Wing Chun Stance Flawed

[judge88]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

[AdrianK]

I think stance is one of those things that should be naturally expressed.

Of course, only after understanding stance.

YGKYM serves as a section of knowledge on stance, and thus should not be removed from the system, but I agree that it has several flaws.

I don't use the stance personally, but I utilize the concepts it demonstrates.

[TenTigers]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

I take it, you don't actually study WCK....?

[sihing]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.


The YJKYMA as done in SNT is a training stance. In YJKYMA each foot is representing the back foot of that particular side forward stance (e.g. left foot in YJKYMA is back foot when right leg is forward). The back foot/leg is the engine and connecton to the ground, which is generating the power you will need in your footwork, strikes, helping actions, etc..

Rather than using a specified # to classify weighting in a stance (50/50 or 0/100 weighting), I like to use the word balance. When I am practicing alone my balance is "50/50" since there is no force being applied against me, unless I engage in Mok Jong practice. When force is applied to your stance then you must balance yourself by applying body structure to accept the force that is coming into your body, this will automatically change the weighting in your stance to something that provides the proper counter balance to the force coming into you, as well as using footwork to secure a superior position. When using the entire body to generate force in your strikes you cannot have a 50/50 weighting, as you then are not using the ground as a power base.

Fighting square or with no front stance is something I used to do when I practiced TWC, and it can work in some situations. It allows you access to all your weapons, and really only gives you one side facing the opponent, the front side. This type of stance is only used while outside kicking range (or the pre contact stage of combat), as it does not facilate good forward/backward movement for chasing or retreating, but it is a good stance for avoiding takedowns, and "cutting off the ring" persay. Just before contact range is established one can enter into a more aggressive frontal stance to begin the attack.

These are some of the concepts behind using the YJKYMA practically.

James

[Pacman]

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.


IMO the 50 / 50 weight distribution allows for the most mobility. a boxer or karate type lead off stance is like a car with a long wheelbase --the most immobile.

when i first started, my legs were not strong enough and thus it was very hard to move, but later as my legs got stronger i saw how i could be very mobile.

50/50 weight distribution also allows for shifting of weight from side to side which is how WC punches are thrown. weight is not shifted like in boxing.


3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

the problem with a sideways body is that you are already handicapping yourself. two of your weapons (rear arm and rear leg) will already by "shorter" than the other. although being sideways your body might seem smaller to the front, you have the other sides of your body exposed and if you think about it, blocking will be harder because you really only have one arm to use.

[k gledhill]

:D here we go again...

The basic stance is adopted for 'drilling' purposes...an equally weighted and positioned stance to do 'drill's from.

The inward turned toes develop stability in the HIP JOINT , try standing with a lead leg toes turned out and have someone lightly push you from the side, ...then turn your toes inward....:D

We fight by facing the attacker in a preliminary face off with a side stance, it can be left /right...moving wherever it is required , fluid not rigid like your a statue.

The reasons for this are the techniques /tactics/concepts guiding what we have spent all our time training in 'drills'.

If you are delivering a line of force [punch/grab/kick etc...] randomly from either side of your body I cant have a pre-rehearsed response ready...so I have spent untold amount of time :D doing 'drills' from a BASIC stance that I move OUT OF and into angling structures, moving attacking entries, responding to random attacking and counter attacking , with a 'drilling partner'

We both need a BASIC STANCE to START FROM as we DRILL the random entry and angling responses to random attacks etc...for each others benefit. We call this 'drill'
Chi-sao.

In chi-sao one of the main drills we practice is mutual entry and counter to randomy delivered strikes/entry etc...so we can each train to respond naturally to a side of the persons entry...example Im in a basic stance so is my partner...we are both going to [in stages] sep in and try to exchange force to develop each others striking ability , ability to endure an aggressive entry without collapsing our counter attacking structure...this can be arm /shoulder connection, hips feet positions , balance..and more...under random delivery and reacting to by angling offside the given strike/step entry we can start to be fluid in our fighting ....by responding naturally to move and flank offside the 2 arms potential to work on us from the attacker/partner...If I adopt a lead leg it is obvious what it inhibits in the 'drill'...seung ma - toi ma

Because we both dont know what side is going to come at us from one second to the next we adopt a stance that allows equal ability to move left or right or step in left or right ...add the distance of a face off doing side stances and you can see the development stages to FIGHTING...

very important stage of training to be able to move and attack in close quarters wile fluidly adopting stances from the attackers actions...

Yip Man, " the attacker will show you what to do "

We dont do chi-sao 'drills' when we fight , so we dont adopt a BASIC DRILLING STANCE.

We now have an additional space & time before us and our attacker, within this space and time , we need to react fluidly and thoughtlessly , intrinsically adopting facing angles while ATTACKING the attacker with immediate counterattacks to their randomly delivered 'line of force'

We use a lateral shifting and angling entry that cannot be done correctly from an inwardly turned basic stance, not meant to be , redundant 'drilling' position for forms etc...

Sadly the system is in the hands of those who dont know and cant go back and say ooops 'my bad' because they have spent their lives trying to make it work another way :o sad really...

leading to the waddling forward in my drilling stance responses. The Im not going to move from my superman stance and deliver magic bullets all day ! waddle waddle waddle , who waddles ?

TWC is similar to WSL methods in blindsiding / flanking

The knives give a clear and unarguable rational for NOT adopting a static basic 'drilling' stance when facing an equally armed opponent or partner .

Your percentage for survivaal of a 'water fight' go way down...your standing in a kill zone with 2 razor sharp blades wildly swinging around you...where do you think you want to be and are you waddling around back and forth in a basic stance ?

I would venture that if you faced any sharp object being stuck at you , you would want to be highly mobile , fluid and try to counter the leading off-side of the person trying to kill you ...by adopting this simple idea to bare hands you are also minimizing your attackers repetoire for training on hitting hanging bags that dont move ...


Your right though, the basic ygkym stance is flawed for 'fighting' because its for vt practitioners to do 'drills' from...turning , shifting, starting equally in front of a partner who will step into them attacking with either leg/arm in chi-sao...we then train to angle off [toi ma] and check our positions, stance, balance etc..impact force , counter attacking strikes to the attacking entry strikes tan versus jum .but thats another thread:D

btw we dont adopt a lead leg until we are entering from a side/flank...no back and forth lead leg work , this allows thai low kicking easy targets, and commits you a line of entry before you even know what side to enter from....another thing we dont do..no leading leg pre-fight stance.

We dont use 2 extended arms in a basic stance waddling from the basic stance...

Theres a lot of redundancy in the system of 'drills' ...

reading your post you reference being 'square', this tactic allowsa vt practitioner to use 2 arms in rotation against one leading arm....each arm is trained equally in basic facing square drills so we can develop each side so it has the same ability to face the entry from an attackers left or right sides....
or the attacker turns before us repeatedly during an exchange...from the square facing drills, we learn to shift at angles while staying with and delivering a barrage of strikes and force to carry our attack intent to an end....
Where the guy goes as we attack them is unknown so we have to have stances to shift alongside, offside facing as if they where sliding along a wall behind them...fron attackin stance to dopt when we are entering their side having turned them..but still able to change directions and face another fighter , for facing multiple attacks it works seamlessly, Ive used it against multiple attackers on numerous occasions ...my point is that it worked to face random entry from guys I didnt know would come first..rather than their skill levels [ thats for terence ; ) ]

[Vajramusti]

Get thee good instruction on the stance. The stance is quite unique when done and practiced right.

When properly done it's for development of key wing chun attributes. Unfortunately many folks including many badly taught so called wing chun people don't understand it and easily slide into
doing something that is not wing chun.


joy chaudhuri

[Phil Redmond]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.
. . . . .
You obviously don't study WC. That stance is not for fighting. It's to train your stance while you learn to apply the hand positions. There are other fighting stances in WC. Also, not all WC people use a pigeon toed stance.

[taojkd]

Obviously you have studied some WCK and found it to be flawed. I did also, but let me express what I got out of the stance.

1.Mobility
The stance is designed so you can "pinch" the ground with your legs using adduction to grip the ground. This doesnt mean you need to be death gripping the ground with every step like you see in most youtube vids of people "using" WCK. Its designed so that in a terrain where you could slip easily (wet grass, snow), you can use your same boxing footwork without having to change to a lower stance. So you can be as light on your feet as you need to be to keep your balance and use the adduction stance when appropriately.

2.
Even weight is not good. I have seen different WCK people do different weight. I personally like the 0/100 from a front stance. MT also uses this to deliver faster front kicks and it seems to work just fine for them too.

