# Train WC without form and stance



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 10, 2016)

In today's class, my student asked me to teach him some WC. I usually don't teach any particular MA style.

- We both have right leg forward. 
- I threw a right jab, he blocked with right Tang Shou to his left. 
- I then threw a left cross, he blocked with right Tang Shou to his right. 

When he blocked my right jab, his right Tang Shou bounced back to his center. When he blocked my left cross, his right Tang Shou bounced back to his center again. We drilled this about 100 times until he understood the usage of Tang Shou

- We both have right leg forward.
- I threw a right jab, he blocked with right Right Fu Shou.
- I then threw a left cross, he blocked with a right Bong Shou. 

When he blocked my left cross, his right wrist can still controlled on my right arm wrist. We drilled this about 100 times until he understood the usage of Fu Shou and Bong Shou.

There were no form training involved and no stance training involved. We just started from "partner drills" to deal with a common jab, cross combo. 

What's your opinion about this training approach?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 10, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's your opinion about this training approach?



My opinion is that you are ingraining an undesirable behavior in your student. But, since you just admitted that you don't really train / teach any specific MA...no worries!


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 10, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In today's class, my student asked me to teach him some WC. I usually don't teach any particular MA style.
> 
> - We both have right leg forward.
> - I threw a right jab, he blocked with right Tang Shou to his left.
> ...


Personally I'm a fan of simple 1, 2, 3 type training.

I often have students face off and drill 1 defensive technique vs. 1 offensive technique until it is understood, no deviation. From there we work further and more organically, but at a basic level we just drill it to understand purpose.

In example we will take bong and do drills, high , low, sweeping, barring etc. Learning all the different uses bong has to offer in simple 1 to 1 application without the convolution of strategy or theory. There has to be a starting point for every new technique or concept introduced.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 10, 2016)

I don't believe wing chun is so much about specific techniques, as it is about developing the principles.  Then, the technique expresses the principles.  But you need the principles first, and that is what stance and forms help develop.  Technique without understanding the principles is just flapping your arms.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There were no form training involved and no stance training involved. We just started from "partner drills" to deal with a common jab, cross combo.
> 
> What's your opinion about this training approach?


Wow I really don't have an opinion.  I got some facts though.  The ability to use the technique will only be as strong as the stance will allow it.  A weak stance is unstable and it destroys the structure of a technique, the movement of the body, and reduces one's ability to defend effectively.

Oh and as for you training the student..  I don't have an opinion about that.  Training is basically up to the person that is teaching.  The teacher (in this case you) can choose what to train and when.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 10, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The ability to use the technique will only be as strong as the stance will allow it.  A weak stance is unstable and it destroys the structure of a technique, ...


I didn't mention that new student already had 12 years training in other CMA systems. His body unification and rooting are very good (may be a bit too much hard and not enough soft). Just an experience CMA guy wants to cross train the WC system. As I have said, I don't teach any MA system. I only teach "how to enter and how to finish".

If he wants to learn

- Baiji, I'll start him from power generation methods.
- praying mantis, I'll start him from fast hand combo.
- long fist, I'll start him from kick, punch combo.
- WC, I'll start him from Tang, Fu, and Bong.
- ...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I didn't mention that new student already had 12 years training in other CMA systems. His body unification and rooting are very good (may be a bit too much hard and not enough soft). Just an experience CMA guy wants to cross train the WC system. As I have said, I don't teach any MA system. I only teach "how to enter and how to finish".
> 
> If he wants to learn
> 
> ...


Well sounds good to me. Trees always grow from the root. MMA has shown that technique can be learned without form.  That's what drilling is. Taking a technique from a form and doing it over and over


----------



## yak sao (Jun 10, 2016)

While it sounds like a productive training session, I wouldn't say it was WC, any more than if I practiced my footwork in a circle and called it pa kua.

