeks while being in our area.
Have been training for approx 5 years at the time. Her chi sao was excellent. Very impressive. And she was fun to have my students work with..., until we actually sparred. Her chi sao was very good but as soon as real punches were thrown at her she could not handle them. However, when in a clinch she faired much better but still was unable to handle any real pressure. Why? Because all she did was Chi Sao. She didn't know how to fight!.



Jake104 said:


> I just don't see it that way.


Drill - A task or exercise for teaching or developing a skill by repetition: Chi Sao is a drill. It teaches several 


Jake104 said:


> If chi sao is nothing more then a drill. Then why are we wasting so much time on something that may or may not work in a fight?


Something that may or may not work in a fight. Are you saying Chi Sao makes one infallible in a fight? 


Jake104 said:


> People get caught up in mastering a drill instead of transitioning a drill into combat.


Agreed.


LFJ said:


> Whoa... WSL used to say sensitivity is a byproduct of the training, but not the goal. There is feeling simply because we are in (mutual) contact during _chi-sau_, but that's not what we're focusing on or trying to develop. Why not?


 Ok, what are we focusing on and what are we trying to develop in your opinion? 
I am of the opinion we are developing several things as a byproduct of the drilling and it is all based upon feel. Why else would we be in constant contact with each other?


LFJ said:


> Well, because if you've ever had a proper fight or spar with someone who knows how to punch, you'll know that there is no prolonged arm contact at speed.


Must be I've never been in a 'proper' fight nor have sparred with anyone who knows how to punch. 


LFJ said:


> There is no chance to attach to your opponent's punch and feel his energy and determine your next moved based on what tactile information you get from his arm. It'll already be too late. It's not realistic, so that can't be the focus of the training.


Must have never sparred with any good wrestlers or grapplers either; no prolonged contact there.


LFJ said:


> To me, you have taken a mere byproduct in a drilling platform as almost the sole purpose and goal of training.


No, there are other byproducts as well and all are based upon feel.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Ok, what are we focusing on and what are we trying to develop in your opinion?



You and I train very different systems. So it's not just "in my opinion". It's "in my system". "We" obviously don't share the same focus.

When you focus on feeling, you turn the drills into offense and defense thinking. As if you're going to stick to punches being thrown at you and use feeling to determine your next move. Anyone who fights a good boxer will quickly realize how absurd an idea that is. It works in your _chi-sau_ only because you have made mutual pre- and prolonged arm contact.

For me, _chi-sau_ is not about feeling and offense and defense. We aren't working against each other, but with each other. We work drills to help each other correct errors in position, alignment, structure, balance, etc.. It's cooperation, role playing, to develop and condition our movements. The faster we go the more we see freezing, over- or under reaction, loss of balance, bad footwork, etc.. So we work together to help each other check and correct these common errors that come out in free fighting under stress.

It's nothing to do with sticking and feeling. Sensitivity is merely a byproduct of the drilling platform because we are in contact, but there are drills we do specifically to train not to stick and try to feel; errors that will get you hit if you try it against speeding punches being thrown at you.



> I am of the opinion we are developing several things as a byproduct of the drilling and it is all based upon feel. Why else would we be in constant contact with each other?



Firstly, to exchange force in such a way that we both develop elbow and lower body connection for punching power. We do not fight with two arms in parallel extension, but do so in _chi-sau_ drilling so that each partner learns to avoid upper body rotation which opens up gaps and opportunities to be flanked in free fighting, and learns coordination and alignment for striking. 

The _pun-sau_ structure is like training wheels for alignment and such. Ultimately, your mindset must not be offense and defense like fighting or competing at this stage, which is what happens when you focus on feeling and what to do when you sense this or that. We fight with a lead and rear hand and don't try to stick to and feel arms as they are flying at us at lightning speed. That is only a theory worked out in _chi-sau_ with the wrong focus (from the pov of my lineage), and will not work against serious punchers.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LTWT does not stand with a certain leg forward. We are out of opponent's range in YGKYM and wait for them to come into range so that we can intercept their lead limb, whether leg or arm.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> It's much more intelligent to fight their flanks and prevent them from refacing or let them over rotate as you stay squared and fight half a man, rather than having to worry about which side he's going to be punching from as you're moving right up the middle.



We are not taught to go toe to toe with a boxer any more than you are. We prefer to fight their flank.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

yak sao said:


> LTWT does not stand with a certain leg forward.



Then why show the emptiness of the lead leg against leg kicks? Just to convince people of footwork ideas you don't use? Obviously, you'd be in kicking range with a lead leg for that to be an issue and for you to need this function.



yak sao said:


> We are not taught to go toe to toe with a boxer any more than you are. We prefer to fight their flank.



Then why do you have this "stance inserting footwork"? You reckon you will know whether or not someone knows how to box when things suddenly go down and you try to stick yourself between their legs? You also can't fight someone's flank when you step directly down the middle between their legs...


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Then why show the emptiness of the lead leg against leg kicks? Just to convince people of footwork ideas you don't use? Obviously, you'd be in kicking range with a lead leg for that to be an issue and for you to need this function.



When we step in to intercept, we do not weight the front leg so that we can avoid a sweep and/or change direction if needed. It also makes the lead leg readily available for kicking as we come in.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You also can't fight someone's flank when you step directly down the middle between their legs...



You mean like in the wooden dummy form when we step in from the flank and uproot their stance?


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

yak sao said:


> When we step in to intercept, we do not weight the front leg so that we can avoid a sweep and/or change direction if needed. It also makes the lead leg readily available for kicking as we come in.



You come hopping in on your rear leg, do you? 



yak sao said:


> You mean like in the wooden dummy form when we step in from the flank and uproot their stance?



If you think "straight up the middle between their legs" is the same as "from the flank" you are very confused.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You come hopping in on your rear leg, do you?



Nah, you're thinking of William Cheung's group


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you think "straight up the middle between their legs" is the same as "from the flank" you are very confused.



That didn't sound quite right did it?
What I was trying to convey is we drive towards their middle, not necessarily up the middle.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> You and I train very different systems. So it's not just "in my opinion". It's "in my system". "We" obviously don't share the same focus.
> 
> When you focus on feeling, you turn the drills into offense and defense thinking. As if you're going to stick to punches being thrown at you and use feeling to determine your next move. Anyone who fights a good boxer will quickly realize how absurd an idea that is. It works in your _chi-sau_ only because you have made mutual pre- and prolonged arm contact.
> 
> ...


Yea, and it is all based upon feel.
Can you perform all of the these by doing it in the air?
Can you gain all of what you are learning and practicing by yourself against nothing?
Blindfold yourself get into your stance and what ever posture you want with your training partner, step away from each other and perform the actions you are doing in chi sao without touching each other. Chi sao is about feeling.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

yak sao said:


> That didn't sound quite right did it?
> What I was trying to convey is we drive towards their middle, not necessarily up the middle.


