How the punch can relate to the rest of the system

[APL76]

Thanks for sharing your personal clip. Mobility is a relative term and not an absolute term.

Let's look into YJKYM a bit deeper. Since you are standing square, you don't have the separation of

- leading leg, and
- back leg.

This means that if you want to move in, you have to move either the right leg, or the left leg. In both cases, the distance between you and your opponent will change.

Compare YJKYM with 4-6 stance (40% weight on front, 60% weight on back), the 4-6 stance has leading leg and back leg. When you move your

- leading leg, the distance between you and your opponent will change. This is the same as YJKYM.
- back leg, the distance between you and your opponent remain the same. This is a very important function. You can move your back leg forward to touch your leading leg. When you do that, since the distance between you and your opponent remains the same, your opponent may not notice it. You can then "spring" forward from there. All the jumping kicks are using the same footwork. The YJKYM just doesn't have this function.

Here is an example that you can use a "4-6 stance" to "hide your preparation for springing forward" by moving your back leg to touch your leading leg. If you can hide your preparation well, your sudden attack will be fast and surprised.

That footwork you are doing is found in Chum Kiu, Bui Jee and the Wooden Dummy forms, it has its place, however I personally wouldn’t use it in such an obvious and straight forwards manner as the person demonstrating it by kicking the tree, it’s a good way to allow an opponent to get ahead of you.

 

[Juany118]

BTW, I've found that the same four factors listed above apply equally in the Escrima I practice. And that's heavily influenced by boxing. So I'm pretty sure this isn't stricktly some kinda mystical Chinese kung-fooey stuff. I'm betting it's just physics. Can't be sure though, since unfortunately, I don't know physics.

I have noticed this with most martial arts to be honest. Whether it be the few I study (or have studied) or just from conversations with people who study various other arts and that circle is rather diverse. I know people who study the more obvious arts then I hop to HEMA and I even talk with an old classmate who now studies Kalaripayattu as he returned to home to India. Just recently he even returned to the US to visit and he and his father provided us with a very interesting set of demonstrations.

In the end, biomechanics are biomechanics. At most we have 2 arms and 2 legs. Our joints can only move in certain ways, our muscles limit the speed and strength that can be applied etc. General physical training can enhance some of these qualities (example strength and flexibility), martial arts training can develop techniques that help maximize effectiveness but in the end there are only so many ways a punch, kick etc can be effectively applied. We may look at a punch and say "well they move more obviously", in one way or another, than a different martial art but the movements at their core are the same, its only a matter of how those core elements are applied by the foundational principles of the specific art in question.

 

[APL76]

The question we are discussing isn't whether you can do it or not, but whether this is the best position from which to learn to punch with power. Your opinion was it was best to learn to just use the arm first, not adding the body.

Punching with power and no footwork is a more advanced skill. And good for demos, not something likely to occur in a defence situation.

I would never advocate that anyone I teach wing chun not try to use their whole body in a self-defence situation much less simply stand there in yi ji kim yeung ma and try to punch someone. Having said that however any given person I teach will have different ability to use their whole body depending on how much they have leaned and trained; they will have more or less in their “tool kit” at any given time as it were.

I wonder if I’m not conveying what I’m saying effectively, it seems people seem to think I’m advocating punching with the arm only and that’s the end of it?

What I’m saying is that the best way to develop good structure, stability, precision in the punch and avoidance of overreach with the power is to train at the punch in isolation in YJKYM, and then later, once everything is at a good enough standard, to add the rest of the body through jun ma and eventually footwork. I would have thought for a bunch of people who do a martial art that includes a form like Sui Lim Tao, this training method would have been a common enough concept.

 

[Juany118]

I would never advocate that anyone I teach wing chun not try to use their whole body in a self-defence situation much less simply stand there in yi ji kim yeung ma and try to punch someone. Having said that however any given person I teach will have different ability to use their whole body depending on how much they have leaned and trained; they will have more or less in their “tool kit” at any given time as it were.

