# The Importance Of Stance Training



## Simon L (Feb 28, 2012)

Ok. Firstly Eric H, I've been in the martial arts for nearly 20 years now. I've done hung gar, and wing chun, so I know what I'm talking about. As to your assertion "Basic Kung Fu *is* stance work. It *is* the most important part of your kung fu. You can't survive energy challenge if the other guy is able to bounce you all about willy-nilly".  Stance work is only a small part of learning kung-fu. I trained with Ian Protheroe up in Brisbane, and he never harped on about training a stance from a fixed position. When you're in a real fight, training your stance from a fixed position isn't going to do a lot of good. It's training actual punches and kicks, doing drills, and training your footwork and muscle memory that counts. A guy throwing punches and kicks at you, and your instructor telling you how to move, where to block properly, where to position your arms and legs, and doing this hundreds of times is how you become a good fighter.  Derek Fung's school was not teaching that at all.   All the stance work in the world isn't going to count for anything when the fight goes to the ground either. Don't believe me? Have a look at MMA, where many of the fights go to the ground.  The way Derek Fung was teaching kung-fu, you'd get seriously hurt in a real situation.    Also, what's wrong with an Academy Pledge? Martial arts isn't just about fighting--it's about creating self-confident, healthy individuals who use their skills for good, rather than going around beating people up.
     As to Flying Crane's assertion that I "wouldn't recognize a good kung fu teacher if said teacher bit him in the nuts." Well wtf do you know? Did you bother reading my post, numbnuts? I know enough about wing chun to tell you that you don't start students on double hand chi sau. You do chi sau once the basics of sil lim tau have been mastered, and your sifu thinks you're good enough to progress. Look at William Cheung's grading structure--they don't do single hand chi sau until level 4 (out of ten levels), and double hand chi sau until level 5. Same with Ian Protheroe. Look at Jim Fung's grading structure--double chi sau is done at grade 3 (out of 4 grades).  William Cheung and Jim Fung's schools are both accredited with the VTAA, and widely known in the wing chun world. Derek Fung's isn't. I spoke to Martin Lung (one of Chu Shong Tin's students), and he said that Derek was not even on the scene in Hong Kong in the old days.  
            Wing chun schools, like all schools, can be divided into those that are great, and those that are mediocre (or worse).  What I saw was a not particularly great teacher, who was doing it for the money.  Go to a random school, and see how many guys are training, see if they are actually throwing punches and kicks, and see if they're going through the kinetics of fighting.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 28, 2012)

Simon L said:


> Ok. Firstly Eric H, I've been in the martial arts for nearly 20 years now. I've done hung gar, and wing chun, so I know what I'm talking about. As to your assertion "Basic Kung Fu *is* stance work. It *is* the most important part of your kung fu. You can't survive energy challenge if the other guy is able to bounce you all about willy-nilly". Stance work is only a small part of learning kung-fu. I trained with Ian Protheroe up in Brisbane, and he never harped on about training a stance from a fixed position. When you're in a real fight, training your stance from a fixed position isn't going to do a lot of good. It's training actual punches and kicks, doing drills, and training your footwork and muscle memory that counts. A guy throwing punches and kicks at you, and your instructor telling you how to move, where to block properly, where to position your arms and legs, and doing this hundreds of times is how you become a good fighter. Derek Fung's school was not teaching that at all. All the stance work in the world isn't going to count for anything when the fight goes to the ground either. Don't believe me? Have a look at MMA, where many of the fights go to the ground. The way Derek Fung was teaching kung-fu, you'd get seriously hurt in a real situation. Also, what's wrong with an Academy Pledge? Martial arts isn't just about fighting--it's about creating self-confident, healthy individuals who use their skills for good, rather than going around beating people up.
> As to Flying Crane's assertion that I "wouldn't recognize a good kung fu teacher if said teacher bit him in the nuts." Well wtf do you know? Did you bother reading my post, numbnuts? I know enough about wing chun to tell you that you don't start students on double hand chi sau. You do chi sau once the basics of sil lim tau have been mastered, and your sifu thinks you're good enough to progress. Look at William Cheung's grading structure--they don't do single hand chi sau until level 4 (out of ten levels), and double hand chi sau until level 5. Same with Ian Protheroe. Look at Jim Fung's grading structure--double chi sau is done at grade 3 (out of 4 grades). William Cheung and Jim Fung's schools are both accredited with the VTAA, and widely known in the wing chun world. Derek Fung's isn't. I spoke to Martin Lung (one of Chu Shong Tin's students), and he said that Derek was not even on the scene in Hong Kong in the old days.
> Wing chun schools, like all schools, can be divided into those that are great, and those that are mediocre (or worse). What I saw was a not particularly great teacher, who was doing it for the money. Go to a random school, and see how many guys are training, see if they are actually throwing punches and kicks, and see if they're going through the kinetics of fighting.



I don't know anything about Derek Fung so I'm not his defender nor detractor.  I'm going by the statements that you have made, and everything you've said tells me you do not understand kung fu.  Stance actually IS everything.  Without stance, you've got very little, and your comments make it clear that you don't even understand what stance is.  You've really got 20 years of martial arts?  Honestly, with what you've said it sounds to me like you've got 1 year, 20 times.

But hey, you are the one who decided to come on the scene, resurrect a thread that has been dormant for 7 years, and dog on someone's teacher.  Sure, it's always OK to resurrect old threads if there's something to add to the discussion.  But resurrecting the thread with the only reason being to criticise someone, and that's the VERY FIRST post you've made on the entire forum, it's trolling at its worst.  So I call it like I see it.  You are a simpleton, plain and simple.  Go back to your hole in the mud and hide your head from the sun.


----------



## Simon L (Feb 28, 2012)

"I don't know anything about Derek Fung so I'm not his defender nor detractor.  I'm going by the statements that you have made, and everything you've said tells me you do not understand kung fu.  Stance actually IS everything.  Without stance, you've got very little, and your comments make it clear that you don't even understand what stance is.  You've really got 20 years of martial arts?  Honestly, with what you've said it sounds to me like you've got 1 year, 20 times.

But hey, you are the one who decided to come on the scene, resurrect a thread that has been dormant for 7 years, and dog on someone's teacher.  Sure, it's always OK to resurrect old threads if there's something to add to the discussion.  But resurrecting the thread with the only reason being to criticise someone, and that's the VERY FIRST post you've made on the entire forum, it's trolling at its worst.  So I call it like I see it.  You are a simpleton, plain and simple.  Go back to your hole in the mud and hide your head from the sun."

Ok, let's get a few things straight. Now read this carefully idiot. The words kung-fu mean 'work' and 'effort' in Chinese. Good kung-fu is kung-fu which works in AN ACTUAL FIGHT. Kung-fu is not ALL about the stance. It is much more than the stance. One of the reasons why a lot of kung-fu guys get their butts whipped when they step into the ring against MMA guys, and jiujitsu guys is that they haven't done enough of the actual applications of fighting--e.g. done enough drills with actual punches and kicks, and gotten out of actual grabs and locks, nor have they done enough conditioning. No amount of 'correcting the stance,' 'training the apex' or 'holding the invisible ball' will help you with reading your opponent, timing, distancing nor the kinetics of actual fighting. The same reason that doing a 'tou lou' a thousand times will not make you a fighter at all. 
           Standing in a fixed stance against a static punch, is not going to make you a fighter. You need to have a LOT of punches and kicks thrown at you to know how an opponent actually moves, and how you train your muscle memory to deal with it.  Watch a couple of good fighters actually spar. They don't actually keep a stance--they're doing their best to avoid being hit, and they move around a fair bit, and they can read their opponents moves too.  Good martial arts schools practise these attributes. A lot of wing chun schools are basically no good--they start chi sau far too early, and they crap on about a stance (as I've indicated above).  Flying Crane, have a think about what I said. If you want to learn a stance, then hold it. If you want to learn to fight, then have people throw punches and kicks at you--makes sense doesn't it?


