# How the punch can relate to the rest of the system



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 5, 2017)




----------



## geezer (Feb 6, 2017)

Nothing here about the punch that is very different from what we teach. I did think he _overstated_ the bit about just using the arm alone to power the punch ...at least until he clarified things a bit later on.

 If I understand him correctly, he really means that initially they train arm-only punching to learn structure to prevent over-committing  throwing the shoulder and body into the punch (think SNT). Then later on with turning and stepping, and finally, even elastic input from the shoulder and torso, you learn how to put more body power into the punch (Chum Kiu and Biu Tze).

So if _that_ is what he is really getting at, I have no objection. But ultimately, I believe that good WC/VT/WT does hit with body power, not just arm power.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 6, 2017)

geezer said:


> But ultimately, I believe that good WC/VT/WT does hit with body power, not just arm power.


My sifu often states; "we don't hit, we crash".


----------



## yak sao (Feb 6, 2017)

I like to tell students that we don't punch with the fist, but with the body. The fist is merely the method of delivery.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 6, 2017)

I say "we don't punch with the fist, we only contact with the fist, we punch with the body.


----------



## geezer (Feb 6, 2017)

yak sao said:


> I like to tell students that we don't punch with the fist, but with the body.



Taken the wrong way, that can be a _bad_ thing. As, for example, if you punch someone repeatedly with your body ... striking them with your body squarely on their fist!


----------



## wingerjim (Feb 15, 2017)

yak sao said:


> I like to tell students that we don't punch with the fist, but with the body. The fist is merely the method of delivery.


That is also what is taught where I study.


----------



## JP3 (Feb 15, 2017)

I've got no idea what WC theory/principles are, but I would find it hard to comprehend a system which does not involve the body to increase the power of any technique.  Everything I've ever done, TKD, HKD Karate, Muay Thai, Judo, Aikido/Aikijujutsu... all of them develop power with the body, though they may talk about the "how" in slightly different language and nomenclature, it all ends up being the same concept.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

Just curious, did you get the impression that I was saying that we don’t gain power from the body? I’m just asking because I thought that I made it pretty clear that we build the punches in two stages. 1) By punching with the arm only, so disassociating the punch from the body and then 2) introducing power from the body via the turning stance. Point 1) is more a developmental tool for cultivating correct power generation in the punch, cultivating stability and avoidance of overextension of our attacks etc. and maintenance of good structure. Point 2) is really how everything will be applied through our wing chun; that is to say that all strikes, defences etc. will be powered with the entire body behind it driven by the turning stance.

So when I talk about that stuff in the video am I not being clear/difficult to understand?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

APL76 said:


> 1) By punching with the arm only, so disassociating the punch from the body and then 2) introducing power from the body via the turning stance.


The issue is if you are used to isolate your arm from your body, you will develop bad habit and you will need time to remove that bad habit later on.

IMO, just by using "turning stance" is far from enough. You will need:

- rotate your body,
- bend your leg and then straight your leg.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

How so? What is the bad habit? The point is that the punch works in exactly the same way irrespective of whether you stand still of add the turn. You build power in the arm making sure you don’t compromise your structure or over reach your power while standing still in yi ji kim yeun ma. You then add the turning stance thus putting power into the punch from the hips and through the body. The punch itself is done in exactly the same way whether you turn or not. However if you try to force through power with the shoulder while you do it standing still the bad structure will be even worse, and opportunity’s for overreach to be exploited amplify. So what’s the bad habit to be undone?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

yak sao said:


> I like to tell students that we don't punch with the fist, but with the body. The fist is merely the method of delivery.


I like to ask my students to punch while putting their arms behind the back. This way, they have no choice but to concentrate on how to move their "body" during a punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

APL76 said:


> So what’s the bad habit to be undone?


The bad habit is in fighting when you get nervous, you may forget to use your body, only use your hands, and you don't understand why your opponent is still standing and smile at you.

In all CMA, you want to develop "身法 (body method)". How your body should move is much more important than how your arm should move. Even if you may not move your feet when you punch, your elbow should still coordinate with your knee. Before your punch, your knee should be bending and your elbow should be bending. At the end of your punch, your knee should be straight and your elbow should be straight. That elbow and knee harmony is the most important part of the whole punching process in "static stance punch".


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is if you are used to isolate your arm from your body, you will develop bad habit and you will need time to remove that bad habit later on.
> 
> IMO, just by using "turning stance" is far from enough. You will need:
> 
> ...



As for turning stance not being enough, all I can say is that the amount of power that can be generated, combined with, and sent through a strike from jun ma is immense. Unfortunately you are in the US, otherwise you could come and feel it (I mean in a friendly sort of way, check out what we do sort of thing, I’m not challenging anyone here). That’s really the best way to get an appreciation for it.  

Rotating the body? Well jun ma does rotate the body, I presume you mean rotate the upper body around in relation to the hips??? If that’s what you mean then that’s exactly the kind of compromise to our structure we want to avoid. And bending and straightening the leg, I’m not really sure what you mean by that.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The bad habit is in fighting when you get nervous, you may forget to use your body, only use your hands, and you don't understand why your opponent is still standing and smile at you.
> 
> In all CMA, you want to develop "身法 (body method)". How your body should move is much more important than how your arm should move.



We do use the body by combining the jun ma (turning stance) with the punch. Indeed I said above that the initial punching training is for development, once that’s done and adequate literally everything in our wing chun involves the use of firstly the body through application of jun man, this is then secondly combined with the footwork. How are we going to have a bad habbit of not using the body?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

APL76 said:


> How are we going to have a bad habbit of not using the body?


In CMA, we want to achieve the 6 harmonies. The outer 3 harmonies are:

1. hand coordinate with foot.
2. elbow coordinate with knee.
3. shoulder coordinate with hip.

IMO, the 2 that elbow coordinate with knee is the most important one (when your feet are not moving such as WC stance).

When you punch and your feet are not moving, your hand cannot coordinate with your foot. Your shoulder also cannot coordinate with your hip. The only thing you can do is to coordinate your elbow with your knee. This will force you to concentrate on your knee bending and knee straight process. If you ignore this in the early training stage, to obtain this kind of coordination will take you twice as much time and effort later on.

In the following clip, you can clearly see that his knee and elbow are "coordinated".


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

Well, fair enough if you want to do wing chun like that but in both the styles I do, Yip Man and Yuen Kay San we not only don’t move around up and down like that we actively try to avoid it and have plenty of techniques to exploit it in an opponent (mainly in the YKS version) and we don’t coordinate in the way you mention. We do it with hips, stance and hands. Everything relates back to the hips and stance and hands and feet must land together.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

APL76 said:


> How are we going to have a bad habbit of not using the body?


Here is a simple example.

If your body is used to do this - freeze your body and only move your arms:







You will have difficulty to change your body to do this later on - body unification:


----------



## APL76 (Feb 15, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a simple example.
> 
> If your body is used to do this - freeze your body and only move your arms:
> 
> ...



Ok, so let me see if I understand you. You are saying that since, in the beginning, we learn the punch, and refine it, by being stationary, in the long run we will not be able to use the rest of our body in combination with the punch, or somehow forget to do so?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2017)

APL76 said:


> Ok, so let me see if I understand you. You are saying that since, in the beginning, we learn the punch, and refine it, by being stationary, in the long run we will not be able to use the rest of our body in combination with the punch, or somehow forget to do so?


We may have the same "body unification" goal, but our paths are different.

1. Your path is to start from "free the body and only move the arm". You try to learn how to move your arm first. You don't mind to develop "body method" a bit later.
2. My path is to start from "freeze the arm and only move the body". I try to learn how to move my body first. I want to develop "body method" ASAP.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 15, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a simple example.
> 
> If your body is used to do this - freeze your body and only move your arms:
> 
> ...



Dude in the second photo's rounded back will give him a short career. Horrible form. Keep your spine straight!

Of course, it could have been drawn by someone with little knowledge of kinesiology ... or artistic talent.

This is the Wing Chun forum I know and love ... nitpicking, nitpicking, nitpicking.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 15, 2017)

Whether they want to or not, I think most Wing Chun guys actually practice arm only punches at the beginning. 

You're in YGKYM. Learning to put your bodyweight behind a punch when you have no foot movement and limited hip movement is difficult. It's much easier, and easier to learn, to incorporate bodyweight into the punch, by stepping forward as you punch IMO.

There are concepts I call non-resistance and formlessness (not giving him your whole body) which deal with the guy grabbing your punch and pulling you in, but I regard these as more advanced than just learning to punch. Often moving to around where the guy wants to take you, but a bit earlier than he expects, can work.

This is not to say OP's approach has no merit. Just a different take on teaching.

As in wrestling, if you know a scramble is about to happen, make sure you initiate it, not the other guy.


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 15, 2017)

Trying to stay in YGKYM and do a turning punch from that stance in a real fight is never going to happen imo.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 16, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> Trying to stay in YGKYM and do a turning punch from that stance in a real fight is never going to happen imo.



Why not?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Why not?


Because if you use "turning punch" and turn your body to your

- left, it will hurt your left knee.
- right, it will hurt your right knee.

The YGKYM is not a proper fighting stance. Besides you can't use it to move

- forward 3 feet like cat stance can,
- backward 3 feet like monkey stance can,

it's also vulnerable for

1. foot sweep - the inward 45 degree foot angle expose your heel.
2. double legs - both knees are too close to each other.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because if you use "turning punch" and turn your body to your
> 
> - left, it will hurt your left knee.
> - right, it will hurt your right knee.
> ...



Heres a video doing everything you just said either caused damage to oneself or was not possible: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=643656182507861&id=394978440708971


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We may have the same "body unification" goal, but our paths are different.
> 
> 1. Your path is to start from "free the body and only move the arm". You try to learn how to move your arm first. You don't mind to develop "body method" a bit later.
> 2. My path is to start from "freeze the arm and only move the body". I try to learn how to move my body first. I want to develop "body method" ASAP.




#1 is how it is done in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun.  You first learn with a "still body" and later learn how to add the body to generate more power.  Like learning to crawl before you learn to walk or run.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because if you use "turning punch" and turn your body to your
> 
> - left, it will hurt your left knee.
> - right, it will hurt your right knee.
> ...



Not the way I learned the YGKYM!   It is simply "neutral" and still very mobile.  You can step in any direction with it.  And when the pivot is done correctly, it shouldn't harm the knees.  This is especially true in TWC where you actually pick up the feet slightly when you pivot to eliminate any friction with the ground.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I've got no idea what WC theory/principles are, but I would find it hard to comprehend a system which does not involve the body to increase the power of any technique.  Everything I've ever done, TKD, HKD Karate, Muay Thai, Judo, Aikido/Aikijujutsu... all of them develop power with the body, though they may talk about the "how" in slightly different language and nomenclature, it all ends up being the same concept.



I think the difference is whether you reach for the target. Either by hip rotation or bending forwards. Or use foot work to take you to the target.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 16, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Heres a video doing everything you just said either caused damage to oneself or was not possible: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=643656182507861&id=394978440708971


When the feet pivot on the turn it is no longer YJKYM.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 16, 2017)

Danny T said:


> When the feet pivot on the turn it is no longer YJKYM.



If you watch closely there are i think 2 steps in the video in YJKYM


----------



## Danny T (Feb 16, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> If you watch closely there are i think 2 steps in the video in YJKYM


There are a couple of forward steps and then a return to YJKYM but he isn't doing a turning punch when in YJKYM.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> Not the way I learned the YGKYM!   It is simply "neutral" and still very mobile.  You can step in any direction with it.  And when the pivot is done correctly, it shouldn't harm the knees.  This is especially true in TWC where you actually pick up the feet slightly when you pivot to eliminate any friction with the ground.


If your opponent uses low roundhouse kick (or foot sweep) at your YGKYM, you have to turn your shin into his kick (if you don't lift your foot and escape out of it), your inward foot angle will change into an outward foot angle, you are no longer in your YGKYM any more.

IMO, any fighting stance that you cannot "spring forward from it" is not a good fighting stance. When your opponent shows a weakness, your fast speed to move in is important. In order to have a good "forward spring", both of your knees should point toward your opponent. This way, you only need to shift your weight, you don't need to turn your feet.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We may have the same "body unification" goal, but our paths are different.
> 
> 1. Your path is to start from "free the body and only move the arm". You try to learn how to move your arm first. You don't mind to develop "body method" a bit later.
> 2. My path is to start from "freeze the arm and only move the body". I try to learn how to move my body first. I want to develop "body method" ASAP.



Fair enough. For us the unification of the body and the arms and stance, though absolutely critical, is still predicated on the individual components of the body’s movement (say, Jun Ma and Punch for example) and these themselves are predicated on a solid foundation (Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma). From my point of view teaching it, the stronger each of those components are in isolation, the easier it will be for the person I’m teaching to put them together and the better the quality when they do.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, any fighting stance that you cannot "spring forward from it" is not a good fighting stance. .