 
Alright, but you do this "stance inserting footwork" straight up the middle too, which is what I think is not such a great idea.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Yea, and it is all based upon feel.
> Can you perform all of the these by doing it in the air?
> Can you gain all of what you are learning and practicing by yourself against nothing?
> Blindfold yourself get into your stance and what ever posture you want with your training partner, step away from each other and perform the actions you are doing in chi sao without touching each other. Chi sao is about feeling.



You have confused contact with feeling. 

Sure, we make use of mutual contact to help each other develop power connection, alignment, balance, elbow behavior, etc., but it has nothing to do with feeling each other's energies and manipulating limbs and so forth based on that. This is not our strategy.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Alright, but you do this "stance inserting footwork" straight up the middle too, which is what I think is not such a great idea.



Perhaps. But we don't plow up the middle all that much. We try to dominate the opponent's center. Sometimes that is best achieved by blasting straight up the middle, but more often I would say, it's best achieved by attacking their flank.

Either way, the goal is not to stand there and trade punches, but to occupy their space and unbalance them. The inserted front leg helps us achieve this.


----------



## yak sao (Aug 21, 2015)

BTW LFJ, I forget which lineage of WC you practice.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

WSLVT.

But saying that now is like saying YM lineage. It doesn't really mean anything anymore, as there are many different ideas being taught within the WSL lineage, some that are contradicting and I don't agree with them all. I've experienced most and do what works for me, but in recent years I've been more influenced by the PBVT crowd. I have friends in the lineage and agree with their ideas most, but have yet to meet the man himself. Planning to soon though.


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Alright, but you do this "stance inserting footwork" straight up the middle too, which is what I think is *not such a great idea*.



LFJ  you are absolutely right on that (bolded above). It's too bad that people think that this is what WC is all about. On the other hand the _yap bo_ or "inserting step" is quite effective for uprooting when applied from the flank as Yak stated.

Now about that video you posted. I've never met Alex, the guy demonstrating in it, but he is presenting pretty orthodox WT training ...at least as trained in lower level drills. In application, it's actually a lot more fluid and practical when done right.

On the other hand, I have messed up legs and don't have the greatest stability. Also, my earliest MA experience was wrestling and I'm aware of what a good wrestler can do. These factors have led me to modify my personal stance since my WT days to find what works best for me.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 21, 2015)

Chi Sao is the drill for learning sticking and feeling. Directing and countering pressure but it is not fighting.


LFJ said:


> You and I train very different systems. So it's not just "in my opinion". It's "in my system". "We" obviously don't share the same focus.
> 
> When you focus on feeling, you turn the drills into offense and defense thinking. As if you're going to stick to punches being thrown at you and use feeling to determine your next move. Anyone who fights a good boxer will quickly realize how absurd an idea that is. It works in your _chi-sau_ only because you have made mutual pre- and prolonged arm contact.
> 
> ...


And how do partners do this? How does one know they are in contact? How does one know when a punch can be deployed when in contact with another? How does one know how much force to apply to an opponent at any moment in time? Is it an intuitive thing or is it based upon physical sensation?


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> ...in recent years I've been more influenced by the PBVT crowd. I have friends in the lineage and agree with their ideas most, but have yet to meet the man himself. Planning to soon though.



If you _do_ meet him and like his stuff, just promise you won't become one of his fanatical followers who diss everybody else! Towards PB ...total respect. Towards some of his groupies who trolled on that "other" forum ...not so much.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Chi Sao is the drill for learning sticking and feeling.



In your lineage, and maybe most, but not mine. Alright? We train different systems.



> And how do partners do this? How does one know they are in contact? How does one know when a punch can be deployed when in contact with another? How does one know how much force to apply to an opponent at any moment in time?



Of course we are normal feeling human beings.  I said sensitivity is a byproduct of being in mutual contact. We don't base our fighting strategy on feeling, as much as you might want me to say we do. We keep our mindset in free fighting outside of _chi-sau_ where there is no such contact. Sensitivity is not used to fight against people throwing punches at us. We don't work out feeling-based tactics in _chi-sau_.



> Is it an intuitive thing or is it based upon physical sensation?



Interesting that you use that word, and perhaps surprisingly to you, what we do is kind of an intuitive thing... Because our system teaches us proper alignment, positioning, and angles, and it is self-correcting in that once any deviation in these occurs it will be automatically corrected without thought. We train to be non-thinking fighters (outside of _chi-sau_ with no pre- or prolonged arm contact). 

That's why our system is based more on things like angling and tactical striking methods that contain simultaneous attack and defense functions with a single limb, so two arms working in rotation function as four. So we don't have to try to stick and feel with one arm and strike with the other, or get caught worrying about which side to defend or attack from and which arms to use (thinking, hesitating).


----------



## LFJ (Aug 21, 2015)

geezer said:


> If you _do_ meet him and like his stuff, just promise you won't become one of his fanatical followers who diss everybody else! Towards PB ...total respect. Towards some of his groupies who trolled on that "other" forum ...not so much.



Oh, I got into it with them too from time to time. I'm definitely not dogmatic. I always say although everyone calls what they do "Wing Chun", however, they spell it, it's more beneficial to look at them as separate systems of kung fu (especially since they sometimes develop very different approaches to fighting). That way everyone gets to be right, according to their own system.  Now, whether certain ideas are practical or not can be a separate issue...


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 21, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to know what flaws you see with using the waist as presented by the OP.  I'm not in argument, just curious just in case that this flaw exists in Jow Ga.



From what I see in the op's presentation his body structure doesn't support the waist movement leading to a one-sided body presentation with his COG very open for challenge from anyone able to maintain a Deui Ying structure. He attempts to cover this flaw by taking the elbow with his strong side but that's just masking the incompatibility in his stance and waist movement with a technique.

I don't know anything about Jow Ga, are you guys more run and gun like kickboxing or karate? I could see this type of body tactic working better in that framework.



futsaowingchun said:


> if there is a flaw then all the internal arts must be flawed to because they all turn the waist like that. look at push hand practice as one example..they yield with the waist yet maintain their rooting without moving their feet. this is very common and very basic training.



I've been training Tai Chi and other Wudang arts for more than a few years now and while yes they use the waist, they don't use it in the frame you are presenting. Just because something works under one art's engine/framework doesn't mean it fits under another... Or else you're stating the logical equivalent of "a fuel pump that works in a Smart Car would work just as well in a Nissan Titan because they both use fuel pumps."


