View Full Version : Weight on the legs?

08-10-2000, 06:50 PM
In WT the weight on the rear leg/front leg
is 100/0.
If you have no weight on the front leg you can kick at any time without having to transfer your weight first.
Also the front leg can't be swept.
This makes sense to me.
Can anybody explain to me why I should do it
differently? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

08-10-2000, 07:36 PM
We use a 50/50 or sometimes a 60/40 split of the weight. With a 100/0 you have no mobility without redistributing the weight. Also, even thought you can kick with the front leg, the back leg is trapped by your own weight distribution.

08-10-2000, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Highlander:
With a 100/0 you have no mobility without redistributing the weight. [/quote]

No,you can move in any direction any time without having to redistribute your weight.

The back leg is protected by the front leg.

08-10-2000, 10:25 PM
O.K. I'm confused again. Isn't a 100/0 stance the same as standing on one foot? How can you step if you are standing on one foot without shifting the weight onto the other foot?

I must just not be picturing what you are describing right.

08-11-2000, 12:17 AM
The front leg steps forward,the bodyweight is still on the rear leg.
When the front leg touches the ground,the rear leg and the whole body is dragged forwards because of the adduction of the knees,the bodyweight is still on the rear leg.
The front leg is the driving force.
One step moves both feet.

08-11-2000, 05:14 AM

Both 50/50 and 100/0 weightings have merits, as do all of the variances in between.

100/0 does not limit mobility with the possible exception of stepping to the outside of the lead leg. What I mean here is that if I am standing with my left leg forward my toes are pointing to the right. Should an opponenet be successful at stepping deeply to my left side then it can be inconvenient for me to shift position quickly enough to deal with him. Particularily if he gets in deep enough to more to the rear of me. Not impossible but a little harder than if my weight were more of a 50/50. Just to clarify 100/0 can be extremely mobile but does limit movement to the "blind" side (for lack of a better description). 100/0 is very good for charging and allows you to step deeply into your opponent and move very fast.


Your explanation of the footwork as regards stepping with 100/0 is right on the money. The key is to develope the adduction so that it is the knees which cause the movement. It is very hard to describe this in this environment and even hard to grasp in person. Still your explanation was very good. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now as to the question as to why do your footwork with any other than 100/0 I would say that the more one understands the concepts and methods of more than one way of doing something the better one can reply to unexpected circumstances. Other than 100/0 weighting does give one a degree of comfort and safety when doing Wing Chun. If trained properly it will still be hard to sweep the front leg. This can be due to either sensitivity or rooting. I remember an article by Sifu Chung Kwok Chow where he describes the advantages and disadvantages of differing weight systems. The 100/0 was very good for forward and to the strong or forward leg side. 50/50 was better for side to side to allowed one to cover a greater area, in some cases. 50/50 also gives one a choice on how to move. True there is still a shift needed to adjust to the step but the adjustment is not as great as 100/0. There is also a triangle stance where the feet are offset and seems to favor a more 70/30 or 60/40 split. This seemed to be a nice blend of both worlds.

The bottom line is that each method has validity. The bottom line is that practice will make the difference. I think in the beginning 100/0 is harder to learn than 50/50 or its variants. Also 50/50 is taught in the 1st form. Still, no method is completely 100% for each instance. IMHO, it is best to be exposed to both methods and work mostly on the one you like.



08-15-2000, 01:23 AM
"" Can anybody explain to me why I should do it differently? ""

Different stances for different things. You going to try to enter an attacker's gate and maintain a cat stance? NO...

08-16-2000, 07:14 PM
can i just add in our school the foward movement(& backward) comes from the waist(which should always be in alocked position-without this u will lack stability & balance)
1 agree that to have all wait on one leg means you have to be hopping as weight has to be transferred at some point,the only time u have 100% on 1 leg is when u kick & then it is 4 the shortest time possible.my feeling is weight should be moved from between 70/30 to 50/50 depending on the situation & so as to optimise ecconomy of movement.
sorry if my view differs from yours.

08-16-2000, 10:44 PM
Stances with 100/0 weight distribution are transitional stances. For fighting, fencing, wrestling, boxing or any other combat art mobility is key. If you start out in a 100/0 I hope that your springing out from that back leg immediately or you'll end up thrown to the ground. I've fought with people who do this and all it takes is an easy sidestep for their immobile/ flicky kicking, hook a leg, make chest contact and down they go. I've also found that this is one of the few times you can so a low leg sweep (both legs) that sends the opponent into the air and then one their side with a thud. But hey if thats what your style tells you to do, stick with it and you might find out how to use it effectively. Good luck with your training.

