Footwork 2: Weightedness

[red5angel]

This goes a long with the footwork thread but since it is a favorite subject for wing chun people I thought I would post it seperatley as it sometimes gets as 'good' a response as lineage postings!

When in your stance, where is your weight? In the back? 50/50? or how about 60/40?
I am going with the back all the way. The weight of the front leg should be the only weight you have on it. Why do I say this? Well, it offers great mobility, and response time. If you have to respond with any weight on your front leg, then you have to pause, even slightly to shift back and thats time wasted.
That weight also "traps" the front leg allowing it to be attacked and making it vulnerable.
Lets not forget that power is generated from the back leg as well and the better your connection to the ground the more power you can draw through it!

[yuanfen]

Sounds like the memorized reiteration of a neophyte.

[byond]

"the eye's are burning"
"the touch is burning"
"the mind is burning"
" ect"
] b

[red5angel]

Well, byond, yuanfen? Which is it? I assume you would be in agreement byond?

[reneritchie]

Red - How about in Siu Nim Tao? Are you back weighted then?

RR

[red5angel]

Renee, nice try ;) SLT is for training not fighting. As for back weighted? I would have to say no since you should be tucking and sucking........

[reneritchie]

Red, you're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking?

RR

[red5angel]

Renee, am I? I assume you have to be joking with that question, or am I wrong?

If I am wrong then I could give you this answer: When you move in on someone you have to go 50/50 as the SLT position doesnt allow for "front" or "back".

[fa_jing]

Just remember that you are usually moving, so the weight shifts back and forth between your legs as you move. Think about it - if you had 100% of your weight on the rear leg at all times, you would never be able to move that foot. Any kind of a static stance is only held for a split second. Waiting for you opponent while you stand still is usually not a good option.

[byond]

o.k i'll play nice chaotician
--- in the context of the leung sheung wing chun system you are correct and i agree. leung sheung taught a 0/100 in chum kiu. it works well with the small framed ygkym, imo. there are draw backs though which are obvious.
b

[S.Teebas]

hmm... i think your missing somthing red! i thought you're doing the most advanced wing chun!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[red5angel]

FJ - Actually the weight of the front leg is enough to allow you to scoot around sufficiently. It takes some time and practice to get this down, I am still working on it! After a few more thousad hours I will get back to you! ;)

byond - and the drawbacks are?

S.Teebas - would you care to enlighten me?

[rogue]

Think about it - if you had 100% of your weight on the rear leg at all times, you would never be able to move that foot. You could hop.;)

R5A, Unless they've changed the human body how would you accomplish movement without changing the weighting of the legs?

[byond]

......red5.....well my first suggestion would be to fight someone...anyone....and use the 0/100 ........if you do not believe in this type combat than i dont know what to tell you...ruff chi sao is not the same thing as combat..... you have to be very developed to be able to execute that 0/100 weighting in a real fight...i know this first hand......this will than tell you if what you are doing , for you, is working and or if you have engrained the training so it is reactionary. the draw backs will be apparent to you........but the rest of your systems teachings /sifu should minimize these cons

keep in mind im not suggesting one way is better .....everyway has pro's and con's......and it would be easy to answer your question but you may not want to "see" what i am saying....so it is best for you to find out on your own.......through combat

[S.Teebas]

SLT is for training not fighting.

...this. Why isnt SLT for fighting?

[kj]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Red, you're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking?

RR

FWIW, and as I am taught. We do indeed use YJKYM for fighting, as well as the back weighted stance. We train both, and use both. Quite a lot of training time is devoted to learning and refining the stance transitions, beginning in Chum Kiu.