----------



## Danny T (Aug 21, 2015)

LFJ said:


> We keep our mindset in free fighting outside of _chi-sau_ where there is no such contact. Sensitivity is not used to fight against people throwing punches at us.


Absolutely. But then that would not be chi sao would it?



LFJ said:


> Interesting that you use that word, and perhaps surprisingly to you, what we do is kind of an intuitive thing... Because our system teaches us proper alignment, positioning, and angles, and it is self-correcting in that once any deviation in these occurs it will be automatically corrected without thought.


Ok, but that is also a byproduct of the training it isn't that one does so without practicing in contact with another.



LFJ said:


> We train to be non-thinking fighters (outside of _chi-sau_ with no pre- or prolonged arm contact).


Ok and most striking type fighting has only short instances of contact. Again not chi sao and can be taught without chi sao training.



LFJ said:


> That's why our system is based more on things like angling and tactical striking methods that contain simultaneous attack and defense functions with a single limb, so two arms working in rotation function as four. So we don't have to try to stick and feel with one arm and strike with the other, or get caught worrying about which side to defend or attack from and which arms to use (thinking, hesitating).


Ok. 
I agreed with everything here and when one is in a position where your one arm is trapping or controlling the opponent's two arms you telling me you don't feel that? And when the opponent moves an arm or changes angles you don't feel that either?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 21, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> I don't know anything about Jow Ga, are you guys more run and gun like kickboxing or karate? I could see this type of body tactic working better in that framework.


  We are "stand your ground" type fighters who fight at angles.  We are known for our strong root which is needed to stabalize our big punches which are similar to Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut which are two of the 3 foundations that make up our style.  The 3rd foundation is northern Shaolin which gives us mobility when needed.  We always joke that our style is like an older version of MMA because Jow Ga is made up of 2 heavy hitting and rooted fighting systems and 1 fast and mobile fighting system.
This is what we look like when we are standing our ground





This is what we look like when we use more mobile attacks.  Take a look at the 0:44 mark and you'll see a similar twisting stance similar to WC stance being discussed.


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2015)

Boy, the _Hung Ga_ really stands out in the first, "Small Tiger" form. Great forms. Very impressive. Cool looking and obviously physically demanding. How does it hold up in free application? Do you guys spar against other systems ...Karate, boxers, WC, etc.?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "double legs" attack is very difficult to counter and you should try to avoid it as much as possible.


In order to avoid it, you should try to stand in such a way that your opponent can not get both of your legs at the same time. Here is a good example.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 22, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Absolutely. But then that would not be chi sao would it?



What? Free fighting? Of course not. Or do you mean not using sensitivity to fight people throwing punches at us? You mean you try to _chi-sau_ a guy as he's punching at you?  How's that going?



> Ok, but that is also a byproduct of the training it isn't that one does so without practicing in contact with another.



It's a byproduct, says you. I don't think you understand what byproduct means. It's often an unintended or incidental product. What I've been describing are the actual purpose of our training; to condition these automatic behaviors for fighting.

When WSL said sensitivity is a byproduct of the training, but not the goal, he meant that it's an unintended and incidental result of mutual contact training in _chi-sau_ drills, but we don't focus on developing it to use in a free fighting strategy where there is no pre- or prolonged arm contact. People who base their system on this type of thing often look for connection in sparring / fighting and end up eating punches.



> Ok and most striking type fighting has only short instances of contact. Again not chi sao and can be taught without chi sao training.



Other striking systems don't use our methods. _Chi-sau_ is a stage used in the development of our striking methods. And if you think there will be long instances of contact when punches are being thrown at you at lightning speed, it's likely to be you in contact with the floor...



> Ok.
> I agreed with everything here and when one is in a position where your one arm is trapping or controlling the opponent's two arms you telling me you don't feel that? And when the opponent moves an arm or changes angles you don't feel that either?



I think you are oversimplifying your concept of "feeling" to just mean physical sensation, as in a faculty of a normal human being, so that I'll concede that I use your methods too. But what you really mean by feeling, in the context of your system, is some sort of _ting-lik_, "listening to energy" skill that is developed through your _chi-sau_ training, isn't it? You do not simply mean the faculty of any normal sentient human being having awareness of physical contact, as that would not require _chi-sau_ training to develop either.

I don't know why you want me to agree with you. Would that validate your method? We do different things. I don't over-trap by sticking to an opponent's arm to feel or "listen" to their energy and attempt to manipulate it in some fashion or choose my next move based on what I sense.

I displace and strike with a single limb in a single action. Even when using a helping hand to displace and open the line for striking with _pak_ / _jat_ / _bong_, etc., the displacing limb immediately recycles to become the next striking hand in order to continue the flow of attack. The centerline is controlled by spatial domination, not by sticking and over-trapping.

It's hard to wrap your head around if you aren't familiar with the method, but hopefully I've explained enough for you to drop the idea that I must be using feeling like you. What would make your Wing Chun different from any other martial art, since any normal human being also feels when contact is made?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> Boy, the _Hung Ga_ really stands out in the first, "Small Tiger" form. Great forms. Very impressive. Cool looking and obviously physically demanding. How does it hold up in free application? Do you guys spar against other systems ...Karate, boxers, WC, etc.?


If there was a term than physically demanding, it would be that lol.   It holds up really well with free application. My school actually dedicates 2 hours every Thursday to abandoning the form and focusing on free application.  We first start out with what feels natural to us and then slowly build on it by adding a slightly difficult technique.  

We spar against other fighting styles because that's the only way to learn how to really use it and it helps us to understand the movement and tactics of other fighting styles.  So far I've sparred against, Muay Thai, TKD, MMA, Sanda, WC, and Shuai Jiao practicioners. We spar against all sizes and weights so that we can learn how to adjust for when our opponent is bigger or smaller than we are.  The grapplers are the most beneficial to spar against because it allows us to work on our techniques that are supposed to help us prevent someone from grabbing us. TKD helps us with agility because they have really good kicks, Sanda and MMA helps us to understand our stances better and how to use our stances to avoid and counter shoots.  Muay Thai reminds us that we need to condition our legs. lol.  WC helps us to be better with fighting at angles because WC practitioners like the center line and often take it to an extreme.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In order to avoid it, you should try to stand in such a way that your opponent can not get both of your legs at the same time. Here is a good example.


The double leg take downs are easy to avoid if you understand how they work.  In the video the WC guy makes a lot of mistakes with dealing with the shoot.
1. He tries to punch the shoot instead of securing his root.
2. He removes his hand from around his opponent when he should have been sinking all of his weight on top of his opponent and wrapping his hands around his opponents torso to squeeze and compress that chest to make breathing difficult for the guy.
3. He knew he had low grappling skills so he should have been super sensitive towards an attempt to be put on the ground.

