William Cheung's TWC

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's a link to an article I wrote about William Cheung's TWC (Traditional Wing chun) system.

The article is very detailed and will provide many answers to those who might be interested in knowing exactly what the differences are between TWC and other wing chun systems.

The path to the link is as follows:

1) www.wingchunpedia.com
2) click on the right where it says: "WingChunPedia.org"
3) click on the left where it says: "Lineages"
4) click on the bottom where it says: "William Cheung TWC lineage"

[Lee Chiang Po]

Your article was very good. I have to say that everything you wrote sort of matched up with what I was taught. I would not know traditional from whatever as I am not familiar with this lineage thing so much. Bill Cheung has good gung fu and there are no 2 ways about it. I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi. I do not know why all the secrecy on the part of Hung Fa. I learned my version from a man that was from around the Canton area and he brought it to the USA in 1950. He would not teach anyone that was not Chinese and made me agree not to as well. I never heard him speak of lineage or any of his past teachers. I guess I am sort of a ******* as I can tell you nothing about my own lineage. I call it Chiang Lee Wing Chun. Lineage aside, from what I have been able to determine so far is that the principals of Hung Fa are the same in most all the lineages I have been able to examine. With the main differences being on emphisis. The way these basics are employed I guess.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's a link to an article I wrote about William Cheung's TWC (Traditional Wing chun) system.

The article is very detailed and will provide many answers to those who might be interested in knowing exactly what the differences are between TWC and other wing chun systems.

The path to the link is as follows:

1) www.wingchunpedia.com
2) click on the right where it says: "WingChunPedia.org"
3) click on the left where it says: "Lineages"
4) click on the bottom where it says: "William Cheung TWC lineage"

Nice article Victor, well written and clear.
Pics would have been nice...slacker !
;)

[osprey3883]

Your article was very good. I have to say that everything you wrote sort of matched up with what I was taught.
<snip>
Lineage aside, from what I have been able to determine so far is that the principals of Hung Fa are the same in most all the lineages I have been able to examine. With the main differences being on emphisis. The way these basics are employed I guess.

Hello,
Interesting points. You mention sort of matching up and different emphasis, maybe you could open up a new thread to discuss what you learned and how it compares with what you have read and seen of TWC?

Matt

[canglong]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The article is very detailed and will provide many answers to those who might be interested in knowing exactly what the differences arebetween TWC and other wing chun systems.
Originally posted by Lee Chiang Po
Your article was very good. I have to say that everything you wrote sort of matched up with what I was taught. I would not know traditional from whatever as I am not familiar with this lineage thing so much.
Lee Chiang Po, All wing chun will sound similar the differences that Victor describes would no doubt be most noticeable in the details. Experience is always the best indicator and teacher of this fact.

[anerlich]

Nice article Vic.


As you have said in the past you are NOT certain if you have HFY and HFY might look a little different from what you do. I attached your old post from this forum earlier this year to refresh your memory, see below. For some funny reason I could not find that particular post here on this wing chun forum but it was captured on one of the hfy108 threads where I cut and pasted here. I know alot of people here remember your posting. If you find it please paste the url, thanks.


What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

(Our chief weapon is surprise. And fear).

[JPinAZ]

Basically, the way I see it Victor wrote a decent article about his system. Then LCP came on talking about similarities to 'Hung Fa', and then HFY, etc. But then says he really doesn't know much about TWC, if anything, so what is he really talking about? From what experience does he draw this conclusion from? IMO, it isn't too much to ask from any 'side' what he actually knows about either (or any) of the systems that he draws his comparisons from. Or is he just talking out the side of his head :)

This isn't an inquisition, or 'bait', or anything else, just some simple questions that aren't that over the top. Funny how someone wants to make so much out of just a couple obvious questions. Not the BFD some might read into a few questions.
I'd be curious what he actually has to say he sees and where he draws his experience from...

[anerlich]

Funny how someone wants to make so much out of just a couple obvious questions.

Of course that never happens when someone asks obvious questions about HFY.

Nothing wrong with questions.

It's more the zeal and hypervigilance displayed by such statements as


I attached your old post from this forum earlier this year


For some funny reason I could not find that particular post here on this wing chun forum


it was captured on one of the hfy108 threads where I cut and pasted here


I know alot of people here remember your posting

that makes me wonder if someone takes this particular BFD a little too seriously and needs to take a break.

[Lee Chiang Po]

I am sorry I have not been back. Sometimes this forum sees me coming and won't let me in.

Now, what I have been trying to do is keep from making statements of fact. I don't have the facts. Too much myth to really know. What I have said is that what it was called by my dad was Hung Fa. He also called it Hung fa wing chun. He never really called it Hung Fa Yi. I have heard it called by other names as well. I know that he was born in 1880. Some time after 1890 he started learning what he called Hung Fa wing chun. He learned it from ex military men. Soldiers of the Imperial Army. Later in his life he learned from other men when he joined with a secret society. A tong gang is you will. He did not come to the states until 1950. He was an old man. He never did tell me anything concerning lineage or so forth. So I have no idea. Now, I know that what he was teaching me was at least that old. I am guessing that it goes way back more than that. When we see family trees with the last person being enhereter I have to wonder. I was not told this in so many words, but it was indicated that there were hundreds if not thousands of people running around China that were Wing chun boxers.
When I said that it looks the same to me it is because it looks the same to me. Wing chun is built on concepts and basic principals. You can watch 5 people that are trained by different sifu and you will see differences in their style. However, in most all cases you are going to see that they do adhere to these principals even if it looks a bit different. When you abandon these principals you are not doing wing chun in my opinion. Also, if you are the last living person of a single lineage then you can enheret. But you can not enheret the entire system as such.
I have watched Bill Cheung do wing chun and must say that I do my wing chun pretty much like he does. I am sure by Victors written article that I felt familiar with every concept of what he wrote. If my wing chun was different I would have immediately noticed differences. As for the HFY of Garret Gee, I have no idea as I have never seen him do much except on a few short video clips. It looked exactly like what Bill Cheung does.
I do not believe the story of Ng Mui or Yimm Wing Chun. It would make the lineage far too narrow to have had hundreds if not thousands of followers in China. Look at the number of lineages today. It could not account for only a half dozen generations.
I don't think I have ever made a posting on the 101 forum spoken of earlier. I am not a member and would not be able to. I have only been there a couple of times and gave up trying to navigate that forum. That was something posted on this forum.

Chiang

[Ultimatewingchun]

Excellent post, Chiang. It's hard to imagine after reading it that you're not being sincere. And please don't feel as though you have to answer all the attempts at cross-examination by any self-appointed special prosecutors. You don't have to justify yourself, if - like so many other people - you have noticed that TWC and HFY seem to be so very similar.



I am sorry I have not been back. Sometimes this forum sees me coming and won't let me in.

Now, what I have been trying to do is keep from making statements of fact. I don't have the facts. Too much myth to really know. What I have said is that what it was called by my dad was Hung Fa. He also called it Hung fa wing chun. He never really called it Hung Fa Yi. I have heard it called by other names as well. I know that he was born in 1880. Some time after 1890 he started learning what he called Hung Fa wing chun. He learned it from ex military men. Soldiers of the Imperial Army. Later in his life he learned from other men when he joined with a secret society. A tong gang is you will. He did not come to the states until 1950. He was an old man. He never did tell me anything concerning lineage or so forth. So I have no idea. Now, I know that what he was teaching me was at least that old. I am guessing that it goes way back more than that. When we see family trees with the last person being enhereter I have to wonder. I was not told this in so many words, but it was indicated that there were hundreds if not thousands of people running around China that were Wing chun boxers.
When I said that it looks the same to me it is because it looks the same to me. Wing chun is built on concepts and basic principals. You can watch 5 people that are trained by different sifu and you will see differences in their style. However, in most all cases you are going to see that they do adhere to these principals even if it looks a bit different. When you abandon these principals you are not doing wing chun in my opinion. Also, if you are the last living person of a single lineage then you can enheret. But you can not enheret the entire system as such.
I have watched Bill Cheung do wing chun and must say that I do my wing chun pretty much like he does. I am sure by Victors written article that I felt familiar with every concept of what he wrote. If my wing chun was different I would have immediately noticed differences. As for the HFY of Garret Gee, I have no idea as I have never seen him do much except on a few short video clips. It looked exactly like what Bill Cheung does.
I do not believe the story of Ng Mui or Yimm Wing Chun. It would make the lineage far too narrow to have had hundreds if not thousands of followers in China. Look at the number of lineages today. It could not account for only a half dozen generations.
I don't think I have ever made a posting on the 101 forum spoken of earlier. I am not a member and would not be able to. I have only been there a couple of times and gave up trying to navigate that forum. That was something posted on this forum.

Chiang

[Hitman]

Dear Sifu Victor,

Your article is very interesting and make me think. Thank you very much.
I would be very grateful if you or anyone can answer the following questions for me regarding to:

"I) WATCHING ELBOWS AND KNEES
It’s a scientifically proven fact that when a straight line punch or kick is thrown that the elbow (in the case of a punch) or the knee (in the case of a kick) is actually moving about 2x slower than the fist or the foot respectively - since the elbow or the knee are moving about half the distance of the fist or the foot IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. So they have to be moving slower - and are therefore much easier to see and react to. Watching a fist when a fast punch is thrown can actually be little more than a blur - and the same is true of the foot when a fast kick is thrown. And when a round punch or kick is thrown - the elbow and the knee are actually moving about 4x slower than the fist or foot, for the same reasons just given. "

1) Watching the elbows and knees might work for long distance fighting against a stationary opponent. However, what happen if your opponent keep on bouncing around or jumping up and down as shown in some of the tae kwon do tournaments in UK?
Several months ago I saw the BBC News interviewing and showing some of the British tae kwon do Olympic team's fighting techniques. They were bouncing for several seconds before they even throw a kick. My question is how can you tell when your opponent is actually attacking you, when he/she keep on moving their knees and elbows up and down (bouncing)?