Pulling a few techniques out of a form and drilling them without the context of said form is not training WC, or any other MA for that matter.
WC forms are there to teach the student the principles of the system. Then, while the student is learning this you can take certain things out of the forms to demonstrate those principles and have them drill them to help further ingrain them.
WC is a synergistic system, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Tan sau works the way it does because of the body unity built into the body through form and stance training.
A tan sau without the underlying structure built in is not truly a tan sau, because ultimately, your arm does not perform tan sau, your whole body does.

Having said all that, I love the pressure testing aspect of what you were doing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 10, 2016)

yak sao said:


> Tan sau works the way it does because of the body unity built into the body through form and stance training.


I believe Tang Shou also works in

- XingYi Santi (3-7) stance,
- long fist 4-6 stance,
- praying mantis monkey stance, and
- ...

Bruce Lee used monkey stance (back heel up) in his movie. As long as you can successfully use it in fighting, that's all matters.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 10, 2016)

I think the OP makes it clear that he's no teaching WC, he's teaching WC techniques. I'm willing to bet that WC drills techniques before form.  Once the technique is learned then the form can be learned. Or is WC different?


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 10, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the OP makes it clear that he's no teaching WC, he's teaching WC techniques. I'm willing to bet that WC drills techniques before form.  Once the technique is learned then the form can be learned. Or is WC different?


Fundamental techniques, forms, concepts/theory/strategy. Building blocks, that's how I do it. Can't speak for anyone else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 11, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Fundamental techniques, *forms*, concepts/theory/strategy. Building blocks, that's how I do it. Can't speak for anyone else.


If you train partner drills, you will get your form for free.

Solo drill = partner drill without partner.

Form = solo drill 1 + solo drill 2 + ...


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 11, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train partner drills, you will get your form for free.
> 
> Solo drill = partner drill without partner.
> 
> Form = solo drill 1 + solo drill 2 + ...


I agree, and that is actually called frame training. That's how it was done in the old days by the military.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 11, 2016)

In that class, I also included:

- use Bong Shou to break a tight clinch.
- chain punches (1 step 3 punches).
- chain kicks (knee stepping).


----------



## Phobius (Jun 11, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train partner drills, you will get your form for free.



Not sure how it is meant but I disagree on one account.

Partner drills requires that at least someone has done the forms and understands them. However I just want to mention that forms serve another value as well. For teaching purposes the forms are like a memory bank as well as stretching and preparing your body to do the moves as natural as they can be done.

Partner drills will however not likely make the movements natural to you because in the purpose of the drill you will not get that possibility to stretch and adapt your body to the moves in a natural way.

Still do not disagree about doing partner drills instead. I am not a fan of people overdoing the forms. At least not as beginners. On later levels there is of course value in looking at the forms quite a bit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 11, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Partner drills requires that at least someone has done the forms and understands them. However I just want to mention that forms serve another value as well. For teaching purposes the forms are like a memory bank as well as stretching and preparing your body to do the moves as natural as they can be done.


Agree that if you only train partner drills, the form that comes out of it may not look good. I have students who have been with me for over 12 years and I have not taught them any form yet. If they go to compete form in tournament, even I won't give them any high score. This is why I prefer to call the solo form training as "polishing". After you have developed your skill, you want to polish it as nice as possible.

For example, in partner drill that when you push your opponent's head down, hook his leg up to throw him, you may not have to push your hand very low and lift your leg very high.







But for "polishing", you will have to touch your hand on your ankle and lift your leg much higher.


----------



## KPM (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There were no form training involved and no stance training involved. We just started from "partner drills" to deal with a common jab, cross combo.
> 
> What's your opinion about this training approach?



You can teach a lot and do a lot without any choreographed forms training.  But you need a stance that reflects the biomechanics that you are trying to develop.  There is no such thing as having "no stance."   You are always standing in one way or another.  Its like the old saying...."to have no opinion, is to have an opinion"!!  So if you aren't teaching a good stance along with the training and are just letting the student stand any way they want....they may or may not be developing good biomechanics.


----------



## KPM (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I didn't mention that new student already had 12 years training in other CMA systems. His body unification and rooting are very good (may be a bit too much hard and not enough soft).
> - ...



