Footwork

[dbulmer]

The footwork of Wing Chun never advances in a straight line. Advancing straight forward gives the opponent an equal opportunity to attack and oppose force with force, thereby creating a head-on collision of speed and power. For example, if the opponent extends both hands from his body to the centerline, his arms inscribe a triangle surrounding his center space. Advancing straight forward would bring an opponent directly into the tip of that triangle, the point of its greatest strength. Rather than take this approach, the footwork of the Wing Chun system advances through angulation. Closing on an opponent at an angle gives the practitioner control over his own timing and his opponent’s five lines. At an angle the opponent’s five lines are facing away from the practitioner. To provide the needed mobility, the practitioner maintains an equal weight distribution in his stance throughout his stepping and bracing to effectuate the angulation and subsequent advancement.

Are there any alternative views to this statement? - I can see the author's point but I am just wondering what others feel about it?

My aim is to get a better understanding of how WC guys approach footwork outside my own lineage (Leung Ting).

[Sihing73]

Hi dbulmer,

I am curious as to your reference to Leung Ting Wing Tsun or WingTsun. Are you implying that this lineage does not advance in a straight line?

As to the statement you posted there are a lot of differing views as I am sure you will discover. In the WT method there is a forward step in essentially a straight line. In the WT lineage the weight distribution would be 100% rear leg 0% front leg. This would be different from the statement. You will find that many lineages train to advance in a straight line with variations in the weight distribution. This step is called a Bic Bo. The weight distribution will vary depending on who you talk to. Some will perform the step with a 70/30 or 80/20 weight distribution. Others will use 50/50 or 60/40. I do not know of any Wing Chun lineages that train to be heavier on the lead or front leg but I could be mistaken and some may do this.

The method my Sifu teaches wold be to use the Bic Bo type of step at a longer range in order to close the gap. However as we get closer we would adopt more of a triangular stance and our weight distribution would be more 50/50. The idea of using angles, in my approach, is to remain outside of your opponents zone of power and keep them within mine. By zone of power I am referring to the area between your two shoulders. If you can cut an opponents angle and put him in your zone while remaining outside of his, you should have an advantage. Also, it is most often safer to cut the angle and attack from the outside. Usually staying in the inside is for more advanced practicianers or when you are able to dominate the opponent.

I guess that the idea of meeting force with force would hold up if thats what happened. However if I were to advance using Bic Bo and my opponent attacked me with a greater force I would opt to parry or even to move the target from the area of attack, so I guess you could argue that I am now at an angle ;). Think of a wedge. This is something you in WT should be familiar with. The idea of turning until the target is out of danger. For example you perform a Taun Sau to deflect the attack and turn based on its force, I believe that some will turn almost a full 90' in order to dissipate the force. In the method I am taught we try to turn no more than 45'. I have been taught that turning less is better and one should use the structure of your techinque, not its "power" to deflect that attack. The further you turn the more likely it is that you will over committ and become at a disadvantage.

Just some thoughts while I am getting ready to leave work. ;)

Peace,

Dave

[Mr Punch]

I don't think I've ever been told this, but it makes perfect sense to me against bigger opponents as a light, very mobile man. Against smaller/less skilled opponents you can usually just run over them!

'never' sounds a bit much... personally I never say never -

- oh

- ****...

:D

[Mr Punch]

If you are advancing bik bo, and your front leg is pretty empty, and if your opponent is either solidly rooted or bigger and heavier, again, it seems like a natural response to enter using a more circular approach. You can think of this as two steps, one out and one in, or you can use huen bo.

If there is an opening enabling you to work the inside, I think I usually find a straight step is faster. In bik bo, this will usually allow sticking contact with my lead leg, for working my opponents knees/posture. If I am getting inside using the more squared-off ma-like stance (forgotten its name... we don't use it so often), again i might want to use a small, subtle sideways move, as you settle.

It's usually safer to work the angles from the outside on a bigger opponent, especially if you think it might end up being a draw-out affair, and this would seem to necessitate using off-line footwork.

I'll check today...

I'd be interested in other peoples' responses too. I must admit, I haven't been shown any of this for a long time, and most of my background in coming from off-line has an aiki/kenjutsu history.

Later.