I wonder if I’m not conveying what I’m saying effectively, it seems people seem to think I’m advocating punching with the arm only and that’s the end of it?

What I’m saying is that the best way to develop good structure, stability, precision in the punch and avoidance of overreach with the power is to train at the punch in isolation in YJKYM, and then later, once everything is at a good enough standard, to add the rest of the body through jun ma and eventually footwork. I would have thought for a bunch of people who do a martial art that includes a form like Sui Lim Tao, this training method would have been a common enough concept.

I could be wrong but I think, to an extent, at least some on the "other side" are saying this...

In just training that way from the beginning and without drills/san sik that incorporate other elements for power generation, you develop a habit in the student that then must be deprogrammed. In short they repeatedly do something in a largely static manner, then after having that "programmed" into them, they may find themselves fighting themselves as they learn to punch with fluidity and speed with footwork and other body movements incorporated into it. This may not apply to all students but I do often see new students, if they focused too much on SLT doing (simply a hypothetical example) "pak>step>gum>step>punch" Instead of "pak+step>gum+step+punch"

So even with something like SLT you can train the power generation at the same time with supplementary drills. You probably want to start easy and maybe just focus on using the footwork first, then integrating other forms of generation in later but this way you don't have to later overcome the student who has become "static".

I may be wrong btw but that was kinda the take away I was getting from some of the other views.

 

[APL76]

I could be wrong but I think, to an extent, at least some on the "other side" are saying this...

In just training that way from the beginning and without drills/san sik that incorporate other elements for power generation, you develop a habit in the student that then must be deprogrammed. In short they repeatedly do something in a largely static manner, then after having that "programmed" into them, they may find themselves fighting themselves as they learn to punch with fluidity and speed with footwork and other body movements incorporated into it. This may not apply to all students but I do often see new students, if they focused too much on SLT doing (simply a hypothetical example) "pak>step>gum>step>punch" Instead of "pak+step>gum+step+punch"

So even with something like SLT you can train the power generation at the same time with supplementary drills. You probably want to start easy and maybe just focus on using the footwork first, then integrating other forms of generation in later but this way you don't have to later overcome the student who has become "static".

I may be wrong btw but that was kinda the take away I was getting from some of the other views.

I would totally agree that if all you ever taught someone to do was stand still and punch, or do sui lim tao and not really teach what the other forms are for, that people could get stuck in one spot (and to be honest I suspect this is why a lot of Yip Man wing chun is relatively static compared to other types of wing chun; it seems many people teach exactly that despite the system itself containing all the mobility it needs). However I’m saying something entirely different.

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be to describe the process I went through learning Guangzhou (Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung) wing chun. By the time my sifu took me as a private student I had leaned nearly all of the Yip Man style from him in his class so I already had a reasonable idea about how to train at wing chun and had trained hard; training in the Guangzhou style was done in the way Sum Nung taught my sifu; and this is training hours every day.

4 to 6 months of nothing but Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma,

6 to 8 months of Chi Ng Kun (single centreline punches)

About 6 months of Jun Ma

If I was going to get somehow stuck and learn some sort of bad habit of not being able to move that kind of training one would think would do it. But it doesn’t, because:

Then came sup yi sik beginning with pin choi. It took me about 18 months roughly to get through just stance, punches and turns in isolation, after that it took about another 5 years of solid training to get through the sup yi sik, before even getting to sui lim tao. That’s 5 years roughly of learning to combine the stance, punches and turns, among other things (a good number of sup yi sik is dedicated to combining these three elements) and to use the footwork.

So once each component: Stance, punches, and turns, are to a good enough standard in isolation they are combined to make it all mobile. The reason training like this works is because the punch, when done with only the arm in isolation is executed in exactly the same way when done with a turn, and exactly the same way when done with turn and footwork. Far from inculcating bad habits that need to be undone, each element builds off the last.