08-17-2000, 12:27 AM

No,there is no hopping.
The footwork is very smooth and the weight
is always on the rear leg.
As Sihing pointed out the key is in the adduction of the knees.
A kick can be done with the front leg without
having to transfer bodyweight to the rear leg first.This is economy of movement to me.


Mobility is certainly one of the most important things in combat.
The 100/0 stance is for moving,it's not immobile.
It's also for close range fighting,we move in to this stance from our prefighting stance.
Kicks are done at very close range,and mostly together with hand techniques.
It works both against sweepkicks and single leg takedowns.

08-17-2000, 07:53 AM
a kick can still be performed with a 70/30 stance as the kick is so quick there is need for the weight to be transfered and also i don't mean to be rude but if u move into in-fighting range with all your weight on the back foot & your opponent takes half a step forward(unless your stance is supernatural) u
will end up on your butt.
i appreciate different strokes for different folks but again i would like to see anyone move foward with 100% on ther rear leg & not have to transfer there weight at some point
of the movement

08-17-2000, 07:59 AM
sorry i must clarify something
weight distribution in kicks depending on the
type of kick will vary(just incase u say i've contradicted myself)
like i said before this is the only time one should 100% on the rear leg for longer than a millisecond.
but again that's just my opinion

08-17-2000, 08:15 AM
sorry again
"no longer than a millisecond"

08-17-2000, 03:09 PM
Hi vingtsunstudent,

Welcome /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I am sorry but I must kind of help WT out here /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif though I am sure he does not need it.

There is nothing wrong with 100/0 weighting it is just another method of movement. It is highly mobile and will not lead one to be susceptable to sweeps. It does allow one to change direction when moving forward and also provides a bit of protection for the groin. It is best used to charge an opponent and drive in deeply. Aside from the possible weakness I mentioned previously, hard to deal with a deep step to the unloaded side, it is fine to use. Of course, it is only used once you have closed with the opponent, you do not chase him around using 100/0 footwork, at least I don't /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As to your statement of; "range with all your weight on the back foot & your opponent takes half a step forward(unless your stance is supernatural) u will end up on your butt."

If you truly understand the structure you will be able to accept the incoming force and transfer it to the ground. I can assure you that you will not necessarily end up on your butt. Although, you may be able to put them on their butt /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Then again, does'nt Wing Chun teach one not to fight force with force? If the incomming force is too great I will simply turn or side step and let him meet air or my fist /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL

"i appreciate different strokes for different folks but again i would like to see anyone move foward with 100% on ther rear leg & not have to transfer there weight at some point of the movement"

Herein lies part of the problem. This type of movement is very hard to grasp in this medium. Shoot, it is hard to grasp in person. Suffice it to say I used to train this way and devoted a great deal of time and effort to getting this movement right. The pull forward of the rear leg is done almost completely by the adduction of the knees. Picture a rubber band. When you stretch it out it will automatically snap back into place. If you have moved one end to another point it will snap into place relative to the new position. We used to do an exercise where one person would take a 100/0 stance. A partner would grab the non-weighted leg and pull the other person around the room. If done properly the person being pulled would move by sliding along the floor, no hopping and no bouncing up and down it was the force of the pull which moved him. This is one of the best illustrations I can think of to describe how the adduction works. If you do it properly there is no transfer of weight and the knees are what make you move.

Now, having said that, I practice more than one way of doing movement. Read my previous posts and you will see that 100/0 is not one of my favorites, anymore /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Still it is good and can be developed to be very usefull. Particularily in charging.

Each of us are exposed to different methods but none of us has the "one true method" All of us are branches of the same tree. Some of us just get more sunlight then the otehrs Eventually, though, we all end up in pretty much the same place. Of course I usually get there first (It's a joke calm down LOL)



08-17-2000, 05:31 PM
well sihing
as we both know in a forum like this we will never c i 2 i(but that's a good thing)
my only regret is that living half a world away from each other we will never get a chance meet & share our knowledge & our own personal take on things. i personally luv 2 play chi sao with people from different schools because every 1 feels different & the more u feel the better your vt.

08-17-2000, 05:35 PM
sorry sihing i also wanted 2 ask, when in chi sao & somebody steps in hard at 45 degrees through your centre how do u handle them with all the wait on 1 leg ?
i would dearly luv 2 hear your take on this.