The back weighted stance is not our "nominal" fighting stance, but utilized when needed. I've received my share of corrections for leaving my front foot sticking out when inappropriate; even so, I'm still working to avoid leaving it out too often and too long.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[red5angel]

Rogue ;) you do some shifting but you pretty much use the weight of the front leg to do it. It sounds strange, and of course your weight shifts with turning and etc, a transition from one foot to the other, a weakness in all arts, but in general the back foot carries the weight.

byond - "you have to be very developed to be able to execute that 0/100 weighting in a real fight"

Why wouldnt you be trying to become very developed? Is this a hobby vs lifetime commitment thing? You can only be good at the 100/0 stance if you really apply yourself? If so, I would have to say that this is true with anything you do.

[byond]

...of cource you have to apply yourself to anything if you want to be good at it.....
but you may not want to be developed in that particular "way" because ...that is not the only way..there are other methods just as good , just differant......as i keep saying its on the individual
hobby or commitment? well when you were 12 years old (give or take) i was already learning wc.....and still am...and devote 4 to 6 hours a day, 7 days a week doing so. i can soundly say im commited...but im commited to the truth not hyperbole.....im commited to the truth not lineage.....im commited to something that has saved my life in numerous physicaly threatening situations....what about you? can 8 months learning from carls student, truly allow you to know, that you will stick with wc your entire life? i believe any answer currently would be presipitasly stated

[reneritchie]

r5a - Please see post by KJ.

FWIW - IMHO most people can balance/root and change on two legs. Doing it on one leg is a challenge (why Chum Kiu is difficult). If you can do it on both and on one, and can transition with control in between, you're much more likely to remain stable when moving through the chaos of combat.

There are always benefits and drawbacks (opportunity cost), but I think if we know the context of usage, the former is maximized and the latter covered.

RR

[wongfeilung809]

well said, rene.

[TjD]

red, have you learned chum kiu yet?

[Miles Teg]

Red

I used to train 100/0 and now I train 50/50. I know there are advantages of both but I am now a firm believer in the 50/50 way.

The things that are said about the front leg getting trapped if there is weight on it is irrelevant. You have to remember that the oponenets leg has to get to it first before he can trap it.
Im sorry but the moving diagonally to one side of the oponent footwork isn't as effective as it seems, a 50/50 person will cut you off before you get there.

One of the problems with turning on 100/0 is that it is easy to be pushed off balance. When I first started practicing with 50/50 guys it was easy for them to push me backwards. Once you are facing a 50/50 front on and you have to turn they will follow your center of gravitiy and you have to move backwards.

I've got more!!!
In my experience it is harder to generate power with 100/0. There are so many reasons why this is so but I can't be bothered explaining them. Basically you have your center of gravity going down the middle of your body and when you rotate on this axis you are generating power for your limbs to receive or issue power.

You also can't borrow energy very well you have to redirect everything when you use 100/0.

As with everything better shown than talked about.

[TjD]

miles -

i'm actually a firm believer in the other way around ;) i guess it all depends on how people use their body

when it comes to generating power, think of it this way

if your shifting from 0/100 to 100/0 with a turning punch, your getting that much more mass/momentum into your punch, whereas if you stay 50/50; you dont gain as much from this in my experience (however limited it is)

i find training 100/0 allows you to better absorb your opponents incoming energy, because usually most if it will be going down into one leg of your root, not both

also, 100/0 allows for much quicker utilization of the front leg for defense from kicks, and kicking; 50/50 requires a weight shift first


we also train adduction, where even though we're keeping the weight on our rear leg, we "squeeze" them together, clamping onto the ground (not to be used always!); this not only allows for a stronger root, but quick motion of the rear leg, and quick rear kicks - even from a 100/0 stance; and can be used to propel your legs for quicker steps as well

[anerlich]

My lineage is 50/50. From what I've seen of WT in magazines etc., their preparatory (en guarde) stance is 50/50 also (though they change after the gap is bridged).

Of course, as Red said on the other thread, Emin Boztepe is basically a JKD guy and "serious" WCers ignore him :rolleyes:

The 50/50 philosophy is that it is the optimal position for movement in any direction. Of course human movement requires constant shifting of the weight.

I agree with Miles' comments also.

Unlike some, I'm prepared to consider the virtues of other approaches and feel that either approach requires a tradeoff.

[sunkuen]

When you do the biu jee, do YOU use the 0/100 weight dist.?

[vingtsunstudent]

When in your stance, where is your weight? In the back? 50/50? or how about 60/40?
I am going with the back all the way. The weight of the front leg should be the only weight you have on it. Why do I say this? Well, it offers great mobility, and response time. If you have to respond with any weight on your front leg, then you have to pause, even slightly to shift back and thats time wasted.
That weight also "traps" the front leg allowing it to be attacked and making it vulnerable.
Lets not forget that power is generated from the back leg as well and the better your connection to the ground the more power you can draw through it!

you are a joke and that's all there is to it.
if all your weight is back then do me a favour, seeing as though it is all back, take your front leg off the ground(there is no need for it to be there as all the weight is in the back leg right) and tell me how well you move or are you going to have to hop, surely not.
as for your saying that the first form stance is merely for training, then you are even more of a beginner or your teachers can't teach than i first thought.
the amount of footwork, angles of attack & kicks that are taught through this are odviously still way beyond you.
please stop, you are making you and your teachers look more and more silly by the minute.
vts

[Rill]

TjD -

i find training 100/0 allows you to better absorb your opponents incoming energy, because usually most if it will be going down into one leg of your root, not both
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I would think that the nature of the triangle in the stance would mean that any force directed into you would be split evenly with a 50/50 stance, and that a 100/0 stance would mean you'd be redirecting the force without using a triangle since you'd be putting the force into a particular leg. I would now like to point out that this is just theorising off the top of my head and probably isn't put very well :).


also, 100/0 allows for much quicker utilization of the front leg for defense from kicks, and kicking; 50/50 requires a weight shift first
I train 50/50, and this (shifting weight) doesn't hold up under my experience. How do you kick when all your weight is on your back leg? For instance, a thrust kick with all your weight on your back leg could possibly be grabbed and held, but if your weight is 50/50 then your weight is still in your leg and trying to grab the leg is like lifting your whole body. Doesn't a 100/0 stance mean that to kick when moving forward you need to shift your weight forward first? How does this apply to say, a back hook kick? How do you push off when shifting back in the same way you do as when shifting forward? It seems strange to me that you would spend so much time with a 50/50 stance in the first form and yet it's disregarded upon reaching the second form. Perhaps there is a correlation between weight distribution and where people pivot on their feet? These are, once again, just me theorising and probably not put very well, but I'd appreciate any responses.

r5a - perhaps an explanation of how your 100/0 stance applies in the first, second and third forms would be appropriate. A complete dissertation on the second and third forms especially would be appreciated from your 8 months of experience?

[black and blue]

I train 60/40 or 70/30. I don't know... more weight on the back leg but not 0/100.

It seems to me to be a crazy thread because depending on how and whether I turn or step, or whether I'm dealing with light or heavy pressure from my opponent, my weight distribution changes.

I do, however, make a point of not putting more weight on my front foot than on my back foot, as I feel off balance and look like I'm about to fly into a shotokan punch :)

I seem to naturally step onto my opponents lead foot when bridging the gap, so then I have to have some weight on the front in order to pin the foot (I like this as it stops them backing off as I come in with attacks).

But I think I need to work on 'not' pinning the foot so much, as my Sifu stresses taking the centre by ensuring our lead foot is between our opponent's legs (in line, not necessarily literally between them) to weaken their structure.

I'm still learning (practising) the first section of Chum Kiu - but it seems to me a great deal of what I'm doing in this form is learning to deal with weight transference and distribution.

