Wing Chun Power Generation

[Faux Newbie]

Since the other thread got locked for never talking about it, I'll put this one here.

It seems to me that, at least for attacks where the attacker's hands stay in the center line (and don't focus on as substantial of shoulder extensions as other styles might), power generation would come from:

1) footwork,
2) timing into the attacker's motions, including body manipulations on them that act as power magnifiers, and,
3) at least for some lines, waist/spine manipulation.

Of those factors, in competing with styles who also have those traits, what do you see as the comparative advantage of wing chun?

Do you view it as a case of balancing power generation with defensive attributes?

Would this be accurate? Why or why not?

[Hendrik]

Since the other thread got locked for never talking about it, I'll put this one here.

It seems to me that, at least for attacks where the attacker's hands stay in the center line (and don't focus on as substantial of shoulder extensions as other styles might), power generation would come from:

1) footwork,
2) timing into the attacker's motions, including body manipulations on them that act as power magnifiers, and,
3) at least for some lines, waist/spine manipulation.

Of those factors, in competing with styles who also have those traits, what do you see as the comparative advantage of wing chun?

Do you view it as a case of balancing power generation with defensive attributes?

Would this be accurate? Why or why not?



IMHO,

One needs to get to the root of power generation before get into the above

Namely,

How to generate power
And
How to transport it .



Most people doesn't know these, so, it is default into muscular and instinctive , what ever the default in that person body is. So the weak always weak disregard what technics they study. The strong alway strong .....



Say, Chen taiji, how does one generate the basic force? How to transport the force? How to convert it into a force flow? All the basic. Unless one knows and precisely can handle these, doing a Chen taiji form and doing other form or set has not much different. Just mimic posture.


And every style has a different way of power generation to support the particular style combat strategy.


Attached is my brief summary on Wck 1848 data point

[Faux Newbie]

Interesting chart.

I understand the need to work the specific engines (or modes of power generation). Where I differ in view is that I view it as holistic. Until power generation is matched with footwork, one can't really understand the engine, imo, so that I view it as better to work the whole to understand the part. Obviously, when first learning, and to hone, one should routinely examine the part for deeper understanding, but if done too much separate from the whole, I think it is easy to entrain habits that don't translate well.

Application, for lack of a better term, is informed by form and informs it.

[Hendrik]

Interesting chart.

I understand the need to work the specific engines (or modes of power generation). Where I differ in view is that I view it as holistic. Until power generation is matched with footwork, one can't really understand the engine, imo, so that I view it as better to work the whole to understand the part. Obviously, when first learning, and to hone, one should routinely examine the part for deeper understanding, but if done too much separate from the whole, I think it is easy to entrain habits that don't translate well.

Application, for lack of a better term, is informed by form and informs it.



IMHO,

Ie

Foot work is adding atleast two more unknown in the basic power generation.
So, adding it in only will Create more confusion for beginner who running things by default.
This is Because momentum variation come into picture which beyond the basic power generation.



Unless one can have the engine or the seven bows handle . Jumping step into footwork is trouble.
For Wck
Thus, snt get the engine develop before other things.
That is the Kung part of Wck.

[Faux Newbie]

IMHO,

Ie

Foot work is adding atleast two more unknown in the basic power generation.
So, adding it in only will Create more confusion for beginner who running things by default.
This is Because momentum variation come to play which beyond the basic power generation.



Unless one can have the engine or the seven bows handle . Jumping step into footwork is trouble.
For Wck
Thus, snt get the engine develop before other things.
That is the Kung part of Wck.

My view is that, when people do get into the footwork, they will end up understanding things about the engine that they did not when training it alone.

So, I agree that preliminary training is important, but the linked engine and step are necessary to even understand those preliminary exercises.

Of course, too much too soon can bog down the student, but too little too late is just as bad.

If they cannot even step, then the engine and stepping is more important than anything else, since the rest is dependent on relative spacing created by footwork.

To be clear, I am not saying I entirely disagree with you. I'm more saying the engine, and the engine with moving, are essential to everything else. I just tend to find integrating in reasonable time makes a situation where errors in the engine become obvious with motion, and make certain the teacher can quickly correct them, instead of a student going a long time practicing an error.