08-17-2000, 05:47 PM
sorry people 1 more thing, what is the adduction of the knees(doesn't adduction mean 2 draw in)
i would have thought that adduction in the knees would be contadictory to continuos foward force?(especially seeing as though i thought the movements come from the waist & not the knees anyway)
this is a new 1 2 me so i would luv to have that explained 2 me as well
thax again

08-18-2000, 12:12 AM

Thanks for the help.
The only time you end up on your butt is if you get hit. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
We still do the leg pulling exercise you mentioned.
If you got the wrong shoes it can be very painful. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

08-18-2000, 04:51 AM

I too wish we were closer as I enjoy interacting with others as well. The more diversity one can be exposed to the greater ones options in a true confrontation. I enjoy your questions and hope that I am able to shed some light with my replies. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As to your question regarding a step through your center at 45' I am not sure I understand why that should present me with any great problem. As I said earlier in Wing Chun we do not train to meet force with force. I would turn and only as much as my opponenets force required me to. It is his force which moves me not my own decision. In each of the forms we take with our hands, TAUN/BONG/Fook there is a certain structure we wish to maintain. For example, Bong would usually have a bend in the elbow of 45' to about 60', I would not wish to allow the Bong to collapse beyond that point. Therefore if the opponenets force is too great I would turn. Please realize that once you take up a stance, other than YJKM, in WT the weight is 100/0. You can still pivot quite easily on the supporting leg. Try this, stand on one leg and put your arm out. Have the opponent press against your hand/arm pushing to each side. You should be able to turn while only on the one leg. Of course, it is easier with both legs as the one can act as a brace/support for your structure. Again this medium makes explanations difficult. I have a feeling that if we were to meet you would be able to see what I am trying to get across.

Still, keeping in mind that Wing Chun is highly personal there are times I will allow my structure to be collapsed on purpose to allow my opponenet to get in real close. This can be kind of fun /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The key to making any of the above work is sensitivity. If you are not sensitive then you will probably be put on your butt. Another good exercise to practice is to stand in YJKM with both arms out-stretched and together. This kind of forms a triangle. Have your partner press against your hands to each side and practice turning only as far as his force makes you and immediately return to YJKM. I am sure WT knows this drill as well.

As to the force or movement coming from the waist; this is one way of looking at it. Yet, you will find many Wing Chun people utilize the knees to produce force/movement. Physically movement starts at the feet then ankles etc and can indeed continue through the waist. Still, the way I was taught was to generate movement mostly by use of the knees. When I turn, it is the knee which directs the rest of the body.

I hope you do not take offense at this but you should get out and visit other Wing Chun people. If you are in Australia then you could touch base with David Petterson and the WSL group or perhaps look up Jim Fung. There are also some students of Sum Nung there who could probably give you a new perspective on the art as well.

Please realize I am not saying my way is the best way, it just works for me. I have had the priviliege of training under some very good people and try to emulate them. Still, my level is no where near some of my seniors, or some juniors for that matter /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I canonly tell you that everything I have described here works. I have used it and I know that it did not let me down. Your method could be just as valid. Who knows, perhaps one day we can discuss this over tea. My viewpoint is simply this: I like things as simple as possible. I try to strip away all of the extra crap and stick to the meat. At the same time I have found that sometimes one needs more than at first glance to make something work it's best. I have met many people that had very complicated drills and laughed when I had trouble following some of their exercises. Then we sparred and I got to laugh as they tried ot figure out why those "fancy" complicated moves did not work. When I engage I try to limit myself to about 3-4 movements.



08-18-2000, 06:40 AM
u still didn't quite explain adduction of the knees to me(unless i missed it)& if u ever get the chance to talk to david peterson ask him about my sifu. also something a friend of mine says that is true for us all is that even vt done poorly is still effective(poeple may laugh or get the ****s but from the 50's through to the 70's and even still 2day vt proved it's effectiness over other styles by far & away especially with help of people like wong)( i don't mean this to rude or arrogant because believe me that there are lots of hard men & women who don't study vt)
u to me are a very lucky man
my sifu now resides in germany & is closer to u than me.he actually has a student who travels from sweden to get instruction from him.i know he also travels to do seminars, so mabee u catch up with him & ask him why u should train the stance differently. he is a good man & gives freely of his knowledge.
thanx for all the fun guys

08-18-2000, 08:18 PM

Regarding the pressure/stance turning drill,
the adduction makes you spring back as soon as the pressure is released.
You are storing your partners energy and releasing it.


Do you know the name of this guy or if he lives in southern Sweden?

[This message has been edited by WT (edited 08-19-2000).]

08-19-2000, 01:50 AM
if u mean my sifu, yes i know his name
check this site to find out more

08-19-2000, 02:06 AM
No,I meant Sifu Lee's swedish student.

08-19-2000, 07:33 AM

Here I may be at a loss to explain. In my experience I have always trained the adduction of the knees. Even when doing other than WT there is always the sinking and drawing towards one another of the knees. I think most Wing Chun people would train the adduction to a certain degree we may just disagree on the terminology. Since this is the way I was taught I do it at a subconcious level and am not even aware of the hows and whys anymore, though I need to be. I will give this a little more thought and play around with it from both variations and try to come up with a better answer.

