weight distribution

[mikey]

Okay,first I must admit I was looking
at the VTAA forum(it must be the masochist in me). anyway,Somewhere among the
sh*t-slinging, a question of weigh distribution
and having your rear heal off the ground
was posed.The original poster said he found that
while fighting at close to max effort,he found
himself taking up a 50/50 weight distribution
and raising his rear heel off the floor.(this
of course is in a side on fighting stance).
I argued that this was a bad habit,as having
body weight on your lead leg makes you
vulnerable to sweeps and other chi gerk attacks,
and introduces a small delay in the use of your
lead leg for kicking,as you must first transfer
your body weight to the rear leg.I also argued that having your rear heel off the ground raises your center of gravity,and moves it forward,placing even more weight on the lead leg,
therefore making you even more susceptible.
of course I was flamed(VTAA etiquette,you know).
what do you guys think? am I off base?
Please give logical arguments for and against
this guy's "hybrid" stance with facts and
examples if possible.
thanks.

[Sharky]

tell u what,
there's no need to press
the enter key
at the end of the line
ok? capiche?
It's like REALLY
annoying and it makes
it really hard
to read what you're
saying. So i gave up.
Don't have it in one
long paragraph either.
I dunno why people do this.
Its just.... why would someone
go out their way to press
the enter key when infact,
OBVIOUSLY it's gonna wrap the
text, what did you think
it was just gonna go
on forever?

Edd

My anus is superior™

[mikey]

I don't like scrolling side to side to read something.I find it aggravating.
did you ever watch EEK the cat?

[whippinghand]

Yes, you're off base. Broaden your Wing Chun, don't limit it.

[Armin]

Hi Mikey!

To get back to topic:

First of all, there are many different meanings on that: in WT you learn to put the whole weight on your rear-leg due to the ideas you mentioned. In VT they put the weight always in the middle to get a better foundation.

Which one is right? Both and none. Look, your stance is just a tool - different situations, different tools.

If you're "far" away from your opponent (meaning more than kicking-distance) you shouldn't put your weight on the rear leg and put out the front leg - it'll be a target.

If you're very close, like body-contact, it's easier to off-balance your opponent and to destroy his structure by bringing your weight to the middle or even the front leg.

Wing Chun/Ving Tsun/Wing Tsun, shortly, the whole style has different stances, e. g. the YJKYMa (normal Form-Stance), the forward-stance (can't remember the chinese name), a side-stance, even an open T-stance, a short stance, a very short stance, ... (oh boy, just take a look at the forms!)

You should take your stance as that what it is: a training stance.


Greetings,

Armin.

[El_CLap]

I find that in a stance with your weight on the back leg it's easier to get tackled or shot in on. I prefer the 50/50 stance unless i'm kicking someone, simpely because I don't like to stand still when I fight and the more even distribution seems to offer me more mobility.

[Sharky]

at my old skool they said 90% of weight on da back leg.

This was so that if someone tried to sweep the leg, or kick the leg it wouldn't get sweepe/broken respectively.

There were other reasons, but i thought they were bull****. It's like pushing sleeping cows with those guys. GIVEN EM A SALL PUSH N OVER THEY'D GO.

and another thing - you fight like u train, why train in a stance if ur not gonna use it? I

My anus is superior™

[Miles Teg]

I used to train in a school that uses 100/0, but now I'm in a school that uses 50/50. I prefer the latter for the following reasons:
1. Your leg gets saw standing on one leg, how can you fully relax?
2. In Chi Sao I found that on a 100/0 distribution against someone from a 50/50, all they had to do was follow my centre of gravity (which turns from left to right as I turn) and I was easily off balanced.
3. The theory of absorbing the oponents force into the stance doesnt work. If a 50/50 applies downward pressure the 100/0 collapses, whereas applying downward pressure on a 50/50 actually makes the stance stronger and they can off balance the person pushing down on them.
4. A 100/0 person will say that a 50/50 person is vunerable to a knee or leg lock applied to the outside, but actually they have to get to that position first and thats difficult as it takes a few moves to get around.
5. And as Mikey said your not as manourverable on one leg, sure you can kick faster from ONE leg, but not from the other. To move you have to put the weight back on the front leg while taking the weight off the back leg.

I'm hardly an authority, and there is probably a lot more to the 100/0 stance than there appears to be. This is just what I found from a very short time of practicing with 50/50 students.
I also personally think that 50/50 is how Yip Man probably taught Wing Chun, as it is how Wong Shun Leung, Chu Shong Tin and aparently Lok Yu, Leung Shong and Victor Kan taught.
At the end of the day though i guess it comes down to what ever works.
What do you guys think?

[OdderMensch]

So there :p

:D

some point per point responses

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 1. Your leg gets saw standing on one leg, how can you fully relax? [/quote]

practice ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3. The theory of absorbing the oponents force into the stance doesnt work. [/quote]

it does if ...
1. you are "relaxed" and "sitting" in your stance.
2. you have abduction betwwen the knees and a connection between the knees and elbows.
3. following chie sau your elbows are in and you have good forward presure.
4. you have good mobility, a point i feel the 100/0 distribution grants, with practice of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 5. And as Mikey said your not as manourverable on one leg, sure you can kick faster from ONE leg, but not from the other. To move you have to put the weight back on the front leg while taking the weight off the back leg. [/quote]

whats so great is not kicking faster, so much as kicking with least effort and in the most efficent way possible. As for mobility remeber "every step is an implied kick, and every kick is an implied step" so from a 100/0 i can step with "least" effort.

As for fast kicking with the rear leg, why? why kick someone with the rear leg when the front leg is right there, hopefuly already in contact with the oponents stance, assme your opponent has a stance (read many "kung fu fighting posts on main forum)


Sharky-

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There were other reasons, but i thought they were bull****. It's like pushing sleeping cows with those guys. GIVEN EM A SALL PUSH N OVER THEY'D GO.

and another thing - you fight like u train, why train in a stance if ur not gonna use it? I

[/quote]

LOL sleeping cows! :eek: ive had a few dudes push me around in my 100/0 stance before and have remained upright. Sounds like they were "floating" in the stance and lacked a good "root"

and dont worry, if i get into a fight, im gonna use it ;)

nothing i said should be taken as my stance is better than your stance. I use a 50/50 in the YCKMY and a 80/20 in a "turning stance." its just in "hal ma" ive been taught the 100/0.

as for lifting the heel, yeah i think that would move yor center of grvity up and in front of the foot. in a 100/0 stance the center of gravity in above the point just behind the ball of the foot, and the heel is down this protects against throws and allows for certian types of force to be generated that haveng no stance just does not allow for.

[Miles Teg]

Your points make sense.
But I still disagree on the downward pressure absorbing. I could go into how it was demonstrated on me but that would take ages. Instead I'll just say that I couldn't hold this persons weight under one leg, let alone control his balance. Moving forward under this pressure was almost impossible. However even with me putting all my weight on the other person (no particular stance) he could move me back easily.

Actually I think 100/0 can be faster and more manuverable than 50/50. I was referring more to the split second when you need to go in either direction. Like a tennis player must decide when the ball is coming, they stand 50/50(I know WC is a far cry from tennis).

This conversation could go on forever. And words dont do conversations like this any justice. On the other forum this conversation went for pages and pages.

Each lineage has different emphasis.

[El_CLap]

Mike Teg:

You say that the 100/0 distribution can be faster? You don't see anybody else standing straight up in a 100/0 stance. Basketball players would get left behind. Baseball, football etc etc. When you are at 50/50 you can go either way. You can spring off either leg in either direction, as opposed to the 100/0 where you can only push off of one leg.

[CLOUD ONE]

These stances are all relative.
In W.C there are both these weight distributions.
For example in yckmy you use 50/50 for stability.
to kick from this stance the weight has to be 100/0 for you to lift the kicking leg!!!
So moving there is a momentarily shift of weight,
then 50/50.
So to say you favour one from another doesn't make much sense IMHO.

[Sharky]

i was told to be pretty much all my weight on the back leg, all the time.

My anus is superior™

[mun hung]

Whenever I think of the horse and it's structure; three things come to mind - balance,strength and mobility. IMO missing any of these elements makes for a weak horse.

Regarding weight distribution with the horse - I think the one we're all talking about is with one leg in front and one in rear and facing the opponent. I was taught the weight distribution to be about 55-60 on the rear leg and 40-45 being up front. I feel that I am more mobile this way because the changing of the weight distribution from one leg to the other is alot faster this way, easier to conceal, and very stable throughout the change. IMO the balance and the strength of the horse in it's stationary position is far greater also.

And why would'nt you kick from your rear leg also? Don't you punch from your rear hand at all?

I follow not only what my instructor teaches, but most importantly - what makes the most sense to me. Just my humble opinion. :)

[[Censored]]

When you carry weight on your front leg, how do you intercept a kick from someone who carries no weight on their front leg? Or do you just absorb it and hope for the best?

[CLOUD ONE]

why would you stay at his kicking range?
If he is outside his kicking range and moves in to kick, Why have you not reated?

[mun hung]

"When you carry your weight on your front leg, how do you intercept a kick from someone who carries no weight on their front leg? Or do you just absorb it and hope for the best."

Hmmm...let's see. How about I wait for this one legged hopping person to get into my range first before I jam and kick him from my (God forbid) rear leg.
Or maybe I could sidestep him to his backside/blindside and attack him while he's off balance trying to catch up with me.
How about I "absorb" the weak snapping kick I've seen from this stance with a downward elbow into the bony part of his instep?

One good reply deserves another! ;)

[[Censored]]

It was a serious question. I thought I would ask it, instead of simply condemning you 50/50 guys as a bunch of jokers.

Hmmm...let's see. How about I wait for this one legged hopping person to get into my range first before I jam and kick him from my (God forbid) rear leg.

Have you actually done this? Once my front leg is close enough to your front leg, you are going to race me with your rear leg? You must be very fast!

Or maybe I could sidestep him to his backside/blindside and attack him while he's off balance trying to catch up with me.

You can move all the way around me, before I can lift up my unweighted leg? You must be The Flash!

How about I "absorb" the weak snapping kick I've seen from this stance with a downward elbow into the bony part of his instep?

That might work against Shaolin Wing Chun! :p Otherwise, you will be dropping your elbow to knee level. :eek: I don't believe that is a very good strategy, even in a fantasy world!

One good reply deserves another!

Yes, and I'm still waiting. :rolleyes:

[BeiKongHui]

The main advantage I have found in using 50/50 is that it is harder for someone to take you down. People who keep all or most of their weight on the back leg are a grapplers dream and very easy to shoot in and do a single leg on. The thing is that even if they get off a kick, which most usually don't, your momentum is usually enough to take them down anyway.

"Gong Sao Mo Gong Ching Sao"
- When you talk with the hands,
best not to speak of polite hands.

[[Censored]]

50/50 distribution might make sense while someone is trying to take you down. However, it takes a small fraction of a second to shift from 90/10 to 50/50, a much shorter period then it takes to make an entry. So why maintain 50/50 at all times?

[Rill]

I've seen numerous comments on how kicking from a rear leg or punching from a rear hand is acceptable. What's the point when you can do it faster with the leading leg/hand?

The only time I (ideally) punch from the rear hand is right after the lead one has already gone forward. Kicking from the rear leg seems utterly pointless, your legs being slow enough without having to first shift weight (assuming a 100/0 stance) and then move your leg all that way when your front leg is right there to do it much faster.

If you're willing to give up that fraction of a second to shift weight/kick from the rear leg/punch from the rear hand against someone who knows WC or otherwise, you're taking a risk you don't need to that you're going to get your ass kicked. And nobody likes that :)

Speaking of which, being 50/50 myself, I have to wonder about balance in a 100/0 stance. If you're facing a single opponent head on then yeah, maybe you could use it, but what happens if the mans friend sweeps your leg from behind, or you get knocked sideways? The same thing that would happen if you had all your weight on the front leg and the guy in front of you sweeps it - you fall over and get hurt.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you're willing to bet that the man is slower than you.

Personally, it's not a bet I'm willing to make when my life could be forfeit if I lose.

[mun hung]

Silly me. I should have recognized that as a question from a serious practitioner instead of some flame from a troll. Please forgive me.

Alrighty then, let's start over. So what's so great about the 90/10 stance? Front (no shadow) kick? Do you stand and wait for the attacker to come into range so you can kick him first? Do you perform an entry technique? Tell us.

You say that you can transfer your weight from 90/10 to 50/50 in a fraction of a second before an entry can be made. I'm sure most 50/50 guys can transfer their weight to 90/10 if they needed to in that same fraction of a second before a sweep or kick to the front leg can be made. So what's the difference? Are you more mobile? Is your foundation strong enough to withstand a little pressure at close range? Or will you fall backwards? Are you balanced enough to withstand an attack and maintain your balance from all angles if needed? How do you give and maintain forward pressure in chi sau with almost all your weight on your rear leg without getting pushed around by someone "pushing the horse" in a 50/50 stance? Please share.

I know I've asked alot, but they are serious questions. I really am very curious. I fight more than most and sparr almost every night and I'm willing to try anything that works, so please help me to understand your logic - and I'll try it out!

Thanks in advance.

[BeiKongHui]

A lot of the guys I spar with have grappling experience including myself. I've found it fairly easy to take someone down who has most of their weight on their back leg because when I (or I would guess most grapplers)go for the takedown I have already made an entry by punching or kicking. I'm sure that other weight distributions have merit though this is just what I've found to work for me. :)

"Gong Sao Mo Gong Ching Sao"
- When you talk with the hands,
best not to speak of polite hands.

[mun hung]

I don't normally kick from the rear leg, but there is a time and place for it though - just like everything else. :)

[[Censored]]

Yes, I do think the ability or inability to deliver an unanswered kick is significant! And they are not sissy snap kicks, I assure you!

In my school, we would not approach from 5-10 feet away in a 90/10 stance. That makes no sense, normal steps are better for closing that gap. But when we are close enough to be kicked, we will shift to our back leg.

Once we are in close, we have more then enough mobility. We can step, we can turn, we can absorb pressure, from the 90/10. Like anything else in WC, this requires some practice in order to be effective. Once the gap is closed, it is difficult for the opponent to withdraw; we can kick them immediately and step right back in.

When someone tries to push us around, we may get under them (in which case they are pushing themselves off the ground), or we may let them push their body into a few punches.

I don't know whether we are secure from all angles, because we don't let the opponent attack from the angle of their choice. We keep them in front of us, moving backwards or getting hit.

What happens if we face two or more fighters, and one of them gets behind us? We lose. It will take a hell of a lot more than a 50/50 stance to save you from this predicament.

I hope this answers some of your questions. Now, how do you deal with the kick from an unweighted front leg?

P.S. Why not maintain 50/50 and shift to 90/10 when appropriate, instead of vice-versa? IMO, because a kick is faster then a takedown.

[This message was edited by [Censored] on 06-21-01 at 12:14 PM.]

[mun hung]

This is getting old and tired, but I'll answer anyway. First off - your opponent has to be close enough for you to kick him with that front leg first. If you happen to fight some inexperienced person who's willing to walk into your range so you can kick him - maybe it'll work. The more experienced fighter might enter by jamming your front leg to begin with which does'nt leave you much in the form of balance, or fake you, wait for the kick and proceed with the takedown once you're off balance. It all depends on who you're fighting. Nuff said.

[[Censored]]

Now, for the third time, how do YOU deal with the kick from an unweighted front leg while YOU are in a 50/50? Is it some VT secret or what?

[mun hung]

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight - I enter your space while your sitting in your 90/10 stance and then I proceed to sit in a 50/50 horse (in range of your kick) and let you kick me right? Wrong, brutha! I don't know what kind of people you've fought, but I'm certainly not stupid enough to walk into your range and let you kick me. Believe me, when I'm in striking distance - it'll be on "my" terms and not on yours.

You never answered my question either regarding chi sau and forward pressure, which is a much better question IMHO than "what would you do if I kicked you?"

However, I am interested in what lineage your from that uses this type of fighting stance. Is it WT, TWC or maybe something else? Immortal Lobster Boxing, huh?

:rolleyes:

[[Censored]]

You don't "let" anyone kick you, so you don't have a problem to deal with. That's a fine solution, I suppose. :rolleyes:

If someone applies spot-on pressure to our stance, we direct it through our leg to the ground, and/or turn, and/or redirect the force in some other fashion. If the pressure is not direct, then of course the standard "do not meet force with force" directive will apply. AFAIK this is the practice of Yip Man and Leung Sheung. Did they fall over whenever someone pushed them? What do you think?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
My question was not "what would you do if I kicked you", but "how would you deal with the kick"? I trust you know the difference.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mun hung]

So are you trying to say Yip Man's horse was 90/10? If you are - I'm sure many will disagree with you on this one. So who is your instructor anyway?

Alright, tell me what kick this is you're throwing from your 90/10 and I will honestly try to answer you.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

The whole subject of weight distribution is relative to the situation at the time.

WT people are taught to utilse 100/0 all of the time. I will say that it is a lot more than simply some form of "hopping" forward. When done properly, it can be very fast and versatile. However, there is the disadvantage of an opponent moving to the outside. What I mean is if you have your left foot forward and your opponent steps very deeply to your left side you can have a problem adjusting quickly enough.

The entire forward movement in 100/0 is achieved by a linkage of the knees. The two kness use adduction to stay in a relative position to one another. Thus when you step forward with one foot it is this attraction at the knees which brings the rear foot forward. This can be done very quickly and is extremely effective when moving in a straight line.

Now 50/50 also is fine and seems even more adaptable, to me at least ;) than 100/0. I have also found that one can maintain ones structure easier while in a 50/50 stance. Thus one can perform the shape of the technique and deal with incoming pressure without resorting to using muscular strength.

I used to do 100/0 all the time. I then met a WC Sifu who showed me many ways to use my stance to destroy my structure using 50/50. I am still learning, old habits die hard :p but I would say that 100/0 is best used for chasing and deep forward attacks while 50/50 provides a better balance overall.

Just some thoughts.

Peace,

Dave

[mikey]

man, I'm glad I didn't post a question
about which side of the dinner plate you set
the glass and silverware! :D

[Watchman]

LOL!

[mun hung]

Glass is always on the left, and chopsticks on the right, insufferable fool! Pow! No-shadow kick! :D

[[Censored]]

I've been told Leung Sheung used 100/0 or 90/10, and I have no reason to doubt it. Why would he adopt this stance without Yip Man's recommendation or approval? You tell me.

There are a few ways to execute a very powerful front kick from this stance. Basically, the front leg can rise up directly into the opponent's leg, or it can lift up and then go forward, or something in between. Contact is typically made with the instep. Just like a WC punch, there is no windup, no reaching, and no excessive tension.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

You state you "were told: Leung Sheung used 100/0 or 90/10 and have no reason to doubt this. Well how about this:
Kenneth Cheung trained with Leung Sheung and does not use 100/0 or 90/10 but is more of a 50/50 person. Chung Kwok Chow stems from the Leung Sheung lineage via Ng Wah-Sum and also adopts 50/50. There are other examples of those who trained under Leung Sheung utilizing more of a 50/50 or 70/30 split. About the only one who does 100/0 exclusively seems to be Leung Ting. So I guess I would ask you for your source and maybe to check it again.

As to kicing from the "empty" front leg there are advantages and disadvantages to this method.

Peace,

Dave

[kj]

Hi Dave. You wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kenneth Cheung trained with Leung Sheung and does not use 100/0 or 90/10 but is more of a 50/50 person. Chung Kwok Chow stems from the Leung Sheung lineage via Ng Wah-Sum and also adopts 50/50.[/quote]

FWIW, this is one fundamental area where C.K. Chow's method differs from Ken. Ken does indeed teach 100/0 (or 90/10 if you account for the weight of a leg). This is consistent with how Leung Sheung taught, as confirmed by numerous other Leung Sheung students, among others who knew him.

I happened to meet C.K. Chow briefly some years ago, and he explained having adopted a 50/50 stance as one of his own preferred adaptations. I cannot speak with total confidence about Ng Wah-Sum's stance, but had the distinct impression from Chung Kwok Chow that the adaptation was his own. He mentioned several other Wing Chun exponents, including Augustine Fong and Hawkins Cheung, who, from his discussion, I assumed had been influential for him in that regard.

Hope that helps.
Regards,
- kj

[Sihing73]

Hi Kathy Jo,

I will be the first to admit when I am wrong. I will defer to your experience with Ken so I stand corrected.

I know that Chow has made many modifications to his methods and has intergrated several theories into his approach. FWIW, I had met a student of Eddie Chong and his stance was more 50/50. Given Eddies influence by Ken I had made an assumption that this was how Ken did things.

I had the impression that one would utilize 100/0 in chasing but that one would adopt more of a 50/50 when not fully committed. I am assuming, you know what that does to us :p, that from your post Ken uses 100/0 or 90/10 most if not all of the time.

Peace,

Dave

[Rill]

We train 50/50, my Sifu tells me that he was taught 50/50 from Jim Fung, who was taught by Tsui Seung Tin, also utilising a 50/50 stance.
I'm pretty sure the other school here uses a 50/50 stance, and they're Wong Shong Leung lineage, which would indicate Yip Man taught 50/50.

I really dislike when these topics degenerate into a 'my lineage does it properly' argument, but, in the not-so-exact words of my Sifu, if you're standing in 100/0 you're not doing proper Wing Chun.

Maybe someone was woken up late one night and taught the secret 100/0 stance by Yip Man, later passing it on to his students with the other secrets he learned? ;)

[kj]

Hi again Dave.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FWIW, I had met a student of Eddie Chong and his stance was more 50/50. Given Eddies influence by Ken I had made an assumption that this was how Ken did things[/quote]

I never met Eddie, and I don't know enough about Pan Nam Wing Chun to make valid assumptions on how it may have influenced his Wing Chun. Same for his experience with other WC folks like Hawkins Cheung. I am only confident that Eddie didn't get a 50/50 front weighted stance from Ken. In this era of so much innovation, exchange, and cross-pollination, I find it increasingly difficult to infer or trace what was taught by one teacher or another.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I had the impression that one would utilize 100/0 in chasing but that one would adopt more of a 50/50 when not fully committed. I am assuming, you know what that does to us , that from your post Ken uses 100/0 or 90/10 most if not all of the time.[/quote]

I didn't say that Ken uses or teaches to be in 100/0 most or all of the time. That would be highly inaccurate, and I would be remiss to imply that. We generally prefer a 50/50 stance, albeit in neutral Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma (or something closely approximating that), when 100/0 front weighted stance isn't necessary or compelling.

It does seem to be a common misconception that we chase someone across the room in a 100/0 stance. We would not only look silly, but would be so. ;) I think we would also tire very quickly - LOL. 100/0 back weighted stance is indeed emphasized in our training, and used in application when one is already in adequate range. The bigger differences (100/0 vs. 50/50 philosophies) seem, to me

a) the degree of emphasis in training
b) the method of movement for small close range stepping and kicking (not chasing across the room or down the street)
c) and perhaps most importantly, implications on body structure and power generation, as well as the ability and capacity to "receive." I think this ability to receive is not emphasized as much in many lines, but other approaches may be used to accommodate. I could be wrong.
d) While the subject of 100/0 versus 50/50 comes to play quite often, perhaps the more compelling and relevant comparison might be our preference for neutral 50/50 (YGKYM) rather than front weighted 50/50. Fodder for discussion another day perhaps.

I don't share this in an effort to proselytize on 100/0. People always will and should come to their own considered conclusions. More importantly, it seems (to me) that the preference of a particular stance should be consistent with other aspects of one's practice for consistency and optimization of overall approach. In that light, this is merely my attempt to make small clarification on what we do.

Hope this is somehow relevant or useful.

Regards,
- kj

[Sihing73]

HI Kathy Jo,

Thanks again for the clarification. I think that everyone has 100/0 at some point or another. I am thinking of the "Bic Bo" wherein one steps forward with the legs in almost a straight line. However this can vary in weighting from 60/40-70/30-80/20-100/0 and even 50/50 :)

I think that I would still be correct in stating that Leung Ting seems to be the only person who stresses 100/0 in "all" situations. From what I am getting from your posts, and correct me if I am wrong ;), is that Ken teaches 100/0 or 90/10 as a part of his footwork and not as an exclusive method. What I am getting at is that one would need to adjust their weight to apply to the specific force/situation at the time. At times you might be 50/50 at others a different weight. To be honest I think this is the way most people are being taught. Sometimes you adopt 50/50 at others a different weight dependent on the situation.

BTW I like the points you bring up and think that they are worthy of a deeper discussion. Perhaps when you have more time :) I know that, like me, you have a premium on free time :o

I think that many of us may argue over the weight difference without really getting to the underlying issue of does it work? and when should the different weights be applied?

Thanks for the interjection I appreciate the feedback. The only problem is now I may have to think about things some more ;(

Peace,

Dave

[[Censored]]

...and so the thread drifts off into the night...with no answer to my simple question about the typical 50/50 response to a kick. :(

[mun hung]

Gum sau

[CLOUD ONE]

If you put it like that then, your kick would definetly land.That's if your attacker came into your kicking range whether he'd be 50/50, 100/0,
60/40 or whatever.But if you entered to get a kick away on a 50/50 then there are a lot of options. Which scenario were you refering to?
If you think about it 100/0 is the same as 50/50.
Each stance should give you balance (centering).
IMHO Wing Chun is not static, so there are instances when 50/50 and 100/0 but keeping centred at all time.

[dzu]

The weighting of the horse should be determined by the application IMHO. Wing Chun is the art of the centerline and as such should maintain a balance so that it can use all extremes but not be limited to any particular extreme.

Regardless of the lineage, everyone uses 50/50 in YJKYM and 100/0 when they kick.

I think most discussions tend to focus on weighting once stepping is involved, such as Dave's Bik Bo/Bik Ma example above or the Chum Kiu Ma/Pien San Ma where the practitioner is facing to the side or shifted.

I train and practice 50/50 as an ideal because I can use either leg or both to ground myself, depending upon the pressure I receive and the vector force my body has to equalize with in response. The same is true if I want to send force to my opponent from the ground up.

Receiving external pressure requires that I equalize with my body and legs so that the resultant vector forces send everything to the ground instead of my structure. I have more flexibility and more degrees of freedom balanced on two legs rather than on one. If I need to equalize more with my right leg or my left leg, it takes minimal action and intention to do this in a 50/50 ideal horse. The same is true when I want to emit force.

