Hung Fa Yi Leung Yi Mah

[Savi]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
Hung Fai Yi Lineage perks my intrest because its quite different. From what I read they don't use the YJKJM, their high horse stance has their feet pointed straight (instead of pigeon toed). They also use different foot work. This is just what I read, and I am not sure how correct it is. Gangsterfist,
HFY has YJKYM, but as you stated, it is not pigeon-toed. HFY uses a paralleled foot stance (also referred to as YJKYM), but that is as close as it comes to pigeon-toed. The stance I believe you are referring to in the above quote is a "Side Neutral Stance" (in HFY, called Leung Yi Mah - LYM for acronym).

In the Side Neutral Stance of HFY, only the "lead" foot points forward. The "rear" foot faces to the side. The reason I put quotes on lead and rear are because in essense, there is no rear or lead foot, and this is based on the practitioner's position to the opponent.

Structural reasons for this, and based on my own observations, are as follows:

Geometric Battlefields:
1. The shape of the battlefield for HFY structure may be illustrated with a trapezoid, rather than a triangle. In a trapezoid formation, your arms would be extended outward approx 45 degrees from center facing. This shape describes the field of engagement for HFY structure. In a triangle formation, your arms would be extended to the centerline. Can you see the difference in size and shape? Depending on what shape you are focusing on, the horse must coincide with it.

Mechanics:
2. Due to the larger field of engagement in HFY, the structure of the horse must coincide with the upper gate structures for support. The effect the structure has on movement requires different body mechanics other than the more familiar WC Footwork, yet can still be classified under switching, step sliding, stepping, hopping, skipping, and even jumping.

Structural Space (body formation/posture):
3. In the Side Neutral Stance of HFY, because there is a foot in front and a foot in back - per se, this also requires a slanted rotation of the waist (left to right, not up and down). What this allows the practitioner to do is position both elbows in front of the body equidistant from the centerline, rather than having one elbow in and one elbow out (asymmetric structure). The effect that has on the range of the hands from the body is that of extended/deeper fields of engagement. This also allows the horse to support both elbows without adjustment regardless of which hand is engaged.

This illustration is illustrated in this month's issue of Kungfu-Taiji by TC Media - the March/April issue - entitled "The Seven Military Science Criteria for Developing a Survivable Hand-to-Hand Combat System by Grand Master Garrett Gee, Master Benny Meng and Sifu Richard Loewenhagen. I have taken out some of the graphical details for a more simplistic image of the body alone.

[Gangsterfist]

Interesting, In the Yip Man lineage I train in we do have pigeon toed YJKJM stances in our forms and in our foot work. But for actual combat we use 50/50 triangle foot work and in real combat we would not be pigeon toed. Its for training purposes.

I have a question about HFY forms. Again I am not 100% on this, but in the SLT are your fook saos in the first part fast like strikes, or slow to get the qigong benefits? Also how wide is your stance, is it just beyong shoulder length or longer?

Thanks for answering my questions.

-Also-

That image of your foot work, does it not leave your groin open for attack? 50/50 triangle foot work positions the legs just beyond shoulder width, and the feet at 45 degree angles. Your hips are closed closing off your groin from attacks. Of course I guess you could just train the iron egg skill...

Again thanks for answering my questions.

[Savi]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
1. ...in the SLT are your fook saos in the first part fast like strikes, or slow to get the qigong benefits?

2. Also how wide is your stance, is it just beyong shoulder length or longer?

3. That image of your foot work, does it not leave your groin open for attack? 1. In HFY, (terminology issue) we refer to the actual form (first form) as SNT, whereas SLT refers to our drilling progressions (individual and partner based). In any case, the Fuk Sau has many applications, from grappling to structural focus to striking and, as you mentioned, energy training. So the speed at which the various parts of the form are done are only in accordance with the intent/focus you put behind it (what you visualize).