[Paddington]

Hello Faux Newbie. I've never competed in a competition beyond a couple of katate tournaments in my youth so I find it hard to make a definitive comment in the context of competitive, full contact wing chun fighting. That said, this year I have really focused on short range power generation with respects to my wing chun, so I can perhaps comment on my experiences here.

I will say from the outset that I am sad and embarrassed to report that I recently badly hurt someone when they asked me to demonstrate comparatively short range power generation, despite the large stack of books and pads I used to offer some measure of protection in addition to, I thought at the time, not putting much into the strike.

Anyone that is familiar with 'Newton's cradle' will perhaps appreciate, as I now do, how disingenuous some of the demonstrations of wing chun's penetrative strikes are. The gentleman I hurt ended up with a bruised lung and a suspected fractured rib, so I do caution against demonstrations of that type.

Anyway, I found that once I had practiced just standing still, much like Hendrik describes, so that I could feel gravity and the ground reaction force through my structure, I was then able to move onto the principles from chum kui, albeit with a through founding in what I think is a good elbow position. Where as in slt movement of the elbow is of a primary focus, in chum kui I've found that unifying waist or hip movement with elbow movement, is key to generating a good deal of power. When I did some training with Jim Halliwell his phrasing as 'bouncing off the hip', really helped me to cement it all together.

What is more I kept in mind the idea of the 6 or 7 major joints or bows which enabled me to look at this idea of kinetic linking and refine it in my chum kui practice, a lot more thoroughly. Of course, I am talking about alignment of the joints/bows across all x, y and z spatial planes.

I found one other important aspect of chum kui and also chain punching practice that, in a way, uncloaked a lot of short range power generation for me and is inline with what I have said above about alignment and moving the joints in unison. With regards to chain punching, I found a great deal of improvement by focusing on the hand being withdrawn. Once the elbow of the withdrawing hand comes back towards the hip/waist, that kinetic energy springs back into the arm moving outwards to strike. You can see the use of the withdrawing arm/hand in chum kui as operating in a similar fashion, much like as Moy Yat describes. You don't have to use the lead hand to withdraw whilst punching with the back hand to generate a lot of power, particularly if you are good at fa jing to the extent that the guard hand can be still be withdrawn back sharply, over a small distance to kick off the kinetic chain.

Of course, turning punches from a squared position benefit very well from keeping the above in mind and one other point I have found useful to generating short range power is knowing how to relax and remaining relaxed, particularly after striking the opponent.

It was through using all of the above that resulted in my injuring someone at a very short range even when I did not put much into the strike. In hindsight, in all of the incidents where I have unintentionally knocked my training partner out with one strike during my more exuberant chi sau sessions over the years, it has been through using the body movements and principles such as I describe above even though back then, I didn't know that that was how I was generating such short range knock out power. Back then it was not something that I could consciously do.

Needless to say, I see one of the biggest strengths of wing chun in terms of power generation as being comparatively short range power generation as I describe above.

[Faux Newbie]

Hello Faux Newbie. I've never competed in a competition beyond a couple of katate tournaments in my youth so I find it hard to make a definitive comment in the context of competitive, full contact wing chun fighting. That said, this year I have really focused on short range power generation with respects to my wing chun, so I can perhaps comment on my experiences here.

I will say from the outset that I am sad and embarrassed to report that I recently badly hurt someone when they asked me to demonstrate comparatively short range power generation, despite the large stack of books and pads I used to offer some measure of protection in addition to, I thought at the time, not putting much into the strike.

Anyone that is familiar with 'Newton's cradle' will perhaps appreciate, as I now do, how disingenuous some of the demonstrations of wing chun's penetrative strikes are. The gentleman I hurt ended up with a bruised lung and a suspected fractured rib, so I do caution against demonstrations of that type.