2) My sparring partner and I start sparring at a distance of less than 2 feet. Therefore, I have to watch the shoulder movement for any sign of attack. Even this is no guarantee that I will not get hit. We kicked our shins several times today.
In order to watch the elbows and knees I would have to bend my neck. Therefore, I may damage my neck in the process.
Which part of the human body do you watch during close up fighting when there is no hand contact at the beginning?

This is not a criticism. This is about me trying to understand TWC's approach towards fighting.

Thank you very much
Hitman

[Ultimatewingchun]

"My question is how can you tell when your opponent is actually attacking you, when he/she keep on moving their knees and elbows up and down (bouncing)?" (Hitman)


***By watching...the VERTICAL line that corresponds to his LEAD side - and when a kick or punch does come you will immediately pick out the elbow or knee corresponding to the fist or foot that's coming at you...in time to defend/counter/avoid.

BUT YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING RATHER THAN WAITING.

Btw....why pay direct attention to his lead side?

Because attacks coming from the rear hand or foot will take longer to get to you - so more direct respect (ie.- direct vision) must be paid to his lead side weapons - and his rear side weaponry gets the attention of your peripheral vision.

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

From less than two feet: attack.

And if one possible result is that you've contacted (bridged) with one of his arms - then watch the elbow of his other arm (since chi sao-like contact reflexes will take care of the arm you're contacting).

Assuming your contact reflexes are good and your chi sao, kiu sao, bong sao, pak sao, etc. training has been good. ;) :cool:

[Phil Redmond]

Dear Sifu Victor,

Your article is very interesting and make me think. Thank you very much.
I would be very grateful if you or anyone can answer the following questions for me regarding to:

"I) WATCHING ELBOWS AND KNEES
It’s a scientifically proven fact that when a straight line punch or kick is thrown that the elbow (in the case of a punch) or the knee (in the case of a kick) is actually moving about 2x slower than the fist or the foot respectively - since the elbow or the knee are moving about half the distance of the fist or the foot IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. So they have to be moving slower - and are therefore much easier to see and react to. Watching a fist when a fast punch is thrown can actually be little more than a blur - and the same is true of the foot when a fast kick is thrown. And when a round punch or kick is thrown - the elbow and the knee are actually moving about 4x slower than the fist or foot, for the same reasons just given. "

1) Watching the elbows and knees might work for long distance fighting against a stationary opponent. However, what happen if your opponent keep on bouncing around or jumping up and down as shown in some of the tae kwon do tournaments in UK?
Several months ago I saw the BBC News interviewing and showing some of the British tae kwon do Olympic team's fighting techniques. They were bouncing for several seconds before they even throw a kick. My question is how can you tell when your opponent is actually attacking you, when he/she keep on moving their knees and elbows up and down (bouncing)?

2) My sparring partner and I start sparring at a distance of less than 2 feet. Therefore, I have to watch the shoulder movement for any sign of attack. Even this is no guarantee that I will not get hit. We kicked our shins several times today.
In order to watch the elbows and knees I would have to bend my neck. Therefore, I may damage my neck in the process.
Which part of the human body do you watch during close up fighting when there is no hand contact at the beginning?

This is not a criticism. This is about me trying to understand TWC's approach towards fighting.

Thank you very much
Hitman
We do eye exercises to train the 6 muscles in each eye. We also train by having someone throw straight and round punches at us while looking at the elbow in order to develop peripheral view of the elbow. There is no need to lower you head while using peripheral vision. Once you've trained sufficiently watching the elbow it doesn't matter if the person is jumping up and down. Our guys can see the elbow while fighting in full contact event where the opponent is obviouly moving. During the Lei Tai fights last year the guys got to test watching the elbow. http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/clips.asp

[canglong]

Orignally posted by Lee Chiang Po
When I said that it looks the same to me it is because it looks the same to me. Wing chun is built on concepts and basic principals. You can watch 5 people that are trained by different sifu and you will see differences in their style. However, in most all cases you are going to see that they do adhere to these principals even if it looks a bit different. When you abandon these principals you are not doing wing chun in my opinion.Chiang,
Your statements seem to be in conflict with one another though you are not the only one to make such statements. When someone attempts to compare wing chun to wing chun it is only natural that they will see wing chun because of the adherent concepts and principles permeating all wing chun. The contradiction is to say that TWC and Hung Fa Yi look similar because again with that statement they are stating the obvious yet have no experience with either means the actual comparison is hollow and without merit. Saying that wing chun looks like wing chun which most everyone can agree with but it also ignores the not so visible or meticulous details known only to the practitioner of each branch which are the most important factors separating the different branches of wing chun.

So to say that TWC looks similar to Hung Fa Yi or any other branch of wing chun is to ignore or slight the very particular and distinct whether subtle or obvious details which distinguishes each different branch of wing chun from one another as if to say TWC or Hung Fa Yi don't at points of training and execution Look like Yuen Kay San Wing Chun or IWTA or any other branch of wing chun which just isn't true or they would not all be wing chun.

So comparisons of different branches of wing chun by sight alone and without hands on experience is not very reliable or revealing much other than the fact that what is visible are the principles and concepts of wing chun. The hands on comparison of varying wing chun branches is a must in order to consider the validity of any comparisons because that is what is required to illuminate the exact differences as to why each branch of wing chun is distinguishably different. This is something that just cannot be done with the visual experience alone. So it only makes sense to say wing chun should look like wing chun but it does not make sense to try to establish to a percentage or a discernible degree of difference which branches of wing chun are more alike or more different by sight alone from any other branch when all anyone should be seeing is something that is either wing chun or not wing chun and focus on and consider the details once the practice or execution has begun.

[anerlich]

The extrapolation of that argument would have distinctions made between WC and kickboxing invalid because they are both types of pugilism

to paraphrase:

So comparisons of different branches of pugilism by sight alone and without hands on experience is not very reliable or revealing much other than the fact that what is visible are the principles and concepts of pugilism.

Sorry, but it is always possible to remark on the distinctions - and similarities - between your way of doing something and someone else's way of doing it. and to evaluate whether, say, TWC and HFY are more similar than say, TWC and YKS. part of the getting of wisdom is the ability to percieve fine distinctions.

You probably need to see what LCP does before you can say whether or not it has differences from what you do. And by your own argument, you are in no position to say whether what he calls Hung Fa has any similarity or difference to TWC as you have no experience in the latter.

LCP has said his stuff looks like TWC and he makes no judgement on HFY as he has not seen it. IHe never said his stuff was like yours, so you don't need to treat him as some sort of black sheep.

[JPinAZ]

Actually, he has said he's seen HFY - some clips of GM Gee to be exact (which is kinda funny, I didn't know any existed). And then also said he has no idea of HFY. But then he also said say that what victor is describing does indeed seem like Hung Fa Yi to him.

LCP - "I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi"

Not a big deal really, but it did get a little confusing to me...

[canglong]

The distinguishing line being drawn being the existence of noticeable subtle differences gained through actual hands on experience as opposed to a lack thereof.

Originally posted by anerlich
Sorry, but it is always possible to remark on the distinctions - and similarities - between your way of doing something and someone else's way of doing it.Sure everyone is entitled to and will usually formulate an opinion the point again being although it may not be required experience is always helpful in making a more informed opinion.
Originally posted by Lee Chiang Po
I would not know traditional from whatever as I am not familiar with this lineage thing so much.....I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi. ...as I can tell you nothing about my own lineage. I call it Chiang Lee Wing Chun. Lineage aside, from what I have been able to determine so far is that the principals of Hung Fa are the same in most all the lineages I have been able to examine.So Chiang admits to having no experience with TWC or Hung Fa Yi because he is unware of any known connection between Hung Fa Yi and what he calls Hung Fa.
Originally posted by anerlich
Sorry, but it is always possible to remark on the distinctions - and similarities - between your way of doing something and someone else's way of doing it. and to evaluate whether, say, TWC and HFY are more similar than say, TWC and YKS. part of the getting of wisdom is the ability to percieve fine distinctions.
Again in these cases hands on experience can lead to a more informed opinion. It is a fact that there are subtle differences that exit that might or might not even be visible to a long time practitioner without experience in a particular branch of wing chun.

The point was not to focus on what Chiang is doing as different or the same the point again was that because he mentioned he had no experience with either TWC or HFY that his comparison of the 2 "I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi." - Chiang lacking experience may or may not have much merit and the best way to increase the chance of being correct with his analysis is for him or anyone else making such comparisons is to gain that experience.

[Ultimatewingchun]

How about we do this, guys...

ignore the HFY posse.

If they've got a problem with the fact that so many other wing chun people see a major similarity between HFY and TWC - that's their problem.

No longer to be our problem.

And move on...;)

[KPM]

How about we do this, guys...

ignore the HFY posse.

If they've got a problem with the fact that so many other wing chun people see a major similarity between HFY and TWC - that's their problem.

No longer to be our problem.

And move on...;)


Good advice. Because I've seen Garrett Gee in action...in person. And I've seen and studied with John Clayton...in person. I'm one of those "many" that see a definite similarity between HFY and TWC that goes beyond that fact that both are Wing Chun systems.

[canglong]

Victor,
It's obvious you have a problem with the fact that so many respected TWC practitioners that have had the opportunity to practice and experience TWC and HFY both actually do find the 2 to be very different. So why don't you take your own advice and ignore the conversations you want to ignore and let the other adults around here decide and discuss what they want while you move on.

