Wide ranging WC discussion...........

[Nick Forrer]

Hi people there is a broad technical discussion on WC going on in the taiji forum so I thought Id transfer it to here:)

Heres how it started:


Originally posted by Matt
(to say 'In WC, for the most part you work out of the "yi jee kim yeung ma" stance' is not only not 'right', in fact, it's the complete opposite of right!)

My response:


In My WC all the stances I use are basic derivations of YGKYM, which is to say that they share the same fundamental properties namely

- Head up

- Back straight

- Pelvis pushed up and forward

-Centre of Gravity centrally distributed

-at least one foot (i.e. the rear foot) turned inward/inverted

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
In My WC all the stances I use are basic derivations of YGKYM, which is to say that they share the same fundamental properties namely


Fair enough. I can't say that about mine. When I started sure: now they've evolved so though I'm using the principles of YGKYM it's more to supplement my natural way of moving and fighting... eg...


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
- Head up


I don't hold with keeping my head up all the time in WC or any other kind of fighting. I don't even hold with the theory that's sometimes popular with wingchunners that in some way it wrecks your energy generation/root/fill-in-the-blank to sometimes put you head down. What does wreck your energy generation/root/f-i-t-b is getting a big fat punch in the head because you didn't move it!

If we take YGKYM (I'm gonna call it the Y stance cos it's quicker for me to type and I'm busy!) and slt, you are practising sinking your centre of balance and centre of gravity in a seemingly static manner. So, when you punch you are practising punching with just your lats, delts and tricep/biceps action, with as much relaxation as poss in the other muscles. It also trains you to be able to breathe normally in a hard stance while moving your arms. It also trains the thigh, stomach, knee and pelvic floor muscles.

However, if you look at opening and closing the stance, the outwards/inwards movement to get into Y-stance, you are practising knee-locking/uprooting techniques, rooting through the bubbling well and the heel, and opening and closing the qua (if you don't wanna get mystical like I don't, this amounts to relaxing the muscles in your waist and practising pulling and sinking down by rolling your outer butt muscles out rather than forcing your knees in to the detriment of your knees' health, plus 'cupping' to the floor: pulling down to root by using simple leverage of your foot/toe muscles in a sideways and slightly rocking motion...).

Thus you have the root practice for the kicks which come in chum kiu, plus the fluid and relaxed waist for the turns in chum kiu, not to mention a tech in itself (the knee lock-outs)... which also resurfaces in the huen bo and man/jum sequences in biu jee.

Even keeping low and level in the opening of the Y-stance for slt, you have to some degree a vertical rippling movement going up and down the spine as you settle into the root, from the perineum up to the top of the head as it assumes its characteristic thread-pulling-from-the-heavens upwards position. this is also found to a larger degree in standing postures like the five and six hand chikung sets in yang style taichi, and the opening of the long form, plus large bear stretches his back and python prepares to strike.

This miniscule movement is what provides the basis for the natural walking kicks in WC and the power in all those daft seemingly arms-only strikes. It is also what helps you absorb strikes by rolling with them, and by correctly rolling you head up/down or to the sides, it even helps you to 'load' for eg the bounce punch/upcut from ck and many other upward/downward strikes.

So by tucking the head, a la principles from the Y-stance, you can protect it from strikes to some extent, and use the motion to follow on to your next strike.

While this is using a principle from the Y-stance, in my WC it's a bit of a big stretch or even misleading to say that I'm 'working out of the Y-stance' as was Buddy's initial assertion.
quote:


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
- Back straight


See above! Fighting with your back completely straight at all times is restricting your movement in the vertical plane. Any straight punches coming from twisting your waist horizontally are fine, any upcuts, downward crushing palms like in po pai/any jum sao, are not going to have any power.
quote:


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
- Pelvis pushed up and forward


I would say tilted, I certainly wouldn't say pushed up or forward, otherwise you're stopping the power of your punches at your waist.