But you can spring forward quite easily from either the YGKYM or the "pivoted" Pin Sun Ma.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> But you can spring forward quite easily from either the YGKYM or the "pivoted" Pin Sun Ma.


Do you have any clip to show it?


----------



## APL76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip to show it?



Here is a short clip I cut together recycling some of the video I have already made. In this you can see my students, including Obi Juan Salami, “springing forwards” from YJKYM, from a natural standing position, from the side on stance (we call it either chut san bo or Gok Ma) and moving around in different combinations of all of them, there’s even some of me with my ruined back still able to do it, albeit slow and sloppy. If anyone tells you you can’t move out of YJKYM with a lot of speed and power it’s a dead giveaway in my opinion, that that person has never done even close to the training to facilitate it.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 17, 2017)

APL76 said:


> If anyone tells you you can’t move out of YJKYM with a lot of speed and power it’s a dead giveaway in my opinion, that that person has never done even close to the training to facilitate it.



The question we are discussing isn't whether you can do it or not, but whether this is the best position from which to learn to punch with power. Your opinion was it was best to learn to just use the arm first, not adding the body.

Punching with power and no footwork is a more advanced skill. And good for demos, not something likely to occur in a defence situation.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip to show it?



Well, since you asked!


----------



## wingerjim (Feb 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, we want to achieve the 6 harmonies. The outer 3 harmonies are:
> 
> 1. hand coordinate with foot.
> 2. elbow coordinate with knee.
> ...


Though this is interesting I do not see how anyone can be rooted bouncing up and down like that....basically he is moving his center of gravity up, thus uprooting himself, and the result is no solid foundation, which is the cornerstone of Wing Chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is if you are used to isolate your arm from your body, you will develop bad habit and you will need time to remove that bad habit later on.
> 
> IMO, just by using "turning stance" is far from enough. You will need:
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you on this one. I've had to help students (including my wife) fix this exact error (different art, same problems, sometimes). Somehow, she learned the arm mechanics and failed to put the proper power generation with them. When I became her instructor, we started working on making it a full punch. She still struggles with the habit. When punching down, for instance (what I call a "drop punch" because you can simply drop body weight into it), she still tends to keep her body stable and punch downwards. Because she starts at an appropriate distance for a correct punch, she is often too far away for this incomplete punch. It's taking real effort for her to correct this ingrained mistake.

I don't know how WC instructors avoid building this bad habit if they start by teaching "arm only", beyond a single training session.  (For some people, it is easiest to learn the limb movement without the body, but I only use that for the very first session on a given strike.) I assume they must have some tool in their bag that helps make the transition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, since you asked!


Perhaps folks think of it as lacking mobility because they're thinking of moving while staying in the stance?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2017)

wingerjim said:


> Though this is interesting I do not see how anyone can be rooted bouncing up and down like that....basically he is moving his center of gravity up, thus uprooting himself, and the result is no solid foundation, which is the cornerstone of Wing Chun.


I read those movements more as him going from what I'd call "high neutral" and dropping weight into movements then returning to a "high neutral", rather than being in a basic stance and bouncing out of it. The idea of a "high neutral" stance is that weight can be settled in it, or you can drop weight to add rooting/power depending upon the need. The "high neutral" is generally more mobile and has more immediate options, without sacrificing connection to the ground.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I
> I don't know how WC instructors avoid building this bad habit if they start by teaching "arm only", beyond a single training session.  (For some people, it is easiest to learn the limb movement without the body, but I only use that for the very first session on a given strike.) I assume they must have some tool in their bag that helps make the transition.



Wing Chun teaching sometimes uses the "hammer and nail" analogy.  Putting the body behind a punch is analogous to hitting the nail (punching arm) with a hammer (body).  If you haven't learned to line up the "nail" properly, then trying to hit it isn't going to help very much!  And since Wing Chun uses a pretty specific body structure as the "hammer", this is typically not something learned in just a couple of lessons.  So most teachers will make sure the student has a good understanding of the basic punch before they allow them to start trying to use the body to add power.  That is why the SNT form has no footwork and no pivoting.  Traditionally the student would stay on the SNT form for a good amount of time before progressing to the CK form...which has the footwork/pivoting and therefore starts to teach use of the body.   Another factor to consider is that at close range Wing Chun often punches or strikes without significant use of the body.  Therefore making sure a good punch is developed from the beginning and then adding body power later is the preferred method. 

I'll also say that Pin Sun Wing Chun puts far more emphasis on use of body power than any of the Ip Man systems I have experienced.   Many Ip Man versions seem to hardly use any body power at all other than simply stepping in with the punch.  I actually heard the "hammer and nail" analogy first from a Sum Nung Wing Chun friend many years ago.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, since you asked!


Thanks for sharing your personal clip. Mobility is a relative term and not an absolute term.

Let's look into YJKYM a bit deeper. Since you are standing square, you don't have the separation of

- leading leg, and
- back leg.

This means that if you want to move in, you have to move either the right leg, or the left leg. In both cases, the distance between you and your opponent will change.

Compare YJKYM with 4-6 stance (40% weight on front, 60% weight on back), the 4-6 stance has leading leg and back leg. When you move your

- leading leg, the distance between you and your opponent will change. This is the same as YJKYM.
- back leg, the distance between you and your opponent remain the same. This is a very important function. You can move your back leg forward to touch your leading leg. When you do that, since the distance between you and your opponent remains the same, your opponent may not notice it. You can then "spring" forward from there. All the jumping kicks are using the same footwork. The YJKYM just doesn't have this function.

Here is an example that you can use a "4-6 stance" to "hide your preparation for springing forward" by moving your back leg to touch your leading leg. If you can hide your preparation well, your sudden attack will be fast and surprised.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2017)

wingerjim said:


> Though this is interesting I do not see how anyone can be rooted bouncing up and down like that....basically he is moving his center of gravity up, thus uprooting himself, and the result is no solid foundation, which is the cornerstone of Wing Chun.


You will need to move your body up and down to generate power.

纵鹤拳——三战_鶴拳 - 56.com

纵鹤拳 1 [房祥麟演练]—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I read those movements more as him going from what I'd call "high neutral" and dropping weight into movements then returning to a "high neutral", rather than being in a basic stance and bouncing out of it. The idea of a "high neutral" stance is that weight can be settled in it, or you can drop weight to add rooting/power depending upon the need. The "high neutral" is generally more mobile and has more immediate options, without sacrificing connection to the ground.


I had learned the basic punching drill during my 1st day of my long fist training.

1. Start from a low horse stance.
2. Turn body to my left, straight both legs, punch right fist out, my left shoulder, chest, right shoulder, right arm are all in a perfect straight line.
3. Drop back to low horse stance as 1.
4. Turn body to my right, straight both legs, punch left fist out, my right shoulder, chest, left shoulder, left arm are all in a perfect straight line.
5. Back to 1.

In the entire training, my feet are not moving. My body are turning and also go up and down. The interested thing is I can train this punching drill "with my arms behind my back".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> Wing Chun teaching sometimes uses the "hammer and nail" analogy.  Putting the body behind a punch is analogous to hitting the nail (punching arm) with a hammer (body).


You are talking about "body chases arm" method. Just like to stab a sword, you don't use much force to stab. The moment that your sword touch on your opponent's body, the moment that you add force into it and put your body behind your sword.

I do agree that this method is much harder to train then the "body pushes arm" method. IMO, if 10 persons can achieve power generation by using the "body pushes arm" method, may be there are only 1 or 2 persons can achieve power generation by using the "body chases arm" method.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Compare YJKYM with 4-6 stance (40% weight on front, 60% weight on back), the 4-6 stance has leading leg and back leg. When you move your
> 
> - leading leg, the distance between you and your opponent will change. This is the same as YJKYM.
> - back leg, the distance between you and your opponent remain the same. This is a very important function. You can move your back leg forward to touch your leading leg. When you do that, since the distance between you and your opponent remains the same, your opponent may not notice it. You can then "spring" forward from there. All the jumping kicks are using the same footwork. The YJKYM just doesn't have this function.



I agree with you John!  I use that kind of step all the time!  I use a "front stance"...."Biu Ma"...whatever you want to call it regularly.  I was just pointing out that one CAN move quickly from the YGKYM, and to say that it limits one's mobility is wrong when you know how to use it!


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are talking about "body chases arm" method. Just like to stab a sword, you don't use much force to stab. The moment that your sword touch on your opponent's body, the moment that you add force into it and put your body behind your sword.
> 
> I do agree that this method is much harder to train then the "body pushes arm" method. IMO, if 10 persons can achieve power generation by using the "body pushes arm" method, may be there are only 1 or 2 persons can achieve power generation by using the "body chases arm" method.



True!  But I'm not sure its as hard as you make it out to be!    If the "body pushes arm" method is over-done, it ends up being very telegraphic.  Like a boxer that "winds up" before the punch.   If the "body chases arm" is over-done, it can look very stiff and be hard to do as you point out.  Reality is somewhere in the middle.  The arm is already in motion when the body is engaged, but not really like a fencing thrust.  Its more like "popping a towel" during gym class!  

But in another video I did, I showed that one way to train this is to put palms flat on the wooden dummy with arms extended and then "hit" the dummy with your body without lifting the palms off of it.  Probably very similar to the training you described as hitting with the arms behind your back.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, since you asked!



I can't really argue with any of that.

I will say that my instructor's academy spends much less time practising in YGKYM than most.

This was from my instructor noticing that in most tournaments he attended, those who tried to employ a parallel stance, including the side on / side neutral stance, while fighting, when met with incoming pressure, either ended up getting driven back into the ropes at a rate of knots, or they dropped one foot back into a front stance.

I would also say, that you can attack from here, but it is NOT the best stance from which to deal with force coming at you. You can *maybe* get good at channelling the force into the ground and whatnot, but that's just getting good at coping with an inefficient base and is arguably something of a stunt. it's much easier and more effective just to take a step back and set an effective base.

If grappling with someone, I'm always looking for inside control with one foot forward. If he is standing with feet parallel (please! please!) while I have inside control, he has to shift his weight to move, and when he does that's the time to unbalance him.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I can't really argue with any of that.
> 
> I will say that my instructor's academy spends much less time practising in YGKYM than most.
> 
> ...




Likewise, I wouldn't argue with any of that!   Like I noted in the video, at any kind of distance from the opponent a front stance is definitely preferred.    And being able to drop one foot back into a front stance when needed is part of being mobile in the YGKYM.  I know some people in TWC actually call that a "relief step."   To me, and I think this comes through when I am thumping away on B.O.B. in the video, someone should be moving around dynamically....sometimes square, sometimes pivoted or "side on" and sometimes stepping in or through the opponent.   My simple objection is when someone says that the YGKYM is "only" a training  stance, is too immobile, and is not used in fighting.   I feel that if YGKYM is truly the "mother stance", then one should be passing through it  and making use of it on a regular basis...even if only a momentary transition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 18, 2017)

I do agree that if you decide to guard your ground, no matter what may happen, you don't want to step back for even 1 inch, YGKYM is a good stance to use and your both arms can punch equally. As far as move forward and backward fast, other stances are more suitable.

If you watch the slow motion clip, you can see 2 different foot works are used here:

1. Move your back leg forward and make it front leg. This is a big step and can cover a lot of distance.
2. Move your back leg to touch your leading leg, you the move your leading leg forward. This is like a "skip" step that can hide your intention.

Through this footwork training, you can use either method at any time fast and smoothly without thinking. There is a reason that YGKYM is not used here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 18, 2017)

You can train "Tan Shou" and "forward pressure" at the same time as showing in this clip.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you watch the slow motion clip, you can see 2 different foot works are used here:
> 
> 1. Move your back leg forward and make it front leg. This is a big step and can cover a lot of distance.
> 2. Move your back leg to touch your leading leg, you the move your leading leg forward. This is like a "skip" step that can hide your intention.
> ...



Well of course!  When you are doing continuous forward stepping why would you pause in YGKYM?  But that doesn't mean that YGKYM is immobile.  Everything has its place!


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You will need to move your body up and down to generate power.
> 
> 纵鹤拳——三战_鶴拳 - 56.com
> 
> 纵鹤拳 1 [房祥麟演练]—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看



and/or....side to side as in turning horse.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 18, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> and/or....side to side as in turning horse.


Yes! If you just punch one arm, you can turn.


----------



## geezer (Feb 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! If you just punch one arm, you can turn.



I might have heard this from an Alan Orr clip? No matter, I'm sure it didn't originate with him. Anyway, whoever it was, they stated that in WC there are really just four ways to put body into punching power: S_ink, rise, turn, and press forward, or a combination of these._ All the rest are details that contribute. 

*Sink* = any time you drop weight into your punch, with or without stepping. When stepping, it is coordinated with the movement of the front foot.

