WCK rotation isn't like boxing

[t_niehoff]

If you do the forms and exercises of WCK and examine the rotation (body turning), you will see that in WCK we keep our shoulders always directly over our hips, even when turning/shifting. When we turn/shift, our hips and shoulders turn at the same time as a unit, always maintaining that shoulder-directly-over-hip alignment. This is the basis for WCK's "connected power."

In boxing, however, you see the shoulders often move independent of, although in conjunction with, the hips. So the upper torso will twist more than the lower torso.

These are two very different ways of rotating and work differently, in different circumstances, etc.

Why does WCK rotate the way it does, and in a way different from boxing/kickboxing?

[JockSparrow]

In a rush before leaving for training, but in a nutshell, I'd say it's a function of range and attachment

1) Because the boxers & k/boxers aren't seeking to control whilst hitting.

Also,

2) The range for effective striking with boxing gloves is longer than for bare knuckle or MMA gloves, & therefore dictates that more rotation can be utilised.

Or maybe not. I'll think about it more whilst hitting people tonight :-)

[LoneTiger108]

Why does WCK rotate the way it does, and in a way different from boxing/kickboxing?

Because you have yet to understand the way the body arrives in an attack? Thinking that the basic 'image' of a form is where it ends? :rolleyes:

Or maybe you're just stuck on Chum Kiu? :confused:

[t_niehoff]

Because you have yet to understand the way the body arrives in an attack? Thinking that the basic 'image' of a form is where it ends? :rolleyes:

Or maybe you're just stuck on Chum Kiu? :confused:

The forms and the drills/exercises teach us WCK movement -- how to perform the actions/movement of WCK. Are you suggesting that we don't move like we learn and practice? That we learn and practice moving one way to throw it out and move another? Is that your brilliant idea? Your "understanding"?

And, yes, you are confused. That is what happens when you are a theoretical nonfighter.

[trubblman]

My 2 cents. Most asian martial arts derived from China have the idea that the shoulder and hip move as a unit. I have always thought it had to do with the idea of internal power generation. Look at Tai Chi for instance, the waist and shoulders move as a unit, as well as straight spine, head positioned as if on a strung. Sound familiar?

Boxing also relies on striking from various angles; the shoulders rotate in different planes. Power is also generated from the feet and hips but it seems as if its more of a coiling rotation power whereas I guess wing chun power is more straight line. Again its my 2 cents.

[Ironmike]

To maintain proper structure

[LoneTiger108]

The forms and the drills/exercises teach us WCK movement -- how to perform the actions/movement of WCK. Are you suggesting that we don't move like we learn and practice? That we learn and practice moving one way to throw it out and move another? Is that your brilliant idea? Your "understanding"?

No it is not T. I actually thought that was your approach to WCK? :eek:

What I'm saying is, if you believe that, as an example, Chum Kiu is about developing power through various turning sets, then you would have developed your Chum Kiu beyond what is shown to beginners. In other words, if you learnt Chum Kiu without really understanding and training all the sets in Siu Lim Tao, what have you got?

Some crazy frogg robotic movements that tend to degenerate through time!! As one hobby man picks it up and passes it on to another it just loses it's purpose and meaning. Another reason why I believe the forms are useless if learnt in such a casual way.

Just my two cents! :D

[m1k3]

Not going to comment on the wing chun striking rotation but you have oversimplified the boxing rotation. While a jab or a cross may have separate shoulder and hip rotation close in strikes like hooks, shovel hooks and uppercuts utilize a shoulder hip alignment for power.

Boxing does not lock itself into one way of throwing punches.

Look at the pivot of the left foot when throwing a left hook. Hip, shoulder and body weight all in one synchronized motion.

You can make any statements about wing chun striking you like and argue about how its done, but if you are going to make comments about boxing punches please try to get it right occasionally. :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

No it is not T. I actually thought that was your approach to WCK? :eek:

What I'm saying is, if you believe that, as an example, Chum Kiu is about developing power through various turning sets,


No it's not.



then you would have developed your Chum Kiu beyond what is shown to beginners. In other words, if you learnt Chum Kiu without really understanding and training all the sets in Siu Lim Tao, what have you got?


It has nothing to do with "understanding". The sets/forms don't provide any "training" -- they are a reference for teaching.

Your whole premise is nonsense.



Some crazy frogg robotic movements that tend to degenerate through time!! As one hobby man picks it up and passes it on to another it just loses it's purpose and meaning. Another reason why I believe the forms are useless if learnt in such a casual way.

Just my two cents! :D

and that's about what your view is worth.