Oh!  Then he DID have stance training!  In which case it sounds like his use of Wing Chun will be very different because his biomechanics behind it will be very different from Wing Chun biomechanics.


----------



## KPM (Jun 12, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the OP makes it clear that he's no teaching WC, he's teaching WC techniques. I'm willing to bet that WC drills techniques before form.  Once the technique is learned then the form can be learned. Or is WC different?



You have to learn the root biomechanics that power what you are doing.  Since the biomechanics behind Wing Chun tend to be somewhat different from most other CMA's, this is significant.  Hung Ga may do a technique that is essentially the same as a Tan Sau, but that doesn't make it Wing Chun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

KPM said:


> But you need a stance that reflects the biomechanics that you are trying to develop.  There is no such thing as having "no stance."


Students can learn stances through the partner drills, or the solo drills (partner drill without partner). For example, you can drill hip throw 100 times with your partner or solo. At the same time your "cat stance (starting position)" and "horse stance (finish position)" can be trained down to the final detail such as:

1. cat stance - 100% weight on the back leg, front foot only touch toes on the ground, drop low, and ...
2. horse stance - separate legs as shoulder width, both feet parallel, drop down, keep knees on within feet, and ...

The advantage of this approach is students can link stances directly to fighting. Through the dynamic movement, they are training stances but they may not know they are training stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

KPM said:


> Oh!  Then he DID have stance training!  In which case it sounds like his use of Wing Chun will be very different because his biomechanics behind it will be very different from Wing Chun biomechanics.


Bruce Lee applied his Tang Shou in "monkey stance" with back foot heel off the ground. It's the best stance used to "spring forward". That's not WC biomechanics as far as I know.


----------



## Phobius (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Bruce Lee applied his Tang Shou in "monkey stance" with back foot heel off the ground. That's not WC biomechanics.



I guess we should not read too much into movies. After all they have a director saying "Can you not do it like this instead, we have some problems with lighting" or "It would look better on camera doing it this way".

Anyways that was not really a valid point in any way. I dont think Bruce Lee was doing WC at that point. He took bits and pieces from little bit of everywhere.

Being not a purist myself I believe the stance are not set in stone, but it has to adhere to the concepts. If it does, it is WC. Not all stances keep with the concepts though.


----------



## KPM (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Bruce Lee applied his Tang Shou in "monkey stance" with back foot heel off the ground. It's the best stance used to "spring forward". That's not WC biomechanics as far as I know.



Nope!  That's because Bruce was doing JKD, not Wing Chun!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Being not a purist myself I believe the stance are not set in stone, but it has to adhere to the concepts. If it does, it is WC. Not all stances keep with the concepts though.


When you use Tan Shou, which stance will you use and which stances will you not use? The Tan Shou is just to protect your center line. When your opponent use jab or cross, his arm will have to touch your Tan Shou before he can hit on your head. IMO, whether you use

- cat stance (0% weight on leading leg),
- Santi stance (30% weight on leading leg),
- 4-6 stance (40% weight on leading leg),
- horse stance (50% weight on leading leg),
- bow-arrow stance (70% weight on leading leg),
- monkey stance (85% weight on leading leg),
- chicken stance (100% weight on leading leg),

depends on your situation. In other words Tan Shou should work for all stances. Some stances may be better than others, but to protect your center line, and force your opponent's jab and cross to contact your Tan Shou before getting to your head is all the same.


----------



## KPM (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Students can learn stances through the partner drills, or the solo drills (partner drill without partner). For example, you can drill hip throw 100 times with your partner or solo. At the same time your "cat stance (starting position)" and "horse stance (finish position)" can be trained down to the final detail such as:



Yes, I agree John.  I think I misinterpreted what you meant in the OP.  I thought you were taking a student and letting them assume any stance they felt comfortable with rather than teaching them a specific way to move.  But it sounds like when you referred to "no stance training" you were referring to not doing the specific stance training methods common in CMAs, and instead incorporating learning of stance and  biomechanics into the drills.  Is that correct?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

KPM said:


> incorporating learning of stance and  biomechanics into the drills.  Is that correct?