3.
Square target but without one foot forward you are actually a little ****her away from opponent. He needs to step in deeper to connect with his kicks/punches. It allows you see your opponents attacks from a half/full step. Obviously some practice with distance drills is necessary to make this happen. Some MT systems use the same square stance. This allows you to zone to the opponents outside and counter attack from a more safer angle. And you can front kick with either leg. I've gotten teep'd to hell with a guy who could set up those front kicks of either leg. He peppered the crap out of my liver/abs :)

Advice:
Find a decent WCK instructor that can spar somewhat. Then find a decent MT school and see who they make it work in the ring/mma. WCK has decent theory, but most don't fight enough.

[lkfmdc]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!




a boxer or karate type lead off stance is like a car with a long wheelbase --the most immobile.



Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility? :eek:

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

[Vajramusti]

A boxer has plenty of mobility.

Trolls attract responses from gabby folks.

joy chaudhuri

[couch]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!



Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility? :eek:

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

I concur. I actually thought that just about everyone was responding to the troll quite adequately other than this 'boxing' remark.

Stance = drilling purposes.

Combat/Sparring = my natural self-expression.

:)


A boxer has plenty of mobility.

Trolls attract responses from gabby folks.

joy chaudhuri

Sometimes I just wish our forum had a 'Like' or 'Thumbs Up' button like Facebook. I would give Joy's post a "Thumbs Up.'

[monji112000]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

why are you taking the stance literally out of the form? its an "idea" not an un-flexible law. You do not have to be square and neutral to use the stance's ideas. The idea of a pigeon toe when doing the form is for many reasons, one being to hint at the foot work. The second is when you are in a shifted horse (more of a normal fighting stance), to be at a 45 angle. Its like you read a passage from the bible about G-d's hand, and you literally believe that its talking about a hand. Your trying to figure out how many fingers and what the hair on the hand looks like... your missing the whole picture.

if it doesn't seem to be logical your messing something up.

[punchdrunk]

You know he brings up a funny point... how many Wing Chun people try to fight or spar the way SNT looks? Or the way they do punching drills at that level? Lots of instructors do it in videos or articles, you know trying to have "perfect" posture, stance, structure whatever... and it is so far from reality. Truth is not many people get past that level because not many have experience outside of forms and drills to know something is wrong.

[stonecrusher69]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

Who said the YJKYM was used for fighting? of course it does not work.It's only good as training stance when yoiu fight you have to move.

[sanjuro_ronin]

YJKYMA is an excellent stance, all-purpose too, I stop grapplers and BJJ BB all the time with it, heck one time I even stopped a runaway car with it, of course I have the REAL WC and not some cheap import from HK, my WC came from the jungles of the chewsomemuff village, where the REAL WC was created, developed and pressure tested in the brothels of Macao !!
I can teach you this, my padawan wannabe, for a mere $3999.99 per month and all I will need is 12 months !!
That's right 12 months to make you into an uber deadly WC fighter than can hammer nails with your ***** into 6" wood and rip them out with your butt cheeks !!
And that is just the first lesson !!

[Yoshiyahu]

Yee Kim Yeung Ma-

The Problem may be your experience. Its like anything if you practice a form all day and never learn to fight with it then your form is useless. Same with YGKYM.

Of course you don't stand still in that stance the whole time you fight. From Ygkym if your opponent moves in you side step or counter step to their flank. Similiar to dummy form. You can stand in forward bracing stance an step forward attacking your opponent. If you enter his gate and wish to hit him with both elbows and use your shifting to generate power for a technique or two then you go to YGKYM. Of course you don't fight the whole fight using YGKYM. Nor do you fight a whole fight using just Tan Sau. Will you tan sau a round house kick? or Front Kick?

The problem I see is people see WC as a static fighting art. It is alive. It should be flowing from one technique to another and from one stance to another. It should be continously attacking and defending. Evading and Feinting. bridging and destroying the bridges. WC is inclose fighting system. An when your in elbow range thats when I find YGKYM is the most effective. Long kicking range you have your Forward Bracing stance or Forward advancing stance.

But every thing in WC can be use for fighting. The key is how do you apply it. The YGKYM has specific purposes that you may not completely understand. But Just because you can not fight with it doesn't mean others can not. Thus it should remain with in the WC system as a useful stance.

Boy the YGKYM has saved my groin on several occasions!!!

[mjw]

**Shifting and circular steping makes mobitity from the stance as well as avoiding your opponents power..
You can shift or twist your hips to generate power through use of body weight
The square formation keeps both of your hands in range to attack when in range and staying square makes it harder for one to get to your back side.

Further more it is developmental much like in karate etc the deep horse stances are used to develop leg power etc. Later on you find ways for your body to adapt and make adjustments to the force etc. I also see it as almost a ready stance when I know a threat may be coming yes I put one leg forward though I do stay square etc with my upper body and utilize the concepts of WC/VT but there is also a lot of out of the box substance that comes in when a real altercation occurs.

[k gledhill]

they do muff testing of the jgkym in macao....koool :D

[TenTigers]

Sometimes I just wish our forum had a 'Like' or 'Thumbs Up' button like Facebook. I would give Joy's post a "Thumbs Up.'

some people post the quote and then post,"QFT" which means, quoted for truth.
The forum equivilent of the "thumbs up."

[grasshopper 2.0]

Calling the stance useless is like telling a boxer that skipping rope is useless for fighting too.

Such things shouldn't be taken so literally and be placed into context.

I do believe that there is a falling step in wing tsun (and rising step), as well as stances that use weight distributions from 0/100 to 100/0 and everything in between.

WT/WC/VT can easily, imo, be judged and represented by its extremes (eg tan sao, 0/100 weight distribution), rather than seen for its continuum of movements.

[Pacman]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!



Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility? :eek:

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

i didnt say no mobility. please read. please read and then try to comprehend

i said a lead off stance has the least mobility when compared to a squared stance.

i also did not say that you would fight in a YKJM, but i was advocating a squared stance vs a sideways body

its easy to show. get in a lead off stance and try circling an opponent or moving forward or backward with small hops.

now do the same thing with a squared off stance. its easy to see which allows the most mobility

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

then he stops circling and settles into his lead off stance, face to face, toe to toe and then he doesn't move much anymore.

im not advocating the foot shuffling, but look at how ali is when he's moving vs when he settles in to strike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD99VbFzqAg

obviously boxers have their reasoning for using a lead off stance to strike and WC has its reasons for a squared off stance when we strike, but the fact is that the squared off stance allows for better mobility

[AdrianK]

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

Ali had a very unorthodox boxing stance. Actually its kind've the embodiment of the idea of moving naturally...

But anyways, mobility has more to do with balance, coordination and strength. You can be in a traditional stance, an SPM stance, even horse stance, and as long as you have the leg strength and balance, you can be as mobile as you'd like.

[-木叶-]

Troll and flame bait spotted :rolleyes:

[OdderMensch]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

How does tension render a body part immobile? Only if the tension is never changed. The YJKYM is the mother stance that all other stances (in WCK) are built off of. alter the tension on one side and you alter the weight and body angle. Pull a bit more on one side (or I as say release some tension on the other side) and that immobilizing tension will move the upper body quite a bit.



2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

Chum Kiu's first movements show that the weight can, should and must move from 50:50 to 100:0.

As for shifting all of my weight to one side or the other for power I much prefer WCK in that I only move about 80:20 when weight shifting for power. This gives me much of my weight while retaining much of my stability and mobility. Also going 100:0 into a punch will add a few inches of reach, but at the cost of the complete loss of on hand.



3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

"We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong."

This has always been a sticky point to me. I present a larger target? Really? Don't most people throw round attacks and head shots as well as straight punches to the body? I would agree if we were talking ballistics or baseballs but in hand to hand fighting I strongly disagree. I train to avoid the opponent's power by meeting with and negating that power while counter attacking whatever he opened by striking me. I can't see how you do that without a good YJKYM!




I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

I am a dissenting view then. I train with it. I fight with it. That has always been the Wing Chun Marching Song to me.

[monji112000]

i didnt say no mobility. please read. please read and then try to comprehend

i said a lead off stance has the least mobility when compared to a squared stance.

i also did not say that you would fight in a YKJM, but i was advocating a squared stance vs a sideways body

its easy to show. get in a lead off stance and try circling an opponent or moving forward or backward with small hops.

now do the same thing with a squared off stance. its easy to see which allows the most mobility

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

then he stops circling and settles into his lead off stance, face to face, toe to toe and then he doesn't move much anymore.

im not advocating the foot shuffling, but look at how ali is when he's moving vs when he settles in to strike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD99VbFzqAg

obviously boxers have their reasoning for using a lead off stance to strike and WC has its reasons for a squared off stance when we strike, but the fact is that the squared off stance allows for better mobility

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? :D I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. :o The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward.

