Footwork and Movement

[Shatteredzen]

How much time is best for training new students with movement and footwork before moving on to striking?

Should various "non-striking" techniques such as the sprawl, Kick checks, etc be taught alongside movement and footwork?

If we don't simply load footwork and movement up front in a new fighters training, is there a "best" way to train movement and footwork?

Does anyone have any drills that are very good for training footwork besides shadow boxing? Here isone I found from Icy Mike that I plan on doing a bit in my next session of bag work:

 

[Martial D]

So you are saying there is never a reason to crossover step in practical footwork? In MMA for example, should someone with classical boxing training unlearn their crossover step footwork?

Yes. That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of things that work in boxing because of the rules of boxing.

With that said, I've had 4 boxing coaches in my life, and none of them have ever offered a crossover step.

I'll ask you this; what advantage can crossing your legs offer you that a more stable sashay style side step could not also accomplish?

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the right time is getting tossed and the right place is on your own ***, sure. I find your reasoning (it's in TMA so it must be ok) a bit foolish.

TMA practices cross stances and I can show tons of examples of cross stances being effectively used.
Cross stance in MMA

Cross stance after sweep

Cross step used to evade take down

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Do the Chinese MA utilize western style boxing movements for dynamic movement? Is there something I could watch that shows some of these Chinese footwork techniques in practical application like the way Muay Thai for example has distinctive footwork?

When you line up your back foot with with both of your opponent's feet, if you move in from that angle, you will have the following advantages:

- No matter how your opponent may move his leading leg, his leading will always be under your attacking range.
- Your opponent's back hand will have no threaten to you from that angle.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the right time is getting tossed and the right place is on your own ***, sure. I find your reasoning (it's in TMA so it must be ok) a bit foolish.

Not sure what you trained. But in a lot of TMA systems the cross stance is trained. This is when one leg is cross over another or when one foot is crossed over. It's not because it's in TMA that the cross stance is useful, It's because it's trained in TMA that makes it useful. Cross stances can be used to set up a variety of take downs.

If your legs only know how to move forward and backwards, then you'll be lost when your opponent crosses your legs for you. Or when you are pushed in such a way that you have no other choice but to either cross your legs or feet in order to regain control.

Cross stance application used here

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You have presented a good example why one should not cross his legs. At 0.40 and 0.50, if his opponent uses left foot to sweep his right foot, he will be down.

In the following clip, when he uses "cover step", his low leg is parallel to the ground until his foot lands on the other side of his rooting leg. Even if he has crossed his legs in front of his opponent, he does not give his opponent a chance to sweep him.

Sometime a small detail like this can decide who will be on the ground.

Here is another example. He crosses legs in front of his opponent. Since his leg is parallel to the ground (almost), he doesn't give his opponent a chance to sweep him.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Cross stance used as an entry into a take down.

Opponent ignores my leg because Iook open. But in reality I've set 4 things in motion.

1. I've position my leg to step behind his.

2. My Right arm sweeps throw to disrupt any incoming jab which is why he's not punching. My right arm swept through

3. My right arm is now in position to advance and grab or to attack my opponent at the top

4. My left hand is in position to cover the bait.


He still doesn't punch because at this point he's defending against my right hand which is in the process of looping towards his face. Left hand controls his elbow with shuts down his lead arm. I push it towards his rear arm to prevent the rear hand from entering. At the same time. My leg is now behind my opponent. I have closed the distance and will break his structure. My leg pushing in one direction, my arm pushing in the opposite direction.

In CMA and other TMA systems, the students are taught the concept of attacking your opponent in more than area at the same time. In the forms you are often doing more than one thing at once.

End result. I use my low horse stance to stabilize myself . Here I grab around his waist to help control his fall. In application my arm would have been higher up around shoulder or neck height. I would have throw right arm to hit him hard while breaking his structure. All of this started with a Cross stance as an entry point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You have presented a good example why one should not cross his legs. At 0.40 and 0.50, if his opponent uses left foot to sweep his right foot, he will be down.