Have a nice day ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

And John Clayton is a very good representative of what TWC looks like, I might add...having known John some 25 years now. He's one of William Cheung's best students.

Enough said.

[canglong]

Originally posted by KPM
Good advice. Because I've seen Garrett Gee in action...in person. And I've seen and studied with John Clayton...in person. I'm one of those "many" that see a definite similarity between HFY and TWC that goes beyond that fact that both are Wing Chun systems.Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

[KPM]

Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

That's your opinion. My opinon is that anyone that can't admit to similarities beyond just being Wing Chun.....similarities that seem so apparant to lots of other people.... either has a mental block, something to hide, or an agenda to push. What are you defending? Why not admit that HFY and TWC have similarities beyond most Wing Chun that suggests some kind of link somewhere? No...don't bother to answer. It will just end up being another long pointless thread where nothing is really discussed and no real info is really shared. Sorry! I'm should go back to "ignore" mode now as Victor suggested! :cool:

[canglong]

Originally posted by KPM
Why not admit that HFY and TWC have similarities beyond most Wing Chun that suggests some kind of link somewhere?"Beyond most Wing Chun" is a statement you cannot prove but your ego wont allow you to see the point of trying to address those things of which you are unqualified to determine. While on the other hand its quite easy and simple for me to see that both systems are wing chun and that is the link and anything more at this point would just be speculation.

[KPM]

"Beyond most Wing Chun" is a statement you cannot prove but your ego wont allow you to see the point of trying to address those things of which you are unqualified to determine. While on the other hand its quite easy and simple for me to see that both systems are wing chun and that is the link and anything more at this point would just be speculation.

Yada Yada Yada. Take off your blinders. Officially in ignore mode now! :rolleyes:

[Wilson]

Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

I've always felt that finding similarities in things tends gets you closer to "truths" than dwelling on differences.

I often use the analogy "spokes on a wheel". We can all start from different places, but our goals should basically be the same.

This applies to everything, not just martial arts.

[JPinAZ]

Here, is this what you're looking for? yes, I also see similarities between HFY and TWC. :eek:
And I say 'see' because I've only had hands-on experience in one of them. But sure, I agree, they do have visual similarities. More-so than if you compare say, TWC or HFY to some other branches like YM, kulo, or whatever. Foot work is more similar, some of the stances are more similar. The forms have more things in common that say YM lines or YKS or whatever.

But, to also be honest, when watching TWC video clips, I can also see things done that goes against what is taught in HFY - plain and simple. And I'm talking things in the forms, in the actions, and in the application of the system. And some of these things are glaring differences. Sure, they are probably closer cousins than some others, but counsins don't always come directly from the same parents now do they? But yeah, they are in the same family (duh)
And I'm not saying one is better/worse or anything like that, but for someone to say they are SOO similar, what exactly are they looking at? Some clips and maybe what they saw in a workshop? Even I would say that for me to say how close/simlar they are, I'd have to experience TWC in person - this is common sense!

Now, what started all this? Someone coming on here drawing conclusions without any admitted experience in either system. He's entitled to his opinion, but what is it based on really? Some surface level visual simlarities, and maybe what can be read in a forum or book. Yeah, that can give someone a very general idea, but you have to go much deeper than that. So, sure, 'sees' something, we all can. But what about the opinons of those that have experienced them both for more than an hour or two?

But really, who cares? This whole thing is so funny. 2 wing chun systems look more similar in application than some others and the similarities also make them stand apart from the rest. Great. So what?

[Phil Redmond]

Victor,
It's obvious you have a problem with the fact that so many respected TWC practitioners that have had the opportunity to practice and experience TWC and HFY both actually do find the 2 to be very different. So why don't you take your own advice and ignore the conversations you want to ignore and let the other adults around here decide and discuss what they want while you move on.

Have a nice day ;)
Normally I stay out of the HFY controversy but I'd like to know which "respected TWC practitioners" have practiced both TWC and HFY? I know that Sifu Delroi Flood met with some HFY. Who are the others?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I want to come back to this because I believe that this aspect of TWC is of the utmost importance.

Let me also state from the outset that this is pure "William Cheung" - in that he started watching these points based upon his own fighting and sparring experiences, observations, and analysis - and not because this was part of his kung fu training. And I know that because he himself said so a long time ago in the first magazine article he ever wrote about TWC - back in 1982.

If you focus on the imaginary vertical line running down on your opponent's lead side from his shoulders to the floor - and with particular emphasis upon his lead elbow and his lead knee...

meaning that those two points on the vertical line are the "crucial" points - and then focus exclusively on the lead elbow when a strike or an attempted grab comes from his lead arm...

and on the lead knee when a kick or knee strike comes from his lead side...

you're in the money.

And your peripeheral vision will tell you when to focus on the rear elbow or knee, respectively.

Speaking very personally, now...I would say that of all the things I've learned through the years from William Cheung - and if I could only take ONE THING with me to the desert island - this would be it.

It takes lots of drilling to good at this - but once there - it's well worth it.

Because you can see things coming at you in time to react - even though you didn't know in advance what it would be.

And you can do it at close range, mid range, and long range.

The elbow and the knee will telegraph lots of important information to you: is the strike or kick straight? Is it round? Is it high? Is it low? Is it mid level? Is it an uppercut-type motion? A looping overhanded motion? An axe kick-like motion?

Etc.

Its a superb radar system.

[anerlich]

But really, who cares? This whole thing is so funny. 2 wing chun systems look more similar in application than some others and the similarities also make them stand apart from the rest. Great. So what?

You probably should ask Ned and Tony. They're the ones going to some length to deny what you haven't. I don't have a problem whether the two systems have more or less similarities or differences.

Ned seems to spend his time obsessing over LCP's posts, copying them back and forth between KFO and HFY108, and seeing his inability to find an earlier post as some sort of conspiracy against HFY. That boy needs a chill pill.

$5 Tony goes on at great length with poor logic and hair splitting to deny what you just stated.

I agree, so what if they are similar or different? Talk to your buddies, they're the ones who hijacked this TWC thread, and as Tony alludes, got in the way of a good conversation between adults.

[LSWCTN1]

why so much hostility?!?!

if people, rightly or wrongly, think that Hung Fa Yi and TWC are a very simmilar system of wc, then can i ask 'so what?'

both are controversial systems which some people refuse to accept their history as authentic (personnaly i believe both stories to an extent), but i have never heard anyone doubt either systems' combat efficiency.

if people compare the two sub-styles then surely it does more to authenticate them as true, historical systems. would this validation not be more beneficial to both lineages?

why do you HFY guys dislike the idea of being compared to TWC? surely it does more good than harm?

respectfully

David

[Ultimatewingchun]

31 posts on this thread so far and exactly 10 of them were on topic.

[canglong]

Originally posted by anelich
I agree, so what if they are similar or different? Talk to your buddies, they're the ones who hijacked this TWC thread, and as Tony alludes, got in the way of a good conversation between adults.No the relevant point is not one of similar or different nor is this is about any individuals that is just another cheap attempt to avoid relevant points made earlier in the thread. When the second post in this thread brought HFY into the thread and at that time Victor was all in favor of it. Yet neither he nor Chiang can explain not the sincerity of it but the depth of any validity to Chiang's comparison statement when Chiang readily admits to having No hands on experience with either TWC or HFY.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Excellent post, Chiang. It's hard to imagine after reading it that you're not being sincere. And please don't feel as though you have to answer all the attempts at cross-examination by any self-appointed special prosecutors. You don't have to justify yourself, if - like so many other people - you have noticed that TWC and HFY seem to be so very similar.So the fact that Victors himself according to his own logic wants to be allowed to move on and off topic and then use that as some sort of shield is not fooling anyone objectively reading this thread.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The topic is TWC. And the FACT is, that TWC and HFY ARE very similar.

Regardless of whether or not anyone from HFY who post on this forum want to acknowledge it or not.

So if in the course of discussing TWC someone makes a remark about the similarities between the two systems (in this case, Chiang) - that's fair game to the topic of this thread.

And I really don't care if anyone from HFY comes on this thread and constantly try to bait others posting here to "debate" anything with them or not. And I don't even care if they try to "intimidate" someone into responding to their "attack-the-messenger" game.

ALL I CARE ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE ACTUALLY TAKES THE BAIT.

The children who can't admit the truth are beyond repair.

So I've been addressing my remarks to the adults. :D

[canglong]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The topic is TWC. And the FACT is, that TWC and HFY ARE very similar.WOW, Victor you mean Traditional Wing Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun are similar and you figured that out all on your lonesome.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
So if in the course of discussing TWC someone makes a remark about the similarities between the two systems (in this case, Chiang) - that's fair game to the topic of this thread.So then you agree that the original question/point to Chiang was a fair question. Glad we got that settled.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
So I've been addressing my remarks to the adults.You were obviously bored starting another thread on TWC and addressing your misinformed childish remarks to anyone that will listen. From the looks of things you would have never got 3 pages out of this if it were not for the HFY remark so you can thank Chiang,HFY or both later.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Victor, I am sorry I started all this and got your thread sidetracked.
Tony and Jp, I don't see why you are getting your panties in a wad over what I said. To begin with I never stated the differences or the likeness of either system. All I really said is that it looks the same to me. The last time I looked, I was not the last word or authority on the subject.

Chiang

[anerlich]

When the second post in this thread brought HFY into the thread and at that time Victor was all in favor of it.

I think it was more along the lines of "I started this thread, don't let these self appointed censorial zealots tell you what to think or post".


that is just another cheap attempt to avoid relevant points made earlier in the thread

LOL, the thread was about Victors article. Your "points" are all irrelevant.