[k gledhill]

fighting or sparring stances and actions involve 'cutting' entry invasion from all angles stances...etc..sadly many just see a slt stance , and pass judgment :D

sparring invades, cut space off, but you can always hang and let them come to you...reaction or action up to you ;)

[Pacman]

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? :D I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. :o The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward.

thats fine i respect your opinion. one thing i have to say is that the difference is not just the target size (which to me involves other factors but thats another discussion) but also shortening the range of one arm and one leg with the lead off stance as well as putting those limbs at a f2rther distance from their target.

on top of that, a lead off stance does not give you good stability sideways--just from the front and from the back where as a squared off stance will give you better stability side to side and from the front.

[taojkd]

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward
on top of that, a lead off stance does not give you good stability sideways--just from the front and from the back where as a squared off stance will give you better stability side to side and from the front.

A former instructor answered this very nicely for me. You only have two legs so there is always a weak point in any stance, and at some point, someone will get in between and uproot the two irregardless of your stance, structure or stepping. What makes their "stance, structure or stepping" better is the timing of how they used it.

[t_niehoff]

The YJKYMA as done in SNT is a training stance.

I disagree.

In my view, the YJKYM is not a "stance" but a particular sort of body mechanics, a way of using the body (to perform a certain sort of task). Those that see it as some sort of training stance are IMO missing both the mechanics and what those mechanics are for. The mechanics (body structure) of the YJKYM are fundamental to WCK's fighting method.

[chusauli]

The thought of a "stance" which implies a static pose is flawed.

[k gledhill]

getting silly ...:D my stance good , no badd stance, no really its gooood, oh yeah prove it !! okay push me I dare you ..standing in my superman stance you cant budge me ..try it and see ! infidel !! :D:D

[Pacman]

The thought of a "stance" which implies a static pose is flawed.

no ones implying a completely static pose but to say there is no such thing as stances is some philisophical BS

otherwise, lets all do a full split and spar

plus...don't you have some sort of pelvic thrust action you invented or something? patent pending?

[Pacman]

I disagree.

In my view, the YJKYM is not a "stance" but a particular sort of body mechanics, a way of using the body (to perform a certain sort of task). Those that see it as some sort of training stance are IMO missing both the mechanics and what those mechanics are for. The mechanics (body structure) of the YJKYM are fundamental to WCK's fighting method.

when they say "training stance" i believe they are talking about the horse stance training you to understand certain body mechanics and how to apply it

[Pacman]

A former instructor answered this very nicely for me. You only have two legs so there is always a weak point in any stance, and at some point, someone will get in between and uproot the two irregardless of your stance, structure or stepping. What makes their "stance, structure or stepping" better is the timing of how they used it.

yes, the horse stance has a weakpoint from a force from the back

lead off stance has weakpoints from the side


the question is, which is more favorable when fighting.

are you more concerned about someone getting you off balance from the sides or from the back (hint: if the guy is behind you then you are already screwed)

[chusauli]

no ones implying a completely static pose but to say there is no such thing as stances is some philisophical BS

otherwise, lets all do a full split and spar

plus...don't you have some sort of pelvic thrust action you invented or something? patent pending?

In Chinese, we use the term "Horse steps", not "Horse stance". Translated to English, the term got messed up! "Step" denotes "movement", whereas "stance" denotes a "pose".

That's right it's my patented Pelvic Thrust (TM) action! LOL! I'm afraid of guys in the closet checking out my butt or pelvis!

But seriously, the flaw is in not adjusting. NYC Subway riders know how to adjust their YJKYM when there's nothing to hold on. Southern Californians have to surf or long board, too bad.

[Pacman]

In Chinese, we use the term "Horse steps", not "Horse stance". Translated to English, the term got messed up! "Step" denotes "movement", whereas "stance" denotes a "pose".

That's right it's my patented Pelvic Thrust (TM) action! LOL! I'm afraid of guys in the closet checking out my butt or pelvis!

But seriously, the flaw is in not adjusting. NYC Subway riders know how to adjust their YJKYM when there's nothing to hold on. Southern Californians have to surf or long board, too bad.

i agree completely

what is this pelvic thrust that i hear people talking about?

[punchdrunk]

where people get confused is because in SNT it is a static stance! And in the begining before shifting and stepping is taught punching drills are done in a static stance. For some chi sao is even done in a static stance.

[chusauli]

i agree completely

what is this pelvic thrust that i hear people talking about?

Have wild sex with your significant other and take her passionately standing up (front or back is optional) against a wall or dresser...then repeat 10 more times until you've got it right. Sifu's orders!

This dog has got it right!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5dqFLEoI1Y&feature=related

[goju]

lol who actually thinks a person fights pigeon toed wing chung guys dont fight like that

ASIAN MARTIAL ARTIST DO NOT USED FIXED STANCES TO FIGHT FOR THE LAST ****IN TIME PEOPLE
THE COMBAT APPLICATIONS ARE HIDDEN WITH IN A DANCE



SHEESH WHAT IS THIS 1960 YOUD THINK PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THIS BY NOW LOL
oh and karate does have weight forward fightings tance its fifty fifty

[Phil Redmond]

i agree completely

what is this pelvic thrust that i hear people talking about?
It's rotatiing your pelvic bone forward. It's common in Chinese MA.

[Phil Redmond]

The thought of a "stance" which implies a static pose is flawed.
Chinese KF has many static Mah. The Sei Ping Daaih Mah is one good example where people sit in this "stance" to develop leg strength. There's and old saying. No Mah, no gung fu.

[chusauli]

Chinese KF has many static Mah. The Sei Ping Daaih Mah is one good example where people sit in this "stance" to develop leg strength. There's and old saying. No Mah, no gung fu.

Yes, you Lien Gung with your "Ma", but you fight with your "Bo". Ma is a "horse" it denotes movement, too.

That sounds real funny!

[Hendrik]

It's rotatiing your pelvic bone forward. It's common in Chinese MA.



ONe uses the solar plexus area's condition to determine how much the pelvic bone forward is needed.

To much or to little will cause the breath to stuck at the chest level and cant have lower abdoment breathing with EASE.

[Vajramusti]

yes, the horse stance has a weakpoint from a force from the back(Pacman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good YGKYM should be able to adjust to vectors from the back as well as front and sides.
Suggestion:Check you alignments .

joy chaudhuri

[lkfmdc]

The thought of a "stance" which implies a static pose is flawed.

Exactly, but sort of the source of the problem. While no competant sifu I have ever known really thought that movement was static, in practice and in teaching it becomes very static, especially with beginners trying to get them to learn the "stances"



In Chinese, we use the term "Horse steps", not "Horse stance". Translated to English, the term got messed up! "Step" denotes "movement", whereas "stance" denotes a "pose".



Mah Sik, Gung Sik, etc
The "sik" is "posture" is it not

as opposed to Tau Bouh, where the bouh is "step"

just saying it really isn't so black and whilte in CMA

[Phil Redmond]

Yes, you Lien Gung with your "Ma", but you fight with your "Bo". Ma is a "horse" it denotes movement, too.

That sounds real funny!
Semantics shcmantics . . . lol

[t_niehoff]

when they say "training stance" i believe they are talking about the horse stance training you to understand certain body mechanics and how to apply it

"Horse stance training" can't teach you body mechanics -- only doing the task can teach or develop mechanics (for doing the task).

When your training is different than your practice, your training is poor.

[TenTigers]

"Horse stance training" can't teach you body mechanics -- only doing the task can teach or develop mechanics (for doing the task).

When your training is different than your practice, your training is poor.

stance training, jahm jong, teaches you awareness of alignment and structure, balance, etc ,which is needed for developing mechanics. They go hand in hand. Now, can you learn body mechanics without this training? Sure. This is in this respect, a method for isolating this one area of training. (not going into noi-gung here)

[t_niehoff]

stance training, jahm jong, teaches you awareness of alignment and structure, balance, etc ,which is needed for developing mechanics. They go hand in hand. Now, can you learn body mechanics without this training? Sure. This is in this respect, a method for isolating this one area of training. (not going into noi-gung here)

Mechanics DO something -- they are task-dependent. The mechanics for lifting (task) are different than the mechanics for pushing (task).

You can't learn or develop mechanics without DOING the task itself. You can't learn to ride a surf board by not riding a surfboard. Awareness of alignment, structure, balance come from USING your horse, from surfing, not by not surfing.

