The Three Components of Wing Chun

[geezer]

This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance. In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.

By contrast, in the "WT" tradition which is my foundation, you most often find yourself in the "leg forward" position when fighting. I believe this is a natural position with parallels in boxing and escrima footwork (think "shuffle-step") that allow you to pursue and close on your opponent when necessary. Otherwise you can find yourself either a stationary target or engage in a sort of "waddle step" which I don't find very effective except for very short range adjustments.

Mook, I also used to be one of those you mentioned above who described YGKYM as"a training stance". I no longer do this, since I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which all our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the "mother stance" in our system.

Finally, regarding your observation that the stance you train in most should be the stance you fight in, I agree. And furthermore, I'd point out that just as you most often see our lineage's practitioners moving in and out of the advancing-step or "dap bo" (or what you called the "leg-forward" position) when sparring, this is exactly how we train, both in drills (lat sao) and in our chi-sao. So our training footwork does match our fighting footwork. And once you close and engage YGKYM is most often adopted. It is not a mere "training stance" at all!

 

[mook jong man]

By contrast, in the "WT" tradition which is my foundation, you most often find yourself in the "leg forward" position when fighting. I believe this is a natural position with parallels in boxing and escrima footwork (think "shuffle-step") that allow you to pursue and close on your opponent when necessary. Otherwise you can find yourself either a stationary target or engage in a sort of "waddle step" which I don't find very effective except for very short range adjustments.

Mook, I also used to be one of those you mentioned above who described YGKYM as"a training stance". I no longer do this, since I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which all our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the "mother stance" in our system.

Finally, regarding your observation that the stance you train in most should be the stance you fight in, I agree. And furthermore, I'd point out that just as you most often see our lineage's practitioners moving in and out of the advancing-step or "dap bo" (or what you called the "leg-forward" position) when sparring, this is exactly how we train, both in drills (lat sao) and in our chi-sao. So our training footwork does match our fighting footwork. And once you close and engage YGKYM is most often adopted. It is not a mere "training stance" at all!

Was not singling out your lineage Geezer , it was more the videos that KPM put up about the guy that he had an argument with on Facebook.
In that video the guy is doing chi sau in the normal stance , but then they all break off to do sparring , and suddenly lo and behold they are all in kickboxing stances. Why?

I am not saying our stance is better than any other lineages stance , we are used to it and it works for us.
What I am saying is that whatever stance you use , make sure you are bloody consistent with it and use it all the time until it is part of you.

I remember my late Sifu , as soon as he walked into the school until he walked out he seemed to always be in his stance , it didnt matter if he was just standing there talking to somebody , he was in his stance , it just seemed to have become part of him.

 

[geezer]

I remember my late Sifu , as soon as he walked into the school until he walked out he seemed to always be in his stance , it didnt matter if he was just standing there talking to somebody , he was in his stance , it just seemed to have become part of him.

That's really cool. He was truly "one" with his kung fu.

 

[mook jong man]

That's really cool. He was truly "one" with his kung fu.

I used to think maybe he was conscious of setting an example , but I think really it was just habit.
I seem to do it too on the odd occasion outside of training , I cant be the only one that sometimes sinks down into a semi quasi stance after they have had a session on the old amber fluid.

 

[yak sao]

I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which all our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the "mother stance" in our system.

Good way of putting it. I was taught that there is really only one stance in WT, the character two stance. The others (sideling, leg forward, etc) are simply manifestations of that one stance.

Geezer, I continue to find you one of the best WT apologists I've come across. Everything you've written about WT, from IKF articles that you wrote years ago to what you've written on this forum, is well explained. I think you should consider writing a book on WT principles. If you don't want to go the traditional route you can even self publish one on something like bookemon.com.
Not blowing smoke here...I truly think you deserve a larger forum so to speak. Many would benefit from it.
If you decide to do it, let me know, because I will be one of the first in line to buy it.

 

[Vajramusti]

This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance.

In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.