This, however, is not to say that you call the shots and make up your own ideas! The practitioner must have a specific focus for each technique, and that implies he/she understands the applications and concepts behind what they do. An easy example would be focusing on hei/qigong - moving slowly with proper breathing methods and being mindful of proper shape - hence, a slowly moving Fuk Sau.

2. The width of the LYM/Side Neutral Stance is outside of the shoulderwidth. Precisely, it is 1.5 times the width of the practitioner's shoulders. Moving the feet too wide will result in a loss of mobility, yet moving the feet too close will result in a loss of stability. The intent is to maintain an optimal mix of both stability and mobility.

3. Actually, your comment is similar to saying "Isn't the set up of your Jong hands leaving you prone to hook punches?" yet we all understand that occupying the centerfield causes the attacker to telegraph their attacks - thus giving us more time and space to address side attacks than the opponent. The same is true for the lower region of the body, in the fact that to kick, the attacker must shift weight which also telegraphs - yet we do not share that same disadvantage. In other words, the feet are strategically placed for offense and defense just as are the hands.

To help you understand what I mean, I am referencing positional space: your position relative to the opponent, in other words. In this case, the key word in the phrase "Side Neutral Stance" is "Side".

Point 1:
In HFY, we do not position ourself directly in front of our opponent. To do so would greatly expose the groin to attack. Rather, we offset our position from their center. This gives us the advantage in that we only have to deal with two immediate threats: one leg and one arm. This limits the type of attacks we receive. On the other side of the coin, the attacker must deal with all four of the defenders limbs. We have a higher percentage rate of survival for the initial engagement whilst giving ourselves a safer position.

In the offset position (referred to in HFY as Bin Ma; edge horse), the groin is not as prone to attack as it would be in a nose to nose positioning.

Nose to nose positioning means that we have to deal with all four limbs at any given moment in time from the start; high and low attacks, as well as left or right attacks. 50/50 chance of surviving the initial engagement in this case. Too chaotic and not strategically sound in terms of risk.

Point 2:
The space in front of the horse is what I refer to (in class to my sihingdai) as the military's "no fly zone". Keeping in mind that the practitioner has given him/herself a balance of stability and mobility, employment of offensive and defensive weapons (ie interceptive kicks or redirective kicks) in the lower region of the body take minimal effort from either leg. Due to the lengthened range of the battlefield, time is on his/her side to engage the attack without simultaneously losing the positional advantage.

Remember, the key is giving each leg the balanced mix of stability with mobility.

Hopefully this makes sense? If not, let me know and I will try to simplify my response for you.

[Gangsterfist]

Cool,

thanks for the info. It is very interesting. It seems that our lineages do have a lot of similarities. I am curious because there are some HFY practioners in my area and there was some bad blood between some Yip Man and HFY practioners a while back ago. That is niether here no there and I was not a part of it. Some people just like to fight about stuff, and a lot of times it gets real ridiculus, so I just don't even get involved. So, I by no means am talking trash to yours or any lineage out there. I am just curious, and I appreciate your time to answer my questions.

The picture of your bijong stance you linked up there has the hands and the legs positioned almost perpindicular to each other. Which is similar to my stance I was formally trained. However, the one I was trained in (wish I had a pic like yours) is angled at 45 degrees towards your opponet, both feet at the same angle. Shoulders are just inside the feet. You can go wider if needed. Wider slows your mobility but strengthens your stance. So depending on the situations, or how you are executing certain things we train to vary the length of the stance from time to time. The weight distrobution of our stances looks to be the same 50/50. Now you mention your stance is optimized for movement against telegraphed movements. I agree the triangle structure is good, and even intimdating to some (when I try sparring a sihing and I cannot penetrate their triangle it can get frustrating). What about a no-shadow kick? A non telegraphed move? Now its a fact that if someone wants to strike you, they have to extend towards you. However, if its non telegraphed it could be too late for you to react. That is how we train, we train to have a structure that if an attack penetrates our triangle there are structual defenses blocking certain areas making them near impossible to strike.

