Then you are admitting that you hadn't actually been following the discussion? I apologize if I came across a little harsh. But if you had been following this conversation across three different threads you would have seen that I have had to repeat my premise every time someone joined the conversation without have read what came before because they didn't really know what it was about. That gets pretty frustrating! And yes, people were obviously "butthurt" at my suggestion that Wing Chun has room for improvement at long range. That is exactly why this discussion has been so contentious across three different threads. So sorry, you came across as one of the "butthurt" ones.
articles in WCI magazine...
- Thread starter wckf92
- Start date
Then you are admitting that you hadn't actually been following the discussion? I apologize if I came across a little harsh. But if you had been following this conversation across three different threads you would have seen that I have had to repeat my premise every time someone joined the conversation without have read what came before because they didn't really know what it was about. That gets pretty frustrating! And yes, people were obviously "butthurt" at my suggestion that Wing Chun has room for improvement at long range. That is exactly why this discussion has been so contentious across three different threads. So sorry, you came across as one of the "butthurt" ones.
Here's something else that occurred to me today that I hadn't thought of before. For those that think that boxing could never work with kicks or against kicks because it has a forward-weighted stance......are you forgetting about Bruce Lee? His later "Bai Jong" stance in his JKD was just an adaptation of the boxing position. It was forward-weighted. Would anyone describe Bruce Lee as having a problem using or defending against kicks???
Here's something else that occurred to me today that I hadn't thought of before. For those that think that boxing could never work with kicks or against kicks because it has a forward-weighted stance......are you forgetting about Bruce Lee? His later "Bai Jong" stance in his JKD was just an adaptation of the boxing position. It was forward-weighted. Would anyone describe Bruce Lee as having a problem using or defending against kicks???
Would u say Bruce ever tested his JKD vs decent opposition? I say not!
There is a lot of legends around Bruce lee and I wuld take a decent boxers skillz over Bruce any time!
For me I think the link I posted makes it obvius...u have to either go the route of Muy Thai stance to deal with kicks and loss of power you get from that...OR you need to stick wit boxing,know ur open for kicks, and get in to finish with punches asap!!
Agin would ask if u ever saw fight finished wit leg kicks in the streets? Not me!
Which Muay Thai Stance is Best?
Traditional Thai stance
This stance is a traditional muay Thai stance which is still taught in Thailand and many other establishments across the world.
The weight is placed mainly on the rear foot which remains flat, with a small percentage of the bodyweight being placed on the ball of the front foot. If I were to have a guess, I would call it 70% rear leg and 30% front leg, maybe even more weight on the rear leg at times. The length and width of the stance are about even.
Defence – An excellent muay Thai stance in terms of blocking with the legs, particularly the front leg. With very little weight being placed on the front foot and the large angle that it points at, it makes for extremely quick blocks left and right.
The back leg isn’t so efficient as it is holding the majority of the body weight so the weight needs to be shifted to the front leg before the rear leg is able to be lifted up. However, due to the narrow placing of the feet, the back leg can still be brought up to block more quickly than in many other stances.
This muay Thai stance is also perfect for the front teep (push kick) – the leg can be brought up very quickly due to the relatively small amount of weight being applied and the constant bounce on the ball of the foot.
Attack – A Poor muay Thai stance in terms of attacking ability due to the fighter needing to shift weight to the front leg to move forward and launch the attack. The ability to explode forward is largely lost as the back foot is planted and the knee is almost extended to 180 degrees. The power that can be produced in this stance is also limited as a result of the quite “square” hip position which is made by the out-turned lead foot. This is particularly problematic with boxing techniques.
Mobility – Movement is often slow and the steps are small. With the body being set to the rear with the front leg out ahead, it’s difficult to get any real length in the step and almost impossible to make quick movements forward. Going backwards is a little quicker as the fighter is able to push off of the front foot which is ready to fire. Left and right movements are also cumbersome due to the heavy back leg.
Stability – A decent muay Thai stance for overall stability. The fighter will be knocked off balance less often than with some other stances as the width and length are fairly even. The rear leg acts as a strong anchor for front leg blocks, although it lacks stability for frontal attacks such as teeps and punches as there is little pliability at the knee due to the large angle of the rear foot.