*Rise* = lifting up from a sunken or neutral position, with or without a step. When stepping it is coordinated with the back foot which brings the body mass forward. Also with straightening the spine.

*Turn/torque* = rotational force added with or without an actual stance turn. 

*Press forward *= usually combined with a step.

_Note:_ In good WT/VT economy of motion is stressed, and these movements may be subtle. Advanced practitioners often apply the above methods generating considerable power from _very small _body movements ...an almost invisible sink or rise, or adding torque from an almost imperceptible flex of the torso rather than a full turn, or forward pressure from a mere "pulse" forward or perhaps a step of a couple of centimeters. 

Also, often you might combin_e several of these at once_. For example either _rising _or _dropping_ can be combined with _turning_ and _pressing_ to yield respectively either upward or downward, _forward spiraling force_. Add to this the precise kinetic linkages involved, distancing, timing, and targeting to maximize effect ...and is it any wonder something so conceptually simple is hard to pull off? Anyway it's still hard _for me _to pull it off! But when you see someone who can do this effectively and consistently it is pretty a_mazing_. 

No wonder it looks like some kind of _wu-xia_ magic to the rest of us. And then you start getting all those (heaven help us) _Hendrickian_ expanations!


----------



## geezer (Feb 19, 2017)

BTW, I've found that the same four factors listed above apply equally in the Escrima I practice. And that's heavily influenced by boxing. So I'm pretty sure this isn't stricktly some kinda mystical Chinese kung-fooey stuff. I'm betting it's just physics. Can't be sure though, since unfortunately, I don't know physics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 19, 2017)

geezer said:


> BTW, I've found that the same four factors listed above apply equally in the Escrima I practice. And that's heavily influenced by boxing. So I'm pretty sure this isn't stricktly some kinda mystical Chinese kung-fooey stuff. I'm betting it's just physics. Can't be sure though, since unfortunately, I don't know physics.


LOL. I suspect you know the most frightening kind of physics - applied physics.

I was thinking these through, and I need to get to a heavy bag. I think I use all of these, though the primary power generation I teach is a combination of pressing and turning.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Thanks for sharing your personal clip. Mobility is a relative term and not an absolute term.
> 
> Let's look into YJKYM a bit deeper. Since you are standing square, you don't have the separation of
> 
> ...



That footwork you are doing is found in Chum Kiu, Bui Jee and the Wooden Dummy forms, it has its place, however I personally wouldn’t use it in such an obvious and straight forwards manner as the person demonstrating it by kicking the tree, it’s a good way to allow an opponent to get ahead of you.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 19, 2017)

geezer said:


> BTW, I've found that the same four factors listed above apply equally in the Escrima I practice. And that's heavily influenced by boxing. So I'm pretty sure this isn't stricktly some kinda mystical Chinese kung-fooey stuff. I'm betting it's just physics. Can't be sure though, since unfortunately, I don't know physics.



I have noticed this with most martial arts to be honest.  Whether it be the few I study (or have studied) or just from conversations with people who study various other arts and that circle is rather diverse.  I know people who study the more obvious arts then I hop to HEMA and I even talk with an old classmate who now studies Kalaripayattu as he returned to home to India.  Just recently he even returned to the US to visit and he and his father provided us with a very interesting set of demonstrations.

In the end, biomechanics are biomechanics.  At most we have 2 arms and 2 legs.  Our joints can only move in certain ways, our muscles limit the speed and strength that can be applied etc.  General physical training can enhance some of these qualities (example strength and flexibility), martial arts training can develop techniques that help maximize effectiveness but in the end there are only so many ways a punch, kick etc can be effectively applied.  We may look at a punch and say "well they move more obviously", in one way or another, than a different martial art but the movements at their core are the same, its only a matter of how those core elements are applied by the foundational principles of the specific art in question.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 19, 2017)

anerlich said:


> The question we are discussing isn't whether you can do it or not, but whether this is the best position from which to learn to punch with power. Your opinion was it was best to learn to just use the arm first, not adding the body.
> 
> Punching with power and no footwork is a more advanced skill. And good for demos, not something likely to occur in a defence situation.



I would never advocate that anyone I teach wing chun not try to use their whole body in a self-defence situation much less simply stand there in yi ji kim yeung ma and try to punch someone.  Having said that however any given person I teach will have different ability to use their whole body depending on how much they have leaned and trained; they will have more or less in their “tool kit” at any given time as it were.

I wonder if I’m not conveying what I’m saying effectively, it seems people seem to think I’m advocating punching with the arm only and that’s the end of it?

What I’m saying is that the best way to develop good structure, stability, precision in the punch and avoidance of overreach with the power is to train at the punch in isolation in YJKYM, and then later, once everything is at a good enough standard, to add the rest of the body through jun ma and eventually footwork. I would have thought for a bunch of people who do a martial art that includes a form like Sui Lim Tao, this training method would have been a common enough concept.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 19, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I would never advocate that anyone I teach wing chun not try to use their whole body in a self-defence situation much less simply stand there in yi ji kim yeung ma and try to punch someone.  Having said that however any given person I teach will have different ability to use their whole body depending on how much they have leaned and trained; they will have more or less in their “tool kit” at any given time as it were.
> 
> I wonder if I’m not conveying what I’m saying effectively, it seems people seem to think I’m advocating punching with the arm only and that’s the end of it?
> 
> What I’m saying is that the best way to develop good structure, stability, precision in the punch and avoidance of overreach with the power is to train at the punch in isolation in YJKYM, and then later, once everything is at a good enough standard, to add the rest of the body through jun ma and eventually footwork. I would have thought for a bunch of people who do a martial art that includes a form like Sui Lim Tao, this training method would have been a common enough concept.




I could be wrong but I think, to an extent, at least some on the "other side" are saying this...

In just training that way from the beginning and without drills/san sik that incorporate other elements for power generation, you develop a habit in the student that then must be deprogrammed.  In short they repeatedly do something in a largely static manner, then after having that "programmed" into them, they may find themselves fighting themselves as they learn to punch with fluidity and speed with footwork and other body movements incorporated into it.  This may not apply to all students but I do often see new students, if they focused too much on SLT doing (simply a hypothetical example) "pak>step>gum>step>punch"  Instead of "pak+step>gum+step+punch"

So even with something like SLT you can train the power generation at the same time with supplementary drills.  You probably want to start easy and maybe just focus on using the footwork first, then integrating other forms of generation in later but this way you don't have to later overcome the student who has become "static".

I may be wrong btw but that was kinda the take away I was getting from some of the other views.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 19, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I could be wrong but I think, to an extent, at least some on the "other side" are saying this...
> 
> In just training that way from the beginning and without drills/san sik that incorporate other elements for power generation, you develop a habit in the student that then must be deprogrammed.  In short they repeatedly do something in a largely static manner, then after having that "programmed" into them, they may find themselves fighting themselves as they learn to punch with fluidity and speed with footwork and other body movements incorporated into it.  This may not apply to all students but I do often see new students, if they focused too much on SLT doing (simply a hypothetical example) "pak>step>gum>step>punch"  Instead of "pak+step>gum+step+punch"
> 
> ...



I would totally agree that if all you ever taught someone to do was stand still and punch, or do sui lim tao and not really teach what the other forms are for, that people could get stuck in one spot (and to be honest I suspect this is why a lot of Yip Man wing chun is relatively static compared to other types of wing chun; it seems many people teach exactly that despite the system itself containing all the mobility it needs). However I’m saying something entirely different.

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be to describe the process I went through learning Guangzhou (Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung) wing chun. By the time my sifu took me as a private student I had leaned nearly all of the Yip Man style from him in his class so I already had a reasonable idea about how to train at wing chun and had trained hard; training in the Guangzhou style was done in the way Sum Nung taught my sifu; and this is training hours every day.

4 to 6 months of nothing but Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma,

6 to 8 months of Chi Ng Kun (single centreline punches)

About 6 months of Jun Ma

If I was going to get somehow stuck and learn some sort of bad habit of not being able to move that kind of training one would think would do it. But it doesn’t, because:

Then came sup yi sik beginning with pin choi. It took me about 18 months roughly to get through just stance, punches and turns in isolation, after that it took about another 5 years of solid training to get through the sup yi sik, before even getting to sui lim tao. That’s 5 years roughly of learning to combine the stance, punches and turns, among other things (a good number of sup yi sik is dedicated to combining these three elements) and to use the footwork.

So once each component: Stance, punches, and turns, are to a good enough standard in isolation they are combined to make it all mobile. The reason training like this works is because the punch, when done with only the arm in isolation is executed in exactly the same way when done with a turn, and exactly the same way when done with turn and footwork. Far from inculcating bad habits that need to be undone, each element builds off the last.

In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 19, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I would totally agree that if all you ever taught someone to do was stand still and punch, or do sui lim tao and not really teach what the other forms are for, that people could get stuck in one spot (and to be honest I suspect this is why a lot of Yip Man wing chun is relatively static compared to other types of wing chun; it seems many people teach exactly that despite the system itself containing all the mobility it needs). However I’m saying something entirely different.
> 
> Perhaps a better way to describe it would be to describe the process I went through learning Guangzhou (Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung) wing chun. By the time my sifu took me as a private student I had leaned nearly all of the Yip Man style from him in his class so I already had a reasonable idea about how to train at wing chun and had trained hard; training in the Guangzhou style was done in the way Sum Nung taught my sifu; and this is training hours every day.
> 
> ...


Here's a view from outside WC, which might help clarify some folks' concerns. I teach Nihon Goshin Aikido, and one of the first things we start teaching is a standard one-hand block (knife hand). It is taught static, in a slightly pigeon-toed stance (similar to a basic stance in WC, I think). Once students get this working reasonably well, they progress to use it in a less formal stance.

Later, as we start working on actual techniques (NGA is a grappling art with a strong striking component, so "techniques" refers to grappling), students learn to use these blocks as the beginning of an application. The use (attacker) gives a punch, nage (defender) blocks and moves to a technique.

Except that's not what happens. The end point (high skill) is that the block flows into the technique without pause. In fact, that "without pause" is essential to an aiki art. The relative beginner, however, tends to block and stop, then move to the next step. It's takes most students several weeks on each technique to get any sort of flow. Why? Because they were taught to block and stand still when they started. The problem tends to persist for years, and only after about 3-5 years do they stop putting the "stop" into new techniques and go directly for flow when they learn them.

Because of this exact problem, I've been working on a better progression, so students spend less time doing the "block and stand still" drill. I think this is what folks are talking about - getting past isolation more quickly, so students don't develop habits of isolation. The training method you described takes years at each phase, so there's plenty of time to get past the habits. The question is whether it's better to start getting past the habits earlier, when they are easier to replace.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 19, 2017)

APL76 said:


> In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.



You've put out a video explaining how you perform and teach the punch. I watched it aand found it interesting.

Evidently, not everyone agrees completely with your punching  or teaching methods. Personally, I don't believe there is a "best" method. In seemingly every other aspect of life except TCMA, there are multiple effective methods to achieve goals, some of which suit some better than others, and there is always room for evolution or improvement.

It would be foolish to expect that everyone will agree with you, let alone accept that yours is the best or only way. Complaining that any disagreement with you means we don't understand what you are trying to say, and that trying to explain it better or differently will make everyone say "Wow! You're right! My instructor and I did it wrong all these years!" is going to change anything is optimistic, to say the least.

I actually started Kung Fu in your neck of the woods, with David Crook of Bac Fu Do, back in the 1970's. He was big on teaching body coordination and a soft, flowing style with footwork and coordinated movement from the beginning. I think his methods worked for me, as you think your instructor's worked for you. Different strokes. Opinions, not facts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 19, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.


When you use both hand to hold your hand gun, if you want to shot to your left (or right), do you

1. turn your arms, freeze your body, or
2. turn your body, freeze your arms?

I believe a shooting instructor will tell you to do 2 and not 1. The question is why do you even want to learn method 1 if method 2 is correct and method 1 is not?


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 19, 2017)

APL76 said:


> .
> 
> In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.



Well the YM WC (TWC) I study has what we call "drills" and I have also seen Moy Yat Instructors also do things similarly.  Now TWC clearly has differences from the other YM sub-lineages but Moy Yat is more consistent and has them.  Even the WSLVT I took via the Gary Lam "school" some time ago had similar drills.  I don't have any experience with the other sub lineages though but another thread on the forms here speak of the san sim YM taught, I want to say he had 18 afaik so I would suspect, even if they just use the terms "drills" they teach this.  My school actually has students do footwork drills in general from the very beginning and before CK.  If they didn't I would actually question the effectiveness of the MA.  The trick, in my experience, is to have instructors, and good training partners,who are watching as the drills are performed and point out when they are losing the structure the form teaches.

