Pads work in wing chun
- Thread starter guy b.
- Start date
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
I dont think you understand CSL at all sorry
- Thread Starter
- #63
Pivoting and moving are two different things. Feet operate naturally by shifting balance point forward when fully committing body weight in one direction, while weight is shifted backward as stance becomes more upright or torque is being applied. Pivoting point does not dictate a point of permanent weighting unless you want it to (which I guess you do?). Pivoting further forward on the foot necessitates a greater knee bend if you are to maintain the vertical axis which I think is impractical for striking. Raising the heel also limits power chain completion potential.
A tennis player is on the balls of the feet as they wait poised to receive serve and move their whole lowered mass in an unknown direction, but goes down on the heels at the moment they contact the ball during the forehand in order to complete the power chain to ground. Wrestling requires constant forward balance point because it is dealing with unexpected body weight size forces which are relatively slow compared to striking, while own centre of gravity is kept very low with knees very bent. Olympic weightlifting requires heel to ground because power chain completion is paramount.
In wing chun we are moving and striking and so need to be relatively upright, while generally completing power chains with a large rotational component very often. Weight distribution varies as required.
- Thread Starter
- #64
I was only agreeing with KPM who stressed the CSL focus on control before strike. From what I have seen of it I agree with this assessment (that is the wing chun part of it). Some of the fighters they have/had in UK were very good, e.g. Neil Broadbent. Last time I saw it was quite a while ago so who knows, could be different now.
KPM said:
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
Sorry I may have misunderstood your reply. My bad.
Forums are not a good medium to explain different kung fu lineages ideas.
- Thread Starter
- #66
What other medium is there really? If you go and see then unless you lie about prior experience or future intentions you are not likely to see a lot. Other than that you are waiting for chance meetings.
Don't apologize Sean, because he doesn't understand CSL at all!
Guy said:
This was my impression of CSL wing chun- the immediate focus is on control of the body of the opponent rather than on hitting them, i.e. it is more akin to a grappling centric approach which would explain the wrestling-style balance point. Unfortunately I think there are better grappling approaches, for example wrestling or judo. Why not just learn these if you wish to grapple? The niche that CSL wing chun aims for is pretty narrow; that is hitting off grappling. And there is a huge amount of knowledge about doing just that in MMA already.
First, CSL does not have a "wrestling-style balance point." Second, CSL is not a "grappling approach", it is Wing Chun! Third, CSL is not about "hitting off grappling." Fourth, an approach that puts all its emphasis on punching the opponent has a much more "narrow niche" than CSL, don't you think? So Guy didn't really understand what I wrote before at all.
A tennis player is on the balls of the feet as they wait poised to receive serve and move their whole lowered mass in an unknown direction, but goes down on the heels at the moment they contact the ball during the forehand in order to complete the power chain to ground.
---They are only on their heels for a brief moment. When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point. And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point. They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection. Just like the Tennis player.
Wrestling requires constant forward balance point because it is dealing with unexpected body weight size forces which are relatively slow compared to striking, while own centre of gravity is kept very low with knees very bent.
----And they keep their weight near the K1 point. Hardly ever over the heels.
Olympic weightlifting requires heel to ground because power chain completion is paramount.
---And weightlifting involves applying force upward...in a vertical direction. Not forward....as into an opponent.
---Let's look at other sports, since you brought it up. Track sprinters? Weight near the K1 point, never on the heels. Boxers? Weight back on the heels is considered a good way to get knocked down. A batter in baseball? Weight near K1 point. Can you imagine trying to hit a fast pitch while pivoting on your heels??? Volleyball? Weight near K1 to be very mobile. Almost every sport that involves being very mobile and agile on the feet puts the weight back over the heels as little as possible, and when moving around they pivot near the K1 point. Weight-lifting is the only sport where they spend a significant amount of time with their weight back over their heels, and this is because they are applying force straight up in a vertical direction, not forward as we do in Wing Chun.
---They are only on their heels for a brief moment. When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point. And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point. They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection. Just like the Tennis player.
Wrestling requires constant forward balance point because it is dealing with unexpected body weight size forces which are relatively slow compared to striking, while own centre of gravity is kept very low with knees very bent.
----And they keep their weight near the K1 point. Hardly ever over the heels.
Olympic weightlifting requires heel to ground because power chain completion is paramount.
---And weightlifting involves applying force upward...in a vertical direction. Not forward....as into an opponent.