A wider stance would have definitely given him a better chance to escape the shoot.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 23, 2015)

LFJ said:


> What? Free fighting? Of course not. Or do you mean not using sensitivity to fight people throwing punches at us? You mean you try to _chi-sau_ a guy as he's punching at you?  How's that going?


Never said anything about trying to chi sao a guy as he is punching... You said; "_free fighting outside of chi-sau where there is no such contact. Sensitivity is not used to fight against people throwing punches at us."  _I agreed with you and stated that would not be chi sao. Not trying to argue with you here I agreed with you. Free fighting is not chi sao.



LFJ said:


> It's a byproduct, says you. I don't think you understand what byproduct means. It's often an unintended or incidental product. What I've been describing are the actual purpose of our training; to condition these automatic behaviors for fighting.
> 
> When WSL said sensitivity is a byproduct of the training, but not the goal, he meant that it's an unintended and incidental result of mutual contact training in _chi-sau_ drills, but we don't focus on developing it to use in a free fighting strategy where there is no pre- or prolonged arm contact. People who base their system on this type of thing often look for connection in sparring / fighting and end up eating punches.
> 
> Other striking systems don't use our methods. _Chi-sau_ is a stage used in the development of our striking methods. And if you think there will be long instances of contact when punches are being thrown at you at lightning speed, it's likely to be you in contact with the floor...


I never said nor did I ever insinuate in free fighting one would be in long instances of contact. Chi Sao is an exercise, a drill, It Is Not Fighting. I Agree With You. You disagree with me in that Chi Sao is about feeling. Ok.
Again I agree Chi Sao is not free fighting.



LFJ said:


> I think you are oversimplifying your concept of "feeling" to just mean physical sensation, as in a faculty of a normal human being, so that I'll concede that I use your methods too. But what you really mean by feeling, in the context of your system, is some sort of _ting-lik_, "listening to energy" skill that is developed through your _chi-sau_ training, isn't it? You do not simply mean the faculty of any normal sentient human being having awareness of physical contact, as that would not require _chi-sau_ training to develop either.


I never said anything about ting-lik or listening to energy. Never alluded to anything special or mystical. I simply said and feel chi sao is about feeling. Feeling pressure, feeling the direction of the force being applied and when it changes during the roll. (which by the way is an attack and counter-attack action) We don't simple roll. We roll with the purpose of attacking.



LFJ said:


> I don't know why you want me to agree with you. Would that validate your method? We do different things.


 Ok. I never asked you to agree with me. I simple stated my opinion.



LFJ said:


> I don't over-trap by sticking to an opponent's arm to feel or "listen" to their energy and attempt to manipulate it in some fashion or choose my next move based on what I sense.
> I displace and strike with a single limb in a single action. Even when using a helping hand to displace and open the line for striking with _pak_ / _jat_ / _bong_, etc., the displacing limb immediately recycles to become the next striking hand in order to continue the flow of attack. The centerline is controlled by spatial domination, not by sticking and over-trapping.


What happens when your attack does not displace but is displaced or prevented and your next striking hand is also displace or prevented from making its attack?



LFJ said:


> It's hard to wrap your head around if you aren't familiar with the method, but hopefully I've explained enough for you to drop the idea that I must be using feeling like you. What would make your Wing Chun different from any other martial art, since any normal human being also feels when contact is made?


I never said you must be using feeling like me.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 23, 2015)

Danny T said:


> You said; "_free fighting outside of chi-sau where there is no such contact. Sensitivity is not used to fight against people throwing punches at us."  _I agreed with you and stated that would not be chi sao. Not trying to argue with you here I agreed with you. Free fighting is not chi sao.



Okay then. Thank you, Capt. Obvious. 

Why is sensitivity your primary focus in _chi-sau_ if you agree it's not used in fighting?



> I never said nor did I ever insinuate in free fighting one would be in long instances of contact.



You said "most" striking style "fighting" has "only" short instances of contact. Sounds like you think there is another striking style of fighting that has more than short instances of contact, and I can only assume that's your WC and you train for this in _chi-sau_...



> I never said anything about ting-lik or listening to energy. Never alluded to anything special or mystical. I simply said and feel chi sao is about feeling. Feeling pressure, feeling the direction of the force being applied and when it changes during the roll.



If _chi-sau_ is "about" feeling and "not much else" as you said, that tells me your mindset is primarily in feeling things through arm contact and what you might do about it. That is called _ting-lik_. Nothing mystical about it. It's a skill you can develop when you have people playing along in your _chi-sau_. Its practicality as a fighting tactic is another issue though.

In the system I train, feeling things like that is not the focus. The only reason we're in contact is to exchange force to develop lower body and elbow power connection for punching concepts, check and improve alignment, angles, coordination, balance, footwork, etc.. We don't care about sensitivity. We want to control space, not arms. If an arm gets in the way, it gets displaced or we take a better line. There is simply no time to be feeling out details of force in our opponent's arms and decide where to go from there as punches are flying in free fighting. You need to move your  and hit.



> What happens when your attack does not displace but is displaced or prevented and your next striking hand is also displace or prevented from making its attack?



You're seriously asking me to give you a play by play three or more moves into a hypothetical fight?  How do I know what will happen in a fight until I'm in it? Either I will hit them or they will hit me. It's not like "_chi-sau_ sections", which we don't do in my lineage. So, I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for.

Yes, I have methods for continuing an interrupted attack, but no, it is not to feel out some information on my arms and manipulate the opponent's arms in some way or determine my next move based on that gathered intelligence... if that's what you're hoping I'll concede. There's no time for such nonsense.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 23, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Okay then. Thank you, Capt. Obvious.


Interesting.



LFJ said:


> Why is sensitivity your primary focus in _chi-sau_ if you agree it's not used in fighting?


Huh. I must have missed something because my comment was based upon you stating "_free fighting outside of chi-sau where there is no such contact." _Again I was agreeing with you. If there is no contact there is no chi sao type contact.




LFJ said:


> You said "most" striking style "fighting" has "only" short instances of contact. Sounds like you think there is another striking style of fighting that has more than short instances of contact, and I can only assume that's your WC and you train for this in _chi-sau_...


Actually Boxing has a clinch element (lots of contact) Muay Thai has a very strong clinch element with punching, elbowing, and kneeing out of it (lots of contact), several Karate systems utilize a lot of arm contact, grabs, and clinch type of action as well (again a lot of contact). Your assuming is understandable but we train for a lot of different actions not just other wing chun people.