I don't want TWC to look like or be confused with HFY. I'd hate to get tarred with that particular brush. Unfortunately, others seem to see similarities. :(

On topic, the knees and elbows are not only points of detection, they are also points of control. Control the elbow, control the arm. Control the knee. control the leg.

[canglong]

Originally posted by Lee Chiang Po
To begin with I never stated the differences or the likeness of either system. All I really said is that it looks the same to me. The last time I looked, I was not the last word or authority on the subject.Chiang,
You can't speak to the difference or likeness because you have no hands on training which is the point. Many people probably think Coke and Pepsi taste the same until they taste them both. My suggestion to you is to taste some TWC and HFY before you make any more comparisons.
Originally posted by anerlich
I think it was more along the lines of "I started this thread, don't let these self appointed censorial zealots tell you what to think or post".This isn't about what you think this is about reality.
Originally posted by anerlich
LOL, the thread was about Victors article. Your "points" are all irrelevant. It would seem Victor settled that argument before you posted but again don't let that stop you from rambling on..."So if in the course of discussing TWC someone makes a remark about the similarities between the two systems (in this case, Chiang) - that's fair game to the topic of this thread."

[CHS]

Hi LCP,
Please don't be surprised by the hostility you received from certain HFY people on the forum. I personally met a few HFY practitioners in both SF and AZ and a lot of them are decent and reasonable people. Don't let a few bad apples to spoil your interests in HFY, in case if you have some...

HFY, here we go again, and again....

Ignore MODE: ON!

CHS.:eek:

[KPM]

Victor, I am sorry I started all this and got your thread sidetracked.
Tony and Jp, I don't see why you are getting your panties in a wad over what I said. To begin with I never stated the differences or the likeness of either system. All I really said is that it looks the same to me. The last time I looked, I was not the last word or authority on the subject.

Chiang

That's right! And you are certainly entitled to your opinion!

[KPM]

On topic, the knees and elbows are not only points of detection, they are also points of control. Control the elbow, control the arm. Control the knee. control the leg.

Control the head...control the whole body! :)

[KPM]

Hi LCP,
Please don't be surprised by the hostility you received from certain HFY people on the forum. I personally met a few HFY practitioners in both SF and AZ and a lot of them are decent and reasonable people. Don't let a few bad apples to spoil your interests in HFY, in case if you have some...



Good points that we should all keep in mind! I know that there a good and reasonable people in HFY! Unfortunately it seems like the "bad apples" are the ones that post here on any kind of regular basis. It sure seems like anytime they get involved in a thread it is because they have a chip on their shoulder and they just end up making HFY look more and more like a bunch of zealots. Except for Savi, but he doesn't come around often any more.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Thanks for pointing that out, Anerlich, as I neglected to mention that in my posts...

the elbows and knees are indeed control points.

As is the head, Keith. :cool:

(Unless, of course, one's head gets affected by consuming enormous amounts of Kool Aid). :D

[canglong]

Originally posted by CHS
Please don't be surprised by the hostility you received from certain HFY people on the forum.CHS,
So for the record could you describe for us the word or phrase you consider to incorporate any manner of "hostility".
Originally posted by KPM
That's right! And you are certainly entitled to your opinion!No one ever questioned Chiang's right to his opinion the question is again if he admits to no first hand experience of neither TWC nor HFY as he did. What then is his opinion based upon it's a simple question to most people. Keith when you need an "opinion" involving an issue of your own health would you visit your local gas station attendant for his opinion or visit your doctor for his opinion.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
the elbows and knees are indeed control points.
As is the head, Keith.Victor,
Are you taught to control first and then strike or strike first and then control?

[Mr Punch]

As is the head, Keith. :cool:

(Unless, of course, one's head gets affected by consuming enormous amounts of Kool Aid). :D:confused: Are you saying Kool Aid will stop your head being easily controlled? Where can I get this mysterious jow? They don't seem to have it over here...!

Nice article Victor - coupla questions:

1) Why do you use 'east' 'west' etc for the way you're facing? Since you have to explain it every time you use it's the same as saying 'your left', 'outside his right foot' etc, no? Just wondering... is it useful?

2) When you talk about facing, when someone tries to go round you you talk about stepping out perpendicularly so you stay in the original centre-to-centre position, no? Don't you teach just turning drills to keep them from getting round you, or something like sam gwok ma for cuttin ginto their path and say uprooting or taking their centre? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but the stepping out at right angles seems like a waste of a movement.

Not having a pop, just trying to get your way of doing it...

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . When you talk about facing, when someone tries to go round you you talk about stepping out perpendicularly so you stay in the original centre-to-centre position, no? Don't you teach just turning drills to keep them from getting round you, or something like sam gwok ma for cuttin ginto their path and say uprooting or taking their centre? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but the stepping out at right angles seems like a waste of a movement.

Not having a pop, just trying to get your way of doing it...
Victor wrote: "...So here’s a question: If I stood still but my opponent moved - would the central line change? NO. The central line as it has been defined is always the same horizontal plane in front of me. So if he moved to my right - I would take a lateral step to my right) - so as to CONTINUE FACING HIM in the ways already described.

In other words - I won’t allow him to outflank the central line positioning..."

Of course anything can happen in a fight but TWC never wants to face centerline to centerline. TWC is central line WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Quote:
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

"the elbows and knees are indeed control points.As is the head, Keith."

"Victor,
Are you taught to control first and then strike or strike first and then control?" (Tony Jacobs)

***In TWC one is taught to be able to do both – depending upon the situation. Sometimes a simple strike to an open target is the way to start taking control…at other times controlling the opponent’s elbow, knee, wrist, forearm, body positioning, balance, etc. will be the starting point one uses before actually delivering any strikes.

………………………………………….


1) "Why do you use east/west etc for the way you're facing? Since you have to explain it every time you use it's the same as saying 'your left', 'outside his right foot' etc, no? Just wondering... is it useful?

2) When you talk about facing, when someone tries to go round you - you talk about stepping out perpendicularly so you stay in the original centre-to-centre position, no? Don't you teach just turning drills to keep them from getting round you, or something like sam gwok ma for cutting into their path and say uprooting or taking their centre? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but the stepping out at right angles seems like a waste of a movement." (Mr. Punch)

***I'VE FOUND IT USEFUL because I've noticed it's just a little quicker way to describe direction to a student…(to simply say “north, south, east, west” - rather than to say "left, right, forward, backward"). Especially so when trying to describe 45 degree angles - which we use a lot in TWC (ie.- northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, etc.) Strictly arbitrary on my part.

As to your other points…No, I didn’t say to move perpendicularly – I said Laterally..(ie.- east or west). This cuts off the ring while maintaining the facing of my central line to his center-of-mass.

[anerlich]

Are you taught to control first and then strike or strike first and then control?

Always better to establish control before pressing the attack if possible. But also better to strike the other guy before he strikes you.

The head is certainly an excellent point of control, something any good wrestler knows.


Are you saying Kool Aid will stop your head being easily controlled?

It would seem that the one is more easily controlled after consuming the Koolaid.


Keith when you need an "opinion" involving an issue of your own health would you visit your local gas station attendant for his opinion or visit your doctor for his opinion.

Keith is a doctor, so he probably wouldn't need to bother anyone else and harangue them beoyond the point of decency and reason as to how or why they came to a conclusion.

If I WAS at the gas station, and I knew the attendant to shoot the breeze with, and it was an inconsequential issue (like this one) like a cold, I might ask him anyway. I wouldn't waste my or the doctor's time unless it of sufficient importance.

Pretty inappropriate analogy anyway. A doctor has certain independent peer reviewed qualifications, something pretty much absent in the WC world.

[Mr Punch]

Victor wrote: "...So here’s a question: If I stood still but my opponent moved - would the central line change? NO. The central line as it has been defined is always the same horizontal plane in front of me. So if he moved to my right - I would take a lateral step to my right) - so as to CONTINUE FACING HIM in the ways already described.

In other words - I won’t allow him to outflank the central line positioning..."

Of course anything can happen in a fight but TWC never wants to face centerline to centerline. TWC is central line WC.See now, I don't get this description... that was the one I was looking at.

'So as to continue facing him in [that] way...' means keeping him to your north (to use Victor's expression), right? Which amounts to centreline to centreline, doesn't it? :confused:

[Mr Punch]

one is taught to be able to do both – depending upon the situation. Sometimes a simple strike to an open target is the way to start taking control…at other times controlling the opponent’s elbow, knee, wrist, forearm, body positioning, balance, etc. will be the starting point one uses before actually delivering any strikes.This is an improtant point in WC in general I think: control most definitely doesn't have to be controlling by holding/grabbing/jerking/otherwise manipulating your opponent's limbs/head physically, but you can exercise a degree of control of him by footwork (cutting down the angles he can move easily in), hitting first (establishes a psychological control, apart from ideally disrupting his structure too) etc. It's a prime principle of wing chun (though not exclusively of course) and one that I've always aimed for - though much easier said than done!


... Strictly arbitrary on my part...Fair enough, seems to work.


As to your other points…No, I didn’t say to move perpendicularly – I said Laterally..(ie.- east or west). This cuts off the ring while maintaining the facing of my central line to his center-of-mass.I was taking this lateral move to mean the perpendicular of a line between you and your opponent. Whereas your laterally means that if he moves to your east, you still move directly east and thus clash/intercept him with your whole body positioning...? Would you say it's a priority of yours to turn so your opponent is to your north ASAP?

[Mr Punch]

If I WAS at the gas station, and I knew the attendant to shoot the breeze with, and it was an inconsequential issue (like this one) like a cold, I might ask him anyway. That's interesting - I often have to ask my doctor about gas.

[anerlich]

That's interesting - I often have to ask my doctor about gas.