----------



## yak sao (Feb 28, 2012)

Stance is your foundation. Without one, your punches are weak, your footwork is shaky, your kicks have no support, your structure, no matter how good, will be ineffective, because you will be unable to pivot correctly to dissipate your opponent's attack.
Other than that, stance is pretty much worthless.

Just as you say too many WC schools start chi sau too early, I would also say, too many schools skip over the importance of SNT in an effort to get to the good stuff.
I strongly agree that to be a good WC man you need to spend time in dealing with realistic attacks, but don't skip the obviuos need to lay the groundwork.

The people who developed WC didn't live in a bubble. They fought. They knew about fighting. And then they developed a methodoloy to impart that to others. Why do we think we are any smarter than they were?


----------



## Simon L (Feb 28, 2012)

Yak Sao, I agree with a lot of what you said. Stance should not be dismissed out of hand--my point was that it is NOT nearly as important as Flying crane would argue. Especially when you consider that the inverted toe stance of much wing chun is pretty pointless anyway--your motion is restricted with an inverted foot position. You can have the best stance in the world, but unless you've felt a heap of punches and kicks thrown, gotten out of a lot of locks and grabs, and know how to move in a fight, all the stance work is of no use. Same as chi sau--too many wing chun schools emphasise it far too early. It's an important exercise, but it won't teach you to defend against long-range low kicks. In fact Sil Lim Tao is the most  important part of Wing Chun, and not enough schools emphasise this. Yip Man had a lot of students--not all completed the system, and of those that did, not all were great practitioners, and unfortunately, a lot of teachers are charlatans who may have trained briefly with Yip Man, and then go on and say that they have the REAL Wing Chun.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 29, 2012)

Stance training is the most important part for anyone in Chinese
martial arts.  Just about every style emphasizes the importanc of it.
In some schools like xingyiquan you wont even br taught how to
Do a form till you can stand in a stance for at least 20 minutes.  

The reason why it is the most important is because it
 Builds the strength needed to generate power.
It builds proper alignment it gives structure.  

Kungfu means time and effort because it takes
Time to gain skill meaning you must first be able
To stand then walk it takes effort to reshape your
Mind and body and learn to use your foundation
to build off it.

If your foundation is weak you over look basics you will
Never have good kungfu.

Simon calling people names shows no respect 
To other martial artist it shows lack of control and
Temperance.  If you can not control your speech 
Then it means you can not control your body
And that means your foundation may not be well
Grounded based on your presentation on the forum.

Good luck in your training


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 29, 2012)

Simon L said:


> Ok, let's get a few things straight. Now read this carefully idiot. The words kung-fu mean 'work' and 'effort' in Chinese. Good kung-fu is kung-fu which works in AN ACTUAL FIGHT. Kung-fu is not ALL about the stance. It is much more than the stance. One of the reasons why a lot of kung-fu guys get their butts whipped when they step into the ring against MMA guys, and jiujitsu guys is that they haven't done enough of the actual applications of fighting--e.g. done enough drills with actual punches and kicks, and gotten out of actual grabs and locks, nor have they done enough conditioning. No amount of 'correcting the stance,' 'training the apex' or 'holding the invisible ball' will help you with reading your opponent, timing, distancing nor the kinetics of actual fighting. The same reason that doing a 'tou lou' a thousand times will not make you a fighter at all.
> Standing in a fixed stance against a static punch, is not going to make you a fighter. You need to have a LOT of punches and kicks thrown at you to know how an opponent actually moves, and how you train your muscle memory to deal with it. Watch a couple of good fighters actually spar. They don't actually keep a stance--they're doing their best to avoid being hit, and they move around a fair bit, and they can read their opponents moves too. Good martial arts schools practise these attributes. A lot of wing chun schools are basically no good--they start chi sau far too early, and they crap on about a stance (as I've indicated above). Flying Crane, have a think about what I said. If you want to learn a stance, then hold it. If you want to learn to fight, then have people throw punches and kicks at you--makes sense doesn't it?



There's the thing:  stance is NOT simply squatting down and nailing your feet to the floor, never to move again.  Stance is both building the strength in the legs, AND understanding how to use that strength actively to drive your technique from the ground up.  That is where real power comes from, far more than from the strength of the arms and shoulders.  That is what stances are all about, and it's a training process to develop both the strength, AND the ability to use that strength.  This is fundamental to Chinese martial arts, and any good teacher will take his time with this and not rush thru it, because this builds a foundation for far better skills in the long run, even if it doesn't satisfy a desire for quick fighting ability right this instant.

If you feel MMA is somehow THE yardstick against which all martial arts should be measured, then go do MMA.  Why do traditional Chinese martial arts, if that is your belief?  Go follow your interests, and don't do things that don't satisfy your interests, or don't fulfill your vision of what martial training ought to be.  But don't hold any illusions that you've got all the answers.  As I've mentioned, the things you've posted indicate to me that you have a very superficial understanding of Chinese martial arts.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 29, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> There's the thing: stance is NOT simply squatting down and nailing your feet to the floor, never to move again. Stance is both building the strength in the legs, AND understanding how to use that strength actively to drive your technique from the ground up. That is where real power comes from, far more than from the strength of the arms and shoulders. That is what stances are all about, and it's a training process to develop both the strength, AND the ability to use that strength. This is fundamental to Chinese martial arts, and any good teacher will take his time with this and not rush thru it, because this builds a foundation for far better skills in the long run, even if it doesn't satisfy a desire for quick fighting ability right this instant.
> 
> *If you feel MMA is somehow THE yardstick against which all martial arts should be measured,* then go do MMA. Why do traditional Chinese martial arts, if that is your belief? Go follow your interests, and don't do things that don't satisfy your interests, or don't fulfill your vision of what martial training ought to be. But don't hold any illusions that you've got all the answers. As I've mentioned, the things you've posted indicate to me that you have a very superficial understanding of Chinese martial arts.



Funnily enough we spend good bit of time on stances in MMA, without proper stances you will be unbalanced, taken down, don't punch with power or fall over when kicking. In fact in the karate I do we also spend a fair bit of time learning stances, Wado Ryu has a lot some of which I believe those who do CMA would know, the Judo we do needs good stances, if you don't stand the correct way you either can't throw properly or you hurt your back. Kick boxing needs good stances or else you can't kick properly and end up unbalanced. I can't imagine any martial artist in any style, to be honest, _not_ understanding why stances are so vital.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 29, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Funnily enough we spend good bit of time on stances in MMA, without proper stances you will be unbalanced, taken down, don't punch with power or fall over when kicking. In fact in the karate I do we also spend a fair bit of time learning stances, Wado Ryu has a lot some of which I believe those who do CMA would know, the Judo we do needs good stances, if you don't stand the correct way you either can't throw properly or you hurt your back. Kick boxing needs good stances or else you can't kick properly and end up unbalanced. I can't imagine any martial artist in any style, to be honest, _not_ understanding why stances are so vital.



I am not at all surprised by what you are saying.  And just to be clear, neither was I making a contrast between MMA and traditional Chinese martial arts in terms of one being better than the other.  Just saying that, if he thinks his local MMA gym trains in a better way, then that is where he should be training.

All I can say about Traditional Chinese martial arts is that it takes a certain mindset to train it properly.  It definitely is not for everyone.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 29, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I am not at all surprised by what you are saying. *And just to be clear, neither was I making a contrast between MMA and traditional Chinese martial arts in terms of one being better than the other.* Just saying that, if he thinks his local MMA gym trains in a better way, then that is where he should be training.
> 
> All I can say about Traditional Chinese martial arts is that it takes a certain mindset to train it properly. It definitely is not for everyone.