Stance/horse training is USING your horse, is USING your body.

[-木叶-]

"Horse stance training" can't teach you body mechanics -- only doing the task can teach or develop mechanics (for doing the task).

When your training is different than your practice, your training is poor.

I disagree, chor ma （坐马） (i was wondering why it is called jahn jong here but discovered the northern kungfu refers to as that)
trains the beginning disciple the basics like balance, body structure, breathing and etc, once they are strong, then further instructions can be given like biu ma.

You cannot biu ma (referred to in another post here as the "BO") effectively without first having a strong ma.

[TenTigers]

nobody is saying that static stance training is to be used in place of applied mechanics, rather, it is used in addition to doing the task.
Too many people focus on just one aspect, and harp on it, rather than seeing it as a synergistic approach to overall development.

[t_niehoff]

nobody is saying that static stance training is to be used in place of applied mechanics, rather, it is used in addition to doing the task.
Too many people focus on just one aspect, and harp on it, rather than seeing it as a synergistic approach to overall development.

So do you think that static surf board practice in addition to surfing is useful? Or that static horse training in boxing or wrestliing (which don't use it) would be useful?

A horse is dynamic, it is not static. Does practicing a dynamic thing in a static way make us better? How would, for example, practicing a car-pushing-horse (the body mechanics forpushing a car) in a static way be useful? Could you ever really develop a car-pushing-horse that way?

[-木叶-]

So do you think that static surf board practice in addition to surfing is useful? Or that static horse training in boxing or wrestliing (which don't use it) would be useful?

A horse is dynamic, it is not static. Does practicing a dynamic thing in a static way make us better? How would, for example, practicing a car-pushing-horse (the body mechanics forpushing a car) in a static way be useful? Could you ever really develop a car-pushing-horse that way?

Have you ever really dedicated yourself to training the static ma and discovered
its benefits? Maybe you have tried but only for a short period and then denounce
it already. That is the root i believe, of all your arguments.

[TenTigers]

everyone I know who surfs, first learned the correct stance and positioning before getting into the water. Nobody just took the board out and tried it.
Learning the proper stance, and structure is neccesary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcmu1Hvm2ms

As I stated above, stance training is PART of overall developmental training, and should not be confused for the WHOLE of the training.
Punching a wall bag is not the same as punching a head, is it? Should people go right into sparring without any foundational trainng?

[t_niehoff]

Have you ever really dedicated yourself to training the static ma and discovered
its benefits? Maybe you have tried but only for a short period and then denounce
it already. That is the root i believe, of all your arguments.

Common sense and evidence is the root of all my arguments.

A horse is not static. It (a horse) is the underlying mechanics for DOING something, not for being static. You can't really learn, and certainly not develop, those mechanics by not doing whatever it is the mechanics are for. This is just common sense.

Boxing and wrestling are martial arts that use alignment, balance, structure, etc. too. Yet, they don't seem to be lacking in the results produced by their training -- without any static horse training. The evidence shows that this sort of "training" isn't necessary to produce good results.

[TenTigers]

Common sense and evidence is the root of all my arguments.


shouldn't experience enter into the picture somewhere?:p

[t_niehoff]

everyone I know who surfs, first learned the correct stance and positioning before getting into the water. Nobody just took the board out and tried it.
Learning the proper stance, and structure is neccesary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcmu1Hvm2ms

As I stated above, stance training is PART of overall developmental training, and should not be confused for the WHOLE of the training.
Punching a wall bag is not the same as punching a head, is it? Should people go right into sparring without any foundational trainng?

I agree that people first learn how to stand, how to place their feet, etc. on the board when it is not in the water. That takes all of ten or fifteen minutes! Then you hit the water. After that, no more board-in-the-sand-practice.

It's the same in all atheltics. The same in boxing, in wrestling, etc.

Static horse training and standing post are simply pointless exercises.

[t_niehoff]

shouldn't experience enter into the picture somewhere?:p

Experience is some of the evidence.

[TenTigers]

ok, that being said, do you find any value to SLT?
If so, then how long should it be practiced, and should it be practiced slow, fast, both, neither?

[TenTigers]

of course, this opens up yet another can of worms...
but that's really the fun of these forums. One discussion leads to another, bringing with it more insight.

[-木叶-]

Common sense and evidence is the root of all my arguments.

A horse is not static. It (a horse) is the underlying mechanics for DOING something, not for being static. You can't really learn, and certainly not develop, those mechanics by not doing whatever it is the mechanics are for. This is just common sense.

Boxing and wrestling are martial arts that use alignment, balance, structure, etc. too. Yet, they don't seem to be lacking in the results produced by their training -- without any static horse training. The evidence shows that this sort of "training" isn't necessary to produce good results.

No, other than common sense and evidence, you are also unconciously promoting
the fastest route, I.e. shortcut.

In martial arts, the longest way IS the shortcut.

[t_niehoff]

ok, that being said, do you find any value to SLT?
If so, then how long should it be practiced, and should it be practiced slow, fast, both, neither?

The SNT form isn't training, it doesn't develop anything. It is a "text" or reference to teach the various tools of WCK. I could similarly choreograph the tools of boxing into a form too -- so that beginners would have a "text" to refer to. But you can't really learn or develop the boxing tools from form practice. A form can only give you the shapes, actions, etc. The underlying mechanics can only be truly learned and developed by doing the task itself, by using the tools.

Some branches of WCK don't have forms or linked sets.

[TenTigers]

The SNT form isn't training, it doesn't develop anything. It is a "text" or reference to teach the various tools of WCK. I could similarly choreograph the tools of boxing into a form too -- so that beginners would have a "text" to refer to. But you can't really learn or develop the boxing tools from form practice. A form can only give you the shapes, actions, etc. The underlying mechanics can only be truly learned and developed by doing the task itself, by using the tools.

Some branches of WCK don't have forms or linked sets.

I dissagree. SLT forces the student to focus on developing proper structure, elbow position, and maintaining these neccesary alignments it throughout the movements.
Can it be done without the form? Sure. I am willing to bet that these systems that do not have the forms use drills and exercises that are found within the forms, but are isolated.

[t_niehoff]

No, other than common sense and evidence, you are also unconciously promoting
the fastest route, I.e. shortcut.

In martial arts, the longest way IS the shortcut.

Statements like the above are pretentious nonsense.

If someone wants to learn to throw the ball, practice really throwing the ball. That isn't a short-cut. It is how we learn and develop the ability to throw a ball.

[TenTigers]

that being said, wtf do I know?
I'm just a Hung Kuen and more recently,a SPM guy. I've only trained a little WCK over the years, so I am only going by what little I have picked up in this brief time, and applying what I've learned through other study and experience. I could be completely mistaken. So forgive my ignorance. I am just trying to understand my art.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Forms serve a purpose, the issue can be when forms, the prearranged ones, create more problem than they solve.
Many sports have "forms" or solo drills done "VS the air", but they tend to be wither free flowing like shadow boxing or they drill a specific movement as it is done in actuallity.
Most MA forms don't fall into that category, that they all should.

[t_niehoff]

I dissagree. SLT forces the student to focus on developing proper structure, elbow position, and maintaining these neccesary alignments it throughout the movements.
Can it be done without the form? Sure. I am willing to bet that these systems that do not have the forms use drills and exercises that are found within the forms, but are isolated.

How do you know from doing a form that your structure is "proper" or that your alignment is good or that you elbow position is correct or whatever? Without feedback, you can't know.

The feedback comes only by performing the task itself. You can't separate mechanics from the task.

You can NEVER get alignment, structure, etc. by practicing those things in the air. They are not in-the-air tools but contact tools, things we use when in contact with an opponent. So, they need to continually and constantly adapt to forces acting on us. Your horse that you do in the form is NOT the horse you use because the horse in the form is not dynamic. It can't be. It is merely a shape. How you stand on the surfboard in the sand is NOT the same as when you are on the water -- it can't be. The dynacism isn't there.

[TenTigers]

How do you know from doing a form that your structure is "proper" or that your alignment is good or that you elbow position is correct or whatever? Without feedback, you can't know.

The feedback comes only by performing the task itself. You can't separate mechanics from the task.

You can NEVER get alignment, structure, etc. by practicing those things in the air. They are not in-the-air tools but contact tools, things we use when in contact with an opponent. So, they need to continually and constantly adapt to forces acting on us. Your horse that you do in the form is NOT the horse you use because the horse in the form is not dynamic. It can't be. It is merely a shape. How you stand on the surfboard in the sand is NOT the same as when you are on the water -- it can't be. The dynacism isn't there.