---Let's look at other sports, since you brought it up. Track sprinters? Weight near the K1 point, never on the heels. Boxers? Weight back on the heels is considered a good way to get knocked down. A batter in baseball? Weight near K1 point. Can you imagine trying to hit a fast pitch while pivoting on your heels??? Volleyball? Weight near K1 to be very mobile. Almost every sport that involves being very mobile and agile on the feet puts the weight back over the heels as little as possible, and when moving around they pivot near the K1 point. Weight-lifting is the only sport where they spend a significant amount of time with their weight back over their heels, and this is because they are applying force straight up in a vertical direction, not forward as we do in Wing Chun.
- Thread Starter
- #69
Done much wrestling? I have
KPM said:
Control before hit is a grappling then hitting approach, i.e. a grappling centric approach. You place control above hitting in the heirarchy of importance as you outline in the following quote:
KPM said:
I agree with you, this was my experience of CSL wing chun. There is nothing wrong with this and I am not attacking you. I am merely agreeing with what you wrote because it tallied with what I experienced.
This is untrue. What I was shown of CSL wing chun in the UK focused a lot on hitting off grappling and disrupting balance before hitting (with grappling, there is not other way). There is nothing wrong with grappling. I currently practice bjj and think it is essential.
Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?
Disengaged striking is a 1/3 part of ring fighting. Clinching, throwing, tripping and standing hitting off grappling is another 1/3 part. Ground grappling is the third 1/3. CSL wing chun focuses on a part of the second part and I believe is not as optimised for disengaged striking as some other wing chuns I have seen because of the focus on control first. But of course that is only my opinion based on what I have seen and felt.
I fully understand and agree with what you wrote, and have also experienced it in person from some of their better fighters when I was training MMA. CSL has produced some great fighters in the UK. I think it is/was a good place to train. I don't understand why you hate the thing that differentiates you from other wing chun? You should celebrate this difference, and so far it has brought a lot of success.
- Thread Starter
- #70
The moment they express power and link the chain to ground. When do you think WSL VT is on the heels?
Lol, all wing chun moves balance point forward as required, even the worst versions I have seen. You can't really move around without moving balance point as required. When pivoting what are you generally doing?
So just like WSL VT. What are you usually doing when you are pivoting by the way?
Wresting keeps it on K1, this was my point. No ballistic limb movement because no hitting, a lot of pushing and pulling.
Which direction does tennis apply force in?
Moving a body weight non ballistically
Have a look at Marciano's heel.
Front foot completely flat, back foot completely raised on toes. They are rotating round the front hip like a left hook in boxing and are almost 100% front weighted at contact. Front weight down on heel.
Nope, almost every sport puts the heel to ground when completing a ballistic power chain because doing so minimises power leakage and maximises ground force. Every single physical activity in the world including all wing chun moves the balance point around the foot as required during normal body weight movement. We are talking about pivot point remember? Not moving around 100% of the time point.
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
I do bjj but not wrestling but I know Alan is a bjj black belt and has done catch wrestling for a long time. So that would obviously influence his teachings a bit I would imagine.
Just curious as why you dont agree with the body mechanics ? The linking / delinking ? Where do you think they got the ideas from ?
- Thread Starter
- #72
I don't agree because I think they are taken from a different Southern Chinese system. All of the terms and most of the body methods (minus some) are exactly what you would hear and see in (for example) SPM. It appears to lack the power building methods though, e.g. grinding arm, analgous to poon sau in wing chun, but of course different because a different power chain based on sam bo gin/sanchin.
Where do I think it came from? If I had to guess I would say white crane:
Last edited:
Done much wrestling? I have
--Then please describe what you see as a "wrestling-style balance point."
Control before hit is a grappling then hitting approach, i.e. a grappling centric approach. You place control above hitting in the heirarchy of importance as you outline in the following quote:
---Who said anything about control BEFORE hitting? You can control WHILE hitting. It is not necessarily a two step process. It can be and often is very direct. Controlling an opponent is not "grappling centric." Another art that includes even more "Chin Na element" than CSL is Hapkido. I've never seen anyone called Hapkido a "grappling approach" or say that it is "grappling centric."
I agree with you, this was my experience of CSL wing chun. There is nothing wrong with this and I am not attacking you. I am merely agreeing with what you wrote because it tallied with what I experienced.
--Well, I guess it is my turn to say you don't really agree like you say you do! ;-)
Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?
---What do you see as CSL ideas on the power chain?
Disengaged striking is a 1/3 part of ring fighting. Clinching, throwing, tripping and standing hitting off grappling is another 1/3 part. Ground grappling is the third 1/3. CSL wing chun focuses on a part of the second part and I believe is not as optimised for disengaged striking as some other wing chuns I have seen because of the focus on control first. But of course that is only my opinion based on what I have seen and felt.
---What makes you think CSL doesn't do disengaged striking?
--Then please describe what you see as a "wrestling-style balance point."
Control before hit is a grappling then hitting approach, i.e. a grappling centric approach. You place control above hitting in the heirarchy of importance as you outline in the following quote:
---Who said anything about control BEFORE hitting? You can control WHILE hitting. It is not necessarily a two step process. It can be and often is very direct. Controlling an opponent is not "grappling centric." Another art that includes even more "Chin Na element" than CSL is Hapkido. I've never seen anyone called Hapkido a "grappling approach" or say that it is "grappling centric."
I agree with you, this was my experience of CSL wing chun. There is nothing wrong with this and I am not attacking you. I am merely agreeing with what you wrote because it tallied with what I experienced.
--Well, I guess it is my turn to say you don't really agree like you say you do! ;-)
Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?
---What do you see as CSL ideas on the power chain?
Disengaged striking is a 1/3 part of ring fighting. Clinching, throwing, tripping and standing hitting off grappling is another 1/3 part. Ground grappling is the third 1/3. CSL wing chun focuses on a part of the second part and I believe is not as optimised for disengaged striking as some other wing chuns I have seen because of the focus on control first. But of course that is only my opinion based on what I have seen and felt.
---What makes you think CSL doesn't do disengaged striking?
The moment they express power and link the chain to ground. When do you think WSL VT is on the heels?
---When pivoting or shifting
Lol, all wing chun moves balance point forward as required, even the worst versions I have seen. You can't really move around without moving balance point as required. When pivoting what are you generally doing?
---I have learned to pivot to change the angle, to move the opponent and break his structure, to evade, as part of a deflection when appropriate, and at times to generate power. When I plant the heel as part of the power chain, my foot is not in motion. That would break a portion of the power chain and decrease overall stability to an extent.
Which direction does tennis apply force in?
---Forward! Serving the ball or returning a serve goes forward. Can you imagine a tennis player serving the ball while pivoting on the heels? Can you imagine a baseball player swinging a bat while pivoting on the heels? Can you imagine a football quarterback throwing a pass while pivoting on the heels? Does a Boxer throw a cross by pivoting on the heels?
Moving a body weight non ballistically
---You don't think Sprinters move ballistically? Did you ever watch them come off the blocks when the starter gun goes off! And they darn sure aren't on their heels!!!
Front foot completely flat, back foot completely raised on toes. They are rotating round the front hip like a left hook in boxing and are almost 100% front weighted at contact. Front weight down on heel.
---Front foot stationary....as in not moving. Rear foot pivoting near the K1 point. No one is back on the heels WHILE the foot is moving!
Nope, almost every sport puts the heel to ground when completing a ballistic power chain because doing so minimises power leakage and maximises ground force.
---Absolutely! And their foot is NOT moving at the time! Moving the foot while completing the power chain is not the optimal way to minimize power leakage and maximize ground force.
---When pivoting or shifting
Lol, all wing chun moves balance point forward as required, even the worst versions I have seen. You can't really move around without moving balance point as required. When pivoting what are you generally doing?
---I have learned to pivot to change the angle, to move the opponent and break his structure, to evade, as part of a deflection when appropriate, and at times to generate power. When I plant the heel as part of the power chain, my foot is not in motion. That would break a portion of the power chain and decrease overall stability to an extent.
Which direction does tennis apply force in?
---Forward! Serving the ball or returning a serve goes forward. Can you imagine a tennis player serving the ball while pivoting on the heels? Can you imagine a baseball player swinging a bat while pivoting on the heels? Can you imagine a football quarterback throwing a pass while pivoting on the heels? Does a Boxer throw a cross by pivoting on the heels?
Moving a body weight non ballistically
---You don't think Sprinters move ballistically? Did you ever watch them come off the blocks when the starter gun goes off! And they darn sure aren't on their heels!!!
Front foot completely flat, back foot completely raised on toes. They are rotating round the front hip like a left hook in boxing and are almost 100% front weighted at contact. Front weight down on heel.
---Front foot stationary....as in not moving. Rear foot pivoting near the K1 point. No one is back on the heels WHILE the foot is moving!
Nope, almost every sport puts the heel to ground when completing a ballistic power chain because doing so minimises power leakage and maximises ground force.
---Absolutely! And their foot is NOT moving at the time! Moving the foot while completing the power chain is not the optimal way to minimize power leakage and maximize ground force.