In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would totally agree that if all you ever taught someone to do was stand still and punch, or do sui lim tao and not really teach what the other forms are for, that people could get stuck in one spot (and to be honest I suspect this is why a lot of Yip Man wing chun is relatively static compared to other types of wing chun; it seems many people teach exactly that despite the system itself containing all the mobility it needs). However I’m saying something entirely different.

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be to describe the process I went through learning Guangzhou (Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung) wing chun. By the time my sifu took me as a private student I had leaned nearly all of the Yip Man style from him in his class so I already had a reasonable idea about how to train at wing chun and had trained hard; training in the Guangzhou style was done in the way Sum Nung taught my sifu; and this is training hours every day.

4 to 6 months of nothing but Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma,

6 to 8 months of Chi Ng Kun (single centreline punches)

About 6 months of Jun Ma

If I was going to get somehow stuck and learn some sort of bad habit of not being able to move that kind of training one would think would do it. But it doesn’t, because:

Then came sup yi sik beginning with pin choi. It took me about 18 months roughly to get through just stance, punches and turns in isolation, after that it took about another 5 years of solid training to get through the sup yi sik, before even getting to sui lim tao. That’s 5 years roughly of learning to combine the stance, punches and turns, among other things (a good number of sup yi sik is dedicated to combining these three elements) and to use the footwork.

So once each component: Stance, punches, and turns, are to a good enough standard in isolation they are combined to make it all mobile. The reason training like this works is because the punch, when done with only the arm in isolation is executed in exactly the same way when done with a turn, and exactly the same way when done with turn and footwork. Far from inculcating bad habits that need to be undone, each element builds off the last.

In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.

Here's a view from outside WC, which might help clarify some folks' concerns. I teach Nihon Goshin Aikido, and one of the first things we start teaching is a standard one-hand block (knife hand). It is taught static, in a slightly pigeon-toed stance (similar to a basic stance in WC, I think). Once students get this working reasonably well, they progress to use it in a less formal stance.

Later, as we start working on actual techniques (NGA is a grappling art with a strong striking component, so "techniques" refers to grappling), students learn to use these blocks as the beginning of an application. The use (attacker) gives a punch, nage (defender) blocks and moves to a technique.

Except that's not what happens. The end point (high skill) is that the block flows into the technique without pause. In fact, that "without pause" is essential to an aiki art. The relative beginner, however, tends to block and stop, then move to the next step. It's takes most students several weeks on each technique to get any sort of flow. Why? Because they were taught to block and stand still when they started. The problem tends to persist for years, and only after about 3-5 years do they stop putting the "stop" into new techniques and go directly for flow when they learn them.

Because of this exact problem, I've been working on a better progression, so students spend less time doing the "block and stand still" drill. I think this is what folks are talking about - getting past isolation more quickly, so students don't develop habits of isolation. The training method you described takes years at each phase, so there's plenty of time to get past the habits. The question is whether it's better to start getting past the habits earlier, when they are easier to replace.

 

[anerlich]

In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.

You've put out a video explaining how you perform and teach the punch. I watched it aand found it interesting.

Evidently, not everyone agrees completely with your punching or teaching methods. Personally, I don't believe there is a "best" method. In seemingly every other aspect of life except TCMA, there are multiple effective methods to achieve goals, some of which suit some better than others, and there is always room for evolution or improvement.

It would be foolish to expect that everyone will agree with you, let alone accept that yours is the best or only way. Complaining that any disagreement with you means we don't understand what you are trying to say, and that trying to explain it better or differently will make everyone say "Wow! You're right! My instructor and I did it wrong all these years!" is going to change anything is optimistic, to say the least.

I actually started Kung Fu in your neck of the woods, with David Crook of Bac Fu Do, back in the 1970's. He was big on teaching body coordination and a soft, flowing style with footwork and coordinated movement from the beginning. I think his methods worked for me, as you think your instructor's worked for you. Different strokes. Opinions, not facts.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.

