Structure...

[Knifefighter]

Structure seems to be the new buzz word around here, but I wouldn't be surprised if almost no one defines it the same way.

What is your definition of structure and how do you apply it in your training/sparring/fighting?

[sihing]

Structure seems to be the new buzz word around here, but I wouldn't be surprised if almost no one defines it the same way.

What is your definition of structure and how do you apply it in your training/sparring/fighting?

A beginners perspective...

Structure = A united Front...

Since I am only in playing/training mode, I cannot expound on the fighting portion. You isolate things and take piece by piece everything about the structure that is useful, then add it in everything you do. First you start by learning ground sitting or the ability to be soild so that your power can be transmitted from you to him, stationary first. Then you apply it to movement in a slow and steady environment. Maintaining root while being mobile is the ideal. Perfect in practice, maybe 50% in the real, would be a good goal. My idea of this is that the majority of the people in the world are so "Ungrounded" that you can uproot, overpower, unstabilize, dominate, because of good understanding and consistent/intense training under your belt, you have an advantage over the average guy (your most likely opponent on the street). Obviously when your opponent has the same or more of this type of stuff, or a method that prevents you from applying it, you will have to adapt. It is just something you incorporate into yourself, like breathing, so that it is present in everything you do, but also under your control.

Go visit Sifu Lam Dale, he has it so naturally that people look at him and think he doesn't, that is until you make contact with him, lol...

James

P.S. Good subject to bring up :)

[Matrix]

Structure seems to be the new buzz word around here, but I wouldn't be surprised if almost no one defines it the same way.

1- It's not new
2- It's not a "buzz-word"
3- Your question clearly indicates that you think this is all a joke, so why bother?:rolleyes:

[Knifefighter]

1- It's not new
2- It's not a "buzz-word"

Well, it's certainly getting a lot of air play lately.




3- Your question clearly indicates that you think this is all a joke, so why bother?:rolleyes:

Not at all. I think structure (at least the way I define it) is a very valid concept and has a huge impact on how one approaches fighting/training/competing. I think structure is the starting point for any style and helps to determine its effectiveness or lack thereof.

However, I'm betting that most people don't even define it the same way, and, so, are not even on the same page when discussing it.

[Water Dragon]

Ya know, I've been looking at this screen for ten minutes, and I just cant describe it here. I can show you what I mean, I can teach it, but I can't explain it with just words. I quit.

[Knifefighter]

Structure = A united Front...


Ya know, I've been looking at this screen for ten minutes, and I just cant describe it here. I can show you what I mean, I can teach it, but I can't explain it with just words. I quit.

See what I mean?

[Water Dragon]

Here's an example: When you're in someone's guard, and you sit back and lift your head so that can't pull you down. That strong feeling through your back, the one that makes you feel like an oak tree to the other guy, that "feeling/idea" is structure.

See? You can show that, you can teach it, but how do you describe it to someone's who's never experienced that? Structure is inherent to skilled martial arts.

[AndrewS]

Dale,

the easiest way to explain structure to someone with BJJ experience- structure is frame.

Basic Wing Chun structure
- gut activated so the L-spine doesn't hyperextend
- pelvis slightly anterior to the greater trochanter so the leg braces against the ground
- hip slightly flexed with the back knee aimed into the other person so gluts and hams are at a decent length to apply force- the whole 'sit' thing is kinda like the second pull
-chest neutral, depends on what's going on as to how it gets used
-head up with a strong back- nice posture to prevent a snap down
-shoulders 'down'- shoulder girdle activated so the arm doesn't lose connection to the body
- elbows down, or more generally, inside the area just in front of the body in a position of mechanical advantage
-body relatively upright (closer to Ali than Frazier) so it's easier to move hip and shoulder together (as opposed to shoulder and knee, which also has its merits)
-weight on the front half of the foot, pushing off the side (from the external rotation component of hip extension, something which some lines like to emphasize by using the pigeon toed stance- unfortunately, many forgot why they do it).

FWIW,

Andrew

[LeeCasebolt]

Here's an example: When you're in someone's guard, and you sit back and lift your head so that can't pull you down. That strong feeling through your back, the one that makes you feel like an oak tree to the other guy, that "feeling/idea" is structure.


Can you differentiate between structure and posture?

[Knifefighter]

Here's an example: When you're in someone's guard, and you sit back and lift your head so that can't pull you down. That strong feeling through your back, the one that makes you feel like an oak tree to the other guy, that "feeling/idea" is structure.

See? You can show that, you can teach it, but how do you describe it to someone's who's never experienced that?

Simple: In terms of gi- sitting back over the heels, back straight, head up, arms partially extended and pushing into solar plexus area, hands gripping gi lapel strongly.

Structure (at least my definition of it) is variable and depends on the situation and style. Wrestling structure is different than Judo structure is different than Sambo structure is different than BJJ structure is different standing than on the ground is different in the guard than holding someone in the guard is different than mounted structure is different than side control structure is different than boxing structure is different than Muay Thai structure is different when at outside range is different when neck tying is different when defending the neck tie, etc, etc, etc.

[Knifefighter]

Can you differentiate between structure and posture?

Same, same... or different.

Different, in that some people might not include the arms into the equation of posture or where they are placed on the opponent.

As I said. I think many people have different definitions of structure and, thus, are not even talking about the same thing.

However, once we get on the same page about what structure is, then we can talk about structure in terms of different fighting approaches.

[Alan Orr]

Hi Knifefighter

RE:

Structure (at least my definition of it) is variable and depends on the situation and style. Wrestling structure is different than Judo structure is different than Sambo structure is different than BJJ structure is different standing than on the ground is different in the guard than holding someone in the guard is different than mounted structure is different than side control structure is different than boxing structure is different than Muay Thai structure is different when at outside range is different when neck tying is different when defending the neck tie, etc, etc, etc


Alan: Yes your right.

What decides if an art has its sturcutre correct within its own ideas on structure. A good wing chun structure a good BBJ structure. These depend on the understanding of position control. Can you keep your conrol under pressure. This is where a lot of arts fall down. In wing chun this is a big problem for a lot of styles. In BBJ if you roll and can not control your structure you can turned or its tap out time. That is why stand up structure is not fully understood.

I will start a new thread along the same debate for my Project study shortly.

All views may be used as quotes so I will let people know at the start of the thread.

Good post

My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[t_niehoff]

KF,

My perspective is that for me, body structure (which includes the limbs) is a specific way that we use our body to accomplish some task, and has more to do with maximizing body mechanics. There is an optimum way to use our body to do anything. For example, if I wanted to push a stalled car, there are optimal ways to use my body to do that. Similarly, if I want to shut my opponent's offense down on contact, there is an optimum way to use my body to do that. I've told Robert that I don't like his use of the term "body structure" because it really isn't accurate (not what is really going on) and suggests 'fixedness' when what is really going on is dynamic but I know why he uses it (for beginners).

FWIW, "body structure" is a buzzword IMO, and it's one that you never heard ten years ago. I first heard it used on the old WCML by Robert describing his methods. Since that time, it has entered the WCK lexicon along with many other misused words (trapping, etc.).

[stricker]

IMO for all styles, fighting boils down to a few things, one of them is body mechanics.

my thai coach uses the word structure all the time (and sensitivity etc LOL@wingchun being exclusive, anyway...). as a good example when teaching holding thai pads, when you hold for a right cross the two parts of it are the basic position (so the pad is at eye level, not too far apart like your fighting two people) then the more subtle aspect of how you hold the shoulder joint, timing how you feed on to the punch etc. (nb: thai pad has a different feel to it to focus mitt as it fixes the forearm). if the punch knocks your pad right back so your flailing all over the place its no use and potential to cause injury (especially in your shoulder)

you have to have the same characteristics in moving when you hold pads as in fighting namely moving fast and balanced (footwork and firing shots back) while being able to absorb force (helluva lot sometimes).

having a shoulder injury really tidied up my pad holding like nothing else!

andrew, knifefighter,

i agree with 'frame' but how about 'base' too?

[Wayfaring]

Structure - the specific detail behind the alignment of your body including all of its parts with respect to #1 itself, and #2 any opponent(s).

[Matrix]

Well, it's certainly getting a lot of air play lately.But Dale, I know that you have WC training and since some basics of structure are taught from day-one, I figured that you must have heard of this "buzz word" before. My mistake if this is not the case.


Disclaimer:
The opinions of the author expressed in this post are those of a theoretical non-fighting WC'er and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Wing Chun community at large. Neither the art of Wing Chun nor any of its practioners makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, theory, application or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately held views.

[Liddel]

...I agree with Terrence. :eek:

Structure to me, is the means in which to convey how to maximise your body mechanics for a variety of end results. With regard to fighting...

- To exhert force and meet your maximum potential in this regard and
- To recieve force, minimising what force is put on you in any given situation
....is achieved by using good structure ( however you percieve it )

I would expect alot of importance stressed on structure / posture in the MANY VT systems out there, given the foundations of the theories are supported by stucture.

Aside from body posture, VT relies heavily on the structure of the elbow...:rolleyes:

Also examples of structure are everywhere in everyday life and are well known to all, most people would have heard the old saying "lift with the knees" with regard to manual labour... This is one basic example.

[jooerduo]

Just because you guys or maybe Terence only, haven't heard of the term "structure" before 10 years ago doesn't mean it wasnt' around or never used in this manner. Robert Chu was *not* the first to coin the term, but who cares...

I also agree that structure has a lot to do with maximising body mechanics however it's not limited to physically describing the body mechanics - thats only half the story.

Its funny though that this topic is started by someone who doesn't believe in training traditional forms. When a kungfu guy, especially taichi, wing chun, bagua, xingyi, is training their forms - what do you think they are training?
structure of course!

[stonecrusher69]

When the word stucture is used its very generic word,but in the context of WCK to me I think of the concept of the iron (bone) bar rap in cotton (muscle skin)= structure.

[t_niehoff]

Just because you guys or maybe Terence only, haven't heard of the term "structure" before 10 years ago doesn't mean it wasnt' around or never used in this manner. Robert Chu was *not* the first to coin the term, but who cares...


Who cares? Apparently you. ;)

I said "body structure" is the new buzzword, and that it wasn't widely (hardly at all) talked about until about ten years ago when Robert began emphasizing it first on the WCML.



I also agree that structure has a lot to do with maximising body mechanics however it's not limited to physically describing the body mechanics - thats only half the story.


What's the other half in your opinion?



Its funny though that this topic is started by someone who doesn't believe in training traditional forms. When a kungfu guy, especially taichi, wing chun, bagua, xingyi, is training their forms - what do you think they are training?
structure of course!

No, they are wasting their time for the most part (something TCMAs are best at). When boxers box, they are training their structure; when wrestlers grapple, they are training their structure. To train structure you need to be using it.

[t_niehoff]

When the word stucture is used its very generic word,but in the context of WCK to me I think of the concept of the iron (bone) bar rap in cotton (muscle skin)= structure.

Interesting. So you think of WCK structure using a tai ji metaphor? I'm reminded of the words of Moy Yat . . . something about how most WCK books are really about tai ji. ;)

[stonecrusher69]

Eventhough internal styles like Tai Ji use this concept I don't think it's exclusive to just that art.many master talk about this.Sifu Augustine Fong Talks about this many times.The whole SLT form is done slow to develope structure or the Yin Dai GongY.ou must develope structure in the form first before you can really use in in fighting.You can't really learn structure from sparring I think beause you'll be so worried about being hit and to tense to relax which is the key to structure.

[Vajramusti]

I have been doing wing chun regularly since 1976... and structure of the parts and the whole was emphasized in my evolution from day one. That is just a fact..
not an opinion... but others are entitled to theirs... and I dont care to get into debates with TN, KF or anyone else.
Stances and sructures vary from art to art and activity to activity depending on the functions they want to emphasize and will also vary from training development to their usage in specific situations.,
Forums create their own stories. his-stories....

joy chaudhuri

[AndrewS]

Terence writes:


I said "body structure" is the new buzzword, and that it wasn't widely (hardly at all) talked about until about ten years ago when Robert began emphasizing it first on the WCML.

Of note, Robert's discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman's popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman's crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people's perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.

Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Of note, Robert's discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman's popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman's crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people's perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.

Andrew

Very true. And I recall a number of discussions between Sigman and Robert on the neijia list, including a few that got heated. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Eventhough internal styles like Tai Ji use this concept I don't think it's exclusive to just that art.many master talk about this.


Yes, many people in various arts do borrow tai ji's metaphors.



Sifu Augustine Fong Talks about this many times.


Exhibit A.



The whole SLT form is done slow to develope structure or the Yin Dai Gong.


Some lineages do the form differently, some with dynamic tension and some at top speed. Some like to waltz, others to cha cha. It's all just dancing.



Y.ou must develope structure in the form first before you can really use in in fighting.You can't really learn structure from sparring I think beause you'll be so worried about being hit and to tense to relax which is the key to structure.

I guess this is why all the TMAs that have form practice produce such top-notch fighters -- oh, I'm sorry, it seems to be the other way round: that the martial arts without forms and form practice seem to produce the good fighters. Hmmm. ;)

[Edmund]

Of note, Robert's discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman's popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman's crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people's perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.



Very true. And I recall a number of discussions between Sigman and Robert on the neijia list, including a few that got heated. ;)

Yeah. It started to become a bit of a bad joke after a while. One you don't really laugh over.

This is how the buzzword works:

I think Robert used the term structure because Mike did and it fit what he wanted to say. However it degraded into an art bashing argument. WC essentially being not "good enough" or whatever.

Later Robert came out with his structure tests which to me seemed a bit derivative of Mike's structure tests. A WC variation of sorts. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. The tests seemed OK.

What irked me somewhat was the attitude that failing the test meant you sucked or you don't really know WC or your lineage is crap. That elitist attitude kind of paralleled Mike's neijia attitude. People would place a lot of weight on whether they could pass the tests. And it seemed like they were selling something by creating the "value" and then offering the knowledge. It seems to be somewhat against the altruistic nature of internet mailing lists even though it was a fairly soft sell. Plus these tests were a way to stick the boot into people and accuse them of being unskilled if they didn't know of them.

After I pondered it a while and learnt more chen taiji and WC, I felt that it was skewing the "perceptions of the basics" a bit because of how much the test idea was pushed.

e.g. If you want to do any real push hands, you need to learn how to wrestle essentially. If you don't, you're in for a serious butt raping. It's a style of wrestling and there's a lot of different basic skills involved. A teacher teaches you these skills.

[t_niehoff]

Yeah. It started to become a bit of a bad joke after a while. One you don't really laugh over.


Agreed.



This is how the buzzword works:

I think Robert used the term structure because Mike did and it fit what he wanted to say. However it degraded into an art bashing argument. WC essentially being not "good enough" or whatever.


Actually, Robert was already using the term "body structure" and Mike was more into "groundpath" and peng, but they were talking about similar things.



Later Robert came out with his structure tests which to me seemed a bit derivative of Mike's structure tests. A WC variation of sorts. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. The tests seemed OK.


Robert already had developed his structure tests at that point, and was using them in his teaching. But you are correct that he hadn't publicized them at that point. FWIW, those sorts of "tests" are common in many arts and Robert adapted them to WCK.



What irked me somewhat was the attitude that failing the test meant you sucked or you don't really know WC or your lineage is crap. That elitist attitude kind of paralleled Mike's neijia attitude. People would place a lot of weight on whether they could pass the tests. And it seemed like they were selling something by creating the "value" and then offering the knowledge. It seems to be somewhat against the altruistic nature of internet mailing lists even though it was a fairly soft sell. Plus these tests were a way to stick the boot into people and accuse them of being unskilled if they didn't know of them.


The basic nature of the tests is a person's ability to receive pressure from an opponent (which also occurs when we give pressure) and to not rely on localized (arm/shoulder) muscle in performing actions. How important those things are in actually applying WCK is something to consider.

FWIW, I don't think that the Hawkins/Robert body structure (focus) is the "best" body structure or the only body structure; my view is that how you use your body will depend on the task you are trying to do.



After I pondered it a while and learnt more chen taiji and WC, I felt that it was skewing the "perceptions of the basics" a bit because of how much the test idea was pushed.


The tests are just teaching devices IMO, a means of giving the trainee feedback on their ability to use their body in a certain way. That's all.



e.g. If you want to do any real push hands, you need to learn how to wrestle essentially. If you don't, you're in for a serious butt raping. It's a style of wrestling and there's a lot of different basic skills involved. A teacher teaches you these skills.

As I see it, WCK is a skill that is comprised of a number of basic sub-skills. Those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches. Hawkins/Robert emphaizes a certain way of using the body which is central to their approach. Others can differ. In the end, it boils down to what you can do.

[jooerduo]

t_niehoff Quote:

Who cares? Apparently you.

I said "body structure" is the new buzzword, and that it wasn't widely (hardly at all) talked about until about ten years ago when Robert began emphasizing it first on the WCML.



** ok, hardly at all, I Thought you said he was the first, which he was not.
As per what vajramusti wrote, the word structure appeared from day one from where he learnt, and it would be the case for many others as well. But if you only heard it 10 years ago when robert chu mentioned it then you should say that you heard it first 10 years ago and not say it first appeared 10 years ago, because your experience is not necessarily everyone else's experience





Quote:
I also agree that structure has a lot to do with maximising body mechanics however it's not limited to physically describing the body mechanics - thats only half the story.

What's the other half in your opinion?

** if robert hasnt' told you yet then you need to attend class some more


Quote:
Its funny though that this topic is started by someone who doesn't believe in training traditional forms. When a kungfu guy, especially taichi, wing chun, bagua, xingyi, is training their forms - what do you think they are training?
structure of course!

No, they are wasting their time for the most part (something TCMAs are best at). When boxers box, they are training their structure; when wrestlers grapple, they are training their structure. To train structure you need to be using it.




** just because you think they are wasting their time does not make it so.
I agree with part of what you are saying here that you need to be using it. You don't seem to understand that you need to know what you *should* be doing before you do it - that is what the forms are for, to make sure you are doing it properly ie, bodies aligned properly, angles correct, etc.

I know a mma fighter who is on his way to becoming professional, he travelled at least 6 hours in total to attend a one and a half hour class, about 3 hours to class and 3 hours back home. Anyway, he comes to the class that my teacher teaches and he says he prefers the traditional way that these are taught because fighting is what the traditional training was designed for! That is an opinion which is worlds apart from yours. You can tell him that he's wasting his time if you like.

[jooerduo]

I was also lurking at the neijia list, and the old wing chun list at the time sigman and robert chu had their ****ing contest. That was enjoyable.

they both tried so hard to reinvent basic concepts and re-explaining it using their descriptions and terms like the groundpath and the teacher tests. two big egos, now they don't post anymore. but at least they had decent stuff to offer, unlike a current ego right now who likes to repeat the same thing again and again. dump that broken record :D

[Edmund]

Actually, Robert was already using the term "body structure" and Mike was more into "groundpath" and peng, but they were talking about similar things.


I agree somewhat. I think Mike was more into "groundpath" and "peng".
Don't totally recall if Robert was already using the term "body structure". It didn't seem like it to me but it was a long time ago.

To me though, the themes were interchangable. It created a similar scenario just on a different mailing list.

Regardless of who came first, everything I'm talking about applies to both buzzwords.




The tests are just teaching devices IMO, a means of giving the trainee feedback on their ability to use their body in a certain way. That's all.


I think they became more than that.
The buzzwords grew into something a little less about teaching and more about either sticking it someone or recruiting someone by setting a test and then offering to teach them how to pass it.




As I see it, WCK is a skill that is comprised of a number of basic sub-skills. Those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches. Hawkins/Robert emphaizes a certain way of using the body which is central to their approach. Others can differ. In the end, it boils down to what you can do.

Agreed.
But as I was saying, they've assigned a value to a sub-skill (as you call it). I then decide how much training effort, money, time etc. I'm going to commit to that.

You have given it a lower value by using the term "sub-skill". Others have assigned a higher value by emphasizing words like "basic" or saying it's been around for a long time hence it's important.

[Edmund]

I was also lurking at the neijia list, and the old wing chun list at the time sigman and robert chu had their ****ing contest. That was enjoyable.

they both tried so hard to reinvent basic concepts and re-explaining it using their descriptions and terms like the groundpath and the teacher tests. two big egos, now they don't post anymore. but at least they had decent stuff to offer, unlike a current ego right now who likes to repeat the same thing again and again. dump that broken record :D

Well what's the justification for having big egos though?
It's seldom a tolerable character trait! :)

And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren't really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don't think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had "Teacher Tests", his own little magazine, students etc.

At the time I thought "great! I can figure out who's a good teacher." But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn't mean that much.

A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen's taiji teachers.

[t_niehoff]

Well what's the justification for having big egos though?
It's seldom a tolerable character trait! :)


I think Mike and Robert were more like oil and water, two personalities that just didn't mix well.



And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren't really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don't think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had "Teacher Tests", his own little magazine, students etc.


I don't know what being "known" has to do with either having skill or being able to teach well.



At the time I thought "great! I can figure out who's a good teacher." But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn't mean that much.


I think that the idea behind Mike's "Teacher Tests" was a correct one -- that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can't really do that skill (pass the test), he can't teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn't emphasize that particular subskill.



A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen's taiji teachers.

It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").

[Edmund]

I think that the idea behind Mike's "Teacher Tests" was a correct one -- that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can't really do that skill (pass the test), he can't teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn't emphasize that particular subskill.



By choosing that skill as the all important one in the teacher test you've assigned a lot of value to it.

Then hypothetically you offer to teach it.
You also put down those who don't tow your line and share your values.

e.g. Robert was a victim of this on the neijia list.




It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").


Not in this case. People present themselves as authority figures and we have to weigh up which person's knowledge is greater.

[anerlich]

It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").

Not the norm - usually one has to want to be an "authority figure" pretty bad, and actively promote oneself, to be seen as one.