 So I don't think the issue is poor communication but different experiencs in how people have trained YM WC.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 20, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well the YM WC (TWC) I study has what we call "drills" and I have also seen Moy Yat Instructors also do things similarly.  Now TWC clearly has differences from the other YM sub-lineages but Moy Yat is more consistent and has them.  Even the WSLVT I took via the Gary Lam "school" some time ago had similar drills.  I don't have any experience with the other sub lineages though but another thread on the forms here speak of the san sim YM taught, I want to say he had 18 afaik so I would suspect, even if they just use the terms "drills" they teach this.  My school actually has students do footwork drills in general from the very beginning and before CK.  If they didn't I would actually question the effectiveness of the MA.  The trick, in my experience, is to have instructors, and good training partners,who are watching as the drills are performed and point out when they are losing the structure the form teaches.
> 
> So I don't think the issue is poor communication but different experiencs in how people have trained YM WC.



Here is one of the sub-lineages of YMWC/VT I have no experience with, Wong Chok's, that clearly has san sik that includes drills illustrating basic power generation, with turning and stepping...


----------



## APL76 (Feb 20, 2017)

anerlich said:


> You've put out a video explaining how you perform and teach the punch. I watched it aand found it interesting.
> 
> Evidently, not everyone agrees completely with your punching  or teaching methods. Personally, I don't believe there is a "best" method. In seemingly every other aspect of life except TCMA, there are multiple effective methods to achieve goals, some of which suit some better than others, and there is always room for evolution or improvement.
> 
> ...



It’s not that I expect everyone to agree with me, what is hinting to me that I may not be conveying what I’m trying to say effectively is that at least some people seem to be getting the impression that I am advocating doing the punch with no movement or power through the body and that that’s is how we do our wing chun. Or that if you train the way I set it out that you will somehow get stuck and forget to move or have bad habits to be trained out. You can look at any of our videos and see the higher level students, not a single one of them gets stuck in one spot, forgets to move on their feet or has to train out bad habits. Hence I am not saying “you are all wrong” I am rather seeking to make sure I am conveying what I’m saying clearly (I’m mainly wanting to do that for the benefit of my own students).


----------



## APL76 (Feb 20, 2017)

Because of this exact problem, I've been working on a better progression, so students spend less time doing the "block and stand still" drill. I think this is what folks are talking about - getting past isolation more quickly, so students don't develop habits of isolation. The training method you described takes years at each phase, so there's plenty of time to get past the habits. The question is whether it's better to start getting past the habits earlier, when they are easier to replace.[/QUOTE]


Do you find there to be much trade-off between quality of the individual movements and learning to flow through several techniques more quickly?

My view of it is that each step in any sequence of things strung together is only as good as each individual step, kind of a weakest link in the chain scenario. Where you have allowed students to move on to flowing or progression of things more quickly how is the integrity of the individual “block and stand still drill”?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

APL76 said:


> Do you find there to be much trade-off between quality of the individual movements and learning to flow through several techniques more quickly?
> 
> My view of it is that each step in any sequence of things strung together is only as good as each individual step, kind of a weakest link in the chain scenario. Where you have allowed students to move on to flowing or progression of things more quickly how is the integrity of the individual “block and stand still drill”?



There's truth in that, APL. The pieces are important. However, if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer. Of course, if there is no isolation, it can take longer for proper structure to form. For instance, if I taught the blocks the other way around (teach the footwork/body movement, then add the block), I'd be almost certain to get blocks that won't hold up if the movement fails - they'd have developed around absorbing only the energy that the movement doesn't absorb.

So far, I haven't moved anyone at a faster rate. I started the change just recently, and haven't added any new students in that time (small program, slow change). My concept is to have them learn the static block just long enough to get the basic foundation. I will add small movement (like the turning movement seen in one of the WC forms that has no stepping) to it next, as that turn is part of the transition to technique. Then, I can add the movement. I can pause at any point and strengthen the fundamentals before moving them along, so they get a semi-solid foundation that becomes more solid as they progress toward full movement. This mirrors how I focused my learning in the last two sets (20 techniques) in my own training. I've used that same progression with more advanced students (moving them quickly away from anything static), and I just need to see how soon the average beginner can move from that.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's truth in that, APL. The pieces are important. However, if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer. Of course, if there is no isolation, it can take longer for proper structure to form. For instance, if I taught the blocks the other way around (teach the footwork/body movement, then add the block), I'd be almost certain to get blocks that won't hold up if the movement fails - they'd have developed around absorbing only the energy that the movement doesn't absorb.
> 
> So far, I haven't moved anyone at a faster rate. I started the change just recently, and haven't added any new students in that time (small program, slow change). My concept is to have them learn the static block just long enough to get the basic foundation. I will add small movement (like the turning movement seen in one of the WC forms that has no stepping) to it next, as that turn is part of the transition to technique. Then, I can add the movement. I can pause at any point and strengthen the fundamentals before moving them along, so they get a semi-solid foundation that becomes more solid as they progress toward full movement. This mirrors how I focused my learning in the last two sets (20 techniques) in my own training. I've used that same progression with more advanced students (moving them quickly away from anything static), and I just need to see how soon the average beginner can move from that.




Thanks for the reply.

By the way you describe it you seem to take an approach similar to how my teacher did in his class teaching the Yip man style of wing chun, so the original training I did with him.

We progressed through that at a fairly decent rate with good quality if you trained hard. Those that didn’t train hard enough, or/and rushed, generally they would be able to piece things together fairly quickly and at the beginner to intermediate levels would have the edge over those who trained things in isolation more. As people got to the higher levels however the tables would turn dramatically.

People that rushed to put it all together into something more “practical” a bit more quickly than they should would invariably go to pieces as the individual components of whatever they were doing would fall apart. They could string it all together nice, and to someone not as experienced it would look impressive. But in the end it would fall apart.  

If you tried to run a martial arts class the way I leaned the Guangzhou style of wing chun I think you’d chase potential students away.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer.


Each and every technique that I have taught to my students all start from the kicking range. They have to use a

1. kick to cross the distance.
2. punch to build an arm bridge.

I will never start any technique with arm contact. The advantage of this training method is you will always think about your body first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

APL76 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> By the way you describe it you seem to take an approach similar to how my teacher did in his class teaching the Yip man style of wing chun, so the original training I did with him.
> 
> ...


Agreed on that last point!

One of the interesting things for us is that the "fundamentals" actually change a bit as you progress. For a beginner, a sturdy structure is the fundamental, so more focus on good stance, etc. For the intermediate practitioner, the fundamental is flow and moving through from one point to another without stopping. For the advanced practitioner, the fundamental is feel, and even original structure can bow to that at times, as they find a gap to drop someone into.

The reason for this progression is that the "aiki" is demanding and takes time to develop, so the early focus is on survival through structure. Once they have that survivability, we start to get the flow that makes aiki movement possible, which opens up more of our techniques. Once that starts to get reliable, they can really dig deep into finding those gaps, and new structures become useful that wouldn't have served the beginner. My stances are much taller and narrower than what I teach. I couldn't have used that structure effectively 15 years ago, but now it's my base. I also bend into things more than I used to, because I can feel their loss of structure and know where I can safely sacrifice my own.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Each and every technique that I have taught to my students all start from the kicking range. They have to use a
> 
> 1. kick to cross the distance.
> 2. punch to build an arm bridge.
> ...


Interesting. How do you get them ready for initiating a technique when the opponent has closed the distance on them? What's the transition?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. How do you get them ready for initiating a technique when the opponent has closed the distance on them? What's the transition?


If your opponent attacks, you can just "move back, still remain the kicking range", you then jump back in and attack as before.

The advantage of this approach is you always attack. You will never let your opponent to attack you, you respond to it, and fall into his trap. You want to lead your opponent to fight the way that you want to fight.

Here is an combo example (training) that to use

- kick to close distance,
- punch to build arm bridge.
- arm bridge to take down.
- take down to finish.

Both "entering strategy" and "finish strategy" are included in this drill.






Here is another combo used in the ring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent attacks, you can just "move back, still remain the kicking range", you then jump back in and attack as before.
> 
> The advantage of this approach is you always attack. You will never let your opponent to attack you, you respond to it, and fall into his trap. You want to lead your opponent to fight the way that you want to fight.
> 
> ...


So what is the solution when there is no room to move back? Of course, you might be able to move to the side, but a skilled opponent can close that distance as you move.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So what is the solution when there is no room to move back? Of course, you might be able to move to the side, but a skilled opponent can close that distance as you move.


1. A 45 degree downward hay-maker can deflect all straight line punches (Use circular move to counter straight line move).
2. A rhino guard can break through all circular punches (Use straight line move to counter circular move).
3. Toe push kick can stop all punches (Leg is longer than arm).
4. Foot sweep (If your opponent can't put weight onto his leading leg, he can't punch you),
5. Knee stomping,
6. ...


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So what is the solution when there is no room to move back? Of course, you might be able to move to the side, but a skilled opponent can close that distance as you move.




I think, maybe, some instructors get trapped in the forms.  That is why I noted the san sik and similar supplementary drills.  The thing is it does take more attention by the Sifu and senior instructors under him (if he has them) because you have to keep a sharp eye that the fundamentals taught by the forms are not violated.

There is something else that I think is important, note, I am not saying anyone here does the following.  Some instructors get a little obsessive over appearance.  Example, tan sau.  Now yes there is a point where a tan stops being a tan but I have seen instructors who will notice a student's arm is at 120 or 125 degrees and be rather miffed that it wasn't 130 degrees.  Sometimes this unnecessarily slows progression, at least imo.

One of the strong suits I believe my Sifu has is that he has an eye for when students are still maintaining the principles even if it doesn't look picture perfect.  He can conversely see when someone appears picture perfect but is violating a principle.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think, maybe, some instructors get trapped in the forms.  That is why I noted the san sik and similar supplementary drills.  The thing is it does take more attention by the Sifu and senior instructors under him (if he has them) because you have to keep a sharp eye that the fundamentals taught by the forms are not violated.
> 
> There is something else that I think is important, note, I am not saying anyone here does the following.  Some instructors get a little obsessive over appearance.  Example, tan sau.  Now yes there is a point where a tan stops being a tan but I have seen instructors who will notice a student's arm is at 120 or 125 degrees and be rather miffed that it wasn't 130 degrees.  Sometimes this unnecessarily slows progression, at least imo.
> 
> One of the strong suits I believe my Sifu has is that he has an eye for when students are still maintaining the principles even if it doesn't look picture perfect.  He can conversely see when someone appears picture perfect but is violating a principle.


I've noticed that tendency before with some form work. It's something I'm trying to avoid when I'm teaching/working with forms. I actively try to use words like "about 45 degrees", and focus them on the principles, rather than exact positions.


----------



## anerlich (Feb 20, 2017)

I think it's possible to train isolation, and joining a flowing sequence of  techniques, in parallel.

There are many techniques in Jiu Jitsu where each of your limbs is doing something different, you have to get them all pretty much right, and doing each in isolation accomplishes nothing. Some very effective techniques can't be done slowly or with each part in isolation.

IMO the best way to handle this is to practice the entire sequence over and over, concentrating on a different one of the constituent parts each time. Over time, each, and therefore the sum, of the parts, improves. Your brain starts "chunking" the parts together into larger units, until the entire technique forms a "chunk".

Forms are like this IMO. you can either hone each single movement to perfection and then join them up, or start doing the whole thing as a loose flow and tighten the individual techniques and shapes up over time. The second method is the one I find best develops effective movement patterns and combinations.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2017)

What will be the 1st thing that you do when you are ready to fight?

1. Stand still?
2. Move around?

IMO 2 > 1.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed on that last point!
> 
> One of the interesting things for us is that the "fundamentals" actually change a bit as you progress. For a beginner, a sturdy structure is the fundamental, so more focus on good stance, etc. For the intermediate practitioner, the fundamental is flow and moving through from one point to another without stopping. For the advanced practitioner, the fundamental is feel, and even original structure can bow to that at times, as they find a gap to drop someone into.
> 
> The reason for this progression is that the "aiki" is demanding and takes time to develop, so the early focus is on survival through structure. Once they have that survivability, we start to get the flow that makes aiki movement possible, which opens up more of our techniques. Once that starts to get reliable, they can really dig deep into finding those gaps, and new structures become useful that wouldn't have served the beginner. My stances are much taller and narrower than what I teach. I couldn't have used that structure effectively 15 years ago, but now it's my base. I also bend into things more than I used to, because I can feel their loss of structure and know where I can safely sacrifice my own.



You know, that’s not so different to how it works for us too (I have a suspicion that its similar for most martial arts probably) We will build the foundations (structure, strength correct power generation etc.), proficiency in the individual components of the system (so making the individual techniques and so on foolproof), then how to put it together in smooth fast flowing way, then to make it all completely natural and in a way that shapes to anyone’s particular style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 21, 2017)

APL76 said:


> You know, that’s not so different to how it works for us too (I have a suspicion that its similar for most martial arts probably) We will build the foundations (structure, strength correct power generation etc.), proficiency in the individual components of the system (so making the individual techniques and so on foolproof), then how to put it together in smooth fast flowing way, then to make it all completely natural and in a way that shapes to anyone’s particular style.