I realise that , I can just imagine what he'll say if he did go across to MMA and has his stances corrected and worked on instead of 'real kicks and punches' lol. You can't run until you've learnt to walk. People are often disappointed when they come in an MMA club/gym, they expect just what Simon seems to expect and it just isn't like that. Just like any other martial arts place it's basics, basics, basics first then you do the more advanced techniques.  While it was open, sadly the instructor left, I did some JKD for a while, I felt as home there even though the style and techniques were very different because the fundamentals of training were the same as I'm used to in karate and MMA. I've no doubt that if I went to a WC class while I'd be totally at sea techniquewise I'd understand how you train and vice versa I'm sure.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 29, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I realise that , I can just imagine what he'll say if he did go across to MMA and has his stances corrected and worked on instead of 'real kicks and punches' lol. You can't run until you've learnt to walk. People are often disappointed when they come in an MMA club/gym, they expect just what Simon seems to expect and it just isn't like that. Just like any other martial arts place *it's basics, basics, basics first then you do the more advanced techniques.* While it was open, sadly the instructor left, I did some JKD for a while, I felt as home there even though the style and techniques were very different because the fundamentals of training were the same as I'm used to in karate and MMA. I've no doubt that if I went to a WC class while I'd be totally at sea techniquewise I'd understand how you train and vice versa I'm sure.



yeah, and the need to keep reinforcing those basics never goes away.  That should always be a significant part of the training, no matter how advanced one gets.


----------



## MJS (Feb 29, 2012)

Some posts on stance training were split into a new thread. There was some good discussion on the subject so this thread can be dedicated to that topic.


----------



## bully (Feb 29, 2012)

I have always been taught that stance is extremely important in Wing chun, in China even more so. We were doing more stance training than I ever did in my Western classes and it payed dividends in my footwork and general movements.

Just wish I had 5-6 hours again per day to train and no distractions:uhyeah:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 29, 2012)

Simon L said:


> "I don't know anything about Derek Fung so I'm not his defender nor detractor.  I'm going by the statements that you have made, and everything you've said tells me you do not understand kung fu.  Stance actually IS everything.  Without stance, you've got very little, and your comments make it clear that you don't even understand what stance is.  You've really got 20 years of martial arts?  Honestly, with what you've said it sounds to me like you've got 1 year, 20 times.
> 
> But hey, you are the one who decided to come on the scene, resurrect a thread that has been dormant for 7 years, and dog on someone's teacher.  Sure, it's always OK to resurrect old threads if there's something to add to the discussion.  But resurrecting the thread with the only reason being to criticise someone, and that's the VERY FIRST post you've made on the entire forum, it's trolling at its worst.  So I call it like I see it.  You are a simpleton, plain and simple.  Go back to your hole in the mud and hide your head from the sun."
> 
> ...




Most of that says you are entirely clueless about Traditional Chinese Martial Arts or for that matter martial arts as a whole

First the term Kung Fu as it applies to Chinese martial arts, although you are correct that it means hard work it does not mean Chinese martial arts, the term Wushu does and to be good at Wushu requires Kung Fu. 

Next you are completely misunderstanding what is meant when they say Chinese Marital arts is all about stance. The fact that you stated "Standing in a fixed stance against a static punch, is not going to make you a fighter" says you are fairly clueless about MA as a whole

Let me clear this up for you a bit, since you likely do not have the background that you are claiming to have.

Try building a house without a foundation. Try growing a tree without a root...  that is what stances mean to Traditional Chinese martial arts.

So endth the lesson


----------



## mograph (Feb 29, 2012)

Y'know ... could this be settled by saying that fixed stance training is a _*necessary, but not sufficient*_ component of martial arts training?


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 29, 2012)

Simon L said:
			
		

> Ok. Firstly Eric H, I've been in the martial arts for nearly 20 years now. I've done hung gar, and wing chun, so I know what I'm talking about.



I sincerely doubt that.



> As to your assertion "Basic Kung Fu *is* stance work. It *is* the most important part of your kung fu. You can't survive energy challenge if the other guy is able to bounce you all about willy-nilly". Stance work is only a small part of learning kung-fu. I trained with Ian Protheroe up in Brisbane, and he never harped on about training a stance from a fixed position.



You keep bringing up this Ian Proteroe person, obviously you identified with his teachings. Different people teach in different ways. Just because he taught you something does not make it true.



> When you're in a real fight, training your stance from a fixed position isn't going to do a lot of good. It's training actual punches and kicks, doing drills, and training your footwork and muscle memory that counts. A guy throwing punches and kicks at you, and your instructor telling you how to move, where to block properly, where to position your arms and legs, and doing this hundreds of times is how you become a good fighter.



Since you already *clearly* know so much about fighting, why even bother seeking out a new Sifu at all?



> Derek Fung's school was not teaching that at all. All the stance work in the world isn't going to count for anything when the fight goes to the ground either. Don't believe me? Have a look at MMA, where many of the fights go to the ground. The way Derek Fung was teaching kung-fu, you'd get seriously hurt in a real situation.



So you have sparred with his senior students to see how good they are then?



> Also, what's wrong with an Academy Pledge? Martial arts isn't just about fighting--it's about creating self-confident, healthy individuals who use their skills for good, rather than going around beating people up.



And wouldnt that same pledge then stop you from coming on to a forum and acting in the disgraceful manner in which you have already? I mean this Ian Proteroe probably had some such nonsense at his school  no?

Listen dude, a very traditional Chinese teacher didnt come up and kiss your behind like you wanted him to and now youre all bent out about it. You need a westernized teacher, I hope you find one. At the same time, dogging on an older Chinese gentleman for teaching in the very classical Chinese manner when youre learning Chinese Kung Fu is kind of ridiculous. GM Ip didnt hand out much of anything unless you had been with him a long while, Im sure Sifu Fung is the same.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 29, 2012)

mograph said:


> Y'know ... could this be settled by saying that fixed stance training is a _*necessary, but not sufficient*_ component of martial arts training?



I would say not exactly

I would think it would be more along the lines of *necessary, but not sufficient* if your goal is to understand and apply the complete art and be a martial artist.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 29, 2012)

mograph said:


> Y'know ... could this be settled by saying that fixed stance training is a _*necessary, but not sufficient*_ component of martial arts training?




Sure....if you want to take all the fun out of it


----------



## Simon L (Feb 29, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> There's the thing:  stance is NOT simply squatting down and nailing your feet to the floor, never to move again.  Stance is both building the strength in the legs, AND understanding how to use that strength actively to drive your technique from the ground up.  That is where real power comes from, far more than from the strength of the arms and shoulders.  That is what stances are all about, and it's a training process to develop both the strength, AND the ability to use that strength.  This is fundamental to Chinese martial arts, and any good teacher will take his time with this and not rush thru it, because this builds a foundation for far better skills in the long run, even if it doesn't satisfy a desire for quick fighting ability right this instant.
> 
> If you feel MMA is somehow THE yardstick against which all martial arts should be measured, then go do MMA.  Why do traditional Chinese martial arts, if that is your belief?  Go follow your interests, and don't do things that don't satisfy your interests, or don't fulfill your vision of what martial training ought to be.  But don't hold any illusions that you've got all the answers.  As I've mentioned, the things you've posted indicate to me that you have a very superficial understanding of Chinese martial arts.




