Alan Orr Body Structure

[r4cy]

I read the Alan Orr article from Martial Arts Illustrated, where he talks about something called the body structure from the Chu Sau Lei wing chun system, does anybody know what is this about? I hope I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on his dvd's just to find out. Is there any new approach to wing chun apart from all the theories we are already familiarized such a s the centerline, triangle etc etc?

[Matrix]

Search this forum for the term "Structure Study Project" and you will find a few threads that may offer you some info about Body Structure.

[Nick Forrer]

Hmm where to start

Three caveats before I respond:

1) talking up your own lineage is a common thing in wc - everyone thinks the wc they do is the best/most original etc. No one thinks they are doing sub standard wc.

2) Anything I say will probably sound like marketing hyperbole/commercial puff - so sorry if it does

3) - I can only speak from my own experience in wing chun and although I have seen and touched hands with a lot of branches I can obviously not comment on all the wing chun out there

so with that said plus the standard IMO, AFAIK, IM(limited)E etc. etc. here goes

- The body structure taught in CSLWCK is both complete and systematised. By this I mean that some other WC has body structure but it is not complete (they only have part of the structure picture so to speak) or they do not have it systematised (they dont have the forms or drills or understanding to pass it on effectively) - of course being complete and being systematised are closely related to one another.

- Structure in essence is how we recieve force and how we issue force - If I have structure and you dont have structure you should be unable to break my structure whilst I should be able to break yours easily..... Once you have broken someones structure hitting then becomes the easy part. A common mistake is to try and hit someone before their structure is broken or to break your own structure in the process of trying to hit(for example by overextending). Therefore, In CSL WCK we always try to maintain our own structure whilst attempting to break our opponents. This IMO is the true function of chi sau and why it so misinterpreted by many (since neither they nor their partner have structure).

- good structure is not a fixed form (i.e. one static stance or position that can be frozen in time) but something we can dynamically adjust and functionally adapt to the situation we find ourselves in. This is why people look at our body structure and express concern that it doesnt look like wck - what this reveals is that they are looking at the external form and not the function (which is putting the proverbial cart before the horse IMO). Another thing they say is that we are simply collapsing our bridge and leaning on our opponent - neither are correct although someone with a low level of structural understanding may think this.

-One good way of understanding structure are the structure tests that sigung Robert Chu devised. There is an article on this on his web site plus another excellent article by the much maligned Terence Niehoff called 'what drives us'. I cant put it any better than Terence has put it there so go and read those two articles.

- Speaking of Terence - Structure alone isnt enough - you obviously need sparring and conditioning to be functional - but structure will give you confidence in sparring and against other fighters (e.g. boxing or wrestling). IMO without structure you are better off doing another martial art.

- As the story goes when you would chi sau with Yip man 3 things would happen - 1) he would never step back, 2) he would never hit you 3) you would always be off balance i.e. either on your toes (falling forward) or on your heels (falling back). Thats a big hint right there. This tells you that Yip man had structure as these are the three big give aways.

- If you really want the information either get the dvds, or come and train with us. Or did you think people just give valuable information away for free? If learning correct structure was to radically improve your wing chun wouldnt it be worth the money? Whats the alternative - to spend the rest of your life doing crappy wc? It takes a lot to empty your cup especially when you have made a large emotional, financial and temporal effort in something else.

[sihing]

...If learning correct structure was to radically improve your wing chun wouldnt it be worth the money? Whats the alternative - to spend the rest of your life doing crappy wc? It takes a lot to empty your cup especially when you have made a large emotional, financial and temporal effort in something else....


I like this quote. I learned a WC system with little regard to true structure for 18 yrs, then was exposed to and now learning a system with true structure, and let me tell you there is a big difference when you have it and when you don't have. If your WC is important to you, you will put the expense out to learn the proper way, if not then like Nick said you can spend the rest of you life doing crappy WC. Not all WC is the same or equal, is something I learned a long time ago.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"A common mistake is to try and hit someone before their structure is broken..." (Nick F.)

***DOES this mean that I should never throw a punch until I've somehow bridged to a point where I can work on their structure?

Suppose there's no bridge (ie.- his arms are held very close to his body)...and I see an opening for a punch to land on a hard target - and I'm close enough to make it happen?

I should not throw it? Because I haven't yet "broken their structure?"

.................................

"...or to break your own structure in the process of trying to hit (for example by overextending)." (Nick F.)

***AND what if I've decided to use a different structure from a certain distance that by definition is more extended than the wing chun structure, ie.- a boxers structure with a straight stiff lead or a rear cross?

And in particular...

What if I've decided to use that other "more extended" structure, (ie.- boxing), to get to the point where I won't be "overextending" if I suddenly decide to follow the rear cross with wing chun vertical punches - because I'm now at a slightly closer range - and the boxing punch has hit him - wherein it disrupted his "structure"?

Is there a problem with this?

[JPinAZ]

This is an interesting discussion!

Nic,
I'd have to agree with you on a lot of what you write. Without proper structure, you really aren't doing 'WC' (at least from my POV).

I have a few questions for you. I am suprised by some of the comments you wrote, nad am just seeking clarification:
When you said "The body structure taught in CSLWCK is both complete and systematised. By this I mean that some other WC has body structure but it is not complete (they only have part of the structure picture so to speak) or they do not have it systematised (they dont have the forms or drills or understanding to pass it on effectively) - of course being complete and being systematised are closely related to one another."

Could you please elaborate on how CSL is 'complete' when others may not be? A few more examples please. No offense meant, but could sound like a pretty big claim.

Also, could you explain a bit more how CSL's complete structure is 'systematised' -in what regards?

Thanks,
Jonathan

[JPinAZ]

Vic,

Regarding an 'extended structure'.
Not sure how a stiff lead or cross has 'stucture' in a WC sense since it doesn't really connect to the ground, the elbow is extended inside the shoulder dimension, etc.. It could be argued that a stick has structure, but you'd have to be more specific on how you define 'structure'. Are you talking the whole body, or just the limb?
IMO, with a straight lead or cross, normally the elbow is rotated out, so it would be pretty hard to connect that through the body and into the ground.. So, I can't see how you'd be talking about any kind of body structure here.

Jonathan

PS James, Great point/post!

[chi sau]

Or did you think people just give valuable information away for free?

steve morris does this nick his fighters notebook youtube vids etc are
an absolute goldmine of valuable information
i have watched clips of alan n company training and i dont understand where his body structure is?
if you watch this clip from his website at 37 seconds his body structure results in him being almost toppled over or pushed back by his partner

NHB Wing Chun Extreme DVD intro.avi

im not sure if thats a link or not?

im not a naysayer or anything like that but this body structure buZZword seems to me (im not accusing/slandering just saying seems to me) to be just that,an advertising gimmick
ive trained with steve morris and his body structure works 100 percent i couldnt endorse anybody more,but i dont wish to be rude so dont take this out of context , at time from admittedly the little ive seen of mr orrs body structure it appears sloppy , so that is why i m confused by this whole body structure
i re itterate im not attacking or being rude just in the dark

[Gooseman]

The following statements worry me:

"As the story goes when you would chi sau with Yip man 3 things would happen - 1) he would never step back, 2) he would never hit you 3) you would always be off balance i.e. either on your toes (falling forward) or on your heels (falling back). Thats a big hint right there. This tells you that Yip man had structure as these are the three big give aways."

1. I do believe Yip Man (God bless him) would step back if Ricky Hatton laid a few body shots into him, or Quinton Jackson drove a steady stream of right crosses in his direction. To not consider back stepping as an option is to limit your options instantly. A classic ring fighting tactic is to draw your opponent into a false sense of security, through your retreating steps, which is the bait for you to explode into the offensive role.
2. "he would never hit you", how can this be so, wing chun is rich in striking tools, use them or no result?
3. Falling forward and back, what happened to working in accord with the forces applied. Adjust, align and action.

I understand structure as being a combination of balance, frame and the potential to adjust to forces, that includes a strong jaw, ha ha ha.
I cannot comment on Alan's method, only on my experiences.

Regards.
Steve G.

[Nick Forrer]

"A common mistake is to try and hit someone before their structure is broken..." (Nick F.)

***DOES this mean that I should never throw a punch until I've somehow bridged to a point where I can work on their structure?

Suppose there's no bridge (ie.- his arms are held very close to his body)...and I see an opening for a punch to land on a hard target - and I'm close enough to make it happen?

I should not throw it? Because I haven't yet "broken their structure?"

The situation you describe seems to be one in which your opponent has no structure to begin with so no there you would not need to break their structure first

Also a punch can *itself* be a method of breaking structure...... so its not that you never throw a punch without first breaking structure - just that your emphasis when learning and training should be to try and break structure first (i.e. get that skill which takes time to acquire) since anyone can throw a punch without first breaking structure - its what beginners try and do after all.





"...or to break your own structure in the process of trying to hit (for example by overextending)." (Nick F.)

***AND what if I've decided to use a different structure from a certain distance that by definition is more extended than the wing chun structure, ie.- a boxers structure with a straight stiff lead or a rear cross?

And in particular...

What if I've decided to use that other "more extended" structure, (ie.- boxing), to get to the point where I won't be "overextending" if I suddenly decide to follow the rear cross with wing chun vertical punches - because I'm now at a slightly closer range - and the boxing punch has hit him - wherein it disrupted his "structure"?

Is there a problem with this?

Do what you like - you can even mix your wc with catch wrestling - boxing is something different tho

WC has both short bridge and long bridge but short bridge is our prefered method - but you need to learn how to move from long to short - this is what man sau is for plus the whole topic of bridging in general. Wing chun training starts from the short bridge (chi sau) and then you move out to the long bridge later (bridging/sparing)

If you cant bridge properly then by all means add in some boxing to compensate for your deficiency - there are better ways to do it then hopping about on one leg tho imo.

[Nick Forrer]

steve morris does this nick his fighters notebook youtube vids etc are
an absolute goldmine of valuable information

True but he asks for donations for his site, his clips only scratch the surface of what he shows on his DVDs (that he doesnt give out for free) and his site in general is to try and encourage people to come and train with him. So lets not be disingenuous about the business aspect (which to be clear I dont begrudge him or anyone else especially in view of the quality of his teaching and knowledge)



i have watched clips of alan n company training and i dont understand where his body structure is?

Thats okay - thats because you don't have structure at least as we understand and use it (just as someone who has never grappled will not understand whats going on when they see a clip like this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w1kLYq2noc8

it takes a certain level to understand a certain level - this is not me being catty btw just honest)



im not a naysayer or anything like that but this body structure buZZword seems to me (im not accusing/slandering just saying seems to me) to be just that,an advertising gimmick

I have a different experience - but as I said no one likes to think their WC is deficient



ive trained with steve morris and his body structure works 100 percent i couldnt endorse anybody more

me neither - but steve morris doesn't do wing chun so i dont understand how its relevant to the topic.

[Nick Forrer]

i have watched clips of alan n company training and i dont understand where his body structure is?
if you watch this clip from his website at 37 seconds his body structure results in him being almost toppled over or pushed back by his partner


I just watched the clip - he loses his structure and regains it - which is a skill in CSL WCK - but lets not take a 3 second clip from an edited sequence out of context and try and spin it to fit an agenda - the only way to find out about Alans stucture is to come and have a go - its not like we're hard to find.

Here is a better clip

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J2bhkTFjWKo

BTW whats your name and where do you train?

[chi sau]

hello nick
the name is paul and currently i train with friends in my back garden as i dont really see anybody doing what i want to do in clubs wc wise
i mention steves structure because i know you and i both trained with the guy and i thought it might be some common ground you coud use to expand upon re alans structure but i guess not,also i have yet to find anything better than steves
it takes a certain level to understand a certain level - this is not me being catty btw just honest)



i trained wc for some 12 years before i went my own way
and during some of that time i was an instructor so forgive me if i do take some offence at that remark

i went to seni 07 to see alans structure in the flesh so to speak (i read on here he would be there but i went sunday and i guess i got that wrong,saw your match bw
nice work)

i belong to no organisations or clubs other than the bja so im like the swiss ,neutral but yet to be convinced by the body structure thing even though i keep asking all i ever hear is buy the dvds
a
it s highly impractical for me to come to london to train otherwise i probably would

peace

[jesper]

You should always be careful about judging a mans body structure by some video clip. Its almost impossible to do.
The best way or maybe even only way is to go and touch hands with whoever your curious about:)

[Nick Forrer]

i went to seni 07 to see alans structure in the flesh so to speak (i read on here he would be there but i went sunday and i guess i got that wrong,saw your match bw
nice work)


Hi Paul...sorry to miss you at seni. Alan *was* there on sunday. If you had come up to me I could have introduced you. Alan is always happy to chi sau with people. Stricker on this forum was there and wrote a report on his experience - maybe you should read that? I have ttt the thread although reading it it seems we are going over ground that has already been covered?

You say you have done 12 years - ok, but that could be 12 years crappy wc right? We had a guy with 15 years come to the class recently and students of the same size with 1 year in were pushing him around. Obviously I have never met you so I dont know what your level is...maybe its great...but the fact you think Alan looks sloppy and has no structure is a red flag. Still you'll never really know until youve been on the other end of it.

[chi sau]

bows out of ,all attempts at "constructive discussion"
i was genuinely interested in having this body structure thing explained to me by you or alan

i genuinely did look for alan there but i didnt see him

peace

[Nick Forrer]

This is an interesting discussion!


Could you please elaborate on how CSL is 'complete' when others may not be? A few more examples please. No offense meant, but could sound like a pretty big claim.


In terms of SLT Many people sit back on the heels when they are in YGKYM, and the spine is bowed not straight. They therefore arent able to use the natural springs of the body to store and issue power. Any force applied means they have to step back rather than being able to sink and 'load' their stance with the force and thus 'recieving what comes' as the kuen kuit advises.

Then in terms of CK when they need to turn they turn away from the opponent or past him rather than turning into him and thus rotating him away like a spinning top. Part of doing this well is about not shifting the axis from side to side when turning, another part is using the K1 (ball of the foot) as the pivot point and not the heel.

These are just some of the structural deficiencies that turn up in other wck I have seen. If your SLT is off your CK will be off and if your CK is off then God help you in a real fight.




Also, could you explain a bit more how CSL's complete structure is 'systematised' -in what regards?


The strucutral mechanics are introduced on the very first day through the structure tests. They are then built on systematically. The forms, the drills and the mental methods i.e. crossing, asking, floating, borrowing, stealing, guiding etc. all follow logically from one another to give a student a complete picture. When you get to a certain level the structre itself starts to teach you i.e. there is a critical mass of learning where your structural understanding starts to snowball exponentially.

[Nick Forrer]

bows out of ,all attempts at "constructive discussion"
i was genuinely interested in having this body structure thing explained to me by you or alan

i genuinely did look for alan there but i didnt see him

peace

Paul at the risk of repeating myself READ the articles by Robert chu and Terence I have already referenced. If you cant get it from them then you will just have to come and train or organise a seminar. We had one recently in Leicester but you obviously werent there. You say its impractical to come but is it really? Alan had to travel to the US to get the body structure and Robert had to relocate from NY to LA to train with Hawkins. Is it more impractical than that? As I said wouldnt it be worth it if it was to radically change your wing chun?

[YungChun]

In terms of SLT Many people sit back on the heels when they are in YGKYM

Agreed weight on the heels isn't ideal. Using the whole foot is...

But ...



another part is using the K1 (ball of the foot) as the pivot point and not the heel.

How does one pivot on the heels without putting the weight on them... :?

As I recall we were taught to pivot from sort of the middle of the foot or closer to the middle, a little ahead of the heal... A more natural way to turn IMO vs, transferring weight to the heels.. Which would then ground you on the heels..


Then in terms of CK when they need to turn they turn away from the opponent or past him rather than turning into him

Seems like they would loose their FACING then... Somthing most WCK folks are aware of and trying not to do <loose facing>.. Not much new there..

[t_niehoff]

Some disjointed comments . . .

Nick is spot on with his observations. He's been to the well and tasted the water.

I've seen some of Alan's DVDs, and they describe and show what we who have trained with Robert call body structure very well. So they are definately worth the money. That said, it will be difficult for most people IMO to really learn, let alone develop, this body structure from DVDs. It is a skill that really does take some hands-on interaction with someone that already has it to get the feel for. If anyone is really interested in this approach, get the DVDs, and get some private instruction from someone with the skill.

Body structure has become a buzzword. Like so many other things in WCK, many people share the same terms. But the terms are not the things. And very often, it is the case of people using the same terms but meaning something very different. The way we use that term is to describe a specific way of using our body to generate and receive force (with our body, and not localized muscle). However, it is much more than that. How a person uses their body will effect everything else they do. Your WCK is built from the ground up, and your body structure, whatever it is, is the foundation for everything else.

Hawkins and Robert are not the only people who teach this body structure; it is present to some degree or another in a very few other "lineages" of WCK. It is clearly (from the POV of anyone who is familiar that skill) not a part of what most people in WCK do. One thing that sets Robert and his approach apart from others IME is in how he teaches this: from day one he explicitly and sharply focuses on this body-structure as the foundation, root skill of WCK, and has coherently put together a systematic way of teaching it, developing it, and using it as a bridge to everything else.

WCK, as I see it, is more than blocking and striking (even at the same time, LOL!), more than hitting the opponent and trying to not get hit: it provides us with a general strategic gameplan for fighting (the WCK faat or method). To appreciate this, we need to view WCK as an "inside", close range, fighting method (where we are well in the opponent's striking range). One significant "part" of that gameplan is breaking the opponent's structure (and of course not getting our's broken). Without body structure it is almost impossible to break an opponent's structure and keep it broken (and not have your own structure broken). The point behind breaking the opponent's structure is that it takes away his ability to attack and defend; all he can do is try to regain his structure (so that he can then attack and defend). If I don't break his structure and keep it broken when I am on the inside, its going to get ugly fast. Since most people in WCK don't have body-structure, they can't break and keep their opponent's structure broken, so they can't fight on the inside (and stay there), so they end up using either a kick-boxing model of WCK or kamakaze model (run in blasting and hope for the best).

Steve Morris's stuff is top-drawer.

[CFT]

Paul, you didn't say what part of the UK you are from. If you really want to try the CSLWCK method but can't make it to London, then Alan has quite a few students around the country who can teach you.

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/instructors/instructorslist.html

My friends have recently started training with one of Alan's students in the East Midlands and they couldn't recommend it enough. Take the plunge!

[Dan_chi_sau]

hey all,
yeah, CFT hit the nail on the head there, I started training with one of alans instructors a little while back. I would recommend anyone interested to go check it out. I did the same thing, watched a few 'youtube' and thought to myself 'eh?....don't get it'. I think thats the point, you're not GOING to get it from watching a dvd. Its a feeling, and you can only get that feeling by feeling it. Or from another point of view.......watching porn doesnt make you good in bed.
Now Im not trying to belittle any other lineage/style/family/organisation by saying this, I'm just saying that its something I'm doing at the mo, and I'm enjoying it, it makes sense and its effective. So if it interests you, go check it out.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"WC has both short bridge and long bridge but short bridge is our prefered method - but you need to learn how to move from long to short - this is what man sau is for plus the whole topic of bridging in general. Wing chun training starts from the short bridge (chi sau) and then you move out to the long bridge later (bridging/sparing)

If you cant bridge properly then by all means add in some boxing to compensate for your deficiency - there are better ways to do it then hopping about on one leg tho imo." (Nick Forrer).


***LOL with this, Nick. If you think mon sao/bridging is how to get to short range against someone with solid boxing, kickboxing, or Thai boxing skills - then you've got a big surprise coming someday. Please show me even one vid (youtube, MMA venue, some other tournament venue, streetfight, anything)...that demonstrates this.

And if the boxer guy is even slightly taller and with even a slightly longer reach - again, serious LOL.

You need to have the right tool for the job. And wing chun is a short range system. Period. When you're at a longer range - you need longer tools. Mon sao is a joke in this regard.

You want to know the real application of the wing chun mon sao?

Picture a Butterfly Sword in each hand as you attack another armed opponent.

As far as empty handed fighting goes - LOL with the wing chun mon sao. :cool:


NOW IF YOU WANT TO ADAPT AND MODIFY THE MON SAO PRINCIPLE TO A LONGER EXTENDED BOXING HANDS AND STRUCTURE, ie.- leads and crosses to his shoulder lines - as a means of bridging to a closer wing chun efficient range (or possibly hitting a hard target from a slightly longer range with a lead or cross) - then you've got something.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Don't forget that WC was designed to work against WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Some people will tell you that wing chun was designed primarily to work against a system like Choy Li Fut - a long arm kung fu system. But the structure of CLF is nothing like boxing in efficiency.

Not even close.

[YungChun]

Don't forget that WC was designed to work against WC.

Can't agree.. WCK was created to defeat itself? The opposite..WCK along with the other handful of last generation Hakka like, systems, White Eyebrow, Southern Mantis, Bak Mei, were streamlined and designed to deal with mainly the last revision of styles that were already prominent at the time...

[sanjuro_ronin]

When was the last time you saw WC work or even train against others?
Look through youtube, dozens of WC clips and I have yet to see one of WC VS anything else then WC.
Even the Demos is WC VS WC.

[sihing]

Don't forget that WC was designed to work against WC.

I don't know about that. I do agree that today alot of people in WC practice against WC, and IMO this is incorrect. You will more than likely NEVER meet another WC player in the streets, so why practice against the attack method and or defense. You have to apply it against various types of energy and or projections coming towards you, whether it is a right cross, jau sau, cranes beak or whatever, round is round and there are similarities with them all. The key is to don't chase hands, constantly attack the COG, and apply pressure at all times (when the range is right), putting the other guy on the defensive. Proper structure allows you not worry about people applying pressure on you, since you are able to absorb it and give out as well. If you have no structure, you will have to worry more about maintaining balance while attacking or defending, vs. someone with structure and forward force on your COG.

James

[YungChun]

When was the last time you saw WC work or even train against others?
Look through youtube, dozens of WC clips and I have yet to see one of WC VS anything else then WC.
Even the Demos is WC VS WC.

True for the most part.. But this has nothing to do with what the intention of the founders was 300 years ago...

This only speaks to what is going on now...On YouTube... Actually to truly experience what WCK is all about you MUST try it on NON WCK folks..

What sense would it make to create a new style designed to defeat itself? Systems are created to solve problems.. Problems in combat, eg other systems, other clans..other threats..

[sanjuro_ronin]

True for the most part.. But this has nothing to do with what the intention of the founders was 300 years ago...

This only speaks to what is going on now...On YouTube... Actually to truly experience what WCK is all about you MUST try it on NON WCK folks..

What sense would it make to create a new style designed to defeat itself? Systems are created to solve problems.. Problems in combat, eg other systems, other clans..other threats..

Ah yes, what we make of the blood, sweat and tears of the people of yesterday...

A travesty.

[t_niehoff]

Since everyone is giving their opinion, I'll give mine: WCK is for fighting "in a phone booth" (metaphorically speaking). It gives you the tools/skills to safely get into the phone booth and the tools/skills to fight in the phone booth. You can make it work against anyone, if your skills are better than their skills; you can't make it work against anyone, if your skills are worse than their skills.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since everyone is giving their opinion, I'll give mine: WCK is for fighting "in a phone booth" (metaphorically speaking). It gives you the tools/skills to safely get into the phone booth and the tools/skills to fight in the phone booth. You can make it work against anyone, if your skills are better than their skills; you can't make it work against anyone, if your skills are worse than their skills.

They didn't have phone booths in China when WC was developed.

[t_niehoff]

Apparently they don't have metaphors where you are from. ;)

And, btw, how do you know when WCK was developed?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Apparently they don't have metaphors where you are from. ;)

And, btw, how do you know when WCK was developed?

I think you know what I meant, in that, the developer(s) of WC did NOT intend it for use in solely one environment, what kind of myopia did they suffer from?

WC can and should be useful in all aspects of fighting, it just has to be trained that way.

The difference in the WC from someone that spars/fights VS other systems and someone that doesn't is more noticable than a phone booth in 19th century china ;)

[t_niehoff]

I think you know what I meant, in that, the developer(s) of WC did NOT intend it for use in solely one environment, what kind of myopia did they suffer from?


I don't speak for the "developers" of WCK.

I say WCK is for fighting in a phone booth, just as BJJ is for fighting on the ground, because that is where each art's tools work (best). Nothing whatsoever myopic in that.



WC can and should be useful in all aspects of fighting, it just has to be trained that way.

Sure WCK works on the outside -- it gives you the tools to get into the phonebooth. Stay on the outside, and you end up kickboxing (like all the youtube clips of WCK on the outside). If a person wants to kickbox, that's cool -- but there are better vehicles IMO for it than WCK.

WCK doesn't work on the ground (at least to any significant degree).

[r4cy]

Well certainly everybody has something to say, and no disrespect but as far as this forum goes nobody has been able to answer my question. What's the CSLWCK structure about, what's the difference from the all the main points all WCK branches share?....... By the way are the dvd's any good?, I mean can you watch the points progressively as taught at all the Orr schools?

[CFT]

I honestly don't think you will ever get a satisfactory written explanation. There is a reason why the major teaching tool of Wing Chun is chi sau. Same with videos, though it is somewhat superior to text as a teaching medium. For the price of a DVD you could have a private lesson with one of Alan's instructors and feel for yourself what the difference is.

[t_niehoff]

Well certainly everybody has something to say, and no disrespect but as far as this forum goes nobody has been able to answer my question. What's the CSLWCK structure about, what's the difference from the all the main points all WCK branches share?....... By the way are the dvd's any good?, I mean can you watch the points progressively as taught at all the Orr schools?

Your questions have been answered, but you apparently aren't listening.

Nick has given a simple, straightforward explanation, and I've tried to elaborate a bit. But if you are interested, you can read Robert's own articles on his website (chusaulei.com) or, as Nick suggested, read my articles (on wingchunkuen.com), or read Alan's articles (on alanorr.com) or etc. Or, best of all, go visit someone who has skill with this body structure.

Alan's DVDs are good and worth the money. They are, from my POV, more of an overview rather than a step-by-step progression. The fact is you are not going to "get it" from a DVD.

[Nick Forrer]

Its funny, the general form of questions we get about our system in this culture of self entitlement that we live in seems to be:

Given that

a) I dont want to buy any dvds

b) I dont want to come train with you or organise a seminar

And

c) I cant be bothered to read the free articles on the net you have pointed me towards either

Will you explain your entire system to me in a way that I can understand for free

P.S. I already know in advance that your wing chun is nothing special and that I already have complete structural understanding but just tell me all about it anyway

[reneritchie]

Robert's Article:

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=146

Terence's Article:

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44

[reneritchie]

Robert's "structure" (I would call it mechanics) is interesting and impressive. His ability to get other people functional with it in a very short time is downright scary.

Not everyone will like it or feel comfortable with it (for whatever their reasons), but it's definitely worth a look and can literally shave a lot of time off your learning curve.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Robert's "structure" (I would call it mechanics) is interesting and impressive. His ability to get other people functional with it in a very short time is downright scary.

Not everyone will like it or feel comfortable with it (for whatever their reasons), but it's definitely worth a look and can literally shave a lot of time off your learning curve.

I think that Robert's exposure to other systems really helped him to understand hwo best to apply WC and how to get others to apply it too.

[Ultimatewingchun]

From Robert's article:

"let's say a person puts their palm on your chest and presses with continuous force. The pressure should not send you flying back, but should root you to the ground. You cannot develop this power if you are leaning backwards like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or "hunchbacked" like Quasimodo of Notre Dame. You need to relax and sink and maintain the proper alignment in doing these tests."


HAVEN'T READ ANY FURTHER than this yet....so I'm not judging the entire article by any means. But this statement is in complete contradiction to a very basic wrestling, grappling, judo, jiu jitsu, sambo, principle:

Where he has no leg to post on - there is a vulnerable point where he can be moved (and possibly even taken down). This principle is also taught in TWC sweeping techniques, btw...so I'm not just comparing Robert's method with grappling systems.

Because there is no leg directly (or almost directly) behind the point being pushed or pressured when in the wing chun neutral stance (YJKYM).

If force is applied there (to the middle of the body, ie.- virtually anywhere on your centerline) - you will be forced to take a step backwards, since you will not be able to redirect the force into the ground. But if a leg is posted behind the incoming force - then indeed, you can direct the pressure into the ground through that leg.

[CFT]

I'm not sure I understand your point Victor. I've seen this structure test (neutral stance) performed at a seminar that Alan Orr presented at. It does work in this context. If you are saying "what if you are swept?" then I think that is a different scenario. There is also another test where the testee is in a lead leg stance.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't know the exact details of the test you saw - but you did refer to a front stance, so I'll use that to further illustrate my point.

If he's in this stance - then pressure applied to an angle/point in the middle of his body where his back leg isn't posted will move him.

BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO ABSORB THE FORCE BEING APPLIED.

And the same in the neutral stance: there's nothing there (behind his back) to absorb the force being applied in the front. Someone is pushing directly behind where you stand - AND IN THE MIDDLE to where you stand. (And assuming his push or force is substantial).

How can you unilaterally change the direction of his force into two different directions, ie.- make it now start traveling downwards AND TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT? (Because without doing that your legs being rooted into the ground while in YJKYM won't help you).

It's possible to redirect it downwards (due to the law of gravity) and through the leg into the ground IF your leg is in the same line and BEHIND the force coming at you - but without that - you will be moved - since you won't be able to do redirect it left or right.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Are you saying that the test is explained wrong or that its full of crap?

[KimWingChun]

Victor,

Not trying to be confrontational, but you're wrong. This entire basic idea of the CSL structure mechanics is to use and align your body in such a way that YOU CAN absorb/redirect force without any leg directly behind it. But you have to use your joints and weight dynamically.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Victor,

Not trying to be confrontational, but you're wrong. This entire basic idea of the CSL structure mechanics is to use and align your body in such a way that YOU CAN absorb/redirect force without any leg directly behind it. But you have to use your joints and weight dynamically.

I recall the Systema guy Vladimir or Vladilav ( whichever), doing something similare in reagrds to receiving strikes or pushes on the body, hit his left chesst for example and he would give way and allow the force to travel down to his feet and the "re-coil" back up...something like that?

[Ultimatewingchun]

" hit his left chest for example and he would give way and allow the force to travel down to his feet and the "re-coil" back up...something like that?" (SR)


***THAT'S DIFFERENT. The force was not being applied to the middle of his body, ie.- somewhere on his centerline...but was being applied to his LEFT side.

Yes, that's possible.

[KimWingChun]

I haven't seen it so I can't say but it sounds somewhat similar. (Although in the basic test you take pressure on your center).

I'd call the basic body methods of CSL WCK chum, fou, tun and tou, which means sink, rise, swallow and spit. As I said it has to do with either using gravity to offset our weight and load our natural springs in the body, or to use pressure from a partner/opponent to do it. I think really the best article describing this in detail
is "What Drives Us", written by a long-road WCK practitioner. Read it here:

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44

[CFT]

The tests are exactly as they are in Robert Chu's article, and there are photos to illustrate them. I have seen the neutral YJKYM stance test where someone is pushing on your chest and it is directed down into the stance (both legs). Even I could do it to some degree, but I haven't had the proper (extended) coaching, so I got pushed onto my heels frequently.

I agree that the lead leg (front) stance test seems easier to perform, exactly for the reasons you point out. Sink into the stance and direct the hips towards the tester.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What I'm saying is that the BASIC principle is that if you apply substantial force to a point DIRECTLY in the middle (and halfway between) where his legs are posted - there's nothing there to absorb it and the man will be moved.

[sanjuro_ronin]

" hit his left chest for example and he would give way and allow the force to travel down to his feet and the "re-coil" back up...something like that?" (SR)


***THAT'S DIFFERENT. The force was not being applied to the middle of his body, ie.- somewhere on his centerline...but was being applied to his LEFT side.

Yes, that's possible.

I recall him doing it off a punch to the solar plexus too, basically the same thing, I reclall him mentioning that even a straight woudl be inclined to go to one side or the other, to our right if the puncher was right handed, left if he was left handed.

Agian I don't know if this is the samething...

[CFT]

Victor, it can be done. One of the keys is that you are not in a "locked out" stance to begin with. You are sinking the stance as the force is applied; you also have to maintain body alignment (3 points) - but it is all in the articles. You have to play with it. Better if you have a qualified CSLWCK practitioner to guide you through it. It is not at all bogus.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I recall him doing it off a punch to the solar plexus too, basically..." (SR)


***AGAIN, this is a horse of a different color. A punch is not a substantial push.

I suspect we are all talking about apples and oranges. The force into the center of his body and halfway between where his legs are posted has to be substantial - otherwise you may not move him at all. It's all a matter of degree.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"I recall him doing it off a punch to the solar plexus too, basically..." (SR)


***AGAIN, this is a horse of a different color. A punch is not a substantial push.

I suspect we are all talking about apples and oranges. The force into the center of his body and halfway between where his legs are posted has to be substantial - otherwise you may not move him at all. It's all a matter of degree.


I recall him doing it off pushes to show how it works on a slower application of force, but he focused more on strikes for obvious reasons.
His stance was pretty neutral from what I remember...
But it was a while ago.
he was slighly "leaned forward" that I do recall...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Victor, it can be done. One of the keys is that you are not in a "locked out" stance to begin with. You are sinking the stance as the force is applied; you also have to maintain body alignment (3 points) - but it is all in the articles. You have to play with it. Better if you have a qualified CSLWCK practitioner to guide you through it. It is not at all bogus.


***I SEE how the "sinking as the force is being applied" can help to keep balance, and I use that principle a lot when someone tries to take me down, in fact...but I don't think that it overides the basic principle I described -

wherein substantial force being applied to the middle of my body and on a point exactly halfway between where my legs are posted will almost always move me. Whether I'm in a front stance or a neutral stance. It doesn't matter. The principle works.

[sihing]

But if you learn to absorb some of that force down the middle, without taking a step back (giving space per say), then you will be able to react faster and have less need for footwork. Like CFT said, you can't ever be in a locked out position. Think of yourself as a spring, when someone pushes on a spring it compresses. Yeah, every spring has a limit but it is within that limit that you have time to react and redirect or whatever. If you are already at your limit from the get go (locked out), you have no choice but to recoup and catch up by stepping back. I can see the validity of the tests and the idea of absorbing force within your stance. It is hardest to do when someone is directly applying force to your body, like a push on the chest, but you still have your hips, knees, and ankles to absorb that push into the ground. I'm agree though that if the push is hard enough you will tumble over sooner or later. That is when pivioting is used to redirect the energy and keep you in proper space and distance to retalilate.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"he was slightly 'leaned forward' that I do recall..." (SR)

**AT WHICH POINT the principle I described will work if you PULL him in the direction of the centerpoint halfway between where his legs are posted.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"he was slightly 'leaned forward' that I do recall..." (SR)

**AT WHICH POINT the principle I described will work if you PULL him in the direction of the centerpoint halfway between where his legs are posted.

I dig where you're coming from Bro, I am trying to get my head around how this test is suppose to work too...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"But if you learn to absorb some of that force down the middle, without taking a step back (giving space per say), then you will be able to react faster and have less need for footwork." (James)


***That's a BIG "if", James...

[sihing]

"But if you learn to absorb some of that force down the middle, without taking a step back (giving space per say), then you will be able to react faster and have less need for footwork." (James)


***That's a BIG "if", James...

I don't think so, but everything is relative. I'd rather rely on stability and absorbtion first, then flashy excessive footwork. One can take a ton more work to maintain than the other. I'm not saying this way is the be all end all, but it is a skill you can use to help achieve a goal, just like everything else we learn in WC and other Martial Arts.

James

[t_niehoff]

What I'm saying is that the BASIC principle is that if you apply substantial force to a point DIRECTLY in the middle (and halfway between) where his legs are posted - there's nothing there to absorb it and the man will be moved.

This is what many believe simply because they haven't seen, or more importantly felt, this mechanic in action.

The body structure we're talking about involves learning to use the body as a spring so that it absorbs (swallows) pressure. This is in direct contrast to bracing, where a leg is needed ss a post for support when resisting. With the body structure we're talking about, the body's natural "springs" are coordinated so that pressure is "spring loaded" and not resisted. This is actually "borrowing" the opponent's force. Robert and I both have written articles describing this.

For someone who has developed this skill, it works regardless of where you press or how you press. From our perspective, the YJKYM is this body structure, this spring load mechanic.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is what many believe simply because they haven't seen, or more importantly felt, this mechanic in action.

The body structure we're talking about involves learning to use the body as a spring so that it absorbs (swallows) pressure. This is in direct contrast to bracing, where a leg is needed ss a post for support when resisting. With the body structure we're talking about, the body's natural "springs" are coordinated so that pressure is "spring loaded" and not resisted. This is actually "borrowing" the opponent's force. Robert and I both have written articles describing this.

For someone who has developed this skill, it works regardless of where you press or how you press. From our perspective, the YJKYM is this body structure, this spring load mechanic.

Video.....

[Ultimatewingchun]

I would imagine then, that such technique should be able to stop any and all takedowns: single leg shoots, double leg shoots, leg picks and dives, throws, sweeps, leg trips...everything. (Since they all work off the BASIC unbalancing principles I described).

Whoa....can't wait to see this video! :cool: :)

[reneritchie]

Victor,

The mechanics are specifically designed to handle force applied through the mid-line. (There are ways to break it -- very specifically mentioned in some basic WCK), but force through the mid-line isn't it. While no tripod is present (insert jokes), the alignment is such that a "virtual" tripod supports the force (other MA, like Taiji, make use of virtual lines for support as well).

Also, what's shown in the article is the basic, kindergarten mechanics.

Like any WCK, they start off in the static YJKYM and then move through turning and stepping, etc. with the same mechanical advantages.

One way to think of the different body methods in WCK is like thinking of Tan, Fook, Bong. Tan is not Fook, yet both work under certain conditions. If you understand the conditions, you can do great things with them. If you look at them without understanding the conditions, you may think them useless.

BTW- Most YJKYM, regardless of system, look at times like they're begging for a suplex or double leg of sorts. That's why, IMHO, we have specific body postures that present a less attractive target (you can see them in some lineages basic hand sets).

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'd need to see a "virtual tripod" work against a good double leg shoot before I could believe it, Rene.

Video...



(Unless you're talking about a nice sprawl). :D :cool:

[Wayfaring]

Victor, it can be done. One of the keys is that you are not in a "locked out" stance to begin with. You are sinking the stance as the force is applied; you also have to maintain body alignment (3 points) - but it is all in the articles. You have to play with it. Better if you have a qualified CSLWCK practitioner to guide you through it. It is not at all bogus.

Without all the family specific jargon this basically describes moving the hips and torso forward of a typical back-weighted WC stance and the "springs" are weight centered on K1 as opposed to heels, or weight on balls of feet as opposed to weight back towards heels, etc.

While this is a somewhat novel idea to many in the WC community, it really doesn't differ much from a good athletic stance in most sports. I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for this, but to me it's retraining basic athletic stances and basic athletic movement.

Why this is novel I'm not sure. I had instructors do stance stability tests pushing you in different directions in TKD in the 80's.

[Wayfaring]

I'd need to see a "virtual tripod" work against a good double leg shoot before I could believe it, Rene.

Video...



(Unless you're talking about a nice sprawl). :D :cool:

Hey Victor,

I've got your "virtual tripod" :eek::eek::D
Or at least that's what she told me....

[JPinAZ]

I would imagine then, that such technique should be able to stop any and all takedowns: single leg shoots, double leg shoots, leg picks and dives, throws, sweeps, leg trips...everything. (Since they all work off the BASIC unbalancing principles I described).

Whoa....can't wait to see this video! :cool: :)

I can see what these guys are talking about regarding testing thier structures against a push. What they are saying makes sense, and I can make my YJKYM work against similar tests. I don't see why this is so difficult for you Vic.

I am having a hard time seeing anywhere where they claimed thier body structures, or how they test them, equates to being able to withstand all those takedowns. It seem like you are just arguing to argue here. How did conclude that they are saying this 'technique' was able to stop all these things?
Or do you just have a very active imagination when you say "I would imagine then..."

[Ultimatewingchun]

Because all the takedowns I referred to are based upon the grappling principle that the article claims can be circumvented with a good YJKYM structure.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[Wayfaring]

Because all the takedowns I referred to are based upon the grappling principle that the article claims can be circumvented with a good YJKYM structure.

Yeah - that's BS - it can help present a smaller target and help you sprawl from there easier.

[JPinAZ]

Because all the takedowns I referred to are based upon the grappling principle that the article claims can be circumvented with a good YJKYM structure.

What's so hard to understand about that?

I didn't read the article, just going by what was said here... I'll read the article later when I get some time - sounds 'interesting'

[Ultimatewingchun]

Now you're talking my language, Wayfaring. A good wing chun body structure + sprawl =

a nice takedown defense.

[JPinAZ]

OR, a good WC body structure, supported by correct understanding of gates, distance, timing, anti-grabbing (chi sau), CL theories, etc = good takedown defense (stop it before it happens).

Sprawl only after all those fail...

flame on :D

[Knifefighter]

OR.... a good WC structure makes it easier to be taken down.

[Ultimatewingchun]

OR, a good WC body structure, supported by correct understanding of gates, distance, timing, anti-grabbing (chi sau), CL theories, etc = good takedown defense (stop it before it happens).

Sprawl only after all those fail...

flame on :D


***I AGREE. Good takedown defense begins before it becomes necessary to sprawl.

[JPinAZ]

OR.... a good WC structure makes it easier to be taken down.

If that's ALL they have, well sure.

[CFT]

Without all the family specific jargon this basically describes moving the hips and torso forward of a typical back-weighted WC stance and the "springs" are weight centered on K1 as opposed to heels, or weight on balls of feet as opposed to weight back towards heels, etc.

While this is a somewhat novel idea to many in the WC community, it really doesn't differ much from a good athletic stance in most sports. I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for this, but to me it's retraining basic athletic stances and basic athletic movement.

Why this is novel I'm not sure. I had instructors do stance stability tests pushing you in different directions in TKD in the 80's.Nice way to describe it. That is how I understand it too. But my experience is only via the articles and a short hands on demo at a seminar. I'm not in the CSLWCK family and am hardly an expert.

[reneritchie]

I'm not that familiar with the method, but I don't think it involves static alignment against a shoot Victor. At least that's not what I was describing. (But then, this is the internet, isn't it?)

If you want a good video, I just checked out Steve Job's commencement speech on iTunes U. Interesting to say the least.

[t_niehoff]

I would imagine then, that such technique should be able to stop any and all takedowns: single leg shoots, double leg shoots, leg picks and dives, throws, sweeps, leg trips...everything. (Since they all work off the BASIC unbalancing principles I described).


No, you're missing the point -- which is not surprising since TWC clearly does not have this body structure. This *body* mechanic that we call body structure involves dealing with pressure applied to the torso (the body) or to the body via the bridges, the sort that you get in either striking or stand up grappling or both. This body structure is the power behind our WCK tools.



Whoa....can't wait to see this video! :cool: :)

Alan's put out a whole DVD series on this body structure; buy his DVDs if you want to see it on video. ;) Or even better, if you are really interested, get off your ass and pay a visit someone who can do it. Stop thinking you are entitled to something for nothing. You've had a number of people come forward on this forum who have seen it, experienced it, felt it, and seen it in action. -- people who have made the effort. And if you're not interested, great! The more people who don't want to learn it the better. :)

[anerlich]

They didn't have phone booths in China when WC was developed.


One of the best martial artists I know, a student of William Cheung back in the 1960's, made the same allusion as Terence, but he also was of the opinion that WC was not only good for fighting in a phone booth, but a toilet cubicle also. Presumably they had those or something similar when WC (no pun intended) was developed.

I can't understand the big argument over the stance test. You should be able to take a certain amount of forward pressure in a basic double weighted stance. Anyone learning basic standing clinch learns this starting with the pummelling drill. You use your hips and body alignment. But no one can take a sustained push from, say, an elephant or police horse, without stepping back or moving. The test just ensures you aren't, well, a pushover. :D A desirable skill or attribute to have, though hardly the be all and end all. As Rene said, if the guy just stands there with his feet shoulder width apart, there are other ways to break him down (a good kick to the goolies comes to mind).

AS any wrestler knows, both forward pressure on the chest and its absence can be exploited in the clinch.

The double leg takedown isn't really the same pressure - one way or another it's about getting your C of G underneath him and *lifting*. Either a leg or the entire body.

I know a longtime KF guy who trained with Vladimir Vasiliev for a while, and went through a phase myself looking at RMA via Scott Sonnon's vids and his only Aussie seminar. RMA "Absorbing" in my understanding means that you relax your structure and allow it to move around the blow or pressure, rather than channelling it through to the ground. They also work with letting incoming force "load" their tissues, allowing them to more or less snap back like a rubber band, using their force as well as your own. A bit hard to explain here, and as with "redirection of force" in WC, a lot easier to consider in theory than to make work consistently in sparring.

Interesting, thought-provoking stuff. I would say though, that some of their more esoteric and out-there stuff rivals even TCMA for stretching credibility.

[sihing]

OR, a good WC body structure, supported by correct understanding of gates, distance, timing, anti-grabbing (chi sau), CL theories, etc = good takedown defense (stop it before it happens).

Sprawl only after all those fail...

flame on :D

I agree with this too, when the stance fails, you step, readjust, align yourself properly, etc.. Do whatever it takes to maintain balance while standing, and sprawl if necessary. Remember the idea is to win, not prove or exibit Wing Chun technique/concept.

I think it is best to look at these tests, as exactly that TESTS. Not techniques to use against someone charging into you.

Regarding TWC, IMO TWC does not have this type of structure. I did TWC for 18yrs, and when I met people with this type of structure (that really had it), they pushed me all over the place. The first clue is in the TWC forward stance, which has the upper body square, the lower body angled away. As soon as you do this you lose all facing and structure, meaning you need footwork to compensate, which to me is not adhereing to the principle of economy of motion. In those old video's of Cheung now up on youtube, you can clearly see he is sideways while in a front foot forward stance, more along the lines of JKD style promoting speed in movement rather than secure stance and structure.

Just my 2 cents :)

James

[jooerduo]

t_niehoff Quote:

No, you're missing the point -- which is not surprising since TWC clearly does not have this body structure. This *body* mechanic that we call body structure involves dealing with pressure applied to the torso (the body) or to the body via the bridges, the sort that you get in either striking or stand up grappling or both. This body structure is the power behind our WCK tools.



** Tsui Seung Tin has lots of demonstrations where he stands on a scale and has someone pushing his arms or body. He redirects the forces down so if you see the scale his weight would increase.

You can describe this as spring loaded or whatever but I thought that many wing chun lineages should be able to do that

Is csl-wing chun trying to re-hash this idea and calling it as their own?

in other arts like tai chi, they can stop your force at the point of contact and there is no need to spring load, ie, to allow the force to go through your body to your body's springs.
Nothing wrong with spring loading, its excellent, but there are other methods you can use depending on how you want to handle a situation.

[AndrewS]

Jooerdo writes:


Is csl-wing chun trying to re-hash this idea and calling it as their own?

I don't think Robert has claimed that his ideas or research here are utterly unique from rest of the Wing Chun canon, other than that they are his organization and prioritization of them. When he was posting more actively on the WCML and rec.m-a, he wasn't claiming unique knowledge, though he certainly displayed that he was quite knowledgeable.

Alan, however, is marketing to this idea. I appreciate that he has to market what he does; that's the nature of the business of martial arts. I'm vehemently not in the business of martial arts, and tend to ignore marketing on principle.


in other arts like tai chi, they can stop your force at the point of contact and there is no need to spring load, ie, to allow the force to go through your body to your body's springs.
Nothing wrong with spring loading, its excellent, but there are other methods you can use depending on how you want to handle a situation.


Agreed. Spring loading and use of standing frame can be combined, and the natural flex of the standing frame can be used as a form of spring loading. You can also adopt a strategy of always avoiding allowing the other person to load you, and only loading yourself against their dead angles to line up other lines of release, with or without messing with balance. I've seen some WT done with pure spring loading, and some SPM. It has its limitations, primarily the danger allowing yourself to be compressed and therefore unable to change.

BTW- what's your background? I'm one of Emin Boztepe's students, train escrima with Rene Latosa, and have a little grappling with a few people, and have had a good bit of contact with various neijia folks.

AndrewN,

re:tissue elasticity- training like that does imply you're doing rapid eccentric loading prior to concentric contraction, so even if you don't use the specific method (allowing yourself to be loaded) as a fighting tactic, the practice can function as a form of plyometric exercise to improve force development in the post load action (or a practical reason for certain elements of chi sao). Plyometric training can cause changes in muscle and connective tissue characteristics, which may be an additional benefit.

FWIW,

Andrew

[Matrix]

Terence's Article:

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44Rene,
Thanks for posting the link.

Terence,
Thanks for the article. I really enjoyed reading it. I look forward to reading other T'N'off articles. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I did TWC for 18yrs, and when I met people with this type of structure (that really had it), they pushed me all over the place. The first clue is in the TWC forward stance, which has the upper body square, the lower body angled away. As soon as you do this you lose all facing and structure, meaning you need footwork to compensate, which to me is not adhereing to the principle of economy of motion. In those old video's of Cheung now up on youtube, you can clearly see he is sideways while in a front foot forward stance, more along the lines of JKD style promoting speed in movement rather than secure stance and structure." (James)


WON'T COMMENT on your totally clueless assessment of William Cheung's stance, balance, and choice of footwork, James...but I will repeat once again something I said to you numerous times on this forum before you "saw the light" about your former TWC instructor:

the guy spent about 8 months studying with William Cheung in Australia - and about maybe 5-6 other seminars in Canada and the United States with GM Cheung.

That's nothing.

I personally could name at least 50 guys right off the top of my head who have more TWC knowledge, skill, and experience than he ever did. What did you expect to learn from him?

Let me give you just one hint: the upper body should not be square to the opponent while in the front stance as you come in from the non-contact stage and engage the longer range contact stage. (What other people in wing chun might call the kiu sao distance). The front stance turns square - as does your lower body - when you reach the critical exchange stage distance.

And you don't use sidestep footwork in TWC unless you have to. Which means that the stability of your basic wing chun (TWC) stance structure is key - including proper upper body alignment and rootedness to the ground. Blaine Collins used to "test" our stance structure all the time - for those of us who trained with him back in the day when William Cheung wasn't around. There's nothing new here (on this thread) about the structure of YJKYM, the neutral side stance, the front stance, or anything else.

No wonder your balance and stability sucked.

[YungChun]

Any static 'stance' can easily be broken by issuing force into the void or angle where the stance is weakest.. We only have two legs, 'springs' or no springs..

Wanna test it out? Scott Sonnon has a standing $1000 or so bet that he can move anyone in any static stance with one finger.. He hasn't lost yet to my knowledge...

The best 'takedown defense' is to take HIS CG before he takes yours..

[t_niehoff]

** Tsui Seung Tin has lots of demonstrations where he stands on a scale and has someone pushing his arms or body. He redirects the forces down so if you see the scale his weight would increase.

You can describe this as spring loaded or whatever but I thought that many wing chun lineages should be able to do that

Is csl-wing chun trying to re-hash this idea and calling it as their own?

in other arts like tai chi, they can stop your force at the point of contact and there is no need to spring load, ie, to allow the force to go through your body to your body's springs.
Nothing wrong with spring loading, its excellent, but there are other methods you can use depending on how you want to handle a situation.


If people would actually read these threads, and my previous replies on this thread, they might find I have already addressed their comment.

As I said, this body structure is not unique to Hawkins/Robert, it is present to some degree or another in the teachings of a very few people in WCK, TST among them. It is also present in some nonWCK arts. It's not a matter of "rehashing" (like it's old news!). Again, as I said, Robert has made this the focus and foundation in his teaching approach, and found a very organized, systematic way of teaching it. While people like TST seem to have the "idea", having the idea is one thing and being able to put it to actual use in fighting is another.

I am not saying this body structure is the "best" body structure or the only way we should use our body in WCK -- because there is no "best" body structure: there are only optimal ways to accomplish certain tasks. Sometimes there is more than one way to accomplish that task. I've seen and felt other approaches in WCK that IME are equally valid (and a great many that are not). In the end what matters is whether *you* can do it or not, and how well you can do it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alan's put out a whole DVD series on this body structure; buy his DVDs if you want to see it on video. ;) Or even better, if you are really interested, get off your ass and pay a visit someone who can do it. Stop thinking you are entitled to something for nothing. You've had a number of people come forward on this forum who have seen it, experienced it, felt it, and seen it in action. -- people who have made the effort. And if you're not interested, great! The more people who don't want to learn it the better. :)

I have Alan's videos, but I am in the middle of a move, I will try to see them today and get back to you.

[t_niehoff]

Any static 'stance' can easily be broken by issuing force into the void or angle where the stance is weakest.. We only have two legs, 'springs' or no springs..

Wanna test it out? Scott Sonnon has a standing $1000 or so bet that he can move anyone in any static stance with one finger.. He hasn't lost yet to my knowledge...

The best 'takedown defense' is to take HIS CG before he takes yours..

The body structure I'm talking about is not a stance and is certainly not static (though you can do it while stationary) -- it is a dynamic body mechanic, similar in some ways to riding surf board. The objective in surfing is to have dynamic balance where you unconsciously make constant, continual adjustments to the ever-changing forces acting on the board.

Dude, I "test it out" every day. :) Once again, many people have told you they have experienced this firsthand, you can see it on DVD, etc. But of course, you know it can't be done. ;)

BTW, I can take anyone in a static stance down with one finger too - just put that finger in an eye and push! LOL!

[sihing]

"I did TWC for 18yrs, and when I met people with this type of structure (that really had it), they pushed me all over the place. The first clue is in the TWC forward stance, which has the upper body square, the lower body angled away. As soon as you do this you lose all facing and structure, meaning you need footwork to compensate, which to me is not adhereing to the principle of economy of motion. In those old video's of Cheung now up on youtube, you can clearly see he is sideways while in a front foot forward stance, more along the lines of JKD style promoting speed in movement rather than secure stance and structure." (James)


WON'T COMMENT on your totally clueless assessment of William Cheung's stance, balance, and choice of footwork, James...but I will repeat once again something I said to you numerous times on this forum before you "saw the light" about your former TWC instructor:

the guy spent about 8 months studying with William Cheung in Australia - and about maybe 5-6 other seminars in Canada and the United States with GM Cheung.

That's nothing.

I personally could name at least 50 guys right off the top of my head who have more TWC knowledge, skill, and experience than he ever did. What did you expect to learn from him?

Let me give you just one hint: the upper body should not be square to the opponent while in the front stance as you come in from the non-contact stage and engage the longer range contact stage. (What other people in wing chun might call the kiu sao distance). The front stance turns square - as does your lower body - when you reach the critical exchange stage distance.

And you don't use sidestep footwork in TWC unless you have to. Which means that the stability of your basic wing chun (TWC) stance structure is key - including proper upper body alignment and rootedness to the ground. Blaine Collins used to "test" our stance structure all the time - for those of us who trained with him back in the day when William Cheung wasn't around. There's nothing new here (on this thread) about the structure of YJKYM, the neutral side stance, the front stance, or anything else.

No wonder your balance and stability sucked.

Geez Vic, you sound a bit upset about my post. I don't remember saying anything derogatory about TWC, just that it did not contain the type of spring loaded stance work we are talking about here, but even so you still seem justified with personal insults against those you have never met personally or even seen in action. You must possess great gifts of clairvoyance to be so certain of your claims of other's abilities and skills, as you sound very confident, I didn't know you were into that stuff. I could easily do the same back, and counter your claims that TWC has it all as well, but I think I will take the higher road here ;)

One piece of advice, meet up with some other WC lineages that have this type of feel and energy. Knowing what I know about you, and what I have seen personally, I guarantee you will have your eyes opened :D


James

[Nick Forrer]

For those who keep asking for videos this clip gives a pretty good insight into the kind of structure Terence and I are talking about

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJQrbD7jL8&mode=related&search=

[Nick Forrer]

Geez Vic, you sound a bit upset about my post. I don't remember saying anything derogatory about TWC, just that it did not contain the type of spring loaded stance work we are talking about here, but even so you still seem justified with personal insults against those you have never met personally or even seen in action. You must possess great gifts of clairvoyance to be so certain of your claims of other's abilities and skills, as you sound very confident, I didn't know you were into that stuff.

James


Dont waste your breath James. Victor has already decided (sight unseen) that the kind of body structure we are talking about doesn't work and anyway he already has it (even though you and Terence (and Marty Goldberg too presumably) who all have many years in TWC and even Robert himself who trained privately with William CHeung never once saw it)

[YungChun]

The body structure I'm talking about is not a stance and is certainly not static (though you can do it while stationary) -- it is a dynamic body mechanic, similar in some ways to riding surf board. The objective in surfing is to have dynamic balance where you unconsciously make constant, continual adjustments to the ever-changing forces acting on the board.

BTW, I can take anyone in a static stance down with one finger too - just put that finger in an eye and push! LOL!

Not talking about a finger in the eye.. But I think you are aware of that..

Static ITC means foot position/location is static..

So are you saying that you can stand in YJKYM or whatever your favorite stance is and not be moved/broken out of it from a press in a weak angle <or any other> of the stance or whatever else you would like to call it?

IOW, a simple push of the hand or finger on your body, regardless of vector, could not make you move or reposition your feet?

[sanjuro_ronin]

For those who keep asking for videos this clip gives a pretty good insight into the kind of structure Terence and I are talking about

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJQrbD7jL8&mode=related&search=

Gottcha.
There seems to be a lean in/forward, to counter the push, correct?

[YungChun]

Gottcha.
There seems to be a lean in/forward, to counter the push, correct?

Ah yes, the infamous..."As they start to press--knock them over" structure... Lots of Chi going on there... :rolleyes:

Notice how he realignes his feet to deal with the vector...

The crossed arms makes it that much easier to do as well..

Storing energy and releasing is fine.. Doing so and also changing the angle.. 'Making him wrong'.. would be better.

[sihing]

Ah yes, the infamous..."As they start to press--knock them over" structure... Lots of Chi going on there... :rolleyes:

Notice how he realignes his feet to deal with the vector...

The crossed arms makes it that much easier to do as well..

Storing energy and releasing is fine.. Doing so and also changing the angle.. 'Making him wrong'.. would be better.


"Making him wrong", that's a Lam phrase that he uses alot :) There are alot of ideas for sure on how to deal with pressure, instead of purely absorbing it through your stance. I've found through experience with normal people, that it is easy to lead their pressure to different directions once you make contact with them. They think they are attacking the center but really they aren't and can be lead offline if you know what you are doing. Against more experienced people with similiar skills, this is not so easy to do.

James

[Nick Forrer]

Gottcha.
There seems to be a lean in/forward, to counter the push, correct?


Lean is not the correct word IMO. 'Brace' gets a little closer to capturing what is going on. We just say 'sink' but what we mean by sink is not what others mean. You have to have your spine straight, your weight on K1 (not on the heels) and then as the pressure comes you have to sink the hips in to it. This is why our stance is not static but dynamic as Terence described. Its hard to describe but easy to show. Even looking at the video I think some will think 'yeah big deal we do that' - except they probably dont. I would have said the same a year ago myself before I began training in CSLWCK. The difference is not for the eye to see (unless you know what to look for).

[YungChun]

"Making him wrong", that's a Lam phrase
Gary's in good company.. Many Sifu use this term...



Against more experienced people with similiar skills, this is not so easy to do.


What's even harder--is to try to meet the force head on... ===><=== Bad idea no matter what "structure" you use.........

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lean is not the correct word IMO. 'Brace' gets a little closer to capturing what is going on. We just say 'sink' but what we mean by sink is not what others mean. You have to have your spine straight, your weight on K1 (not on the heels) and then as the pressure comes you have to sink the hips in to it. This is why our stance is not static but dynamic as Terence described. Its hard to describe but easy to show. Even looking at the video I think some will think 'yeah big deal we do that' - except they probably dont. I would have said the same a year ago myself before I began training in CSLWCK. The difference is not for the eye to see (unless you know what to look for).

So you sink and redirect?

While doing this with a push is all fine and dandy, I never worry about someone "pushing my chest", how does this translate into combat?
Its a "power production" structure I take it?

[sihing]

Lean is not the correct word IMO. 'Brace' gets a little closer to capturing what is going on. We just say 'sink' but what we mean by sink is not what others mean. You have to have your spine straight, your weight on K1 (not on the heels) and then as the pressure comes you have to sink the hips in to it. This is why our stance is not static but dynamic as Terence described. Its hard to describe but easy to show. Even looking at the video I think some will think 'yeah big deal we do that' - except they probably dont. I would have said the same a year ago myself before I began training in CSLWCK. The difference is not for the eye to see (unless you know what to look for).


People that haven't actually experienced it, can't really comment on it, and if they do comment they have no credibility anyways. Seeing something and understanding it is far less credible than someone that has experienced something and understands it (not that I have experienced CSLWCK, but it shares allot of concepts and principles with WSL/GL WC, so I can understand a bit better). I'm sure if I were to meet up with anyone in the CSLWC lineage I would learn a few things, as I don't pretend to be a know it all, and in possession of it all. Having an open mind is important, as there is still lots to learn out there.

James

[YungChun]

The difference is not for the eye to see (unless you know what to look for).

One of the things I look for is the right timing.. The energy coming in should actually be used.. If the timing is too early, in fact, nearly pre-emptive, as was mainly seen in the clip then the energy was never stored, used...and instead issued into the opposing force...

When done right--the idea is to use his force to make him wrong... :)

Oh wait that's from our secret recipe... Crap I could loose my key's to the sacred vault for this infraction..

[Ultimatewingchun]

Robert Chu never trained privately with William Cheung. Never. He attended 2 different week-long seminars along with about 100 other participants each time. Period.

And I never said that you can't build a strong structure with YJKYM.

I was simply disputing the "immovability" of it - based upon grappling principles that you, yourself, Nick....have undoubtedly learned in BJJ. Whether the stance is static or dynamic.

It's a good stance - but it's not going to defy the laws of physics and gravity.

Like AndrewS said - perhaps a bit too much marketing going on?


....and James - do you forget that I have seen your old sifu in action at the Boulder, Colorado weekend? Or that you've posted video of yourself on this forum?

[Nick Forrer]

One of the things I look for is the right timing.. The energy coming in should actually be used.. If the timing is too early, in fact, nearly pre-emptive, as was mainly seen in the clip then the energy was never stored, used...and instead issued into the opposing force...

When done right--the idea is to use his force to make him wrong... :)

Oh wait that's from our secret recipe... Crap I could loose my key's to the sacred vault for this infraction..

Im not sure why you keep posting on this thread. Someone asked about CSLWCK body structure, Terence and I have tried to explain it given the limitations of the written word, both emphasising that you really need hands on teaching to get it.

Others outside our group have said they have seen it (CHEE, RENE, JAMES) and have agreed with what we have said.

Others who havent seen it have asked for some clarification and Terence and I have done our best to answer

But you just keep making these posts about how we are doing it wrong (even though you've never experienced it yourself LOL)...but you dont seem to understand that no one was asking about 'Moy Yat structure' so until someone does do me a favour and pipe down please - if you're really that anxious to tell the world what you do start your own thread:eek:

To be clear - we arent saying that everyone else is wrong or that everyone should do it our way - we are just explaining in so far as its possible how we do it and why we do it that way in response to a question someone asked

[Nick Forrer]

So you sink and redirect?

Depends. Redirect is using CK mechanics. If we feel our opponents structure is weak we can just smash through him using the mechanics of our SLT (and the force we have borrowed from him). There are many other methods too - this is just one (borrowing).



While doing this with a push is all fine and dandy, I never worry about someone "pushing my chest", how does this translate into combat?

In many ways too various to explain


Its a "power production" structure I take it?

Thats certainly part of it but it allows us to do many other things as well.

[AndrewS]

sanjuro_ronin writes:


While doing this with a push is all fine and dandy, I never worry about someone "pushing my chest", how does this translate into combat?
Its a "power production" structure I take it?

A simple use:

A guy puts you in a double neck tie (plum) and levers with his elbows (essentially pusing on your chest) while pulling the back of your head and then uses this as a handle for an action with his lower body (push, pull, or twist). You prevent yourself from being broken down by lifting with the chest and pressing with the hips to get under the elbow pressure to neutralize it (while keeping the neck strong and redirecting the pull on the back of the neck into that chest action so he's essentially pulling on himself). From there you work off his motion, preferably using a set of offensive escapes.

Andrew

[sanjuro_ronin]

sanjuro_ronin writes:



A simple use:

A guy puts you in a double neck tie (plum) and levers with his elbows (essentially pusing on your chest) while pulling the back of your head and then uses this as a handle for an action with his lower body (push, pull, or twist). You prevent yourself from being broken down by lifting with the chest and pressing with the hips to get under the elbow pressure to neutralize it (while keeping the neck strong and redirecting the pull on the back of the neck into that chest action so he's essentially pulling on himself). From there you work off his motion, preferably using a set of offensive escapes.

Andrew

Kind of goes against the principle of "ju" that I prefer, but I see your point.

[YungChun]

Im not sure why you keep posting on this thread.
I'm making observations on the "material" discussed...

That's what a *forum* is--inconvienient as that may be..


But you just keep making these posts about how we are doing it wrong (even though you've never experienced it yourself LOL)...but you dont seem to understand that no one was asking about 'Moy Yat structure' so until someone does do me a favour and pipe down
Ah yes if only I "experienced it" ... Seeing and hearing isn't enough.. :rolleyes:

As far as where pipes go.. Well...

[Wayfaring]

Gottcha.
There seems to be a lean in/forward, to counter the push, correct?

I don't think so. One of the exchanges he's leaning forward, but I think that's a mistake due to camera/talking/teaching/environment/etc. The other ones you see the power transfer from root upwards with the torso being aligned (3 dan tiens). No leaning - just root whip action - receive power and expel it with torso erect.

One of the interesting things I've read on this topic from a couple of Alan's articles is his way of explaining this whip action and the root of power from the body structure. He talks about the forward movement of the 3 dan tiens - lower first, middle second, upper third which issues power. I thought that was a good way of explaining / training the power in WC whip action that is present in many families who train that. That basic quality is missing from many who train in WC though.

[t_niehoff]

Not talking about a finger in the eye.. But I think you are aware of that..

Static ITC means foot position/location is static..

So are you saying that you can stand in YJKYM or whatever your favorite stance is and not be moved/broken out of it from a press in a weak angle <or any other> of the stance or whatever else you would like to call it?

IOW, a simple push of the hand or finger on your body, regardless of vector, could not make you move or reposition your feet?

That's correct.

[YungChun]

That's correct.

Amout of force not addressed... However.. I got $100 says I can move you out of it Terence... Physical laws and so on...

[t_niehoff]

So you sink and redirect?


No. There is no sinking and no redirecting. What is happening is that when pressure is applied to a spring, the spring doesn't sink, it loads (compresses), and that's what we do when pressure is applied to our structure -- we load.



While doing this with a push is all fine and dandy, I never worry about someone "pushing my chest", how does this translate into combat?
Its a "power production" structure I take it?

The pushing is done on the chest as part of the "structure tests" (really more basic learning exercises) to take the bridges out of the equation in terms of loading; IOWs to make certain that it is just the body that loads. In application, the body and bridges will load. How does this translate into "combat"? It is the body mechanic behind everything I do (in terms of WCK). Even when I punch, I hit with this structure behind it.

[YungChun]

No. There is no sinking and no redirecting. What is happening is that when pressure is applied to a spring, the spring doesn't sink, it loads (compresses), and that's what we do when pressure is applied to our structure -- we load..

All springs have a max load...

Are you also saying this applies to a grappling type takedown? IOW cannot be taken down?

[sanjuro_ronin]

No. There is no sinking and no redirecting. What is happening is that when pressure is applied to a spring, the spring doesn't sink, it loads (compresses), and that's what we do when pressure is applied to our structure -- we load.



The pushing is done on the chest as part of the "structure tests" (really more basic learning exercises) to take the bridges out of the equation in terms of loading; IOWs to make certain that it is just the body that loads. In application, the body and bridges will load. How does this translate into "combat"? It is the body mechanic behind everything I do (in terms of WCK). Even when I punch, I hit with this structure behind it.

How would you compare it to Sanchin?

[t_niehoff]

Amout of force not addressed... However.. I got $100 says I can move you out of it Terence... Physical laws and so on...

I've had guys larger than me press with their entire body weight and not move me. This sort of mechanic is like a muscle: the more you practice it, the better and stronger it gets. Now, if a truck hits me that's something else. The only way you will be convinced is to feel it in action for yourself. That's what it took for me too.

[t_niehoff]

How would you compare it to Sanchin?

I don't do karate, so I can't comment on Sanchin.

[t_niehoff]

All springs have a max load...

Are you also saying this applies to a grappling type takedown? IOW cannot be taken down?

Go back and read my previous posts. Of course I can be taken down; anyone can be taken down (people who sprawl can be taken down too). I'm talking about the body structure (body mechanic) we use in WCK. This is the body structure that "powers" or is behind my WCK tools.

[Wayfaring]

I've had guys larger than me press with their entire body weight and not move me. This sort of mechanic is like a muscle: the more you practice it, the better and stronger it gets. Now, if a truck hits me that's something else. The only way you will be convinced is to feel it in action for yourself. That's what it took for me too.

You're talking straight forward force here, right? You can uproot this with a lifting force like Alan shows on the clip or a lifting force like a good solid single leg takedown.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What I'm curious to know at this point - and yes, I will read his posts on this (assuming they don't trail off into double talk evasion)...is just how Terence thinks these body mechanics fair in a MMA/real life venue against a skilled MMA type fighter?

You know the one's I'm talking about - the MMA gyms Terence has invited/advised people to visit at least 200 times on this forum - because he thinks that the MMA mix of Muay Thai, BJJ, wrestling (and top notch wrestling takedowns), boxing, etc....is basically the only way to fly these days.

Let me get more specific:

Alan's demo vid that Nick posted is good stuff - but it's a demo of the full body structure principles against someone in a wing chun cross arm position who is applying forward pressure.

Okay. I get it. Nice demo of the various mechanics involved.

But AndrewS' description of how to use such mechanics against a full collar tie is more to the point. Because that's closer to real fighting.

And Nick tells us that applications are too numerous to mention.

No. I don't buy that. And especially don't buy that coming from Terence's strict standards (in the past) about reality combat being the only true test when people are on here making claims about their wing chun system.

So aside from AndrewS' application description - I've yet to see anything on this thread (or hear anything) that isn't theory oriented first and foremost. We can talk about the forward movement of the 3 dan tiens all we want, in theory...but what exactly does that translate into in reality combat?

I like these mechanics, as I've said in the past. But I'd like to see a real nuts-and-bolts discussion about specific how-to's in real situations - and not drills.

Then we can see where the strengths are and where the limits of this approach lie.

Terence says anybody can be taken down. Let's get more specific. What does that mean in terms of the Robert Chu approach? - from A to Z.

Assuming from the outset that no wing chun "mistakes" were made.

What are the limitations to Robert's approach, Nick? Terence?

And what are the strengths?

[anerlich]

I never worry about someone "pushing my chest", how does this translate into combat?

AndrewS is correct, but basically any standing clinch will have you chest to chest at least some of the time.

I can understand the personality based anti-TWC pushback here. It is true that the posture tests are not used in TWC. My academy does tend to use the forward stance rather more than the parallel; my and my seniors' observation of ring fights has shown that those who stay parallel either step back into a forward stance or get pushed back into the ropes very fast. In the clip posted by Nick, I don't see much work done directly facing per the test, more like the front stance we advocate.

However, as Terence has said with his usual saturation bombing, I'm-here-to-save-the-world approach, the rubber hits the road in fighting. Indeed, Alan's main claim to legitimacy (and a decent claim it is) is his and his students' success in the ring. Fighters from my org have succeeded in kickboxing, BJJ, and MMA (the latter in top drawer Australian shows). Just because we don't do exactly what you do doesn't mean that what we do is crap or doesn't work, much as some seem to want it to be that way.

It's good that James has branched out and explored something else (18 years? what took you so long?), and am sorry that his TWC experiences didn't measure up. However, they do not match my own.

I've found that good solid clinch training (shootfighting in my case) develop simlar mechanics, albeit not in a WC structure, range, or format. They might not be EXACTLY the same, but whether or not the differences are worth worrying about other than to the dreaded theoreticians is IMO unlikely.

It appears to me that what Robert has done is to take, develop and systematise particular aspects of structure and power delivery, and Alan has successfully implemented and proved that in a modern arena.

This is great.

But to assert that no one else has or can get the same results without following the dogma (as opposed to the logic behind it) is demonstrably false.

I'm glad your stuff works. Be glad mine does too, please.

[Nick Forrer]

Nick tells us that applications are too numerous to mention.

The body structure is so all encompassing and fundamental that it informs everything we do - its not simply a matter of isolated applications (although andrew s gives a good one) - there are also plenty on Alans videos...if you're that interested you could always fork out the kings ransom that Alan asks for one of his DVDs. you never know you might learn something.;)

We have a whole chinese boxing syllabus using these mechanics - for example there is:


the head and arm control series using the double gum sau idea from SLT to pin someone bent over at the waist.

The pivot step from the knives that can be used to whip someone over who is leaning on your structure.

Jum to gan to tan and fook (yin yang palms) can be used to block and then cross face and spin and then face lock someone trying to shoot on you at a mid level.

Our cutting punch and angle step can be used to crash into a boxers structure and up root them etc. etc.


The key thing is that our structure powers all these things- without it we wouldnt be able to execute them effectively.

I would say the main problem people have in WC is that their conception of how WC should look and work in a fight is completely wrong. They are looking for static positions and postures. This couldnt be more wrong IMO. Tan da is a classic example. Tan is the action of spreading - a completely transitory action - and yet people think Tan means to hold your arm out like you're asking for change. Same thing with bong and fook too. I didnt really appreciate this until I met Alan. Chain punching furiously with your elbows in down the centreline is another Hokey idea that people who have never tried to use it for real think is a good expression of wing chun.


Here Neil demonstrates much better body structure striking mechanics

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wiSYTNJDvUg&NR=1




What are the limitations to Robert's approach, Nick? Terence?


The limitations are the normal ones of the individual plus the fact that it is a boxing art - hence why Terence and I both cross train in BJJ.

[Knifefighter]

I've had guys larger than me press with their entire body weight and not move me.

Are you saying I could push against your chest with all my force with you in a square stance (feet parallel) and I would not be able to move you backwards?

If that is the case, why was the guy that Alan was doing the demo with not able to "spring load" and absorb Alan's force without moving backwards, even when he was in a staggered stance with one leg back?

[Knifefighter]

Here Neil demonstrates much better body structure striking mechanics

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wiSYTNJDvUg&NR=1

How is that structure any different than a western boxer's (other than possibly a little less head movement)?

[Nick Forrer]

If that is the case, why was the guy that Alan was doing the demo with not able to "spring load" and absorb Alan's force without moving backwards, even when he was in a staggered stance with one leg back?

Firstly because Alans structure is better, second because he (Simon) is not fully resisting for the purposes of the demo. If he pushed back Alan could divert him, pull him down, delink and strike, move etc. Loading against forward force is not the be all and all of our system - just what we start from and a base from which the rest of the system follows.

The first thing you learn in BJJ is base right? But its not as if you just use one stance and that constitutes once and for all 'being in base'. Its more of a concept that you dynamically adjust to the situation (e.g. side control, against turtle, passing the guard etc.). As Terence said its like riding a surf board.

[Nick Forrer]

How is that structure any different than a western boxer's (other than possibly a little less head movement)?

Its not miles away from it. Functional body movement is functional body movement after all. You'd probably see a lot of cross over with GR wrestling in what we do too.

One difference is that his elbow is down when he punches. Another is that there isnt the same lateral movement of the torso that some boxers use.

Again tho it comes back to what your conception of how wing chun should look is.

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

Happy to see you all interested in body structure.


RE: anerlich - Good post

I think the main point Nick has been trying to get across is that the structural methods are like learning to roll in BJJ. You can have an understanding of a position and even applications from that position, but it doesn't mean you have a strong game in action.

The Chu Sau Lei system is just that a 'system'. Therefore to look at one part and have a view on it is small-minded. Of course you can only talk on what you have seen. I myself make a point of never talking about anything with any point of view until I have seen it and felt it first hand. Otherwise you can dig a big hole.

Most wing chun is not based on Real Core Principles, as they are mostly people ideas of what works. If you have a system just is based on body movement and understanding that, then you have a body structure approach.

If you learn grappling you don't argue over who has the position correct, because you know when you roll. Some wing chun has got into just training chi sao with the hands and no body movement or body power. I have even been told if you use your weight then its not wing chun! What is that teaching you? It’s not magic; you must know how to use your weight correctly.

It terms of being taken down - If you think you can't be then you are not training with good level grapplers. I not saying you can't stop a shoot, but it’s not easy at all. With the Chu Sau Lei system I think we have a very good base and root, which is dynamic. Therefore we the adjustment of our body structure is its true power in the end.

First you must have the principles of structure mechanics, positioning, vectors and so on.

Then you must have the principles of movement within that structure. Mental methods of intentions of movement – root, load, store, link, delink, guide and so on

Then you make it alive and functional via training methods, chi sao, sparring and so on. This gives you concepts of application based on your core principles.

Now you can have the words as a concept of training. But a concept is just ideas that should come from your understanding of the Principles of your art, not the other way around.


I will be posting up more clips very soon of our methods. But I would say you would be best to feel our system in action before you make you opinion on it. Then you will have a full picture.

If you look at Rickson Gracie roll or fight what do you see? Depends, on your level of understand and I would still say you would have to feel it to really know. Is it just a takedown then pass the guard and mount, then add a choke to finish? I think a lot more goes on that just that.


Anyway as always just my opinion on what I know from what I have seen and felt.

My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[anerlich]

Thanks, Alan.

Re: boxing stance


Its not miles away from it. Functional body movement is functional body movement after all. You'd probably see a lot of cross over with GR wrestling in what we do too.


I've always seen a lot in common between my instructors approach to WC and Jack Dempsey's approach in Championship Fighting. I've already alluded to GR-type wrestling and dealing with forward pressure.

I think everyone's getting way too hung up on "Structure Test #1", and extrapolating proficiency in that out to invincibility. As Nick said, it is a small part of a dynamic structure.

[Knifefighter]

Anyway as always just my opinion on what I know from what I have seen and felt.


Good stuff... keep up the good work.

[Ultimatewingchun]

First of all, Nick, I have a number of Alan's vids, including the head and arm stuff you alluded to. Now since we're getting back to the subject of wing chun and MMA-style synthesis - I'd like to expound upon what I've been doing and how it relates to the subject matter on this thread. (And not to personalities - as I couldn't care less about any of that). To start, and without naming names, I can say categorically that there are some other high level TWC people here in the STATES doing similar things.

But just speaking specifically for myself, Andrew Nerlich, what I'm doing is not dis-similar to what you've been doing with Rick Spain within the TWC/Boxing/BJJ frameworks you've alluded to.

We (me and my guys) use a neutral side (body) stance that actually has one foot slightly ahead of the other - and it's big brother, a basic front stance. (I call the first stance just mentioned a "box" stance).

We don't use the basic neutral side stance anymore - and we definitely don't use YJKYM as anything other than a training stance - and a stance wherein we sometimes train against surprise attacks.

And with a Greco-Roman frame when the fight first goes to clinch - mixed with wing chun hands -and yes - a strong wing chun structure as the fight may go back-and-forth between wrestling clinch and close quarter wing chun strike mode - with some Thai-like collar ties and knees in the gaps. (Btw, for others reading this, in TWC a few knee strikes are taught - but I've personally grown very fond of them and have expanded their use in what I do - including kneeing legs as I pressure my man backwards with both round and straight attacks while in semi clinch).

So our structure begins with what I like to call the "box" stance (the first stance I alluded to) - precisely because it resembles a front stance more than a neutral stance of any kind - but still preserves the quickness of the full lateral side step that a basic neutral (YJKYM) or neutral side (body) stance confers.

And the legs are slightly closer together than the other stances - directly underneath the body and never past shoulder width - and absolutely no wider than that (as in YJKYM, for example - which is usually slightly more than shoulder width).

In other words - it slightly favors speed of forward movement and forward pressure into his space - with lots of locked hips and a knees-in lower body alignment - and upper body chest pressuring forward when in full blown wing chun centerline facing his COM mode as well - but the emphasis is not on always preserving the wing chun structure to the last (ie.- before a sprawl becomes necessary)...because I believe that the clinch area is where the fight is truly set up to be won or lost - and so I want my options in this range to be as open as possible.

And with a longer range boxing frame (mainly stiff straight horizontal leads and rear crosses) to get me to the "area" where it all happens. (Or to the knockout punch landing on a hard target - whichever comes first). And I've described many times by now what I mean about using the boxing to get there (punching on shoulder lines primarily - so as to eat up the space he needs to throw his punches or grab attempts - kinda like creating a bridge but with the option to strike at any moment on a body or head target.).

And this box stance also insures a more flexible range of kicking options as well from any distance. It's very easy to kick off either leg (including stop kicks) because the "box" stance has the feet closer together than the typical neutral or neutral side stance - as I said. Better balance, due to less work going into lifting a leg. Low wing chun heel kicks coming off either leg are really fast from here - and with the extra added advantage of the lead leg being slightly ahead of the other - more spring loading of a different sort is in play both on attack and defense.

With the option to transition into a stronger, more shoulder width, (or perhaps even longer) front stance as the fight develops if necessary.

So there are whole range of options available when dealing with the takedown artist - which is what drew me onto this thread in the first place, since getting under your man's COG is important - and turning the corner into the space I first spoke about on this thread is always the way to finish the shoot takedowns - along with the lift; but also, the same basic principle is involved (but with less "lift") when takedowns come from a higher, standing clinch or sweeping position - hence my preoccuptaion earlier in this thread with the problem of the centerpoint being attacked wherein there is no leg posted behind the area being attacked.

(The basic principle behind almost every type of takedown, throw, sweep, leg trip, or shoot you can think of).

Sinking, redirecting force, spring loading, upper body alignment of the 3 points, etc. can only take you so far in this regard - and no further, ime.

So I believe the option to BREAK STRUCTURE and hip in, sprawl, cross face and sprawl, underhook and sprawl, w h i z z e r, etc.

has to be there in a heartbeat - turning at full speed on a coin...imo.

Hence I don't advocate the same emphasis on a full body wing chun structure as is done by Robert, Alan, and company. If it works for them, fine. But I prefer a quicker release into different frames - including starting the fight from longer range boxing frames with elbows slightly raised while throwing horizontal punches and longer range rear power kicks (and lead heel kicks - similar to savate but still very much the wing chun heel kick) - all available from the base structure on a dime...and with more sidestepping footwork available - including while going forward and pressuring even when very close...

and I believe a looser frame would create more speed and range of motion in this regard while still maintaining a strong enough base. And yes, "testing" the base - from every stance - starting with YJKYM...is part of how I teach - with the emphasis on the most-often-used box stance.

And then on to the show, because...

THE KEY TO GREAT FIGHTING IS THE AMOUNT OF OPTIONS YOU HAVE IN YOUR ARSENAL - AND HOW WELL YOU CAN USE EACH OF THEM SEAMLESSLY.

I hope to post some video of this by the end of the summer.

[martyg]

Hello Andrew, hope things are well mate.

I've been staying out of the conversation until now, because fankly its been turning in to just another ****ing contest. If people want to believe something or other is marketing, etc. then my answer to them is: Yes, you're right. Its all just marketing. Every word of it. We've failed to pull the wool over your eyes and get you as a customer in our ever growing empire. And let it stay that way - stay far far away.


Thanks, Alan.
I think everyone's getting way too hung up on "Structure Test #1", and extrapolating proficiency in that out to invincibility. As Nick said, it is a small part of a dynamic structure.

That's one of the first sensible comments I've seen in this thread, and you're exactly right. There's a reason structure test #1 is...well, first in the training. First and foremost its the hardest stance to maintain an assemblance of stability in - stupid us, we do the hardest first. Second - and this seems to be the common missunderstanding - these stance tests are to train attributes, not applications. We don't sit there and say "Come on, push on our chest, I dare you." Neither do we stand there and say "try and move me" to a 230+ lb. guy barreling in on us to take us down.

These tests are meant to bring a practitioners awareness in to the issues of active alignment (vs. static) that we use as our bread and butter. We have different needs then many other branches/families/etc. of wing chun because of our MO (method of operation). We don't step off incoming force vectors as an automatic process, nor do we automatically change lines (i.e. shift to get a new angle). We want to be in there to directly interact with the incoming force vectors (plug in), in situations where others may step off or shift to cut the amount of force they're recieving. Because of this, we need the ability to come in direct contact with the force vectors and still remain stable (i.e. still be able to interact with the bridge). This is done through an active alignment process that promotes interaction, not a static process that promotes blocking/keeping away.

The use of an active alignment (everything from the top of the head down to the feet is used to align to incoming force vectors and outgoing, nothing is locked - including the hips) is just a part of what we do simply by being there. No different than breathing. Its not a technique thats applied. Its our engine and how we operate at a basic "ground floor" level, which is why these attribute tests are considered so basic and fundamental to us. Much like the topic of "breaking structure" - its not a technique (nor does it revolve around application of techniques), its not something that's applied at a specific moment or time, or forced on to the situation. Its built in to what we do as part of our standard MO - not something we think about. Simply by operating how we normally operate, it has those qualities - i.e. attributes that tend to make another person unstable.

Now my personal opinion (note that I'm only speaking for me) with regards to what "enviroment" and distance it was all designed for - I don't buy in to a lot of what's been discussed here. To me (and what I teach my students) - there's only two ranges to a wing chun person: In contact and not in contact. The other question one has to ask themselves to give this statment meaning (which varies on what their variation of wing chun is designed around) is "In contact with what?" I.E., if my context of "being in contact" is to be in close contact with the force vectors being directed at me, how does that compare to being in just close proximity to each other (as in a phone booth model)? Would it present a visibly "longer range"?

[Alan Orr]

Hey Victor

I hope you are well.

I not sure why you feel you need to explain your methods on this thread? This thread was someone asking questions on Chu Sau Lei Body Structure.

People have different ways to do things, that's no problem. Just go and test them with some high level guys in thai, boxing BJJ, Sub Wrestling and then give us some feedback on your own thread.

Hi Knifefighter

Thanks for your feedback. I hope we can get a chance to meet up at some point. You have a good insight into to BJJ, I would like to pick your brain. I always like looking at other peoples view points in action.


Hi anerlich

Yes Jack Dempsey's approach has some good things. Not complete has its boxing only, but still good stuff.

RE:
I think everyone's getting way too hung up on "Structure Test #1", and extrapolating proficiency in that out to invincibility. As Nick said, it is a small part of a dynamic structure.

Alan: Your 100% right!


My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[YungChun]

What I'm saying is that the BASIC principle is that if you apply substantial force to a point DIRECTLY in the middle (and halfway between) where his legs are posted - there's nothing there to absorb it and the man will be moved.

This is what I was saying.. There is a void there and that is the weak spot/angle of the position..

Indeed *some* force CAN be absorbed from the front even though there is a void..

A good guy with a good YJKYM will be able to handle more than a bad one. Still there is very much a limit on how much energy one can absorb there..and then something must give..and will..

Before or as that happens IMO you have to change.. And in real fighting you would have changed already anyway so...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hi Alan:

Hope all is well. Your full body structure approach to wing chun and the kinds of punching technique you guys use look good. And I like your dvds.

But I didn't realize that the threads on this forum are all infomercials, Alan. I thought they were meant to be discussions that include various wing chun people, lineages, and points of view about the subject matter of the thread. And I gave my views about "structure" - including yours.

Oh, and btw...when you see the skills of the guys I intend to work with on the vids I'll post - I think all speculation about the need for me to get out more will end.

Good luck.

[t_niehoff]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
What I'm saying is that the BASIC principle is that if you apply substantial force to a point DIRECTLY in the middle (and halfway between) where his legs are posted - there's nothing there to absorb it and the man will be moved.



This is what I was saying.. There is a void there and that is the weak spot/angle of the position..

Indeed *some* force CAN be absorbed from the front even though there is a void..

A good guy with a good YJKYM will be able to handle more than a bad one. Still there is very much a limit on how much energy one can absorb there..and then something must give..and will..

Before or as that happens IMO you have to change.. And in real fighting you would have changed already anyway so...

What you both are saying is true *if* the person receiving the pressure doesn't have this body structure (working), this way of usng your body as a spring. You can theorize all you like about how it doesn't make sense to you but the fact remains that it does work. The only way to appreciate it is to feel it in action for yourself. There are few people more skeptical by nature than me. I didn't believe it until I saw it, felt it, and was on the receiving end of it. And neither did, I'll bet, Rene, Nick, Alan, Chee, Marty, etc. So if you are interested, you need to visit someone who has developed this body structure

The amount of pressure a person can handle will depend on their skill/ability using this body structure and their size. No structure can withhold all pressure; even a sprawl will collapse at some point. But someone who has developed this skill can easily hold the full pressure from someone larger than themselves.

A significant aspect of all of this is in understanding that the amount of sustained pressure/force we can generate is dependent upon the amount of sustained pressure/force we can receive. Equal and opposite reaction stuff. So if a person can't receive strong force or pressure in YJKYM, they can't generate strong pressure/force from YJKYM (if they tried, it would just knock them backward, and their force/pressure would act to also destroy their own structure). When most people in WCK have a leg forward, they are in some sort of a braced stance; whereas we are in a YJKYM with one leg forward. IOWs, we are using that same body structure, just with staggered legs.

[Alan Orr]

Hi Victor

RE:

Hope all is well. Your full body structure approach to wing chun and the kinds of punching technique you guys use look good. And I like your dvds.

Alan: Thanks.

RE:

But I didn't realize that the threads on this forum are all infomercials, Alan. I thought they were meant to be discussions that include various wing chun people, lineages, and points of view about the subject matter of the thread. And I gave my views about "structure" - including yours.

Alan: I didn't realize it was an infomercial either. The forum is about a lot of things. But that is why it has many different threads. Your method was not asked about on this thread, but you always seem to need to tell everyone anyway. It makes you look like you have something to prove.

RE:

Oh, and btw...when you see the skills of the guys I intend to work with on the vids I'll post - I think all speculation about the need for me to get out more will end.

Alan: I look forward to hearing and seeing your progress. Who you going to work with? Well done for going out to test yourself.


Regards

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It makes you look like you have something to prove."


***Yeah, right...just me. :cool: :D

[Han Man]

Hello all,

I've never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I've trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

1. Chi Sau helped develop 'stickiness' so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

2. Consequently a 'bridge' is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant's attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.

I'd be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I'm not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman

[YungChun]

Some interesting stuff there..

I'd start a new thread with that one..

[Han Man]

"I'd post a new thread with that one"


Done - it's called 'Structure or Stickiness etc' - for want of a better title.