Anyway, I found that once I had practiced just standing still, much like Hendrik describes, so that I could feel gravity and the ground reaction force through my structure, I was then able to move onto the principles from chum kui, albeit with a through founding in what I think is a good elbow position. Where as in slt movement of the elbow is of a primary focus, in chum kui I've found that unifying waist or hip movement with elbow movement, is key to generating a good deal of power. When I did some training with Jim Halliwell his phrasing as 'bouncing off the hip', really helped me to cement it all together.

What is more I kept in mind the idea of the 6 or 7 major joints or bows which enabled me to look at this idea of kinetic linking and refine it in my chum kui practice, a lot more thoroughly. Of course, I am talking about alignment of the joints/bows across all x, y and z spatial planes.

I found one other important aspect of chum kui and also chain punching practice that, in a way, uncloaked a lot of short range power generation for me and is inline with what I have said above about alignment and moving the joints in unison. With regards to chain punching, I found a great deal of improvement by focusing on the hand being withdrawn. Once the elbow of the withdrawing hand comes back towards the hip/waist, that kinetic energy springs back into the arm moving outwards to strike. You can see the use of the withdrawing arm/hand in chum kui as operating in a similar fashion, much like as Moy Yat describes. You don't have to use the lead hand to withdraw whilst punching with the back hand to generate a lot of power, particularly if you are good at fa jing to the extent that the guard hand can be still be withdrawn back sharply, over a small distance to kick off the kinetic chain.

Of course, turning punches from a squared position benefit very well from keeping the above in mind and one other point I have found useful to generating short range power is knowing how to relax and remaining relaxed, particularly after striking the opponent.

It was through using all of the above that resulted in my injuring someone at a very short range even when I did not put much into the strike. In hindsight, in all of the incidents where I have unintentionally knocked my training partner out with one strike during my more exuberant chi sau sessions over the years, it has been through using the body movements and principles such as I describe above even though back then, I didn't know that that was how I was generating such short range knock out power. Back then it was not something that I could consciously do.

Needless to say, I see one of the biggest strengths of wing chun in terms of power generation as being comparatively short range power generation as I describe above.

Thanks for the response, Paddington.

I agree that stationary contributes to the process in many styles. In what I do, there are stationary versions that are very helpful, but as soon as possible, moving ones also are added, and as soon as they are added, both should always be practiced, because they inform each other. The engine drives the step, and knowing how is one step closer to really understanding the engine.

This does not seem to be a big point of contention, merely when to add stepping, imo.

[Paddington]

Thanks for the response, Paddington.

I agree that stationary contributes to the process in many styles. In what I do, there are stationary versions that are very helpful, but as soon as possible, moving ones also are added, and as soon as they are added, both should always be practiced, because they inform each other. The engine drives the step, and knowing how is one step closer to really understanding the engine.

This does not seem to be a big point of contention, merely when to add stepping, imo.

I think stepping is important and I must ask that when you question when to add a step, are you referring to when being in 'combat' or when to teach someone new to the wing chun system how to step?

Just a point of note on stepping. I've found that moving the lead leg first (very slightly) so that my centre of mass shifts and encourages the body to tilt or, and I hate to phrase it like this, fall forwards, really adds to stepping power over just relying on the musculature of the back leg to initiate the step. In terms of developing a good 'po pi' I found that insight, on stepping, invaluable; think cantilevers.

[Faux Newbie]

I think stepping is important and I must ask that when you question when to add a step, are you referring to when being in 'combat' or when to teach someone new to the wing chun system how to step?

Well, ultimately you want to use it in combat, but I'm saying training someone, so not trying to get new students to implement this right away in context of sparring, no. I'm pretty sure ugliness would ensue!


Just a point of note on stepping. I've found that moving the lead leg first (very slightly) so that my centre of mass shifts and encourages the body to tilt or, and I hate to phrase it like this, fall forwards, really adds to stepping power over just relying on the musculature of the back leg to initiate the step. In terms of developing a good 'po pi' I found that insight, on stepping, invaluable; think cantilevers.

I follow what you are saying, a number of people who use my system use a similar approach, so I've done that and can relate to what you are saying.

Again, thanks for the replies!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since the other thread got locked for never talking about it, I'll put this one here.

