Orthodox or southpaw?

[sticky fingers]

Out of curiosity, for all the wing chunners out there.
What is your preferred fighting stance - orthodox (left lead hand) or southpaw (right lead hand) ?

[rubthebuddha]

my preferred is with my right hand forward, at least in practice, because i'm better with my left hand forward, and it's an imbalance i want to get rid of.

[taltos]

I try exceedingly hard to be comfortable either way, but my immidiate instinct when raising my hands without thinking is to go southpaw (right hand forward).

-Levi

[namron]

Neither anymore.

I used fight mostly orthodox left lead forward, mainly because I relied on my right leg as my prefered kicking leg and having it to the rear meant more power.

Knee reconstruction and 3 surgeries later made me train up the left leg so that both were more equal.

I also make a habit of training my left side first in any drill or chi sao we do as I am naturally right handed.

[Savi]

Originally posted by namron
Neither anymore.

I used fight mostly orthodox left lead forward, mainly because I relied on my right leg as my prefered kicking leg and having it to the rear meant more power.

Knee reconstruction and 3 surgeries later made me train up the left leg so that both were more equal.

I also make a habit of training my left side first in any drill or chi sao we do as I am naturally right handed. It sounds like you're finding the balance between left and right side usage. Levi is as well, and is exceeding improving in this area - especially with what he is focusing on in his training.

I am fluent in both, and I am quite comfortable using any hand in front for combat. I grew up right side dominant (example: writing), but fighting is another story. Actually, training WC has balanced out the reflexes in both sides of my body much more so than in my previous martial training.

On the other side of the coin guys, does our 'preference' really hold any bearing in combat when it comes to our own survival? I don't think so. You should know when and why what side should be used for any and all circumstances. Strategy and Tactic should be the determining factors.

[Phil Redmond]

If my opponent fights right lead I try to use left and vice-versa.
This way I can get to the blind side easier.

[yuanfen]

Right-left- makes no difference...whatever will be will be.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
If my opponent fights right lead I try to use left and vice-versa.
This way I can get to the blind side easier.
You and your opponent only have a blind side because you take a stance. Ideally, one would confront head-on at least until in range and sensing an attack.

[Savi]

Originally posted by John Weiland
You and your opponent only have a blind side because you take a stance. Ideally, one would confront head-on at least until in range and sensing an attack. What is defined as the "Blind Side?" May I ask why one would choose to go head-on to their attacker right off the bat? What strategy or tactic drives this approach? Does this not give the attacker equal opportunities for attack and defense as does the defender?

If I may share my perspective on this:
One should always press the flank (angulation) of the attacker's lead side. This would mean their left to your right, or their right to your left. Also, flanking against their lead foot with yours. By off-setting your centerline to your opponent, you will be out of the line of fire from the start. Does this not seem tactically sound and more safe? One thing to consider is that someone who understands the spacial relationship one has to the attacker is much more akin to controlling the field due to that higher level of awareness and positional considerations.

Of course knowing that combat is dynamic and fast, you won't always get what you plan for. However, beginning with a "gameplan" governed by risk prevention and setting up your attacker from the start will give you many more advantages than just going toe to toe. Toe to toe fighting would be considered more of a lucky strike type engagement in comparison to risk prevention measures.

[Phil Redmond]

Ok, I should say "ideally" I should take the blindside. (Blindside meaning flanking the opponent so that I can use my two arms against his one). Of course sometimes you could be sucker punched or rushed, but there is usually a time where you 'can' get into position to get to the blindside. That's when you use it. I don't tell my opponent to give me time to get into the proper stance so that I can got to the blindside. I simply "attempt" to apply the footwork the I use in chi sao and sparring to get to the blindside once a bridge is made.

[Phil Redmond]

BTW, some WCK promotes fighting down the center. That can work well if you are a lot stronger than your opponent. I have nothing against that theory if you are a lot stronger and larger than you opponent. But, realize that when fighting square on you will have to deal with you opponent's two arms, (you have the look out for both the left and right punches). Why would you want to have to defend against two arms when you could use your two against his one? Plus, you put yourself in the danger of being grabbed and maybe picked up and body slammed, especially if you are smaller, when fighting square on. With straight punches it's really easy to get to the blindside. With circular attacks like haymakers etc. there are methods to get you to the blindside.
(BTW, angry people tend to punch wide, even professional fighters. I have seen good martial artists in street fights, and pro boxers and kickboxers throw wild punches during press conferences with their opponents. They are trained to throw proper punches right? If you decide to fight square on it's your right to do so. I'm not.)

[namron]

Originally posted by Savi
It sounds like you're finding the balance between left and right side usage. Levi is as well, and is exceeding improving in this area - especially with what he is focusing on in his training.

I am fluent in both, and I am quite comfortable using any hand in front for combat. I grew up right side dominant (example: writing), but fighting is another story. Actually, training WC has balanced out the reflexes in both sides of my body much more so than in my previous martial training.

