Alan Orr Questions 3

[Alan Orr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTEy-yMEv0Y&context=C318dc01ADOEgsToPDskKSbRxtRNOj81qDAdVKPxea

Wing Chun Questions 3 - Alan Orr - Wing Chun turning and weight placement

Another answer and questions clip

best Alan

[GlennR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTEy-yMEv0Y&context=C318dc01ADOEgsToPDskKSbRxtRNOj81qDAdVKPxea

Wing Chun Questions 3 - Alan Orr - Wing Chun turning and weight placement

Another answer and questions clip

best Alan

Great clip Alan.

[Alan Orr]

Great clip Alan.


Thank you Glenn

[wingchunIan]

thanks for sharing Alan. Fair to say we have opposite views on where the pivot point for the turn should be. It is interesting though that despite the different approaches we are trying to achieve the same end of disrupting the opponent's posture whilst simultaneously striking. It was interesting to hear your persepective that turning on your heels takes you away from the centreline. We prefer to describe it as changing the centre line so whilst your opponent exerts force in one direction you simply change angle and create a new centre line whilst continually focusing your force towards the opponent's jic seen. It has the added advantage that it gets your head away from the spot that the opponent was trying to strike. Loving the clips.

[Alan Orr]

thanks for sharing Alan. Fair to say we have opposite views on where the pivot point for the turn should be. It is interesting though that despite the different approaches we are trying to achieve the same end of disrupting the opponent's posture whilst simultaneously striking. It was interesting to hear your persepective that turning on your heels takes you away from the centreline. We prefer to describe it as changing the centre line so whilst your opponent exerts force in one direction you simply change angle and create a new centre line whilst continually focusing your force towards the opponent's jic seen. It has the added advantage that it gets your head away from the spot that the opponent was trying to strike. Loving the clips.


Yes I think a lot of Wing Chun would be the opposite to CSL Wing Chun in terms of turning and positioning.

Turning on your heels does mean you loose kinetic power due not using the ankle joint. Try running on your heels.. not so easy.

Its not an advantage in my mind to move your head from the first striking position into the line of the next harder right cross. Have guys try fast 1-2s jab crosses and see if it holds up. Very hard to do. Then 1-2 with a 3rd body punch. Gets even harder.

Many thanks Alan

[wingchunIan]

Yes I think a lot of Wing Chun would be the opposite to CSL Wing Chun in terms of turning and positioning.

Turning on your heels does mean you loose kinetic power due not using the ankle joint. Try running on your heels.. not so easy.

Its not an advantage in my mind to move your head from the first striking position into the line of the next harder right cross. Have guys try fast 1-2s jab crosses and see if it holds up. Very hard to do. Then 1-2 with a 3rd body punch. Gets even harder.

Many thanks Alan

Interesting points, and good discussion. Wrt loss of kinetic power I would disagree, the hardest shots are delivered with the heel planted, I counter your running analogy :p with try squatting or deadlifting on your toes and heels and see where you have more kinetic power. Anatomically the line of power is through the bones and major muscles and as they connect at the ankle directly above the heel (note we don't turn on the back of the heel but rather the point directly under the ankle) that is the strongest path.
As far as the second and third shots are concerned I'd argue that it's mute. If the person doesn't know that you are going to turn then they will be aiming at the spot where you were not were you are, and even if they manage to track your movement turning on the heels allows you to keep the head back and so when punching across themselves with a resistance to pivoting in place the strike isn't powerful even if it evades the cover and does land. Nothing is perfect of course and if you stand there admiring the wonderful turn you've just done the next puch takes your head off. I know there are lots of different views on this with people advocating pivoting everywhere along teh foot including the tips of the toes, balls of feet, K1 acupoint, centre of the heel and back of the heel and as many variations again as to where the bodyweight should be. It's refreshing to be able to have an intelligent discussion about it without it dissolving to I'm right your wrong, or your idea isn't wing chun only I have the divine path. It's healthy to understand the thinking behind the various approaches even if it only makes us stronger in our own convictions:)

[Alan Orr]