Ok Flying Crane, let's get a few things straight here. I never said that stance was simply squatting down. What I did say was that there is far too much emphasis on it--it's one of the criticisms that Bruce Lee had with traditional Chinese martial arts. No amount of training the stance will help you learn about timing, distancing, reading one's opponent or even more importantly muscle memory.  You learn to fight by having punches and kicks thrown at you, grabs and locks applied, and repeating this hundreds, if not thousands of times. Understanding how to use strength is of no use, if you don't know how to move, where to block, how to read your opponent etc.  I know what I'm talking about. You can hold a stance for hours each day, but your muscle memory and contact sensitivity WILL NOT BE TRAINED.  These are some of the reasons that A LOT of kung-fu guys don't do all that well in real fights.  In a real fight, it's those attributes which I previously mentioned which count, because your stance becomes disrupted or even worse the fight can be taken to the ground. Now have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKRyTSr5Mo&feature=related

If you watch it, you'll realise that the fight goes to the ground. Where is the kung-fu guy's stance once he's on the ground? Once Royce Gracie got close to him, the other guy got flogged. You need to realise Flying Crane, that the empirical evidence of most kung-fu fighters is not that great when they go against guys in the ring.  There are exceptions--where I trained with Ian Protheroe, we did a LOT of punches and kicks, drills, actual grabs and holds, how to move, where to position yourself etc.  Also, a lot of the stance training, particularly in wing chun, is WRONG. The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility.  Many people in martial arts are not particularly bright--they don't stop and think whether something works or not, and just blindly listen.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 29, 2012)

Simon L said:


> Ok Flying Crane, let's get a few things straight here. I never said that stance was simply squatting down. What I did say was that there is far too much emphasis on it--it's one of the criticisms that Bruce Lee had with traditional Chinese martial arts. No amount of training the stance will help you learn about timing, distancing, reading one's opponent or even more importantly muscle memory. You learn to fight by having punches and kicks thrown at you, grabs and locks applied, and repeating this hundreds, if not thousands of times. Understanding how to use strength is of no use, if you don't know how to move, where to block, how to read your opponent etc. I know what I'm talking about. You can hold a stance for hours each day, but your muscle memory and contact sensitivity WILL NOT BE TRAINED. These are some of the reasons that A LOT of kung-fu guys don't do all that well in real fights. In a real fight, it's those attributes which I previously mentioned which count, because your stance becomes disrupted or even worse the fight can be taken to the ground. Now have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKRyTSr5Mo&feature=related
> 
> If you watch it, you'll realise that the fight goes to the ground. Where is the kung-fu guy's stance once he's on the ground? Once Royce Gracie got close to him, the other guy got flogged. You need to realise Flying Crane, that the empirical evidence of most kung-fu fighters is not that great when they go against guys in the ring. There are exceptions--where I trained with Ian Protheroe, we did a LOT of punches and kicks, drills, actual grabs and holds, how to move, where to position yourself etc. Also, a lot of the stance training, particularly in wing chun, is WRONG. The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility. Many people in martial arts are not particularly bright--they don't stop and think whether something works or not, and just blindly listen.



Oh, now I see what you are talking about. Thanks for setting me straight. You know best. :rofl:


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 29, 2012)

Simon L said:


> Ok Flying Crane, let's get a few things straight here. I never said that stance was simply squatting down. What I did say was that there is far too much emphasis on it--it's one of the criticisms that Bruce Lee had with traditional Chinese martial arts. No amount of training the stance will help you learn about timing, distancing, reading one's opponent or even more importantly muscle memory.  You learn to fight by having punches and kicks thrown at you, grabs and locks applied, and repeating this hundreds, if not thousands of times. Understanding how to use strength is of no use, if you don't know how to move, where to block, how to read your opponent etc.  I know what I'm talking about. You can hold a stance for hours each day, but your muscle memory and contact sensitivity WILL NOT BE TRAINED.  These are some of the reasons that A LOT of kung-fu guys don't do all that well in real fights.  In a real fight, it's those attributes which I previously mentioned which count, because your stance becomes disrupted or even worse the fight can be taken to the ground. Now have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKRyTSr5Mo&feature=related
> 
> If you watch it, you'll realise that the fight goes to the ground. Where is the kung-fu guy's stance once he's on the ground? Once Royce Gracie got close to him, the other guy got flogged. You need to realise Flying Crane, that the empirical evidence of most kung-fu fighters is not that great when they go against guys in the ring.  There are exceptions--where I trained with Ian Protheroe, we did a LOT of punches and kicks, drills, actual grabs and holds, how to move, where to position yourself etc.  Also, a lot of the stance training, particularly in wing chun, is WRONG. The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility.  Many people in martial arts are not particularly bright--they don't stop and think whether something works or not, and just blindly listen.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the patronizing tone. Your comments on the wing chun stance-show that you probably don't have or know good versions of it, what it used for, how it is related to later devlopment of coordinated footwork. On this list, I suggest a little more politeness in tone.

joy chaudhuri


----------



## oaktree (Feb 29, 2012)

> What I did say was that there is far too much emphasis on it--it's one of the criticisms that Bruce Lee had with traditional Chinese martial arts. No amount of training the stance will help you learn about timing, distancing, reading one's opponent or even more importantly muscle memory


Traditionally there is much emphasis in it and those who teach it have a reason for it. If you disagree with it you are entitled to but if you want to train traditionally in traditional Chinese arts it is what lays the founation. Bruce Lee wrote quite alot on his ideal stance and spoke alot on the proper stance needed in his mind and style
to be effective and efficent. In his book he lays his foundation which is first his JKD stance he then goes into his idea on how to generate power from this stance and how to move in his stance. On the subject of timing, distancing and reading the opponent a student learns this in free form and application. But in order to do well in this you need a foundation. 


> Understanding how to use strength is of no use, if you don't know how to move, where to block, how to read your opponent etc. I know what I'm talking about.


 When a toddler learns to walk it must first learn balance and have a strong stance then when it has learned how to control his balance and has proper strength and coordination then it can walk and start to run. 



> You can hold a stance for hours each day, but your muscle memory and contact sensitivity WILL NOT BE TRAINED.


Which is why after you can stand and all the wonderful things gained from stance training you move on to the next level of lessons. Learn to sink and root so when you learn free form you do not loose your balance easy, learn to coordinate mind and body and you can move naturally, learn to burn through the pain of stance training you gain will power, inner strength and endurance, learning to root you learn to sink your weight downwards leaving your top lighter so that the legs generate the power to the hips and upward through the arms giving you whole body power as a unit rather then just throwing your arm.



> These are some of the reasons that A LOT of kung-fu guys don't do all that well in real fights. In a real fight, it's those attributes which I previously mentioned which count, because your stance becomes disrupted or even worse the fight can be taken to the ground.


Plenty of people who practice Wushu who used their art fine in real fights what ever real fights mean. I am guessing you are thinking of stance training like something you just do right when people fight. How about thinking of stance training similar to squats you do in a gym but with more of a martial application.



> Now have a look at this video


The "kungfu" guy shot in and Gracie took him down. But what does this mean that grappling beats striking? a person with no grappling looses to a superior grappler if taken to the ground? I think everyone in the martial art world realize the need to look at how grappling takes place but let me show you now a clip of a taijiquan person
and a grappler:




This is Chen Bing.  Does it mean he can not be taken down no but it does show that having a proper foundation in stance training plays an important role.




> If you watch it, you'll realise that the fight goes to the ground. Where is the kung-fu guy's stance once he's on the ground? Once Royce Gracie got close to him, the other guy got flogged. You need to realise Flying Crane, that the empirical evidence of most kung-fu fighters is not that great when they go against guys in the ring.


  Ah the key here is the RING. The RING and fighting for your life are very different. The Ring implies there are rules and fairness fighting for your life no rules.
 If I am ever in a fight for my life maybe I do not use anything I learned from my martial art class and pick up a rock to hit someone in the head with I am observant like that. Cung Le is a Wushu guy he is doing great in the ring actually quite alot of Sanda guys are doing well in the ring but I recall a story about a kick boxer who went after someone who robbed some lady's purse and was shot dead.