I think the primary difference is in where the emphasis lies. Some instructors (and indeed, some styles) put more of an emphasis on the structural components, while others put more emphasis on the movement. The former will likely spend more time on the individual components, getting to a higher level of proficiency before combining. The latter will move into the combining phase at a lower level of proficiency. I think there are advantages to each, and some of those advantages (and disadvantages) vary by style. For instance, having a non-stepping form would be suicide in a style like NGA, because the flow of movement is what makes our techniques and overall approach work. If I let students practice a form standing still, it would almost certainly cause problems with their development. Watching the movement in something like Wing Chun, there's a different aspect. The "rooting" focus makes that non-stepping form make sense. You depend upon rooting the way we depend upon flow. You use flow the way we use rooting.


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Why not?



Because its not realistic to work in a fight. Are you really going to stand in YJKYM waiting for an attack and turn like that in a real fight? Those videos didn't prove anything, I can get people to throw attacks at me in a cooperative way and look like bruce lee


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 21, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> Because its not realistic to work in a fight. Are you really going to stand in YJKYM waiting for an attack and turn like that in a real fight? Those videos didn't prove anything, I can get people to throw attacks at me in a cooperative way and look like bruce lee



No.. why would anyone in their right mind stand in yi ji kim yeung ma and wait for an attack? But in the event o an attack the stance is used in motion when you apply wing chun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> No.. why would anyone in their right mind stand in yi ji kim yeung ma and wait for an attack? But in the event o an attack the stance is used in motion when you apply wing chun.


If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.

- Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
- How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
- What if you will need to cover more distance?
- Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Feb 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.
> 
> - Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
> - How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
> ...



- unlikely, but you might. Depends on the situation.

- alot

- why would you want to move in a circle?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> - why would you want to move in a circle?


You want to move into your opponent's "side door". Use your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm so you only need to deal with 1 of his arm instead of 2. All boxers use this strategy to avoid their opponent's powerful back hand "cross".

When your back foot line up with your opponent's both feet, his back hand can't reach you.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.
> 
> - Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
> - How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
> ...



I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.

The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.

So you have these questions.

Q: Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?

A: Well you might if necessary, you may pass through it any number of times (hopefully you won’t be having to fight long enough)

 Q: How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?

A: as much or as little as you need, you might do a small step, you can do really big steps if necessary; I once watched my sifu step nearly 2 meters while stepping under a tai Kwan do guy’s round house to the head. As he stepped he dropped right down under the oncoming kick and came up and landed his own kick to the knee as the tai Kwan do guy’s kick was ending. But my sifu was sum nung’s decuple, and can move like lighting, it’s not something I’d try myself.

 Q:What if you will need to cover more distance?

A: bigger steps; if you know Guangzhou style wing chun there are a few stepping methods that allow for faster longer coverage of ground than the standard shuffling sheung ma stepping.

 Q: Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

A: Well, yes and no, YJKYM is stationary, if you need to move in a circular way you will turn on the spot from YJKYM using jun ma, to Chut san bo, its no longer YJKYM. The footwork in Chum kiu and bui ji provides the ability to step in just about any direction from YJKYM (though some people say you should never move backwards) and this gives you the ability to move on angles in relation to oncoming attacks, doing so for us has a kind of circular aspect to it, even though that circular aspect is deployed along a straight line.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 21, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.
> 
> The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.
> 
> ...



I should also add here, in relation to doing bigger steps, and in some defence of Yip man wing chun vis a vis Guangzhou style, it may not have the bigger stepping methods of the Guangzhou style but the knife footwork from Yip Man style, can also be utilised to cover more ground quickly if done in the right situation (typically trying to stick to and overwhelm a rapidly retreating opponent)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 21, 2017)

APL76 said:


> one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.


Agree!

YJKYM is very similar to the Chinese wrestling "shin bite" that you bite your shin bone into the side of your opponent's leading leg to "build a leg bridge". Most WC guys like to talk about "arm bridge". Not many WC guys use YJKYM to build "leg bridge".







IMO, you can use it in offense by moving into your opponent to establish a "leg bridge". That inward stance is much more useful than just to use it as a "static defense stance".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 22, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.
> 
> The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.
> 
> ...


IMO, this is the basic use of any stance in any art. Very few are stances you'd hang out in to let the situation develop. Most are the foundation for specific types of movement (or non-movement, as the case may be). We move into them, through them, and out of them, using each for the specific blend of rooting, mobility, and structure it provides. Sometimes the situation even dictates we use the "wrong" stance for a technique, making it "right" for that moment.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, this is the basic use of any stance in any art. Very few are stances you'd hang out in to let the situation develop. Most are the foundation for specific types of movement (or non-movement, as the case may be). We move into them, through them, and out of them, using each for the specific blend of rooting, mobility, and structure it provides. Sometimes the situation even dictates we use the "wrong" stance for a technique, making it "right" for that moment.



I would agree one hundred percent, yet, for some reason, many wing chun people seem to have missed the memo; as well as many more people who  may not do wing chun but see wing chun done in training and automatically assume that you stick in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma no matter what. Indeed one of my students was telling me the other day about his uncle who does another style of wing chun here in Canberra who was telling him something to the effect that we move far too much and have to work too hard, you should just “move your centre” whatever the hell that means.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> YJKYM is very similar to the Chinese wrestling "shin bite" that you bite your shin bone into the side of your opponent's leading leg to "build a leg bridge". Most WC guys like to talk about "arm bridge". Not many WC guys use YJKYM to build "leg bridge".
> 
> ...



Concerning the arm and leg bridges, well for us bridging isn’t necessarily connecting an arm with the opponent’s arm, or a leg on their leg. We prefer to think of these as gaining contact. The essence of bridging for us is closing the ground between your opponent’s optimal range and your own, and essentially putting yourself into your best striking range and position vis a vis your opponent’s attack; after all, what’s particular about the chum kiu (seeking the bridge) form? It’s not what you are doing with your arms, what you would use to get contact (almost all of that has already been done in sui lim tao), rather it’s what you are doing with your legs in closing range which works independently of whether you gain contact or not.

My sifu once told me that there are essentially three levels of refinement and precision in deploying wing chun: 1) the most rudimentary and least desirable= gain contact then struggle to fight your way in (what I have seen many people describe as “establishing a bridge then using chi sao [sometimes “chain punches”] to then try to overwhelm the opponent”)

2) Close and gain contact with arms and legs and strike in the instant the attackers attack should have been landing on you or a slight step ahead.

3) The most refined way= Close and only hit the person and put them down in that single step, don’t even bother with gaining contact with anything other than your fist/foot (or whatever), and destroy what you hit.

The second two include what we would count as “bridging”, the first one, in our terms, you have allowed your opponent to bridge to you, and put yourself behind the attack. The first two include what we would refer to as establishing contact. The first one defensively, the second one offensively. The second one for us includes legs and arms simultaneously, and it is what I would expect most wing chun people should at least be striving towards. It is however much easier said than done. If many wing chun people don’t do it that’s not the fault of wing chun but the person doing it. And keep in mind that people of different levels of training will be able to do it, or not, to the standard of training they are at a the time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 22, 2017)

APL76 said:


> 3) The most refined way= Close and only hit the person and put them down in that single step, don’t even bother with gaining contact with anything other than your fist/foot (or whatever), and destroy what you hit.


In sword fight, when you swing your sword toward your opponent's head and cut his head off, at the same time your opponent can swing his sword toward your waist and cut your body in half.

A good sword fighter will

- touch his sword on his opponent's sword (build bridge),
- use pressure to guide his opponent's sword in an area that his opponent's sword won't give him any trouble (tucking),
- He then move in and attack.

IMO, any attack without being able to "sense" where your opponent's arms and leading leg are can be risky.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In sword fight, when you swing your sword toward your opponent's head and cut his head off, at the same time your opponent can swing his sword toward your waist and cut your body in half.
> 
> A good sword fighter will
> 
> ...



Interesting that you would talk about what a good sword fighter would do, one of my friends is a very highly ranked member of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shito Ryu and leaned from Otake Risuke himself. He told me once that Otake Sensi had told him that “if you have time to block, you have time to cut” i.e. that you should cut your opponent down with one stroke not touching their blade. If that kind of advice comes from the likes of Otake sense I would personally take notice of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 22, 2017)

APL76 said:


> Interesting that you would talk about what a good sword fighter would do, one of my friends is a very highly ranked member of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shito Ryu and leaned from Otake Risuke himself. He told me once that Otake Sensi had told him that “if you have time to block, you have time to cut” i.e. that you should cut your opponent down with one stroke not touching their blade. If that kind of advice comes from the likes of Otake sense I would personally take notice of it.


If you fight someone

- below your level, you punch can hit on his head and his arms may not be able to block your punch.
- about your own level, the moment your punch go to his face, the moment his foot goes to your chest.

If you go to a grade school, you can beat up those kids anyway you feel like. If you fight your MA teacher, you should be more "alert".


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 23, 2017)

Pardon a passing comment. Not relevant to much of the thread but related to the opening comment on the punch. Floating on the internet now is a video of Ip Man Punching.Might google Ip Man punching-
per You tube


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 24, 2017)

APL76 said:


> “if you have time to block, you have time to cut”


When the old man enter, his left leading leg had touched his opponent's right leading leg twice, once outside and once inside. He could step in his left leading leg directly to where he wanted to step in. The reason that he built the "leg bridge" twice because he wanted to make sure that his opponent's right leading leg won't give him any trouble during his entering.

IMO, to have "safe entering" is the 1st step for your successful "finish". The reason that you want to build your "arm bridge" is the same reason as you want to build your "leg bridge".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When the old man enter, his left leading leg had touched his opponent's right leading leg twice, once outside and once inside. He could step in his left leading leg directly to where he wanted to step in. The reason that he built the "leg bridge" twice because he wanted to make sure that his opponent's right leading leg won't give him any trouble during his entering.
> 
> IMO, to have "safe entering" is the 1st step for your successful "finish". The reason that you want to build your "arm bridge" is the same reason as you want to build your "leg bridge".


That's a static demonstration. That double-touch actually gives an opponent time to shift and prevent the technique. Look at a Judo competition where they use a hip throw, and you'll see a full commitment of body weight into the throw, rather than a slow testing.

I'm not saying the bridging test isn't effective. It's just not the only approach that works.


----------



## DanT (Feb 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've noticed that tendency before with some form work. It's something I'm trying to avoid when I'm teaching/working with forms. I actively try to use words like "about 45 degrees", and focus them on the principles, rather than exact positions.


I agree as well, I usually give a range of around 10 degrees for them to work in (for example for the kim yeurn ma stance in Wing Chun I tell them toes point in 5 to 15 degrees.) I like being more specific than not, but I think that comes from my Sifu who by trade was an engineer, so for me as I learn it always has been very specific (15 degrees, on the dot, if it's off by a little it's off by a lot.)


----------



## DanT (Feb 24, 2017)

-People always talk about a fighting stance in Wing Chun but for me a fighting stance has to be fluid and adapt to the situation.

- I don't hold my hands in any static posture and I don't stand still like I see many Wing Chun people do. 

-I have always been taught to move around and not be a static target, and it's strange seeing some Wing Chun people spar standing in a Kim Yung Ma or Chum Kiu Ma stance and then getting smashed. 

-Fighting stances should be dynamic and more "boxing like" than anything in my opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> I agree as well, I usually give a range of around 10 degrees for them to work in (for example for the kim yeurn ma stance in Wing Chun I tell them toes point in 5 to 15 degrees.) I like being more specific than not, but I think that comes from my Sifu who by trade was an engineer, so for me as I learn it always has been very specific (15 degrees, on the dot, if it's off by a little it's off by a lot.)


Indeed, when I practice the kata, I know exactly where I should be pointed. I like to think that's because the kata were designed especially for me, though. The guy who made them is very fond of me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> -People always talk about a fighting stance in Wing Chun but for me a fighting stance has to be fluid and adapt to the situation.
> 
> - I don't hold my hands in any static posture and I don't stand still like I see many Wing Chun people do.
> 
> ...


I've seen the same in some folks in the aiki arts. For self-defense, we typically train from a static, neutral stance (shizentai). This transmits very little information to the attacker, and is the one position that is closest to how we're likely to be standing in an unpredicted attack. It sucks for sparring, though, and some people fail to make the connection that sparring is not the same as the start of an attack.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> -People always talk about a fighting stance in Wing Chun but for me a fighting stance has to be fluid and adapt to the situation.



When I speak of stance, for the most part I refer to a stable stance from which you can both A. generate power from and B. resist the disruption of your center/balance that the opponent is going to try and accomplish



> - I don't hold my hands in any static posture and I don't stand still like I see many Wing Chun people do.