When you use both hand to hold your hand gun, if you want to shot to your left (or right), do you

1. turn your arms, freeze your body, or
2. turn your body, freeze your arms?

I believe a shooting instructor will tell you to do 2 and not 1. The question is why do you even want to learn method 1 if method 2 is correct and method 1 is not?

 

[Juany118]

.

In the Yip Man wing chun I learned there is no sup yi sik, but still the forms build on each other in the same way. So I’m really actually confused as to how anyone thinks there are bad habits to be unlearned, or deprogrammed. This is why I’m wondering if I’m simply not communicating effectively.

Well the YM WC (TWC) I study has what we call "drills" and I have also seen Moy Yat Instructors also do things similarly. Now TWC clearly has differences from the other YM sub-lineages but Moy Yat is more consistent and has them. Even the WSLVT I took via the Gary Lam "school" some time ago had similar drills. I don't have any experience with the other sub lineages though but another thread on the forms here speak of the san sim YM taught, I want to say he had 18 afaik so I would suspect, even if they just use the terms "drills" they teach this. My school actually has students do footwork drills in general from the very beginning and before CK. If they didn't I would actually question the effectiveness of the MA. The trick, in my experience, is to have instructors, and good training partners,who are watching as the drills are performed and point out when they are losing the structure the form teaches.

So I don't think the issue is poor communication but different experiencs in how people have trained YM WC.

 

[Juany118]

Well the YM WC (TWC) I study has what we call "drills" and I have also seen Moy Yat Instructors also do things similarly. Now TWC clearly has differences from the other YM sub-lineages but Moy Yat is more consistent and has them. Even the WSLVT I took via the Gary Lam "school" some time ago had similar drills. I don't have any experience with the other sub lineages though but another thread on the forms here speak of the san sim YM taught, I want to say he had 18 afaik so I would suspect, even if they just use the terms "drills" they teach this. My school actually has students do footwork drills in general from the very beginning and before CK. If they didn't I would actually question the effectiveness of the MA. The trick, in my experience, is to have instructors, and good training partners,who are watching as the drills are performed and point out when they are losing the structure the form teaches.

So I don't think the issue is poor communication but different experiencs in how people have trained YM WC.

Here is one of the sub-lineages of YMWC/VT I have no experience with, Wong Chok's, that clearly has san sik that includes drills illustrating basic power generation, with turning and stepping...

 

[APL76]

You've put out a video explaining how you perform and teach the punch. I watched it aand found it interesting.

Evidently, not everyone agrees completely with your punching or teaching methods. Personally, I don't believe there is a "best" method. In seemingly every other aspect of life except TCMA, there are multiple effective methods to achieve goals, some of which suit some better than others, and there is always room for evolution or improvement.

It would be foolish to expect that everyone will agree with you, let alone accept that yours is the best or only way. Complaining that any disagreement with you means we don't understand what you are trying to say, and that trying to explain it better or differently will make everyone say "Wow! You're right! My instructor and I did it wrong all these years!" is going to change anything is optimistic, to say the least.

I actually started Kung Fu in your neck of the woods, with David Crook of Bac Fu Do, back in the 1970's. He was big on teaching body coordination and a soft, flowing style with footwork and coordinated movement from the beginning. I think his methods worked for me, as you think your instructor's worked for you. Different strokes. Opinions, not facts.

It’s not that I expect everyone to agree with me, what is hinting to me that I may not be conveying what I’m trying to say effectively is that at least some people seem to be getting the impression that I am advocating doing the punch with no movement or power through the body and that that’s is how we do our wing chun. Or that if you train the way I set it out that you will somehow get stuck and forget to move or have bad habits to be trained out. You can look at any of our videos and see the higher level students, not a single one of them gets stuck in one spot, forgets to move on their feet or has to train out bad habits. Hence I am not saying “you are all wrong” I am rather seeking to make sure I am conveying what I’m saying clearly (I’m mainly wanting to do that for the benefit of my own students).