Another short-coming of the traditional Thai stance is that the feet are close together which makes for a small, perhaps unstable base. Fighters using this stance may get pushed backwards and be forced to move the front leg to the rear to re-adjust.
Pros | A stable muay Thai stance which is excellent at firing any kick or block off the front leg.
Cons | Not very mobile and makes most rear side techniques sluggish.
Balanced (square) Muay Thai Stance
The balanced muay Thai stance is “OK” at just about everything – it doesn’t excel in many areas and doesn’t fail in many either. An all-round stance which is usually a starting point for most practitioners. This is one of the few stances where the legs can do what they like in terms of flexion/extension of the knee and ankle, but we’ll look at the pros and cons of those options as and when we come to it.
The weight is distributed evenly across both feet. As with the Traditional Thai stance, the width and length are pretty even, but it is longer and wider. The angles of the feet have been rotated and are facing more towards the opponent.
Defence – A decent muay Thai stance for blocking kicks off of both legs with the weight being evenly distributed between left and right. However, if the feet are flat on the ground, the legs are more easily raised when compared to being on the balls of the feet.
Attack – Another decent grade for attacking techniques, with the advantage being given to the “heels up” method as it makes it easier to explode forward into an attack. The hips aren’t as forward-facing when using this stance as they are with the traditional Thai stance so strikes are generally more powerful.
Mobility – Movements to the left and right and forward and back are fairly easy. The fighter is able to take larger steps and make quicker movements using this stance than when using the traditional Thai stance. The body is positioned halfway between both feet making push-offs in both directions relatively easy.
Stability – Being knocked off balance is rarely an issue with this stance and the foot placement is fairly wide which allows the knee and hip musculature a lot of scope to provide shock absorption and prevent unnecessary foot movement when struck from the sides. The heels up method provides more resistance when hit with a teep or straight boxing techniques.
Pros/cons | All-rounder
Balanced (Narrow) Muay Thai Stance
This stance is similar to the previous stance in that the weight is evenly distributed between the two feet, only this time the stance is narrower and longer. This stance may suit a more attacking fighter or counter fighter who requires quicker movements and extra power.
The angles of the feet are smaller than in the previous two examples, with the front toes pointing directly forwards.
Defence – We’re heading towards the attacking end of the spectrum here so defence attributes are decreasing, although this stance still provides adequate blocking abilities. The lead foot is still pointing forwards so there are no issues with not being able to open the hips for blocks to the left or to the right, nor is there the issue of having too much weight placed on that leg. The rear leg is just as capable at blocking kicks as the lead leg due to the even weight distribution.
Attack – Excellent attacking muay Thai stance which provides a very powerful base going forwards AND backwards. The angle of the back foot and the narrow width of the stance means the fighter can bounce back and forth at speed to generate powerful attacks. The fighter can also generate more torque in the hips and shoulders for striking power because of the long stride, providing more room for rotation.
Mobility – An extremely mobile stance for forward and backward movements. The fighter is able to move in and out of range quickly and safely. The superior ability to do this when compared with the previous two stances makes this muay Thai stance a great option for those who like to punch. Movement to the left and right is not quite so easy – the fighter will need to widen the stance somewhat to get any real distance and may be slow, but circling to the left can be done quickly and with ease. Circling right can be sluggish.
Stability – The most stable of all stances listed so far in terms of straight shots, but may be vulnerable to becoming off balanced by strong kicks or hooks coming in from the left and right. This stance’s integrity may also come into question when fighting an opponent with good sweeping ability, due to the narrow width of the foot placement.
Pros | Great attacking muay Thai stance with awesome moblity.
Cons | Vulnerable to sweeps and being off balanced left and right.
The Boxing/MMA stance
The final stance is more of a boxer’s stance, and is similar to some MMA fighters stances. I’m not sure how many muay Thai fighters are able to use this stance but a lot of practitioners from other sports such as boxing or MMA may favour this stance so I thought I’d include it and explain its pros and cons.
In terms of weight distribution, it’s 50/50, maybe even 60% rear and 40% lead. The angles of the feet are large, with both feet facing right.
Defence – Poor. The angle of the lead leg is far too great to be capable of defending a kick quickly – the hips need to be rotated in order to form a blocking position and that takes far too long. A fighter with this stance is also extremely vulnerable to being swept for the same reasons. If the weight is evenly distributed between two legs then blocking off of the rear leg shouldn’t be much of an issue.
