# The Importance of Adduction in YGKYM



## geezer (Sep 17, 2014)

Some lineages don't stress adduction or "knee-squeezing" in Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma (Character "two" goat-riding stance). In our lineage it's highly stressed and I find it's usefulness readily apparent:









OK, so this is actually a sheep, but the same stance works just as well on goats. Harder to get good pictures though. Here's one. An Angora goat at that. Note the sheerer's pigeon toed, knee squeezing stance:







You can also drop from this position to pin your opponent to the floor. This is how my grandad taught me to do it on a larger animal... er ...opponent:






I actually prefer a YGKYM stance (and the knee-pin shown) above for controlling a downed opponent over the common "mounts" more frequently seen in other styles. YGKYM gives me momentary control to "finish" my opponent while allowing me to stay more upright where I can apply my WC or get the heck out of there if things "go South".


----------



## Danny T (Sep 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> Some lineages don't stress adduction or "knee-squeezing" in Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma (Character "two" goat-riding stance). In our lineage it's highly stressed and I find it's usefulness readily apparent:
> 
> You can also drop from this position to pin your opponent to the floor. This is how my grandad taught me to do it on a larger animal... er ...opponent:
> 
> I actually prefer a YGKYM stance (and the knee-pin shown) above for controlling a downed opponent over the common "mounts" more frequently seen in other styles. YGKYM gives me momentary control to "finish" my opponent while allowing me to stay more upright where I can apply my WC or get the heck out of there if things "go South".



We stress 'not' pulling the knees inward but by having the feet turned inward the knee will follow the toes as the knee is bent. Tension is through the tightening of the sphincter muscle no need to squeeze the knees simple flex them and they will be drive inward by the structure of the stance.


----------



## geezer (Sep 17, 2014)

Danny T said:


> We stress 'not' pulling the knees inward but by having the feet turned inward the knee will follow the toes as the knee is bent. Tension is through the tightening of the sphincter muscle no need to squeeze the knees simple flex them and they will be drive inward by the structure of the stance.



Could be that we're saying the much same thing with different language. Our stance is springy but relaxed. You need adduction to turn the feet (and knees) inward. The actual inward rotation occurs at the hips. The whole leg turns inward. Of course,  pressing the knees laterally inward without rotating the leg and feet would be really painful and unhealthy!

Better to get into position with your joints aligned, relax, and let gravity work for you.




BTW I used to "force" my stance a lot harder and use a fair amount of muscular tension. Not sure why, but I definitely got off on the wrong track. Since then I have revised my thinking and favor a more relaxed stance.


----------



## KPM (Sep 17, 2014)

I hate to keep referencing discussions on the facebook Wing Chun forum.....but.....it is related!  ;-)   Recent discussion was combining Wing Chun and Tai Chi.  I said they share similar concepts but have different structures.  So they are going to express these concepts a bit differently and generate power a bit differently.  One of the key structural/biomechanical differences that I see is that Wing Chun uses a "closed Kwa" while arts such at Tai Chi, Hsing I, and Ba Gua use an "open Kwa."   What geezer is describing is the "closed Kwa." An "open Kwa" allows the hips to open and expand and may move through the open and closed positions as one aspect of generating power.  In contrast Wing Chun keeps the Kwa "closed" and generates power through the hips in a consistently tight circle compared to the often larger circle used by the others.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## geezer (Sep 17, 2014)

KPM said:


> I hate to keep referencing discussions on the facebook Wing Chun forum.....but.....it is related!  ;-)   Recent discussion was combining Wing Chun and Tai Chi.  I said they share similar concepts but have different structures.  So they are going to express these concepts a bit differently and generate power a bit differently.  One of the key structural/biomechanical differences that I see is that Wing Chun uses a "closed Kwa" while arts such at Tai Chi, Hsing I, and Ba Gua use an "open Kwa."   What geezer is describing is the "closed Kwa." An "open Kwa" allows the hips to open and expand and may move through the open and closed positions as one aspect of generating power.  In contrast Wing Chun keeps the Kwa "closed" and generates power through the hips in a consistently tight circle compared to the often larger circle used by the others.  Just my 2 cents.



Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the term "kwa", but I have observed something like what you describe KPM. My son's TKD instructor has spent a lifetime in the martial arts and as he has gotten older has studied Tai Chi. He is also working privately with me to learn WC. Sometimes he gets get's kind of obstinate with me about our stance, structure and so forth, saying "...but in tai chi we do it _this_ way... and we achieve power _this_ way... and we are soft and internal by doing it _this _way... Then he wants to demonstrate his tai chi techniques, at which point  I politely remind him that there are many ways to reach your destination, but if he really wants to learn Wing Chun, he must not try to frame things in tai chi terms. If he persists, I simply say, "Mo gong kau, gong sau (less talk, more training).

Cross training can spark many interesting comparisons, but at the end of the day as you point out, _each art is it's own animal_. You can't cross breed them, and it's often best to just accept them the way they are.


----------



## zuti car (Sep 17, 2014)

KPM said:


> I hate to keep referencing discussions on the facebook Wing Chun forum.....but.....it is related!  ;-)   Recent discussion was combining Wing Chun and Tai Chi.  I said they share similar concepts but have different structures.  So they are going to express these concepts a bit differently and generate power a bit differently.  One of the key structural/biomechanical differences that I see is that Wing Chun uses a "closed Kwa" while arts such at Tai Chi, Hsing I, and Ba Gua use an "open Kwa."   What geezer is describing is the "closed Kwa." An "open Kwa" allows the hips to open and expand and may move through the open and closed positions as one aspect of generating power.  In contrast Wing Chun keeps the Kwa "closed" and generates power through the hips in a consistently tight circle compared to the often larger circle used by the others.  Just my 2 cents.