[Atleastimnotyou]

I have an alternate view on this subject. In the lineage of Wing Chun I practice, we have never advanced any other way than straight. I know a lot of you out there might think that is strange. Most of you will probably respond like the author with, “If you advance straight in, then you’re met with force on force.” But hear me out. Remember in Wing Chun you are supposed to be as relaxed as possible. So you will never meet your opponent with force. If your opponent is using force, all the better! Just redirect his force. You have been training your sensitivity all this time… put it to use. I know what I wrote is more difficult and I understand what you all were saying, but still… why advance to the side if your opponent is ahead of you?


Regards,
Corey

[AndrewS]

My take on the advancing step from C2 50/50 to front with 0/100-

the weight shifts on the step in- this creates a *very* small shift in the veritical axis forward and to the direction of the weighted (back) leg. Force goes straight forward up the centerline (connecting you and your opponent), but motion occurs with a *small* off-line, which allows you to move either out of the way of the incoming power or into it, cutting it off. Either way, you are out of the previous line of your opponent's power, while moving up your position of strength. The vertical axis over the back leg (0/100) allows you to reposition with small motion on the way in (vertical axis to hand/foot is a radius, so small body motion allows for more rapid change in hand position), should your opponent attack while off-lining, or off-line after attacking.

FWIW,

Andrew

[dbulmer]

Guys,
I have not fully digested your posts yet but for Sihing73 I forgot to add quotation marks in the opening statement.

To answer your question (Sihing73) , in LT you can and do advance in a straight line but it's not the only footwork movement as you are no doubt aware. What motivated me to post the opening statement was one word - ***never***. That struck me as too absolute and so I got interested in how others might view it.

[dbulmer]

Guys,
I have now digested your views - I am a hungry WC guy!

Sihing73, Mat
I fully understand your points.

Corey,
Again I understand what you say but I'd be like Mat when faced with a larger opponent - I would agree with the article then as I have noticed that when faced with a larger opponent he can often outreach me -ie judging distance is an important factor in whatever you do but when moving forward against a bigger opponent it would have to be spot on.

Andrews

I had a little difficulty visualizing what you were saying. Would you be moving forward in a straightline?

[AndrewS]

Feet are in C2, vertical axis is midpoint between them. As the step occurs weight shifts onto one leg as the other goes forward. With this shift, the vertical axis moves over to and slightly (perhaps significantly) in front of the now-weighted rear leg. The vertical axis will have moved off of the snapshot of the centerline taken when you were in C2 and decided to move.The front leg lands, having circled in, and the rear leg drags up, at this point, the vertical axis will be back on the previous snapshot of the centerline *if* the target has not readjusted.

Or put another way- stand in character two and note where your nose is on a mirror in front of you, relative to the room. Step forward, it should be in the same place. Now step very slowly, staying balanced the whole time- you'll notice that you have to move to the side of the weighted leg. Step quickly and you can keep your nose on that line. Now have someone give you some light pressure on the chest as you step, doing both approaches (i.e. nose staying on one line, nose moving). The former position, which you couldn't do slowly, will probably feel a bit different under pressure.

Later,

Andrew

[S.Teebas]

turning less is better and one should use the structure of your techinque, not its "power" to deflect that attack.

I like this Sihing 73!


My opinion on footwork, and attacking from angles is dependant one various circumstances. Generally if the guy is around twice your size in weight, i think its not exactly the best idea to attack head on. There's nothing wrong with attacking from the another angle....keep in mind that a new angle is only a millimeter away.

[dbulmer]

AndrewS,

Gotcha! Thanks for the further detail .

STeebas,
You have angels on the mind sir! As you said an angle is a millimetre or so away. As for circumstances dictate what you do I agree.

[S.Teebas]

Angels? what are you talking about?? ;)

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by dbulmer
The footwork of Wing Chun never advances in a straight line. Agreed 100%.

[Atleastimnotyou]

"wing chun never advances in a straight line."


Disagreed 100%

[Wingman]

The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. Isn't it one of the wing chun principles? Unless it is not possible, wing chun always advances in a straight line. One of the 8 "footworks" that I was taught is "cleaving the center". Cleaving the center works like a wedge on the opponent's centerline.