Attack – Good attacking stance from a boxer’s point of view – the hips and torso are facing away from the opponent which makes for a small target and the right hand had tremendous power due to the extra rotation of the torso. However, a good roundhouse kick or knee is impossible to pull off due to the fighter being unable to open up the hip angle with the lead foot. If the foot is rotated to the left to open the hip from this stance then the opponent would see the kick coming a mile off.
Mobility – Very mobile stance with quick movements in all directions.
Stability – A seriously vulnerable muay Thai stance in terms of stability along the width. Any kick or sweep will off-balance the fighter.
Pros | Powerful punches with good mobilty
Cons | Extremely poor kicking and sweep defence, lacks stability
Which Muay Thai Stance Suits You?
The question shouldn’t be “what is the best muay Thai stance?”. Rather, which muay Thai stance suits you in a given situation or against a particular opponent.
During a fight, numerous stances are normally used, depending on the given situation. For example, if a fighter is using stance #2 (balanced) and is unable to defend leg kicks, the logical solution would be to switch to more of a traditional stance where more of the weight is place on the rear leg making it easier to block using the front. Or, switch to stance #3 (balanced narrow) which is more suitable to attack the kicker with counters using boxing.
However, fighters generally have one stance which suits them initially.
Coaches will teach one type of muay Thai stance to beginners, but there is no right or wrong stance. The practitioner just needs to know why he/she is using that stance.
Traditional Thai stance
This stance is a traditional muay Thai stance which is still taught in Thailand and many other establishments across the world.
The weight is placed mainly on the rear foot which remains flat, with a small percentage of the bodyweight being placed on the ball of the front foot. If I were to have a guess, I would call it 70% rear leg and 30% front leg, maybe even more weight on the rear leg at times. The length and width of the stance are about even.
Defence – An excellent muay Thai stance in terms of blocking with the legs, particularly the front leg. With very little weight being placed on the front foot and the large angle that it points at, it makes for extremely quick blocks left and right.
The back leg isn’t so efficient as it is holding the majority of the body weight so the weight needs to be shifted to the front leg before the rear leg is able to be lifted up. However, due to the narrow placing of the feet, the back leg can still be brought up to block more quickly than in many other stances.
This muay Thai stance is also perfect for the front teep (push kick) – the leg can be brought up very quickly due to the relatively small amount of weight being applied and the constant bounce on the ball of the foot.
Attack – A Poor muay Thai stance in terms of attacking ability due to the fighter needing to shift weight to the front leg to move forward and launch the attack. The ability to explode forward is largely lost as the back foot is planted and the knee is almost extended to 180 degrees. The power that can be produced in this stance is also limited as a result of the quite “square” hip position which is made by the out-turned lead foot. This is particularly problematic with boxing techniques.
Mobility – Movement is often slow and the steps are small. With the body being set to the rear with the front leg out ahead, it’s difficult to get any real length in the step and almost impossible to make quick movements forward. Going backwards is a little quicker as the fighter is able to push off of the front foot which is ready to fire. Left and right movements are also cumbersome due to the heavy back leg.
Stability – A decent muay Thai stance for overall stability. The fighter will be knocked off balance less often than with some other stances as the width and length are fairly even. The rear leg acts as a strong anchor for front leg blocks, although it lacks stability for frontal attacks such as teeps and punches as there is little pliability at the knee due to the large angle of the rear foot.
Another short-coming of the traditional Thai stance is that the feet are close together which makes for a small, perhaps unstable base. Fighters using this stance may get pushed backwards and be forced to move the front leg to the rear to re-adjust.
Pros | A stable muay Thai stance which is excellent at firing any kick or block off the front leg.
Cons | Not very mobile and makes most rear side techniques sluggish.
Balanced (square) Muay Thai Stance
The balanced muay Thai stance is “OK” at just about everything – it doesn’t excel in many areas and doesn’t fail in many either. An all-round stance which is usually a starting point for most practitioners. This is one of the few stances where the legs can do what they like in terms of flexion/extension of the knee and ankle, but we’ll look at the pros and cons of those options as and when we come to it.