So does that mean you guys train in the sense you are in an optimal position to block or redirect telegraphed attacks?

The thing about hook punches (unless its a boxer's hook) is that the punch itself is disconnected from the body and can be very easily blocked or just straight up ignored. So I do not see hook punches as much of a threat, unless they are at real close range.

Also in your SNT form how were you first trained to do the fuk saos? Were you originally trained to do them slow and controlled only moving the elbows, with your hands in the crane's beak position? Or were your trained to do them in a more combat orientation like how a fuk sao looks when you are doing chi sao?

Again, thanks for your answers and I would gladly give you any info I can on Yip Man lineage if you like. So feel free to ask any question, except for my secret dim mak techniques (just kidding..heh)

[Savi]

Gangsterfist,
I have to head to the kwoon to teach some classes, so I cannot answer your most recent questions right away. I appreciate your time as well, and will get back to you later this weekend if not tonight.

Thanks again for your hospitality, and I'll come up with some questions to ask you too. :)

-Savi.

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's amazing how the HFY side neutral stance, as Savi described it on the first post of this thread - is exactly the same stance (including the name given to it) - as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) uses...

And the parallels continue...

But I will immediately add something I've been saying all along - I don't think William Cheung or Garrett Gee have stolen from or traded with one another.

I still think that - even with the differences that exist between these two versions of wing chun - the similarities are quite INTERESTING...and suggest a common historical overlap - , somewhere, somehow.

I don't make these remarks as a provocation to those who prefer to emphasizie the differences between the two arts - because at this point I really don't care about who agrees or disagrees (or what their motives might be)...

I am just stating the obvious about the two wc systems.

The debates have become very boring at best...

[spfstr]

Having come from the yip man lineage and now training HFY, i have found that the stance is wider and the hand positions have a longer reach. these two things increase the size of the area i can control and thus allowing more time for intercept or redirection.

[canglong]

originally posted by Victor Parlati
It's amazing how the HFY side neutral stance, as Savi described it on the first post of this thread - is exactly the same stance (including the name given to it) - as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) uses... Parlati Sifu,
I think you seemed to have missed the point of the quotation marks in my sihings comments, if so let me explain the quoation marks are in refernce to what others say or have said
"Side Neutral Stance" then Savi clearly points out
in HFY, called Leung Yi Mah - LYM for acronym So to reiterate there is NO concept, principle, stance or movement in Hung Fa Yi referred to as a "side neutral stance". As for discussing Leung Yi Ma to add to what Savi has already stated LYM is the concept of the knee occupying the yin line during rotation and the understanding of the two elements of structure and strategy/tactics employed within that stance, rotation and then advance or Bun Yut Ma which adds the element of occupying center during advancement along with proper body structure at the completion of the bridge. So yes Hung Fa Yi does employ the concepts of yi ji kim yeung ma, leung yi ma, bun yut ma and others but HFY does not employ any such concept referred to as "side neutral stance".

[canglong]

Savi,
what's up, can you post the picture with the lines of triangulation on it as well, thanks.

[Savi]

Gangsterfist,
To put it simply, any non-telegraphic attack constitutes a force against force event. HFY structure by design is aligned to have the limbs withstand direct impacts (force against force) and side impacts. Take a look at the diagram again as see how the joints of the Jong Sau are positionally arrayed to each other.