Sorry, but I just got in and my head hurts so I need to rest and think about things. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



08-19-2000, 12:04 PM

What about William Cheung,in his sideways
stance there seems to be no adduction?

08-19-2000, 04:40 PM
sorry i've no idea of his name but will c what i can find out.
again i appologise as i know it's very difficult to explain things in this situation
but i still can't understand how u can have adduction of the knees & maintain constant foward pressure throughout the whole body?

08-19-2000, 05:40 PM

Here is the link to WT Australia. http://www.auewto.com.au/

08-20-2000, 07:58 PM
sorry bud. his student is in switzerland not sweden

08-21-2000, 12:59 AM

I am afraid as to commenting on William Cheungs side stance I do not feel that my reply would be adequate. I have only been exploring his method a short time and to be honest my instructor is mainly teaching me application and fighting. We keep talking about going over the forms and such but at my present level I would not be qualified to comment on his version, at least not as far as the side stance. It's funny, maybe it's just me, but even when I move from the Parellel stance and take up a side stance from a T-Step, I still feel as though there is adduction in the knees. My opinion would be that it is there but just may not be apparent. Perhaps some of the William Cheung guys could explain it better than I.



08-27-2000, 11:58 AM
Okay, I know that this subject has already been stomped into the ground-lol-but I gotta throw in my 2 cents. If you like your footwork, no matter WHAT system, I'd say good!! Part of the choice of lineage has to do with what best suits each individual. I've studied Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Kali, Kichboxing, and Wing Tsun. They all have different footwork, and they all work just fine. Personally, I'd never go back to karate, due to it's rigidness and open stances; Kali both in open hand fighting and weapons works great, but I feel uncomfortable putting so much wieght onto the front leg and "angling off" to the side, thus giving my opponent the rear of my shoulder (one strong pak-sau and my back would be turned toward my attacker--bad news!). I find WT footwork to be some of the most well thought out and sophisticated that I've ever seen. Both my Si-Sok Michael Casey and Sifu Emin have always been EXTREMELY smooth and fast as well as versatile is their footwork. One other point: The WT system stress covering all possible angles of attack. I've seen other lineages that utilize footwork--such as the 50/50 stances-- that take wider stances and leave the groin and both knees extremely vunerable to attack. For me, I want to cover all my bases, and I'm always looking to cover the "holes" (possible open areas) in my WT practice.

To each his/her own. Maybe ultimately it's more about the competence of the practitioner and his "toolbox" of techniques than it is about the lineage.

08-27-2000, 08:09 PM
Kali?You don't do Latosa Escrima?
With weapons I don't have any problems with
Escrima footwork,but unarmed it does feel
a bit unsafe.

08-28-2000, 04:38 PM
What a great thread!
Someone mentioned that the 0/100 stance is transitional, and I would tend to agree. You can't move from your 50/50, 70/30, etc without shifting weight off the moving leg (into 0/100). By maintaining a rooted 0/100, you are in effect constantly ready to shift your weight into motion. With 0 weight on the front, you can turn and shift in any direction.

For those unfamiliar with the depth of 0/100 work it can intuitively seem awkward; in our normal everyday stances we are almost always in a state of imbalance. The 0/100 teaches a way of stacking the natural anatomy of the body so that you are always balanced, rooted, and poised to move. The shifting of weight from one foot to another can happen very, very fast.

For further study, compare the readings on 0/100 in the Taiji classics and works on other wu dang arts. Also see Peter Ralston's work in Aikido and Cheng Hsin.

My question: in the Jeet Kune Do variation, the stance work goes back to double-weighted karate positioning with the boxer's heel off the ground. Does this seem more like boxing or tae kwon do than something in-line with wing chun principles? Doesn't taking the heel off the ground negate the basic rooting of the stance? No right or wrong, just viewpoints.

08-30-2000, 07:45 AM
thats because bruce lee didnt learn steping as it was taught after the dummie back then

09-05-2000, 05:49 AM
I am from William Chuengs lineage so I will help. We use the same footwork as boxing but it is lowered a little for stability purposes in the street.It is also turned inwards a little.

"take the pebble from my hand"The old monk from the TV show"Kung Fu"

"I just go at it as best I can"
Benny the Legend.

[This message has been edited by flavour54 (edited 09-05-2000).]

09-05-2000, 11:26 AM
sorry to ask flavour54, but if your using boxing footwork but is just lowered for the street, doesn't this mean that in fact you are not using wing chun footwork, as they are quite a bit different or at least i thought they were?