The weight is distributed evenly across both feet. As with the Traditional Thai stance, the width and length are pretty even, but it is longer and wider. The angles of the feet have been rotated and are facing more towards the opponent.
Defence – A decent muay Thai stance for blocking kicks off of both legs with the weight being evenly distributed between left and right. However, if the feet are flat on the ground, the legs are more easily raised when compared to being on the balls of the feet.
Attack – Another decent grade for attacking techniques, with the advantage being given to the “heels up” method as it makes it easier to explode forward into an attack. The hips aren’t as forward-facing when using this stance as they are with the traditional Thai stance so strikes are generally more powerful.
Mobility – Movements to the left and right and forward and back are fairly easy. The fighter is able to take larger steps and make quicker movements using this stance than when using the traditional Thai stance. The body is positioned halfway between both feet making push-offs in both directions relatively easy.
Stability – Being knocked off balance is rarely an issue with this stance and the foot placement is fairly wide which allows the knee and hip musculature a lot of scope to provide shock absorption and prevent unnecessary foot movement when struck from the sides. The heels up method provides more resistance when hit with a teep or straight boxing techniques.
Pros/cons | All-rounder
Balanced (Narrow) Muay Thai Stance
This stance is similar to the previous stance in that the weight is evenly distributed between the two feet, only this time the stance is narrower and longer. This stance may suit a more attacking fighter or counter fighter who requires quicker movements and extra power.
The angles of the feet are smaller than in the previous two examples, with the front toes pointing directly forwards.
Defence – We’re heading towards the attacking end of the spectrum here so defence attributes are decreasing, although this stance still provides adequate blocking abilities. The lead foot is still pointing forwards so there are no issues with not being able to open the hips for blocks to the left or to the right, nor is there the issue of having too much weight placed on that leg. The rear leg is just as capable at blocking kicks as the lead leg due to the even weight distribution.
Attack – Excellent attacking muay Thai stance which provides a very powerful base going forwards AND backwards. The angle of the back foot and the narrow width of the stance means the fighter can bounce back and forth at speed to generate powerful attacks. The fighter can also generate more torque in the hips and shoulders for striking power because of the long stride, providing more room for rotation.
Mobility – An extremely mobile stance for forward and backward movements. The fighter is able to move in and out of range quickly and safely. The superior ability to do this when compared with the previous two stances makes this muay Thai stance a great option for those who like to punch. Movement to the left and right is not quite so easy – the fighter will need to widen the stance somewhat to get any real distance and may be slow, but circling to the left can be done quickly and with ease. Circling right can be sluggish.
Stability – The most stable of all stances listed so far in terms of straight shots, but may be vulnerable to becoming off balanced by strong kicks or hooks coming in from the left and right. This stance’s integrity may also come into question when fighting an opponent with good sweeping ability, due to the narrow width of the foot placement.
Pros | Great attacking muay Thai stance with awesome moblity.
Cons | Vulnerable to sweeps and being off balanced left and right.
The Boxing/MMA stance
The final stance is more of a boxer’s stance, and is similar to some MMA fighters stances. I’m not sure how many muay Thai fighters are able to use this stance but a lot of practitioners from other sports such as boxing or MMA may favour this stance so I thought I’d include it and explain its pros and cons.
In terms of weight distribution, it’s 50/50, maybe even 60% rear and 40% lead. The angles of the feet are large, with both feet facing right.
Defence – Poor. The angle of the lead leg is far too great to be capable of defending a kick quickly – the hips need to be rotated in order to form a blocking position and that takes far too long. A fighter with this stance is also extremely vulnerable to being swept for the same reasons. If the weight is evenly distributed between two legs then blocking off of the rear leg shouldn’t be much of an issue.
Attack – Good attacking stance from a boxer’s point of view – the hips and torso are facing away from the opponent which makes for a small target and the right hand had tremendous power due to the extra rotation of the torso. However, a good roundhouse kick or knee is impossible to pull off due to the fighter being unable to open up the hip angle with the lead foot. If the foot is rotated to the left to open the hip from this stance then the opponent would see the kick coming a mile off.
Mobility – Very mobile stance with quick movements in all directions.
Stability – A seriously vulnerable muay Thai stance in terms of stability along the width. Any kick or sweep will off-balance the fighter.