I try to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. If I can train my "bow arrow stance" along with my single head weight training, I won't just stand in bow arrow stance for 30 minutes.


----------



## Phobius (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use Tan Shou, which stance will you use and which stances will you not use? The Tan Shou is just to protect your center line. When your opponent use jab or cross, his arm will have to touch your Tan Shou before he can hit on your head. IMO, whether you use
> 
> - cat stance (0% weight on leading leg),
> - Santi stance (30% weight on leading leg),
> ...



There is no answer to which stance would or would not work. It is a tougher question since it depends on how you receive force and how it affects you. Having for instance 100% weight on rear or leading leg is just a matter of changing perspective on what is lead and what is rear. 

So I rather avoid answering the question of which stances I would not use. Quite frankly it depends on the situation which is a terrible answer. As I said before, I am not a purist in terms of WC/WT. If it works it is great. Also note that some of these stances I have too little training in to say that it would not work for sure, just that it might not work for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I am not a purist in terms of WC/WT. If it works it is great.


This is my point for this thread. I'm not even a "pure" WC guy. How can I teach my student "pure WC"? I can only teach him how to use Tan, Bong, Fu, center line protection, chain punches, Tan Da, ... that I have learned from the WC system.


----------



## Phobius (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is my point for this thread. I'm not even a "pure" WC guy. How can I teach my student "pure WC"? I can only teach him how to use Tan, Bong, Fu, center line protection, chain punches, Tan Da, ... that I have learned from the WC system.



I still believe it is important to learn and understand the concepts in body as well as mind. The very idea of doing a move that would break the concepts must become unnatural to him. This is something I am still amazed that WC/WT managed to teach by the whole process we go through.

Could it be that some parts or all parts can be changed and we can still learn and take the concepts to heart? Probably and most likely. Do I know exactly how that could be done? No, and my money is on there being more than one way to do it. So make sure that you teach the concepts, they are a crucial part.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Bruce Lee applied his Tang Shou in "monkey stance" with back foot heel off the ground. It's the best stance used to "spring forward". That's not WC biomechanics as far as I know.


That spring forward has multiple function including assisting with power generation.  When I look at WC method of generating power, my theory is that their footwork should have a similar forward movement when punching instead of trying to generate power the way that they do.  I know I'm not alone with this because I've seen some WC lineages generate power for WC punches in a similar manner of "springing forward" vs "leaning and walking forward."  As for the heel being off the ground, I don't think you can  use his movie scenes as a reference as techniques may be changed in order to make the movie look awesome.  His heel being up may be for move purposes.

I've have videos of him doing martial arts demos where his heel was on the ground and he would spring forward.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I try to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. If I can train my "bow arrow stance" along with my single head weight training, I won't just stand in bow arrow stance for 30 minutes.



I train train stances individually, while doing forms, and when drilling.   When training only just the stances I'm able to learn things about my stances, my weight distribution, my balance and my focus that I can learn any other way.   When I'm doing forms my stance training allows me to learn things about my stances that I can't learn while just doing stance training. Stance training during drilling teaches something about my stances that I can't learn with the other 2 methods.  Holding a bow stance for 2 seconds as you show in the video does not provide the conditioning that one gets from holding still in a bow stance for 1 minute.

Stance training shouldn't be an either or choice where the assumption that training one way is better than the other.  There are multiple benefits to training stances in different ways which is why stances are trained in different ways within the same system. Notice how they train their stances 




Each method has it's own value and importance and it shouldn't always be viewed as "killing 2 birds with one stone."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Stance training shouldn't be an either or choice ...


Here is another example that when you train the dynamic stance, you will get the same benefit as you train static stance plus more such as the "flexibility training".