LOL. Cultivate it as a WMD.

Getting back to the head thing - having dome so many headlock escapes in BJJ and standup over the years, I'd prefer to get the head and another limb. Then again, I know a few guys who are really good at the plum, Thai head control.

[LSWCTN1]

LOL. Cultivate it as a WMD.

Then again, I know a few guys who are really good at the plum, Thai head control.

SORRY FOR THE SIDE NOTE!

i have found it useful in this situation to put my palms under their elbows and move their clinch structure backwards by moving forward, and up. of course it leaves your hands tied up - so your head flies in - almost always a knockout (i presume, by plum, that you mean thai clinch?)

[JPinAZ]

Victor, I am sorry I started all this and got your thread sidetracked.
Tony and Jp, I don't see why you are getting your panties in a wad over what I said...

Not sure what you're really talking about here, I wasn't upset about anything. Might want to go re-read my 3 posts on this thread. I was just either looking for better understanding on what you were talking about, or giving my own. But if you see me as getting my 'patties in a wad' well, nothing I can really do about that.

What I would be interested in is hearing more about your system you train. From the little I gather, it sounds like Hung Fa might be another interesting system that shares technology that also might be different that some of the YM lines. I would like to see some more info on Hung Fa personally (maybe another thread so not to take away from this one?)

Oh, no need to apologize to Vic, he said it was cool to talk about it :)

Jonathan

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I was taking this lateral move to mean the perpendicular of a line between you and your opponent. Whereas your laterally means that if he moves to your east, you still move directly east and thus clash/intercept him with your whole body positioning...?" (Mr. Punch)

***YES.


"Would you say it's a priority of yours to turn so your opponent is to your north ASAP?" (Mr. Punch)

***YES.

[Phil Redmond]

See now, I don't get this description... that was the one I was looking at.

'So as to continue facing him in [that] way...' means keeping him to your north (to use Victor's expression), right? Which amounts to centreline to centreline, doesn't it? :confused:
It means dissecting his body in half while facing my center line 45 degrees away and striking along my central line. I can make a short clip if you'd like.

[UKBBC]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.


***FIRST the ball of the foot hits the floor - followed by the rest of the foot, as you step. So you end up with evenly distributed weight over the entire bottom of the foot.

Furthermore, in TWC we would never expect to be able to step to the outside of a rear cross and use a tan da. It would never happen unless the attacker is absolutely clueless...because it's too far (for the wing chun fighter) to travel - and a good boxer (fighter) would never throw the cross from so far away as to enable you to respond with an outside tan da.

[anerlich]

i have found it useful in this situation to put my palms under their elbows and move their clinch structure backwards by moving forward, and up. of course it leaves your hands tied up - so your head flies in - almost always a knockout (i presume, by plum, that you mean thai clinch?)


Yes, that's what I mean. You can also hold the elbows in place, level change, and shoot at the legs. Or hold one arm in a grip similar to a 2 on 1 and stop his knees by breaking his balance or with pointly elbows on the thigh. Or prise his jaw back (controlling the head) and swim through. Or ...


I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong

So it would appear.


The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct?

I'd only fgive you 50&#37; for that answer. You stay on the balls of your feet for mobility (boxers do this, and I assume you'll accept that they can hit hard as well). To strike, you need to ground yourself. The step I use for punching is similar to Jack Dempsey's "falling step".


My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes,

Incorrect. TWC relies on footwork, grounding and structure for striking power.


using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes.

The heels aren't enough on their own. You need to engage the calf muscles to fully develop forward power. That's how your legs are designed to work. Walk around on your heels all day and see how mobile and fast your are (not).


can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

We're continually taught the importance of engaging the legs and core in punching, and that the punch comes form the floor up, hip/elbow connection etc. etc.

Dare I say you haven't experienced enough of TWC to draw proper conclusions?


but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence

THey're not (not here, and I'm sure not at Vic's or Phil's either). Hopefully this misconception will keep you awake at night no longer.


I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

No small girl with half a brain is going to trade punches with a bigger guy if she can possibly avoid it in a defense situation. I suggest that the odds would be stacked against her even if she trained in one of "the majority of other Yip Man systems" which use the "deadly heel footwork" as well.


fault of the instructor, not mine then

I would suggest the responsibility of every person to ensure they are not labouring under misconceptions is primarily their own.

[Phil Redmond]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?.
What Victor said.


My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.
One of the things a good boxer/kickboxer/full contact fighter notices is if their opponent fights on his/her heels. They time when the opponent is on their heel then go for the knockout.

[Mr Punch]

"Would you say it's a priority of yours to turn so your opponent is to your north ASAP?" (Mr. Punch)

***YES.Oh, OK; I think we differ there then. While it's useful and the turn itself can of course be used to generate quite a bit of power, I wouldn't describe as a priority: it's more useful to us to be able to strike in any direction from any angle.


It means dissecting his body in half while facing my center line 45 degrees away and striking along my central line. I can make a short clip if you'd like.That would be great if it's something you can do without putting you out too much. I think it's what one of Vic's students showed me a couple of times but I'm not sure.


I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then).Nah, I think it's probably your problem. In fact, from the rest of this post it sounds to me like you know zero about basic fighting concepts or wing chun in general. But no problem eh, that's what we're here for! :D

[UKBBC]

On further consultation with my Sifu, Randy, I apologise for airing some of my own dirty laundry out in the open. Obviously, my experience does not reflect the TWC system as a whole, and I never meant to denigrate TWC. Apologies for posting in a passionate manner, I will keep a cooler head in the future...

Oh Phil, interesting thing to know about boxers watching the heel, I've never heard that before...

[Phil Redmond]

Actually, when the entire student class sucked, trained unrealistically and were collectively incapable of communicating TWC concepts to one who has trained in other lineages, I think someone else has a problem, not me, hence my foray into TWC was very, very brief.....Now I'm not saying that TWC sucks (unlike the tag on this thread), just that I had a very unsatisfactory experience with it and it's apparent that many essential concepts of the system was not being taught properly. It's a good thing to know that what I was exposed to was a mere shade of what TWC is....unfortunately it means that there may be some students that believe they are doing TWC and will get their ass kicked and give you guys a bad name...(again, not my problem)

Oh Phil, interesting thing to know about boxers watching the heel, I've never heard that before...
We have champion fighters in point and full contact events at some of our schools who do make us look good. Here are a few examples.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/clips.asp
Columbia Wing Chun at the 2006 Lei Tai Championships
Lei Tai Champs
Jow Ga Winner
Columbia Wing Chun at the 2006 Lei Tai Championships
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oi9fwWj8NU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0dQGkPaoKA
Some training clips before the fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyQH4M550M0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZDkPpWYYoI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7NCvZYiDQw&feature=related

[Angelo F.]

Hi UKBBC,

Where did you train in TWC?

Just curious.

Thanks,

Angelo

[Mr Punch]

...I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then)Why would it not be your fault?


The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct?Incorrect. The statement that the footwork of other Yip Man systems place the weight on the heel is bollocks. Why? Because as anyone who's done any fighting knows

1) You don't move around on the heels: different steps will use different parts of the foot.

2) The word footwork itself in this context is so imprecise as to render the sentence meaningless.


A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor...Newsflash; the small female practitioner of most things LOSES, most times. Read Marc MacYoung, Geoff Thompson, Demi Barbito, Darren Laur or any of the other reality 'self defence' people since you obviously have never been in an altercation in your life.


Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...right?Regardless of whether it's TWC or not, in your 'experience' is there ever only one possible response to an attack? Were you saying this was an example? In which case, sure, it's crap wing chun... but then so is anything that ends in the phrase 'a flurry of chain punches'.


My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes.Again, mate, this leads me to believe that which so little experience in fighting in general, wing chun and TWC in particular you're a bit gobby on this thread!

1) Most karate is based on rooting on the balls of the feet. Many karateka punch with the power of a mule-kick. Boxers also often root from the balls of the feet (there is also the drop-step a la Dempsey, but that's still basically the balls). Are you going to tell me that neither of these can punch? A lot of chunners I've met could learn from the phenomenal split-second rooting ability of many boxers, including and ability to delink (to use the chun terminology) immediately after the strike/combo.

If you practise to root on the heel, you can get power from it, and if you practise to root on the ball, guess what? Good fighters will be able to strike from any angle and root from any point.

2) A lot of chunners can't hit for **** however they root. Their inch-power is a joke. Their flatfooted waddling a mockery of wing chun heel-rooting.


I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.And WTF is this supposed to mean?! :p


...one who has trained in other lineages
C'mon then: what? How long? Did you tell them all how well they were doing it after a short time training them too? :rolleyes:


that many essential concepts of the system was not being taught properly. It's a good thing to know that what I was exposed to was a mere shade of what TWC is...So wait, you've seen the REAL TWC (TM) so you know what good quality TWC? LOL


...unfortunately it means that there may be some students that believe they are doing TWC and will get their ass kicked and give you guys a bad name...(again, not my problem)Welcome to the real world: a lot of uber-trained people couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and will get their ass kicked... and how will that give anyone a bad name? If you get your ass kicked on the street, no-one's even gonna know you train unless you stand their doing Bruce Lee chicken noises and the 'I know kung fu' pose from the Matrix! :D So why do you care again?

BTW, I'm not even TWC: I'm not a big fan, but I'm not going to diss it either cos I don't know enough about it, and because some of the TWC people on this board know their stuff.


Oh Phil, interesting thing to know about boxers watching the heel, I've never heard that before...Well, whaddya know? Not much apparently!

EDIT: welcome to the board! :D

[CFT]

I think there is a misconception of the issue of balls vs. heel.