Pros | Powerful punches with good mobilty
Cons | Extremely poor kicking and sweep defence, lacks stability
Which Muay Thai Stance Suits You?
The question shouldn’t be “what is the best muay Thai stance?”. Rather, which muay Thai stance suits you in a given situation or against a particular opponent.
During a fight, numerous stances are normally used, depending on the given situation. For example, if a fighter is using stance #2 (balanced) and is unable to defend leg kicks, the logical solution would be to switch to more of a traditional stance where more of the weight is place on the rear leg making it easier to block using the front. Or, switch to stance #3 (balanced narrow) which is more suitable to attack the kicker with counters using boxing.
However, fighters generally have one stance which suits them initially.
Coaches will teach one type of muay Thai stance to beginners, but there is no right or wrong stance. The practitioner just needs to know why he/she is using that stance.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Which Muay Thai Stance is Best?
Traditional Thai stance
This stance is a traditional muay Thai stance which is still taught in Thailand and many other establishments across the world.
The weight is placed mainly on the rear foot which remains flat, with a small percentage of the bodyweight being placed on the ball of the front foot. If I were to have a guess, I would call it 70% rear leg and 30% front leg, maybe even more weight on the rear leg at times. The length and width of the stance are about even.
Defence – An excellent muay Thai stance in terms of blocking with the legs, particularly the front leg. With very little weight being placed on the front foot and the large angle that it points at, it makes for extremely quick blocks left and right.
The back leg isn’t so efficient as it is holding the majority of the body weight so the weight needs to be shifted to the front leg before the rear leg is able to be lifted up. However, due to the narrow placing of the feet, the back leg can still be brought up to block more quickly than in many other stances.
This muay Thai stance is also perfect for the front teep (push kick) – the leg can be brought up very quickly due to the relatively small amount of weight being applied and the constant bounce on the ball of the foot.
Attack – A Poor muay Thai stance in terms of attacking ability due to the fighter needing to shift weight to the front leg to move forward and launch the attack. The ability to explode forward is largely lost as the back foot is planted and the knee is almost extended to 180 degrees. The power that can be produced in this stance is also limited as a result of the quite “square” hip position which is made by the out-turned lead foot. This is particularly problematic with boxing techniques.
Mobility – Movement is often slow and the steps are small. With the body being set to the rear with the front leg out ahead, it’s difficult to get any real length in the step and almost impossible to make quick movements forward. Going backwards is a little quicker as the fighter is able to push off of the front foot which is ready to fire. Left and right movements are also cumbersome due to the heavy back leg.
Stability – A decent muay Thai stance for overall stability. The fighter will be knocked off balance less often than with some other stances as the width and length are fairly even. The rear leg acts as a strong anchor for front leg blocks, although it lacks stability for frontal attacks such as teeps and punches as there is little pliability at the knee due to the large angle of the rear foot.
Another short-coming of the traditional Thai stance is that the feet are close together which makes for a small, perhaps unstable base. Fighters using this stance may get pushed backwards and be forced to move the front leg to the rear to re-adjust.
Pros | A stable muay Thai stance which is excellent at firing any kick or block off the front leg.
Cons | Not very mobile and makes most rear side techniques sluggish.
Balanced (square) Muay Thai Stance
The balanced muay Thai stance is “OK” at just about everything – it doesn’t excel in many areas and doesn’t fail in many either. An all-round stance which is usually a starting point for most practitioners. This is one of the few stances where the legs can do what they like in terms of flexion/extension of the knee and ankle, but we’ll look at the pros and cons of those options as and when we come to it.
The weight is distributed evenly across both feet. As with the Traditional Thai stance, the width and length are pretty even, but it is longer and wider. The angles of the feet have been rotated and are facing more towards the opponent.
Defence – A decent muay Thai stance for blocking kicks off of both legs with the weight being evenly distributed between left and right. However, if the feet are flat on the ground, the legs are more easily raised when compared to being on the balls of the feet.
Attack – Another decent grade for attacking techniques, with the advantage being given to the “heels up” method as it makes it easier to explode forward into an attack. The hips aren’t as forward-facing when using this stance as they are with the traditional Thai stance so strikes are generally more powerful.
Mobility – Movements to the left and right and forward and back are fairly easy. The fighter is able to take larger steps and make quicker movements using this stance than when using the traditional Thai stance. The body is positioned halfway between both feet making push-offs in both directions relatively easy.