> There are exceptions--where I trained with Ian Protheroe, we did a LOT of punches and kicks, drills, actual grabs and holds, how to move, where to position yourself etc.


 Glad your found a teacher who works for you and others on this site have found what works for them. 



> Also, a lot of the stance training, particularly in wing chun, is WRONG


 I only know 3 Chinese styles (Taijiquan, Baguazhang,Xingyiquan) I would be interested to hear what makes are stance training wrong since we do sp
end alot of time doing them. In Wushu you have Wai kua and Nei kua &#22806;&#33007;&#20869;&#33007; putting your feet more
inwards strengthens the Nei kua area IMO sitting more in Ma bu IMO works more of the Wai kua both are needed usually standing in Zhan Zhuang accomplish a more balance approach but focusing more inner or outer does have its place and I am sure in Wing Chun the more narrow stance and the Nei kua focus more on the principle of the center line.  





> The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility.


 Same can be said if you are in Ma bu with your feet pointing out too. I find Jeet Kun do with the foot pointing back to be akward but if someone likes it and works for them great.




> Many people in martial arts are not particularly bright--they don't stop and think whether something works or not, and just blindly listen.



I don't think many people are like this at all. But I guess it depends on your experience and how you see things. Alot of how we see the world is how we think about the world and how we see our selves. I think Simon we will have to agree to disagree good luck in your training.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 29, 2012)

Groundfighting is not some new invention that originated with the Gracies. When WC was developed back in the late 1600's, give or take a few decades, they too were dealing with groundfighting as a possibility.
The approach they took to it, was the same approach they took to the other fighting ranges....neutralize.
Rather than come up with an extensive groungfighting program to deal with wrestlers, they felt it best to develop an anti grappling approach. Just as they developed an anti kicking approach, etc.

Many get their hackles raised when they see this "anti " term used. They see it as WC is saying that it is immune to going to the ground, or being kicked. It is not that at all. The founders seemed to think that the best way to deal with other styles of fighting was to not play into their opponent's hand, but rather use the strength of their own developed style, wing chun, to their advantage.

A WC fighter is certainly not immune to going to the ground. But  if trained properly, a good WC man can prevent much of what a wrestler is trying to do. That said, it still pays to train from the ground, but the approach is not from a grappling perspective, but from the perspectice of fighting to regain your standing posiion.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 29, 2012)

Stances, in the respect of an actual fight, are fleeting. Moments in time. Stance training and training stance movement can be static or can be with some movement and is in my humble opinion extremely important. I also opine long term repetitive static stance training alone is only one level of stance training. Some stance training is also use with movement. It can be with stepping, sliding, turning, shifting the body weight, against someone pressing into you from the front, back, or sides to list a few possibilities. Still stance training. I train and instruct wing chun and have been doing so for a couple of decades. I also train and instruct muay thai, a well known element in most MMA. Have trained under Ajarn Chai Sirisute of the Thai Boxing Association USA. How much stance work is done. A lot! I would say I have done 'more' stance work in my muay thai training than in my wing chun. I still have the honor of training with Ajarn Chai 3-4 times a year for 4-8 hrs each time and even after the many years of training what is the first thing worked on every time? STANCE! Stance in a static position, stance moving forward, backward, to each side, and turning. Then we work on timing based on stepping front foot - rear foot in the same position for 30 minutes to an hour Every Time. Why? Because it is important. Stance work helps the practitioner learn many things that in time can and will be used in a physical confrontation. Sport and/or self-defense. Things like: focus and attention to detail, balance; strengthening of the legs, feet, and the many joints associated with them, patience, timing of yourself (if you can not time yourself you will never be good at timing the opponent). These are but a few, there is more.

_"The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility"

_This I agree with but when I am in the inverted toe stance I do not want mobility. I want rooting. There is also a lot of other aspects of training that is attribute development not fight development. Some is for cardio, some is strength, some is agility, some is balance, some is explosiveness, some is for flexibility. There is far more to fight development than just punching and kicking in a sparring action. Stance training is one very important aspect.

Train hard, train smart.

All the best.


----------



## Domino (Mar 1, 2012)

I would've PM'd Eric myself, not started a thread.
Don't worry about what everyone is doing or thinking so much, I did that not so long ago. 
Remember everyones different.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 1, 2012)

Simon L said:


> Ok Flying Crane, let's get a few things straight here. I never said that stance was simply squatting down. What I did say was that there is far too much emphasis on it--it's one of the criticisms that Bruce Lee had with traditional Chinese martial arts. No amount of training the stance will help you learn about timing, distancing, reading one's opponent or even more importantly muscle memory.  You learn to fight by having punches and kicks thrown at you, grabs and locks applied, and repeating this hundreds, if not thousands of times. Understanding how to use strength is of no use, if you don't know how to move, where to block, how to read your opponent etc.  I know what I'm talking about. You can hold a stance for hours each day, but your muscle memory and contact sensitivity WILL NOT BE TRAINED.  These are some of the reasons that A LOT of kung-fu guys don't do all that well in real fights.  In a real fight, it's those attributes which I previously mentioned which count, because your stance becomes disrupted or even worse the fight can be taken to the ground. Now have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKRyTSr5Mo&feature=related
> 
> If you watch it, you'll realise that the fight goes to the ground. Where is the kung-fu guy's stance once he's on the ground? Once Royce Gracie got close to him, the other guy got flogged. You need to realise Flying Crane, that the empirical evidence of most kung-fu fighters is not that great when they go against guys in the ring.  There are exceptions--where I trained with Ian Protheroe, we did a LOT of punches and kicks, drills, actual grabs and holds, how to move, where to position yourself etc.  Also, a lot of the stance training, particularly in wing chun, is WRONG. The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility.  Many people in martial arts are not particularly bright--they don't stop and think whether something works or not, and just blindly listen.



oh goody you read Bruce Lee's books.

As to ground fighting this arguement has been hashed and rehashed here and it is obvious you are clueless about things CMA so..... :wavey: have a nice day


----------



## bully (Mar 1, 2012)

Simon, I am interested in the thinking behind the "The inverted toe stance gives one insufficient mobility" statement you made.

What do you mean? In my version of WC the inverted toe stance is a training stance and has no bearing on my mobility as I am in a "fighting" stance when I need to be mobile. 

Are you saying that:

A) When in the stance the practitioner has insufficient mobility? I know some lineages use the stance outside of training.

B) By training in it too much we lose mobility in other areas/stances?


----------



## onthechin (Mar 2, 2012)

Maybe this has been said already, I dont think anyone can blame me for not reading every post to the letter....
Isn't stance (whilst being all important) based on how you fight? If you intend to concentrate on infighting, then having a high stance doesnt make much sense as you're easily put off balance. On the other hand, if you intend to concentrate on kicks - ie. TKD, then maybe a feet closer together stance would be preferable? For WC you want a low stance whilst also retaining mobility..not unlike all the other punching styles out there. Its a different stance to boxing as you kick in WC and you dont have your hands in massive gloves..I think (and only my opinion) that a lowish stance where you shuffle but are also highly mobile, able to T-stance etc is best. I guess with WC you need to remember that your arms/hands are your main weapon, not your feet.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 2, 2012)

onthechin said:


> Maybe this has been said already, I dont think anyone can blame me for not reading every post to the letter....
> Isn't stance (whilst being all important) based on how you fight? If you intend to concentrate on infighting, then having a high stance doesnt make much sense as you're easily put off balance. On the other hand, if you intend to concentrate on kicks - ie. TKD, then maybe a feet closer together stance would be preferable? For WC you want a low stance whilst also retaining mobility..not unlike all the other punching styles out there. Its a different stance to boxing as you kick in WC and you dont have your hands in massive gloves..I think (and only my opinion) that a lowish stance where you shuffle but are also highly mobile, able to T-stance etc is best. I guess with WC you need to remember that your arms/hands are your main weapon, not your feet.