That's why I say right time right place. If you do it right way and at the right time, then you will take away his thought of sweeping. If, I punch you in your face, then you will not think about your legs. If I choose the right time and right place then you will have the least opportunity to think sweep, or do sweep. See my previous post of how I occupy my opponent.

 

[Martial D]

TMA practices cross stances and I can show tons of examples of cross stances being effectively used.
Cross stance in MMA
View attachment 26714View attachment 26716

View attachment 26717

View attachment 26718
View attachment 26719

Cross stance after sweep
View attachment 26720

Cross step used to evade take down
View attachment 26722

Lol, are you really trying to argue this? Those pics are all of people grossly out of position.

Stick to jow gar man, or actually train MMA before making statements like that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the following clip, when he uses "cover step", his low leg is parallel to the ground until his foot lands on the other side of his rooting leg. Even if he has crossed his legs in front of his opponent, he does not give his opponent a chance to sweep him.

Sometime a small detail like this can decide who will be on the ground.

What I see is the same thing I'm telling you about occupying your opponent. That step starts off like a kick. If your opponent his occupied about being kicked then he's not thinking about being thrown.

Like I said before. Right place - Right time.

Even as reliable as a Jab is. Throw it at the wrong time or at the wrong place and you'll lose.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Lol, are you really trying to argue this? Those pics are all of people grossly out of position.

Stick to jow gar man, or actually train MMA before making statements like that.

I'm not arguing if I have shown you pictures of a cross stance in use. Your understanding of a cross stance is very limited because you do not train nor wish to understand it. Because of this you only see it in a very limited view.

 

[Martial D]

The difference between an alive style like MMA and something like Kung Fu is in the former you won't always be in an ideal position because there is real pressure. That doesn't mean the unideal position is correct or beneficial

 

[Martial D]

I'm not arguing if I have shown you pictures of a cross stance in use. Your understanding of a cross stance is very limited because you do not train nor wish to understand it. Because of this you only see it in a very limited view.

No. The difference is you do not train with pressure so you have no frame of reference for what works and what doesn't. Anything works when the highest you even dial it up is 20% playfighting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Do the Chinese MA utilize western style boxing movements for dynamic movement? Is there something I could watch that shows some of these Chinese footwork techniques in practical application like the way Muay Thai for example has distinctive footwork?

I don’t think you are going to find what you are hoping to see, or at least not as much as you would like

I can only speak to my experiences. But stances in Chinese martial arts, particularly in the forms, can often be exaggerated and may not be directly seen in actual fighting. They are used as a tool for understanding larger principles of movement and power generation from the root. They may have direct fighting application, or they may not. But that often is not actually the point. Understanding the rooting and power generation methods are the point and the stances work well for that.

Lots of people want a direct translation, but it often simply doesn’t work that way, was never intended to. I think that people often try to manufacture direct applications in order to satisfy that desire. They feel that every move, every posture, found within a form needs to have a direct fighting application. I don’t believe that, I am not convinced it is the best way to go about it.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Lol, are you really trying to argue this? Those pics are all of people grossly out of position.

Stick to jow gar man, or actually train MMA before making statements like that.

He is contributing to the discussion instead of cherry picking when to drop one liners to be a contrarian. His answers have been substantive, you have been using a lot of the "weasel language" you say you don't like without providing anything truly helpful. Maybe show some examples of why its a bad idea?

 

[Shatteredzen]

I don’t think you are going to find what you are hoping to see, or at least not as much as you would like

I can only speak to my experiences. But stances in Chinese martial arts, particularly in the forms, can often be exaggerated and may not be directly seen in actual fighting. They are used as a tool for understanding larger principles of movement and power generation from the root. They may have direct fighting application, or they may not. But that often is not actually the point. Understanding the rooting and power generation methods are the point and the stances work well for that.

Lots of people want a direct translation, but it often simply doesn’t work that way, was never intended to. I think that people often try to manufacture direct applications in order to satisfy that desire. They feel that every move, every posture, found within a form needs to have a direct fighting application. I don’t believe that, I am not convinced it is the best way to go about it.

