Wing chun footwork, is it mobile enough?

[SAAMAG]

Although many things are relative depending upon the situation... generally speaking, do you all think that the wing chun footwork is "mobile" enough for fighting in it's totality?

I've noticed a lot of different variances from one wing chun system to the next as far as placement of the feet, direction of the feet, weight distribution on the feet, and whether or not to be on the heels or if it's okay to be on the balls of the feet at times during an encounter.

What's your take on it?

[45degree fist]

everyone is gonna give you there take on whats right and whats wrong.
but plain and simple if you train at doing something a certain way your gonna get good at that method.

whether it is right or wrong is a different story.

my personal opinion about mobility in wing chun is that your training and training to fight at a certain range. different fams have different ranges. once you leave what you know is when you get in trouble.

but alot of stances are not very mobile.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Van:

Footwork and mobility...especially from a longer than just-outside-of-contact-range distance...has always been a big sticking point (no pun intended) in the modern WC world.

Some styles are clearly more up-to-date and mobile than others.

[KingMonkey]

I believe that 50/50 on the toes footwork is the best. Some WC lineages train that way TWC maybe ?
A lot dont, I was initially taught 0/100% weighting.
Trying to move around like that is just plain silly.

[sihing]

50/50 with the weight centered on the foot is recommended. ON the toes would mean your leaning too much and can be off balanced easier.

Mobility is key to success in combat/self defense, a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. But efficient movement that is more precise and only enough movement to get the job done is not as easy to learn and requires patients & consistent effort in learning to apply it successfully.

James

[Jeff Bussey]

So does anyone have any good stepping drills that they use to improve mobility?
I did a tiny bit of boxing and in the stance, our heel was lifted on our back foot to give a forward spring. We definitely had weight on the front foot and pretty close to a 50 / 50 stance.
It was pretty mobile.

J

[sihing]

In my system, we have the opponent’s foot and knee down the center of our stance. Now one of the drills we do is a simple one, follow your partner around as he tries to circle you or moves left to right, all the while keeping the original alignment mentioned above. We always try to cut off the opponent and never circle around like boxers, basically "cutting off the ring" to use a boxing analogy. For more advanced students when the partner tries to flank us and we can't recover but he is in range a pseudo entry, or entry technique would be used to begin the attack.

James

[yellowpikachu]

Until the power generation, the power delivering execution, and the foot work become one. most of the time is an unsatisfactory mobility.

Thus, one needs an MDX 4 wheel drive ;) (joking)

My two cents.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jeff:

Besides keeping the weight 50/50...when you move forward - don't drag the feet. Lift them..and practice drilling so as to land on the balls of your feet first and then let the heels come to the floor. Nothing dramatic - just a slight lift of the heel off the floor when stepping - so that the balls of the feet land first.

Your mobility will greatly improve. That's a big part of what's taught in TWC.

[SAAMAG]

Honestly, I see where the theory of keeping the heels on the ground comes from. You're more rooted, it facilitates all the wing chun movements as far as turning, sidestepping, bracing stances etc. But just as walking is to running, one is faster then the other.

In all my experience in martial arts, regardless of style, faster stepping and movements were on the balls of the feet. Forward shooting stances, back shuffles, sidestepping, all of it. I was a bit suprised honestly when I was first introduced to wing chun and found the stepping and stancework to be only on the flat feet. Now...years later, I find myself still altering the footwork a little bit to accomodate my needs. The core rules still apply, but there are times when I feel using the calf muscle by springing off the ball of the foot seems more appropriate. It works better for me anyway. Almost like going from heel and rolling the foot off for the "spring action" and then landing on the balls and onto the heels. Heels for stability, and balls of the feet more mobility.

This may be what Ultimate is talking about...but the info could be getting misinterpreted.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Besides keeping the weight 50/50...when you move forward - don't drag the feet. Lift them..and practice drilling so as to land on the balls of your feet first and then let the heels come to the floor. Victor,
In TWC, Is this principle of landing on the ball of the foot first, the same short and long steps? Just curious.......

Thanks,

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by 45degree fist
my personal opinion about mobility in wing chun is that your training and training to fight at a certain range. different fams have different ranges. once you leave what you know is when you get in trouble.

Ranges have a definate affect on stance/footwork, IMO. At long range it's better to be on the balls of the feet and have a 50/50 distribution, this is much better for mobility. When in close range it is better to be on the heels for grounding and power and weighted more to the rear for ease of kicking/chi gurk.

Also, once you have attained a degree of skill, it's ok to leave (or venture forth from) what you know for the sake of improving it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Now...years later, I find myself still altering the footwork a little bit to accomodate my needs. The core rules still apply, but there are times when I feel using the calf muscle by springing off the ball of the foot seems more appropriate. It works better for me anyway. Almost like going from heel and rolling the foot off for the "spring action" and then landing on the balls and onto the heels. Heels for stability, and balls of the feet more mobility.

This may be what Ultimate is talking about...but the info could be getting misinterpreted."


That's exactly what I mean, Van.

And Bill - good question...and AmanuJRY provided most of the answer:

The smaller the steps needed - the closer you are to the opponent - so landing flat will provide more rooted power...the longer the step required - the more landing on the ball first provides greater speed and mobility.

Like he said:

"At long range it's better to be on the balls of the feet and have a 50/50 distribution, this is much better for mobility. When in close range it is better to be on the heels for grounding and power."

But I don't agree about having the weight on the back foot when close (can needlessly slow you down)...I only advocate the weight on the back foot when you're going to kick off the front leg - with just a few exceptions (certain scenarios may require it).

And therefore I wouldn't say have the weight on the heels when close - just move flat when very close.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
But I don't agree about having the weight on the back foot when close (can needlessly slow you down)...I only advocate the weight on the back foot when you're going to kick off the front leg - with just a few exceptions (certain scenarios may require it).


My view on that is when I'm in close range, I like to use my front leg/foot a lot. Whether it's kicking, kneeing or just being used as a 'man gurk' to sense my opponent's stance and destroy it. So, in using my front leg in close range, I use a more rearward stance.

as kj would say, milage may vary.;)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The smaller the steps needed - the closer you are to the opponent - so landing flat will provide more rooted power...the longer the step required - the more landing on the ball first provides greater speed and mobility. Victor,
I just wanted to know if TWC had a different theory. Thanks for the detailed response. :)

[SAAMAG]

Something I've told my training partners and private students in relation to stepping and footwork....

Everybody questions the reason why we are on our heels and goes against the grain when Im teaching them wing chun basics. It's because almost ALL of them have prior martial arts experience.

I find myself telling them, bottom line is, when Im fighting long range I use long range footwork. When Im in med - close range and Im able to use my wing chun techniques, I use wing chun footwork. Period. It's funny because one of the guys replies to this by saying...."It's too simple - I can't do it!"

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Vankuen
I find myself telling them, bottom line is, when Im fighting long range I use long range footwork. When Im in med - close range and Im able to use my wing chun techniques, I use wing chun footwork. Period. It's funny because one of the guys replies to this by saying...."It's too simple - I can't do it!" Why do we always want to make things more complex than they need to be? Gulity as charged. ;) I'm just curious why you don't also include long range footwork as "wing chun footwork"? For me, I would classify the close range footwork as Chum Kiu footwork, but all foot work is still WC footwork. Just an observation.

Also, having previous martial arts experience before WC, I have found that at times it can be a hinderance. Old habits die hard.

[SAAMAG]

I suppose you would be right if I only used wing chun footwork, but I don't. When I'm performing wing chun I do, but the times when Im doing another system like muay thai or shaolin chuan, then no I don't.

The only thing I really augment in my wing chun stepping is with the biu ma. When I shuffle forward (or backward when necessary) I tend to spring off the ball of the foot to get a better shoot. For the most part all else is the same. I like stability.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Matrix
I'm just curious why you don't also include long range footwork as "wing chun footwork"? For me, I would classify the close range footwork as Chum Kiu footwork, but all foot work is still WC footwork. Just an observation.

That's a good observation. The reason, IMO, is that it isn't the way we were taught to view footwork. For instance, when I learned WT, I was shown one view of foot work and that was supposed to be an all-inclusive approach to footwork. The long-range aspect of it was only addressed by 'walking' steps as opposed to shuffling steps, nothing about mobility, being less rooted and the like. Then learning Escrima, a (generally) long range art, I leared to stay less rooted, more mobil and to use lateral movement. So, the view of it not being WC footwork is from the fact that, in my mind, I assosiate that kind of footwork to Escrima.