Originally posted by Nick Forrer
-Centre of Gravity centrally distributed


I'm not gonna go there! It's always been a big debate in WC, but since my lineage is all chewed up, and people with a pristine lineage don't tend to listen to logic ( half j/k!) just suffice it to say that if you mean weight evenly balanced on both feet, I disagree, and if you mean that at some times you don't want your centre of gravity to be off centre, I wanna fight you... you'll be a pushover!!!
quote:


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
-at least one foot (i.e. the rear foot) turned inward/inverted


If I start in the Y, and without moving my right leg, turn to my left (as in ck and bj), moving my left foot ninety degrees and out towards my left, I'm in a stance with my left foot forward and at forty-five degrees and my right (back) foot also at forty-five degrees... OUTWARDS.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Mat
Fair enough. I can't say that about mine. When I started sure: now they've evolved so though I'm using the principles of YGKYM it's more to supplement my natural way of moving and fighting




This strikes me as a classic case of putting the cart before the horse! The salient point is this: You should train YGKYM so that it becomes your natural way of moving and fighting. My instructor has been in WC for close to 35 years and I see YGKYM in everything he does!!



Originally posted by Mat
I don't hold with keeping my head up all the time in WC or any other kind of fighting. I don't even hold with the theory that's sometimes popular with wingchunners that in some way it wrecks your energy generation/root/fill-in-the-blank to sometimes put you head down. What does wreck your energy generation/root/f-i-t-b is getting a big fat punch in the head because you didn't move it!



To me, the situation you describe is a Bil Gee scenario. I.E. I've made a mistake; Im going to get hit/I am getting hit- what can I do to minimise my losses? And yes there are situations where you might do this (what you suggest). However to me WC is like chess in that you have to think more than one move ahead. Yes by ducking you may avoid the first attack but what about the next? Conversley by being upright with your head up and your weight centrally distributed you are in a 'golden mean' or 'goldilocks' position i.e. you can move with equal ease in any direction.



Originally posted by Mat
If we take YGKYM (I'm gonna call it the Y stance cos it's quicker for me to type and I'm busy!) and slt, you are practising sinking your centre of balance and centre of gravity in a seemingly static manner. So, when you punch you are practising punching with just your lats, delts and tricep/biceps action, with as much relaxation as poss in the other muscles. It also trains you to be able to breathe normally in a hard stance while moving your arms. It also trains the thigh, stomach, knee and pelvic floor muscles.


As I see it the fundamental point about YGKYM is that it establishs a 'facing' position. And this is important because WC is about (in the main, although there are of course exceptions) fighting from this kind of position. This allows for the use of both hands equally- for simultaneous attack and defence- since both hands are an equal distance from the target. Moreover by occupying the centre and covering your gates you are 'mapping' the space in front of you and thus predetermining your opponents possibilities of attack. This, combined with the tactile reflexes developed by CHI Sau is what gives the WC player a strategic edge.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
This strikes me as a classic case of putting the cart before the horse! The salient point is this: You should train YGKYM so that it becomes your natural way of moving and fighting. My instructor has been in WC for close to 35 years and I see YGKYM in everything he does!!


Yeah sure, I would hope that you can see elements of the Y in everything I do, even if it's only the position of the back thigh and the tuck of the perineum when I'm stepping in with a walking kick. But it's not a question of putting the cart before the horse: it's a question of how much you see a static position in what should be a dynamic situation.

I mean I know, I know all that stuff about only moving when you need to in wing chun... it's a great philosophy to keep in mind, but fights (and competitions and sparring and chi sao and whatever) are dynamic, and the Y is just NOT a way of moving, while there are elements of it I can use in moving.



Originally posted by Nick Forrer
To me, the situation you describe is a Bil Gee scenario. I.E. I've made a mistake; Im going to get hit/I am getting hit- what can I do to minimise my losses?


I don't hold with BG being an emergency bag of tricks... there's no such thing as a BG situation: BG should be a part of your kung fu, not just 'Ah ****, I'm gonna get it, now where did I put my BG?!' ... Doesn't sound much like a reflex action to me!

First you make the principles of SLT part of your reflex (and in it, with the opening, the start of chi gerk and the huen bo footwork of BG; with the double fuk/lan there's the lan from CK to the elbow from the start of BG, and the bounce punch from CK and the uppercut from BG... etc etc), then the CK principles, then the BG principles. There should be no 'That's a BG technique': it should all be part of the continuum.