The form is practiced under the strict guidance of a qualified Sifu, who can make on the spot, hands-on corrections and adjustments, eventually leading to the point where the student recognizes and understands this himself and internalizes the structures.
This is basic to any training IMHO.

[-木叶-]

Statements like the above are pretentious nonsense.

If someone wants to learn to throw the ball, practice really throwing the ball. That isn't a short-cut. It is how we learn and develop the ability to throw a ball.

Really, who is the one advocating the uselessness of forms and basics?
If that is not unconsciously telling the unaware student to skip them,
I don't know what it is then. Or perhaps asking a new student to go
and get beaten up without properly arming them with knowledge.

Trees with shallow root are easily uprooted.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The form is practiced under the strict guidance of a qualified Sifu, who can make on the spot, hands-on corrections and adjustments, eventually leading to the point where the student recognizes and understands this himself and internalizes the structures.
This is basic to any training IMHO.

Here is the thing, if technique A is designed to counter a over hand right and put the defender in optimum position to counter, how do you know if it is aligned properly unless someone drills that overhand right on a way that knocks you block off if you don't do it right? and does it in a way that makes it almost impossible for you to do it to begin with?

[TenTigers]

Statements like the above are pretentious nonsense.

If someone wants to learn to throw the ball, practice really throwing the ball. That isn't a short-cut. It is how we learn and develop the ability to throw a ball.
My Dad worked long hours, and didn't have alot of time to play with me. He also was not athletic. His hobbies were bowling and fishing.
I cannot throw for sh1t. I am strong, but I can't reach home plate from the outfield. Why? Because I was never actually taught how to properly throw a baseball by a qualified coach. I throw like a girl.
(I can, on the otherhand, do a great side arm flick cast under overhanging trees on a stream, and properly gaff and land a Mako.-I hate bowling)

[chusauli]

Good discussion, but I see you all talking past each other.

May I recommend some patented Pelvic Thrusting TM practice? :)

[t_niehoff]

Really, who is the one advocating the uselessness of forms and basics?
If that is not unconsciously telling the unaware student to skip them,
I don't know what it is then. Or perhaps asking a new student to go
and get beaten up without properly arming them with knowledge.


WCK, like boxing or wrestling or any martial art, isn't about "knowledge" -- it is about skill, the ability to do things. Certainly a trainee needs to be shown/taught the skill in question. But the skill is DOING it, not performing it in the air. You can't learn to use mechanics by not doing them, by not performing the task itself. Performing a tan sao in the air will never teach you how to really perform a tan sao. Never. The only way to develop that skill is by doing it, really doing it.



Trees with shallow root are easily uprooted.

And people who talk in cliches like fortune cookie are pretentious (don't I sound profound?) and lack understanding.

[t_niehoff]

My Dad worked long hours, and didn't have alot of time to play with me. He also was not athletic. His hobbies were bowling and fishing.
I cannot throw for sh1t. I am strong, but I can't reach home plate from the outfield. Why? Because I was never actually taught how to properly throw a baseball by a qualified coach. I throw like a girl.
(I can, on the otherhand, do a great side arm flick cast under overhanging trees on a stream, and properly gaff and land a Mako.-I hate bowling)

You don't need a coach to learn to throw a ball -- what you need is lots of practice. That's how every kid learns to throw, by throwing. Throwing is a skill. You develop a skill by doing it, by practice. Not from knowledge. Practice.

If you got out and played catch for an hour a day for a few months, your body would NATURALLY learn how to throw. You don't need a teacher or a coach. Doing the task itself is the teacher.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You don't need a coach to learn to throw a ball -- what you need is lots of practice. That's how every kid learns to throw, by throwing. Throwing is a skill. You develop a skill by doing it, by practice. Not from knowledge. Practice.

If you got out and played catch for an hour a day for a few months, your body would NATURALLY learn how to throw. You don't need a teacher or a coach. Doing the task itself is the teacher.

Be you do need one to learn how to throw a curve ball or a fast ball or a slider or a knuckle ball.

[TenTigers]

Here is the thing, if technique A is designed to counter a over hand right and put the defender in optimum position to counter, how do you know if it is aligned properly unless someone drills that overhand right on a way that knocks you block off if you don't do it right? and does it in a way that makes it almost impossible for you to do it to begin with?

ok, here's an example. If I do biu-sao against an overhand right, or a large hook (just for example) and my structure is not aligned-may arm, shoulder, angle, connection to my stance, everything, then I collapse. If my arm structure is strong, but my body is misaligned, I lose my horse. etc. To just go out and stand there trying, while someone is throwing punches at you will lead to no where. I am not saying that eventually this needs to be done. Of course it does. In fact, I don't think anyone dissagrees here.
Training is always a combination of methods. You cannot simply do one action and get all your results. You need to hit it from several different angles. Different drills and training methods each develop different attributes, which will LEAD to overall perforance.

[TenTigers]

You don't need a coach to learn to throw a ball -- what you need is lots of practice. That's how every kid learns to throw, by throwing. Throwing is a skill. You develop a skill by doing it, by practice. Not from knowledge. Practice.

If you got out and played catch for an hour a day for a few months, your body would NATURALLY learn how to throw. You don't need a teacher or a coach. Doing the task itself is the teacher.
yeah, and then I can try out for the girls' baseball team.
Again, I have to dissagree.
Practice doesn't make perfect.
Practice makes permanent.
If I go out and throw everyday, without learning proper structure, I will only get really good at doing it really bad. It doesn't just correct itself.

[TenTigers]

haven't you ever taught a student who had develop bad habits from earlier training? Sometimes it is so ingrained in them, that they cannot learn.

[sanjuro_ronin]

ok, here's an example. If I do biu-sao against an overhand right, or a large hook (just for example) and my structure is not aligned-may arm, shoulder, angle, connection to my stance, everything, then I collapse. If my arm structure is strong, but my body is misaligned, I lose my horse. etc. To just go out and stand there trying, while someone is throwing punches at you will lead to no where. I am not saying that eventually this needs to be done. Of course it does. In fact, I don't think anyone dissagrees here.
Training is always a combination of methods. You cannot simply do one action and get all your results. You need to hit it from several different angles. Different drills and training methods each develop different attributes, which will LEAD to overall perforance.

Indeed, but, and I think we all will agree on this too, TMA tend to favour "static" drills and forms far more than any other systems.
And there doesn't seem to be a justifiable reason for that.

[t_niehoff]

ok, here's an example. If I do biu-sao against an overhand right, or a large hook (just for example) and my structure is not aligned-may arm, shoulder, angle, connection to my stance, everything, then I collapse. If my arm structure is strong, but my body is misaligned, I lose my horse. etc. To just go out and stand there trying, while someone is throwing punches at you will lead to no where.


Practicing biu sao in the air won't develop or show you how to use it the way you are talking about. How can you know if your strucutre, alignment, etc. will do what you want it to if you don't practice doing what you want it to?

I can take a complete beginner and show him what you are talking about, then have him practice doing it, and he will learn and develop how to do it. He won't need a form nor will a form help him.



I am not saying that eventually this needs to be done. Of course it does. In fact, I don't think anyone dissagrees here.


But what I disagree with is that a form can teach you that sort of thing -- it can't. You can only develop that by doing it, not by not doing it.



Training is always a combination of methods. You cannot simply do one action and get all your results. You need to hit it from several different angles. Different drills and training methods each develop different attributes, which will LEAD to overall perforance.

There are effective ways to learn and develop and poor, ineffective ways to learn and develop. I don't think that "you always need a combination of methods" or that when you do, that combining good and poor methods is useful.

[t_niehoff]

Be you do need one to learn how to throw a curve ball or a fast ball or a slider or a knuckle ball.

Some skills are more easily learned from someone who has those skills. And once you learn how to do it, then you practice doing it.

The key phrase is "doing it." Skills you do. Skills you learn how to do. Skills you get better at by doing (practicing) them.

[-木叶-]

WCK, like boxing or wrestling or any martial art, isn't about "knowledge" -- it is about skill, the ability to do things. Certainly a trainee needs to be shown/taught the skill in question. But the skill is DOING it, not performing it in the air. You can't learn to use mechanics by not doing them, by not performing the task itself. Performing a tan sao in the air will never teach you how to really perform a tan sao. Never. The only way to develop that skill is by doing it, really doing it.



And people who talk in cliches like fortune cookie are pretentious (don't I sound profound?) and lack understanding.

Very well, thanks for your replies. You do seem very disappointed with
the traditional methods but they are there for a reason. Perserverance
is something I am also learning everyday.