On the other side of the coin guys, does our 'preference' really hold any bearing in combat when it comes to our own survival? I don't think so. You should know when and why what side should be used for any and all circumstances. Strategy and Tactic should be the determining factors.

Well said

[sticky fingers]

I was only interested in your preferred stance before you touch hands. It seems most ppl in my school are southpaw so I was wondering if it'S true for WC in general.

As we all know once the chaos of battle begins, anything goes.

[yuanfen]

sticky fingers- preferred southpaw--- could be jkd and BL's strong side up front theory--- I dont follow it.

Phil- square on can be problematic for some. I am comfortable with it. Doesnt mean force against force. Can be skill against force.

[Mr Punch]

When I did boxing I was naturally a southpaw.

Since I started wingchun I've changed.

Assuming there is no advantage to either, I am now orthodox.

If I can stick as I'd like to, I'm happy with either.


Joy
Phil- square on can be problematic for some. I am comfortable with it. Doesnt mean force against force. Can be skill against force.This doesn't make sense Joy.

If your opponent is bearing down on you with more force than the power you can muster even through your superior skills, and you are square on: ie, not yielding with either side, then you are

1) fighting force with force;
2) going to get creamed.

[yuanfen]

Mat- not necessarily. The human body is not a piece of iron.
And- if one knows how -the other guys force becomes yours.

[yuanfen]

Mat- not necessarily. The human body is not a piece of iron.
And- if one knows how -the other guys force becomes yours.

[yuanfen]

Mat- square on- does not mean being a wooden log and taking it.
Knowledge of the line that the force is coming in on is important.

[old jong]

I have to agree with Joy's double post because I "know" what he is talking about being from the same Wing Chun family.
;) ;) ;)

[fa_jing]

I've seen A. Fong's footwork in person and he definitely angles/yields off of force, but maintains contact and seems to win the "angle game" every time. He does not employ the full side-step, from what I could see. JMO, I am not a student in this line.

Myself, personally I prefer the orthodox stance.

[yuanfen]

Orthodox? What's that?
A word!

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Mat- not necessarily. The human body is not a piece of iron.
And- if one knows how -the other guys force becomes yours.
Joy is correct. While there are times when one must step, to do so without necessity is a losing strategy. Good Wing Chun can stand its ground. So to generalize...Usually at most, a half step may be required, which involves turning, not stepping back. The opponent's energy is directed into your (the recipient's) horse to the ground and redirected back at the opponent---with proper position, proper structure. It is the key to the high art.

Regards,

[desertwingchun2]

Before touching hands, either hand foward, no hand foward, telling lies with both hands all work fine.

My sihing probably isn't even aware of it but, during an impromptu (sp??) sparring session he taught me lesson about that lead hand. In a brief moment, the emptiness and limitations of form were realized.


Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Ok, I should say "ideally" I should take the blindside. (Blindside meaning flanking the opponent so that I can use my two arms against his one). Of course sometimes you could be sucker punched or rushed, but there is usually a time where you 'can' get into position to get to the blindside. That's when you use it. I don't tell my opponent to give me time to get into the proper stance so that I can got to the blindside. I simply "attempt" to apply the footwork the I use in chi sao and sparring to get to the blindside once a bridge is made.

Phil, for years before wing chun when throwing juantes I would go low side to side and bulldoze foward. All too often my head would get knotted, but thats better than what most of the other guys got. My point is that, if I was fighting me no way would it be in my best interest to fight head on. No matter if one has knowledge of the line the force is coming on or not. Simply because throwing rights one line, lefts another, hooks another, pushes or grabs another. And the force is not past the guy but right into him. Like hoping to reach his spine not the backpack.

Now trying that same thing on someone who wasn't head up, not wanting to know me on my terms, that guy is scary. Actually my brother was a guy like that. No martial art experience. Solemente el cholo loco no mas. Flanking offers much more so why not get while the getns good?

-David

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Orthodox? What's that?
A word!

To clarify - same side forward as an orthodox Western Boxing stance, which is weak side forward. As a right hander, that's my left side forward. "preferred stance prior to contact." It's alot close to a Wing chun stance than a Western Boxer's. And yes, there is no "orthodox" Wing Chun stance, in my understanding, except perhaps YJKYM.

[yuanfen]

Fajing- not close enough IMO. But it might suit you.
Whatever orthodox means---many of Ip man's students were
not slanting to one side---Leung Shun, Wong Shon Leung, Tsui Tsong Tin, Ho kam Ming. Even ina side stance- they face fairly directly.

There are some in IM WC--- TWC folks for instance who area little different. Then there are other non IM slant body wing chunners.

Each to his own. I understand your preferences.

[foolinthedeck]

i have no sides,
i come forwards, meet what comes and adapt to it.

i dont understand what this question is about in terms of wing chun.

maybe thats my ignorance, but most of the posting has been made in reference to boxing, wing chun is not boxing, its wing chun.