LFJ said:


> If _chi-sau_ is "about" feeling and "not much else" as you said, that tells me your mindset is primarily in feeling things through arm contact and what you might do about it. That is called _ting-lik_. Nothing mystical about it. It's a skill you can develop when you have people playing along in your _chi-sau_. Its practicality as a fighting tactic is another issue though.
> 
> In the system I train, feeling things like that is not the focus. The only reason we're in contact is to exchange force to develop lower body and elbow power connection for punching concepts, check and improve alignment, angles, coordination, balance, footwork, etc.. We don't care about sensitivity. We want to control space, not arms. If an arm gets in the way, it gets displaced or we take a better line. There is simply no time to be feeling out details of force in our opponent's arms and decide where to go from there as punches are flying in free fighting. You need to move your  and hit.


Ok. There are other drills we utilize that is more on line of fighting than chi sao.
We do several different things as I'm sure you do as well depended upon range, timing, and what the opponent does as well. 
What happens when you are clinched or in a standing grappling situation or even on the ground and the other person has the advantages. If that has never happened to you then you haven't trained enough.




LFJ said:


> You're seriously asking me to give you a play by play three or more moves into a hypothetical fight?  How do I know what will happen in a fight until I'm in it? Either I will hit them or they will hit me. It's not like "_chi-sau_ sections", which we don't do in my lineage. So, I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for.


Wasn't my intent for any particular answer. You have stated your opinion and position, ok. I've stated mine. It's all good.



LFJ said:


> Yes, I have methods for continuing an interrupted attack, but no, it is not to feel out some information on my arms and manipulate the opponent's arms in some way or determine my next move based on that gathered intelligence... if that's what you're hoping I'll concede. There's no time for such nonsense.


So how do you know that your attack was interrupted? How do you know what would be your next move? I never said anything about gathering intelligence and determining the next move. I never said anything about a preplanned response or some kind of chi sao sections. (that was your terms). 
I never stated anything about manipulating the opponent's arms. Can that be done, yes. But it isn't why we chi sao.
We use chi sao as an exercise to feel pressure, force vectors, maintain good structure, striking angles and weaknesses all while controlling the space and lines. In my training Chi Sao is an exercise/drill; it is not fighting however there are many skills and attributes developed within the practice of chi sao one will utilize in a fight.
I'm not wanting nor have I requested you to concede anything.
My questions are for discussion, not to upset you or to prove anything.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Your assuming is understandable but we train for a lot of different actions not just other wing chun people.


  Training to deal with other people and not just with people who fight using the same system is what makes the martial art useful.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 23, 2015)

Just make sure to not confuse skin sensitivity with feeling a force. The former gives you a false illusion of perfection during chi-sao, the later is my belief the goal of understanding how to react in that split second when your arm connects with an opponents incoming or outgoing force. I do not care for the former but am still far from controlling the later.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 24, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Actually Boxing has a clinch element (lots of contact) Muay Thai has a very strong clinch element with punching, elbowing, and kneeing out of it (lots of contact), several Karate systems utilize a lot of arm contact, grabs, and clinch type of action as well (again a lot of contact). Your assuming is understandable but we train for a lot of different actions not just other wing chun people.



None of those styles to my knowledge attempt to establish and maintain arm contact while punches are being thrown, which is how many Wing Chun guys interpret "seeking the bridge" and "sticking". That kind of prolonged arm contact is not clinching or grabbing, and it only works inside _chi-sau_ with likeminded individuals.



> What happens when you are clinched or in a standing grappling situation or even on the ground and the other person has the advantages.



You're one of those guys who thinks they'll use _chi-sau_ to get out of a grappling situation, are you? If I'm in a position to use Ving Tsun I will do so to prevent the clinch or standing grappling situation, but I have no delusions about the scope of VT. If I am taken to the ground, it will not be VT that helps me escape. 



> So how do you know that your attack was interrupted?



It doesn't hit the target.



> How do you know what would be your next move?



I don't. I train to condition non-thinking behaviors for fighting.



> We use chi sao as an exercise to feel pressure



For what purpose?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> The instructor in the video is SiFu Alex Wallenwein, who is in the Leung Ting, or WT lineage.
> Some of the posture is a bit exaggerated, possibly or likely to make a point. Many in that lineage do practice forms / drills with knees heavily bent and the weight sunk and biased to the rear foot. In sparring or even just free practice, the emphasis is less obvious.
> As someone from outside WC/WT but a practicioner of another MA, I'm curious on your take since you bring it up- what specifically do you find issue with as far as structure and balance?


Sorry for not responding earlier. It's been a busy week.

It's much easier to explain this sort of thing in person, where you can actually demonstrate and feel what's going on, but I'll do as best I can in print.

His weight is on his heels and his hips are slightly ahead of his shoulders. His body as a whole is making almost a slight "c" curve backwards. Any sort of solid collision will knock him off-balance backwards. When he pivots his weight backwards onto one foot to avoid the collision, he is even more vulnerable to follow up pressure and he has nowhere left to go.

The fact that his hips are ahead of his shoulders means that he can't put any structural support or leg power behind any sort of upper body strike or block. You'll notice that when he demonstrates a stop-hit at around 4:55 in the video he has to switch his balance forward in order to get his shoulder ahead of his hips so that he doesn't get knocked backwards. Realistically it's really, really hard to have the time to do that on a stop hit that has to beat an opponent to the punch.

Finally, his mobility is extremely limited. While weighted on his heels like that he is going to have a hard time moving forward, backwards, or sideways quickly enough to deal with any sort of fast, aggressive opponent.

I do recognize that different arts make different tradeoffs in the engineering of their preferred stances. What is considered a good stance in one style my not be correct in another. Beyond a certain point, though, physics and biomechanics have the final say in what is going to work. Hopefully the problems I pointed out are characteristic just of the individual in the video and not the entire lineage of WT.

If you want context for where I'm coming from, my background is as follows:

5000+ hours BJJ
2000+ hours Muay Thai
1500+ hours Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu
600+ hours Yudansha Fighting Systems (a Danzan ryu spinoff)
400+ hours Judo
400+ hours Boxing
300+ hours SCA heavy weapons fighting
100+ hours Kali, Wrestling (various flavors)
10 - 100 hours each TKD, Bando, Tai Chi, Karate, Sambo
less than 10 hours each Silat, Wing Chun, JKD, Capoeira, Shaolin Do, HEMA

(That's not counting umpteen-zillion hours of watching video of fights and demos for every art under the sun.)

In none of those arts does that sort of stance seem to work out well.


----------



## geezer (Aug 24, 2015)

LFJ said:


> ...what you really mean by feeling, in the context of your system, is some sort of _ting-lik_, "listening to energy" skill that is developed through your _chi-sau_ training, isn't it? You do not simply mean the faculty of any normal sentient human being having awareness of physical contact, as that would not require _chi-sau_ training to develop either.



_Ting lik... _I like that! Thanks for the vocab. lesson, LFJ.