My Sifu and his Master both repeatedly remind up that in a real fight you will not be holding your hands in the training man/wu posture.  The main point of this is that, in training, you are programming yourself to protect, and attack from, your center properly.  I still tend to keep my hands open (if a bit cupped) but that is because we also see the punch primarily as a tool to learn how to strike.  Think of it as striking 101.  Striking 201/301 is palm strikes and biu jee.  I am also a fan of locks and takedowns (occupational hazard) and having the hands opens helps facilitate this.    



> -I have always been taught to move around and not be a static target, and it's strange seeing some Wing Chun people spar standing in a Kim Yung Ma or Chum Kiu Ma stance and then getting smashed.
> 
> -stances should be dynamic and more "boxing like" than anything in my opinion.



I think this is why I finally landed with TWC.  It is hammered into your head that you need to get to the "blind side" and out of what my Sifu refers to as "death" which he illustrates with his arms outstretched into a 45 degree cone.  The only way to do this is to stay mobile.  The difference is that unlike what some see as a "stereotypical" boxer you don't "bounce" but you have to be dynamic.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've seen the same in some folks in the aiki arts. For self-defense, we typically train from a static, neutral stance (shizentai). This transmits very little information to the attacker, and is the one position that is closest to how we're likely to be standing in an unpredicted attack. It sucks for sparring, though, and some people fail to make the connection that sparring is not the same as the start of an attack.



Yeah there is a big difference between thinking "hope this doesn't going to become a fight. better safe than sorry."






hands are always in front even if just "talking like an italian" or casually folded.








"I think this going to become a fight but try to talk him down"









 and "oh crap it's on!"


----------



## DanT (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> When I speak of stance, for the most part I refer to a stable stance from which you can both A. generate power from and B. resist the disruption of your center/balance that the opponent is going to try and accomplish
> 
> 
> 
> ...


-Although I don't do TWC, my school also heavily emphasizes fighting on the "blind side" rather than in front of the person like a lot of other WC schools do.

-exactly, don't bounce, but be dynamic, don't just stand there and get smacked.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That double-touch actually gives an opponent time to shift and prevent the technique.


When the old man used his leading left leg to touch on the outside of his opponent's leading right leg, the old man want his opponent to do 2 things, either move right leading foot

1. in front of old man's left foot by stepping forward and move out of contact, or
2. behind of old man's left foot by stepping backward and move out of contact.

For

- 1, the old man will use "embrace throw".
- 2. the old man will use hip throw, or leg block.

One way or another, the old man doesn't care how his opponent will respond. It will all fall into his "plan".

Here is an example if his opponent's right foot is still in front of his left foot.






When you apply your "set up" move, you want to do it slow so your opponent will have enough time to respond to it.

In striking art,

- You throw a "slow" back fist.
- Your opponent blocks.
- You then punch him from a different angle.

In throwing art,

- You throw a "slow" leading leg attack.
- Your opponent steps back.
- You then attack his other leg.

Here is an example.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> you need to get to the "blind side"


Agree! All MA systems use this strategy.

Front door entry:

PRO: You have total control on your opponent. Your opponent's body is completely under your attack. It's harder for your opponent to escape out of your attack. If you think you are better than your pponent, attack his front door.
CON: You have to deal with both of your opponent's hands. Your waist is exposed for your opponent and your opponent can drag you down with him.

Side door entry:

PRO: You only have to deal with one of his hands. It's difficult if not impossible for your opponent to drag you down. You can move into his back door easily. If you think your opponent is better than you, attack his side door.
CON: You only have partial of your opponent's body to attack. It's easily for your opponent to escape out of your attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Yeah there is a big difference between thinking "hope this doesn't going to become a fight. better safe than sorry."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The practice of starting with hands down is to simulate a time when we don't see it coming, and must react from that point. It's a "worst case" of where our hands could be. In some NGA schools, all simulations start from this point. I mix it up more, with some simulations starting here, some starting with their "fence" of choice, some starting from their "fighting stance" of choice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When the old man used his leading left leg to touch on the outside of his opponent's leading right leg, the old man want his opponent to do 2 things, either move right leading foot
> 
> 1. in front of old man's left foot by stepping forward and move out of contact, or
> 2. behind of old man's left foot by stepping backward and move out of contact.
> ...


Again, that's one set of options. Not all arts take that approach, and no approach is without drawbacks. For my throws, I'm more likely to enter with a fast hand strike than a slow leading leg attack. Most of my throws don't attack the leg, so the position of his body is more important than the leg (I can read what I need from his body).


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! All MA systems use this strategy.
> 
> Front door entry:
> 
> ...



The thing is there are some Lineages of WC that are basically all about the front door.  They may have strategies and tactics that are intended to essentially force the opponent to turn so they end up effectively at the side door but in my experience, in real fights that never works unless you are fighting a "Gumby" as Drop Bear sometimes calls them.  So more often than not, once in the front door you end up stuck there until someone "wins" or runs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The thing is there are some Lineages of WC that are basically all about the front door.


This is why the OP asked me "why would you want to move in a circle?"



obi_juan_salami said:


> - why would you want to move in a circle?


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why the OP asked me "why would you want to move in a circle?"


Perhaps.  

That gets tricky though because it also depends on your point of view.  Some people think that moving around your opponent is moving in a circle.  To my mind I am not, I am always moving straight.  It may be on angles but always moving straight. 

Without knowing more about his particular school I really can say.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Some people think that moving around your opponent is moving in a circle.  To my mind I am not, I am always moving straight.  It may be on angles but always moving straight.


We are talking about the same thing here.

The moment that my back foot can line up with my opponent's both feet, I'll move in straight. The reason that I walk in circle is to look for that particular "angle". The problem is if my opponent keeps turning with me, I have  to keep looking for that "angle".


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are talking about the same thing here.
> 
> The moment that my back foot can line up with my opponent's both feet, I'll move in straight. The reason that I walk in circle is to look for that particular "angle". The problem is if your opponent keeps turning with you, you have  to keep looking for that "angle".



Well it's same thing yes, different methodology.  I tend to describe things badly just with words (I need to demonstrate most often) I sometimes use this diagram from fencing, the "masters wheel" to describe what I am speaking about.





Essentially, simply by changing the angle, you can move into position in a straight line, this way you can still use some forward momentum to strike and defend.  You may circle indeed but that is before you enter something just outside combat range once you are almost close enough to strike the circle stops, otherwise you risk your balance/structure if they force the engagement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well it's same thing yes, different methodology.  I tend to describe things badly just with words (I need to demonstrate most often) I sometimes use this diagram from fencing, the "masters wheel" to describe what I am speaking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well stated. Continuing a circle once you actually engage is doing to yourself what I would do if I can attach to you. Circles are not the friend of stability, unless you are the center.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Well stated. Continuing a circle once you actually engage is doing to yourself what I would do if I can attach to you. Circles are not the friend of stability, unless you are the center.



Well, and this may sound a bit disrespectful to my Sifu, if he was to tell me otherwise (we actually have that picture on the wall of the school, but remember we also learn FMA which has some Spanish influence due to 300 years of occupation) I would say "are you high?!?!?" likely because, while my path was different than yours and I no longer formerly train I still consider myself an Aikidoka.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why the OP asked me "why would you want to move in a circle?"



No, that’s not why he was asking you why you would want to move in a circle; we will try to get into the “blind side” as much as anyone else where appropriate. Nor are we fixated on getting in “the front door” as you call it, indeed we try to avoid that if possible and put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else (which, though it is a pretty common goal in wing chun, as others have mentioned, some wing chun people get fixated on a head on clash in the name of centreline). The point was that if you can use the stepping and circling leg components from chum kiu and bui ji together with the jun ma appropriately timed and fast enough, you will be up in an opening on your opponent’s “blind side” in the instant they thought their attack would be landing (at least). You don’t need to move around in a circle.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2017)

APL76 said:


> No, that’s not why he was asking you why you would want to move in a circle; we will try to get into the “blind side” as much as anyone else where appropriate. Nor are we fixated on getting in “the front door” as you call it, indeed we try to avoid that if possible and put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else (which, though it is a pretty common goal in wing chun, as others have mentioned, some wing chun people get fixated on a head on clash in the name of centreline). The point was that if you can use the stepping and circling leg components from chum kiu and bui ji together with the jun ma appropriately timed and fast enough, you will be up in an opening on your opponent’s “blind side” in the instant they thought their attack would be landing (at least). You don’t need to move around in a circle.


That almost sounds like a strategy from the aiki arts. @Juany118, is that a similar approach, but for striking?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 26, 2017)

APL76 said:


> put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else ...


If this is what you want to achieve then why don't you just say, " I want to force my opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm." In other words, you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If this is what you want to achieve then why don't you just say, " I want to force my opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm." In other words, you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.


Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?


Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.


Unless that's not the only reason to move to the "blind side".


----------



## APL76 (Feb 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.



Well, we are talking about wing chun here, centreline is a key principal.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That almost sounds like a strategy from the aiki arts. @Juany118, is that a similar approach, but for striking?



First I wanted to clarify for @APL76 (since he is new) that, I am only a practitioner of WC, not an expert BUT I believe I am being asked this question because I also have a fair amount of previous Aikido experience.

That said yes, it is similar.  Example in the WC I study it's not just about getting to the blind side.  I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found that the principle of footwork in WC also applies to defense in a way similar to Aikido. If we do not move, ultimately we are still using force against force.  You may be able to deflect a fair amount of the force but you can never deflect all.

The idea is that force moving forward is always more powerful than a static target's ability to receive it. Just using a structurally sound stance is not enough to receive that force and even if I successfully divert the force of the first attack, that took a lot of my personal energy and the next will hurt even more.  So you use footwork, not just to get to the blind side for a superior tactical position for attack but also to assist in defense.  A simple use of footwork as your bil sau (tan, bong, gan, whatever) diverts an attack absorbs far more force than either remaining static or worse, insisting on moving up the middle and directly into the attacker's "kill box.". The bil deflects a fair amount of energy and the fact your release step is "going with the flow" diverts more.  Very Aiki imo.




gpseymour said:


> Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?





APL76 said:


> Well, we are talking about wing chun here, centreline is a key principal.



I put these two together because it is illustrative of what I think is an argument falling into semantics.  Let me explain in a bit of detail.  First picture the master's wheel I linked previously.  Yes there is a point to the target where your footwork may move in a literal circle but once inside a specific range your foot work is linear BUT stop looking at the footwork alone for a moment and picture just the heads of the two combatants moving with each other.  It can easily be seen like two bodies in orbit... Meaning circles.

Also @Kung Fu Wang noted a part of the principle of centerline theory, followed by what that + fighting on the blind side enhances...



> you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.



Now some may say instead "attack and defend simultaneously with both hands" instead of the first part of his statement but for practical purposes the mean the same thing.  Then in the second half you have the portion of centerline theory which says a goal is to disrupt your opponent's center so he can not do the same.

The issue is some "schools" of WC teach that you can move to the blind side on your own as well, not simply rely on your attack to force the opponent to give him your blind side. I believe @APL76  is saying through the use of proper footwork we can move ourselves to the blind side, I just think the use of the word "circle" has created a false conflict and that we are all actually talking about the same thing.  He even said "circling footwork" of two of the forms in his one argument followed by it doesn't mean you have to move in a circle.  

I think I understand what he was trying to get at there.  Even if moving to the blind side we want to be moving forward, even if "only" on an angle, so that we can use that forward momentum to produce power.  Thing is one can argue that this is moving in a circle.  I remember LFJ critiquing my lineage when he said he watched a bunch of videos and believed our strategy of trying to get the blind side resulted in us walking in circles as our opponent would constantly readjust but I see it as working the angles... semantics.


----------



## geezer (Feb 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> ...I see it as working the angles...



Yep. Me too. That's what FMA has done for me.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> Yep. Me too. That's what FMA has done for me.


'Angles'
Greater part of the footwork is about such.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 27, 2017)

So what strategies do you use to prevent your opponent from moving into your "side door" (blind side)?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 27, 2017)

Change directions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Unless that's not the only reason to move to the "blind side".


The other reason that you want to move to your opponent's "side door" (blind side) may be to take advantage on his weight distribution. That's important for throwing art but may not be that important for striking art such as WC.