 

[APL76]

Because of this exact problem, I've been working on a better progression, so students spend less time doing the "block and stand still" drill. I think this is what folks are talking about - getting past isolation more quickly, so students don't develop habits of isolation. The training method you described takes years at each phase, so there's plenty of time to get past the habits. The question is whether it's better to start getting past the habits earlier, when they are easier to replace.[/QUOTE]


Do you find there to be much trade-off between quality of the individual movements and learning to flow through several techniques more quickly?

My view of it is that each step in any sequence of things strung together is only as good as each individual step, kind of a weakest link in the chain scenario. Where you have allowed students to move on to flowing or progression of things more quickly how is the integrity of the individual “block and stand still drill”?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you find there to be much trade-off between quality of the individual movements and learning to flow through several techniques more quickly?

My view of it is that each step in any sequence of things strung together is only as good as each individual step, kind of a weakest link in the chain scenario. Where you have allowed students to move on to flowing or progression of things more quickly how is the integrity of the individual “block and stand still drill”?

There's truth in that, APL. The pieces are important. However, if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer. Of course, if there is no isolation, it can take longer for proper structure to form. For instance, if I taught the blocks the other way around (teach the footwork/body movement, then add the block), I'd be almost certain to get blocks that won't hold up if the movement fails - they'd have developed around absorbing only the energy that the movement doesn't absorb.

So far, I haven't moved anyone at a faster rate. I started the change just recently, and haven't added any new students in that time (small program, slow change). My concept is to have them learn the static block just long enough to get the basic foundation. I will add small movement (like the turning movement seen in one of the WC forms that has no stepping) to it next, as that turn is part of the transition to technique. Then, I can add the movement. I can pause at any point and strengthen the fundamentals before moving them along, so they get a semi-solid foundation that becomes more solid as they progress toward full movement. This mirrors how I focused my learning in the last two sets (20 techniques) in my own training. I've used that same progression with more advanced students (moving them quickly away from anything static), and I just need to see how soon the average beginner can move from that.

 

[APL76]

There's truth in that, APL. The pieces are important. However, if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer. Of course, if there is no isolation, it can take longer for proper structure to form. For instance, if I taught the blocks the other way around (teach the footwork/body movement, then add the block), I'd be almost certain to get blocks that won't hold up if the movement fails - they'd have developed around absorbing only the energy that the movement doesn't absorb.

So far, I haven't moved anyone at a faster rate. I started the change just recently, and haven't added any new students in that time (small program, slow change). My concept is to have them learn the static block just long enough to get the basic foundation. I will add small movement (like the turning movement seen in one of the WC forms that has no stepping) to it next, as that turn is part of the transition to technique. Then, I can add the movement. I can pause at any point and strengthen the fundamentals before moving them along, so they get a semi-solid foundation that becomes more solid as they progress toward full movement. This mirrors how I focused my learning in the last two sets (20 techniques) in my own training. I've used that same progression with more advanced students (moving them quickly away from anything static), and I just need to see how soon the average beginner can move from that.

Thanks for the reply.

By the way you describe it you seem to take an approach similar to how my teacher did in his class teaching the Yip man style of wing chun, so the original training I did with him.

We progressed through that at a fairly decent rate with good quality if you trained hard. Those that didn’t train hard enough, or/and rushed, generally they would be able to piece things together fairly quickly and at the beginner to intermediate levels would have the edge over those who trained things in isolation more. As people got to the higher levels however the tables would turn dramatically.

People that rushed to put it all together into something more “practical” a bit more quickly than they should would invariably go to pieces as the individual components of whatever they were doing would fall apart. They could string it all together nice, and to someone not as experienced it would look impressive. But in the end it would fall apart.

If you tried to run a martial arts class the way I leaned the Guangzhou style of wing chun I think you’d chase potential students away.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if they are learned too much in isolation, they tend to remain pieces longer.