Yeah, unlike you WSL guys (apparently), we try to develop that _ting lik_ (listening energy) as well as _yau-lik_ (springy-energy) in chi-sau. And yes it is a very _normal_  human skill. One that becomes more useful as you approach the clinch range. Even brief instants of contact help you read a person's balance and energy ...good for striking, and good for controlling your opponent's CG.That's why wrestlers train this stuff too. Different drills, similar benefits.

.





LFJ said:


> What would make your Wing Chun different from any other martial art, since any normal human being also feels when contact is made?



_What makes it different?_ Practice! Other fighting arts have it too, it's just a matter of emphasis. Maybe a misplaced emphasis, from your perspective, but I enjoy the training. Regardless of how much I can really apply in sparring or a possible self-defense scenario, I find it challenging and entertaining like a physical game of chess. Maybe I'm just weird that way.


----------



## geezer (Aug 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> ....In none of those arts does that sort of stance seem to work out well.



Tony, I think you may be misjudging the situation. I just watched this again and found it to be a muddled presentation where he jumps back and forth between what you _should_ do, what you _shouldn't_ do, what you should do _theoretically_, but why _that isn't what you actually do_, etc. etc. Then on top of that, he makes some technical bobbles that make it even harder to sort out what is supposedly "right" and "wrong".

However, I was able to sort it out easier than most, since I trained in the same system during the same period and held the same rank as that instructor. So basically I already knew what he was trying to say. Otherwise, I'd have probably come to the same negative conclusion as you.

My own opinion is that the WT stance is very light and mobile, and is quite functional. It is also uniquely tailored to work within the overall system. No, it wouldn't work in the context of the _other_ arts you spent significant time in. But WT is a different art completely. A golf swing doesn't work in baseball or tennis. To judge the stance work and steps fairly, you have to see it in context, being applied, not in a somewhat confused and "theoretical" demo like this.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2015)

geezer said:


> Tony, I think you may be misjudging the situation. I just watched this again and found it to be a muddled presentation where he jumps back and forth between what you _should_ do, what you _shouldn't_ do, what you should do _theoretically_, but why _that isn't what you actually do_, etc. etc. Then on top of that, he makes some technical bobbles that make it even harder to sort out what is supposedly "right" and "wrong".
> 
> However, I was able to sort it out easier than most, since I trained in the same system during the same period and held the same rank as that instructor. So basically I already knew what he was trying to say. Otherwise, I'd have probably come to the same negative conclusion as you.
> 
> My own opinion is that the WT stance is very light and mobile, and is quite functional. It is also uniquely tailored to work within the overall system. No, it wouldn't work in the context of the _other_ arts you spent significant time in. But WT is a different art completely. A golf swing doesn't work in baseball or tennis. To judge the stance work and steps fairly, you have to see it in context, being applied, not in a somewhat confused and "theoretical" demo like this.


I hope that's the case. I was trying to account for when he was demonstrating the "wrong" way vs. the "right" way, but maybe I misinterpreted him. (Or maybe he confused himself at points while switching back and forth.)

Is the WT stance _supposed_ to have the weight back on the heels and the shoulders behind the hips when standing square? The various arts I've trained in have some very different stances, trading off one set of strengths and weaknesses for another depending on their purpose, but I've never encountered one where those characteristics would be workable. I've also never observed a fight (in person or on video) where a stance like that worked out well. (I have seen plenty of WC/WT practitioners who seem to have very solid balance and structure in their stances, but I don't know what lineage they belong to.)

Do you have any video examples that make it more clear how the WT stance is supposed to work in application?


----------



## geezer (Aug 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I hope that's the case. I was trying to account for when he was demonstrating the "wrong" way vs. the "right" way, but maybe I misinterpreted him. (Or maybe he confused himself at points while switching back and forth.)
> 
> Is the WT stance _supposed_ to have the weight back on the heels and the shoulders behind the hips when standing square? The various arts I've trained in have some very different stances, trading off one set of strengths and weaknesses for another depending on their purpose, but I've never encountered one where those characteristics would be workable. I've also never observed a fight (in person or on video) where a stance like that worked out well. (I have seen plenty of WC/WT practitioners who seem to have very solid balance and structure in their stances, but I don't know what lineage they belong to.)
> 
> Do you have any video examples that make it more clear how the WT stance is supposed to work in application?



To answer your questions, first a disclaimer: I haven't been a member of the "official" Leung Ting WT group for many many years, so any answers I give are just my take on things. But as I was taught (by LT himself) the WT "Character Two"  stance (Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma) is frontal with the feet and knees adducted (pigeon-toed) with the weight evenly distributed between the balls and the heels of both feet -- i.e. on the center of the foot, NOT on the heels. Furthermore, although trained in forms and drills, YGKM is not a static stance you take when fighting. It is a structure you transition through as you pivot, sidestep or to explode forward to attack or intercept . I believe Alex Wallenwein stated as much somewhere in that clip of his. Moreover, the spine is held vertically and the shoulders are _above_, not behind the hips. We avoid the dreaded back leaning "Wing Chun slouch" often seen elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I don't have any videos ...of me or my little group at least. Besides, I myself break the WT rules a bit. For me it's a simple cost-benefit situation. In application I sacrifice the groin protection of having both feet exactly on the same centerline for the greater lateral stability acheived by having them separated a little. Similarly, In practice (as compared to forms and drills) I don't weight the rear foot 100%, again sacrificing the _theoretical_ WT advantages of having the front leg unweighted at all times and free to attack and counter, etc. I prefer the more important attribute of greater stability. This is a _personal _decision, since I have screwed up ankles and I'm a real klutz sometimes. I've known others who can make the "pure" WT stance work very well.

The part I like about WT footwork the best (when done well) is it's explosiveness coming from an unassuming upright stance. Nobody shows this off better than Emin. Check the clip below from about 1:15 to  about 2:20. This unexpected explosiveness is an attribute that is very useful, especially in self defense scenarios.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2015)

geezer said:


> The part I like about WT footwork the best (when done well) is it's explosiveness coming from an unassuming upright stance.