[chusauli]

haven't you ever taught a student who had develop bad habits from earlier training? Sometimes it is so ingrained in them, that they cannot learn.

Rik,

I have to say that we're always a work in progress. Even if someone learns something wrong and they repeat it over and over (like poor pelvic thrusting, for example), if they were finally shown correctly (coached properly) or by experience got socked by a Gwa Chuie or Sou Chuie, they would eventually learn how to do things correctly. The thing is waking them up to see why their practice is wrong. If people don't care, then they'll do it half-assed anyway. But usually, the painful way straightens you out right away.

I relearned Siu Nim Tao many times and I also learned many versions of Siu Nim Tao, and learned many variations of applications. Some were from instruction, others variations were because I put myself in an environment which forced me to learn or change.

Terence sometimes speaks from his experience - he had to learn a certain way because that was best for him.

But hopeless people who can't learn? Nah, never...

[TenTigers]

I should've rephrased that to people who will not learn.

[chusauli]

I should've rephrased that to people who will not learn.

Then they won't learn regardless...

...unless something were life altering.

[t_niehoff]

Very well, thanks for your replies. You do seem very disappointed with
the traditional methods but they are there for a reason. Perserverance
is something I am also learning everyday.

You are doing what many traditional guys do. You are assuming that the traditional methods have a good, solid basis. IOWs, that there are very good reasons for what they do, for how they train, etc. I think that assumption has been put to rest by evidence and reason. But they persist because people don't critically examine them.

The traditional (TMA) methods were developed by ancient people who knew very little about how human beings best learn and develop atheltic skills. They didn't have our knowledge, our experience, our equipment, etc. They did the best they could but their model simply wasn't a very good way to learn or develop. Similarly, the ancient chinese had a pedagogy to teach academic subjects hat has proved to be dreadful too. Funny, but we don't hear people talking about how those methods "are there for a reason."

[dirtyrat]

You are doing what many traditional guys do. You are assuming that the traditional methods have a good, solid basis. IOWs, that there are very good reasons for what they do, for how they train, etc. I think that assumption has been put to rest by evidence and reason. But they persist because people don't critically examine them.

The traditional (TMA) methods were developed by ancient people who knew very little about how human beings best learn and develop atheltic skills. They didn't have our knowledge, our experience, our equipment, etc. They did the best they could but their model simply wasn't a very good way to learn or develop. Similarly, the ancient chinese had a pedagogy to teach academic subjects hat has proved to be dreadful too. Funny, but we don't hear people talking about how those methods "are there for a reason."

This is a good discussion. I agree with T on this one. I have always thought that you could train a student in WC a lot faster than what is traditional taught in today's WC schools. I use to get very impatient with some of the training methods. But I sometimes wonder if what we call traditional methods is a watered down version of how the ancient people used to train. You know, make the training easier to encourage the average joe to come to your school. One would think that back in the days when training in a martial art was more a necessity than a hobby, you would want your students to learn how to fight in a matter of months and not years....

[sanjuro_ronin]

We need a test:
Subject A will train WC via drills and sparring for 6 months.
Subject B will train WC for 6 months doing forms and chi sau.

They fight, and the winner is?

[sihing]

This is a good discussion. I agree with T on this one. I have always thought that you could train a student in WC a lot faster than what is traditional taught in today's WC schools. I use to get very impatient with some of the training methods. But I sometimes wonder if what we call traditional methods is a watered down version of how the ancient people used to train. You know, make the training easier to encourage the average joe to come to your school. One would think that back in the days when training in a martial art was more a necessity than a hobby, you would want your students to learn how to fight in a matter of months and not years....

Getting students to be proficient fighters in months rather than years has as much to do with how often you train and your personal intention as it does with the method of learning. I realized this when I went see Gary Lam, which is a full time facility. 1 mth there is like 6 mths elsewhere. On my first trip, over 9 days I learned all the hand forms, some mok jong, and most of his level 1 cirriculum. I did have TWC experience before that, but TWC forms and cirriculum is totally different from Gary's, so I was virutally starting from scratch, but did so with great intent.

James

[sihing]

We need a test:
Subject A will train WC via drills and sparring for 6 months.
Subject B will train WC for 6 months doing forms and chi sau.

They fight, and the winner is?

People will speculate as to who the winner is. Guys like T and Knifey will say A, other's will say B, it depends on their thoughts and belief's on the matter. I say I don't know, as how could I? The fight hasn't happened yet, nor do I know who is fighting, nor who is teaching and how they are both training. Odds are just speculations, on paper stuff.

10 to 1 odds, say B will have better technique and will actually use what he has learned, but will have no entry skills, won't know how to take a punch nor how to deal with anything well from a non contact range. A will be tougher, have less technique and rely more on chance than skill, IMO. But this is purely speculation:eek:

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

People will speculate as to who the winner is. Guys like T and Knifey will say A, other's will say B, it depends on their thoughts and belief's on the matter. I say I don't know, as how could I? The fight hasn't happened yet, nor do I know who is fighting, nor who is teaching and how they are both training. Odds are just speculations, on paper stuff.

10 to 1 odds, say B will have better technique and will actually use what he has learned, but will have no entry skills, won't know how to take a punch nor how to deal with anything well from a non contact range. A will be tougher, have less technique and rely more on chance than skill, IMO. But this is purely speculation:eek:

James


Curious as to way you would say that B would have better technique?

[TenTigers]

you guys argue either one or the other, when it's both. Forms, chi-sao, hands-on drills, and fighting. Not or fighting.
This is the argument people always fall back on when they have these debates, and it's flawed. Frankly, I don't think there are people who train WCK with simply forms, and chi-sao, and expect to have fighting ability. Or better put, I don't think that reflects the traditional method of training. Nor is it the opinion of anyone here on the forum.
If there are, please name them, or if you fall into this catagory, please identify yourselves, so we can have an idea of who we are talking to.
(and I can know who not to talk to);)

[dirtyrat]

[QUOTE=TenTigers;947281]you guys argue either one or the other, when it's both. Forms, chi-sao, hands-on drills, and fighting. Not or fighting.
QUOTE]

Agreed. But shouldn't certain aspects be emphasized at certain stages of a student's level of progression. For example, I would emphasize conditioning, basic skills and drills at the beginners level.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Rik,
I have seen the case where it is "either/or", in the case of from, chi sao and some very crappy "controlled" sparring.
And not just in TCMA, but JMA too.
Fact is, certain forms serve a purpose, most do not.
Not to bat a dead horse but, Boxing and MT, for example, have no forms and their fighters have excellent technique in their respect systems and fight very well with them.

[t_niehoff]

Agreed. But shouldn't certain aspects be emphasized at certain stages of a student's level of progression. For example, I would emphasize conditioning, basic skills and drills at the beginners level.


The traditional WK curriculum, the forms, the drills (including chi sao), the kuit, etc., are for learning the WCK method and tools. But they won't and can't teach you or develop your ability to use the method or tools (i.e., fight). That comes only from really doing it.

One problem with the TMA approach is that it separates curriculum from application -- in forms you are not doing X as you will in fighting, in drills you are not doing X like you will in fighting, but then you fight and try to do X unlike how you've learned and practiced it. Unlike, for example, BJJ where you learn the guard pass just as you will do it, practice it just as you will do it, then do it just as you've learned and practiced it.

My view is why not teach and train WCK in this functional way? Functional in that you will learn it as you will really do it, practice it just as you will really do it, then do it just as you've learned and practiced it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Funny thing about forms, ever see a guy do them that has a fighting background and one that doesn't?
The look is quite different.
Matter of fact, trying doing a form like it was a fight, see what THAT looks like.
:eek:

[punchdrunk]

here's an example of punching drills with yjkym in a static position.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRllPUxgivE
I'm not posting this to criticise or insult the instructor in the clip, instead just to show how a clip like that can give some people the impression that yjkym is a static position for application. I'd say the majority of videos or articles about wing chun are just as "frozen".
Btw, for all I know the instructor in the clip may also teach good foot work and dynamic movements at other stages in training so I sincerely hope this is not taken as a negative against him.

[Liddel]

Once again im on both sides of the coin LOL.

I like the traditional training method especially for VT. But what i see as the traditional training method is not what others see it as thats for sure.


The traditional WK curriculum, the forms, the drills (including chi sao), the kuit, etc., are for learning the WCK method and tools. But they won't and can't teach you or develop your ability to use the method or tools (i.e., fight). That comes only from really doing it.

Thier very use is for developement, but without the fightin you have limited tools.


here's an example of punching drills with yjkym in a static position.