To me BG is not a list of emergency techniques, it's a set of active principles to be drilled that give you back your freedom of expression to fight naturally with the principles from SLT and CK and whatever else you're learning. It's to let you out of the box that is the first to basic sets. It's only advanced in that it says, 'You have the basics, but with this short range power/short range body unity, it doesn't matter what you do!'


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
And yes there are situations where you might do this (what you suggest). However to me WC is like chess in that you have to think more than one move ahead. Yes by ducking you may avoid the first attack but what about the next? Conversley by being upright with your head up and your weight centrally distributed you are in a 'golden mean' or 'goldilocks' position i.e. you can move with equal ease in any direction.


Yes there are situations like this... like how about every situation where you don't wanna get punched in the head...?!

I'm not just talking about ducking, though there is sometimes a need for that. I'm talking about tucking your chin in so you can still see your opponent, plus, in the game of chess, while I'm ducking or even keeping my head down, I'm still striking/lapping etc, I'm not using ducking as my only defence strategy.

I fail to see:

1) How NOT keeping your chin tucked and your head down is a good fight strategy;

2) How doing the above is going to break the magic of WC power generation... I can still adhere to the principle of CMA that says that you have the cord from heavens pulling your head up, it's just pulling it up from the back of your head and therefore straight from your spine which would seem to me to create opposing tensions in your neck that are going to strengthen it in the event of a rocking blow to the head;

3) How having your head up is gonna improve your speed or balance of movement 'with equal ease in any direction'. With my head tucked, I can move in any direction... I'm not talking about a Quasimodo stance!!!

4) How practising both ways is bad...! If my head gets grabbed in the tucked position, I'm not suddenly gonna be projected into the floor, or forced off balance... I can roll my head to one side ('sticky head' TM lol), and pop it back up on the other side of the attack (so duck out and pull back if necessary). If it's grabbed in the straight position I'm gonna have to do the same anyway.


Originally posted by Nick Forrer
As I see it the fundamental point about YGKYM is that it establishs a 'facing' position. And this is important because WC is about (in the main, although there are of course exceptions) fighting from this kind of position. This allows for the use of both hands equally- for simultaneous attack and defence- since both hands are an equal distance from the target. Moreover by occupying the centre and covering your gates you are 'mapping' the space in front of you and thus predetermining your opponents possibilities of attack. This, combined with the tactile reflexes developed by CHI Sau is what gives the WC player a strategic edge.


Agree completely with the idea of squared-off strategy (though again in practice there are many reasons not to). But you're talking about using the Y as a fighting stance, which to me it just isn't.

I don't really want to turn this into another WC thread (it's the wrong forum!!! ) so I'll respect your right to practise WC very differently to me ... buuuut just a couple of questions:
1) Do you actually fight in the Y stance, with your feet parallel and inverted?
2) Do you never use in a back-weighted stance or a pin ma?
3) Do you not turn (use!) your hips at all?

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Mat
I don't hold with BG being an emergency bag of tricks... there's no such thing as a BG situation: BG should be a part of your kung fu, not just 'Ah ****, I'm gonna get it, now where did I put my BG?!' ... Doesn't sound much like a reflex action to me!




There is a non sequiter here- namely that because a technique is for an 'emergency' it therefore cant be instinctive- I see no reason why 'emergency techniques' cant be 'part' of your kung fu (whatever that phrase means exactly). Moreover I wouldnt say treating BG in this way involves any more or less of a reflex action then - 'I'm gonna get hit, better duck' does. In fact thats exactly how I would classify the latter response (as one to use in an emergency).



Originally posted by Mat
First you make the principles of SLT part of your reflex (and in it, with the opening, the start of chi gerk....




I dont practice Chi Gerk. I dont really know what it is. If I can kick then (except in certain limited situations) my opponent can kick too- so my kick has to arrive first- that is all. Also, I dont kick from close range (unless I am behind my opponent) since being on one foot near an opponent stood on two doesnt strike me as an intelligent strategy. To use your phrase - If you think so I want to fight you.