[TjD]

Originally posted by Rill
[B]TjD -

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I would think that the nature of the triangle in the stance would mean that any force directed into you would be split evenly with a 50/50 stance, and that a 100/0 stance would mean you'd be redirecting the force without using a triangle since you'd be putting the force into a particular leg. I would now like to point out that this is just theorising off the top of my head and probably isn't put very well :).


think about it this way, for your opponent to be one point of the triangle, and for his energy to be absorbed 50/50 there is only one point he can be at, and your legs have to be equidistant from him, ie he has to be standing right in front of you :) with a rearweighted stance, this issue does not arise, force is transferred from where your opponent is, in somewhat of a line (body mechanics and all change that) to your rear leg




I train 50/50, and this (shifting weight) doesn't hold up under my experience. How do you kick when all your weight is on your back leg? For instance, a thrust kick with all your weight on your back leg could possibly be grabbed and held, but if your weight is 50/50 then your weight is still in your leg and trying to grab the leg is like lifting your whole body.


have you practiced the wooden dummy at all? theres a section with a tan sau, followed by a front kick followed by a low side kick with a bong sau - try it out when someone grabs your leg

if you kick 50/50, your giving your opponent half your root, and it is much easier for him to unbalance you, if you kick 100/0 (or close enough to it), if your leg sensitivity is good there are many ways out of it, like the one i mentioned above - you can still generate more than enough power using good body mechanics and retain your rearweightedness, without giving your opponent half your root to play with

a 50/50 kick can be more powerful, but if it gets caught, it is MUCH more dangerous than keeping your weight at the rear



Doesn't a 100/0 stance mean that to kick when moving forward you need to shift your weight forward first? How does this apply to say, a back hook kick? How do you push off when shifting back in the same way you do as when shifting forward? It seems strange to me that you would spend so much time with a 50/50 stance in the first form and yet it's disregarded upon reaching the second form. Perhaps there is a correlation between weight distribution and where people pivot on their feet? These are, once again, just me theorising and probably not put very well, but I'd appreciate any responses.


if you read what i wrote about adduction, squeezing the ground - it basically puts everything together, it allows for quick rear kicks

stand in your side stance, with all your weight on your bag leg, then squeeze the ground with your feet, shifting your weight onto the front foot, and legging the back leg slip through gives you a really quick and powerful rear legged kick, without losing 0/100

this being said, i dont think the side 0/100 stance is different from YGKYM at all, the mechanics and principles behind it are the same

(and btw we pivot on the middle of our feet)


chi sau teaches us to use the least amount of effort, and the optimum moves/strikes whathaveyou; your body weight is the same, if you chi sau properly youll have the proper weighting when the time comes, whatever it may be: 100/0, 50/50 23.43/76.57, whatever

in chi sau/gerk, and free sparring im not ALWAYS 0/100; i vary between 0/100 and a normal YGKYM stance 50/50, however i spend more time around the 0/100 area than the 50/50

[yuanfen]

This topic comes back in cycles. I have seen good 0/100 and good
50-50. I do 50/50 and dont see any weaknesses in it in standing, tirning, moving fast and kicking with least disturbance of structure.
BUT, I do distinguish between development of skills and the
unpredictabilities of a fight. All sorts of variations can occur- hanging from a chandelier could get you 0-0 or in some positions on the ground. But IMO 50-50 prepares you well for those eventualities, if you know what you are doing.

[Rill]

for his energy to be absorbed 50/50 there is only one point he can be at, and your legs have to be equidistant from him, ie he has to be standing right in front of you with a rearweighted stance, this issue does not arise, force is transferred from where your opponent is, in somewhat of a line (body mechanics and all change that) to your rear leg
I'm trying to do a 0/100 stance and noticing that, aside from not being any good at it, whichever leg is to the rear is only effectively to the rear in terms of being able to transfer weight directly down it if your opponent is roughly in a 120 degree arc in front of you from your opposite 'front leg' side around to roughly a 30 degree arc out to your 'back leg' side. So if you have your left leg forward and right leg back, all weight on your right leg, then anyone coming from either slightly behind you or to your immediate right is going to be able to force you to shift weight to your other leg, because if they press you then you can't redistribute that weight back down your right leg because all your weight is on it. Or something like that. Again, I'm probably not putting it very well, and I don't train that way so I couldn't put it into practise very well anyway, and chances are that I'm arguing the same thing you are but the other way around.