Depending on which side door that you move in, you can apply throws such as:

蹩(Bie) - Break,
撩(Liao) - Back kick,
扣(Kou) - Knee seizing,
切(Qie) - Front cut,
削(Xiao) - Sickle hooking, 

or 

踢(Ti) - Forward kick,
撮(Cuo) - Scooping kick,
粘(Zhan) - Sticking kick,
撞(Zhuang) - Trunk hitting,
靠(Kao) - Advance squeeze,

But for the striking art, a punch to the head is just a punch to the head.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> First I wanted to clarify for @APL76 (since he is new) that, I am only a practitioner of WC, not an expert BUT I believe I am being asked this question because I also have a fair amount of previous Aikido experience.
> 
> That said yes, it is similar.  Example in the WC I study it's not just about getting to the blind side.  I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found that the principle of footwork in WC also applies to defense in a way similar to Aikido. If we do not move, ultimately we are still using force against force.  You may be able to deflect a fair amount of the force but you can never deflect all.
> 
> ...



just to clarify, what I mean by circling leg from the bui ji is the leg movement you do in opening the bui ji and repeat each time you go back to YJKYM throughout the form. For us that movement is an integral part of our flanking footwork, or taking angles, going to the blind side, and so on. And you are right, for us we will actively go to that position in relation to an oncoming attack (if appropriate), and not simply try to deflect an oncoming opponent off and force them to present it, though that might be an option too. So I guess where I'm saying circling footwork or circling leg I'm describing an actual leg movement (huen bo) rather than the actual strategy we would use in flanking an attack. When we flank an oncoming attack we will, generally speaking, try to cut as fine an angle to the oncoming attack as we can. What provides us with the necessary clearance to aviod the oncoming attack and deploy our arm leg techniques is the incorporation of the jun ma in the step; and hence why for us moving the body through jun ma is so important rather than staying on a central axis. So that's getting back to where I noted somewhere above about our flanking footwork, though it takes a straight line the body movement within that straight line has a circular aspect to it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 27, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Change directions.


Your opponent steps to your right side, you turn to your right and "change direction". He steps to your right side again, you change your direction again. If you keep doing that, your opponent may walk in a complete circle and you may have to turn 360 degree.

When will you stop "change direction" if your opponent keeps stepping to your right?


----------



## APL76 (Feb 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So what strategies do you use to prevent your opponent from moving into your "side door" (blind side)?



Don't over commit your own attack (which gets al the way back to the point about not throwing your body weight into punches when you learn them), have good practice at tracking your opponent's movement keeping your centreline on them, which means good jun ma and by extension, footwork.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent steps to your right side, you turn to your right and "change direction". He steps to your right side again, you change your direction again. If you keep doing that, your opponent may walk in circle and you may turn 360 degree.
> 
> When will you stop "change direction" if your opponent keeps stepping to your right?



you should have cut them off long before allowing them to lead you around in a circle. In my opinion to simply track a person around like that is far too passive.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 27, 2017)

APL76 said:


> cut them off ...


Agree! That's the best strategy. Don't play your opponent's circular game. Take control back, and force him to play your game. If your opponent tries to step to your right, you can step in your right leg to the outside of his left leading leg. This way you have just interrupted his circular footwork.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 27, 2017)

APL76 said:


> just to clarify, what I mean by circling leg from the bui ji is the leg movement you do in opening the bui ji and repeat each time you go back to YJKYM throughout the form. For us that movement is an integral part of our flanking footwork, or taking angles, going to the blind side, and so on. And you are right, for us we will actively go to that position in relation to an oncoming attack (if appropriate), and not simply try to deflect an oncoming opponent off and force them to present it, though that might be an option too. So I guess where I'm saying circling footwork or circling leg I'm describing an actual leg movement (huen bo) rather than the actual strategy we would use in flanking an attack. When we flank an oncoming attack we will, generally speaking, try to cut as fine an angle to the oncoming attack as we can. What provides us with the necessary clearance to aviod the oncoming attack and deploy our arm leg techniques is the incorporation of the jun ma in the step; and hence why for us moving the body through jun ma is so important rather than staying on a central axis. So that's getting back to where I noted somewhere above about our flanking footwork, though it takes a straight line the body movement within that straight line has a circular aspect to it.



The last part is why I made the analogy of just picturing the "heads" of the combatants, as if they were planetary bodies.  To an extent I think the debate here is, at least in part, one of semantics.  Are you picturing how you step, or Ultimately how you appear to move relative to your opponent's movement.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! That's the best strategy. Don't play your opponent's circular game. Take control back, and force him to play your game. If your opponent tries to step to your right, you can step in your right leg to the outside of his left leading leg. This way you have just interrupted his circular footwork.


that might be fine however the way we would try to do it is to cut the person off mid step straight through their middle which, if they are stepping to the side, will mean their stance is weak on that angle (and ungrounded due to the stepping). If you get your timing right it can be difficult for a person to defend themselves well since they are mid step and even harder to recover if you keep the pressure on, or send them flying backwards.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> that might be fine however the way we would try to do it is to cut the person off mid step straight through their middle which, if they are stepping to the side, will mean their stance is weak on that angle (and ungrounded due to the stepping). If you get your timing right it can be difficult for a person to defend themselves well since they are mid step and even harder to recover if you keep the pressure on, or send them flying backwards.


Again as @gpseymour pointed out, a very Aiki principle adapted to a striking context.  This is what really made WC "click" for me.  It is a striking art but it is "soft".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> to cut the person off mid step straight through their middle which, if they are stepping to the side, will mean their stance is weak on that angle (and ungrounded due to the stepping).


This is why when your opponent tries to move to your left "side door" (blind side), he should move his back foot first. When he moves his back foot, his base is getting wider and his balance is getting stronger. It's hard to "run him down" at that moment. If he then quickly moves his leading foot, he can get the "angle" that he wants and reduces his risk to the minimum.

I had a serious argument on this subject with Bagua people before. When a Bagua guy tries to move toward your "side door", he will move his leading leg first. If you charge in while he is moving his leading leg, you can crash him down.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Again as @gpseymour pointed out, a very Aiki principle adapted to a striking context.  This is what really made WC "click" for me.  It is a striking art but it is "soft".



I know nothing about aikido or aikijujutsu etc but from the little I have had exposure to it appears to me that it shares many similarities with the wing chun I learned, especially in terms of handling force.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why when your opponent tries to move to your left "side door" (blind side), he should move his back foot first. When he moves his back foot, the distance between you and him has not changed yet. If you can't reach to his leading leg before, you still can't reach to his leading leg now. If he then quickly moves his leading foot, he can get the "angle" that he wants and reduces his risk to the minimum.
> 
> I had a serious argument on this subject with Bagua people before. When a Bagua guy tries to move toward your "side door", he will move his leading leg first. If you charge in while he is moving his leading leg, you can crash him down.
> 
> ...


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

don't know why it isn't working. anyway

if you know chi gurk (assuming you have done the training to apply it) and someone crosses their legs up like that they should be finished.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> if you know chi gurk (assuming you have done the training to apply it) and someone crosses their legs up like that they should be finished.


After you have moved your back foot for "1 foot", you should only move your leading foot for "3 inch". This way, you will never cross your legs in front of your opponent.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I know nothing about aikido or aikijujutsu etc but from the little I have had exposure to it appears to me that it shares many similarities with the wing chun I learned, especially in terms of handling force.



It is indeed If you can get past the vision of "stereotypical" Aikido with the uke (attacker) doing sloppy attacks and simply "flopping" regardless of the nage's (attacked) form.  Some Aikidoka would deny it as well since the idea of going on offense is against their view.  The Yoshinkan Aikido I studied however is not "above" offense however, hence why some in the larger community sometimes refer to that school, half jokingly, as being populated by "evil Aikidoka."


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is indeed If you can get past the vision of "stereotypical" Aikido with the uke (attacker) doing sloppy attacks and simply "flopping" regardless of the nage's (attacked) form.  Some Aikidoka would deny it as well since the idea of going on offense is against their view.  The Yoshinkan Aikido I studied however is not "above" offense however, hence why some in the larger community sometimes refer to that school, half jokingly, as being populated by "evil Aikidoka."



I have always wondered about that. Given that when we do wing chun we take care not to give anyone force of our own to manipulate, and try to manipulate any force an opponent might give us I have always wondered how aikido might deal with you if you don’t present them force to take? (that is with my naïve assumption that the Aikido I have seen seems to require an opponent to give them some force to take)


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> After you have moved your back foot for "1 foot", you should only move your leading foot for "3 inch". This way, you will never cross your legs in front of your opponent.


if you encounter someone who really knows how to deploy wing chun to its fullest extent combining the handling of force with sticky hands and sticky legs you can hardly even stand up much less fight back, they will take control of your balance, if they want you to cross your legs you will, or you will simply go over. I have felt it done by my sifu; the only thing I can think of to describe it is that I imagine its what it would be like to be a human marionette puppet with someone controlling your arms and legs centre of gravity etc.. when I have felt that I realised that once someone who can do it has contact on arm and leg, even if they aren't hitting you, you are done. For a person of that level making you cross your legs is nothing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> if you encounter someone who really knows how to deploy wing chun to its fullest extent ...


You can replace "xyz" to any MA system, it will apply as well.

"if you encounter someone who really knows how to deploy "xyz" to its fullest extent ..."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Again as @gpseymour pointed out, a very Aiki principle adapted to a striking context.  This is what really made WC "click" for me.  It is a striking art but it is "soft".


Yeah, that whole point about them being weak during the step...great opportunity to destroy their structure to get to some aiki techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is indeed If you can get past the vision of "stereotypical" Aikido with the uke (attacker) doing sloppy attacks and simply "flopping" regardless of the nage's (attacked) form.  Some Aikidoka would deny it as well since the idea of going on offense is against their view.  The Yoshinkan Aikido I studied however is not "above" offense however, hence why some in the larger community sometimes refer to that school, half jokingly, as being populated by "evil Aikidoka."


I think among the more modern aiki arts/styles, Yoshinkan and NGA are the most aggressive. If the ribs are there, we will beat them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I have always wondered about that. Given that when we do wing chun we take care not to give anyone force of our own to manipulate, and try to manipulate any force an opponent might give us I have always wondered how aikido might deal with you if you don’t present them force to take? (that is with my naïve assumption that the Aikido I have seen seems to require an opponent to give them some force to take)


That is the problem with what I call "pure aiki". It has to be a passive waiting game. NGA and Yoshinkan don't play that game - we'll hit (or use other methods) to create the energy we need.


----------



## APL76 (Feb 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can replace "xyz" to any MA system, it will apply as well.
> 
> "if you encounter someone who really knows how to deploy "xyz" to its fullest extent ..."


of course it will, otherwise, as my Sifu always says, any martial art that doesn't do its job would have died out hundreds of years ago, it wouldn't have survived.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> I have always wondered about that. Given that when we do wing chun we take care not to give anyone force of our own to manipulate, and try to manipulate any force an opponent might give us I have always wondered how aikido might deal with you if you don’t present them force to take? (that is with my naïve assumption that the Aikido I have seen seems to require an opponent to give them some force to take)



That is where the form of the nage and whether they have trained against a uke who doesn't over commit.  Think about it.  To strike you still need to channel energy forward into the target.  As we step in, even if on an angle, we still have forwarding energy.  Most everything we do actually involves this forwarding energy and that can be turned around on us by an Aikidoka just as we train to use it in a WC vs WC encounter. 

We are of course supposed to maintain our center, to not over commit but forwarding energy is still forwarding energy.  You can't strike without it, that's just physics.  

I may say, if I am in "aikido mode", "they are protecting their center very well so a breath throw is going to be problematic."  (A breath throw is one of those classic circular Aikido throws) However if I properly set that person up with a counter strike or two I can still use their forwarding energy to take them down to the ground with a wrist lock or armbar.  Once I control the limb I simply redirect their energy.  The leverage I have and the energy they were using to attack, along with gravity, does the rest.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That is the problem with what I call "pure aiki". It has to be a passive waiting game. NGA and Yoshinkan don't play that game - we'll hit (or use other methods) to create the energy we need.



Exactly.  Move in "soften them up".  If they retreat, use the energy to put them on their butt.  If they counter attack, you are now "inside" and can use that new energy to put them on their face, or back.  In either case because your strikes have disturbed their center and their reaction provides the energy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 28, 2017)

APL76 said:


> of course it will, otherwise, as my Sifu always says, any martial art that doesn't do its job would have died out hundreds of years ago, it wouldn't have survived.


This is a paradox. Assume:

- A really knows how to deploy A's MA style to it's fullest extend.
- B really knows how to deploy B's MA style to it's fullest extend.

What will happen when A fights B?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is a paradox. Assume:
> 
> - A really knows how to deploy A's MA style to it's fullest extend.
> - B really knows how to deploy B's MA style to it's fullest extend.
> ...


Where's the paradox?


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Where's the paradox?





gpseymour said:


> Where's the paradox?



I think he may be referring to the dynamic of a WC cat knows how to fight another WC cat very well BUT how well does the WC cat know how to fight an Aikido, or really any other breed of cat?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Where's the paradox?


A: My spear can penetrate all shields on earth.
B: My shield can stop all spears on earth.

What will happen when A's spear meets B's shield?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think he may be referring to the dynamic of a WC cat knows how to fight another WC cat very well BUT how well does the WC cat know how to fight an Aikido, or really any other breed of cat?


I just didn't see a paradox in it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: My spear can penetrate all shields on earth.
> B: My shield can stop all spears on earth.
> 
> What will happen when A's spear meets B's shield?