Originally posted by Mat
Originally posted by Mat
The bounce punch from CK and the uppercut from BG




My CK has no uppercut and my BG has no hook. The way I do it these punches are just variations of the basic straight punch with the same fundamental biomechanics involved. They are simply about moving the arm/fist from one point to another in a straight line when it is already out without first retracting it-that is all. Which is not to say I would never use a hook/uppercut in a fight- only that this is not the thinking behind those sections of my forms.



Originally posted by Mat
There should be no 'That's a BG technique': it should all be part of the continuum.




I see what you're getting at here and I can agree with the broad tenor of it i.e. that each set builds on the last and introduces you to the next level of WCK development. Again though the continuum can be this- all things being equal this is how I will fight (Using SNT/CK/Dummy techniques/principles etc.) but if I am in trouble i.e.

- If i am pinned against the wall,
- if I have fallen over,
- if both my hands have been grabbed,
- if im fighting more than one person,
- if my kick has been blocked,
- If I need to retreat,
- If one of my hands is injured etc.

then I will use BG techniques (which if you like 'violate' normal WC principles (for example hitting underneath your extended arm when normally you would hit over it) but which the situation nevertheless dictates I use to escape/minimise my losses)



Originally posted by Mat
To me BG is not a list of emergency techniques, it's a set of active principles to be drilled that give you back your freedom of expression to fight naturally




Again, false dichotomy- the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Mat
1) Do you actually fight in the Y stance, with your feet parallel and inverted?



In my YGKYM SLT stance my feet aren't parrallel. In my 'fighting' stances my feet are parallel, that is they point in the same direction - at a 45 deg. angle- a la chum kiu juen ma (side neutral stance, forward advancing/retreating stance etc.).

However an important point: At times (such as when I enter an opponent/take up their position) my feet 'double track' i.e. they are on two seperate but parrallel lines- this is the footwork from the dummy

Here is an explanation from my instructor as to why:

'I was taught the half circle (and thus double track) for entry by Wong Shun Leung. If your foot enters up the centre of the enemy between their legs it gives you less stability. Also it will change your line of attack and not be able to control their leg. If you half-circle for exmple with the right leg, then your right leg will control their left and their weight is forced onto their other leg which will then stop that being used against you. If you enter for example with the right leg up the centre, you are also more open to having your leg swept as the enemy feels your centre of gravity shift towards one side. I have found myself, that if someone coming in with a bong sau for example and their leg comes up my centre, I can feel their centre of gravity change and it is easy to sweep them or divert their bong sau into a different direction. If their leg half-circles I can feel the force is more controlling on me.'




Originally posted by Mat
2) Do you never use in a back-weighted stance or a pin ma?




My COG is always centrally distributed- when I turn/step/whatever I dont shift it across/over the back leg- if you like I am always 50/50.



Originally posted by Mat
3) Do you not turn (use!) your hips at all?




I turn my stance as one integrated unit and sometimes I rotate my waist (without turning my stance). I dont turn my hips though-this 'collapses' the stance- My hips/pelvis are/is always pushed up and out- this maintains the structural integrity of my stance thus allowing me to channel incoming force into the ground as well as generate my own force via the reverse method.

[blooming lotus]

nick..........there's a short string of quotes there that don't have the name of the postee making it a little hard to follow. Would you mind doing an edit......

[black and blue]

Interesing stuff from the other forum too, Nick. Keep us updated on your Taiji training.

Hear what your saying about standing post. Spent nearly two hours last Sunday alternating between two stances at about 20 mins each.... caught the tram back home and had legs like jelly. Got up at my stop and almost fell over, LOL.

:D

[Nick Forrer]

Hi Duncan

Hope all is well

Have updated Chen blog- dont want to de rail this thread

take care

Nick

[stuartm]

Hi Nick / all,

Some interesting points here. Some i agree with some i dont. I did practice Yang Style Tai Chi for a number of years along with Chi Gung so i can see some similarities.

Im not going to try and cover all the points exactly, but will just give some thoughts.

Wgen we perform 'Hoi Ma' i basically teach that you are practicing the rooting that will be essential when you begin to move. All those things about mai jiang, kim sut etc are all relevant, but have been mentioned countless times in so many WC books.