Static stance training:







Dynamic stance training:


----------



## geezer (Jun 12, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> .....When I look at WC method of generating power, my theory is that their footwork should have a similar forward movement when punching *instead of trying to generate power the way that they do.*  I know I'm not alone with this because I've seen some WC lineages generate power for WC punches in a similar manner of "springing forward"



Not sure what you are saying here (bolded text). Our VT/WC/WT generates effective punching power standing, turning and stepping. We keep our weight back on the rear foot, but if we punch while turning or stepping, the punch should have the whole body behind it. Getting your whole body into a stationary, standing punch requires more skill, but can be done.

If you really want to throw weight behind a punch, something like Jack Dempsey's "drop-step" or a "push step" works very well. You drop (or push) off the rear leg onto the front letting your body-weight fall into your punch. Typically this is done with a raised rear heel. It is a powerful and proven technique used not only by boxers, but by my first Escrima master, and also used by Bruce Lee in JKD. It also tends to increase mobility over a heavy, flat-footed stance.

Here's a shot showing the raised heel in an Escrima strike:

http://www.vingtsunaz.com/site_media/images/2012_summer_0663.jpg



JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think you can  use his movie scenes as a reference as techniques may be changed in order to make the movie look awesome.  His heel being up may be for movie purposes.



No, I agree that movies are not a good source for accurate instruction. But in this case the footage agrees with what Lee taught in his JKD. Though, as you mentioned, he could do a lot of different things if he wished, in JKD, he favored a springy stance with a raised back heel.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 12, 2016)

geezer said:


> he favored a springy stance with a raised back heel.


The whole "plum flower preying mantis" system is built on top of the "monkey stance". It's the stance (or step) that can help you to cover the most forward distance.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jun 12, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is my point for this thread. I'm not even a "pure" WC guy. How can I teach my student "pure WC"? I can only teach him how to use Tan, Bong, Fu, center line protection, chain punches, Tan Da, ... that I have learned from the WC system.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You apparently pick and choose bits and pieces of what you think is wing chun. You have a right to do so-
but I don't see your posts as advancing the understanding of wing chun-not mine anyway.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 12, 2016)

geezer said:


> Not sure what you are saying here (bolded text). Our VT/WC/WT generates effective punching power standing, turning and stepping. We keep our weight back on the rear foot, but if we punch while turning or stepping, the punch should have the whole body behind it.


I was only referring to the WC practitioners that don't do generate power like you described.



geezer said:


> It also tends to increase mobility over a heavy, flat-footed stance.


The flat foot stance has good mobility as well.  I can move just as quick backwards, forwards, and sideways without being on my toes. I do it all the time in training.  The only difference is that greater distance can be achieved by being on the toes. This is why sometimes it looks like Manny Paquiao has a stutter step, because he's not on his toes when he pushes off.  The goal isn't to use it all the time.  Footwork changes especially when the technique changes to one that requires being on the ball of the foot.

Watch his feet as he explains the movement.  He's not bouncing on the ball of his feet.





Here you can see the same method here. Notice he's not trying to use it all the time.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the OP makes it clear that he's no teaching WC, he's teaching WC techniques. I'm willing to bet that WC drills techniques before form.  Once the technique is learned then the form can be learned. Or is WC different?



Well I can only speak for my school but you are kinda right but not quite.  You are right in that you don't have new students doing siu lim tao (the first of 3 open hand forms) non-stop until they get it down and then move onto techniqies, at the same time though it is one of the first things that get taught, with techniques being taught in the same class. 

It is important though.  The stances trains you in how to ground your structure, and the movements don't only teach proper elbow and hand position but more importantly the concept that just about everything is fundamentally forwarding energy.  A perfect example is the _tan_ issue the OP mentioned.  Now at combat speed it may look like you are just throwing an arm out there but you aren't.  That is why the arm of the student kept getting pushed back into his center.  You extend the arm, focusing on the elbow and in, for lack of a better term, a manner like spreading peanut butter.  This forward extension against an incoming limb, rather just slamming it against one like a "typical" block is what allows it to redirect an incoming strike and not have your structure compromised.  Without that section in the form, a student may not get it.


----------