Ah. That's a different scenario. Of course, no MA has either the impenetrable defense nor the irresistible offense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just didn't see a paradox in it.


APL76 said:



APL76 said:


> if you encounter someone who really knows how to deploy wing chun to its fullest extent combining the handling of force with sticky hands and sticky legs you can hardly even stand up much less fight back, they will take control of your balance, if they want you to cross your legs you will, or you will simply go over.



Before I cross trained the

- preying mantis system, I was told that after I had trained it, my hands could move so fast that my opponent won't be able to see it.
- Baji system, I was told that after I had trained it, my punch could be so strong that I can punch a hole through my opponent's chest.
- Zimen system, I was told that after I had trained it, my finger tip could be so strong that whenever I touch my opponent's pressure point, my opponent could drop to death.
- Taiji system, I was told that after I had trained it, nobody can even land a drop of water on my body.
- XingYi system, I was told that after I had trained it, the moment that I punch, the moment that my opponent's body will fly into the sky.
- ...

After I have spent so many years in my cross training systems, my faith was not the same any more. In MA. everything is relative and not absolute. Nobody can say, "When I touch you, you will be dead." It all depends on how "bad" that your opponent's MA training can be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> APL76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the reality. CMA systems are not the only ones to make hyperbolic claims, and none of those claims has yet been substantiated for any system.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent steps to your right side, you turn to your right and "change direction". He steps to your right side again, you change your direction again. If you keep doing that, your opponent may walk in a complete circle and you may have to turn 360 degree.
> 
> When will you stop "change direction" if your opponent keeps stepping to your right?


Depending on the situation..."If" I am going to continue the engagement I cut him off. I don't circle with him. 
Otherwise I'm creating distance.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> APL76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There are a number of things to take into consideration.
Firstly, I'm not saying that if anyone who is good at wing chun takes on anyone else the wing chun guy will win. And I'm not assuming that any other martial art can be broken down by wing chun all the time, or that any other martial art cant break down wing chun. So if you are getting the impression I am saying that wing chun will work hands down every time, then sorry if I gave that impression but that's not what I was getting at.

In relation to your "paradox" above, which I don't really see as a paradox at all either, who has trained harder? who has stronger foundations? who can move faster, has better sensitivity? who can hit harder? Who just happens to be on their game that day and who is perhaps having an off day? all of these things will come into play.

When you have two people who are extremely good martial artists I think the difference between who wins and who loses changes in nature.
For most people at an average to slightly above average level of training I think the things that will determine the outcome will be things like: Training, foundations, who is capable of being more aggressive.

Two people with well above average training: refinement of technique, the smaller details will come into it, who can keep everything together properly; which are really still a function of training.

two people who are really at the top of their style, when all other human elements are about equal, I think its only then that the details within the actual system will really come into play. For example, my sigung Sum Nung once fought a guy, sigung beat him but it was the closest he ever came to losing a fight, and it was the toughest fight he ever had. He said the only reason he won is because wing chun took a more direct line of attack than the other martial art. He and the other guy were so closely matched that the deciding factor was the art itself. For most of us I think training has more to do with it.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> APL76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From my perspective you have too many knives to sharpen to be able to keep any really sharp; pick the one you like best and keep it like a razor.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 1, 2017)

APL76 said:


> wing chun took a more direct line of attack than the other martial art.


This is true. A direct line of attack will require more aggressive footwork when your opponent retreats. I know some white eyebrow system spends the 1st 6 months on nothing but footwork training. IMO, WC should start the footwork training during day one.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is true. A direct line of attack will require more aggressive footwork when your opponent retreats. I know some white eyebrow system spends the 1st 6 months on nothing but footwork training. IMO, WC should start the footwork training during day one.



We do start the footwork training from day one, by building a solid foundation to support it, the Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 1, 2017)

APL76 said:


> From my perspective you have too many knives to sharpen to be able to keep any really sharp; pick the one you like best and keep it like a razor.



On the other hand, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

*“You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well.”*

Miyamoto Mushashi


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 1, 2017)

APL76 said:


> From my perspective you have too many knives to sharpen to be able to keep any really sharp; pick the one you like best and keep it like a razor.


It's easy to say that when you fight a

- striker, you force him to play the grappling game.
- grappler, you force him to play the striking game.

In order to do so, you have to train both the striking art, and the grappling art. Even just in the grappling art, you have to train both "jacket wrestling" and "no-jacket wrestling". IMO, just train a striking art and some "anti-grappling" is not enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 1, 2017)

APL76 said:


> We do start the footwork training from day one, by building a solid foundation to support it, the Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma.


In the following southern CMA Bai Mei system form, you can see the "front foot step forward, back foot slide forward" forward has been used over and over. One Bai Mei teacher told me that his students have to spend the first 6 month only on this footwork.

IMO, WC system does not emphasize "footwork" early enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 1, 2017)

APL76 said:


> From my perspective you have too many knives to sharpen to be able to keep any really sharp; pick the one you like best and keep it like a razor.


I finally find a clip that shows how to train only move the body without moving the arms. This is the opposite of the WC approach that only move the arms without moving the body. It's easy to see that, if you have your "body method" fully developed, to add in your arms is very simple and easy.

Without "cross training", you won't be able to compare different training methods.






This boy also trains "body method" without using the arms.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 2, 2017)

APL76 said:


> There are a number of things to take into consideration.
> Firstly, I'm not saying that if anyone who is good at wing chun takes on anyone else the wing chun guy will win. And I'm not assuming that any other martial art can be broken down by wing chun all the time, or that any other martial art cant break down wing chun. So if you are getting the impression I am saying that wing chun will work hands down every time, then sorry if I gave that impression but that's not what I was getting at.
> 
> In relation to your "paradox" above, which I don't really see as a paradox at all either, who has trained harder? who has stronger foundations? who can move faster, has better sensitivity? who can hit harder? Who just happens to be on their game that day and who is perhaps having an off day? all of these things will come into play.
> ...




I think you miss something with your sigung's experience.  Namely the experience.  I am not the most advanced student in my school but I often beat more advanced students in sparring.  Why?  Because I have, perhaps regrettably, led a life that has had as a job requirement fighting others for over 25 years (I was a soldier, now a LEO).  That gives me perhaps an ability for aggression others lack but it also gives me something only experience can provide in terms of reading another combatant, lack of hesitation etc.  It's never about the system.  There is no special sauce.  It's about how well you are trained and how well, and often, you have put the training into real practice.  Your sigung has clearly done the later.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following southern CMA Bai Mei system form, you can see the "front foot step forward, back foot slide forward" forward has been used over and over. One Bai Mei teacher told me that his students have to spend the first 6 month only on this footwork.
> 
> IMO, WC system does not emphasize "footwork" early enough.


----------------------------------------------True for many wc but not mine


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's easy to say that when you fight a
> 
> - striker, you force him to play the grappling game.
> - grappler, you force him to play the striking game.


I learned this principle from an instructor who was likely to be better at either than an opponent (Golden Gloves boxer, held rank in Shotokan, Judo, and NGA). Even with that likely advantage, he taught us ,"If he want's to box, I'll grapple. If he wants to grapple, I'll box."


----------



## APL76 (Mar 2, 2017)

anerlich said:


> On the other hand, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> 
> *“You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well.”*
> 
> Miyamoto Mushashi


that might be the case if wing chun's only weapon were a hammer; it isn't, it should be wholistic


----------



## APL76 (Mar 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think you miss something with your sigung's experience.  Namely the experience.  I am not the most advanced student in my school but I often beat more advanced students in sparring.  Why?  Because I have, perhaps regrettably, led a life that has had as a job requirement fighting others for over 25 years (I was a soldier, now a LEO).  That gives me perhaps an ability for aggression others lack but it also gives me something only experience can provide in terms of reading another combatant, lack of hesitation etc.  It's never about the system.  There is no special sauce.  It's about how well you are trained and how well, and often, you have put the training into real practice.  Your sigung has clearly done the later.



Possibly, but when he himself said that the only reason he won the fight was because wing chun takes a more direct line than what he was fighting I can only take it as he said it. I figure he would know; after all, he had more fights than one could count, from street fights, leading the metal workers union in Guangzhou in their fights for territory (one of his first jobs as an adult was to teach them how to fight, which also meant he had to lead them in their fights) to actual challenge matches with other kung fu masters.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I finally find a clip that shows how to train only move the body without moving the arms. This is the opposite of the WC approach that only move the arms without moving the body. It's easy to see that, if you have your "body method" fully developed, to add in your arms is very simple and easy.
> 
> Without "cross training", you won't be able to compare different training methods.
> 
> ...




I think that we just wont agree on weather the "body method" should come first or the "arm method", which is fine by me. All I will say is that I have seen what I would categorise as pretty poor development in wing chun by people who forego adequate stance training, and adequate training in their punches and jun ma in isolation to try to coordinate everything to make it "more practical" before they have a basic standard to begin with. Which also relates to these questions about why people's wing chun goes to hell when they try to spar. 

What I directly saw was  that these students would have a big and rapid jump ahead in say a 3 to 6 year time frame of learning wing chun. they would leave their classmates (who train in the slower more focused way) a long way behind. They could defend themselves more effectively more quickly against an average attack, they had quicker reflexes/reaction time sooner, and could string a number of things into sparring better sooner.

However, once the 3-6 year time frame was past, those who did the more traditional training would begin to go well beyond the others, and those other students would face a difficult proposition. You see, because they trained the way they did (in what I would term rushing through their training) they not only had lower quality than they otherwise would have but even worse they would inevitably hit a plateau in how much they could improve. You don't need to take my word for it; go to the average wing chun school and do some sparring with students who have been there for 4, 5, or 6 years and do some sparring with ones who have been their for 10 or more. see if there is much difference between them. The difficult proposition? either be happy with what you have or go back and start from scratch and do it all over again.

In terms of cross training, I may not have cross trained different martial arts, I have however learned two different styles of wing chun, the Yip Man style in the average, go through the class and train hard and progress reasonably quickly. The Guangzhou (Sum Nung/Yeun Kay San, my sifu always just referred to them as Hong Kong and Guangzhou styles) style however I did in the old fashioned traditional way. The day I arrived at my sifu's house to start that training he said. "you start from the beginning again, that's one of the conditions and if you don't like it, there's the door". Needles to say I was more than willing to start all over again. I may not train different martial arts (I did do a little Kenjutsu) however I did learn wing chun in two different ways and from doing that I can assure you I would go for the traditional training methods every single time and encourage all my students to do the same.

I have no idea how "body method" vis a vis "arm method" relates to other styles of kung fu and so on, however when it comes to wing chun its structured like it is for good reason.


----------



## Juany118 (Mar 3, 2017)

APL76 said:


> Possibly, but when he himself said that the only reason he won the fight was because wing chun takes a more direct line than what he was fighting I can only take it as he said it. I figure he would know; after all, he had more fights than one could count, from street fights, leading the metal workers union in Guangzhou in their fights for territory (one of his first jobs as an adult was to teach them how to fight, which also meant he had to lead them in their fights) to actual challenge matches with other kung fu masters.




Not trying to question your Sigung but there are simply too many variables.  Unless you Sigung can verify "we were both of equal fitness, reach, age, talent, training and fighting experience" such a statement isn't of much value.

Not because your Sigung lied, let me make that clear.  It's because we see things ultimately through our own personal lens, that is simply human nature.

I used to be a competitive athlete (amature cyclocross).  There were riders I would always beat, riders who would always beat me, but most importantly the riders who I raced and we never knew who was going to cross the line first.  One day it could be tactics, another who had better sleep, breakfast, hydration, heck I know I got beat by one of these rivals in one race because the night before I had an argument with my wife and that was in the back of my mind and I screwed up a few barriers because of it.  Add in my experience of working a "combat zone" small City as just a Patrol man and on Narcotics/Street Crime Unit I have a fair amount of experience with the human condition.

Because of all of these differences to claim one striking art is superior to another really comes down to dogma imo because there is NO way we can account for all the different variables that influence human performance while we are in the arena. 

Is this perhaps a stereotypically western "analytical" attitude?  Dang Skippy, I own that .


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> claim one striking art is superior to another ...


When I started to train 

- MA A, My MA A teacher told me that MA A is superior to all others.
- MA B, My MA B teacher told me that MA B is superior to all others.
- MA C, My MA C teacher told me that MA C is superior to all others.
- ...

After many years of MA training, I no longer believe any of those statements.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 3, 2017)

APL76 said:


> that might be the case if wing chun's only weapon were a hammer; it isn't, it should be wholistic



I don't see Wing Chun as *holistic*. It is one tool in my toolbox. And a very good tool ... in a good proportion of possible fight scenarios.

It's takedown defence is pretty much nonexistent, and its ground fighting limited at best. Just for starters.

And that's OK. The martial artist needs to learn critical thinking at some stage, and realise that every style has its strengths and weaknesses, including the one he started with. An inconvenient truth, but still a truth.


----------

