How the punch can relate to the rest of the system

[Juany118]

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.

I think, maybe, some instructors get trapped in the forms. That is why I noted the san sik and similar supplementary drills. The thing is it does take more attention by the Sifu and senior instructors under him (if he has them) because you have to keep a sharp eye that the fundamentals taught by the forms are not violated.

There is something else that I think is important, note, I am not saying anyone here does the following. Some instructors get a little obsessive over appearance. Example, tan sau. Now yes there is a point where a tan stops being a tan but I have seen instructors who will notice a student's arm is at 120 or 125 degrees and be rather miffed that it wasn't 130 degrees. Sometimes this unnecessarily slows progression, at least imo.

One of the strong suits I believe my Sifu has is that he has an eye for when students are still maintaining the principles even if it doesn't look picture perfect. He can conversely see when someone appears picture perfect but is violating a principle.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think, maybe, some instructors get trapped in the forms. That is why I noted the san sik and similar supplementary drills. The thing is it does take more attention by the Sifu and senior instructors under him (if he has them) because you have to keep a sharp eye that the fundamentals taught by the forms are not violated.

There is something else that I think is important, note, I am not saying anyone here does the following. Some instructors get a little obsessive over appearance. Example, tan sau. Now yes there is a point where a tan stops being a tan but I have seen instructors who will notice a student's arm is at 120 or 125 degrees and be rather miffed that it wasn't 130 degrees. Sometimes this unnecessarily slows progression, at least imo.

One of the strong suits I believe my Sifu has is that he has an eye for when students are still maintaining the principles even if it doesn't look picture perfect. He can conversely see when someone appears picture perfect but is violating a principle.

I've noticed that tendency before with some form work. It's something I'm trying to avoid when I'm teaching/working with forms. I actively try to use words like "about 45 degrees", and focus them on the principles, rather than exact positions.

 

[anerlich]

I think it's possible to train isolation, and joining a flowing sequence of techniques, in parallel.

There are many techniques in Jiu Jitsu where each of your limbs is doing something different, you have to get them all pretty much right, and doing each in isolation accomplishes nothing. Some very effective techniques can't be done slowly or with each part in isolation.

IMO the best way to handle this is to practice the entire sequence over and over, concentrating on a different one of the constituent parts each time. Over time, each, and therefore the sum, of the parts, improves. Your brain starts "chunking" the parts together into larger units, until the entire technique forms a "chunk".

Forms are like this IMO. you can either hone each single movement to perfection and then join them up, or start doing the whole thing as a loose flow and tighten the individual techniques and shapes up over time. The second method is the one I find best develops effective movement patterns and combinations.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What will be the 1st thing that you do when you are ready to fight?

1. Stand still?
2. Move around?

IMO 2 > 1.

 

[APL76]

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.

You know, that’s not so different to how it works for us too (I have a suspicion that its similar for most martial arts probably) We will build the foundations (structure, strength correct power generation etc.), proficiency in the individual components of the system (so making the individual techniques and so on foolproof), then how to put it together in smooth fast flowing way, then to make it all completely natural and in a way that shapes to anyone’s particular style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You know, that’s not so different to how it works for us too (I have a suspicion that its similar for most martial arts probably) We will build the foundations (structure, strength correct power generation etc.), proficiency in the individual components of the system (so making the individual techniques and so on foolproof), then how to put it together in smooth fast flowing way, then to make it all completely natural and in a way that shapes to anyone’s particular style.

I think the primary difference is in where the emphasis lies. Some instructors (and indeed, some styles) put more of an emphasis on the structural components, while others put more emphasis on the movement. The former will likely spend more time on the individual components, getting to a higher level of proficiency before combining. The latter will move into the combining phase at a lower level of proficiency. I think there are advantages to each, and some of those advantages (and disadvantages) vary by style. For instance, having a non-stepping form would be suicide in a style like NGA, because the flow of movement is what makes our techniques and overall approach work. If I let students practice a form standing still, it would almost certainly cause problems with their development. Watching the movement in something like Wing Chun, there's a different aspect. The "rooting" focus makes that non-stepping form make sense. You depend upon rooting the way we depend upon flow. You use flow the way we use rooting.

 

[dudewingchun]

Why not?