And this is where we see a lot of these WC guys go wrong in these You tube challenges.
They mimic the other fighter. They either adopt their stance  and dance around with them on one extreme, or they stand there motionless waiting for the guy to come to them on the other.
They need to be exploding in as soon as the opportunity presents itself, shutting down the other fighter.
I think the reason we don't see it is because these are "friendly "matches and the WC guy is in essence being too nice, which leads to their downfall.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 2, 2012)

yak sao said:


> And this is where we see a lot of these WC guys go wrong in these You tube challenges.They mimic the other fighter. They either adopt their stance  and dance around with them on one extreme, or they stand there motionless waiting for the guy to come to them on the other.They need to be exploding in as soon as the opportunity presents itself, shutting down the other fighter.I think the reason we don't see it is because these are "friendly "matches and the WC guy is in essence being too nice, which leads to their downfall.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH13kYFzfFk

There are other factors, too. This may not be a great example persay, but what Im getting at is that it is easy to be Trained to fight ones own Style. By which I mean, I do not believe this person was expecting that kind of back-moving counter fighting whilst not caring about being struck. This can lead to a "Well crap" type mindset, at which point, the nominal thing to do is change (Like, change from one punching method to a punch then kick, or punch then elbow or something. A change). But that decision can be hard to make when Youre processing different things, which can lead to brief openings. Some Systems are less privy to this. Boxing, for example, is Punching. Theres no exact technically correct methods, more non-literal methods. As such, it is highly adaptable. More methodical punching, however, tends to sometimes come off a bit strangely *at first*. The method doesnt need to change, the Tactic might. And unfortunately, sometimes changing Tactics takes a second.The change shown is, "This is working! Im hitting! I should keep doing it!"; Until He realises it isnt working too well, and changes Tactics. But when He stops for just that moment, and then goes to do something different, Hes intercepted.

The solution?Read My Signature.

Relevance retrospectively? He was transitioning between Stances when He was intercepted.

EDIT: As in, I reckon it would have gone better had He not changed Stance. Thats what rendered Him unstable, and ultimately ended it. Had He just changed tact, but not Stance? It would have been more interesting.Im mostly curious to hear thoughts.

Also, the Site ate My Enter hits, so this is all a bit smushy. Grr.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 2, 2012)

It all goes back to not suffeciently pressure testing your art. It happens with them all, but let's pick on WC, as that is what I practice.
It is so easy, with WC, to become a theoritician, if that's even a word.
We practice our forms and then practice our chi sau and think we are ready for a street encounter ( or the ring)
If that is all we do we are doing what my old sifu called practicing incest....we only know how to fight against our own style.
Even if we get downright savage with our chi sau ( and lat sau) if we are only practicing against like minded and like fisted bretrhren, then we are in for a rude awakening when our adversary on the street or ring "does it wrong"., then rather than sticking to our guns and fighting our fight, too many times we see the WC man in these videos start fighting the fight of their opponent.
That's why it's so important to cross train against other styles. 
We are fortunate in our little group as we have ex wrestlers, BJJ guys, boxers and shaolin guys to play the part of the aggressor.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 2, 2012)

yak sao said:


> It all goes back to not suffeciently pressure testing your art. It happens with them all, but let's pick on WC, as that is what I practice.
> It is so easy, with WC, to become a theoritician, if that's even a word.
> We practice our forms and then practice our chi sau and think we are ready for a street encounter ( or the ring)
> If that is all we do we are doing what my old sifu called practicing incest....we only know how to fight against our own style.
> ...


Id argue that Cross-Sparring would work just as well*. I completely agree though**.

*Thats in Agreement with the End.
**And that to the Start and Middle.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 2, 2012)

Actually, I meant sparring....while I'm not against learning another style for the purpose of cross training, I'm just too freakin' busy.
I think sparring against them is the solution.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 3, 2012)

Gee , somebody better tell Tsui Seung Tin and my late Sifu that your not supposed to be able to move well in that inverted toe stance because they didn't get the memo.

I have seen with my own eyes how explosive movement can be from the YCKYM stance , not only explosive but non telegraphic.

I've probably told this story before of seeing my Sifu demo a charging knee , a technique we use when we want to bridge the gap when the opponent is just out of kicking range.

Well if you blinked you would have missed it , in one rapid movement he covered over two meters and stopped with his fist in front of an instructors face , there was no discernible pre movement , one second he was at point A and a nano second later he was at point B.


How can someone move that fast and with such efficiency , with not so much as a small forward lean to signal his intentions to burst forward?

The answer is STANCE TRAINING and a crap load of it.
In all it's forms both static and dynamic .
The YCKYM stance is like anything else it has to be practiced until it becomes an intrinsic part of you , we accomplish this several ways.

Apart from Siu Nim Tao form , in the early days of training the student will simply practice moving forward and back in the stance as fast as they can , and then side to side, diagonal etc.
They will be told to sink their weight to , move from the waist , keep their back straight and thighs relaxed and springy.

As training progresses they learn to move in their stance while doing chi sau and against incoming punches and kicks or grabs, with the emphasis on always moving forward to unbalance the opponent.
It's not rocket science , if you want to be able to move well in your stance , you have to bloody well practice moving around in your stance.... a lot.

There are several very good reasons why we use the YCKYM stance as our fighting stance and some features of it that have to be adhered to in order for it to work optimally, I have explained these before so I probably sound like a broken record , but anyway I will say them again.

The stance is not only external it is internal as well , there is a slight contraction of the sphincter muscle (Tei gong) that must be maintained , it locks the upper and lower body together as one unit which increases force in attacking and defensive motions.

As well as being resistant to pressure from all directions the inverted pidgeon toed stance enables the potential force of the whole body to be focused on the centerline , so that any punch or kick will contain the mass of the whole body.

The pidgeon toed square on stance affords the ability to use the limbs on both sides of the body equally , as well as adding an element of unpredictability in that the opponent does not know which limb will strike him first.
It also enables three limbs to be in operation at the same time , one leg kicking , one arm striking and the other arm controlling the opponents limb.

While a conventional lead leg , one side forward stance will give the user slightly more range , it also means that their body is more susceptible to being pulled to the blind side and having the back of the neck/head/kidneys exposed.

In my opinion this is probably one of the main reasons why Wing Chun adopts a front on stance , the triangular feature of the stance and focus on centerline makes it very resistant to being dragged to the side and having the back of the body vulnerable to attack.

Skeptics will say that the Wing Chun square on stance exposes the groin more than a side on stance , but with a side on stance you can still be kicked in the groin , even from the back.

The advantage of the 50/50 weighted stance used in Wing Chun is that you can jam a groin kick with either leg with minimal weight transference and immediately step forward and counter attack with the other leg.

In contrast with the side on stance the front leg will generally be used to jam and the rear leg used to counter attack , which takes a lot of time consuming weight transference , and because of the greater distance the rear leg has to travel to get to the opponent it means it is also susceptible to being itself jammed.

That probably covers most of why we use the stance that we do, to the uninitiated it probably looks like a cumbersome and awkward stance to work from.

But it just requires practice and after a time becomes quite natural and you can move speedily in any direction , with complete control of your balance and minimal weight transference.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 3, 2012)

A self defense situation is made of transitioning through different stances to assure balance, weight distribution, and to transfer power properly. This work is all done while you are involved in practice so in the heat of battle you don't have to think about it, it will be there. This is martial arts 101, I thought everyone knew this.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 3, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> There are several very good reasons why we use the YCKYM stance as our fighting stance and some features of it that have to be adhered to in order for it to work optimally, I have explained these before so I probably sound like a broken record , but anyway I will say them again.
> 
> The stance is not only external it is internal as well , there is a slight contraction of the sphincter muscle (Tei gong) that must be maintained , it locks the upper and lower body together as one unit which increases force in attacking and defensive motions..