have you practiced the wooden dummy at all? theres a section with a tan sau, followed by a front kick followed by a low side kick with a bong sau - try it out when someone grabs your leg
I think I know the section you're talking about - towards the end (3rd/4th last?), although it's rather hard to tell considering the variety of dummy forms practiced. My point though, was that it's not really possible to grab and hold the leg when you're transferring your weight through with it - avoid the situation entirely rather than get out of it once you're there. I would imagine that doing this would also generate more power since you have more mass behind the strike.


if you kick 50/50, your giving your opponent half your root, and it is much easier for him to unbalance you
Not quite sure what you mean by this, I'm as rooted in a kick as I am when shifting. But I should point out that having your weight on your front leg is bad because it means you can be pulled from the front, or pushed from the back. Apply this in reverse, and you can be pushed from the front and pulled from the back - splitting 50/50 prepares you evenly for both events.


This topic comes back in cycles.
I know, but I like to think I know more now than I did last time I posted on it :)

[red5angel]

Renee- well said.

TjD - Not with Carl yet, but I was before.

Miles - I guess all I have to say is that all of the things you stated arent possible with 100/0, we are doing.........

Vingtsunstudent - until you start actually reading my post I am not going to bother replying to you. It seems everytime you reply to a post of mine I have to explain it to you again and again.....

Rill - "I'm trying to do a 0/100 stance and noticing that, aside from not being any good at it, whichever leg is to the rear is only effectively to the rear in terms of being able to transfer weight directly down it if your opponent is roughly in a 120 degree arc in front of you from your opposite 'front leg' side around to roughly a 30 degree arc out to your 'back leg' side. So if you have your left leg forward and right leg back, all weight on your right leg, then anyone coming from either slightly behind you or to your immediate right is going to be able to force you to shift weight to your other leg, because if they press you then you can't redistribute that weight back down your right leg because all your weight is on it. Or something like that. Again, I'm probably not putting it very well, and I don't train that way so I couldn't put it into practise very well anyway, and chances are that I'm arguing the same thing you are but the other way around.

The first sentence is a tip off. I am not trying to be offensive but saying that you defnitely have to train to use it effectively. I fyou cant do it you wont be able to use it. As for angles and such, we always try to keep our opponent in front of us, regardless of where the stances strengths and weaknesses are. No amount of footwork is going to get you from in front of me to my side faster then I can turn with you. If for some reason my opponent is at an odd angle you **** or turn to face them so there is some shifting but you are just changing your facing.......

[Frank Exchange]

Im with Yuanfen on this. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methodologies.

However, in my opinion the 50/50 method is the most balanced and most useful for mobility.

If anybody doubts this, perhaps they can explain why we never see basketball, squash or tennis players moving in a 100/0 stance.

Being able to move in any direction at any time is IMO far more important than being able to kick off an unweighted front leg.

[Rill]

I realise you have to train for it, which I guess brings me to another point. Stand up. Relax. Now tell me where your weight distribution is? Mine's 50/50, although I'm a contaminated test subject since I do train that way :) - perhaps 50/50 is more natural than 0/100 for this reason.

Secondly, we'd removed the idea of where the opponent is from the discussion, because obviously you want to be facing them at all times. Not a point of contention, but if there is more than one person, or you don't get time to turn to face them or whatever then it's a different matter - TjD mentioned this earlier when he said the 50/50 stance works if the third point of the triangle is at a fixed point.

[red5angel]

Natural, is not necessarily right. Naturally we slouch, but slouching is bad for you. When I stand I try to make a conscious effort to not double weight. As for multiple opponents, shifting with the 100/0 is still generally the way to go. there isnt a whole lot you can do when there are multiple opponents but pray you can do enough damage to one to convince the others they dont want to get involved.