Then, I started to see that footwork varies from branch to branch, some apply the long-range concepts, etc. and as I get better at what I do, the lines blur and the concept of footwork trancends style, it's no longer WC footwork or Escrima footwork, it's just my footwork.

But ulitmately, the footwork belongs to what you assosiate it to in your mind.

[Sam]

Fut Sao Wing Chun Kuen has many footworks. Siu Baat Gwa (Little Octagon) is our circular/angular footworks. We also have straight line entering as well as inner circle footworks. These are done in all ranges, angles, circles, heights and speeds. http://www.futsaoyongchunkuen.com/handfootforms.htm

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
But ulitmately, the footwork belongs to what you assosiate it to in your mind. Sure enough. Like you said, the lines can blur. It's all good WC to me. Adapability of footwork to a variety of ranges is key along with timing of when to be more or less mobile, or more or less rooted (not the aussie definition) ;). Each element has specific purpose.

[AndrewS]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY

Then, I started to see that footwork varies from branch to branch, some apply the long-range concepts, etc. and as I get better at what I do, the lines blur and the concept of footwork trancends style, it's no longer WC footwork or Escrima footwork, it's just my footwork.

But ulitmately, the footwork belongs to what you assosiate it to in your mind.

Agreed, though I'd seriously quarrel with the escrima=less rooted.

One of the concepts I take from Mr. Latosa's escrima is the idea of being 'on point' at all times- being able to put force in the ground from any direction, move in any direction without significant preparatory weight shift, fire any weapon (kick, punch, elbow, stick, etc) without obligate body motion, all with full body power with the heel up or down.

The closer you get to the above idea, the less relevant the 'shape' of your footwork is.

Andrew

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Agreed, though I'd seriously quarrel with the escrima=less rooted.

I suppose it would depend on how we define the term 'rooted'.

When my goal is to have strong incline power I need to be more 'rooted' and I feel this is best accomplished by WC footwork, when it's to have explosive, gap-closing mobility, the Escrima is more suited for this.

I wouldn't say that either one is better than the other in terms of body mechanics or power generation, just that the WC footwork feels like it's rooted deeper to me.

Of course, when they start to blur together the need to identify them separately becomes a moot point.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"When my goal is to have strong incline power I need to be more 'rooted' and I feel this is best accomplished by WC footwork, when it's to have explosive, gap-closing mobility, the Escrima is more suited for this....Of course, when they start to blur together the need to identify them separately becomes a moot point." (Justin)

And when fighting a mobile opponent in a space that allows for movement - then all of the above may apply (and constantly change) within the blink of an eye. Both types of footwork - rooted and mobile - need to be trained and integrated together.

But I don't just label it either WC or escrima. It could (and should) come from a number of places...various WC approaches, boxing, escrima, JKD, wherever.

As long as the basic duo is present - rooted and mobile - then we have the ingredients we need to start the cooking...regardless of "exactly" what style they come from.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
As long as the basic duo is present - rooted and mobile - then we have the ingredients we need to start the cooking...regardless of "exactly" what style they come from. Exactly!
And once you integrate this into your Wing Chun, it becomes part of the whole and no longer a separate entity. So it is your WC footwork. You have made it so. :cool:

[SAAMAG]

Let's go over the basic movements, and I will use simple english first as Im sure the variances in the dialect of styles and lineages would cause some misinterpretation at some point....

a chasing, or shooting stance : For me this is either stepping with the lead leg and then bringing up the rear, or for the shooting stance, pressing off the rear leg first to "shoot" forward as you step with the lead and bring up the rear.

a backward shuffle : Again, similar to the first stance, either step back with the rear leg and let the lead follow, or press off the lead leg as the rear steps back and bring the lead leg back. (depending on the catalyst, I may choose to step the lead leg back and then the rear leg...)

stepping or bracing stances (where you're moving forward or backward but alternating feet) : using the turning stance and the stepping simultaneously pretty much. I step forward at an angle 45 degrees from the jung sin pivoting on my heels. Or I can step back 45 degrees with the same side leg (of the direction Im stepping) bracing with the heel.

a sidestep to either side, or at an angle in relation to the starting point (E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW): simple enough, the only major variance is that I can face toward the center after the step or in the same direction as the step. (inside/outside turning)

turning stances (Ie keeping the same basic space but rotating the body/structure) : to me this is the foundation of the wing chun movements....turning the body as one structure for give a bit more extension in the movements and allow for proper alignment to generate power.