I think you just like saying sphincter


----------



## yak sao (Mar 3, 2012)

But seriously folks...reading your post Mook, inspires me to go out to my training room and practice my stance.
Much appreciated.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 3, 2012)

yak sao said:


> I think you just like saying sphincter



I do actually , it's such a fun word to say.
I might say it some more , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincter , sphincterrrrrrrrrrrrr.

All kidding aside , there is no nice way to talk about it , my Sifu used to describe it as like you are trying to stop yourself from going to the toilet.

But without it the stance is not complete , it requires a lot of mental discipline and training.
There is a very tangible difference that can be felt when it is activated , in chi sau the person will suddenly feel heavier and more power will be felt flowing through the arms , all striking and kicking will also be more powerful.

The persons stance will be more stable and they will not be easily moved , they will also be more mobile as the internal contraction is thought to make the thighs more easily relaxed by taking some of the pressure off them.

The main thing is that it ties the whole body together as one unit , TST describes it this way , if you don't have it on  your body is in many pieces , if you have it on your body is now one piece.


----------



## wtxs (Mar 5, 2012)

seasoned said:


> A self defense situation is made of transitioning through different stances to assure balance, weight distribution, and to transfer power properly. This work is all done while you are involved in practice so in the heat of battle you don't have to think about it, it will be there. *This is martial arts 101, I thought everyone knew this.*



We must pity those which may had a life time of schooling ... but didn't learn a damn thing.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 5, 2012)

Whoa.....sphincter?  Somebody tell the Korean stylist(me) all about this regarding stances.  What does it mean?  How can I apply it to Hapkido?


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 5, 2012)

Instructor said:


> Whoa.....sphincter?  Somebody tell the Korean stylist(me) all about this regarding stances.  What does it mean?  How can I apply it to Hapkido?



In our lineage it is called Tei Gong.
Relax , back straight , Tei Gong , that is the mantra.
It is a physical and mental thing , if you want to get all esoteric  it is thought to facilitate the flow of "Nim Lik" (Thought Force) up the spine and out to the limbs.

It is developed mainly by doing the Siu Nim Tao form for many years.
I don't think you could apply it to Hapkido , you could try it , but I don't believe it would work quite the same way.
A lot of it has to do also with the back being straight and the feet being parallel and focused towards the centerline.

In other words you would have to adopt a Wing Chun stance , and then you wouldn't be doing Hapkido anymore would you?
You might as well just do Wing Chun.

This is why trying to take something from one martial art and trying to bolt it on to another martial art often times does not work because they are just too incompatible.
Once the stance is changed then it's doubtful that anything will work as it should.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 5, 2012)

Since we're back on the sphincter thing, I'd like a few clarifications myself.
I've done a bit of chi kung and it was addressed there, but I've never heard it addressed in SNT in our lineage....not saying it isn't there, just that I haven't been taught it.

Is it a matter of tightening the gleuts or is it more specific? If I try to tighten the "don't poop" muscles, I can't hold them for any length of time before they themselves get pooped.
Is it more of a mental focus thing?

My apol;ogies to those who are reading this over dinner.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 5, 2012)

Cock the hips forward.  It straightens the spine and locks things into place.  Notice this does not mean you cannot move or are static.  However, it helps move the body as an entire unit.  It also helps stop that pesky habit of coming up too high in a stance, straightening out the knees.  It is an integral part of having structure. 


It is not peculiar to just a "wing chun stance."  In fact, I learned it when I was in Tai Chi, long before I started Wing Chun.  I really do not know of a stance it should not be used in.  Although, to be fair, it might impede some ways of kicking, as I have seen it done by TKD and Hapkido friends. 

If you talk to Chinese martal artist, you might hear a lot of esoteric stuff about the benefits of this.  Whether you believe in that stuff or not, it really doesn't make a difference.  Techniques with body unity are going to be much stronger than techniques without it.  That's all you really need to know.  If the esoteric stuff is true, it'll fall into place naturally.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 5, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Since we're back on the sphincter thing, I'd like a few clarifications myself.
> I've done a bit of chi kung and it was addressed there, but I've never heard it addressed in SNT in our lineage....not saying it isn't there, just that I haven't been taught it.
> 
> Is it a matter of tightening the gleuts or is it more specific? If I try to tighten the "don't poop" muscles, I can't hold them for any length of time before they themselves get pooped.
> ...



It's part of the Tsui Seung Tin method I don't know if anybody else does it.

It is just a very slight tightening of the anus , not too much , and also visualize that your anus is lined up through the spine to the very top of your head.
When practicing the form you should also visualize the energy flowing up your spine to the top of your head.

As I said , it is a physical and mental thing.
It's also the way that TST uses to get students to focus on this area.
As time goes on in training it becomes just a mental thing , completely automatic and does not need to be strictly adhered to anymore.

According to TST , at the very higher levels of Wing Chun skill the horse stance is not even needed anymore to produce power.

But I'm afraid that's a long , long way down the track for most of us mere mortals.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 5, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> It's part of the Tsui Seung Tin method I don't know if anybody else does it.



Yes.  The idea is found in Goju-ryu karate as well, doubtlessly it came from the Southern Chinese link.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 5, 2012)

I honestly don't know much about Tsui Seung Tin....did all of his WC come from Yip Man or did he have previous training from another sifu? And/or did he have other kung fu that he trained in where this idea may have developed from?
If all his training came from Yip Man, then even if it's not part of the other lineages, that means the other lineages are leaving out a crucial point.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 5, 2012)

yak sao said:


> I honestly don't know much about Tsui Seung Tin....did all of his WC come from Yip Man or did he have previous training from another sifu? And/or did he have other kung fu that he trained in where this idea may have developed from?
> If all his training came from Yip Man, then even if it's not part of the other lineages, that means the other lineages are leaving out a crucial point.



Apparently he did Tai Chi for a little while when he was young but decided it was not for him.
All his Wing Chun came from Yip Man as far as I know.

According to him Wing Chun is unique in this method of generating force from the stance.

It is said by quite a few people that he teaches "Internal Wing Chun" but I just think it is the way that it was always meant to be taught.

Whether other people have left it out is not for me to say , this is just the way we do it.

I just have to clarify that you don't tighten the glutes.
Tilt your pelvis up and forward , but not to the point where your glutes and the front of the thighs tense up.
Relaxation of these areas is crucial.

Slightly contract the anus not the glutes , back straight , relax.
Also use a slight clawing action with your toes on the floor , again , not so much that your foot tenses up.
This action increases the surface area of your foot in contact with the ground and makes the stance more stable.


----------



## cwk (Mar 5, 2012)

We do this "clawing" thing with the toes too. Our tilting of the pelvis is different from most that I see though, our upper body remains completely straight without any leaning or pushing the groin area forward. We flatten our lumbar region, squeeze the inner hip muscles down and in and sink down.


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 6, 2012)

This whole sphincter thing is actually brought up in the link I posted to the Kung Fu Quest video on wing chun in the thread titled "Cantonese Wing Chun & Sanda Practitioners travel to China" 
You guys should check it out. It seems to be Yip Man lineage. I have yet to hear about it from my sifu though. Maybe I'll ask him.


----------



## Domino (Mar 6, 2012)

Sigung said once he is nickname 'King of Siu Lim Tau'.. you do the maths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=wing+chun&v=jJX216fiIbs&gl=GB


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 6, 2012)

Pretty sure Tsui Seung Tin studied the Fu style wudangchuan for a while, don't know exactly what pieces.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 8, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> Apparently he did Tai Chi for a little while when he was young but decided it was not for him.
> All his Wing Chun came from Yip Man as far as I know.
> 
> According to him Wing Chun is unique in this method of generating force from the stance.
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------
TST is ok. He has his own interpretations of some things. Those  titles used in humor- king of slt, king of chi sao-just IM humor at work.
I have rolled with him years ago.
Correct:
 don't tighten buttocks.