There are some WCK families that turn/pivot on the heels and some that advocate turning on the balls/K1 point. Never mind weight distribution ala 50:50, 70:30, etc.

You just can't move around (footwork) just on your heels, you just wouldn't get anywhere very fast. Not engaging the balls of the feet mean that you don't use the power of the foot arch - you're not going to be very nimble!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think there is a misconception of the issue of balls vs. heel.

There are some WCK families that turn/pivot on the heels and some that advocate turning on the balls/K1 point. Never mind weight distribution ala 50:50, 70:30, etc.

You just can't move around (footwork) just on your heels, you just wouldn't get anywhere very fast. Not engaging the balls of the feet mean that you don't use the power of the foot arch - you're not going to be very nimble!

True, I think, and this is just NOT the case in WC but many MA, that the whole ball of the foot/heel of the foot/ raise the hell/ keep it down thing tends to be misunderstood because of how strikes are used.
Typically if you are striking off the lead hand your rear foot should be heel down and when you trike off the rear hand it will raise.
In some systems its "sacriliege" to raise the rear heel at all and in some case that is true, but as anyone that has ever seen elite level atheletes performing power events or speed events like the sprint or the shot put (or pick your poison), you will see the heel raise to get the calf muscles in action and to get extra "oomph".
In regards to mobility, that tends to be "style specific but all you need to do is move on the balls of your feet and move "flat footed" and you can see the pros and cons of BOTH ways.

[KPM]

True, I think, and this is just NOT the case in WC but many MA, that the whole ball of the foot/heel of the foot/ raise the hell/ keep it down thing tends to be misunderstood because of how strikes are used.
Typically if you are striking off the lead hand your rear foot should be heel down and when you trike off the rear hand it will raise.
In some systems its "sacriliege" to raise the rear heel at all and in some case that is true, but as anyone that has ever seen elite level atheletes performing power events or speed events like the sprint or the shot put (or pick your poison), you will see the heel raise to get the calf muscles in action and to get extra "oomph".
In regards to mobility, that tends to be "style specific but all you need to do is move on the balls of your feet and move "flat footed" and you can see the pros and cons of BOTH ways.


What you say is true. But there is a clear distinction amongst different lineages between those that keep the weight back on the heels for the majority of the time and those that keep the weight a little further forward near the ball of the foot at the K1 point. Here is something a wrote about:

http://www.riograndewingchun.com/subpage1.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

What you say is true. But there is a clear distinction amongst different lineages between those that keep the weight back on the heels for the majority of the time and those that keep the weight a little further forward near the ball of the foot at the K1 point. Here is something a wrote about:

http://www.riograndewingchun.com/subpage1.html

Seems like "splitting hairs" for the sake of being different.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .Oh Phil, interesting thing to know about boxers watching the heel, I've never heard that before...
Actually one of the corner men will notice if the opponent is on his heels moving back,forward, or to the side. The fighter will then when to press the other other guy. If you have all your weight on you heels you can get pushed back very easily. If you're pushed when you're on the balls of you feet (K1), the force of the push is spread along the sole of the foot. You also have lots more mobility when fighting in the balls of your feet. You can do a simple test. Put all the weight on your heels in YJKYM and have someone lightly push you in the chest then have them do it with the weight on the balls of your feet. If you're on the ball of your feet you can get your balance back by dispersing the force of the push back to the heel. When you're on you heel there is nothing to disperse to. At least this is what fighters teach. Others will have their on take on the subject.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Received some pm's from UKBBC.

He seems to be on the level, in that he appears not to be trolling or trying to dis-respect TWC with the intent of his posts previously on this thread.

Perhaps he just had a less-than-adequate experience with one particular TWC school.

5hit happens.

[Phil Redmond]

Received some pm's from UKBBC.

He seems to be on the level, in that he appears not to be trolling or trying to dis-respect TWC with the intent of his posts previously on this thread.

Perhaps he just had a less-than-adequate experience with one particular TWC school.

5hit happens.
He's PM'd me as well and I don't think he's trolling either. He just had unfortuate experience at a particular TWC kwoon. That can happen in any style.

[KPM]

Seems like "splitting hairs" for the sake of being different.

Its not. There is a significant biomechanical difference between keeping the weight back on the heels vs. keeping the weight further forward at the K1 point. It affects how you pivot, how much forward pressure you exert, and how stable your structure can be.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Its not. There is a significant biomechanical difference between keeping the weight back on the heels vs. keeping the weight further forward at the K1 point. It affects how you pivot, how much forward pressure you exert, and how stable your structure can be.

Hard to do that while getting punched in the head....
;)

I don't see it as an either/or case but one of how to deliver force and move under BOTH circumstances.

[KPM]

Hard to do that while getting punched in the head....
;)

I don't see it as an either/or case but one of how to deliver force and move under BOTH circumstances.

Its a matter of optimizing your biomechanics and then training that way so that it is second nature in a real fight. As Phil has already pointed out from a boxer's perspective, if you get caught flat-footed with your weight back on your heels you may be in trouble!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Its a matter of optimizing your biomechanics and then training that way so that it is second nature in a real fight. As Phil has already pointed out from a boxer's perspective, if you get caught flat-footed with your weight back on your heels you may be in trouble!

Yes, but are you insinuating that being "flat footed" ( no one ever fights on their heels) is not effective?

[KPM]

Yes, but are you insinuating that being "flat footed" ( no one ever fights on their heels) is not effective?

You're not reading very closely. I said "optimizing your biomechanics." That means making them the best they can be. Its not that the alternative doesn't work. Its a matter of what works best. Did you read the article on my website?

[sanjuro_ronin]

You're not reading very closely. I said "optimizing your biomechanics." That means making them the best they can be. Its not that the alternative doesn't work. Its a matter of what works best. Did you read the article on my website?

Yes, I read your article and the points are well made and I agree with them, though I thing that, according to your article, shoes and heavy soled footwear may wreak havoc with my chain punching, ;)

Again, "optimizing your biomechanics" to what purpose?
Its not an either/or thing.

[KPM]

Again, "optimizing your biomechanics" to what purpose?
.

To perform better.....whether in a real fight or just training. "Optimizing" means to be the best it can be with the given circumstances. Isn't that what we train for in martial arts?

[sanjuro_ronin]

To perform better.....whether in a real fight or just training. "Optimizing" means to be the best it can be with the given circumstances. Isn't that what we train for in martial arts?

We had a debate on another website one time about lifting the heel off the floor on a rear strike, in that case an elbow.
It was a hotly contested debate to an extent, and the clip in question was a MT clip.
The elbow the way it was performed was "optimized" for MT, not so much for other systems it seems.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Typically if you are striking off the lead hand your rear foot should be heel down and when you strike off the rear hand it will raise.

In some systems its 'sacriliege' to raise the rear heel at all..." (sanjuro)


***THIS is all about distance, imo. It's always preferable to be close enough so that both feet are firmly planted on the ground when throwing (and landing) either hand...

but if it's necessary to raise the heel when throwing the rear hand in order to make up the distance - then so be it.

[Phil Redmond]

Yes, but are you insinuating that being "flat footed" ( no one ever fights on their heels) is not effective?
I'm not. I've seen many boxers step on their heels and be effective. It all depends on the individual. I am saying that it is better to step using the balls of the foots and "most" boxing schools teach to use the balls (of the foot)...lol.

[anerlich]

While not consciously trying to lift the back heel for its own sake, I think you more or less have to be able to pivot slightly on the ball of the back foot to optimise the angle of the foot for power delivery in the cross, so as to optimally engage the "foot arch" and the calf muscles, as others have mentioned.

IMO the mechanics of a bil jee style lead elbow strike are identical to those of a lead hook punch, and in order to do that effectively you have to be able to pivot on the ball of the front foot. YMMV, but I wouldn't try it any other way. The same is true, though to a lesser degree, with a rear elbow strike. IMO.

[Mr Punch]

I'm not. I've seen many boxers step on their heels and be effective. It all depends on the individual. It also depends on semantics and a knowledge of anatomy: you can't walk on your heels without a helluva lot of difficulty: everybody try it now... go on! You're going to use the rest of your foot in no small capacity, which was the point of my post in the first place: the interaction of how much and when you use which part of your foot is the important thing.

No-one can feasibly suggest only stepping with your heel, or only stepping with your ball. Not blaming you Phil, but I can't believe this inane bollocks has gone on for so long on this thread!



BTW, I try not to step on my balls... but that's a medical problem. :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

"Typically if you are striking off the lead hand your rear foot should be heel down and when you strike off the rear hand it will raise.

In some systems its 'sacriliege' to raise the rear heel at all..." (sanjuro)


***THIS is all about distance, imo. It's always preferable to be close enough so that both feet are firmly planted on the ground when throwing (and landing) either hand...

but if it's necessary to raise the heel when throwing the rear hand in order to make up the distance - then so be it.

Correct, while you can prefer one over the other, the "fight" will tend to dictate what is best to produce the best results.


Originally Posted by Phil Redmond View Post
I'm not. I've seen many boxers step on their heels and be effective. It all depends on the individual.

I know you weren't Phil, It wasn't directed at you.
To me, I don't get the either/or thing that gets applied to so many MA.

[couch]

BTW, I try not to step on my balls... but that's a medical problem. :eek:

Might not be. Some people, like myself, have the nickname 'Tripod.' Back to the thread!

[anerlich]

Some people, like myself, have the nickname 'Tripod.'

Really short legs, huh? ;)

[Wayfaring]

Have you guys found that mobility on the balls of the feet is more of a concern for longer ranges and K1 distribution is more a concern in WC range? Curious.