Stability – Being knocked off balance is rarely an issue with this stance and the foot placement is fairly wide which allows the knee and hip musculature a lot of scope to provide shock absorption and prevent unnecessary foot movement when struck from the sides. The heels up method provides more resistance when hit with a teep or straight boxing techniques.
Pros/cons | All-rounder
Balanced (Narrow) Muay Thai Stance
This stance is similar to the previous stance in that the weight is evenly distributed between the two feet, only this time the stance is narrower and longer. This stance may suit a more attacking fighter or counter fighter who requires quicker movements and extra power.
The angles of the feet are smaller than in the previous two examples, with the front toes pointing directly forwards.
Defence – We’re heading towards the attacking end of the spectrum here so defence attributes are decreasing, although this stance still provides adequate blocking abilities. The lead foot is still pointing forwards so there are no issues with not being able to open the hips for blocks to the left or to the right, nor is there the issue of having too much weight placed on that leg. The rear leg is just as capable at blocking kicks as the lead leg due to the even weight distribution.
Attack – Excellent attacking muay Thai stance which provides a very powerful base going forwards AND backwards. The angle of the back foot and the narrow width of the stance means the fighter can bounce back and forth at speed to generate powerful attacks. The fighter can also generate more torque in the hips and shoulders for striking power because of the long stride, providing more room for rotation.
Mobility – An extremely mobile stance for forward and backward movements. The fighter is able to move in and out of range quickly and safely. The superior ability to do this when compared with the previous two stances makes this muay Thai stance a great option for those who like to punch. Movement to the left and right is not quite so easy – the fighter will need to widen the stance somewhat to get any real distance and may be slow, but circling to the left can be done quickly and with ease. Circling right can be sluggish.
Stability – The most stable of all stances listed so far in terms of straight shots, but may be vulnerable to becoming off balanced by strong kicks or hooks coming in from the left and right. This stance’s integrity may also come into question when fighting an opponent with good sweeping ability, due to the narrow width of the foot placement.
Pros | Great attacking muay Thai stance with awesome moblity.
Cons | Vulnerable to sweeps and being off balanced left and right.
The Boxing/MMA stance
The final stance is more of a boxer’s stance, and is similar to some MMA fighters stances. I’m not sure how many muay Thai fighters are able to use this stance but a lot of practitioners from other sports such as boxing or MMA may favour this stance so I thought I’d include it and explain its pros and cons.
In terms of weight distribution, it’s 50/50, maybe even 60% rear and 40% lead. The angles of the feet are large, with both feet facing right.
Defence – Poor. The angle of the lead leg is far too great to be capable of defending a kick quickly – the hips need to be rotated in order to form a blocking position and that takes far too long. A fighter with this stance is also extremely vulnerable to being swept for the same reasons. If the weight is evenly distributed between two legs then blocking off of the rear leg shouldn’t be much of an issue.
Attack – Good attacking stance from a boxer’s point of view – the hips and torso are facing away from the opponent which makes for a small target and the right hand had tremendous power due to the extra rotation of the torso. However, a good roundhouse kick or knee is impossible to pull off due to the fighter being unable to open up the hip angle with the lead foot. If the foot is rotated to the left to open the hip from this stance then the opponent would see the kick coming a mile off.
Mobility – Very mobile stance with quick movements in all directions.
Stability – A seriously vulnerable muay Thai stance in terms of stability along the width. Any kick or sweep will off-balance the fighter.
Pros | Powerful punches with good mobilty
Cons | Extremely poor kicking and sweep defence, lacks stability
Which Muay Thai Stance Suits You?
The question shouldn’t be “what is the best muay Thai stance?”. Rather, which muay Thai stance suits you in a given situation or against a particular opponent.
During a fight, numerous stances are normally used, depending on the given situation. For example, if a fighter is using stance #2 (balanced) and is unable to defend leg kicks, the logical solution would be to switch to more of a traditional stance where more of the weight is place on the rear leg making it easier to block using the front. Or, switch to stance #3 (balanced narrow) which is more suitable to attack the kicker with counters using boxing.
However, fighters generally have one stance which suits them initially.