   The only that I don't like is the demo guy's stance.  His stance makes the technique look more powerful than it actually is in the video.  His feet are parallel to each other and his knees are locked out which is why he falls backward like he did.  With that said, the concept of using the body weight behind the punch is a sound and proven concept.  Boxers use the same concept.  That unexpected explosiveness is key to a lot of kung fu styles, in most fights people tend to telegraph the power of their punches by pulling their arm way back, but with this technique the power is hidden because it's not the arm that is generating the majority of the force.  Getting hit when you aren't expecting it sucks.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 24, 2015)

geezer said:


> To answer your questions, first a disclaimer: I haven't been a member of the "official" Leung Ting WT group for many many years, so any answers I give are just my take on things. But as I was taught (by LT himself) the WT "Character Two"  stance (Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma) is frontal with the feet and knees adducted (pigeon-toed) with the weight evenly distributed between the balls and the heels of both feet -- i.e. on the center of the foot, NOT on the heels. Furthermore, although trained in forms and drills, YGKM is not a static stance you take when fighting. It is a structure you transition through as you pivot, sidestep or to explode forward to attack or intercept . I believe Alex Wallenwein stated as much somewhere in that clip of his. Moreover, the spine is held vertically and the shoulders are _above_, not behind the hips. We avoid the dreaded back leaning "Wing Chun slouch" often seen elsewhere.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't have any videos ...of me or my little group at least. Besides, I myself break the WT rules a bit. For me it's a simple cost-benefit situation. In application I sacrifice the groin protection of having both feet exactly on the same centerline for the greater lateral stability acheived by having them separated a little. Similarly, In practice (as compared to forms and drills) I don't weight the rear foot 100%, again sacrificing the _theoretical_ WT advantages of having the front leg unweighted at all times and free to attack and counter, etc. I prefer the more important attribute of greater stability. This is a _personal _decision, since I have screwed up ankles and I'm a real klutz sometimes. I've known others who can make the "pure" WT stance work very well.
> 
> The part I like about WT footwork the best (when done well) is it's explosiveness coming from an unassuming upright stance. Nobody shows this off better than Emin. Check the clip below from about 1:15 to  about 2:20. This unexpected explosiveness is an attribute that is very useful, especially in self defense scenarios.


Thanks for the info. Boztepe does a much better job of demonstrating the stance while still having good structure and balance.

I don't think that particular structure is one I would personally feel very comfortable using, but I'd love the chance to work with someone who is good at it, just to get a better feel for how it works.


----------



## geezer (Aug 24, 2015)

Well, if you _did_ use a stance similar to this, nobody says you always have to stay in it. Your grappling experience in BJJ, judo, etc. would allow you to recognize and anticipate when your opponent was setting you up for a shoot or throw in time to change your stance into a more secure position. Purists may differ, but I believe that when the threat changes, it's best to change accordingly.  Or, to put it another way, screw tradition and do what works! 

In my own limited background I find myself variously using body mechanics from Latosa Escrima (which is much like boxing), to WT (as we were discussing), to a bit of folkstyle wrestling which I learned as a kid. My DTE buddies (like Jake on this forum) help me find the conceptual unity behind what some would see as disparate, even contradictory systems.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 25, 2015)

The interpretation of that stance for me, as was explained to me by my sifu, is that it is a training stance to understand proper power and tension. Building up explosiveness in the legs and so on.

We have had it explained both why the stance itself does not work but why it is effective way to start learning movement and not only footwork. In other words it is a training tool.

Far to static in my view to be used in fighting scenario but you can at least react quickly if caught offguard in a standing position. For self defense it is normally not a good idea to prepare your stance as if a boxer since the moment you do, you are sending out an invitation to fight to your aggressor.

Another beautiful aspect of that stance, it allows you in the first form to train all your techniques evenly on both sides without a thought on footwork. Keeping tension in your knees, I am repeating myself sorry, gives you a spring force like feeling of moving into an offensive or defensive position. Body weight being either on front or rear leg. (Please do not mistake this from collapsing knees in that stance as it would just damage you)

Also I train WT as well.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 25, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> From what I see in the op's presentation his body structure doesn't support the waist movement leading to a one-sided body presentation with his COG very open for challenge from anyone able to maintain a Deui Ying structure. He attempts to cover this flaw by taking the elbow with his strong side but that's just masking the incompatibility in his stance and waist movement with a technique.
> 
> I don't know anything about Jow Ga, are you guys more run and gun like kickboxing or karate? I could see this type of body tactic working better in that framework.
> 
> ...



Tai Chi uses small medium and large frame depending on the style or lineage. turning the waist is turing the waist whether small medium or large frame.


----------



## LFJ (Aug 25, 2015)

geezer said:


> _Ting lik... _I like that! Thanks for the vocab. lesson, LFJ.



Oh crap... Don't run off with it just yet! I think I wasn't using my brain. _Ting-lik_ (听力) is a word in everyday speech that means hearing (ability) or listening comprehension. The term I was looking for was _ting-ging_ (听劲) (listening to energy / force), which is a concept also found in _Taijiquan_ push hands referring to "sensitivity" to the opponent's force, although in Mandarin (_ting jin_). Obviously I'm not used to using that term.

Anyhow, another issue I have with this concept within Wing Chun is that we're a striking system, but when people defend the usefulness of sensitivity in fighting, they often bring up the clinch or other grappling situations to show where they'll use it. If you spend so much time training and attach so much importance to developing a skill that is going to be used in standing grappling, then it sounds like you're more of a grappling system that incorporates striking, or grappling with intent to strike. At least the system I train is not that.


----------



## geezer (Aug 25, 2015)

LFJ said:


> ...Anyhow, another issue I have with this concept within Wing Chun is that we're a striking system... .



I get your point. Somebody once told me that the whole point of chi sau is actually _not_ to stick, but to slip through and hit!


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2015)

If Wing Chun is only a striking system and chi sao is only for angles and blah blah...Boxing is a better striking system and always will be! Case closed...

If chi sao is what makes WC great. Then everybody say hey!
Hey!

Hey!

Ho!

Hey!


----------



## LFJ (Aug 26, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> If Wing Chun is only a striking system and chi sao is only for angles and blah blah...Boxing is a better striking system and always will be! Case closed...



Better is always relative. I'm sure Mike Tyson would destroy almost anyone I know from a number of styles. That's because he's a born fighter, not because he learned a better striking system.

However, VT has more tactical striking methods than boxing and more intelligent defense and overall strategy for free fighting against any type of opponent, since it's not a game with rules, in my opinion. And of course, we use our feet.



> If chi sao is what makes WC great. Then everybody say hey!



Well, _chi-sau_ is an indispensable training tool and stage of development which a lot of training time is devoted to, but I prefer not to get too attached to it. You must see the big picture. What makes VT great is the intelligent design of the system from SNT to free sparring. Not one stage is more important than another.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> Well, if you _did_ use a stance similar to this, nobody says you always have to stay in it


This is where I see a lot of Wing Chun practitioners get into trouble when they try to use one stance for every situation.


----------



## geezer (Aug 26, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where I see a lot of Wing Chun practitioners get into trouble when they try to use one stance for every situation.



No, you're wrong. _One_ stance works great. The trick is to only fight _one kind of fighter_. ...like only the guys from your school! 