[Wayfaring]

Victor - nice article. And the Chiang guy - I thought it was a cool story of your dad and his WC training in hung fa in China. Who knows what connections there are there and possible distant family types of interactions between HFY, TWC, and what your dad studied? From what I've studied of HFY I am familiar with stories of connections with secret societies in China and it being taught underground until GM Gee decided to publicly expose it. There exists a lot of realm of possibility in backgrounds that nobody may ever really know - just a lot of speculation.

Everybody here has debated all sorts of details of similarities and differences between HFY and TWC. I guess from my perspective it's all a matter of perspective. The closer you look at things the more different they seem. The broader you look at them they are more similar. I'm sure the deeper you get into studying details differences stand out.

In the broadest sense all WC has tools of tan, bong, fuk. They all work from a simultaneous offense/defense perspective, and deal with interaction on a bridge.

Then you get into stances, energetics, and approaches and they start separating out. Wheels vs. angles, principles, skills and challenges.

So how far away are you holding the magnifying glass? 1 ft? 2ft? 10ft? I'm sure at some range looking through it you may state from a perspective that you see more in common with HFY and TWC than other WC families. From other ranges someone says no that's crazy. And then we get to all discuss perspectives over the Internet where nobody can see the same thing. All great fun.

But anyway I liked the article and talking about some of the perspectives.

[couch]

Really short legs, huh? ;)

Did I walk into that one? LOL :p

[couch]

Have you guys found that mobility on the balls of the feet is more of a concern for longer ranges and K1 distribution is more a concern in WC range? Curious.

I don't know if this will be the feedback you're looking for...

I shift on K1. But when I'm moving around...I have to use the balls of my feet...so what gives?

K1 is my 'learned' balance point. It's where I'm putting my weight for a time. Honestly, after K1 shifting is learned and ingrained, I think there is a natural progression towards using the ball of the foot a little more. For me, there are two things involved: weight placement over the foot and the ability to move. If it's in the middle, I can move on the balls of heels of the foot. Maybe KPM can weigh in on this one. Also, K1 shifting, IMO, teaches proper attachment or "linking" of the hips. There seems to be a tension between front stance and side stances...like because of this tension, there is a tendency to be pulled and locked in to a stance. That's at least how if feels to me.

Best,
K

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't know if this will be the feedback you're looking for...

I shift on K1. But when I'm moving around...I have to use the balls of my feet...so what gives?

K1 is my 'learned' balance point. It's where I'm putting my weight for a time. Honestly, after K1 shifting is learned and ingrained, I think there is a natural progression towards using the ball of the foot a little more. For me, there are two things involved: weight placement over the foot and the ability to move. If it's in the middle, I can move on the balls of heels of the foot. Maybe KPM can weigh in on this one. Also, K1 shifting, IMO, teaches proper attachment or "linking" of the hips. There seems to be a tension between front stance and side stances...like because of this tension, there is a tendency to be pulled and locked in to a stance. That's at least how if feels to me.

Best,
K

You know, some people have amazing foot work and force production and they don't even know what and where Kidney 1 is....

[anerlich]

As a further observation, more for those interested in MMA nd the "glorified kickboxers", it's very hard to sprawl effectively if you are back on your heels or even flat footed.

[KPM]

I don't know if this will be the feedback you're looking for...

I shift on K1. But when I'm moving around...I have to use the balls of my feet...so what gives?

K1 is my 'learned' balance point. It's where I'm putting my weight for a time. Honestly, after K1 shifting is learned and ingrained, I think there is a natural progression towards using the ball of the foot a little more. For me, there are two things involved: weight placement over the foot and the ability to move. If it's in the middle, I can move on the balls of heels of the foot. Maybe KPM can weigh in on this one. Also, K1 shifting, IMO, teaches proper attachment or "linking" of the hips. There seems to be a tension between front stance and side stances...like because of this tension, there is a tendency to be pulled and locked in to a stance. That's at least how if feels to me.

Best,
K

Hey Kenton!

You are absolutely right! :) A central idea in WCK is "sinking." Sinking involves lowering the center of gravity. But to stay mobile, this should be done on a forward vector and not straight downward. This is much easier to do with the weight on K1 than with the weight on the heels. One should sink with the knees converging and the center of gravity going towards a point approximately two feet out in front of you. This is a key feature of Robert Chu's "structure test." This also increases your "forward pressure", because you are already moving forward without even moving your feet. Keeping the weight back on the heels encourages one to do the dreaded "Wing Chun slouch." The K1 point is not the ball of the foot, but it is considered more as a zone or region. The actual point of weight distribution is going to vary between K1, ball of the foot, more over the arch, etc. What counts is what you are using as your baseline "balance point" as Kenton mentions. As I have pointed out earlier, there is a significant biomechanical difference between using K1 as your baseline balance point vs. using the heel as your baseline balance point.

[KPM]

As a further observation, more for those interested in MMA nd the "glorified kickboxers", it's very hard to sprawl effectively if you are back on your heels or even flat footed.

Alan Orr points out in his most recent DVD series that when you are using the body structure methods as taught by Robert Chu......with forward pressure using the hips, weight distribution at K1, and sinking towards a point in front of you....you are essentially doing a "sprawl" without moving your feet. So then if the guy goes deeper and you have to actually move your feet, the actual sprawl is just a natural extension.

[KPM]

You know, some people have amazing foot work and force production and they don't even know what and where Kidney 1 is....

K1 is just a label. Good biomechanics is good biomechanics no matter the source or labels utilized.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Not really part of the article - but a big factor for me personally over the last few years, as I've been working on this more than ever before.

Taking advantage of opportunities to step to the parallel leg blindside (or creating the opportunities) can often be the follow-up/natural progression to working/fighting in a cross leg positioning (or even some sort of a neutral stance positioning).

At one moment you're attacking the opponent's center of mass (regardless of which stances and relative positioning being used) and at the next moment you're on the outside of his lead leg with your parallel leg (ie.- your leading right leg vs. his leading left leg)...and deep into his zone attacking his flank.

Just to stretch an analogy: similar to the "position" game that BJJ plays, for example.

Thoughts?

[couch]

Keeping the weight back on the heels encourages one to do the dreaded "Wing Chun slouch."

I also think the 'WC slouch' also has a lot to do with, um, laziness. :)

I remember my Kenpo Karate classes, pushing myself to the limits sitting in a good riding horse stance. Thighs parallel to the ground, not letting that stick roll off my thighs or I had to do push-ups... It takes a lot of work! Look at those Tae Kwon Do demos at your local mall. All these people look like they're performing standing splits! Not horse stance!

A lot of dummy vids I see, too (other than many 'older family' styles) have their dummy way to high. This doesn't mean that we squish our knees together and cause knee problems...it means to sink. Chum Kiu.

As I recently said on another post: No Horse=No Kung-Fu!

Rant over and out,
K

[cjurakpt]

Hey Kenton!

You are absolutely right! :) A central idea in WCK is "sinking." Sinking involves lowering the center of gravity. But to stay mobile, this should be done on a forward vector and not straight downward. This is much easier to do with the weight on K1 than with the weight on the heels. One should sink with the knees converging and the center of gravity going towards a point approximately two feet out in front of you. This is a key feature of Robert Chu's "structure test." This also increases your "forward pressure", because you are already moving forward without even moving your feet. Keeping the weight back on the heels encourages one to do the dreaded "Wing Chun slouch." The K1 point is not the ball of the foot, but it is considered more as a zone or region. The actual point of weight distribution is going to vary between K1, ball of the foot, more over the arch, etc. What counts is what you are using as your baseline "balance point" as Kenton mentions. As I have pointed out earlier, there is a significant biomechanical difference between using K1 as your baseline balance point vs. using the heel as your baseline balance point.
biomechanically, the heel is designed for creating a stable surface during the first part of the stance phase of gait over which the ankle / leg can ove anteriorly; the heal is therefore a relatively more stable structure than the mid- or fore-foot, both of which are successively more flexible in order to help distribute the weight of the body laterally in the foot, partially in order to create the recoil that occurs in the elastic connective tissue that helps to power push-off part during terminal stance; in other words, pushing off the ball of the foot goes hand-in-hand with forward motion;
K1 ("bubbling well" or, as my teacher translates it, "subterranean spring"), does not really strike me as the ideal part of the foot to pivot off of IMHO, because it's more like the keystone of an arch, not a ground-connection point; as such, it really has more to do with force transfer from back to front than with release of that stored force; indeed, K1 has more to do with upward thrust, such as occurs when one "activates" the postural system vertically in gravity; but I could be wrong, just my perspective;
as far as the "slouch" in WC, you see that a lot in taiji as well: some of my thoughts on that


