Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma not a combat stance?

[Wingman]

In the quick question (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37084) thread, Nick Forrer pointed out the advantages of fighting in Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma,
Finally the stance introduces us to the strategy of ‘facing’ i.e. staying square on to your opponent. 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. Further 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, making it easier to cover and defend.

The following are the advantages of Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma in addition to the advantages already mentioned above:

1. Standing in Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma doesn't betray which is your "strong side". This is specially true during pre-contact stage wherein you and your opponent are sizing up each other.

2. Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma is a very stable and rooted stance. Yet it is also a mobile stance since either leg can make the first move. In contrast, in the forward stance, the lead leg moves first before the hind leg. If you want to move the hind leg, you first have to tranfer your weight to the lead leg.

3. You can kick with either leg in Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma. In contrast, in the forward stance, only the lead leg can kick. It is physically impossible to kick with the hind leg because your weight is in the hind leg. Of course the opposite is true for other arts like karate or TKD. In these arts, it is usually the hind leg that kicks.

There may be other advantages that I forgot to mention. My question is:

If the Yee Kim Yeung Ma has all the advantages mentioned above; why is it not considered a combat stance?

[chisauking]

Combat or simply training? Depends on your level of competence in wing chun

[anerlich]

In contrast, in the forward stance, only the lead leg can kick. It is physically impossible to kick with the hind leg because your weight is in the hind leg.

In my lineage it is absolutely possible to kick off the rear leg. I do it all the time.


Yet it is also a mobile stance since either leg can make the first move.

You can do this in a front stance, though it's a silly idea.

You're balancing up the advantages of being able to have either side move forward at the same rate, in a neutral stance, against the advantage of being able to get your forward weapons into play much quicker in a one foot forward stance.

You can face with both hands just fine with your upper body in a forward stance.

Defensively, the stance is weak as it is perpendicular to the line of incoming force. You also present a bigger target as your body is facing squarely and both legs are hittable.

Empirically, my academy dispensed with this stance as a fighting stance from watching people who attempted to use it in ring fights - any realistic forward pressure resulted in the guy either being run backwards into the ropes rapidly or dropping back into the more stable forward stance.

Nobody in any competitive pugilistic sport, where there is glory and money involved, ever uses this stance. If it worked, they'd use it. They don't, because it doesn't.

[sihing]

In my lineage it is absolutely possible to kick off the rear leg. I do it all the time.



You can do this in a front stance, though it's a silly idea.

You're balancing up the advantages of being able to have either side move forward at the same rate, in a neutral stance, against the advantage of being able to get your forward weapons into play much quicker in a one foot forward stance.

You can face with both hands just fine with your upper body in a forward stance.

Defensively, the stance is weak as it is perpendicular to the line of incoming force. You also present a bigger target as your body is facing squarely and both legs are hittable.

Empirically, my academy dispensed with this stance as a fighting stance from watching people who attempted to use it in ring fights - any realistic forward pressure resulted in the guy either being run backwards into the ropes rapidly or dropping back into the more stable forward stance.

Nobody in any competitive pugilistic sport, where there is glory and money involved, ever uses this stance. If it worked, they'd use it. They don't, because it doesn't.

Do you believe this as because people do not know how to use the Side Neutral Stances or because in your opinion Nobody can use it effectively?

Remember it is only used within a certain time frame and distance. Incoming force only has one direction, and to change it takes time, some can do this quickly but it is still takes time to execute. When side stepping at the proper time using the Side Neutral Stance you do a few things for yourself, 1) Get out of the way of the incoming force or engergy coming towards you (either punch, kick, shoot or whatever attack), 2) gets you out of range of the opponents other tools or weapons (rather than staying in line and travelling backwards, when this is done you are still in range for all of the opponents weapons), so follow up or combo techniques are nullified, 3) Allows you to simultaneously attack with all your weapons from a more advantagous position. Once contact has been made then the forward stance is used to attack with.

James

[anerlich]

Do you believe this as because people do not know how to use the Side Neutral Stances or because in your opinion Nobody can use it effectively?

Option B - empirical observation shows this to be true of just about everyone who competed in the WWCKFA-sponsored Australasian Kung-Fu championships when they were held. This applied to fighters from Melbourne HQ as well.

GM Cheung can fight from this position, but from my observations hardly anyone else can.


When side stepping at the proper time using the Side Neutral Stance you do a few things for yourself, 1) Get out of the way of the incoming force or engergy coming towards you (either punch, kick, shoot or whatever attack), 2) gets you out of range of the opponents other tools or weapons (rather than staying in line and travelling backwards, when this is done you are still in range for all of the opponents weapons), so follow up or combo techniques are nullified,

These can be done from front stance without major difficulty.


Allows you to simultaneously attack with all your weapons

You can't "simultaneously attack with all your weapons." - or at least, not effectively You can attack from either side with approximately the same time taken for either to reach the target. Once again, this a a tradeoff of the unpredictability of having both sides equally close (or equally far away) from the target, vs. the advantage of having one side close. In any case, one side is STILL slightly forward in side neutral. If the guy knows anything about TWC, he knows you're going to try to get to the outside of his lead arm anyway so you might not be as unpredictable as you hope.


from a more advantagous position.

It had disadvantages as well, most notably its lack of strength against force pushing directly forward or directly back. At least to be able to push you around in a front stance, the guy has to get an angle on you.

Once again, if this stance has all these advantages, why does no one use it in competitive situations, where every possible advantage would be snapped up if it actually worked? In theory lots of things should work, but as someone said, "the gap between theory and practice is a lot smaller in theory than it is in practice".

I'm playing Devil's advocate to a large degree. But this is one gift horse I'd advise you to look in the mouth.

[YungChun]

Nobody in any competitive pugilistic sport, where there is glory and money involved, ever uses this stance. If it worked, they'd use it. They don't, because it doesn't.

Really?

I've seen boxers and others use a more or less forward facing, no lead leg position before. All 'stances' are a static flash of time - you don't stay in any fixed stance for more than a moment - something must change.

When initiating from this position it does offer advantages, every position has advantages and disadvantages, the key knowing when to have or use what body position. Starting off in a typical sparring type match with no lead leg can be very useful because it often causes confusion on the part of the opponent since many a kicker will look to attack the lead leg of the opponent. If that target is missing it can make them hesitate and if they still want to kick a leg on entry they have to get closer, which, of course gives one the chance to intercept, either by moving straight in or off angle and in, using the legs to jam their legs; something which the neutral stance or simply not having a lead leg facilitates quite well IMHO.

No stance should be fixed and static. One stance will change, reform, and facilitate another in order to allow one to fit in with the opponent - the key is to not get stuck in a stance and instead to view stances as motion references and grounding structures used to assist motion and the channeling of force, both his and yours.

[reneritchie]

When the skill differential is high enough, you can pretty much stand how you want (you also see pro fighters drop their hands sometimes when they have no respect for their opponent's). Some wrestlers stand pretty close to square as well, not many kickboxers, but in most cases, rather than static facing or siding, there is probably a fluid continuum adjusted to the conditions of the time and the in accordance to the strategy in effect. If you filmed video then broke down the frames, you may see many 'postures' exist in the transitions.