That is, unless you are talking about a sideways/rounded attack with unbelievable/blinding speed - yet they would still have to move their body through much more space and close the gap to bypass HFY's defenses. A boxing hook punch is still dependant upon close range for impact. In order for that to land, they would still have to cross the more 'elongated' field of HFY, disable the lead line of defense AND the secondary line of defense to make that happen (inner and outer hands). You're playing in a deeper field of combat with HFY.
Originally posted by Canglong
So to reiterate there is NO concept, principle, stance or movement in Hung Fa Yi referred to as a "side neutral stance". As for discussing Leung Yi Ma to add to what Savi has already stated LYM is the concept of the knee occupying the yin line during rotation and the understanding of the two elements of structure and strategy/tactics employed within that stance, rotation and then advance or Bun Yut Ma which adds the element of occupying center during advancement along with proper body structure at the completion of the bridge. So yes Hung Fa Yi does employ the concepts of yi ji kim yeung ma, leung yi ma, bun yut ma and others but HFY does not employ any such concept referred to as "side neutral stance".Tony,
Thank you for clarifying this to everyone, as well as your added input. The phrase Side Neutral Stance is really only a phrase we use to communicate to the western world the actual stance. It is not a Shaolin term. So I should have made that more clear in the beginning.

Leung Yi Mah: two elements horse

The usage of the whole body involved in HFY's Leung Yi Mah constitutes an array of concepts, principles and strategies employed at one moment in time; concepts and principles guiding all parts of the body for one unified motion. Once understood, it is quite clear and concise.

Tony, at this moment, this is the only image I have available to per your request.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Savi:

Was rereading this thread and I must say - even with the vehement disagreements I've had with you and other HFY posters on this forum...

This is a good thread.

Because explaining the practical, hands-on aspects of the system in plain simple English...as you have done in a number of posts on this thread...

Goes a long way toward building a better understanding between lineages. The UNDERSTANDING TWC thread that I did about 7 months ago really helped, I believe, to bring things into a clearer focus for non-TWC folks...

and the more understanding the less conflict, hostility, and over-the-top competitiveness.

If you are interested in continuing this thread - I, for one, will have some questions (and probably comments as well) on some of the principles, strategies, and techniques employed in HFY...in specific fighting circumstances.

My goal would be to learn more about the practical fighting aspects of the system...without being invited to read books and attend seminars.

Those things are all well and good - but this forum provides a much quicker and accessible way to get at least a rudimentary picture of the system in question (whatever system we're talking about).

My goal is NOT to try and find a way to criticize HFY or any personality connected to it. I've already said all I wanted to say about those things...

Maybe now we can talk about more constructive matters...

Because, in the end, as martial artists...It's not about what labels we put on things - or which personalities we attach to those labels...

It's about what works in actual combat.

[Gangsterfist]

Originally posted by Savi
Gangsterfist,
To put it simply, any non-telegraphic attack constitutes a force against force event. HFY structure by design is aligned to have the limbs withstand direct impacts (force against force) and side impacts. Take a look at the diagram again as see how the joints of the Jong Sau are positionally arrayed to each other.

That is, unless you are talking about a sideways/rounded attack with unbelievable/blinding speed - yet they would still have to move their body through much more space and close the gap to bypass HFY's defenses. A boxing hook punch is still dependant upon close range for impact. In order for that to land, they would still have to cross the more 'elongated' field of HFY, disable the lead line of defense AND the secondary line of defense to make that happen (inner and outer hands). You're playing in a deeper field of combat with HFY

When you say force against force, do you mean use force to block incoming attacks? I dont see how if someone strikes you when you are in your structured fighting stance its considered force against force. If you could maybe explain that a bit better for me it would be appreciated.


spfstr says:
Having come from the yip man lineage and now training HFY, i have found that the stance is wider and the hand positions have a longer reach. these two things increase the size of the area i can control and thus allowing more time for intercept or redirection.

Wider stances offer better strength and better rooting, but lack in mobility. In a defending point of view a wider stance may be prefered. What are the effeciency principles of HFY? We are always suppose to be 50/50 so we can move and change stances according tothe situation. Do you find that having a wider stance may inhibit your mobility even the slightest? I would say so, even the people I know that grapple and wrestle say only use wider stances when close to your opponet, use smaller ones when enganging to increase speed and mobility. Also when you say more reach, do you mean more range? Does HFY have longer range attacks, or practice long range attacks?