FE- "basketball, squash or tennis players moving in a 100/0 stance. " These are related to Wing chun how? they do things differently because they are doing different things, like boxers.

[Rill]

Now you're really showing your lack of knowledge. Better to keep the mouth closed and only be thought one, perhaps?

[red5angel]

Rill - when making a comment such as "Now you're really showing your lack of knowledge. Better to keep the mouth closed and only be thought one, perhaps?" You will need to clarify.......

[vingtsunstudent]

''As for multiple opponents, shifting with the 100/0 is still generally the way to go. there isnt a whole lot you can do when there are multiple opponents but pray you can do enough damage to one to convince the others they dont want to get involved. ''
again, is this from your experience or is from someone else who you learnt off with no experience.
oh wait, odvously i am confused by you words, i thought you were talking english but have just realised it has been nothing but gibberish all along.no wonder my words make no sense to you.
sorry about that, now back to the scheduled vioce of our almighty and 2 year experienced grandmaster red5angle.
dude, i'm sure your goin' to give philip holder a run for his money as the youngest grandmaster of the white wing chun world ever.
i think if you stick to the basics and continue with your solo one handed drills,(preferably blindfolded so as not to scare yourself with your amazing self rooting power) which are odviously your forte, you'll be all that plus a bit more in no time.
vts

[TjD]

Originally posted by Rill
I'm trying to do a 0/100 stance and noticing that, aside from not being any good at it, whichever leg is to the rear is only effectively to the rear in terms of being able to transfer weight directly down it if your opponent is roughly in a 120 degree arc in front of you from your opposite 'front leg' side around to roughly a 30 degree arc out to your 'back leg' side. So if you have your left leg forward and right leg back, all weight on your right leg, then anyone coming from either slightly behind you or to your immediate right is going to be able to force you to shift weight to your other leg, because if they press you then you can't redistribute that weight back down your right leg because all your weight is on it. Or something like that.


yes, one of the things chum kiu teaches us (in our school anyhow), is what directions your opponent should be from you, if im in my side stance with the weight on my right foot (which is to the rear), and im facing forward (ie, facing the same direction as my left foot is from my right foot), i can accept force coming from directly to my right, to mabye 45 degrees to my left; any ****her than my direct right (90 degrees to my right), i can shift, and then i have that whole other side covered :) ****her to my left requires a step of some sort (which are taught in chum kiu and expanded on in the dummy/biu jee) - usually a huen bo, or the step in chum kiu where you pull your lead leg back (before shifting into cat stance)



Again, I'm probably not putting it very well, and I don't train that way so I couldn't put it into practise very well anyway, and chances are that I'm arguing the same thing you are but the other way around.


i agree with this :) i think if i made a visit and we compared stances, im not quite sure how different they would really appear in action



I think I know the section you're talking about - towards the end (3rd/4th last?), although it's rather hard to tell considering the variety of dummy forms practiced. My point though, was that it's not really possible to grab and hold the leg when you're transferring your weight through with it - avoid the situation entirely rather than get out of it once you're there. I would imagine that doing this would also generate more power since you have more mass behind the strike.


for us, its the 6th section

i dont think you should make the assumption that someone is not going to be able to grab your kick just because you have half your weight in it :) i dont think most skilled opponents would have too much trouble in this. Also, if a WC player does a good gaun/tan on your kick, since you have half your weight on it, they'll be able to pull you off balance, just like when someone over-commits to a punch, you can lop sau and pull them off balance as well



Not quite sure what you mean by this, I'm as rooted in a kick as I am when shifting. But I should point out that having your weight on your front leg is bad because it means you can be pulled from the front, or pushed from the back. Apply this in reverse, and you can be pushed from the front and pulled from the back - splitting 50/50 prepares you evenly for both events.


