OP
OP
Train WC without form and stance
- Thread starter Kung Fu Wang
- Start date
I guess we should not read too much into movies. After all they have a director saying "Can you not do it like this instead, we have some problems with lighting" or "It would look better on camera doing it this way".
Anyways that was not really a valid point in any way. I dont think Bruce Lee was doing WC at that point. He took bits and pieces from little bit of everywhere.
Being not a purist myself I believe the stance are not set in stone, but it has to adhere to the concepts. If it does, it is WC. Not all stances keep with the concepts though.
Nope! That's because Bruce was doing JKD, not Wing Chun!
OP
OP
When you use Tan Shou, which stance will you use and which stances will you not use? The Tan Shou is just to protect your center line. When your opponent use jab or cross, his arm will have to touch your Tan Shou before he can hit on your head. IMO, whether you use
- cat stance (0% weight on leading leg),
- Santi stance (30% weight on leading leg),
- 4-6 stance (40% weight on leading leg),
- horse stance (50% weight on leading leg),
- bow-arrow stance (70% weight on leading leg),
- monkey stance (85% weight on leading leg),
- chicken stance (100% weight on leading leg),
depends on your situation. In other words Tan Shou should work for all stances. Some stances may be better than others, but to protect your center line, and force your opponent's jab and cross to contact your Tan Shou before getting to your head is all the same.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree John. I think I misinterpreted what you meant in the OP. I thought you were taking a student and letting them assume any stance they felt comfortable with rather than teaching them a specific way to move. But it sounds like when you referred to "no stance training" you were referring to not doing the specific stance training methods common in CMAs, and instead incorporating learning of stance and biomechanics into the drills. Is that correct?
OP
OP
There is no answer to which stance would or would not work. It is a tougher question since it depends on how you receive force and how it affects you. Having for instance 100% weight on rear or leading leg is just a matter of changing perspective on what is lead and what is rear.
So I rather avoid answering the question of which stances I would not use. Quite frankly it depends on the situation which is a terrible answer. As I said before, I am not a purist in terms of WC/WT. If it works it is great. Also note that some of these stances I have too little training in to say that it would not work for sure, just that it might not work for me.
OP
OP
This is my point for this thread. I'm not even a "pure" WC guy. How can I teach my student "pure WC"? I can only teach him how to use Tan, Bong, Fu, center line protection, chain punches, Tan Da, ... that I have learned from the WC system.
I still believe it is important to learn and understand the concepts in body as well as mind. The very idea of doing a move that would break the concepts must become unnatural to him. This is something I am still amazed that WC/WT managed to teach by the whole process we go through.
Could it be that some parts or all parts can be changed and we can still learn and take the concepts to heart? Probably and most likely. Do I know exactly how that could be done? No, and my money is on there being more than one way to do it. So make sure that you teach the concepts, they are a crucial part.
That spring forward has multiple function including assisting with power generation. When I look at WC method of generating power, my theory is that their footwork should have a similar forward movement when punching instead of trying to generate power the way that they do. I know I'm not alone with this because I've seen some WC lineages generate power for WC punches in a similar manner of "springing forward" vs "leaning and walking forward." As for the heel being off the ground, I don't think you can use his movie scenes as a reference as techniques may be changed in order to make the movie look awesome. His heel being up may be for move purposes.
I've have videos of him doing martial arts demos where his heel was on the ground and he would spring forward.
I train train stances individually, while doing forms, and when drilling. When training only just the stances I'm able to learn things about my stances, my weight distribution, my balance and my focus that I can learn any other way. When I'm doing forms my stance training allows me to learn things about my stances that I can't learn while just doing stance training. Stance training during drilling teaches something about my stances that I can't learn with the other 2 methods. Holding a bow stance for 2 seconds as you show in the video does not provide the conditioning that one gets from holding still in a bow stance for 1 minute.
Stance training shouldn't be an either or choice where the assumption that training one way is better than the other. There are multiple benefits to training stances in different ways which is why stances are trained in different ways within the same system. Notice how they train their stances
OP
OP
Here is another example that when you train the dynamic stance, you will get the same benefit as you train static stance plus more such as the "flexibility training".
Static stance training:
Dynamic stance training:
Not sure what you are saying here (bolded text). Our VT/WC/WT generates effective punching power standing, turning and stepping. We keep our weight back on the rear foot, but if we punch while turning or stepping, the punch should have the whole body behind it. Getting your whole body into a stationary, standing punch requires more skill, but can be done.
If you really want to throw weight behind a punch, something like Jack Dempsey's "drop-step" or a "push step" works very well. You drop (or push) off the rear leg onto the front letting your body-weight fall into your punch. Typically this is done with a raised rear heel. It is a powerful and proven technique used not only by boxers, but by my first Escrima master, and also used by Bruce Lee in JKD. It also tends to increase mobility over a heavy, flat-footed stance.
Here's a shot showing the raised heel in an Escrima strike:
http://www.vingtsunaz.com/site_media/images/2012_summer_0663.jpg
No, I agree that movies are not a good source for accurate instruction. But in this case the footage agrees with what Lee taught in his JKD. Though, as you mentioned, he could do a lot of different things if he wished, in JKD, he favored a springy stance with a raised back heel.
Last edited:
OP
OP
The whole "plum flower preying mantis" system is built on top of the "monkey stance". It's the stance (or step) that can help you to cover the most forward distance.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You apparently pick and choose bits and pieces of what you think is wing chun. You have a right to do so-
but I don't see your posts as advancing the understanding of wing chun-not mine anyway.
I was only referring to the WC practitioners that don't do generate power like you described.
The flat foot stance has good mobility as well. I can move just as quick backwards, forwards, and sideways without being on my toes. I do it all the time in training. The only difference is that greater distance can be achieved by being on the toes. This is why sometimes it looks like Manny Paquiao has a stutter step, because he's not on his toes when he pushes off. The goal isn't to use it all the time. Footwork changes especially when the technique changes to one that requires being on the ball of the foot.
Watch his feet as he explains the movement. He's not bouncing on the ball of his feet.
Here you can see the same method here. Notice he's not trying to use it all the time.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
Well I can only speak for my school but you are kinda right but not quite. You are right in that you don't have new students doing siu lim tao (the first of 3 open hand forms) non-stop until they get it down and then move onto techniqies, at the same time though it is one of the first things that get taught, with techniques being taught in the same class.
It is important though. The stances trains you in how to ground your structure, and the movements don't only teach proper elbow and hand position but more importantly the concept that just about everything is fundamentally forwarding energy. A perfect example is the tan issue the OP mentioned. Now at combat speed it may look like you are just throwing an arm out there but you aren't. That is why the arm of the student kept getting pushed back into his center. You extend the arm, focusing on the elbow and in, for lack of a better term, a manner like spreading peanut butter. This forward extension against an incoming limb, rather just slamming it against one like a "typical" block is what allows it to redirect an incoming strike and not have your structure compromised. Without that section in the form, a student may not get it.
Last edited:
