HEy fighters -- do you have to wear that GPS?

[yellowpikachu]

In case the Praying Mantis Guys decide to KICK? :D



Do you have to wear a Groin Protection Cup or GPC while doing the YJKYM? I know the one who use wide horse stance surely need it. But not sure for the YJKYM people! if dont have to. then one saves some time from wasting to wear that GPS ops GPC. :D:D:D



Thus, I have heard, in YJKYM one just have to tug the butt front to use the a$$ muscle to protect the groin. see what a great OLD GPC FREE YJKYM design (great thick cusion nature condition muscle on the way to safe! Free! :D), one will learn this if one waste some time search about YJKYM in YUHOOO history website?:D

Thanks to the mighty wise ancestors who design the great GPC free YJKYM! :D:D:D what a wonderfull thing to know incase one forgot to wear that GPC that day when they decide to KICK!


Achtung! NO TRying of stunt at home! NO TRYing of anything on TV at home since the ACTORS ARE PROFFESIONALS!

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
More time and bandwidth wasted.


Have a sense of Humor and a good laugh.
or else ignore the darn post.

Why even waste time to even be so serious?

laugh is great and makes one younger and have a better heart blood circulation too. :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

And again....

More time and bandwidth wasted.


Using "humor" to mask one's real intentions doesn't work IF PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THE HUMOR.

And what are those real intentions all about?

It's about this.............


Somebody around here has no answer to kick attacks to the groin

Somebody around here has no answer to takedowns

Somebody around here resents the fact that others have such answers

Somebody around here is totally dishonest about his real motives

Somebody around here will always change the subject when answers do come







....Because they are not the answers he wants.


The answers are not oriental (or they are oriental but not within his grasp) - and so his personal prejudices and insecurities can't deal with that.

So he decides to rewrite oriental history from previous centuries.

To fit his wannebe conceptions of how to deal with groin kicks, takedowns, boxers, grapplers, and the like.

The man is a fraud.

And a lying, deceiving, and if-I-can't-dominate-it-then-I'll-hijack-it thief.

The past is all he has - because the debates about his revisionist history can be debated ad infinitum.

But the PRESENT....

Ah yes! - the present...that would require showing us something tangible.

And then the game is up.

He's got nothing to show.

So it's back to the revisionism - and the attempted hijackings - and the words to songs that go on for days.

WHAT A FOOL !

And a waste of time and bandwidth........

[Matrix]

Victor,

Why don't you just put him on your Ignore List?
Your responses take up as much time and bandwidth as his posts.

[Jim Roselando]

Victor!


Obviously you do not appreciate HS's posts but why not give this one a shot and really think about it before hammering/insulting.

YJKYM as taught by Leung Jan, Yuen Kay San, Yik Kam and others utilize a narrow horse. Much different from TWC version of WC and other big horse methods. In close range fighting the biggest worry IMO is a low line sweeping up groin flick/kick. Funny thing is this seems to be a major concern for most short hand arts including south mantis and other arts. They all practice a reasonably narrow horse and that would be ONE reason. """It closes off that line into you!""" This way you do not have to make adjustment and you can let the Hand to Hand and Foot to Foot come into play.

The method HS talks about is very very common low line sweep groin attack defense for WCK and other systems.

So, since you advocate a wider horse can you please tell us how would you defend the lifting kick from close range?

This would be much more productive than insulting IMO. OR! Just Ignore him since you feel its a waste of time. Others do not! Such is life!


Regards,

[t_niehoff]

From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" or "pose" with a fixed width (or fixed anything else), it is a body mechanic . As such, I can do YJKYM on one leg, two legs, with "wide" or "narrow" legs *depending on the situation*. Just as tan sao isn't a fixed position but an action, so is YJKYM -- an action, not a position. The fixed posture, regardless of how one is *taught* it, is simply to get across the idea of action, of the feeling -- just as is the fixed posture of the tan sao. To think of YJKYM as a fixed stance or posture is beginner level WCK.

The "clamping" of the knees is not a necessary part of YJKYM, but is another element that is combined into that point *in some lineages*. The clamping *action* (again, not a pose) has its own applications.

My "biggest worry" in close isn't some kick to the groin because when I'm close, my opponent's structure is broken -- he won't be able to kick (I don't get close unless his balance is destroyed). If his balance/structure isn't broken, a narrow horse won't save you.

[Jim Roselando]

T,


From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" or "pose" with a fixed width (or fixed anything else), it is a body mechanic . As such, I can do YJKYM on one leg, two legs, with "wide" or "narrow" legs *depending on the situation*. Just as tan sao isn't a fixed position but an action, so is YJKYM -- an action, not a position. The fixed posture, regardless of how one is *taught* it, is simply to get across the idea of action, of the feeling -- just as is the fixed posture of the tan sao. To think of YJKYM as a fixed stance or posture is beginner level WCK.

We all know its not a pose or something locked in. Certain things are structured certain ways for certain reasons. YJKYM is not a big or wide horse as that will take away from the YJKYM "idea/purpose"! One of the reasons YJKYM is not so wide is so that it closes off one of the lines into the body to protect the low without have to make major adjustment. Its exactly the same with South Mantis and other short hand arts. Sum Nung said: Elbows in and to close off that line and clamp the KYM to close off that line into your body. Another reason for the smaller frame is to produce short vibrating bang. The wider your horse the less short power you will have as it will disolve in your body. It becomes more of a wave of power versus a shock. JR

The "clamping" of the knees is not a necessary part of YJKYM, but is another element that is combined into that point *in some lineages*. The clamping *action* (again, not a pose) has its own applications.

There is indeed a "slight" (slight) clamping going on in the YJKYM to support the structure. Then there is the clamping that one would use to control an attack going in from that up sweep line. JR

My "biggest worry" in close isn't some kick to the groin because when I'm close, my opponent's structure is broken -- he won't be able to kick (I don't get close unless his balance is destroyed). If his balance/structure isn't broken, a narrow horse won't save you.

Ok! Sounds good but since almost all of the south fist art and artist I know feel its important I would have to see you doing this stuff to see why its not a concern for you and it is for them and others. But! Atleast you wrote; "My" biggest worry and "I" dont get get close enough versus speaking of WCK in general. Certainly controlling someones balance is important and your right that unless someones balance isn't broken a NARROW (and you forgot to mention) "or a WIDE horse" wont save you. What good is it if he is still in control and can hit you with full power when you are trying to do your thing to him!


Regards,

[yellowpikachu]

From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" or "pose" with a fixed width (or fixed anything else), it is a body mechanic . As such, I can do YJKYM on one leg, two legs, with "wide" or "narrow" legs *depending on the situation*. Just as tan sao isn't a fixed position but an action, so is YJKYM -- an action, not a position. The fixed posture, regardless of how one is *taught* it, is simply to get across the idea of action, of the feeling -- just as is the fixed posture of the tan sao. To think of YJKYM as a fixed stance or posture is beginner level WCK. ............------------------



when the reference of the Technology history is lost. all interpretation is alive. and up for anyone to interplate.
As one likes it. but the question is is it or is it not? a tough one.




My "biggest worry" in close isn't some kick to the groin because when I'm close, my opponent's structure is broken -- he won't be able to kick (I don't get close unless his balance is destroyed). If his balance/structure isn't broken, a narrow horse won't save you. --------------


To totally broken the opponents structure is to take the place under the opponents body. Nothing is close if the leg is not under others' body. a low kick is great because it serves as a transition /gap closer/ door opener from begining of going to take other's place and aquired that place.

The wide horse has to do something to protect the target otherwise the lower door is wide open. the narrow horse just shift a little. Same Wing Chun concept of not chasing hand. This way, the narrow horse just shift enough to not being bother by the kick but still has the Momentum or structure. The wide horse stance has to do something. That is it has to close the "lower door". That is called for big motion. how can one talk about struture without seeing all of these?


Saying this open to another can or Worm. The manuval of knee or the knee work which is an important part of the narrow stance characteristics among with the shifting of COG, and using the a$$ to take the groin kick when there is no way out. Those are the short limbs art of the "lower gate" . (note: it is not duin kiu here. but short limbs. I use the fujian term teh kee to not confuse with kiu. just it is not right that everything is Kiu. )


Look at the Mantis clip on how they train to take away the central gravitiy of the oponents in slanding or forwand wide stance. That shows they have the technology waiting for the wide stance people and they also know very clearlly how to take away the place and CoG.

Do we have a technical history about how to defence against these old stuffs?

if there is a paradigm shift as we believe. then all the lower gate attack issue better be addressed in the technological history.
otherwise, the art is not even par in the old time. how is it going to be superior ? and how is it going to go forward?



just some thoughts.

[AndrewS]

Terence writes:

>My "biggest worry" in close isn't some kick to the groin because when I'm close, my opponent's structure is broken -- he won't be able to kick (I don't get close unless his balance is destroyed). If his balance/structure isn't broken, a narrow horse won't save you.

Terence, that's optimism and you know it. Reality is that sometimes you wind up cozy with someone with a sweet base and bad intentions, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise.

As to narrow or wide- control the low centerline with your knees, ain't that all that matters?


Andrew

[Ultimatewingchun]

"YJKYM as taught by Leung Jan, Yuen Kay San, Yik Kam and others utilize a narrow horse. Much different from TWC version of WC and other big horse methods. In close range fighting the biggest worry IMO is a low line sweeping up groin flick/kick. Funny thing is this seems to be a major concern for most short hand arts including south mantis and other arts. They all practice a reasonably narrow horse and that would be ONE reason. """It closes off that line into you!""" This way you do not have to make adjustment and you can let the Hand to Hand and Foot to Foot come into play.

The method HS talks about is very very common low line sweep groin attack defense for WCK and other systems.

So, since you advocate a wider horse can you please tell us how would you defend the lifting kick from close range?

This would be much more productive than insulting IMO. OR! Just Ignore him since you feel its a waste of time." (Jim Roselando)


Finally.....

A Hendrik antic is turned into a productive discussion. Thanks, Jim.

Looking at elbows and knees - as you know - is a big part of TWC. And when we get very close to the opponent...we almost always place our lead leg (and especially the lead knee - by lowering the horse so that the knee is bent fairly low)...in the path that the opponent's foot would have to travel in order to deliver a groin kick. (The TWC front stance looks very similar to a long range boxer's front stance...ie.- Muhammad Ali). So a quick raising of the leg will often intercept and disrupt an attempted groin kick. (As AndrewS alluded to).

But in addition, we are constantly monitoring (looking at) the opponent's lead knee EVEN AT CLOSE RANGES - usually bouncing our direct line-of-sight vision back and forth between his lead elbow and lead knee...

the one exception being when he have solid contact with one of his arms...and the closer we are to contacting one of his elbows...the more this exception is true - because since we have more control over his balance when we have a grip on or near his elbow...WE STOP LOOKING at knees entirely and focus direct vision on elbows and targets.

With this kind of contact (and control)...you can FEEL an attempt to lift a leg and kick - which can usually be countered by pulling the arm we have in our grasp downward toward the floor. (The attempted kick will also be pulled downward by this action).

From long range distances (ie.- no limb-to-limb contact whatsoever - but still within a kicking range)...by visually monitoring the elbows and knees we can see a groin kick in time to stop-kick it or by a sidestep and hand block/deflection...since at this range we will now have time to look back up to his nearest elbow (after his kick)...in time to deal with any hand strike or a rush-to-grab that might now be coming.

Thanks again for a good here and now question - and whatever discussion you may chose to follow up with...as AndrewS and Terence have already done.

[PaulH]

Hendrik's excellent point on the minor shift of the stance to cover low line attack is very valid and logical within the WCK theory and application framework. We should have more of these kinds of discussion. =)

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by PaulH
Hendrik's excellent point on the minor shift of the stance to cover low line attack is very valid and logical within the WCK theory and application framework. We should have more of these kinds of discussion. =)


The confucious said " review and examine the past, one will come to understand the new ideas. that way one then can be a sifu."


Pual,


The Zen poem, on planting the padi (rice). said:

Full handed, plant the padi in the water field.
Bow down and one shall see the sky from the water
when the root of six senses are not attach to bias and illusion that is practicing Dao.
Then, one realized, moving backward is actually progress foward.


http://homepage.mac.com/swhenneberry/japan/PhotoAlbum18.html

click and look at the one "They use the rope to make straight rows." and
"The men stand work the supply lines."
you will understand the poem.



See, as it said Bow down and one shall see the sky from the water. if one is looking around or moving forward one not only cant plant the padi but trip because one cannot see everything clearly.

Bow down, one sees the water, the padi, the earth, and the sky. the step. the past the present the future.

When the root of six senses is clear there is no delusion. So no need to argue. one sees clearlly what is what.

as planting the padi in the field, one has to walk backward to plan the whole field.


Isnt it a part of nature? How can we not move backward to progress ?

[PaulH]

It's bad enough to drive with one eye shut. There're no telling what will happen when you go forward with both eyes shut. =)

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by PaulH
It's bad enough to drive with one eye shut. There're no telling what will happen when you go forward with both eyes shut. =)


There is a good reason why Automobile needs mirror for look backward while driving forward.

[PaulH]

Even now implies that there was a past as well as there will be a future. I like balance in time which is now. =)

[yellowpikachu]

another thing about why the platform become a narrow stance NON Broken-Arrow platform

The beauty of the narrow stance Non Broken Arrow platform is that it integrate lots of benifits.

it is link directly to the shock power generation, dynamic aquilibrium, and to the low line defence.


The whole big picture and small details all lump up and fitting each other nicely and in a holistic manner.


with this type of platform, then, as said, using silence to subdue the action, comes retain, goes send back.....

with other type of platform will not be that effective to adopt the--using silence to subdue the action, comes retain, goes send back..... because the system/platform needs to always compensate every changes...

one of many many and a general reason one get crush in or take down is because one has a platform which needs to be compensate manually and the power generation doesnt have an dynamic stable equlibrium speedy accerelation.

so, when the incoming force penetrate into the "compensated needed zone" which is close to the body. the system/platform broken apart due to in one way the platform ask for stability compensation, the other way the defence machanism ask for power to defence or strike. thus, the body becomes tearing apart due to the upper body comman to strik or defence and the lower body comman to do platform stability compensation. thus, they tear each apart .... and the platform collapse by itself.


so, the YJKYM is very significant. SLT is very significant . and if the practice of YJKYM/SLT in static has already shown a dividing into two tendency of the upper and lower body. then in dynamic action, major system/platform breakdown under the pressure of incoming force is very predictable.

Thus, in SLT one just stand there to aware of all the dynamic, no foot work...... that is the training building up that self balancing dynamic equilibrium non broken arrow platform. That is the begning of developing the dynamic equilibrim momentum platform.


if one check into the Fang Chie-Niang martial art source book content. one can see the concept of the non broken arrow dynamic equilibrium platform momentum stuffs is nothing new but 350 years old. but still many ( including me) had a hard time truely understand it not to mention implement it and mastering it.

so until other evident of prior art from shao lin can be found prior to 350years old. we now can only conclude the idea "patent" is source from White Crane Wing Chun of Fujian. probably, the white crane run into this because the invention of the inch jing power join.



just some thoughts.

[t_niehoff]

AndrewS wrote:

Terence writes:

>My "biggest worry" in close isn't some kick to the groin because when I'm close, my opponent's structure is broken -- he won't be able to kick (I don't get close unless his balance is destroyed). If his balance/structure isn't broken, a narrow horse won't save you.

Terence, that's optimism and you know it. Reality is that sometimes you wind up cozy with someone with a sweet base and bad intentions, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise.

**We can all get caught out of position, but my first priority is not to get close without having disrupted the opponent's balance (or you're in real trouble); if that happens however (close w/o disrupting him), then I'm not going to be standing with my knees clamped thinking, erroneously, that this will save my jewels (or anything else). BTW, one can do YJKYM with a leg forward too.

As to narrow or wide- control the low centerline with your knees, ain't that all that matters?

**Sometimes. Our horse does much more than that depending on the situation.

---------------


JR wrote:

We all know its not a pose or something locked in. Certain things are structured certain ways for certain reasons. YJKYM is not a big or wide horse as that will take away from the YJKYM "idea/purpose"!

**LOL! You begin by speaking out of one side of your mouth ("it's not a pose or locked in") and then out of the other side talk about how it is structured (posed). You can't even see the inconsistency of your views.

One of the reasons YJKYM is not so wide is so that it closes off one of the lines into the body to protect the low without have to make major adjustment. Its exactly the same with South Mantis and other short hand arts. Sum Nung said: Elbows in and to close off that line and clamp the KYM to close off that line into your body.

**These things depend on the situation, they are not universals. There are times you need the elbows in, other times you don't; there are times to clamp the YJKYM, other times you don't. The elbows are in for functional reasons, to *do* certain things; if you're not doing that, you don't need them in. It all depends on what the opponent is giving you. There is no one "best" or "correct" way.

Another reason for the smaller frame is to produce short vibrating bang. The wider your horse the less short power you will have as it will disolve in your body. It becomes more of a wave of power versus a shock. JR

**I can produce good short power on one leg, with wide legs, with narrow legs, kneeling, etc. It comes from practice.

There is indeed a "slight" (slight) clamping going on in the YJKYM to support the structure. Then there is the clamping that one would use to control an attack going in from that up sweep line. JR

**I thought you said YJKYM wasn't a pose. ;) This is beginner level stuff -- things you are told as a beginner, "keep the knees in to protect the groin", etc. In reality, in fighting, things are more dynamic than that, they are in a constant state of change or flux. Yes, we can clamp but that is an application; when not using that applciation, I don't need the action.


Ok! Sounds good but since almost all of the south fist art and artist I know feel its important

**Sure they do, because they are theoreticians, and it sounds great in theory. It just doesn't work that way.

I would have to see you doing this stuff to see why its not a concern for you and it is for them and others.

**To show how silly this is, I can prove that there is absolutely no way for "clamped knees" to stop a groin shot (from a parallel YJKYM) -- no way. Thinking that it will is pure theory. And it's nonsense. Anyone that fights will know that; a powerful shot will get through. That's not what the clamping is for. You can control the opponent's legs when you get in close by doing a number of things (which one specifically will depend on the situation), clamping your knees isn't one.

But! Atleast you wrote; "My" biggest worry and "I" dont get get close enough versus speaking of WCK in general. Certainly controlling someones balance is important and your right that unless someones balance isn't broken a NARROW (and you forgot to mention) "or a WIDE horse" wont save you.

**Correct, but I was commenting on those that felt a clamped YJKYM would save you.

What good is it if he is still in control and can hit you with full power when you are trying to do your thing to him!

**What good is it if he is pounding me in the face while I try to do it too? Look, WCK's method is to cut-off his offense and break his structure (balance); if I don't do these things, I'm going to get pounded. My whole method is based on doing these things. If he prevents me from using my method, he's going to beat me. Your question is sort of like asking a groundfighter, what are you going to do if you can't get him on the ground? The answer: you make sure you're good enough that this doesn't happen.

[Jim Roselando]

T,

**LOL! You begin by speaking out of one side of your mouth ("it's not a pose or locked in") and then out of the other side talk about how it is structured (posed). You can't even see the inconsistency of your views.

Sorry that you dont understand what I am trying to say but its not a dead animal. We all have "structure" while moving. If not, then we will crumble easily. So, my views are very consistant. JR

**These things depend on the situation, they are not universals. There are times you need the elbows in, other times you don't; there are times to clamp the YJKYM, other times you don't. The elbows are in for functional reasons, to *do* certain things; if you're not doing that, you don't need them in. It all depends on what the opponent is giving you. There is no one "best" or "correct" way.

In order for your "ALIVE Structure" to function you need to maintain a "SLIGHT" clamp so that power will not leak out. The elbow's relax down/sink for many reasons as do they other things for other reasons. Your die hard belief of there is no "best or correct" way is just how you support eclectic IMO. Everything is not everything IMO. JR


**I can produce good short power on one leg, with wide legs, with narrow legs, kneeling, etc. It comes from practice.

Really! Please show us. Send in a clip! If your horse is wide it will produce less shock! Thats a fact. The energy will wave thru your body versus vibrate. So, please demo your shock for us. JR

**I thought you said YJKYM wasn't a pose. This is beginner level stuff -- things you are told as a beginner, "keep the knees in to protect the groin", etc. In reality, in fighting, things are more dynamic than that, they are in a constant state of change or flux. Yes, we can clamp but that is an application; when not using that applciation, I don't need the action.

T, please stop playing word games. You know and I know the body has certain things going on that bring out the dynamic results. If we were just standing around talking then you dont need any of this stuff but when you a fighting with someone and join with them you need an alive and flexible structure. JR

**Sure they do, because they are theoreticians, and it sounds great in theory. It just doesn't work that way.

Oh really? Please call up Roger Hagood and tell him he is a Theoretician. Please call up Donald Wong and tell him he is a Theoretician. Or you can ask your sifu who has met Donald. Please call up Chin Dor and tell him he is a theoretician! Actually! Instead of calling them why not visit their school and tell them! I am quite sure they will have no problem letting you test them out! JR

**To show how silly this is, I can prove that there is absolutely no way for "clamped knees" to stop a groin shot (from a parallel YJKYM) -- no way. Thinking that it will is pure theory. And it's nonsense. Anyone that fights will know that; a powerful shot will get through. That's not what the clamping is for. You can control the opponent's legs when you get in close by doing a number of things (which one specifically will depend on the situation), clamping your knees isn't one.

Read the above reply and when you visit them feel free to kick them in the jewels and post the results. I am sure you are willing since you can prove there is no absolute way for that to work. Please post your results. JR

**Correct, but I was commenting on those that felt a clamped YJKYM would save you.

Everything has a purpose. We just have "totally" different views on WCK. But of course you know that! JR


**What good is it if he is pounding me in the face while I try to do it too?

C'mon T! Trying to do what? Its just built into your WCK and if they attack that line it will be there for you. Nothing is used unless the time is right for it but unless its built into your WCK it cannot be used. JR

Look, WCK's method is to cut-off his offense and break his structure (balance); if I don't do these things, I'm going to get pounded. My whole method is based on doing these things. If he prevents me from using my method, he's going to beat me.

Hey! We agree on something! Wow! Miracles do happen!. JR

Your question is sort of like asking a groundfighter, what are you going to do if you can't get him on the ground? The answer: you make sure you're good enough that this doesn't happen.

Oh please! This is laughable. Remember! In the real world there are back up plans in case of mistake or in case you face a btter skilled person. In the end whomever is better at their game will win.


Regards,

[AndrewS]

Terence (**) writes:

**We can all get caught out of position, but my first priority is not to get close without having disrupted the opponent's balance (or you're in real trouble); if that happens however (close w/o disrupting him), then I'm not going to be standing with my knees clamped thinking, erroneously, that this will save my jewels (or anything else). BTW, one can do YJKYM with a leg forward too.

This goes beyond being out of position. While breaking someone's balance and ability to return fire on the way in is a great thing to have happen, the reality is that when you're dealing with comparably skilled people you will often wind up closing and discovering that the other person still has balance, or can regain their balance. At this point, life gets interesting, and that glorious clinch has begun.

I agree on the YJKYM with a leg forward- pressing stance and YJKYM are basically the same thing.

>As to narrow or wide- control the low centerline with your knees, ain't that all that matters?

**Sometimes. Our horse does much more than that depending on the situation.

Granted, but we're talking about protecting the groin here, and if your front knee is in between your back knee and your opponent's balance-bearing knee, you're signficantly less likely to take a shot to the jewels. The point I'm making is that clamping is necessary to keep your groin safe; that's just a silly bonus easily taught to thick beginners.

Later,

Andrew

[Ultimatewingchun]

"This goes beyond being out of position. While breaking someone's balance and ability to return fire on the way in is a great thing to have happen, the reality is that when you're dealing with comparably skilled people you will often wind up closing and discovering that the other person still has balance, or can regain their balance. At this point, life gets interesting, and that glorious clinch has begun."


BINGO.

[duende]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"This goes beyond being out of position. While breaking someone's balance and ability to return fire on the way in is a great thing to have happen, the reality is that when you're dealing with comparably skilled people you will often wind up closing and discovering that the other person still has balance, or can regain their balance. At this point, life gets interesting, and that glorious clinch has begun."


BINGO.


Yep... this is the hard truth. And unfortunately here's where the truth can hurt.

Overcommiting is the tool of novices.

[Kevin Bell]

Terence

I've come across some of you're articles any more in the pipeline??

YP

Why do i wear that GPS? cause my map reading skills are crap and i like to know where i am when my brother is dragging me over the welsh mountains

[anerlich]

I call bull$hit on the whole testicle retraction thing.

Firstly, groin kicks can still hurt even if one has no testicles. Girls in my academy tell me it still hurts. I've seen cups for women adevertised in MA mags. The bladder can be ruptured from a well targeted kick, with serious medical consequences. A good kick to the inner thigh is no picnic either.

Secondly, I believe it is debatable whether retracting the testicles would prevent a blow from damaging them or causing pain in any case. Arguably they do not now have the same ability to move, and might be "sitting ducks" to a well-aimed blow, thus copping greater damage than might otherwise be the case.

Thirdly, do you have time to do it in a confrontation? Won't you still get nailed by a surprise attack from behind?

Any idea how guys with undescended ones fare (no disgrace, apparently Bruce himself was one such, that's why he failed the draft)

Any medicos could possibly clarify here, though IMO the real experimental data will be extremely scant, if not non-existent or imaginary.

Must be about time for another thread on the anal sphincter ... ;)

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by anerlich


Firstly, groin kicks can still hurt even if one has no testicles. Girls in my academy tell me it still hurts. I've seen cups for women adevertised in MA mags. The bladder can be ruptured from a well targeted kick, with serious medical consequences. A good kick to the inner thigh is no picnic either.

Secondly, .....


That why wearing a cup and doing narrow stance cut down problem. WCK didnt have to train retract right?

Fong Sai-Yok the school brother of Hung hei-goon did train in that retract stuff, and still Ng Mui Killed him according to the story.
Ng Mui fakes falling and give Fang a kick from the ground! with the inch shock power. :D

[t_niehoff]

AndrewS wrote:

Terence (**) writes:

**We can all get caught out of position, but my first priority is not to get close without having disrupted the opponent's balance (or you're in real trouble); if that happens however (close w/o disrupting him), then I'm not going to be standing with my knees clamped thinking, erroneously, that this will save my jewels (or anything else). BTW, one can do YJKYM with a leg forward too.

This goes beyond being out of position. While breaking someone's balance and ability to return fire on the way in is a great thing to have happen,

***The point is I don't go in close *until* my opponent's structure/balance is destroyed (that's the trigger for my penetration). If I'm better than my opponent, I'll be able to make my method work; if he's better than me, I won't. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. Sort of like saying I don't get taken to the ground -- if I do, he beats me. Of course, we can supplement our method (close body clinch work, ground work, etc. -- and I do supplement with those things) but that's outside of WCK.

the reality is that when you're dealing with comparably skilled people you will often wind up closing and discovering that the other person still has balance, or can regain their balance. At this point, life gets interesting, and that glorious clinch has begun.

***Sure, and that's when you're no longer using WCK's method.

I agree on the YJKYM with a leg forward- pressing stance and YJKYM are basically the same thing.

***Not IMO -- bik ma (pressing horse) and YJKYM are two different, albeit related, mechanics.

>As to narrow or wide- control the low centerline with your knees, ain't that all that matters?

**Sometimes. Our horse does much more than that depending on the situation.

Granted, but we're talking about protecting the groin here, and if your front knee is in between your back knee and your opponent's balance-bearing knee, you're signficantly less likely to take a shot to the jewels. The point I'm making is that clamping is necessary to keep your groin safe; that's just a silly bonus easily taught to thick beginners.

***For me, the clamping and the steps are separate aspects that can be used in conjuction but both are an active, aggressive, offensive actions (in contact).

[yellowpikachu]

So, this also raised a question of so what justified which stance to use while in action?

"who" makes the call of using which stance? which ma?

[t_niehoff]

JR wrote:

Sorry that you dont understand what I am trying to say but its not a dead animal. We all have "structure" while moving. If not, then we will crumble easily. So, my views are very consistant. JR

>>In my view, "structure" is used to teach body feel, mechanics, etc. -- as a starting point for beginners. Once one gets that feel, the mechanics, etc. the "structure" is no longer needed. If a person gets "stuck" on structure, the remain at a beginner level (I must stand this way, put my knees here, my elbows there, etc.). The "structure" in application is there for a moment, an instant, and it won't even be seen.

In order for your "ALIVE Structure" to function you need to maintain a "SLIGHT" clamp so that power will not leak out. The elbow's relax down/sink for many reasons as do they other things for other reasons. Your die hard belief of there is no "best or correct" way is just how you support eclectic IMO. Everything is not everything IMO. JR

>>If one does a single leg YJKYM how do you maintain a "slight clamp"? ;) You see, that's why we are taught the single leg SNT -- to help the student/trainee move beyond the constraints of double leg "structure" and into what the "structure" is pointing to: body feel, mechanics, action, etc.

**I can produce good short power on one leg, with wide legs, with narrow legs, kneeling, etc. It comes from practice.

Really! Please show us. Send in a clip! If your horse is wide it will produce less shock! Thats a fact. The energy will wave thru your body versus vibrate. So, please demo your shock for us. JR

>>We are taught to do things with a certain "structure" because it makes finding (yes, finding) the mechanic or feel easier for the student. Sort of like learning how to do a backflip (a complicated body action). I can teach it to you with your legs narrow which makes it easier to learn. Does that mean you can't do it with widely spread legs or from one leg? No. I only "demo" in person. I'll try to make it to Cleveland, and we can compare there if you like.

>>FWIW, I'll tell you why I don't do video clips -- because theoreticians will look at it, and "judge" it based on their theoretical views of how WCK should be (based on hearsay or history or what their sifu told them), and WCK can't be "judged" that way. Then they'll critique it, again from this theoretical POV, and I'll defend it --- blah, blah, blah. In person, there will be no question.

**I thought you said YJKYM wasn't a pose. This is beginner level stuff -- things you are told as a beginner, "keep the knees in to protect the groin", etc. In reality, in fighting, things are more dynamic than that, they are in a constant state of change or flux. Yes, we can clamp but that is an application; when not using that applciation, I don't need the action.

T, please stop playing word games. You know and I know the body has certain things going on that bring out the dynamic results. If we were just standing around talking then you dont need any of this stuff but when you a fighting with someone and join with them you need an alive and flexible structure. JR

>>You're focusing on the finger (what is pointing the way) instead of the moon (what the finger is pointing to). These "structural" aspects are pointing to something else; once you get that, you can forget the finger.

**Sure they do, because they are theoreticians, and it sounds great in theory. It just doesn't work that way.

Oh really? Please call up Roger Hagood and tell him he is a Theoretician. Please call up Donald Wong and tell him he is a Theoretician. Or you can ask your sifu who has met Donald. Please call up Chin Dor and tell him he is a theoretician! Actually! Instead of calling them why not visit their school and tell them! I am quite sure they will have no problem letting you test them out! JR

>>So you want me to go fight these guys to prove *to you* my view is correct? I know my view is correct because I'm fighting and already doing what I'm saying.

**To show how silly this is, I can prove that there is absolutely no way for "clamped knees" to stop a groin shot (from a parallel YJKYM) -- no way. Thinking that it will is pure theory. And it's nonsense. Anyone that fights will know that; a powerful shot will get through. That's not what the clamping is for. You can control the opponent's legs when you get in close by doing a number of things (which one specifically will depend on the situation), clamping your knees isn't one.

Read the above reply and when you visit them feel free to kick them in the jewels and post the results. I am sure you are willing since you can prove there is no absolute way for that to work. Please post your results. JR

>>If you're interested in testing *your* theory, go test it yourself: go fight some good (proven) fighters and tell them to try to really kick you in the groin. If you have so much faith in your "knee in protection" don't wear a cup.

**Correct, but I was commenting on those that felt a clamped YJKYM would save you.

Everything has a purpose. We just have "totally" different views on WCK. But of course you know that! JR

>>There are levels . . .

Look, WCK's method is to cut-off his offense and break his structure (balance); if I don't do these things, I'm going to get pounded. My whole method is based on doing these things. If he prevents me from using my method, he's going to beat me.

Hey! We agree on something! Wow! Miracles do happen!. JR

>>I'm sure we aree on many things. My point is that the theory means nothing if you can't do it. If you believe your theory of keeping the knees in to protect the groin, then test it - against really good folks. If you can make it work against them, then great -- it works for you. Doesn't mean I need to do it that way or should do it that way. My *experience* is that it doesn't work that way -- I find that it works for me in other ways. I can make those work against good skilled fighters.

**Your question is sort of like asking a groundfighter, what are you going to do if you can't get him on the ground? The answer: you make sure you're good enough that this doesn't happen.

Oh please! This is laughable. Remember! In the real world there are back up plans in case of mistake or in case you face a btter skilled person. In the end whomever is better at their game will win.

>>Yes, but my point is we train to make our gameplan work the best we can. But we need to recognize that once we are taken out of ourgameplan, then we need to do something else (a different gameplan using different tools).

[t_niehoff]

Kevin,

I'm always working on something -- anything in particular you'd like to see?

[Vio]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
In case the Praying Mantis Guys decide to KICK? :D


:D
Mantis has always lost

[kj]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
So, this also raised a question of so what justified which stance to use while in action?

"who" makes the call of using which stance? which ma?

I'm not following the rest of this thread very closely, but just some thoughts relating to the question at hand.

The exponent must decide which "stance" or "ma" to use based on numerous factors. Circumstances mainly. But there are other relevant and influencing factors such as application strategy (e.g., which theory of application one is aiming to apply, understanding of available options, influence of which "art" one trains in etc.), personal capability including present skills and limitations, and of course one's internalized appreciation of all these things in context. I'm sure there are others, though most of them could be encapsulated as elements of "context."

If one does not possess the skills and attributes that develop through training the YJKYM, then one will be hard pressed to apply them at will. "Doa lo yut cheung hung."

Back to you all.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Kevin Bell]

Hello Terence

I dunno really i've only read through two of them thus far how many are there???

Maybe one on progressive thinking relative to urban warfare we face in todays society where non compliance and no ettiquette are the rule of the day. Do you see biting stamping gouging hair pulling testicle punching in your Bill Jee support system cause i sure as christ do....