actually, with the 0/100 your equally prepared from being pulled from the front or pushed from the back, while your front foot is still there - that doesnt mean if something like this occurs you cant use it to brace yourself :) when it comes to pulling however, a lot of times instead of trying to root it out, we use our sensitivity and just let them pull us in (WC is great at close fighting right? just helping us out) instead of resisting the pull and tensing up also, with 0/100, they have to pull all your weight off your rear leg, as opposed to only half (cuz the rest is on your front leg) - so they dont have to pull as far to off balance you

if your weighted 50/50 and you get pulled to the point of off balancing, its takes less than being pulled from 0/100 to the point of off balancing (because first we have to be pulled through 50/50 :) ) if you see what i mean

i really guess it depends on what your taught, there are good arguments for both sides :) 0/100 works for me and my school, but it seems like 50/50 works for almost everyone else on the forum - haha; i just dont like seeing r5a giving 0/100 a bad name (i hope hes only giving his mislead version of 0/100 which he probably hasnt even really learned yet a bad name - seeing as he doesnt know chum kiu from the only guy who knows real WC :rolleyes: )

[TjD]

god****

****her = f a r t h e r

geez, i didnt know **** was so offensive

[S.Teebas]

I think the 100/0 can be used effectively, ive tried to pull a guy out of the 100/0 before and couldn't (before i learnt about structure)..so im sure it can work.

My preference is 50/50 becasue I feel its more attacking, and the 100/0 is more defensive. I think you should learn to use both (becasue they are both in our forms, the 100/0 is in CK)
Although id say i use 50/50 99% of the time, i find its easier to move and keep the pressure on in this stance (stick with the centre)

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


i think if you stick to the basics and continue with your solo one handed drills,(preferably blindfolded so as not to scare yourself with your amazing self rooting power) which are odviously your forte, you'll be all that plus a bit more in no time.

LOL!!... Thanks of the laugh so early in the morning vts.

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

Rill... i think you're misinterpreting some of the ideas behind the 50/50 stance. When you kick from a 50/50 stance you sound like you are commiting some of your weight at your opponent (trying to get more power from the kick??)...i think you'll find if you are keeping your stance on while kicking, you are doing a 100/0 stance! (if your weight isnt going through your supporting leg, then where is it going? ...gravity is gravity)

It is possbile to still use the whole body mass without commiting your weight. I agree with who said it's more mobile in a 50/50 stance.

[TjD]

Originally posted by S.Teebas
It is possbile to still use the whole body mass without commiting your weight. I agree with who said it's more mobile in a 50/50 stance. [/B]

i agree with the 1st sentance, however not the 2nd one:)

50/50 is VERY mobile indeed, but i'd like to say 0/100 is just as mobile

have you ever done any chi gwun? (chi sau with the pole?) the cat stance used in the pole form, which we also use doing this drill is EXTREMELY mobile; for lunging in close, and darting backwards; moreso than either 50/50 or 100/0 in chi sau, when it comes to darting at least

the cat stance is a 0/100 (at least for us)

i'd like to think that both the 0/100 and the 50/50 could approach this kind of mobility (however you have to sacrifice some as both are more rooted than the cat stance IMHO)

i think that to reach optimum efficiency of footwork and stance, 50/50 and 0/100 probably have to be blended a little in use; perhaps theyre just two paths to the same goal?

we keep our feet shoulder width apart, or so; how wide is your 50/50 stance?