[yuanfen]

The tyrrany of words. Using terms differently. Likely difference in conceptualising about what exactly is moving and how.

[fa_jing]

The more you can step to angles, the better, but it is difficult as an experienced opponent constantly repositions himself to adjust to your movement. However, if an opportunity arises, you must be ready to step straight in from whatever point you are at.

[General Kwei]

Hello Gents! I am sort of new to the forum. I have been lurking for some time in the general forum, periodically stopping in to check out some others including this wing chun forum. I do a mix of arts and am wondering if you guys would say that the way you approach an opponent has something to do with your footwork in general? A more solid type of footwork, well grounded, like in wing chun may prefer to take an opponent head on, while someone with 'lighter' footwork may choose to use it evasively?

[Atleastimnotyou]

I don't take my footwork into consideration when dealing with an oppenent. Wing Chun relys on the first contact... In my lineage, we only use footwork to close the gap if the opponent moves away.

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
Wing Chun relys on the first contact...
Wing Chun relies on nothing.


In my lineage, we only use footwork to close the gap if the opponent moves away. Limiting, don't you think?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by EnterTheWhip
Wing Chun relies on nothing.
Limiting, don't you think? I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to agree with EnterTheWhip on both counts here.

Matrix

[Atleastimnotyou]

of course wing chun relies on first contact. that first contact tells you all about your opponent and what to do to defeat him. and how is only using the footwork to close the gap limiting? that is all that's needed. if you move your feet when you don't need to, then you have lost your connection to the ground. you will also be leaving yourself suseptible to being open.

[Matrix]

If that's all YOU need, then that's all YOU need. The fact that it is limiting shouldn't bother you.

At Least I'm Not You.

Matrix

[Atleastimnotyou]

...but it's NOT limiting. while my opponent wastes his time moving his feet i will just hit him.

[yuanfen]

Atleastimnotyou

...but it's NOT limiting. while my opponent wastes his time moving his feet i will just hit him.--------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds pretty mechanical. If the other fella knows his chum kiu,
you could be in big trouble. No all motion is waste.

[Atleastimnotyou]

not mechanical, but simple, direct and fluid.

[John Weiland]

Hi Corey,


Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
not mechanical, but simple, direct and fluid.
I suspect terminology is causing a problem. We practice footwork all the time from the beginning in Sil Nim Tau, in Chum Kiu, in Biu Gee, in the dummy set, pole form, and Baat Jaam Do.

Reflecting on that, why we would teach and practice footwork so much if it wasn't a most important thing?

Of course, we are always looking for the straight line attack. Only if you are facing someone with a superior horse who's holding on your center would you sidestep and reengage. Granted this latter never happens to me. :)

Regards,

[Atleastimnotyou]

John,
Thanks. The terminology was causing a problem. If a person had my center, then I’d probably shift like in the first subset of the second form. But that is the most I would move. I would definitely not disengage my opponent. If I did that in class then I would be hit immediately. Next time you touch hands with Ken, disengage. I think you’ll find his fist in front of your face.

[John Weiland]

Hi Corey,

Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
John,
Thanks. The terminology was causing a problem. If a person had my center, then I’d probably shift like in the first subset of the second form. But that is the most I would move. I would definitely not disengage my opponent.

If you are up against a good Wing Chun man or woman, you could not disengage.

Next time you touch hands with Ken, disengage. I think you’ll find his fist in front of your face.

If Ken must move, how will he do it without stepping?

Root with no footwork will get you nowhere. Without a delivery system, root and hands are nothing.

I think footwork is one of the most important aspects of WC
because no one aspect alone is worth anything in a street fight.

Root with no mobility is nothing.
Mobility with no root is worthless.
Mobility and root without sensitivity is dead.

Stance/step/root/body is inclusive in footwork. There is no footwork without the combination of these four elements.

WC Kuen Kuit: Ma, Bo, Sun

Regards,

[Atleastimnotyou]

i think what we consider "disengaging" is a little different. but no matter.
Once ken touches hands with an opponent, he will only step when his opponent moves out of range. once he is in range again, he will deal with his opponent with his hands.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by John Weiland
Root with no mobility is nothing.
Mobility with no root is worthless.
Mobility and root without sensitivity is dead.
Well said John. I think Corey's issue goes well beyond some confusion in terminology. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Regards,
Matrix

[John Weiland]

Hi Matrix,

Originally posted by Matrix
Well said John. I think Corey's issue goes well beyond some confusion in terminology. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Corey and I are in the same lineage, but I think we're somehow talking past each other.