Again, I am just here to learn not to start a flame war. So I mean no disrespect to anyone.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Gangsterfist:

While we're awaiting Savi's reply - let me just say that I did Moy Yat's Yip Man lineage wc before going to TWC...and William Cheung also teaches a "slightly wider" than shoulder width approach to setting the feet when in the neutral side stance (and with 50-50 distribution)...

The stance is solid.

That said...one has to be careful...anything more than "slightly wider" (appoximately one inch on each side)...

Anything more than that - will be endangering balance and mobility...as well as opening up the groin to attack.

I am also curious about the force-against-force remarks Savi made on that post...I think I know what he's getting at...but would like to hear more in his own words.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

gangsterfist,
When you say force against force, do you mean use force to block incoming attacks? I dont see how if someone strikes you when you are in your structured fighting stance its considered force against force. If you could maybe explain that a bit better for me it would be appreciated.
A force against force nature, Think energies colliding instead of being shifted with intent. A block rather then a redirection, would be a force on force action. I don't know if that helped any but there you go.
Wider stances offer better strength and better rooting, but lack in mobility. In a defending point of view a wider stance may be preferred. What are the efficiency principles of HFY? The two elements behind a stance are 1; stability and 2; mobility. if either are compromised then you stance was never fifty fifty to begin with or your body alignment was not true to center.
Do you find that having a wider stance may inhibit your mobility even the slightest? How wide do you thing this posture is, or maybe your confused on the depth of the horse. The deeper the stance the less mobile one is. If one goes too wide then it will also take mobility away. While increasing your stability. 50/50 meaning half stability/ half mobility as well as weight distribution. But as we all know weight, like the feet and hand positions, will always be shifting.
Does HFY have longer range attacks, or practice long range attacks? What is a long range attack? Would I ever compromise my body alignment or for that matter my own harmony to through something that is long in time and range? Are we talking kicks or fists? I am also unclear on this question. I know that there are kicks and strikes that are longer then others. I hope that I gave any clarifications to the discussion.

[Gangsterfist]

Thanks James,

Here is where I think we might disagree, but that is totally okay everyone is entilted to their opinion. If someone throws a straight punch at me and I do a tan sao to block it, I am not using force. My skeletal structure is simply dispursing the punch off its intended alignment and redirecting it somewhere else. Savi stated that his stance was designed to withstand force by using force. At least that is how I interpretted it. Please correct me if I am wrong. Now, I have seen external (force vs force) wc techniques and I am not saying they do not work because they do. I am saying that not all techniques use force, a lot of them just rely on posture and basic body structure.

As for long range attacks I should have been a bit more elaborate. In terms of range here I will just break it down. Long range is where you would have to extend the body outside of normal structure to land a strike. It could be a kick or a punch. I think of it like this; I am standing face to face with my opponet, if I can extend my arm with out moving my shoulders and strike them I am at medium to short range (depending on the extension). If I have to lean or rotate to one side and extend the shoulder further from the body to gain extra inches and even perhaps go as far as to shift weight forward I consider that long range. This might be applicable if someone was holding a knife at their hip and you did not want to get close. You could extend forward by shifting weight on your front leg and turing the body sideways to extend your punch, like a nice quick back fist to the assailants face. However, that is committing yourself to the attack a lot, so you better land it and make it worth landing hehe.

It was stated that the stance allows for a wider range of attack. To me my wing chun training as always been to stay at medium and close range constantly pressing your opponet. So my question was does HFY utilize this to perhaps make their attacks have a longer range if needed?

I was making a point about width of stances vs mobility. If a HFY stance is wider than TWC stance then is there a sacrifice to mobility? I think we can all agree here that wider stances lack mobility but have more strength in the root of the stance. However, Victor may have answered this question already.

[gilsinger]

Our long range is long kicking range. From what I've seen so far, to execute one of the long kicks is to initiate a closing of the distance between you and your opponent, and what course you take after using the kick depends upon what your opponent gives you (or if you really splattered him with the kick). I haven't seen anything yet that suggests you want to stay out at the long range. There is more emphasis on getting to trapping range and using those strengths of the system. We do drill some long range stuff, mostly as part of moving through all the ranges, to help develop flow.