I just don't see the sense in spending countless hours training a specific stance in SLT and chi sau and then when you have to defend yourself you change to a totally different stance.
It kind of defies logic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO-YGKYM is a fundamental development stance- serves many functions. I and my bros and sisters are balanced 50/50 most of the time. In a fight all kinds of changes can take place
but the 50/50 gives a platform to work from and return to...
There are other stances for mobility - but they emerge from the yjkm structural balance. A foot forward but keeping the 50-50 gives you mobility - for bik ma, chor ma, huen ma etc. We train with all of them even in ma bo moving chi sao. This does not defy logic which in this case has to do with working with gravity and maintaining balance and body unity. Defense imo involves mobility- however miniscule- not stationary.

 

[Danny T]

Stances are fleeting, but moments in time. Mobility is key. Fighting is dynamic and is constantly in motion.
We train and practice all of the stances; footwork is about moving with purpose. Body shifting and weight distribution is all based upon what is required at any one moment in time and for us YJKYM is the platform we derive all footwork and stances through.

 

[mook jong man]

This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance.

In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.

I just don't see the sense in spending countless hours training a specific stance in SLT and chi sau and then when you have to defend yourself you change to a totally different stance.
It kind of defies logic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO-YGKYM is a fundamental development stance- serves many functions. I and my bros and sisters are balanced 50/50 most of the time. In a fight all kinds of changes can take place
but the 50/50 gives a platform to work from and return to...
There are other stances for mobility - but they emerge from the yjkm structural balance. A foot forward but keeping the 50-50 gives you mobility - for bik ma, chor ma, huen ma etc. We train with all of them even in ma bo moving chi sao. This does not defy logic which in this case has to do with working with gravity and maintaining balance and body unity. Defense imo involves mobility- however miniscule- not stationary.

I did not mean to give the impression that our stance is stationary , it is highly mobile and able to move freely in any direction.
However , at the completion of any movement our feet will always square up.

 

[Danny T]

However , at the completion of any movement our feet will always square up.

And you are out of range of receiving a kick to the groin when you square up?

So when you are bridged or latched and moving you are not in YJKYM and therefore not fighting in YJKYM but transiting from or through it. Correct?

When there is no bridge (contact) in our thought there is no fight. The bridge must be made before any fighting can happen so we intercept the opponent's movement and at that point we are not in YGKYM.

 

[mook jong man]

And you are out of range of receiving a kick to the groin when you square up?

So when you are bridged or latched and moving you are not in YJKYM and therefore not fighting in YJKYM but transiting from or through it. Correct?

When there is no bridge (contact) in our thought there is no fight. The bridge must be made before any fighting can happen so we intercept the opponent's movement and at that point we are not in YGKYM.

That is correct , at the first instance of intercepting the opponents punch you will be in the process of taking a step forward.
After the counter attack is over and assuming that you choose to not press forward then you will square up.

Where we differ is , on the notion if we are still in YGKYM or out of YGKYM if we have taken a step forward.
You might have taken a step forward , but if your heels can still touch , then we advocate that you are still basically in your stance.

 

[geezer]

Geezer, I continue to find you one of the best WT apologists I've come across.

Thank you for your kind words. In a few years when I retire from my day job I may consider undertaking something like that. --Steve

 

[Danny T]

Where we differ is , on the notion if we are still in YGKYM or out of YGKYM if we have taken a step forward.
You might have taken a step forward , but if your heels can still touch , then we advocate that you are still basically in your stance.

Ok. Our understanding is the same just saying or writing is differently. I believe there are far more similarities than differences. Once we step we are of course in a stance but don't call it YGKYM. However, simply by pivioting one foot and turning slightly one will transition directly into YGKYM.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Kwan Sau]

And you are out of range of receiving a kick to the groin when you square up?

So when you are bridged or latched and moving you are not in YJKYM and therefore not fighting in YJKYM but transiting from or through it. Correct?

When there is no bridge (contact) in our thought there is no fight. The bridge must be made before any fighting can happen so we intercept the opponent's movement and at that point we are not in YGKYM.

I think you are mis-quoting. I don't think Joy said this. I think it was originally typed by Mook (???)

 

[Danny T]

Kwan Sau,
It was Mook's post.
You mean like your post showing "Originally Posted by mook jong man" but is my post. (???)
I simply clicked the Reply with Quote tab just as am sure you did also.
I don't know.