In Ip Ching / Ip Chun Wing Chun most of the weight will be on the rear leg and i think this is fairly common, however i am aware that Wong Sifu preferred to shift with 50/50 weight due to his experience in western boxing and i can see some advantage to that. Certainly when it comes to free sparring you need to be as mobile as possible, and being weighted on the rear leg is not always condusive to good movement.

We put a lot of emphasis on the waist or 'Yiu Ma' in order to develop two directinal energy essential for 'fan sao' whcih allows you deliver and receive attacks with some level of fluidity. This is most apparent in our biu jee form where we teach biu jee in realtion to generating two directional force, and not just recovery of the centreline.

As for Chi Gerk , it is useful but it is by no means an essential training element in IMHO. I would much prefer to concentrate on closing down any gap that appears quickly, regaining contact and avoiding kicks with footwork.

In Chum Kiu we do not use an uppercut or in Biu Jee. The punch in Chum kiu that we employ is just a centreline punch that moves straight from a bong sao position and and cuts in the centre as jic kuen. In order to uppercut i would have to drop the elbow, which IMHO is not wise especially if you take CK literally and you are turning to face an opponent at 90 degrees. However, an uppercut is a really useful punch, especially in exploiting bong sau.

In biu jee, we just say that our arms have lost their central position and we recover with a long bridge punch, i.e we do not return to the centre before punching.

These threads are always good fun, but the level of science people involve in their training often concerns me. Yes we need to train for perfection and employ all the WC principles that we know are essential, but i dont think we should be restricted or governed by a set of 'wc rules' or we are setting ourselves up for a fall. Go and test in sparring and see what works. Its a real turn off for me seeing WC books full of overtly complexed diagrams pontificating that my bong sau should elevate at 23.456 degrees etc etc. Just do loads of chi sao, understand and apply the rules, and then break them if it means that your self defence capability is improved !!!!

Peace, Stu :)

[Nick Forrer]

But you're talking about using the Y as a fighting stance, which to me it just isn't.


No I'm saying all my fighting stances are derivations of it- a subtle but important difference. If you like, it is the template or blue print for my fighting stances but it is not in the most literal sense my 'fighting' stance.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Fighting with your back completely straight at all times is restricting your movement in the vertical plane. Any straight punches coming from twisting your waist horizontally are fine, any uppercuts, downward crushing palms like in po pai/any jum sao, are not going to have any power."

This is a very true statement...and let me add one more..any hook punches thrown won't have any power either. The wing chun vertical punch is an incredibly effective punch....IF THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT.

But if the situation calls for a hook or an uppercut, or a downward strike...then what?

Hint: Don't keep your back completely straight...and don't worry about the "rules".

[anerlich]

Taiji guys discussing WC, something tells me if I don't read the thread I won't miss much.

Lifting the head correctly brings the chin in, doesn't thrust it out. A lot of guys lift their head and expose the jaw when "chasing hands" (bad) WC style, great way to get KTFO'ed by someone who knows what they are doing.

The back is meant to flex and move, sometimes you want it to be an I-beam, sometimes a spring, sometimes a whip. Dead straight spine is not for all situations - heavy lifting requires an arch.

In TWC, Y stance is a training stance. End of story. FWIW, most of our (my kwoon, not TWC as a whole) forms no longer use it.

[jonp]

"FWIW, most of our forms no longer use it." - ANerlich


any particualr reason why?

surely if its a training stance then when you train you might want to use it?


later!

jon

[Nick Forrer]

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for the input


Originally posted by stuartm
In Ip Ching / Ip Chun Wing Chun most of the weight will be on the rear leg and i think this is fairly common,


A friend of mine learnt from ip ching in HK and we have compared shifting/turning stances- he does 'root'/sink down more on the back leg then I do.


Originally posted by stuartm
I am aware that Wong Sifu preferred to shift with 50/50 weight due to his experience in western boxing and i can see some advantage to that.


Its true that WSL shifted with his weight 50/50 and its true that he had experience with western boxing. However, I'm not sure that the latter was necessarily the reason for the former if you catch my drift.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Andrew wrote:

"In TWC, Y stance is a training stance. End of story. FWIW, most of our (my kwoon, not TWC as a whole) forms no longer use it."

If I can put my two-cents in here...

The front stance is a better stance to attack from from...the Y stance an excellent stance to defend from...especially so if the opponent is really coming in with a fast and COMMITTED move.