It seems to me that, at least for attacks where the attacker's hands stay in the center line (and don't focus on as substantial of shoulder extensions as other styles might), power generation would come from:

1) footwork,
2) timing into the attacker's motions, including body manipulations on them that act as power magnifiers, and,
3) at least for some lines, waist/spine manipulation.

Of those factors, in competing with styles who also have those traits, what do you see as the comparative advantage of wing chun?

Do you view it as a case of balancing power generation with defensive attributes?

Would this be accurate? Why or why not?

Lets hope, HOPE, that this thread stays on topic.

[Paddington]

Lets hope, HOPE, that this thread stays on topic.

Well if it doesn't then perhaps you could do your job and just remove the offending posts rather than delete the entire thread? Yeah, it is more time consuming but I and others have already offered to help out with respects to moderating these boards. Ironically, your post above is off topic and has solicited my equally off topic reply to you.

[Faux Newbie]

Well if it doesn't then perhaps you could do your job and just remove the offending posts rather than delete the entire thread? Yeah, it is more time consuming but I and others have already offered to help out with respects to moderating these boards. Ironically, your post above is off topic and has solicited my equally off topic reply to you.

In fairness, most forum mods are volunteer and cannot be more than part time, so members have to do their part to reduce the amount of moderation that is needed.

I think if people stay on topic even half the time, the people who don't will stick out like sore thumbs. Give the mods easy targets and they can quickly take care of business.

[Faux Newbie]

Just a point of note on stepping. I've found that moving the lead leg first (very slightly) so that my centre of mass shifts and encourages the body to tilt or, and I hate to phrase it like this, fall forwards, really adds to stepping power over just relying on the musculature of the back leg to initiate the step. In terms of developing a good 'po pi' I found that insight, on stepping, invaluable; think cantilevers.

The reason my earlier answer to this probably read oddly is because in the style I do, there are some similarities in shape to wing chun, but also similarities to Chen style in power generation, and, in some lines, things like chu gar. Some people in my style do the step as you describe, in the more chen style approach, such weight use is often more related to a pivot, a forward step often seeks to, for lack of a better description, sink and rise as opposed to rise and sink on a forward step.

I have done both, but I tend to do the latter.

[Wayfaring]

Since the other thread got locked for never talking about it, I'll put this one here.

It seems to me that, at least for attacks where the attacker's hands stay in the center line (and don't focus on as substantial of shoulder extensions as other styles might), power generation would come from:

1) footwork,
2) timing into the attacker's motions, including body manipulations on them that act as power magnifiers, and,
3) at least for some lines, waist/spine manipulation.

Of those factors, in competing with styles who also have those traits, what do you see as the comparative advantage of wing chun?

Do you view it as a case of balancing power generation with defensive attributes?

Would this be accurate? Why or why not?

All right, so here is my problem with discussing this topic with our faux man. These questions sound like they are genuine and logical. But then after this he comes right back with:



To be clear, I am not saying I entirely disagree with you. I'm more saying the engine, and the engine with moving, are essential to everything else. I just tend to find integrating in reasonable time makes a situation where errors in the engine become obvious with motion, and make certain the teacher can quickly correct them, instead of a student going a long time practicing an error.


So here he has a very opinionated and detailed view of the topic he is trying to bring up talking about, like he is a WCK sifu. But there are many very basic topics he hasn't even heard about in WCK. Like forward intent. So in actuality, faux newbie is a good screen name. He is a WCK newbie, but it's fake because he's studied some other arts? Just trying to figure out how to post on this thread.

Anyway besides all the static, WCK generates power with more of what I call a wave motion, not rotation. So the advantage is you can generate power without bigger rotational movements. Without bigger movements = a little faster. Maybe you don't generate 100% of the power you could with a full turn, but a % of that say 80% where you don't lose facing and centerline can be plenty effective against bigger rotational movements.

[Faux Newbie]

Anyway besides all the static, WCK generates power with more of what I call a wave motion, not rotation. So the advantage is you can generate power without bigger rotational movements. Without bigger movements = a little faster. Maybe you don't generate 100% of the power you could with a full turn, but a % of that say 80% where you don't lose facing and centerline can be plenty effective against bigger rotational movements.