Corey,
To step is not to disengage. Although we're soft (relaxed but with structure), we're always engaged and always seeking our opponent's center. However, this doesn't mean we let the opponent be on our center. We step to maintain our center.

Carl's a pretty big guy with a good horse. Not likely that any of his students can push him. But for smaller folks, it isn't strength against strength that wins.

Regards,

[Matrix]

Originally posted by John Weiland
Corey and I are in the same lineage, but I think we're somehow talking past each other. John,
That's great to hear. I know that he is in good hands now, so I will bow out.

Regards,
Matrix

[Atleastimnotyou]

"We step to maintain our structure."

What exactly do you mean by stepping?
It is true that Carl is a big guy, but that is no longer a factor. If someone finds his center, he just changes his energy. He no longer needs to move his feet. He can deal with our energy with his arms. If for some reason he cant, then and only then will he shift.
Carl is bigger than ken, yet his size doesnt matter to ken. Ken can deal with carl's energy without stepping. Ken would only step if his opponent moves out of range. Once he is in range, his feet wont move. I don't think anyone can make Ken bong sau.

[Rolling_Hand]

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Weiland
Root with no mobility is nothing.
Mobility with no root is worthless.
Mobility and root without sensitivity is dead.

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

Yoda Yoda...
Knowing is not enough, you must apply!!

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Matrix
John,
That's great to hear. I know that he is in good hands now, so I will bow out.

Hi Matrix,

Please don't. :)

I just meant that philosophically speaking, Corey and I are coming from the same place. It appears that we are disagreeing, when in fact, we are merely trying to communicate and find a common language. What takes so long to write unclearly could be shown in seconds when the Internet gets perfected or we finally get together. :)


Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou "We step to maintain our structure."

What exactly do you mean by stepping?

Hi Corey,

What do you mean by the question? :)

Have you learned Biu Gee and the wooden dummy sets yet? There is a lot of stepping with purpose in them. We step when it has a purpose, not for the sake of moving. If you never encounter the need, you do not step.

Regards,

[yuanfen]

It is true that Carl is a big guy, but that is no longer a factor. If someone finds his center, he just changes his energy.
(AND)
I don't think anyone can make Ken bong sau.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lots of folks think that their sifu walks on water.Can we discuss
some transmissible things? So tell us about how to do wing chun without having to move.

2. Why would any one have as a goal to make Ken bong sao?
What's the point?

[Atleastimnotyou]

1 perhaps i am thinking about doing wing chun with a wing chun opponent when all of you are thinking of a non-wing chun opponent... so if i was doing wing chun with a non-wing chun person, then yes, im sure i would use footwork. most likely my opponent would be moving around
2 No one would have a goal of making Ken bong sau. the goal is to be good enough to penetrate his center and more, thus requiring him to bong sau in order to get you off of his center

[dbulmer]

AtLeastImNotYou,

When I started this thread I was thinking of 1 person against an unskilled WC guy (someone like me) . From my own limited experience mistakes in footwork might not be too serious against an unskilled opponent (unable to capitalise on the error(s) ) but against a skilled opponent (WC or not) it might be a very humbling experience :)

If I stand still against a WC guy at some point I will be hit (as night follows day). I understand your point but making myself a standing target against a skilled opponent isn't very attractive.
In my case and I suspect a lot of other people too we haven't reached the skill level where we could handle a serious attack standing - for me it becomes a case of risk management - I think the clever use of footwork can turn defence into attack and vice versa - for example a well executed circle step can put you in place for a takedown or a leg jam.

Also, in LT lineage and I suspect other lineages (including your own but perhaps at a later stage - any comments John Weiland?), footwork is emphasised a lot which means that in the unlikely event of meeting a WC guy you may be faced with an opponent of equal sensitivity who is prepared to move around you behind you etc. ie the opponent may not wish to trade with you standing in one position but go around you. IMHO a nightmare!