[t_niehoff]

Not going to comment on the wing chun striking rotation but you have oversimplified the boxing rotation. While a jab or a cross may have separate shoulder and hip rotation close in strikes like hooks, shovel hooks and uppercuts utilize a shoulder hip alignment for power.

Boxing does not lock itself into one way of throwing punches.

Look at the pivot of the left foot when throwing a left hook. Hip, shoulder and body weight all in one synchronized motion.

You can make any statements about wing chun striking you like and argue about how its done, but if you are going to make comments about boxing punches please try to get it right occasionally. :rolleyes:

I was referring to straight punches (both WCK and boxing).

[trubblman]

I have always considered Ali one of the greatest practitioners of a "soft approach" to boxing. Ali v. Foreman where he used the rope a dope technique. His arms were hanging down at his side, when he loops a punch up with what looks like almost no tension and knocks out Foreman. Although the punch probably would not have felled Foreman if he were not tired.

[m1k3]

I was referring to straight punches (both WCK and boxing).

Ok, a well thrown right cross travels about 18 inches and the shoulders and hips are in alignment. The more the shoulder and hip go out of alignment the more the fighter was at an incorrect distance and ended up reaching to make contact. The more the shoulder and hip go out of alignment the more off balance the boxer will be, the harder it will be for him to recover and he is setting himself up for a left hook to the ribs or liver.

A jab is a different story because even though a jab is a punch it is often not a punch. It is a distraction, a range finder, a way to take up space, a way to set up a rhythm and a way to disrupts your opponents rhythm. But a left jab thrown with bad intentions will still adhere to the shoulder hip alignment.

The best way I've heard it described is that you are slamming a door and the foot on the same side as the punch is the hinge.

K?

[t_niehoff]

Ok, a well thrown right cross travels about 18 inches and the shoulders and hips are in alignment. The more the shoulder and hip go out of alignment the more the fighter was at an incorrect distance and ended up reaching to make contact. The more the shoulder and hip go out of alignment the more off balance the boxer will be, the harder it will be for him to recover and he is setting himself up for a left hook to the ribs or liver.

A jab is a different story because even though a jab is a punch it is often not a punch. It is a distraction, a range finder, a way to take up space, a way to set up a rhythm and a way to disrupts your opponents rhythm. But a left jab thrown with bad intentions will still adhere to the shoulder hip alignment.

The best way I've heard it described is that you are slamming a door and the foot on the same side as the punch is the hinge.

K?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKXqk0PeVGY

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

[m1k3]

T. look at your first post at 2:26. His hip and shoulder are aligned. His shoulder is not rotating out of parallel with his hips. At that point he begins to pull back the punch. To rotate the shoulder ****her than that would put you out of balance and unable to recover and cover quickly.

As I said in my post the left jab is a different animal because it is a multi purpose tool. Still when throwing a lead power shot the same rules apply.

[t_niehoff]

T. look at your first post at 2:26. His hip and shoulder are aligned. His shoulder is not rotating out of parallel with his hips. At that point he begins to pull back the punch. To rotate the shoulder ****her than that would put you out of balance and unable to recover and cover quickly.

As I said in my post the left jab is a different animal because it is a multi purpose tool. Still when throwing a lead power shot the same rules apply.

They END up aligned, but they move at slightly different times (there is a lag). The shoulders/hips rotate separately (not as a unit) and the waist twisting so that one can follow the other (much like throwing a ball). I agree that if you ended up with shoulders not over hips, then you would be off balance.

[m1k3]

OK, I guess we have split that hair about as fine as it can go.

Its just too often you get people here posting stuff about boxers do this and grapplers do that when they don't have a clue about what they are posting. It leads to a certain level of frustration.

[GlennR]

To me its about the weight transfer from foot to foot in boxing that enables the boxer to generate a lot of power without his shoulders-hips perfectly aligned (aka WC).
In a right cross for example, a boxer is transferring weight from his back foot onto his front foot.... putting weight in motion to say... the power is created within the movement of back foot to front foot.
Whilst he'd probably prefer perfect shoulder-hip, its not as fundamental as it is in WC to generate power. Also, having the ability for the shoulders to be a bit independent from the hips allows a greater scope of different angles when delivering the punch.

And the key is that in boxing its not just the rotation... its the weight transfer thats the key. The rotation gives you the momentum to help with this transfer.

The WC ive been exposed to doesnt have this weight transfer in its punchin delivery (several branches) so rotation would just be for the sake of rotation... maybe give a bit of range though if required

WC's game isnt this range and its WC's preference for in-close fighting where the WC stance comes into its own.... putting structure behind the strikes

Glenn

[stonecrusher69]

If you do the forms and exercises of WCK and examine the rotation (body turning), you will see that in WCK we keep our shoulders always directly over our hips, even when turning/shifting. When we turn/shift, our hips and shoulders turn at the same time as a unit, always maintaining that shoulder-directly-over-hip alignment. This is the basis for WCK's "connected power."