Because its not realistic to work in a fight. Are you really going to stand in YJKYM waiting for an attack and turn like that in a real fight? Those videos didn't prove anything, I can get people to throw attacks at me in a cooperative way and look like bruce lee

 

[obi_juan_salami]

Because its not realistic to work in a fight. Are you really going to stand in YJKYM waiting for an attack and turn like that in a real fight? Those videos didn't prove anything, I can get people to throw attacks at me in a cooperative way and look like bruce lee

No.. why would anyone in their right mind stand in yi ji kim yeung ma and wait for an attack? But in the event o an attack the stance is used in motion when you apply wing chun.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

No.. why would anyone in their right mind stand in yi ji kim yeung ma and wait for an attack? But in the event o an attack the stance is used in motion when you apply wing chun.

If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.

- Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
- How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
- What if you will need to cover more distance?
- Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

 

[obi_juan_salami]

If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.

- Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
- How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
- What if you will need to cover more distance?
- Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

- unlikely, but you might. Depends on the situation.

- alot

- why would you want to move in a circle?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

- why would you want to move in a circle?

You want to move into your opponent's "side door". Use your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm so you only need to deal with 1 of his arm instead of 2. All boxers use this strategy to avoid their opponent's powerful back hand "cross".

When your back foot line up with your opponent's both feet, his back hand can't reach you.

 

[APL76]

If you are not waiting for your opponent to attack, and you will initial the attack then why would you want to start from a YJKYM? The YJKYM is not a good attacking stance.

- Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?
- How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?
- What if you will need to cover more distance?
- Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.

The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.

So you have these questions.

Q: Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?

A: Well you might if necessary, you may pass through it any number of times (hopefully you won’t be having to fight long enough)

Q: How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?

A: as much or as little as you need, you might do a small step, you can do really big steps if necessary; I once watched my sifu step nearly 2 meters while stepping under a tai Kwan do guy’s round house to the head. As he stepped he dropped right down under the oncoming kick and came up and landed his own kick to the knee as the tai Kwan do guy’s kick was ending. But my sifu was sum nung’s decuple, and can move like lighting, it’s not something I’d try myself.

Q:What if you will need to cover more distance?

A: bigger steps; if you know Guangzhou style wing chun there are a few stepping methods that allow for faster longer coverage of ground than the standard shuffling sheung ma stepping.

Q: Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

A: Well, yes and no, YJKYM is stationary, if you need to move in a circular way you will turn on the spot from YJKYM using jun ma, to Chut san bo, its no longer YJKYM. The footwork in Chum kiu and bui ji provides the ability to step in just about any direction from YJKYM (though some people say you should never move backwards) and this gives you the ability to move on angles in relation to oncoming attacks, doing so for us has a kind of circular aspect to it, even though that circular aspect is deployed along a straight line.

 

[APL76]

I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.

The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.

So you have these questions.

Q: Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?

A: Well you might if necessary, you may pass through it any number of times (hopefully you won’t be having to fight long enough)

Q: How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?

A: as much or as little as you need, you might do a small step, you can do really big steps if necessary; I once watched my sifu step nearly 2 meters while stepping under a tai Kwan do guy’s round house to the head. As he stepped he dropped right down under the oncoming kick and came up and landed his own kick to the knee as the tai Kwan do guy’s kick was ending. But my sifu was sum nung’s decuple, and can move like lighting, it’s not something I’d try myself.

Q:What if you will need to cover more distance?

A: bigger steps; if you know Guangzhou style wing chun there are a few stepping methods that allow for faster longer coverage of ground than the standard shuffling sheung ma stepping.

Q: Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

A: Well, yes and no, YJKYM is stationary, if you need to move in a circular way you will turn on the spot from YJKYM using jun ma, to Chut san bo, its no longer YJKYM. The footwork in Chum kiu and bui ji provides the ability to step in just about any direction from YJKYM (though some people say you should never move backwards) and this gives you the ability to move on angles in relation to oncoming attacks, doing so for us has a kind of circular aspect to it, even though that circular aspect is deployed along a straight line.

I should also add here, in relation to doing bigger steps, and in some defence of Yip man wing chun vis a vis Guangzhou style, it may not have the bigger stepping methods of the Guangzhou style but the knife footwork from Yip Man style, can also be utilised to cover more ground quickly if done in the right situation (typically trying to stick to and overwhelm a rapidly retreating opponent)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.

Agree!

YJKYM is very similar to the Chinese wrestling "shin bite" that you bite your shin bone into the side of your opponent's leading leg to "build a leg bridge". Most WC guys like to talk about "arm bridge". Not many WC guys use YJKYM to build "leg bridge".