Cant really see his MA, and its all static demos anyway so wouldnt expect to see him move too much... not a fan of the thumb and power lines of his punch :o

[Pacman]

Boxing and wrestling are martial arts that use alignment, balance, structure, etc. too. Yet, they don't seem to be lacking in the results produced by their training -- without any static horse training. The evidence shows that this sort of "training" isn't necessary to produce good results.


actually you're argument is greatly flawed here as well


we are talking about training techniques so to really judge which produces better results you would have to compare one boxer, training boxing techniques using one methodology vs the same boxer, training boxing techniques using a different training methodology

concluding that boxing training methods are better by observing that professional boxers on television being able to knock out every amateur wing chun person you know is not a valid comparison of which training methedology is better.

[Pacman]

The traditional (TMA) methods were developed by ancient people who knew very little about how human beings best learn and develop atheltic skills. They didn't have our knowledge, our experience, our equipment, etc.

besides the statement about equipment this is nonsense. it is an over generalization

chinese KF and training has constantly developed up until about the early 1950s, hardly ancient, when all KF training was banned by the government (another reason why its difficult to find authentic KF sifus who know how to fight)

even after the 50s things were still constantly developing but of course slower since for a while until the 80s, when the ban was lifted, things were done underground

[Pacman]

This is a good discussion. I agree with T on this one. I have always thought that you could train a student in WC a lot faster than what is traditional taught in today's WC schools. I use to get very impatient with some of the training methods. But I sometimes wonder if what we call traditional methods is a watered down version of how the ancient people used to train.

this is actually partially true.

due to the culture of secrecy with KF, public students were not taught a lot of things. even private students had to spend a long time before they were taught everything.

im not talking about secret death touch techniques, but simple training techniques or excercises that the sifu knew or developed that would improve your skill.

today, it would be the equivalent of teaching a boxing student how to use a double ended bag or teaching him specific plyometric excercises.



I realized this when I went see Gary Lam, which is a full time facility. 1 mth there is like 6 mths elsewhere. On my first trip, over 9 days I learned all the hand forms, some mok jong, and most of his level 1 cirriculum...TWC forms and cirriculum is totally different from Gary's, so I was virutally starting
from scratch, but did so with great intent.


EXACTLY. I'm sure because you paid more and went to his private full time class you learned real KF training.

The problem with this discussion is what constitutes TRADITIONAL. To some who have never experienced it, traditional means the whatever public watered down material that has been handed down by sifus who inflate their experience and skill and start teaching.

To others, traditional means the kind of stuff I assume you learned at Gary Lam's. Specific drills, excercises. High repetitions maybe? Skills aquired through hard work. The definition of Kung Fu

[Pacman]

Curious as to way you would say that B would have better technique?

Did you see UFC 100?

Just look at Dan Henderson. How long has he been training? What do you think of his boxing skill?

He wins fights from his tough chin and from his athletic endurance and strength. Not pure skill.

My point here is not to bash him or his way of training. My point is that it requires more than just constantly fighting to develop skill.

In fact, if you just constantly fight you can develop some bad habits that will be difficult to correct.

[Pacman]

Not to bat a dead horse but, Boxing and MT, for example, have no forms and their fighters have excellent technique in their respect systems and fight very well with them.

Excellent compared to what? Excellent compared to MT people who train with method B? Since there is no method B we can't say that method A is better.

[sihing]

Curious as to way you would say that B would have better technique?

Hi Paul,

Firstly, maybe better word/s to use than technique would be body mechancis, as I don't really believe in what most call techniques.

In all my experience, learning and teaching, I find for the most part that people that try to hit me when training fail to use what they are learning. Yeah I get hit like the next guy, but they are doing so without control, without power and without any WC structure/body mechanics behind it, like a game of tag or something. IMO, fighter B would have a better body mechanics (incomplete mind you, since he is limited by chi sau/laap sau, and forms only), than fighter A.

Now for me, when I train in something I want to have the ability to use what I am learning, in WC terms this means using elbow control to strike instead of my wrist, my facing is good, my structure is connected and my body mechanics jive with everything I'm trying to do, chi sau teaches some of this. Whether or not I can pull this off against someone from another system is unknown as I can't predict the future nor predict the outcome in a sparring session or fight before hand, if I could I would be a millionaire by now:cool:, but if I can't then more practice and understanding is needed as it would be obvious that I'm not bringing alive what WC is teaching me.

We also have to realize that your definition and experience with chi sau maybe different than mine. The way I practice chi sau can be pretty aggressive at times (it's not a fight, but it's not patty cake either). Sifu Lam teaches allot of his stuff thru chi sau, and he's no slouch either. In the end, chi sau is not the be all end all, we need the total package like Tentigers and Drew have mentioned to be complete in our understanding of what WC offers us.

James

[-木叶-]

The problem with this discussion is what constitutes TRADITIONAL. To some who have never experienced it, traditional means the whatever public watered down material that has been handed down by sifus who inflate their experience and skill and start teaching.

To others, traditional means the kind of stuff I assume you learned at Gary Lam's. Specific drills, excercises. High repetitions maybe? Skills aquired through hard work. The definition of Kung Fu

Excellent, this greatly explains the disappointment some people felt with
traditional training.

[-木叶-]

One problem with the TMA approach is that it separates curriculum from application


I am beginning to wonder have you ever really trained in Wing Chun based on this statement...

[-木叶-]

The traditional (TMA) methods were developed by ancient people who knew very little about how human beings best learn and develop atheltic skills. They didn't have our knowledge, our experience, our equipment, etc. They did the best they could but their model simply wasn't a very good way to learn or develop. Similarly, the ancient chinese had a pedagogy to teach academic subjects hat has proved to be dreadful too. Funny, but we don't hear people talking about how those methods "are there for a reason."

Ironically "ancient people who knew very little about how human beings learn and develop
athetic skills" could create the profound kuen kuit and the methods of wing chun which we
all are practicing and being used by LEO and army special forces in many countries.

Your comments are contradictory at best.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Did you see UFC 100?

Just look at Dan Henderson. How long has he been training? What do you think of his boxing skill?

He wins fights from his tough chin and from his athletic endurance and strength. Not pure skill.

My point here is not to bash him or his way of training. My point is that it requires more than just constantly fighting to develop skill.

In fact, if you just constantly fight you can develop some bad habits that will be difficult to correct.

MMA striking is not boxing and never will be boxing and thus will never look like boxing.
Boxing must be adapted and changed to the MMA arena.
MMA's strike like MMA, not like boxers or MT figthers or anything else for that matter.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Excellent compared to what? Excellent compared to MT people who train with method B? Since there is no method B we can't say that method A is better.

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hi Paul,

Firstly, maybe better word/s to use than technique would be body mechancis, as I don't really believe in what most call techniques.

In all my experience, learning and teaching, I find for the most part that people that try to hit me when training fail to use what they are learning. Yeah I get hit like the next guy, but they are doing so without control, without power and without any WC structure/body mechanics behind it, like a game of tag or something. IMO, fighter B would have a better body mechanics (incomplete mind you, since he is limited by chi sau/laap sau, and forms only), than fighter A.

Now for me, when I train in something I want to have the ability to use what I am learning, in WC terms this means using elbow control to strike instead of my wrist, my facing is good, my structure is connected and my body mechanics jive with everything I'm trying to do, chi sau teaches some of this. Whether or not I can pull this off against someone from another system is unknown as I can't predict the future nor predict the outcome in a sparring session or fight before hand, if I could I would be a millionaire by now:cool:, but if I can't then more practice and understanding is needed as it would be obvious that I'm not bringing alive what WC is teaching me.

We also have to realize that your definition and experience with chi sau maybe different than mine. The way I practice chi sau can be pretty aggressive at times (it's not a fight, but it's not patty cake either). Sifu Lam teaches allot of his stuff thru chi sau, and he's no slouch either. In the end, chi sau is not the be all end all, we need the total package like Tentigers and Drew have mentioned to be complete in our understanding of what WC offers us.

James

You mofu :p
I agree and as you knwo I tend to advocate an over all balance to training that includes forms, simple because I believe that forms gives us a certain "polish" to our technique.
My point is that forms are NOT needed for that, but they can serve a valid purpose.
Keetlebells are not need, but serve a valid purpose when used correctly.
The issue is that, and those of us the tend to view MA as functional and not ornamental know this, the majority of TMA ( Chinese and Japanese and so on) do NOT have a balanced curriculum of training.
And by balanced I mean one that reflects the priority of doing a MARTIAL art, ie: prioritized on fighting.

[sihing]

MMA striking is not boxing and never will be boxing and thus will never look like boxing.
Boxing must be adapted and changed to the MMA arena.
MMA's strike like MMA, not like boxers or MT figthers or anything else for that matter.