Coaches will teach one type of muay Thai stance to beginners, but there is no right or wrong stance. The practitioner just needs to know why he/she is using that stance.
You can stand however you want in boxing muay Thai and MMA.
U can.
U can also live with pros and cons of ur decision!
Agreed. Competitive martial arts typically evaluate differences in technique from the perspective of pros and cons. On the other hand traditional martial arts that don't regularly test their stuff in some form of competition tend to simply evaluate differences in terms of "correct" vs. "incorrect". And if the "correct" method doesn't work for you, that's your problem.
...and I have a problem with that mindset!
Juany118
Senior Master
Agreed as well. I guess my only point of contention is where the changes come from, an outside source or is it just a logical extension of your art? Example two of my Sifu's teach DoJ and DoD combatives, one just engaged in competitions. So the elbow shield. Is it from boxing? Or is it just a chuen sau. To describe a chuen imagine just raising your arm from your side so the upper arm is pointed straight out and the elbow is then bent at a 90 degree angle straight up. Now if you logically continue that raising of the arm so the hand is at your ear, you have an elbow shield. I could also say that comes from our Kali, because my Sifu/Guro likes to claim that vs natural evolution due to his close relationship with Master Mazza and GM Cheung. Maybe that's true.Agreed. Competitive martial arts typically evaluate differences in technique from the perspective of pros and cons. On the other hand traditional martial arts that don't regularly test their stuff in some form of competition tend to simply evaluate differences in terms of "correct" vs. "incorrect". And if the "correct" method doesn't work for you, that's your problem.
...and I have a problem with that mindset!
Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation. All that matters is if it works.
Example two of my Sifu's teach DoJ and DoD combatives, one just engaged in competitions. So the elbow shield. Is it from boxing? Or is it just a chuen sau.
---Its an elbow shield or high cover from boxing. "Chuen" means "to thread." So "Chuen Sau" is "threading hand." The concept is that one hand "threads" past the other. So the classic version in TWC is a high Pak on the inside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by a Fak Sau the goes under it and ends up on the outside of the attacker's limb. The elbow bent at 90 degrees version is usually done as a Pak Sau on the outside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by that rising motion with the other arm that takes over contact with the attacker's limb on the outside to free up your other hand for a strike. In both instances, the second hand "threads" past the Pak Sau.....hence the name. The concept behind it does not really fit with a high cover. You could just as easily relate the high cover to the Tan Sau. "Tan" means "to spread." So the concept behind it is that you "spread" or disperse a force with the outside surface of your forearm. Now imagine a force coming in that you cannot "spread" outward, so you have to ride it back instead to deflect it....pulling your hand back towards your head. This is a "Tun Sau" in Pin Sun. "Tun" means "to swallow" and the Tun Sau is just seen at the "yin" to the Tan Sau's "yang"....but related. So if the Tan/Tun "swallows" or absorbs and deflects an incoming force all the way back until the hand is next to your head....whoala!....almost a high cover! But even then, it is still a bit different from the actual high cover that is meant to shield against an angled or arcing oncoming blow, not deflect or absorb a force coming straight in. So, as I've been saying all along....you can say your Wing Chun has something similar.....you can say the concepts in a portion of your form can encompass it....but if you are using the position exactly with the intent for which it is used in boxing, how you can you say that boxing didn't influence or inspire how you are using it? How can you call it "pure" Wing Chun....of any version, if you are using it exactly as it is used in boxing and it shows up nowhere in any Wing Chun form and drill in that exact position and use?
Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation. All that matters is if it works.
----I agree! All that matters is if it works! But you have to be careful what claims you are making. If your claim is a bit outrageous and doesn't add up, people tend to call you on it eventually.