But Andrew (and Rick Spain) are definitely onto something, IMO, because it's always better to attack than to defend.

[sihing]

Quote: Victor P.
"The front stance is a better stance to attack from...the Y stance an excellent stance to defend from...especially so if the opponent is really coming in with a fast and COMMITTED move.
But Andrew (and Rick Spain) are definitely onto something, IMO, because it's always better to attack than to defend."

Depends on the situation, if your sucker punched and have no idea of a impending attack then it doesn't matter what stance your in, but I agree with Victor that the front stance is "the only" stance to be attacking from. If the confrontation becomes a "challenge" street fight where the "dukes" are up, then IMO the Neutral Side Stance of TWC should be used, it gives all access to all directions equally. To stand off with someone in the front stance is just limiting your options and giving then a target, although all tech can be applied in the front stance, this should just be used in contact range and closer, not in the pre-contact stage, IMO....

Also yes it is better to attack than defend and be one step behind, but IMO WC philosophy/concepts are all about attack. When one initiate’s the attack before myself then that is just the circumstance of the situation, sometimes it’s not possible to initiate (surprise attacks). Arm destructions, destroy the weapon philosophies are all in TWC and are ingrained in the tech. Whether I use a Bil Sao, Tan/Wu Sao, Cheun Sao to deflect an attack it is destroying their weapons, due to Mok Jong training and proper alignment of the arms and hitting vital/sensitive points automatically on the arms, legs and body.

Sihing



Sihing

[anerlich]

To stand off with someone in the front stance is just limiting your options and giving then a target, although all tech can be applied in the front stance, this should just be used in contact range and closer, not in the pre-contact stage, IMO....

With an exchange step you can change sides just as quickly as you can from side neutral, and with greater safety. Maybe you can't but I sure can.

This philosophy was undertaken after my Sifu and Sihings watched many tournament matches ... those who took up side neutral either got pushed back into the ropes at terrific velocity, or stepped back into front stance and fought from there. And also after private discussions between my Sifu and his ... no doubt Sigung can work form side neutral,but much emprical evidence, including students taught by him directly in those tournaments, has him in the minority.

As William Cheung said once in my presence, "no contact, no fight."

NOT just IMO ...

[Ultimatewingchun]

There is a middle-ground answer to this little debate between Andrew and James...

I've seen William Cheung (many times) - and especially when up against a very fast and aggressive man when demonstrating a move at some seminars and private lessons...

I've seen him START from a stance that's in-between the side neutral and the front stance...meaning...his "lead" leg is 10-12 inches closer to the opponent than the other leg...but he's still in the side-body stance position.

It increases the speed with which he can move forward to attack (or counter attack) - while still preserving the ability to side step quickly.

The stance needs to be somewhat more narrow than the typical side neutral stance (legs closer together) - in order to make the forward movement speed optimal.

I've been using and teaching this stance (and strategy) for many years now to my advanced students...it works very well.

But...as Andrew initially said...the front stance is more useful in the final analysis because you should always be on the attack...which requires a full front stance more often than not.

[anerlich]

"any particualr reason why?

surely if its a training stance then when you train you might want to use it?"

Sorry, missed this earlier.

TWC as taught by William Cheung has the Y stance as the basis for SLT, single parallel arm and double arm chi sao, and drilling other techniques. It's alleged purpose is to develop leg strength, stance solidity, basic structure and similar attributes. And also a basic position from which to practice upper body techniques without worrying too much what the lower body is doing, though really the whole body is always involved.

However, the stance is NEVER used in sparring or fighting, save as a strictly transitory stance through which one moves. My Sifu and some Sihings, guided by the aforementioned empirical evidence and other training and conversations with Sigung Cheung, led them to the conclusion that the front stance was a better stance for forms and training as it more closely resembles what we actually want to be able to do in an alive situation.

As another poster said once, "I am not looking for validation." YMMV - the imporartant point being that if ANY approach is taken on faith without doing your own mileage, i.e seeing whether it REALLY works or another approach may or may not be superior (overall - every approach has advantages and disadvantages, and may suit some better than others), you have no mileage which may (or may not) vary.