[David Peterson]

Hey people, are we doing maths or Wing Chun here? Stances change all the time in the same manner that the conditions in any combat situation change. Flexibility and adaptibility are the overriding considerations, NOT a conscious decision to put "X" amount of weight over any given leg. Both methods have merit, as do every possibility in between (eg: 60/40, 30/70, etc)....it all depends on the moment. Don't limit yourself to any single close-minded idea, ...try them all, find what works best for you, ...and then make it WORK when you need it. Within ALL the forms, a variety of possibilities exist: 50/50 in SNT, anywhere between 50/50 and 0/100 in CK, and so on. Forget the mathematics debate and do the training. It would be time better spent.
Regards to All (and no offence meant)
DMP

[TjD]

well... i cant train at work :)

when i post at home however, its usually after i cant use my legs or arms very well anymore! (hence the typos when they occur)

[dbulmer]

Most of the experienced WC guys I have spoken to would agree with YuanFen and David Peterson. However, when learning you tend to learn a set way of doing it - once you start training all sorts of dynamics come into play as I found last night - to my aching cost.

The weight distribution issue seems to be a guide to help the novice such as me. I get the impression if you have developed a good root the weight issue becomes largely irrelevant.

You know I wish there was an instantaneous method of developing good root - the type where you could snap 2 fingers and wallah (R5A :) ) and it happens. Truth is there isn't and you have to work at it! - whoops sorry just a loud personal thought that carries a lot of fristration and realization that my own WC sucks. I'll get over it!

[anerlich]

Most of the experienced WC guys I have spoken to would agree with YuanFen and David Peterson.

Yuanfen and David Petersen are two of the most experieced people on this forum.

However, it is likely that red5angel will utter "WALLAH" and point out the flaws in their approaches, and advise them on the *proper* way to go about training. He should probably email JKD's favorite son Emin Boztepe as well.

[Nat from UK]

""Yuanfen and David Petersen are two of the most experieced people on this forum.

However, it is likely that red5angel will utter "WALLAH" and point out the flaws in their approaches, and advise them on the *proper* way to go about training. He should probably email JKD's favorite son Emin Boztepe as well.""

LOL

I strive for 50/50, however when absorbing, chasing, turning, intercepting, getting thumped :mad: . My stance changes, I am human.

I can stand on one leg on the bathroom scales and double my body weight and, if on the street, an attacker chooses to push me from the front onto my palms gradually so I can sink into my stance it may be the strategy I adopt, however if my attacker isn't so helpful I would prefer the ability to move in any direction having a small frame and "boyish good looks" I dont want to absorb any kind of attack, I favour mobility.

"absorb what comes, escort what leaves and run like f uck if you get the chance" - the only "street" advice I would give anyone.

Nat from UK

[Rill]

i think you'll find if you are keeping your stance on while kicking, you are doing a 100/0 stance! (if your weight isnt going through your supporting leg, then where is it going? ...gravity is gravity)
I probably wasn't real clear on this - I was referring to moving forward with the kick so your mass is pushing it, rather than just supporting it. I think Frank Exchange mentioned on the newer thread that you're always looking to move forward with your kick, so your weight is never transferred on to your back leg because it's being pushed forwards.

One of the things I'm not quite sure if you can do with a 0/100 stance is kick against something that doesn't move, like a wall. Specifically, I'd like to know if you end up pushing yourself backwards when you're doing this, or if it's negated by your root - this isn't a problem with a 50/50 stance.
Any answers appreciated.

Again, not wishing to revive the original thread...

On a side note, I'd like to know why 'root' isn't censored. I think it's a shameful display of a complete lack of acceptance of multi-cultural slang. Shame on them.

[TjD]

Originally posted by Rill
One of the things I'm not quite sure if you can do with a 0/100 stance is kick against something that doesn't move, like a wall. Specifically, I'd like to know if you end up pushing yourself backwards when you're doing this, or if it's negated by your root - this isn't a problem with a 50/50 stance.
Any answers appreciated.


well to have a somewhat intellegent answer from someone who isnt r5a :) with the rearweighted stance, kicking wallbags/walls goes right down through your leg; just like what should happen when you punch. theres a connected line of structure between the bottom of your foot, and the floor

in fact, kicking with the rearweighted stance is practically the same as punching, except for the fact your using a leg:)

if your pushed backwards by kicking the wall in a rearlegged stance, your stance aint no good and neither is your kick and you need some work :D