---Its an elbow shield or high cover from boxing. "Chuen" means "to thread." So "Chuen Sau" is "threading hand." The concept is that one hand "threads" past the other. So the classic version in TWC is a high Pak on the inside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by a Fak Sau the goes under it and ends up on the outside of the attacker's limb. The elbow bent at 90 degrees version is usually done as a Pak Sau on the outside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by that rising motion with the other arm that takes over contact with the attacker's limb on the outside to free up your other hand for a strike. In both instances, the second hand "threads" past the Pak Sau.....hence the name. The concept behind it does not really fit with a high cover. You could just as easily relate the high cover to the Tan Sau. "Tan" means "to spread." So the concept behind it is that you "spread" or disperse a force with the outside surface of your forearm. Now imagine a force coming in that you cannot "spread" outward, so you have to ride it back instead to deflect it....pulling your hand back towards your head. This is a "Tun Sau" in Pin Sun. "Tun" means "to swallow" and the Tun Sau is just seen at the "yin" to the Tan Sau's "yang"....but related. So if the Tan/Tun "swallows" or absorbs and deflects an incoming force all the way back until the hand is next to your head....whoala!....almost a high cover! But even then, it is still a bit different from the actual high cover that is meant to shield against an angled or arcing oncoming blow, not deflect or absorb a force coming straight in. So, as I've been saying all along....you can say your Wing Chun has something similar.....you can say the concepts in a portion of your form can encompass it....but if you are using the position exactly with the intent for which it is used in boxing, how you can you say that boxing didn't influence or inspire how you are using it? How can you call it "pure" Wing Chun....of any version, if you are using it exactly as it is used in boxing and it shows up nowhere in any Wing Chun form and drill in that exact position and use?
Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation. All that matters is if it works.
----I agree! All that matters is if it works! But you have to be careful what claims you are making. If your claim is a bit outrageous and doesn't add up, people tend to call you on it eventually.
Juany118
Senior Master
I don't think there is a classic version tbh. I think it is a concept. I have seen how Sifu Phil does it and when I did I said "that isn't how I have been shown by Sifu Keith or my Sifu." To me a chuen is simply a maneuver given it's own name because it can step outside the general idea of what we see in a "classic" WC pak, tan etc.
This is how the three Sifu's I have studied with have taught me. I know it's confusing. Three Sifu's? So let me explain for the new guys/gals on the WC forums first. You will see me refer to three Sifus. One is Master Keith Mazza, GM William Cheung's Official US Rep. #2 will be a Sifu I do not name simply because of my occupation (I already have people I arrested who tried to find me on Social Media so I am paranoid), then you have Master Jerry Devone who teaches regularly at my school.
With that disclaimer out of the way, a chuen, as I am most commonly taught is a technique that not only jams an outside entry like a jamming bong or wu sau, but also acts simultaneously as a cover against the opposite hand of the opponent. You can then just strike with your opposite hand, drop the chuen into a lap to go for control, what have you but I use it regularly as a jam/cover for blind side entries, even "on the job" because it works well for me.
I think this maybe the source of our point of contention, now that I think of it. I have been taught the chuen is jam/trap and, most relevant, cover as you enter. We are talking about a high cover, and since a cover is part of the context I am taught to use the chuen, I say "okay so what is the big deal, an elbow cover is just an aggressive chuen." Then I have the added influence of my Sifu and Sifu Keith's relationship. They work together in their "civilian" business and are close personally. My Sifu says that he made the case for the elbow shield from Kali being consistent with TWC (and a chuen) and it was "agreed" by the others, including GM Cheung. Whether it always existed that way or whether he raised the "ah ha" moment I don't know. It's just how I have been taught.
I have a rather complicated relationship with TWC via my Sifu and his relationships as you can see lol.
Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation. All that matters is if it works.
----I agree! All that matters is if it works! But you have to be careful what claims you are making. If your claim is a bit outrageous and doesn't add up, people tend to call you on it eventually.
Maybe the above, how I am taught to use a chuen (vs how you may have) and what my Sifu has told me, is what I base my understanding on. Since the both "connect" my view seems to "tick" the boxes for a logical conclusion. Now if other information comes forward that adds other boxes that conclusion may change, but if it does I don't think it would be wrong for me to say I would most trust those "new" boxes if they were to come from the red sashes I personally study under.
Last edited:
anerlich
Brown Belt
There are a number of "classic" cheun / tseun saos in the dummy sets. I also see it as a concept.
Linking it a high elbow cover is a bridge too far for me. I use a high cover, but it comes more from the Vale Tudo and MMA defence to get to grappling range I was taught in the MMA academy where I train Jiu Jitsu. Of course, I'm approaching it from a different direction than you would so YMMV.
Juany118
Senior Master
Just to clarify, when I say there is no "classic" I mean a single application/example. Usually in my experience when people think if a "classic" example they are thinking in a more narrow context.