Interesting points, and good discussion. Wrt loss of kinetic power I would disagree, the hardest shots are delivered with the heel planted, I counter your running analogy :p with try squatting or deadlifting on your toes and heels and see where you have more kinetic power. Anatomically the line of power is through the bones and major muscles and as they connect at the ankle directly above the heel (note we don't turn on the back of the heel but rather the point directly under the ankle) that is the strongest path.
As far as the second and third shots are concerned I'd argue that it's mute. If the person doesn't know that you are going to turn then they will be aiming at the spot where you were not were you are, and even if they manage to track your movement turning on the heels allows you to keep the head back and so when punching across themselves with a resistance to pivoting in place the strike isn't powerful even if it evades the cover and does land. Nothing is perfect of course and if you stand there admiring the wonderful turn you've just done the next puch takes your head off. I know there are lots of different views on this with people advocating pivoting everywhere along teh foot including the tips of the toes, balls of feet, K1 acupoint, centre of the heel and back of the heel and as many variations again as to where the bodyweight should be. It's refreshing to be able to have an intelligent discussion about it without it dissolving to I'm right your wrong, or your idea isn't wing chun only I have the divine path. It's healthy to understand the thinking behind the various approaches even if it only makes us stronger in our own convictions:)

You are quite right - power punch from the rear hand would be dropping weight into the heal, as it helps root your weight and hold good balance.

But when you issue as in a triple extension of a lift - as in a clean as such - you press from your heal in to the K1 ball of you foot.

Also when you squat no one is trying to knock you over lol The vector direction of lifting is different that the vector of punching.

In the clip I say you use your hold base of your feet. Its turning that need the ball of the foot. for the kinetic forces to be controlled. When you receive pressure you can root into the hold foot. Which is returned in a small triple extension as such.

Nice to chat

best Alan

[WC1277]

Regardless of whether more kinetic power comes from the balls or the heels, you can still turn, brace, step on your heel as the pivot point. IMO there is more kinetic energy. If done correctly, your center shouldn't be shifting side to side at all. That's really just the sign of someone inexperienced with it.

Try this out. Get in your mother stance and hold your arms out into the triangle structure. Good angle w/ elbows bent. Not too far out, not too close. Press your hands together now on your centerline. Now have a partner apply pressure to the left or the right. When he releases the pressure, your structure should automatically come back to center. Not consciously, but naturally. The quicker it comes back to center, the better your structure. This is one form of what we call 'grace period'. Your target is the opponents center line. So even if your hands aren't aiming directly at the centerline, your structure is focused to that point. Think of a pencil moving a small box. The point doesn't have to be directly perpendicular to move it. It just retains its own structure and maintains it's target. I.e. the center of gravity of the box.

Now if you turn correctly on your heels, your center won't shift from side to side and you maintain the integrity of your structure much more than turning on the balls because whether you agree with me or not, kinetic energy only comes out of the balls of the foot when the body uproots.

There is much much more to how the structure works but that's the gist of at least one of the reasons it's better to turn on the heels.

[k gledhill]

I forgot I had a CSL student with me for several months doing what you're showing, nice guy. We exchanged ideas and sparred a little, nice to see different ideas at work.
Thanks again for the clips.

[GlennR]

Regardless of whether more kinetic power comes from the balls or the heels, you can still turn, brace, step on your heel as the pivot point. IMO there is more kinetic energy. If done correctly, your center shouldn't be shifting side to side at all. That's really just the sign of someone inexperienced with it.

Try this out. Get in your mother stance and hold your arms out into the triangle structure. Good angle w/ elbows bent. Not too far out, not too close. Press your hands together now on your centerline. Now have a partner apply pressure to the left or the right. When he releases the pressure, your structure should automatically come back to center. Not consciously, but naturally. The quicker it comes back to center, the better your structure. This is one form of what we call 'grace period'. Your target is the opponents center line. So even if your hands aren't aiming directly at the centerline, your structure is focused to that point. Think of a pencil moving a small box. The point doesn't have to be directly perpendicular to move it. It just retains its own structure and maintains it's target. I.e. the center of gravity of the box.

Now if you turn correctly on your heels, your center won't shift from side to side and you maintain the integrity of your structure much more than turning on the balls because whether you agree with me or not, kinetic energy only comes out of the balls of the foot when the body uproots.

There is much much more to how the structure works but that's the gist of at least one of the reasons it's better to turn on the heels.