- Thread Starter
- #75
Front foot weighted
Nobody. You stressed hierarchy of importance with control above hitting. Nothing wrong with this approach if that's what you want to do.
Well that's a bit silly. I don't bear grudges against people I have never met. I think CSL is probably the second best wing chun available in the UK, in practical if not conceptual terms. Is that ok?
I don't think there is any original CSL idea on the power chain. It is all the usual link/delink, rise/fall, sink/float, swallow/spit rotate centre stuff that you see in many other systems. I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing cun because body alignment is different and wing chun is far more a momentum and alignment based system than these others. Obviously some attempt has been made to address this by forward weighting the stance, seemingly permanently, but then you still have the wing chun forms and don't have the SPM drills. It is a bit of a mixture as far as I can tell.
Stressing control of body over hitting means disengaged hitting will not be optimal. Concepts
- Thread Starter
- #76
As long as contact is present at the moment of impact the ground force is expressed up the body from the heel. Just as in tennis or any other hitting sport. Mike Tyson was about the most heel down boxer in history. Did he hit hard?
Serving is full body weight committed, it is not a ground force ballistic action. Forehand return plants heel at point of impact
Front foot which they rotate on is planted flat at point of impact
Throw is not a ballistic action, it takes too long.
Power chain in western boxing is through the front foot, which is heel down at impact.
No
That's because they aren't moving ballistically.
Back foot is pushing in boxing, either from toes or further back right to heel depending on preference. Body rotates around front foot. Front foot rotates more the harder the punch, always with heel down (lead left hook always has heel down pivot for example). Heel down for power, heel up for mobility.
Well yes it is actually, for example in racquet sports, baseball and boxing.
Completely untrue. Did you ever do any combat sports?
@Guy, KPM et al.
OK, I'm on the outside of this discussion since I only know about Alan's CSL from watching his Youtube videos. That is to say I find his efforts intriguing, but in fact I know nothing.
Now regarding the bolded section above. Linking and de -linking is not something that I've seen identified in the WC I've trained, but it certainly seems useful the way Alan demonstrates it. And he does seem to use the standard Southern Chinese Fou Jum Tun Tou or Float, Sink, Swallow, Spit energies, which again were never identified as such by my WC teachers. Does anyone here teach these energies as part of WC? Are these desirable or to be avoided?
You are absolutely right Steve! Those things are common in southern Chinese martial arts. Since Wing Chun is a southern Chinese martial art, these things are also common in the older mainland versions of Wing Chun. Robert Chu hasn't "grafted on" anything. Once again, Guy simple doesn't know what he is talking about. Pin Sun Wing Chun uses these same concepts, Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun uses these same concepts, and Tang Yik Weng Chun uses these same concepts. They may not name them or label them the same, but this body dynamic is still there. If it is now in Robert Chu's interpretation of Ip Man Wing Chun, then it is likely because it came from his study of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun. Ip Man dropped use of the "key words" and other "classical" stuff, while Yuen Kay Shan did not.
Nobody. You stressed hierarchy of importance with control above hitting.
---Just because something is stressed doesn't mean a system is not good at something else as well! Its called being "well-rounded." Believe me, CSL is "well-rounded."
Well that's a bit silly. I don't bear grudges against people I have never met. I think CSL is probably the second best wing chun available in the UK, in practical if not conceptual terms. Is that ok?
---It was a joke. Obviously you don't have much of a sense of humor. ;-)
I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing cun because body alignment is different
---See my response to Steve.
Stressing control of body over hitting means disengaged hitting will not be optimal.
---It means no such thing! That is a huge assumption on your part. Again, just because something is a key concept, doesn't mean it is the ONLY concept utilized. I assure you CSL if very good at "disengaged hitting"!!!
Did you ever do any combat sports?
---Did you ever study biomechanics? Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
---Just because something is stressed doesn't mean a system is not good at something else as well! Its called being "well-rounded." Believe me, CSL is "well-rounded."
Well that's a bit silly. I don't bear grudges against people I have never met. I think CSL is probably the second best wing chun available in the UK, in practical if not conceptual terms. Is that ok?
---It was a joke. Obviously you don't have much of a sense of humor. ;-)
I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing cun because body alignment is different
---See my response to Steve.
Stressing control of body over hitting means disengaged hitting will not be optimal.
---It means no such thing! That is a huge assumption on your part. Again, just because something is a key concept, doesn't mean it is the ONLY concept utilized. I assure you CSL if very good at "disengaged hitting"!!!
Did you ever do any combat sports?
---Did you ever study biomechanics? Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,283
- Reaction score
- 312