Each and every technique that I have taught to my students all start from the kicking range. They have to use a

1. kick to cross the distance.
2. punch to build an arm bridge.

I will never start any technique with arm contact. The advantage of this training method is you will always think about your body first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thanks for the reply.

By the way you describe it you seem to take an approach similar to how my teacher did in his class teaching the Yip man style of wing chun, so the original training I did with him.

We progressed through that at a fairly decent rate with good quality if you trained hard. Those that didn’t train hard enough, or/and rushed, generally they would be able to piece things together fairly quickly and at the beginner to intermediate levels would have the edge over those who trained things in isolation more. As people got to the higher levels however the tables would turn dramatically.

People that rushed to put it all together into something more “practical” a bit more quickly than they should would invariably go to pieces as the individual components of whatever they were doing would fall apart. They could string it all together nice, and to someone not as experienced it would look impressive. But in the end it would fall apart.

If you tried to run a martial arts class the way I leaned the Guangzhou style of wing chun I think you’d chase potential students away.

Agreed on that last point!

One of the interesting things for us is that the "fundamentals" actually change a bit as you progress. For a beginner, a sturdy structure is the fundamental, so more focus on good stance, etc. For the intermediate practitioner, the fundamental is flow and moving through from one point to another without stopping. For the advanced practitioner, the fundamental is feel, and even original structure can bow to that at times, as they find a gap to drop someone into.

The reason for this progression is that the "aiki" is demanding and takes time to develop, so the early focus is on survival through structure. Once they have that survivability, we start to get the flow that makes aiki movement possible, which opens up more of our techniques. Once that starts to get reliable, they can really dig deep into finding those gaps, and new structures become useful that wouldn't have served the beginner. My stances are much taller and narrower than what I teach. I couldn't have used that structure effectively 15 years ago, but now it's my base. I also bend into things more than I used to, because I can feel their loss of structure and know where I can safely sacrifice my own.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Each and every technique that I have taught to my students all start from the kicking range. They have to use a

1. kick to cross the distance.
2. punch to build an arm bridge.

I will never start any technique with arm contact. The advantage of this training method is you will always think about your body first.

Interesting. How do you get them ready for initiating a technique when the opponent has closed the distance on them? What's the transition?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Interesting. How do you get them ready for initiating a technique when the opponent has closed the distance on them? What's the transition?

If your opponent attacks, you can just "move back, still remain the kicking range", you then jump back in and attack as before.

The advantage of this approach is you always attack. You will never let your opponent to attack you, you respond to it, and fall into his trap. You want to lead your opponent to fight the way that you want to fight.

Here is an combo example (training) that to use

- kick to close distance,
- punch to build arm bridge.
- arm bridge to take down.
- take down to finish.

Both "entering strategy" and "finish strategy" are included in this drill.

Here is another combo used in the ring.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If your opponent attacks, you can just "move back, still remain the kicking range", you then jump back in and attack as before.

The advantage of this approach is you always attack. You will never let your opponent to attack you, you respond to it, and fall into his trap. You want to lead your opponent to fight the way that you want to fight.

Here is an combo example (training) that to use

- kick to close distance,
- punch to build arm bridge.
- arm bridge to take down.
- take down to finish.

Both "entering strategy" and "finish strategy" are included in this drill.

Here is another combo used in the ring.

So what is the solution when there is no room to move back? Of course, you might be able to move to the side, but a skilled opponent can close that distance as you move.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So what is the solution when there is no room to move back? Of course, you might be able to move to the side, but a skilled opponent can close that distance as you move.

1. A 45 degree downward hay-maker can deflect all straight line punches (Use circular move to counter straight line move).
2. A rhino guard can break through all circular punches (Use straight line move to counter circular move).
3. Toe push kick can stop all punches (Leg is longer than arm).
4. Foot sweep (If your opponent can't put weight onto his leading leg, he can't punch you),
5. Knee stomping,
6. ...