Good conversation.
I think it comes down to what you want to achieve, and the different lineages have a slight skew on that.
I look at Alans clips and i see structure focused on controlling the other guys structure, actively attacking it and keeping the guy of balance the whole time,being a TST guy thats one of the main aims and the footwork corresponds with Alan and his guys. That is , the goals are the same.

Ive also done a mainland style, back weighted with different turn on the foot, and i think the aim was more to create a different line of attack and control was a by-product. Once again, different goals.

I dont think either is right or wrong, they just have a slightly different way of reaching the desired outcome

[WC1277]

Good conversation.
I think it comes down to what you want to achieve, and the different lineages have a slight skew on that.
I look at Alans clips and i see structure focused on controlling the other guys structure, actively attacking it and keeping the guy of balance the whole time,being a TST guy thats one of the main aims and the footwork corresponds with Alan and his guys. That is , the goals are the same.

Ive also done a mainland style, back weighted with different turn on the foot, and i think the aim was more to create a different line of attack and control was a by-product. Once again, different goals.

I dont think either is right or wrong, they just have a slightly different way of reaching the desired outcome

Our desired outcome is the same but our goal isn't to keep the guy off balanced but to have him "lean on our wall" so that he 'falls' into our attack. 'Glass technique'. It shouldn't involve him being intentionally disrupted. If he moves but doesn't 'send back' to our center he'll fall. Sticking means connecting to the center of gravity with forward intent.

Take for example the pencil and small box analogy again. The box has a structure too. If it were to connect back to the pencils center as the the pencil is, there would be a stalemate. They would be evenly "balanced". But when the box doesn't connect back and tries to come forward, what happens? Number one, it twists, number two, it leans on a wall now. All the pencil has to do is maintain its own structure. The "sticking" is to make it hard for the box to "stick" back. That is the main difference with this principle between Alan Orr's guys and our guys. We don't intentionally disrupt the opponents center, that is always a recipe for using muscle. That is why you can see in that video I posted in the "body unity in action" thread that Charlie is just turning an already static position as he connects. Just like the pencil maintains its shape as it connects. This is also the reason Fong Sifu and company look as fluid as they do. There are only three options for the opponent when done this way. He can either twist and lose his structure and get hit; lean on the wall and when he moves again he'll get hit; or he can connect back....

[GlennR]

Our desired outcome is the same but our goal isn't to keep the guy off balanced but to have him "lean on our wall" so that he 'falls' into our attack. 'Glass technique'. It shouldn't involve him being intentionally disrupted. If he moves but doesn't 'send back' to our center he'll fall. Sticking means connecting to the center of gravity with forward intent.

My point exactly, corect me if im wrong, but your structure control is "passive" in the sense that you require him to "lean" on you... ill speak for myself when i say we will try to actively destroy his structure regardless of wether leans or not. Its a bit more agressive in its appraoach (in regards to structure attack)


Take for example the pencil and small box analogy again. The box has a structure too. If it were to connect back to the pencils center as the the pencil is, there would be a stalemate. They would be evenly "balanced". But when the box doesn't connect back and tries to come forward, what happens? Number one, it twists, number two, it leans on a wall now. All the pencil has to do is maintain its own structure. The "sticking" is to make it hard for the box to "stick" back.

Sorry, dont quite get that anaolgy. To be honest im not that big on them in general.


That is the main difference with this principle between Alan Orr's guys and our guys. We don't intentionally disrupt the opponents center, that is always a recipe for using muscle.

And thats why his footwork is different, he's trying to aggresively attack his opponents structure so they dont trade punches on even terms. He's not using muscle, he's using structure as per his system. His footwork and weighting supports this


That is why you can see in that video I posted in the "body unity in action" thread that Charlie is just turning an already static position as he connects. Just like the pencil maintains its shape as it connects. This is also the reason Fong Sifu and company look as fluid as they do. There are only three options for the opponent when done this way. He can either twist and lose his structure and get hit; lean on the wall and when he moves again he'll get hit; or he can connect back

Fair enough, but i think its just down to different approaches

[WC1277]

My point exactly, corect me if im wrong, but your structure control is "passive" in the sense that you require him to "lean" on you... ill speak for myself when i say we will try to actively destroy his structure regardless of wether leans or not. Its a bit more agressive in its appraoach (in regards to structure attack)



Sorry, dont quite get that anaolgy. To be honest im not that big on them in general.