Joy


----------



## onthechin (Mar 22, 2012)

Jeez its not a hard thing to say....if you find yourself in close, drop your stance so your knees are bent but you can sttill shuffle around whilst keeping your upper body relaxed and ready to punch. There....said it..


----------



## seasoned (Mar 22, 2012)

onthechin said:


> Jeez its not a hard thing to say....if you find yourself in close, drop your stance so your knees are bent but you can sttill shuffle around whilst keeping your upper body relaxed and ready to punch. There....said it..



You sound like a boxer, there, said it...............


----------



## bully (Mar 22, 2012)

Its a shame to OP didn't come back on to answer any questions. I had a couple I would have liked his pov on.


----------



## MJS (Mar 23, 2012)

onthechin said:


> Jeez its not a hard thing to say....if you find yourself in close, drop your stance so your knees are bent but you can sttill shuffle around whilst keeping your upper body relaxed and ready to punch. There....said it..



Do you ever contribute anything useful to the threads or just troll them?  There, said it.  Just an FYI, this forum has a policy that states trolling is against the rules.  You may want to refresh yourself with those rules, before you find yourself banned from here.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 23, 2012)

onthechin said:


> Jeez its not a hard thing to say....if you find yourself in close, drop your stance so your knees are bent but you can sttill shuffle around whilst keeping your upper body relaxed and ready to punch. There....said it..


Thats also a great way to be taken down, if all Youre doing is bending your knees, dropping your weight, and relaxing your upper body.
Or Pushed.
Or Kicked down.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 23, 2012)

There always must be more. So I've found. Let's not attack him- for where he is, and what he does, it may work well.



> Do you ever contribute anything useful to the threads or just troll  them?  There, said it.  Just an FYI, this forum has a policy that states  trolling is against the rules.  You may want to refresh yourself with  those rules, before you find yourself banned from here.



I don't think he is trolling, I just think people disagree with his pov. I'd say that he should practice more, with far more experienced people, so he can see how well his stance holds up. I would sweep him in a heartbeat if I found someone in that boxing stance, but who am I to really know if it would work on him or not.


----------



## Stylez777 (Mar 23, 2012)

Hey all this my first post here I had to comment on the post the OP made even though he himself has not been back to defend his statement.

Firstly I have trained in some form of Martial Art since I was 7 years old. I first started in Shotokan Karate and trained for probably 4-5 years obtaining a purple belt with 1 stripe. In high school I joined a Boxing gym and I trained there for another 4 years until I graduated. After a few years away from any type of training I returned to start training in JKD since I always found "Bruce Lee" style interesting but I was forced to cut that short after 2 months because of an injury. After I healed MMA was on the rise so I started training at a few places experiencing BJJ, Muay Thai and other fighting concepts. I did that for 3 years and reinjured my back and was forced to stop. So for the past 4 years I have done nothing and I have recently returned to Martial arts this time training in Wing Chun.

Now that my background is out of the way I can say that MMA is a phenominal sport. Training in any MMA gym will push you to your body's limits and beyond. I have great respect for what these athletes do and their fighting skills are top notch. With that said I digress that it is a "sport" MMA practitioners are not learning how to defend themselves in life or death situations they are training for a cage fight with a certain set of rules that are to be followed. Practitoners of say "Krav Maga, Kajukenbo, Wing Chun" are learning self defense and the preservation of their life in a potential "Mortal Combat" situation. So in theory it's not even comparing Apples-to-Apples.

People who say "Oh an MMA fighter would destroy a Wing Chun Fighter" well what are the circumstances? Are they in cage with rules 5 mintue rounds and scoring? I'd say 98% chance yes. In a life or death fight hmmm not so much. Again I am not trying to say one is better than another. I am just trying to point out a huge difference in both. You could argue that a huge part of MMA is Brazilian Ju-Jitsu which does have many real world applications but even what is taught in MMA gyms of BJJ are with the intent to use in the sport not in a street fight. Think about it, if you take me down or vice versa are we going to sit in guard hand fight or try to pass guard and then you try to armbar or triangle choke me? Am I not going to use anything in my power to stop you? I've been in street fights before, i've used anything to my advantage. I've bitten people, attacked the groin, eyes, ears etc whatever i had to do to win. Again pointing out how it's very different training at work here. 

In my first day of Wing Chun training along with learning "stance" which is the foundation from which ANY martial art starts, I was taught 2 "techniques" that could potentially kill an attacker. That is not to say that it should be used to do that, but if I had to I could. Also a simple turn of a hand in a certain direction goes from a seriously painful attack to a death blow (no not "Dim-Mak" I'm talking more about attacks at the face or neck area). Another great little story, that same first day my Sifu asked me to punch him. I asked him "like this? (slowly throwing a weak telagraphed punch). He replied "No attack me for real. Any punch any way. Face body whatever and how ever hard you want." I stupidly said Sifu I don't want to accidently hit you and knock you out. He replied "Trust me, you won't" So I stood there for a few seconds and unloaded a pretty decent right cross at his face (or so I thought). I didn't even see what he did. I was told he took a half step and threw a punch at the back of my hand. My hand hurt SO BAD, I mean seriously I never had my hand hurt so much in my life. Sifu told me he only hit me with about 15% power but went on to explain about a pressure point in the back of the hand that when in a closed fist and hit pretty much forces you to open your hand and the pain is pretty immense. The point being that he could hit this spot on my hand on a punch coming in not knowing where or how i was throwing this punch and the immense pain it caused (The back of my hand was sore for a week). It was a great lesson learned and also made me think more on making someone pay for attacking you. Personally for me I like knowing that if push comes to shove I have the confidence that I can attack quickly and swiftly and end a fight before it even becomes a fight (well that is my goal). Again I feel no martial art should be used to hurt someone on purpose but I firmly believe if you are going to initiate bodly harm upon me I am going to seriously make you pay for that mistake. 

So this post became very long but I have respect for every Martial Art on the planet and I feel that no "system" or art" is perfect in any way shape or form. I love talking with people and learning from them what they learned. The whole comparison the OP made I feel is impossible and unmeasureable, the fact he even said Stance is un-important is laughable because one cannot run before they can walk but you cannot do EITHER without first learning how to stand! Thank you for reading my long post and I am happy to have joined this community forum and look forward to posting hopefully short posts in the future


----------



## wtxs (Mar 23, 2012)

Stylez777 said:


> So this post became very long but I have respect for every Martial Art on the planet and I feel that no "system" or art" is perfect in any way shape or form. I love talking with people and learning from them what they learned. The whole comparison the OP made I feel is impossible and unmeasureable, the fact he even said Stance is un-important is laughable because one cannot run before they can walk but you cannot do EITHER without first learning how to stand! Thank you for reading my long post and I am happy to have joined this community forum and look forward to posting hopefully short posts in the future



There is no such thing as too much rambling when you input is positive, an big welcome to you.  Looking forward to more of your perspective. :cheers:


----------



## Instructor (Mar 23, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> In our lineage it is called Tei Gong.
> Relax , back straight , Tei Gong , that is the mantra.
> It is a physical and mental thing , if you want to get all esoteric  it is thought to facilitate the flow of "Nim Lik" (Thought Force) up the spine and out to the limbs.
> 
> ...



Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this.

Is there a good written reference out there that talks about this concept?  I believe that Hapkido is one of the more soft internal Korean martial arts though it may not seem that way to watch it.  I am not necessarily saying other Hapkidoist feel this way, but I do.  I think this concept is worthy of exploration.  My particular school borrows some of the interception ideas from JKD so maybe we can integrate it.

Hapkido steals from everybody!


----------