IMO, you can use it in offense by moving into your opponent to establish a "leg bridge". That inward stance is much more useful than just to use it as a "static defense stance".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I suspect you are thinking of YJKYM in a very static way. When we think of the wing chun stance we don’t really think of it as YJKYM or the chut san bo/gok ma, nor do we really think of it as jun ma or the various stepping components. All of these things are part of it, but it’s really a fluid, in motion, combination of them all done in the moment of application. As you deploy your wing chun you may land, so to speak, in YJKYM or Chut san bo in the moment of application of a strike, but they will be gone immediately as you move into the next element of your application of wing chun. It might be better to think of YJKYM and the other one as moments of application when you grab the ground and strike your power out of your hips and up through the arms, and your strikes land. This is the way of thinking about the stance for us, more than simply YJKIYM etc., that makes, for me, these arguments over whether YJKYM is a “fighting stance” or a “training stance” really missing the point. It’s also the reason that people like Obi Juan Salami find the accusation that one would simply wait for an attack to come by standing around in YJKYM totally absurd.

The way I teach my students is that in the application of wing chun the wing chun stance is a combination of the structure of YJKYM, the powering from the jun ma, the mobility derived from a combination of the stepping components in chum kiu and bui ji, and the strike delivery derived from all the arm and kicking techniques. Looking at it this way the idea that you would open your YJKYM and wait to meet an oncoming attack is silly, its far to passive for one. Rather we see it as:, as the person comes in you move appropriately in relation to their oncoming attack, as you do you will kinda slide into wing chun and land in, usually chut san bo, you will then continue your attack moving variously through YJKYM (or not, depending on the situation), or different incarnations of chut san bo, depending on the situation. For example, go back to the video I posted about “springing forward” in the stance. Look at the very first one where the guy with the green sash (obi Juan salami) goes from just standing about minding his own business, and slips into his gok ma, applies his initial attack/defence, then follows up with a kick, it’s all about motion, not being stuck in one spot. However, given that solid grounding is so important, much of the early training, hence standing around in YJKYM, is dedicated to developing good grounding (among other things). Can you move around well in YJKYM?, well no, YJKYM is stationary, but it gives you a great platform to facilitate huge mobility. Do you use it in a fight? Well, no, and yes, you don’t just stand around in YJKYM, you may utilise it in the moment of application of a strike, you may transition through it, both or one or the other. It’s a split second point in time.

So you have these questions.

Q: Are you going to move from YJKYM into another YJKYM than into another YJKYM?

A: Well you might if necessary, you may pass through it any number of times (hopefully you won’t be having to fight long enough)

Q: How much distance can you cover between 2 YJKYM?

A: as much or as little as you need, you might do a small step, you can do really big steps if necessary; I once watched my sifu step nearly 2 meters while stepping under a tai Kwan do guy’s round house to the head. As he stepped he dropped right down under the oncoming kick and came up and landed his own kick to the knee as the tai Kwan do guy’s kick was ending. But my sifu was sum nung’s decuple, and can move like lighting, it’s not something I’d try myself.

Q:What if you will need to cover more distance?

A: bigger steps; if you know Guangzhou style wing chun there are a few stepping methods that allow for faster longer coverage of ground than the standard shuffling sheung ma stepping.

Q: Can you use YJKYM to move in circle?

A: Well, yes and no, YJKYM is stationary, if you need to move in a circular way you will turn on the spot from YJKYM using jun ma, to Chut san bo, its no longer YJKYM. The footwork in Chum kiu and bui ji provides the ability to step in just about any direction from YJKYM (though some people say you should never move backwards) and this gives you the ability to move on angles in relation to oncoming attacks, doing so for us has a kind of circular aspect to it, even though that circular aspect is deployed along a straight line.

IMO, this is the basic use of any stance in any art. Very few are stances you'd hang out in to let the situation develop. Most are the foundation for specific types of movement (or non-movement, as the case may be). We move into them, through them, and out of them, using each for the specific blend of rooting, mobility, and structure it provides. Sometimes the situation even dictates we use the "wrong" stance for a technique, making it "right" for that moment.

 

[APL76]

IMO, this is the basic use of any stance in any art. Very few are stances you'd hang out in to let the situation develop. Most are the foundation for specific types of movement (or non-movement, as the case may be). We move into them, through them, and out of them, using each for the specific blend of rooting, mobility, and structure it provides. Sometimes the situation even dictates we use the "wrong" stance for a technique, making it "right" for that moment.