*now of course there other variances of stancework, but I think I covered the basics...

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
And when fighting a mobile opponent in a space that allows for movement - then all of the above may apply (and constantly change) within the blink of an eye. Both types of footwork - rooted and mobile - need to be trained and integrated together.

But I don't just label it either WC or escrima. It could (and should) come from a number of places...various WC approaches, boxing, escrima, JKD, wherever.

As long as the basic duo is present - rooted and mobile - then we have the ingredients we need to start the cooking...regardless of "exactly" what style they come from.

I'm with you. Rooted-ness and mobility are like the Yin and Yang of footwork.




Matrix
Exactly!
And once you integrate this into your Wing Chun, it becomes part of the whole and no longer a separate entity. So it is your WC footwork. You have made it so.

But, this is where the confusion arises. Since it came from an outside source is it WC footwork? and, if you integrate it into WC and call it WC footwork, are you modifying the system (since it's not what you were taught by your WC instructor)?
Some would argue these kinds of things. So, I address them to their origin (WC, Escrima, Boxing, etc.) and when they become one, it's just MY footwork.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
But, this is where the confusion arises. Since it came from an outside source is it WC footwork? Justin,
I don't see it as confusing at all. For me, I am a Wing Chun guy. If I add something from the "outside" it becomes part of my Kung Fu. I no longer feel the need to make the distinction between inside and outside. I am not a slave to "the system", but prefer to work on mastering my kung fu to the best levels that serve me. Having said that, I am careful to add only those attributes to compliment the core concepts.

Of course, you are free to make any distinctions that you like. Whatever works for you is best, IMO.

[AmanuJRY]

Bill,

I agree with you fully. I just make that distinction for the sake of communication (to those who are still a 'slave to the system').

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Vankuen
a chasing, or shooting stance: For me this is either stepping with the lead leg and then bringing up the rear, or for the shooting stance, pressing off the rear leg first to "shoot" forward as you step with the lead and bring up the rear.

Just an observation on this stance. We've experimented with having the rear foot angled or pointing straight ahead. When angled, the gluteal muscles seem to drive the movement, but when straight, the calf muscles drive it. The gluteal muscles are bigger, so should allow for a more powerful thrust forwards. We also don't have the feet in line with each other (I don't know what other lineages do in this respect) - we have the angled toes of the front foot in line with the angled rear heel, i.e. the feet are offset, allowing more stability than having them in line with each other.

BTW, does anyone have any plyometric exercises aimed specifically at improving the explosiveness of shooting forward in this stance?

Stevo

[SAAMAG]

I believe I do it the same way as you Steve from the sound of it. Other than in CK, I don't like having my legs completely in line. To much instability on two sides. It doesn't feel right to me.

In any case, something plyometric could be jumping drills. This works all the muscles in question from the calves up to the gluts. I used to do them a lot when I was doing more acrobatic Shaolin style MA.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
I just make that distinction for the sake of communication (to those who are still a 'slave to the system'). No problems with that, my friend. :)

Peace,

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Vankuen
I believe I do it the same way as you Steve from the sound of it. Other than in CK, I don't like having my legs completely in line. To much instability on two sides. It doesn't feel right to me.

In any case, something plyometric could be jumping drills. This works all the muscles in question from the calves up to the gluts. I used to do them a lot when I was doing more acrobatic Shaolin style MA.


Vankuen: yes, the narrow stance is unstable laterally, but I can see the value of training it that way in Chum Kiu (whether it was originally designed to be used in combat that way or not), as it must help improve overall stability and balance.

I was thinking of incorporating a jumping drill into my training routine - the one where you jump off a box and spring back up when you land. Is that the one you mean? I used to do dumbell lunges, which seemed pretty good, and am thinking of starting them again too, but at the moment am just getting an idea of what other people do to train this explosiveness.

Stevo