Wave type force is useful, and is not unique to wing chun. It also tends to allow more distinct transition of weight, so that footwork and, by extension, technique can be faster. However, in pretty much all kung fu styles, it is also matched with rotational energy at times as well, though often rotation around an axis versus on. It is in wing chun as well, and like most styles, sometimes there is rotation, sometimes there isn't. Techniques that occur on pivoting steps would be the most obvious example. That pivot also can impart speed, but without the wave type power generation, it is hard to capitalize on this, as weightedness on all techniques turns into an issue due to the limits of rotational force on ability to fluidly alter direction except in exactly the direction the pivot requires.

This is exactly why training power generation too long without linking it to footwork is not wise, imo. Power generation and footwork are not separate and discrete entities, and the longer they are treated as such, the more the practitioner will focus on one in detriment to the other. You cannot know the first in isolation from the second. It is not "don't practice isolation gongs" but "as soon as able to begin, practice the isolated gong and the gong related to footwork it works with."

[Wayfaring]

Wave type force is useful, and is not unique to wing chun. It also tends to allow more distinct transition of weight, so that footwork and, by extension, technique can be faster. However, in pretty much all kung fu styles, it is also matched with rotational energy at times as well, though often rotation around an axis versus on. It is in wing chun as well, and like most styles, sometimes there is rotation, sometimes there isn't. Techniques that occur on pivoting steps would be the most obvious example. That pivot also can impart speed, but without the wave type power generation, it is hard to capitalize on this, as weightedness on all techniques turns into an issue due to the limits of rotational force on ability to fluidly alter direction except in exactly the direction the pivot requires.


Yes I've seen wave type force in the few other southern Chinese ma's (5 animals, lohan, tai chi, bagua, Vietnamese variants, and hung gar where I've seen). And yes WCK has rotation too, it's just that the wave type is predominant.




This is exactly why training power generation too long without linking it to footwork is not wise, imo. Power generation and footwork are not separate and discrete entities, and the longer they are treated as such, the more the practitioner will focus on one in detriment to the other. You cannot know the first in isolation from the second. It is not "don't practice isolation gongs" but "as soon as able to begin, practice the isolated gong and the gong related to footwork it works with."

I agree. Actually power starts from footwork and your connection to the ground.

[KPM]

Power generation and footwork are not separate and discrete entities, and the longer they are treated as such, the more the practitioner will focus on one in detriment to the other. You cannot know the first in isolation from the second. It is not "don't practice isolation gongs" but "as soon as able to begin, practice the isolated gong and the gong related to footwork it works with."

This is exactly as I have trained it in Pin Sun WCK. Many of the short sets teach a specific footwork pattern. But the set is first practiced stationary with "body" and "gong" development and later the footwork pattern is added.

[JPinAZ]

Anyway besides all the static, WCK generates power with more of what I call a wave motion, not rotation. So the advantage is you can generate power without bigger rotational movements. Without bigger movements = a little faster. Maybe you don't generate 100% of the power you could with a full turn, but a % of that say 80% where you don't lose facing and centerline can be plenty effective against bigger rotational movements.

I can agree with this, 'specially if we are talking about the body linking together to generate power via ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist connection, or more specifically to a punch: Knee/Hip/Elbow. As you mentioned, the major thing that makes WC unique when compared to other arts is that this power generation method still fits with WC's ideas of facing & CL, as well as 2 hands operating as one/equal reach, efficiency and economy of motion (but I guess you can say the latter are pretty much covered in the first two :))

In regards to other's comments of footwork, sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not. But IMO, footwork is more of a necessity based on strategy/tactics more-so than a need to generate power when hitting. It helps in some cases, but most of the examples I can think of, the footwork is used to gain a better position while striking vs footwork being a requirement to generate power when striking form a WC POV
.
One example I can think of from a technique POV could be when you need to use laap/da with footwork. Sure, the twisting & rotational forces of the body helps generate power, but I say you are laap'g because you have to clear an obstruction in order to land anything at all - not because you want to use the footwork to generate more power (but it helps). If the line was open, you wouldn't need to laap or use footwork, you'd simple strike from where you are.

