The Wing Chun Pivot

[KPM]

In my own thinking- turning one foot at a time( Leung shun, leung ting, ben der, Kenneth chung), stepping ad turning(Cheung), ball of your feet (K1-is a little behind the ball of the feet in a hollow)
would make me vulnerable to the rush of various kinds of grapplers. In the forms, I pivot on the central gravitational axis of my body- the coordinated turning of my knee, ankles and feet make this possible. My feet are comfortably flat on the ground. The whole foot including toe adjustment works in harmony with gravity. The heels are important corners of the triangle of a good stance.
If you stand on one foot- the ground path goes through the heel with the whole foot stabilizing the balance.The K1 point is an acupuncture point not a gravitational fixture.

Ok. Here's my thinking. Again, I'm not trying to slam anyone. I'm sure Joy has trained for and can foil the attempts of a grappler quite well. My analysis is strictly from a biomechanical perspective to look at what IMHO is the optimal way to do things.

Standing relatively upright with your weight back on your heels is practically inviting a good grappler to shoot in on you and take you down. To keep a grappler from taking you onto your back, you need to be able to quickly shift your weight forward and over the top of him as he shoots. If you are on your heels it takes just a bit more time to shift your weight forward as you try to counter the takedown. That small time lag can be critical. Compare this to standing with your weight already a bit forward at the K1 point with your knees more bent. It is also much quicker to throw your legs out to do an actual sprawl if your weight is already a bit forward near the K1 point than if you are more upright with your weight on your heels.

If someone is pressuring forward challenging your structure (whether trying to trap your arms or do a takedown, etc.) while you are pivoting, if you are pivoting on your heels then more than 50% of your weight must be back over your heels. Logic says that you are more vulnerable to go over backwards. If you are pivoting on the K1 point as someone applies pressure to your structure, then greater than 50% of your weight stays near the K1 point and you therefore have more shock absorbing capacity left in your calves and Achilles tendons. You have more ability to sink your weight forward and therefore are less likely to go over backwards.

This is all just simple biomechanics.

When you stand on one foot, most people are going to bend their knee to keep their balance. When you bend your knee, the gravitational line is going to go through your mid-foot pretty darn close to the K1 point. The only way the gravitational line is going to go through your body and down to the ground through your heel is if you are standing with your knee locked out. Just try it! Simple biomechanics!

 

[Vajramusti]

Ok. Here's my thinking. Again, I'm not trying to slam anyone. I'm sure Joy has trained for and can foil the attempts of a grappler quite well. My analysis is strictly from a biomechanical perspective to look at what IMHO is the optimal way to do things.

Standing relatively upright with your weight back on your heels is practically inviting a good grappler to shoot in on you and take you down. To keep a grappler from taking you onto your back, you need to be able to quickly shift your weight forward and over the top of him as he shoots. If you are on your heels it takes just a bit more time to shift your weight forward as you try to counter the takedown. That small time lag can be critical. Compare this to standing with your weight already a bit forward at the K1 point with your knees more bent. It is also much quicker to throw your legs out to do an actual sprawl if your weight is already a bit forward near the K1 point than if you are more upright with your weight on your heels.

If someone is pressuring forward challenging your structure (whether trying to trap your arms or do a takedown, etc.) while you are pivoting, if you are pivoting on your heels then more than 50% of your weight must be back over your heels. Logic says that you are more vulnerable to go over backwards. If you are pivoting on the K1 point as someone applies pressure to your structure, then greater than 50% of your weight stays near the K1 point and you therefore have more shock absorbing capacity left in your calves and Achilles tendons. You have more ability to sink your weight forward and therefore are less likely to go over backwards.

This is all just simple biomechanics.

When you stand on one foot, most people are going to bend their knee to keep their balance. When you bend your knee, the gravitational line is going to go through your mid-foot pretty darn close to the K1 point. The only way the gravitational line is going to go through your body and down to the ground through your heel is if you are standing with your knee locked out. Just try it! Simple biomechanics!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont care to carry this further. You are wrongly assuming that the weight needs to be back on your heels in your straw man misrepresentation..

 

[KPM]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont care to carry this further. You are wrongly assuming that the weight needs to be back on your heels in your straw man misrepresentation..

No. As I stated in my original post, simple biomechanics dictates that in order to shift on your heels, greater than 50% of your weight must be carried over the heels. Otherwise your toes won't swing around. Likewise in order to shift on the K1 point, greater than 50% of your weight must be carried near the K1 point. Otherwise your heels won't swing around. How is that a wrong assumption or a straw man misrepresentation? And as I pointed out....if you are standing on one leg, unless your leg is completely straight your line of gravity will NOT be through the heels. That was a wrong assumption on your part. You can bow out of the discussion if you like. But don't say I am wrongly assuming something or using a straw man argument unless you are willing to back that up by explaining why, and where my assumptions are wrong.

 

[geezer]

...But don't say I am wrongly assuming something or using a straw man argument unless you are willing to back that up by explaining why, and where my assumptions are wrong.

KPM I think the problem here is that there is so much more going on (biomechanically) then simply whether you pivot on your "toes", the center of the foot, the "K1" point, the heels, or whatever. There is so much more relating to rooting, adduction, forward pressure, weight shifting and so on. Although it's easy to show and share such things in person, it's pretty hard to meaningfully discuss these things through the written word alone.

So personally, I suspect that Joy doesn't feel that it's worth the bother to try to write out a long explanation that's still bound to be mis-understood. Fankly, I feel the same way. Forgive me, it's been a long day.

 

[KPM]

I think the problem here is that there is so much more going on (biomechanically) then simply whether you pivot on your "toes", the center of the foot, the "K1" point, the heels, or whatever. There is so much more relating to rooting, adduction, forward pressure, weight shifting and so on.

---Of course there is. But I stated a relative straight-forward biomechanical concept and Joy responded with:

You are wrongly assuming that the weight needs to be back on your heels in your straw man misrepresentation..

So personally, I suspect that Joy doesn't feel that it's worth the bother to try to write out a long explanation that's still bound to be mis-understood.

---That may very well be true. But I took the time to write out my thoughts on the topic and explain them the best I could. Joy posts to say I'm wrong, and then doesn't want to take the time to explain why I am wrong or were I have wrongly assumed something. That is not how a discussion works. I welcome any counter-points or opposing views or corrections to my thinking. Joy simply said I was wrong and was unwilling to say why.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I took the time to write out my thoughts on the topic and explain them the best I could. Joy posts to say I'm wrong, and then doesn't want to take the time to explain why I am wrong or were I have wrongly assumed something. That is not how a discussion works. I welcome any counter-points or opposing views or corrections to my thinking. Joy simply said I was wrong and was unwilling to say why.

I can understand how you may feel. In another forum, whenever someone asked me any question, I had tried very had to provide

- text description,
- pictures,
- clips.

as I always did. When I asked someone a question, that person just told me:

- to check out his youtube channel.
- it's hard to see from his clip.

without any detail text description. It's not fair IMO.