OK, seriously, old time Wing Chun did have other stances, and they are still preserved in the long pole and _bart cham dao_ sets. These stances occasionally appear in the empty hand system but not often. Perhaps, in part due to the fact that this material is kept under wraps and only taught to high-level students after many years, and then only if they can pay big bucks for the privilege.

Still, I'd say that it will take a lot more than some low stance work to solve the grappling deficiency in many TMAs.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> Still, I'd say that it will take a lot more than some low stance work to solve the grappling deficiency in many TMAs



That is true, especially since some TMAs appear to have abandon all of the grappling elements.  The ones that still have the technique in their forms can always explore that form to figure out how it works. But those who don't have any references to grappling will need to take a technique from another fighting style to fill in their gaps.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> ...old time Wing Chun did have other stances, and they are still preserved in the long pole and _bart cham dao_ sets. These stances occasionally appear in the empty hand system but not often. Perhaps, in part due to the fact that this material is kept under wraps and only taught to high-level students after many years, and then only if they can pay big bucks for the privilege.



True enough... most won't or don't stick around that long to learn the weapons. As such, some WC teaches the weapons movements (concepts, ideas, stances, footwork, etc) very early on... just not in the typical "form" fashion. Beginning students, naturally, have no idea they are learning (dare I say) "advanced" portions of WC... but nonetheless they are, and benefit from it without waiting years.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 26, 2015)

Wing chun has lots of stances and lots of footwork and adjusting without sacrificing structure.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Wing chun has lots of stances and lots of footwork and adjusting without sacrificing structure.


I don't know much about Wing Chun so I may sound stupid asking this question.  Are all of the stances narrow like the one that is commonly seen and known as a Wing Chun stance?  In my style we only have 4 basic stances.  Horse, cross, cat, and bow.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 26, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know much about Wing Chun so I may sound stupid asking this question.  Are all of the stances narrow like the one that is commonly seen and known as a Wing Chun stance?  In my style we only have 4 basic stances.  Horse, cross, cat, and bow.



'Narrow' is a relative term. So it may be difficult to answer your question. Not all WC has that weird "goat gripping stance" with knees practically touching. There are many stances. Horse of course (weighted differently across the lineages); and from there things branch out in various directions depending on lineage, level within the system itself, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> 'Narrow' is a relative term. So it may be difficult to answer your question. Not all WC has that weird "goat gripping stance" with knees practically touching. There are many stances. Horse of course (weighted differently across the lineages); and from there things branch out in various directions depending on lineage, level within the system itself, etc.


Thanks. This is what I was thinking but wasn't sure of because I usually only see one type of stance in competition. I always see WC demonstrated with that one stance and I was thinking that there had to be more.


----------



## JPinAZ (Aug 26, 2015)

Just to add a bit to the discussion, in my lineage, we have several 'primary' stances, as well as some transitional stances. Our primary stances are YJKYM, a forward stance, and one that some might call a side-neutral stance. All 3 have a wider base with the heels at least shoulder-width apart or more. The later 2 are typically derived from our buhn yut ma & leung yee ma footwork and also follow our gate theory and tin yan dei principles.
Transitional stances like T stance and ding ma/hanging cat stance also exist and are more narrow by nature, but also aren't used nearly as often.

As I see it, stances and footwork are also 2 different things and should both be considered to have a well rounded fighting system. For example, we have 5 major footwork & body methods we train in our Bai Jong Baat Bo Jin, which is a Chum Kiu-level training platform covering a full 360 degrees of motion in 8 basic directions. These cover moving fwd for engagement, backwards for receiving/recovery, side-to-side for matching facing and/or cutting off the angle to our opponent, and then 2 more for facing and refacing via turning. IMO, only sticking to one stance, say YGKYM, is limiting the ability of the WC fighter to counter the numerous types of MA's our there today.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 26, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> Tai Chi uses small medium and large frame depending on the style or lineage. turning the waist is turing the waist whether small medium or large frame.



Or some of us which use both. Either frame in Tai Chi is still not compatible with WC. We have some similar hands in the two arts on occasion, but the body language, waist usage and legs are very different. 

I believe one of the common criticisms of Fut Sao Wing Chun's origin is that it is derived from a combination of an internal art and some WC. Looking at this example, that explanation seems pretty plausible.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 26, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> We are "stand your ground" type fighters who fight at angles.  We are known for our strong root which is needed to stabalize our big punches which are similar to Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut which are two of the 3 foundations that make up our style.  The 3rd foundation is northern Shaolin which gives us mobility when needed.  We always joke that our style is like an older version of MMA because Jow Ga is made up of 2 heavy hitting and rooted fighting systems and 1 fast and mobile fighting system.
> This is what we look like when we are standing our ground
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, you guys use what my style would describe as an animal style Tien Yan Dei. It seems from the forms you guys would favor more of a primarily long, secondarily short boxing not unlike CLF. If indeed you specialize in this long range (chern kiu) a turning waist mechanic can be used pretty well, its when you compact into short bridge (dune kiu) that it can get you into trouble.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> Ok, you guys use what my style would describe as an animal style Tien Yan Dei. It seems from the forms you guys would favor more of a primarily long, secondarily short boxing not unlike CLF. If indeed you specialize in this long range (chern kiu) a turning waist mechanic can be used pretty well, its when you compact into short bridge (dune kiu) that it can get you into trouble.


When we need to compact we ditch the big punches and use other techniques more suited for the task.  As for generating power with the waist the more advanced students and sifu get really good at using their waist.  Here's a person from a different Jow Ga lineage but you can see what I'm talking about with twisting the waist at 0:37 and again at 1:00


----------



## LFJ (Aug 27, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> True enough... most won't or don't stick around that long to learn the weapons. As such, some WC teaches the weapons movements (concepts, ideas, stances, footwork, etc) very early on... just not in the typical "form" fashion. Beginning students, naturally, have no idea they are learning (dare I say) "advanced" portions of WC... but nonetheless they are, and benefit from it without waiting years.



There are actions in each of the empty hand forms that correspond to weapon training. And since the pole training is very good for developing basic things like punching power and synchronicity of limbs, elements of it can be taught earlier for good reason. Nothing "advanced" about this. It's part of the basic training system. The knives are different because the fighting strategy differs. It's more _biu-ji_ thinking, and so is generally taught later so as not to confuse students learning their primary VT strategy and tactics.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Aug 27, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> I believe one of the common criticisms of Fut Sao Wing Chun's origin is that it is derived from a combination of an internal art and some WC. Looking at this example, that explanation seems pretty plausible.



The origins of FSWC are not well known but IMO the footwork is based on some internal system and adopted to a WC framework. I trained in IP Man WC before I started in FSWC so my WC is a combination of both. FSWC IMO is more closely related to YKS WC then the other lineages of WC.


----------