On the Simultaneous thread, the clip that Pacman provide of Machida vs Evans, Rogan was just mentioning about the MMA striking and how it is not up to par vs the boxer or MT/KB people, which makes sense since the MMA guys have more to deal with than just striking, but also take downs as well, they can't specialize as much.

Steve Morris discusses this stuff in detail on one of his NHB videos (you can downloaded), and how in the way he teaches his active stance/footwork you have to be able to strike and defend the takedown at the same time and retreat and strike as well, lots of good stuff on that tape (it's like 3 1/2 hrs long).

James

[sihing]

You mofu :p
I agree and as you knwo I tend to advocate an over all balance to training that includes forms, simple because I believe that forms gives us a certain "polish" to our technique.
My point is that forms are NOT needed for that, but they can serve a valid purpose.
Keetlebells are not need, but serve a valid purpose when used correctly.
The issue is that, and those of us the tend to view MA as functional and not ornamental know this, the majority of TMA ( Chinese and Japanese and so on) do NOT have a balanced curriculum of training.
And by balanced I mean one that reflects the priority of doing a MARTIAL art, ie: prioritized on fighting.

You know what, I'm not smart enough to figure out how to develop the body mechanics of WC/VT without the forms yet, I'll let someone else get the patent for that, I'm just glad it is there for me to learn. And basically that is what forms are for, to learn some basic things, and be able to reinforce slowly those basics while on your own in your own mind and space. You won't become effective by just doing forms alone, that is for sure.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

On the Simultaneous thread, the clip that Pacman provide of Machida vs Evans, Rogan was just mentioning about the MMA striking and how it is not up to par vs the boxer or MT/KB people, which makes sense since the MMA guys have more to deal with than just striking, but also take downs as well, they can't specialize as much.

Steve Morris discusses this stuff in detail on one of his NHB videos (you can downloaded), and how in the way he teaches his active stance/footwork you have to be able to strike and defend the takedown at the same time and retreat and strike as well, lots of good stuff on that tape (it's like 3 1/2 hrs long).

James

Correct.
Now I have been very vocal about the crappy striking in MMA, simple because I disagree with the methodology they use to develop it.
Starting people off with MMA striking is not he best way, in my opinion, and I can be wrong of course.
You will see that the bst strikers are those that come from a solid specilaised striking background, typically, KB or MT or Karate, they have a very strong core and base of striking and even by modifing it to suit MMA, they still keep a good portion of that "power" because it was developed correctly ( optimul development for strikes) from the beginning, guys that are taught MMA striking tend to be "weaker" in their strikes because of the lack of a very well developed core.

[sihing]

Correct.
Now I have been very vocal about the crappy striking in MMA, simple because I disagree with the methodology they use to develop it.
Starting people off with MMA striking is not he best way, in my opinion, and I can be wrong of course.
You will see that the bst strikers are those that come from a solid specilaised striking background, typically, KB or MT or Karate, they have a very strong core and base of striking and even by modifing it to suit MMA, they still keep a good portion of that "power" because it was developed correctly ( optimul development for strikes) from the beginning, guys that are taught MMA striking tend to be "weaker" in their strikes because of the lack of a very well developed core.

Well said and agreed:) Everything has to be modified (which is simple to do when it is based on a concept, it's adaptable) to optimized itself for the purpose or environment at hand.
Too bad some of us just don't get it:(
Gotta run:)

James

[Phil Redmond]

MMA striking is not boxing and never will be boxing and thus will never look like boxing.
Boxing must be adapted and changed to the MMA arena.
MMA's strike like MMA, not like boxers or MT figthers or anything else for that matter.
I've personally heard a few pro boxers say that MMA fighters hand techniques are terrible. (Yes, I know some pro boxers). It's like watching kids fighting in a playground or a bar fight. Now their ground game is a different story. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've personally heard a few pro boxers say that MMA fighters hand techniques are terrible. (Yes, I know some pro boxers). It's like watching kids fighting in a playground or a bar fight. Now their ground game is a different story. ;)

And the boxers are right, OF MMA was boxing.
MMA does NOT lend itself to the boxer stance that allows for "boxing hands", heck even MT and KB makes one change the stance and when you change the stance, you change the hands, you shoudl check out the thread I did of TMA in MMA, nic epics there :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Now I have been very vocal about the crappy striking in MMA, simple because I disagree with the methodology they use to develop it. Starting people off with MMA striking is not he best way, in my opinion, and I can be wrong of course.
You will see that the best strikers are those that come from a solid specialized striking background, typically, KB or MT or Karate, they have a very strong core and base of striking and even by modifing it to suit MMA, they still keep a good portion of that 'power' because it was developed correctly (optimal development for strikes) from the beginning, guys that are taught MMA striking tend to be 'weaker' in their strikes because of the lack of a very well developed core." (sanjuro/Paul)

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

***THIS is very true. If you watch Machida's straight left that catches Rashad Evans, or if you watch some of Cro Cop's early matches when he catches people with the same punch, you see some very disciplined striking. Even Fedor's big looping punches are usually very accurate and very disciplined in their timing, follow through, and his overall balance. In fact, all of the best strikers (and kickers) in mma have shown excellent balance, stance, footwork, and discipline.

A strong base in a striking art - along with enough wrestling/grappling skills to understand the dynamics of takedowns - can go a long way. Much longer than crappy striking/kicking skills that many let's-rush-them-into-battle mma schools seem to be producing....with exceptions to this, of course.

But it would certainly seem as though lots of mma guys don't have good striking/kicking skills...probably a holdover mentality, to some extent, from the early UFC days when strikers with little or no wrestling/grappling skills were getting taken down and submitted constantly. I suspect the mentality from that period moved in the direction of "striking/kicking skills are not that important - the best fighting is mainly all about grappling."

This is not the case anymore. You need large doses of both skills.

[Pacman]

MMA striking is not boxing and never will be boxing and thus will never look like boxing.
Boxing must be adapted and changed to the MMA arena.
MMA's strike like MMA, not like boxers or MT figthers or anything else for that matter.

im using the term boxing in the generic "standup fighting using your hands to strike" sense.

i am not referencing the sport of boxing ala osca de la hoya's sport

[Pacman]

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

yes i did. you said


Not to bat a dead horse but, Boxing and MT, for example, have no forms and their fighters have excellent technique in their respect systems and fight very well with them.

you said they have excellent technique from their training and thus their method of training is good.

but we are talking about training method is better. so to decide which training method is better you would have to have two groups. one that trains with method A and one that trains in method B, but both groups have to be a part of the same martial arts style (MT in this case).

only then could you compare results.

[Phil Redmond]

MT DOES have forms.

[chusauli]

Sure does! Muay Thai Boran!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChTducTaAHE

[Phil Redmond]

Here's another clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD5LNHcxg60
I have a documentary where q Muay Thai instructor teaches forms that he says modern MT leaves out. He even alludes to the fact that modern MT has turned into brawling for money and has gang involvement.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Muay Boran does indeed have forms, left over from the time where sparring was a tad more brutal than it is now and while most MB practioners still do their forms, to one extent or another, I don't know any of them that rely on the forms for fighting or get "fight training" forms.
Many of those forms are ritualized and, as you can see from the clips posted, they tend to be, well, not done in a very combative method.
MT has opted to train in a more fight oriented way with their "forms' being more freestyle and their training more direct and the result speak for themselves.
Now, MB does have some "internal forms" but again, not something is "combat oriented".

[TenTigers]

Muay Boran does indeed have forms, left over from the time where sparring was a tad more brutal than it is now and while most MB practioners still do their forms, to one extent or another, I don't know any of them that rely on the forms for fighting or get "fight training" forms.
Many of those forms are ritualized and, as you can see from the clips posted, they tend to be, well, not done in a very combative method.
MT has opted to train in a more fight oriented way with their "forms' being more freestyle and their training more direct and the result speak for themselves.
Now, MB does have some "internal forms" but again, not something is "combat oriented".
If I'm not mistaken, Muay Boran and Muay Chaya forms are more textbooks and not actual training routines. So, I don't believe it is something that would affect a "result."

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I'm not mistaken, Muay Boran and Muay Chaya forms are more textbooks and not actual training routines. So, I don't believe it is something that would affect a "result."

They are more "fundamental routines" done in the air.

[Phil Redmond]

I trained at Gleason's gym in NY when it was right near MSG. I was doing WC at the time and I was surprised that one of the first things I was taught was similar to WC's step and punch. There are "drills" in the air in boxing training.