I am not worried about having my front leg swept or kicked. I can root just as easily with one foot or two. I can empty the leg when I feel a sweep or raise the leg to jam a kick. In essence I have gone from 50/50 to 100/0 without shifting my center of gravity at all. Besides, if I have made a connection with my opponent, then he is my third leg and makes me even more stable. With a good connection, I can disrupt his structure so that he cannot sweep or kick. Also, if the opponent tries to sweep or kick my rear leg, it would be easier to move rather than shift my weight first to move out of the way.

By keeping my weight centered I can turn and shift into my opponent. All the 100/0 shifting I have seen requires the practitioner to move his reference line in a slight arc since the weight is transferring from one leg to the other.

As other people have said, movement in the 8 directions is easier from a 50/50 ideal than a 100/0. I don't need to shift my weight from one extreme or another to move in any given direction.

I have training drills in my lineage that can isolate single leg (kicking drills, SNT on one leg, etc.) but most of the application that I have seen in san sau or chi sau can be handled fine in a 50/50 ideal with some leeway in case I get into trouble. The 100/0 has its place under certain conditions and applications, and is a part of my WC, but it is not the ideal.

Those lineages that predominantly use 100/0 tend to build up their methods from the ground up in support of its strengths and weaknesses which is why you have people using 100/0 that can apply WC. The same is true of 50/50.

I think that it is more important to understand the methods that support the 50/50 or 100/0 rather than debating which method is wrong.


regards,

Dzu

[Sharky]

50/50 Leads the way
by Ken Weingart

100/0, 70/30, 60/40, 50/50. There are several different theories as to which is the proper weight distribution of the stance in Wing Chun Kung Fu.

In Wing Chun Kung Fu different systems believe in using different weight distribution in their stances. This discussion will not be talking about the origin of the different weight distribution, but rather looking at the differences, positives and negatives of the different weight distribution of the different stances.

100/0, 70/30, 60/40
In these stances when shifting from the neutral stance 100%, 70%, or 60% of the practitioners bodyweight is shifted on to one leg or the other. The lighter leg would then have the other 0%, 30%, or 40% of the practitioner's bodyweight. The thinking behind this is, the front leg is lighter than the rear leg. Due to this lightness the practitioner supposedly would not be able to be swept on that front leg. There is also the belief the practitioner would then be able to kick more easily. Now this part is true. It is easier to kick when all of or part of your weight is on one leg. Unfortunately, this will hinder the mobility of the practitioner. If all or part of a person's bodyweight is on one leg, how can that person move in all directions equally? They won't be able to. Another disadvantage of an unequal stance has to do with the structure of the stance. If a person has unequal body they are not as structurally sound as a person with equal body weight. Which is easier, standing on one leg or two legs? The answer is obvious.

50/50
In the 50/50 stance the weight of the body is equally distributed to each leg. When shifting, each leg will always have 50% of the weight on it. This allows for the two themes behind the 50/50 stance. One, it allows for better mobility and two, it allows for better foundation and structure. The mobility part is better due to the fact there is no need to continuously transfer weight from one leg to another. Using the 50/50 stance one would move as easily and naturally as walking or running. When a sprinter runs is the person keeping more weight on one leg or the other? When any person is walking are they keeping more weight on one leg than the other? The answer is no. As for the structure aspect of the 50/50 stance, let me give you this example. When riding a bicycle is it better to ride on one wheel or two? People may think, well what if someone tries to sweep me, shouldn't I have a light leg? No, having one leg lighter than the other isn't going to save you. Your skill as a martial artist is going to save you.

The common theme in all of wing Chun is to do what's natural. If a person has one leg that is shorter than the other or the person has a limp then, for that person it might be natural to have more weight on one leg than the other. Other than that the 50/50 stance is best for Wing Chun.

My anus is superior™