In boxing, however, you see the shoulders often move independent of, although in conjunction with, the hips. So the upper torso will twist more than the lower torso.

These are two very different ways of rotating and work differently, in different circumstances, etc.

Why does WCK rotate the way it does, and in a way different from boxing/kickboxing?


I can only speak for myself. I don't always have my shoulder and hips in alignment. In general I do but not 100 percent of the times. In our chum kiu we twist or turn the body 3 different ways. Each ways has a different power sinator and ewach type is used for different reasons.

[LoneTiger108]

In our chum kiu we twist or turn the body 3 different ways. Each ways has a different power sinator and ewach type is used for different reasons.

This is similar to what I was trying to explain to T. Using Chum Kiu as a power building form would naturally involve various turning and twisting of the arrivals to generate specific power for specific reason.

But no...


It has nothing to do with "understanding". The sets/forms don't provide any "training" -- they are a reference for teaching.

Your whole premise is nonsense.

:rolleyes: I guess again we have total differences as to the purpose of forms. I agree they're references for teaching, but to actually teach all the refereces needs actual training. Training that develops every year and progresses your ability beyond the simple images of the forms.

There are many references to both the straight jab and lead right, depending on how you want to look at the forms. Different teaching opens diferent doors.

[KPM]

In boxing, however, you see the shoulders often move independent of, although in conjunction with, the hips. So the upper torso will twist more than the lower torso.

These are two very different ways of rotating and work differently, in different circumstances, etc.


Terence is right about the difference between WCK and boxing. While boxing is not as "standardized" in its biomechanics, in general the boxer does rotate through the torso more so than through the hips and is not as linked as in WCK. From a biomechanical standpoint, this has primarily to do to where the center of gravity is maintained. For WCK's upright posture, the COG is typically at the Tan Tien (mid-pelvis). For the boxer's more "stooped forward" posture the COG rises to somewhere around the solar plexus or mid-chest. This fundamentally changes how one moves and generates power.

[Yoshiyahu]

A boxer is different than a WC fighter because the style or form or way he uses his body. A boxer bobs and weaves where as in wing chun traditionally there is no bob and weave. The boxers generation can also come from the bob or weave as they when they throw a hook or upper cut they slightly sink and then rotate or shift the weight. With Wing Chun you use your limbs to protect you and there fore your body is more balance and with less movement of head. The head is more static than in boxing where you move the head away. The hands are what you use to attack with. So there for the structure is different. When you use the hips and arms in unison it because there is no need to sink first to generate force. Now a boxers hook will be more powerful than WC punch any day. But the WC punch with rotation does not just give you extra power it gives you more range of motion. Which allows you to collaspe your opponents structure or add power to your strike. In other words you have a longer follow through depending on how close you are to your opponent.

But being able to turn and rotate with a punch is nothing unless you practice doing so first on a heavy bag and wall bag then implement it with sparring. How many of you have actually hit someone with that sorta of punch?

addtionally the rotation is not just for punching. Other hand techniques can be use with the rotation like Jut sau or Tan sau. To uproot or displace your opponents balance. Also you can use the rotation with lop sau to turn or shift your opponents attacking line so you can attack them from their blindspot!

[HumbleWCGuy]

Not going to comment on the wing chun striking rotation but you have oversimplified the boxing rotation. While a jab or a cross may have separate shoulder and hip rotation close in strikes like hooks, shovel hooks and uppercuts utilize a shoulder hip alignment for power.

Boxing does not lock itself into one way of throwing punches.

Look at the pivot of the left foot when throwing a left hook. Hip, shoulder and body weight all in one synchronized motion.

You can make any statements about wing chun striking you like and argue about how its done, but if you are going to make comments about boxing punches please try to get it right occasionally. :rolleyes:

Exactly correct and neither does WC. Because of the fundamental ways that WC is applied in one and two step "trapping" scenarios and chi sao, a weak, low-level player like T. thinks that WC does not have versatility in punching. It really boils to a real lack of hard sparring and ring experience for T to develop proper understanding.

[Wayfaring]

Terence is right about the difference between WCK and boxing. While boxing is not as "standardized" in its biomechanics, in general the boxer does rotate through the torso more so than through the hips and is not as linked as in WCK.

I think good boxers have "some" of the same linkage either instinctually or through training that we use in WCK for power. You do see some torso lean in the punches as well as rotation. I think if people do consistent bag work then instinctually learn "some" of those mechanics as they enable you to hit the bag harder.