.

And thats why his footwork is different, he's trying to aggresively attack his opponents structure so they dont trade punches on even terms. He's not using muscle, he's using structure as per his system. His footwork and weighting supports this



Fair enough, but i think its just down to different approaches

You're right, it does come down to different approaches which is all good.

For the anology though, just grab a pencil and some small object like a phone or empty cardboard box and just play around with them. That might help.

Cheers

[Alan Orr]

Regardless of whether more kinetic power comes from the balls or the heels, you can still turn, brace, step on your heel as the pivot point. IMO there is more kinetic energy. If done correctly, your center shouldn't be shifting side to side at all. That's really just the sign of someone inexperienced with it.

Try this out. Get in your mother stance and hold your arms out into the triangle structure. Good angle w/ elbows bent. Not too far out, not too close. Press your hands together now on your centerline. Now have a partner apply pressure to the left or the right. When he releases the pressure, your structure should automatically come back to center. Not consciously, but naturally. The quicker it comes back to center, the better your structure. This is one form of what we call 'grace period'. Your target is the opponents center line. So even if your hands aren't aiming directly at the centerline, your structure is focused to that point. Think of a pencil moving a small box. The point doesn't have to be directly perpendicular to move it. It just retains its own structure and maintains it's target. I.e. the center of gravity of the box.

Now if you turn correctly on your heels, your center won't shift from side to side and you maintain the integrity of your structure much more than turning on the balls because whether you agree with me or not, kinetic energy only comes out of the balls of the foot when the body uproots.

There is much much more to how the structure works but that's the gist of at least one of the reasons it's better to turn on the heels.

Would cool if you do a clip on this.

[Alan Orr]

I forgot I had a CSL student with me for several months doing what you're showing, nice guy. We exchanged ideas and sparred a little, nice to see different ideas at work.
Thanks again for the clips.

Nice to hear.

[Alan Orr]

Good conversation.
I think it comes down to what you want to achieve, and the different lineages have a slight skew on that.
I look at Alans clips and i see structure focused on controlling the other guys structure, actively attacking it and keeping the guy of balance the whole time,being a TST guy thats one of the main aims and the footwork corresponds with Alan and his guys. That is , the goals are the same.

Ive also done a mainland style, back weighted with different turn on the foot, and i think the aim was more to create a different line of attack and control was a by-product. Once again, different goals.

I dont think either is right or wrong, they just have a slightly different way of reaching the desired outcome

Good post. Yes I agree. It all depends on what you use it for really. On the street both can work. In terms of MMA and sparring you need to be able to control heavy pressures, which is why a lot of wing chun guys get taken down with such ease.

[Alan Orr]

Our desired outcome is the same but our goal isn't to keep the guy off balanced but to have him "lean on our wall" so that he 'falls' into our attack. 'Glass technique'. It shouldn't involve him being intentionally disrupted. If he moves but doesn't 'send back' to our center he'll fall. Sticking means connecting to the center of gravity with forward intent.

Take for example the pencil and small box analogy again. The box has a structure too. If it were to connect back to the pencils center as the the pencil is, there would be a stalemate. They would be evenly "balanced". But when the box doesn't connect back and tries to come forward, what happens? Number one, it twists, number two, it leans on a wall now. All the pencil has to do is maintain its own structure. The "sticking" is to make it hard for the box to "stick" back. That is the main difference with this principle between Alan Orr's guys and our guys. We don't intentionally disrupt the opponents center, that is always a recipe for using muscle. That is why you can see in that video I posted in the "body unity in action" thread that Charlie is just turning an already static position as he connects. Just like the pencil maintains its shape as it connects. This is also the reason Fong Sifu and company look as fluid as they do. There are only three options for the opponent when done this way. He can either twist and lose his structure and get hit; lean on the wall and when he moves again he'll get hit; or he can connect back....

Yes and no. We use both ideas. What I have shown is a small part of what we do. As I say in the clip correct use of strength and muscle is very important. We don't train our wing chun to beat wing chun - we train our wing chun to beat everyone lol That means you have to deal a lot of different pressures and muscle! We like to close the range and use our body position and body power rather that have an open bridge contact. We stick with our whole body not just the arms.

The clip you have shown is a different range and different style of positioning that I would use. It is hard to see the structural control on some clips.