So yes, there's some long range stuff. Positioning, footwork, postures, kicking, etcetera. Long kicking is not the only way forward, but it's A way.

[Gangsterfist]

gilsinger-

I agree long attacks can be away to create a bridge to your opponet. It also follows a wing chun principle; if loss of contact occurs rush in.

Could you elaborate on how your stance is better suited, or geared with ranged attacks?

[spfstr]

Wider stances offer better strength and better rooting, but lack in mobility. In a defending point of view a wider stance may be prefered. What are the effeciency principles of HFY? We are always suppose to be 50/50 so we can move and change stances according tothe situation. Do you find that having a wider stance may inhibit your mobility even the slightest? I would say so, even the people I know that grapple and wrestle say only use wider stances when close to your opponet, use smaller ones when enganging to increase speed and mobility. Also when you say more reach, do you mean more range? Does HFY have longer range attacks, or practice long range attacks?

sorry for the delay. let me add some more to what i said before. a 50/50 weight distrbution is used when in LYM. stability and mobility are also balanced. to add more mobility would take from the stability and vice versa. the width of the stance is wider than that of the YGKYM stance that i practiced in the yip man lineage.

we do practice long range(two step distance) but that is not what i meant with a longer range. i am sorry i should have included a few more words. i meant longer range that allowed both arms or legs to maintain structure.. ei elbows, hands etc. i wouldn't consider LYM a "long range stance" and is only a moment in time, from my understanding.

as for force on force... it was only used as and example. being able to withstand force on force makes it even more stable for redirections just like your tan sao example.

shawn

[William E]

Gangsterfist

Thank you for your comments. Hopefully I can shed some light on your questions. The LYM stance, too me , provides a mechanism to transition from left to right each time maintaining my vertical centerline (not swaying left or right), with both hands on the center covering my upper gate. This along with the coordinated movement of the feet, hips and knees provides whole body unity.

When I transition to attack from a “long range” and need to close the gap I use another stance called “Bun Yeut Ma” or Half Moon Horse stance. Without getting to technical, when we transition forward our forward knee is brought to our center to cover our groin before moving forward. The movement forward is not straight but angular in nature with forward energy.

To comment on your previous post…

If someone throws a straight punch at me and I do a tan sao to block it, I am not using force. My skeletal structure is simply dispursing the punch off its intended alignment and redirecting it somewhere else.

If the person who is throwing the straight punch uses proper structure they could apply lots of force against your Taan Sau. This could cause you to either continue to struggle with your Taan or to transition into Bon Sau which would redirect the energy

The HFY way is not to presume that you are going to use the Taan Sau against a straight punch but to engage with my Jong Sau with slight forward energy. Depending on what type of energy I receive will determine my next move.

William E.

[Gangsterfist]

Thanks for your input and clarifications William:

I don't ever try to presume anything in a fight. Fighting is not an exact science nor is it a concept of any kind. Its pretty much chaos. So I agree with what you said about presumptions.

Now, to explain my tan (taan however you spell it) sao a bit further let me give you a real life example of it. I went to see a metal band play a show a while back ago. A bunch of hard core kids were there dancing and throwing punches and kicking in the pit. If you are familar with the scene you will know what I am talking about. These kids really punch and kick the air. I was standing on the outskirts just barely close enough to actually see the band. I was using pak saos and tan saos to block these kids punches. Now it can't be compared to a real fight I suppose but I had multiple people running around just punching and kicking all crazy. A lot of these people were bigger and I would say stronger than me. So their strikes were using lots of force. I never once struggled because I was not using force. I used skeletal alignment and positioning. It did not look like tan saos in the form, it was more dynamic than that. I could have used force, but its not needed.

Perhaps this is where my wing chun and HFY wing chun differ, I am not sure?