IMHO actively tucking is a huge misunderstanding pervasive in the world of taiji; you also see a lot of Okinawan stylists do it with explanations ranging from "just because" to "it makes the spine stronger"; unfortunately, this makes no sense biomechanically / neuromuscularly; fortunately, we can use information from the field of biomechanics to help us understand various postural concepts as they relate to FUNCTIONAL spine usage;
first off, the spine (and pelvis) are never static, so the idea of assuming and holding one position makes no sense - this holds even if you are doing static standing (zhang zhuan), because unless you stop breathing, you will have spinal movement because the way that the respiratory diaphragm, pelvic diaphragm, and even the pedal diaphragms work will require a "compensatory" spinal motion with every breath; not to mention the automatic vestibular system function vis a vis anti-gravity postural muscle function
2nd, as far as how to organize the spine, the old time osteopaths had the term "easy flexion", which denotes a spine that is aligned, but not rigid; it's like a spring that is in the mid-range of it's excursion; this allows a responsiveness in the spine that keeps it "lively" and able to adapt to multi-directional forces that may challenge it; conversely, when you tuck the tailbone, you are essentially creating a posterior pelvic tilt, which is a relatively less mobile position of the pelvis relative to hips and lumbar spine (the two structures with which it articulates on a boney level); as such, you loose the ability to have a full-body mediated postural response, and will end up using muscles like hamstrings to orient in gravity, which is inefficient and imprecise; furthermore, a tuck also increases relative hip extension, which has the exact opposite effect of "sung kwa", which is what happens when you have a slight anterior pelvic tilt / relative increase in hip flexion which creates a "softening" of the kwa (inguinal crease / loins), and allows, among other things, relative less impedance of ground reaction force up the kinetic chain - which is the force you initiate by inhalation (respiratory diaphragm descends; ground reaction force responds), which is what you use to "float" the connective tissue matrix (FYI - TC Bob has some very nice ways of qualifying this experience as does Scott B. [I admit grudgingly, my abject hatred of him notwithstanding])
the "point" of good spinal alignment is that it creates, among other things, a relative ideal situation within which the pelvic, abdominal and thoracic viscera can be pumped by the various diaphragms that abut them, in order to enhance clearance of lymphatic fluid and venous blood; the challenge is that it occurs in gravity, with all the organs predisposed to hanging down on top of each other (as opposed to quadrupeds, who don't have organ ptosis, prolapse or loading stress on a vertical spine)
the "secret"to start with good principles, and then pay attention to what is happening - probably you shouldn't do anything that feels wrong, although if your sense of your body in space is skewed, you may not be able to make that assessment alone at the beginning;

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=867697&postcount=30


Good biomechanics is good biomechanics no matter the source or labels utilized.
yes, yes, a thousand times, yes (especially when that "label" is so-called "internal"...)!

[KPM]

Chris wrote:
biomechanically, the heel is designed for creating a stable surface during the first part of the stance phase of gait over which the ankle / leg can ove anteriorly; the heal is therefore a relatively more stable structure than the mid- or fore-foot, both of which are successively more flexible

---This is true. But the gait cycle for walking is not the same as martial footwork. The heel is a more stable surface and designed for repeated impact with walking. But the footwork used in martial arts does not typically involve a heel strike phase as seen in the gait cycle. Its the same for running...there is no heel strike when running.

in other words, pushing off the ball of the foot goes hand-in-hand with forward motion;

---Exactly! And keeping the region around the ball of the foot as your baseline area for balance means that you are more prepared to launch in with forward momentum than if the weight and balance are back on the heels.


K1 ("bubbling well" or, as my teacher translates it, "subterranean spring"), does not really strike me as the ideal part of the foot to pivot off of IMHO, because it's more like the keystone of an arch, not a ground-connection point; as such, it really has more to do with force transfer from back to front than with release of that stored force;

---I'm afraid here we must disagree. After all, look at other competitive sports. A tennis player keeps their weight forward and ready to spring into action by pushing off or pivoting at the region near the ball of the foot. The same for a football lineman ready to launch forward with the play goes into action. The same for the sprinter ready on the blocks waiting for the start signal. Very few athletic endeavors involve a "ready position" with the weight back on the heels.



as far as the "slouch" in WC, you see that a lot in taiji as well: some of my thoughts on that

----I agree with what you wrote! In fact, in cooresponds pretty closely to the article I wrote on my website about the slouch. :)


http://www.riograndewingchun.com/subpage2.html

[KPM]

Victor wrote:
Taking advantage of opportunities to step to the parallel leg blindside (or creating the opportunities) can often be the follow-up/natural progression to working/fighting in a cross leg positioning (or even some sort of a neutral stance positioning).

---I agree. I use this footwork as well. I see it as coming from the Mook Jong footwork. On the Jong you usually immediately step back into his center rather than remaining on a 45 degree line in relation to the opponent. But there is no reason why one couldn't pause and work from this position.

At one moment you're attacking the opponent's center of mass (regardless of which stances and relative positioning being used) and at the next moment you're on the outside of his lead leg with your parallel leg (ie.- your leading right leg vs. his leading left leg)...and deep into his zone attacking his flank.

Just to stretch an analogy: similar to the "position" game that BJJ plays, for example.

---Yep! And from here you can easily go a little further and "get his back" as is so commonly sought on the ground in BJJ!

[cjurakpt]

the gait cycle for walking is not the same as martial footwork. The heel is a more stable surface and designed for repeated impact with walking. But the footwork used in martial arts does not typically involve a heel strike phase as seen in the gait cycle.
if you do a forward lunge to close distance, there is a heel strike; it just may be very quick / not last as long as during gait;


the gait cycle for walking is not the same as martial footwork. The heel is a more stable surface and designed for repeated impact with walking. But the footwork used in martial arts does not typically involve a heel strike phase as seen in the gait cycle. Its the same for running...there is no heel strike when running.
running biomechanics (http://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/content/content.jsp?contentId=content1104)


I'm afraid here we must disagree. After all, look at other competitive sports. A tennis player keeps their weight forward and ready to spring into action by pushing off or pivoting at the region near the ball of the foot. The same for a football lineman ready to launch forward with the play goes into action. The same for the sprinter ready on the blocks waiting for the start signal.
actually, I need to correct something: when I was thinking about the location of K1, I had it located a bit differently in my mind than it actually is (just looked it up in Wiseman): the spot I was referring to as the "keystone" of the arch is the cubo-navicular joint, which is posterior to the location of K1 - but because it's the main point that I "use" as a reference iclinically and in my own practice, I got them mixed up - mea culpa; anyway based on the actual location of K1, we are in agreement - that is the area I was talking about as ideal for a pivot (heck, even my old TKD teacher taught us to punch using those mechanics, LOL)


Very few athletic endeavors involve a "ready position" with the weight back on the heels.
absolutely;


----I agree with what you wrote! In fact, in cooresponds pretty closely to the article I wrote on my website about the slouch. :)
http://www.riograndewingchun.com/subpage2.html
very nice; I would say that, by comparison, a lot of people i see who practice Cheng style taiji do the same thing, and when you look at him, it seems like he is doing it as well; of course, he always wore a long robe-like outfit - which tends to give the appearance of the flattened back, or at the very least hides what is really going on...
another reason why people may prefer this is that if they lack good proprioception (and many people do, either intrinsically or due to lifestyle / trauma history), then being in a balanced state of the pelvis might actually make them feel unstable, because it is a position of dynamic stabilization; if you go into that slouch, you now are getting prop feedback via the pressure on the joints / ligaments - so you at least "know" where you are and feel more stable / grounded; so part of the skill (dare i say it, "internal skill"?) is to be able to be in a balanced neutral, and to feel secure there without needing to walk down the hallway with your hand on the wall, so to speak...so I would say it's not just being lazy, it's acting out of an internally generated predisposition for needing feedback and not getting it when one is actually aligned (of course, with proper training this can be changed, theoretically);

[KPM]

running biomechanics (http://www.roadrunnersports.com/rrs/content/content.jsp?contentId=content1104)

---Ah! My turn to say "mea culpa" and submit a correction. :) I was thinking of sprinting, not running!


another reason why people may prefer this is that if they lack good proprioception (and many people do, either intrinsically or due to lifestyle / trauma history), then being in a balanced state of the pelvis might actually make them feel unstable, because it is a position of dynamic stabilization; if you go into that slouch, you now are getting prop feedback via the pressure on the joints / ligaments - so you at least "know" where you are and feel more stable / grounded;

---Excellent point! I hadn't thought of it that way. I may need to update that article! :)

[cjurakpt]

---Ah! My turn to say "mea culpa" and submit a correction. :) I was thinking of sprinting, not running!
see? we are both very good at being wrong!


---Excellent point! I hadn't thought of it that way. I may need to update that article! :)
since you find it of interest, I'll take it a step further, vis a vis the notion of being "lazy" - if I have a bit of a personal gripe w/the term, it's because a lot of the "low tone" (hate that term really, very imprecise) kids i work with (I am a pediatric PT) are called "lazy" because of how they sit, stand, walk, etc., and of course when we assess them clinically they have a lot of proprioceptive / vestibular integration (or lack thereof) issues that manifest as less than robust recruitment of anti-gravity postural exensors (glutes, glute med, transversus abdominus, lower scapular stabilizers, etc. - basically according to the same model for dysfunctional posture and agonist / antagonist balance proposed in orthopedics by Janda, Levitt); yada yada, the bottom line is that a lot of the time what seems to be happening is that they are having to consciously manage what should be sub-cortical postural responses; this has been proposed to be something like 80% more energy consumptive (I forget why that #, can look it up if needed); take home message - if you are having to cortically mediate postural responses, it's understandable why you would be pooped, and why you would "hang" on the ligaments; in terms of relevance to the "average" Joe, I would first draw a line to the general adult ortho pop (especially LB pain) and we see very similar circumstances; and since we are typically looking at a continuum, a lot of the non-symptomatic population demonstrates similar postural issues, but just don't develop the symptoms;
so, point is that maintaining a dynamic neutral is more energy consumptive at least at first - which is why people have a hard time with "post standing" at the beginning, because they are trying to consciously stay in a state of dynamic balance; later on, when you get the connection of breathing to postural response (the idea of the diaphragm descending creating an equal upward thrust from the ground), you don't have to spend the same amount of energy to do it;
I guess over time as one becomes more efficient, one can not only more easily maintain the more aligned posture, one can work technique in that position and maintain the structure - probably this is a big watershed in terms of chi sao (or push hands) - when you get over that hump, your listening and responses get faster, more accurate, etc.
anyway, I am interested to hear your comments, and again, very much enjoyed reading your article: more on this should be written, IMHO (well, i am working on it, when time allows, LOL)

[anerlich]

Alan Orr points out in his most recent DVD series that when you are using the body structure methods as taught by Robert Chu

Wow, so those guys know as much about this as I do! :p