I have made a similar observation from my limited experience with Chinese MA, I am wondering if say Wing Chun or some of the more lively versions of the "Chinese boxing" methods have distinctive footwork we can see/study. I have noticed they talk about footwork a lot, but I have rarely seen examples in practical application that looked incredibly different from anything else.

 

[JowGaWolf]

you won't always be in an ideal position because there is real pressure.

MMA is no exception to this either. As far as I know I have never seen any TMA practitioner in this group claim that they will ALWAYS be in an ideal position. This is something that is always known by TMA systems. My system have guards and hand positions with the understanding that the person may not be in an ideal position. And that back up guard isn't to stop the attack but to keep it from being worse than it would be if the back up guard wasn't present.

In western fighting the Rear is often seen by many untrained people as the hand that is used to only punch. In TMA system is widely taught that the rear hand is to be position and used for when things don't go as planned. Boxer do the same thing when they fight. When they punch they make sure that one hand punches and the other hand guards. You see that understanding in a wide range of TMA fighting systems. So the fact that one may not ALWAYS be in an ideal position is not lost on TMA.

No. The difference is you do not train with pressure so you have no frame of reference for what works and what doesn't. Anything works when the highest you even dial it up is 20% playfighting.

And yet that 20% is more than what you share with the group.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Lots of people want a direct translation, but it often simply doesn’t work that way, was never intended to. I think that people often try to manufacture direct applications in order to satisfy that desire. They feel that every move, every posture, found within a form needs to have a direct fighting application. I don’t believe that, I am not convinced it is the best way to go about it.

This is what I usually run into with people. They often limit their view to one thing. Many of my Asian friends say. "Americans (westerners) only think there is one way to do things. They only think it can only be one thing." So when someone does a horse stance they only think it looks one way and must always be done one way. They told me that they dislike that the most about Americans.

For them they see "One thing" that yields many variations. Americans see a Bright sunny day as good. Asians see a Bright sunny day as good, but it can also be other things to. Bight sunny days can also be all the negative things as well.

This limited way of thinking is what makes TMA systems difficult for many people. They see one technique in one form and they think it's only used in one way. Because of that they limit any understanding or visualization of variations of that "One Thing."

When people do a form, they think that it's only about fighting, but the reality is that it's also about other things too.

Anyone that tries some of this will discover right away that the last thing on your mind fighting as the form instantly challenges your balance and movement.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have made a similar observation from my limited experience with Chinese MA, I am wondering if say Wing Chun or some of the more lively versions of the "Chinese boxing" methods have distinctive footwork we can see/study. I have noticed they talk about footwork a lot, but I have rarely seen examples in practical application that looked incredibly different from anything else.

I think when it comes down to it, fighting often looks much the same regardless of what method someone trains. People want to believe that a particular system looks unique in fighting. But fighting doesn’t look like Kung Fu Theater. Some systems may have a few specific techniques that are kind of their signature, but we should not expect or demand that X kung fu system looks a certain way.

what makes a system distinct is how it goes about training it’s methods. That would include things like the stance work I described previously. The methodology may be unique and have a clear signature. But when it comes to fighting, it is all the same. People trying to hurt each other. Punching, kicking, biting, throwing. That is common to all fighting. They look the same in application. What is important is understanding the principles that make a technique effective. Principles of power generation is a primary one. If a technique is delivered with those principles, then it is consistent with the system, regardless of what it looks like. Even if it is not any “proper” technique at all. And an uneducated eye may be unable to recognize the principle as it is applied, but that does not mean it isn’t there.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I have noticed they talk about footwork a lot, but I have rarely seen examples in practical application that looked incredibly different from anything else.

In the terms of Wing Chun what you see depends on the school of thought. This is also true with TMA in general.

This is Wing Chun footwork.

But this is also Wing Chun footwork. And someone else will say, no that's not Wing Chun and in my mind I just say. "It's not your Wing Chun it's his Wing Chun." There's always variations