Also the stance transitions are different from yours to mine. We do not center the knee we simply close off our hips to protect the groin. Interesting, our stances have a lot of similarities and differences.

Thanks for your post.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

This is one of the problems in chat rooms and not physical experience, one can only imagine and not experience.
Gangsterfist,
You mentioned your taan sau and the punch but the energy was not part of it just the word block. The word block to me means stopping something to then redirect, like traffic.
We do not center the knee we simply close off our hips to protect the groin. Interesting, our stances have a lot of similarities and differences Again we have a miscommunication. This knee to center is not planted but raised, along with the foot being located under the knee, as to uplift an incoming energies. I was wondering if you ever had the attacker use your hip rotation against you to disturb you root and gain center. If not then, you are fortunate in you actions, or I just again don't under stand. Again this is the problem with not feeling or seeing for that matter. Just sharing my thoughts, thanks for sharing yours.

[Gangsterfist]

Yup perhaps we should start taking pictures of what we are trying to explain, but then again even a picture can be deceiving.

The best results would be to exchange ideas from person to person, but that is probably not possible considering we do not live near each other.

When I figure out a better way to go about this I will post it along with more questions.

Thanks for your time

-GFist.

[Savi]

Haven't been on this forum for the past few days. I am happy to see the discussion pick up, and will add in the discussion within the next couple days.

Talk more later...

[Savi]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
When you say force against force, do you mean use force to block incoming attacks? I dont see how if someone strikes you when you are in your structured fighting stance its considered force against force. If you could maybe explain that a bit better for me it would be appreciated.
Originally posted by Gangsterfist
Savi stated that his stance was designed to withstand force by using force. Actually I didn't. This is what I said in an earlier post:

"HFY structure by design is aligned to have the limbs withstand direct impacts (force against force) and side impacts."

Which is different than saying we use force against force. To more accurately state this, we use structure against force. HFY has methods which test all body structure and unity from all directions (testing body structure up and down, left to right, front to back). As an example, the Wu Sau is expressed through HFY's Traingular theory. Here is a link to an article on it:

HFY Punch (http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/wingchunpunch.php)

By HFY's methods of positioning, any non-telegraphic attack must come directly in front of the Jong Sau (sticking with the diagram). Head-to-head, straight-on attacks are what I mean by "force against force." Also, whenever you are responding to an attack on the same plane in space as the attacker, that is "force against force." For example: sideways against sideways... a horizontal neck chop against a horizontal hammerfist.

OTOH, an attack which enters your space on either side of the Jong Sau becomes visibly identifiable; telegraphic. You should already have given yourself a sound central positioning to sway outside attacks from your center. Make sense?

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
Do you find that having a wider stance may inhibit your mobility even the slightest? I also posted this before you asked this question:

"The width of the LYM/Side Neutral Stance is outside of the shoulderwidth. Precisely, it is 1.5 times the width of the practitioner's shoulders. Moving the feet too wide will result in a loss of mobility, yet moving the feet too close will result in a loss of stability. The intent is to maintain an optimal mix of both stability and mobility."


Originally posted by William E
The LYM stance, to me , provides a mechanism to transition from left to right each time maintaining my vertical centerline (not swaying left or right), with both hands on the center covering my upper gate. This along with the coordinated movement of the feet, hips and knees provides whole body unity. This is a good post desribing why the HFY LYM is optimized for gaining the flank of the attacker. The usage of HFY LYM allows the practitioner to go to the outside or inside of the attacker to a strategically safe position with minimal effort. In the Mastering Kung Fu book, illustrations show two specific positionings. I'll post a link below of those two.

I believe when Sir William mentioned "swaying left or right" is the same as saying "bobbing and weaving", correct? From what I gather from William's post, he is stating that every body part moves in concert, and (if I may add) each movement of the hands, feet, knees, elbows & hips has intended purpose; they are guided by specific concepts pointing to six gate formation, body unity and harmony. Great post Sir William!