Actually some Bagua styles use constant changing , opening and closing the Kwa . In Tai Chi there  Kwa is closing in some situations but generally is open


----------



## yak sao (Sep 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> "Mo gong kau, gong sau (less talk, more training).



In our group the saying is more lat sau (or chi sau) and less yak sau


----------



## KPM (Sep 18, 2014)

geezer said:


> Interesting. I wasn't familiar with the term "kwa",
> .



"Kwa" or "Kua" is one of those vague Chinese terms that isn't defined very well.  I have come to understand it as referring to the pelvic complex in general...including hip joints, sacroiliac joints and the lumbsacral junction.  Most seem to think of it as just the hip joints.  So a "closed Kwa" is keeping your legs rotated inward at the hip as we do in our YGKYM.  An "open Kwa" is keeping your legs rotated outward at the hip.  One can start with a closed Kwa and then "expand" to generate power by opening the Kwa.  Or one can start with an open Kwa and "contract" to bring someone in or execute a throw by closing the Kwa.  Ba Gua does this a lot.    But I see it as more than just the hips because we can talk about a "locked" Kwa, which is what some Wing Chun people do when they tilt the pelvis forward so they are flexing at the lumbosacral junction and flattening out the lower back.  This is in contrast to a "floating" Kwa where one doesn't try and tilt like this but keeps the Kwa mobile and relaxed so that more hip action is used in power generation.  A "locked" Kwa is going "lock" the upper body and lower body together as essentially one unit so that power is essentially generated directly from the ground and legs to the arms.  A "floating" Kwa allows more independent use of the upper body and lower body and transmits power up with more of a wave quality using more hip action.  This is more like the "reeling silk energy" that Tai Chi talks about..... but is a Wing Chun version.   When using a "locked" Kwa one has to be careful not to lean back in their YGKYM and then slouch over at the shoulders to compensate.  When using a "floating" Kwa one has to be careful not to let their butt stick out and bend forward at the waist.   Either use of the Kwa should have one standing with the spine straight up in a nice vertical position with no lean.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Poor cow


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm taught that the knees should be bent in enough to follow the toes, but not to the point of "squeezing" them in. More emphasis is placed on having the knees bent forward and going a little lower in the stance to "lock it in", so to speak, and to really be able to incorporate the knees in shifting.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Sep 19, 2014)

I've been taught, more or less, and by 2 seperate teachers that the inward angle of the feet and sinking of the weight naturally pulls the knees in but that during the SNT form it is beneficial to actually "squeeze" them in for strengthening the muscles used for the YCKYM stance. In drills and other things, it is relaxed a bit more. Maintaining that adduction when pivoting is stressed heavily (we are LT / WT and shift one foot at a time on the balls of the foot)


----------



## geezer (Sep 19, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> ... Maintaining that adduction when pivoting is stressed heavily (we are LT / WT and shift one foot at a time on the balls of the foot)



 Good points. In addition to pivoting, training that adduction is also really essential for our rear-wieghted advancing step, where the front leg drags the whole body forward.


----------



## KPM (Sep 19, 2014)

geezer said:


> Good points. In addition to pivoting, training that adduction is also really essential for our rear-wieghted advancing step, where the front leg drags the whole body forward.



You know Steve, I've never understood that footwork.  But maybe a topic for a different thread!


----------



## geezer (Sep 21, 2014)

KPM said:


> You know Steve, I've never understood that footwork.  But maybe a topic for a different thread!



Yeah, another thread, ...or this one. As far as I'm concerned, a certain amount of thread drift is normal, even necessary in any enjoyable discussion. As far as the LT "WT" back-weighted stance goes, the primary reason would be to keep the front leg  unsuceptible to sweeps, and free to attack or defend at any instant without you having to first unweight it which will both slow your response time and telegraph your intent.

As far as the advancing step... it was very cumbersome and awkward for me as long as I tried to do it exactly as LT _described_, that is by keeping my weight 100% back leg and _dragging_ my body forward with the front foot. However, I gradually learned to use my adduction force and a sort of forward hip pressure or "pulse" to accomplish this task quite easily. In retrospect, I'm quite sure that this was what LT was getting at, but words simply were inadequate to convey what was actually going on.

Now students have often asked me, "What about when you are on a rough or uneven surface where it is _impossible_ to slide forward in this way?" No problem. Your body will just default to a natural stepping method to clear the obstruction. When your rear foot encounters an obstruction or overwhelming friction, your weight is automatically propelled forward onto your front foot and the rear foot lifts easily over the obstacle.  But whenever the surface permits, we prefer a back-weight stance.

Finally, I want to be open here and note a couple of things for those new to the forum who do not know me. First, I have not been associated with LT for many years and do not have the authority to speak for him or his methods. Secondly, I have screwed up ankles and knees. Accordingly, my stances (especially when I have a right-foot lead) are hardly text-book examples of the "LT" method. Like anybody, I adapt what works best for me. You have to have both functional stability and mobility _--however you can get it,_ or your kung fu will be no good.


----------