I would agree one hundred percent, yet, for some reason, many wing chun people seem to have missed the memo; as well as many more people who may not do wing chun but see wing chun done in training and automatically assume that you stick in Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma no matter what. Indeed one of my students was telling me the other day about his uncle who does another style of wing chun here in Canberra who was telling him something to the effect that we move far too much and have to work too hard, you should just “move your centre” whatever the hell that means.

 

[APL76]

Agree!

YJKYM is very similar to the Chinese wrestling "shin bite" that you bite your shin bone into the side of your opponent's leading leg to "build a leg bridge". Most WC guys like to talk about "arm bridge". Not many WC guys use YJKYM to build "leg bridge".

IMO, you can use it in offense by moving into your opponent to establish a "leg bridge". That inward stance is much more useful than just to use it as a "static defense stance".

Concerning the arm and leg bridges, well for us bridging isn’t necessarily connecting an arm with the opponent’s arm, or a leg on their leg. We prefer to think of these as gaining contact. The essence of bridging for us is closing the ground between your opponent’s optimal range and your own, and essentially putting yourself into your best striking range and position vis a vis your opponent’s attack; after all, what’s particular about the chum kiu (seeking the bridge) form? It’s not what you are doing with your arms, what you would use to get contact (almost all of that has already been done in sui lim tao), rather it’s what you are doing with your legs in closing range which works independently of whether you gain contact or not.

My sifu once told me that there are essentially three levels of refinement and precision in deploying wing chun: 1) the most rudimentary and least desirable= gain contact then struggle to fight your way in (what I have seen many people describe as “establishing a bridge then using chi sao [sometimes “chain punches”] to then try to overwhelm the opponent”)

2) Close and gain contact with arms and legs and strike in the instant the attackers attack should have been landing on you or a slight step ahead.

3) The most refined way= Close and only hit the person and put them down in that single step, don’t even bother with gaining contact with anything other than your fist/foot (or whatever), and destroy what you hit.

The second two include what we would count as “bridging”, the first one, in our terms, you have allowed your opponent to bridge to you, and put yourself behind the attack. The first two include what we would refer to as establishing contact. The first one defensively, the second one offensively. The second one for us includes legs and arms simultaneously, and it is what I would expect most wing chun people should at least be striving towards. It is however much easier said than done. If many wing chun people don’t do it that’s not the fault of wing chun but the person doing it. And keep in mind that people of different levels of training will be able to do it, or not, to the standard of training they are at a the time.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

3) The most refined way= Close and only hit the person and put them down in that single step, don’t even bother with gaining contact with anything other than your fist/foot (or whatever), and destroy what you hit.

In sword fight, when you swing your sword toward your opponent's head and cut his head off, at the same time your opponent can swing his sword toward your waist and cut your body in half.

A good sword fighter will

- touch his sword on his opponent's sword (build bridge),
- use pressure to guide his opponent's sword in an area that his opponent's sword won't give him any trouble (tucking),
- He then move in and attack.

IMO, any attack without being able to "sense" where your opponent's arms and leading leg are can be risky.

 

[APL76]

In sword fight, when you swing your sword toward your opponent's head and cut his head off, at the same time your opponent can swing his sword toward your waist and cut your body in half.

A good sword fighter will

- touch his sword on his opponent's sword (build bridge),
- use pressure to guide his opponent's sword in an area that won't give him any trouble (arm tucking),
- He then move in and attack.

IMO, any attack without feeling where your opponent's arms and leg are can be risky.

Interesting that you would talk about what a good sword fighter would do, one of my friends is a very highly ranked member of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shito Ryu and leaned from Otake Risuke himself. He told me once that Otake Sensi had told him that “if you have time to block, you have time to cut” i.e. that you should cut your opponent down with one stroke not touching their blade. If that kind of advice comes from the likes of Otake sense I would personally take notice of it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Interesting that you would talk about what a good sword fighter would do, one of my friends is a very highly ranked member of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shito Ryu and leaned from Otake Risuke himself. He told me once that Otake Sensi had told him that “if you have time to block, you have time to cut” i.e. that you should cut your opponent down with one stroke not touching their blade. If that kind of advice comes from the likes of Otake sense I would personally take notice of it.

If you fight someone

- below your level, you punch can hit on his head and his arms may not be able to block your punch.
- about your own level, the moment your punch go to his face, the moment his foot goes to your chest.

If you go to a grade school, you can beat up those kids anyway you feel like. If you fight your MA teacher, you should be more "alert".