[Faux Newbie]

I can agree with this, 'specially if we are talking about the body linking together to generate power via ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist connection, or more specifically to a punch: Knee/Hip/Elbow. As you mentioned, the major thing that makes WC unique when compared to other arts is that this power generation method still fits with WC's ideas of facing & CL, as well as 2 hands operating as one/equal reach, efficiency and economy of motion (but I guess you can say the latter are pretty much covered in the first two :))

In regards to other's comments of footwork, sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not. But IMO, footwork is more of a necessity based on strategy/tactics more-so than a need to generate power when hitting. It helps in some cases, but most of the examples I can think of, the footwork is used to gain a better position while striking vs footwork being a requirement to generate power when striking form a WC POV
.
One example I can think of from a technique POV could be when you need to use laap/da with footwork. Sure, the twisting & rotational forces of the body helps generate power, but I say you are laap'g because you have to clear an obstruction in order to land anything at all - not because you want to use the footwork to generate more power (but it helps). If the line was open, you wouldn't need to laap or use footwork, you'd simple strike from where you are.

At the same time, and not bringing up a point I think you would disagree with at all, but if doing the footwork, there is no reason not to use it for the maximum power it can give. If moving is not advised, conversely, it doesn't help to add footwork for power, if the footwork makes distance too close for what is being done.

Part of why I focus heavily on linking footwork to one's engine (I know some people here hate that term, I'm not trying to be a pain on THIS issue, it's just a term that SOMEWHAT applies), is that power generation can really mess up footwork if it isn't trained together, and messing up footwork is a recipe for disaster, ime.

[Faux Newbie]

This is exactly as I have trained it in Pin Sun WCK. Many of the short sets teach a specific footwork pattern. But the set is first practiced stationary with "body" and "gong" development and later the footwork pattern is added.

Same here, even if a different style.

[Paddington]

I can agree with this, 'specially if we are talking about the body linking together to generate power via ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist connection, or more specifically to a punch: Knee/Hip/Elbow. [...]

Nice to know we agree. Making sure one has been able to exploit the ground reaction force, that is having a good connection to the ground, also seems to meet with agreement by all.

[Faux Newbie]

I agree. Actually power starts from footwork and your connection to the ground.

Agree completely. I tend to look at is as a balancing act. It's easy to focus on having the most power possible, but this can mean a loss of balance or mobility, which is not worth it. Adequate power always achieves its goals, great power sometimes does.

Boxing (as used in boxing, not mma) focuses on maximum power that still allows hand strikes. Not having to deal with legs, stance can be altered to do this, but there is still an emphasis on still being able to move and box. Just using this as an example. There are many people with KO power who lose to more technical boxers.

Because kung fu, mma, etc, must deal with legs and throws and different goals in the clinch, it all becomes even more a balancing act. The ability to move into position is the easiest way to ruin an opponent's plans, but it conversely requires a platform where the footwork easily translates to being able to affect the opponent.

[JPinAZ]

At the same time, and not bringing up a point I think you would disagree with at all, but if doing the footwork, there is no reason not to use it for the maximum power it can give.

Sure, why would I argue that? But in WC (at least in my experience), we don't typically throw a punch if we are out of range for it to connect. What I mean is, attacks (saat, palm strike, punch, etc) are usually thrown when you are already in proper position for them to be most effective. We don't typically throw short range punches when we are out of range and have to use footwork to make up the distance.


If moving is not advised, conversely, it doesn't help to add footwork for power, if the footwork makes distance too close for what is being done.

Agreed. And I'm not advocating we never move our feet. There are always slight adjustments going on, and if you can add a little extra oomph to a punch by putting your whole body behind it with a slight adjustement starting from the ground up, then that is always a plus. But this is different than say someone stepping in from non-contact to contact range blasting away with chain punches ;)


Part of why I focus heavily on linking footwork to one's engine (I know some people here hate that term, I'm not trying to be a pain on THIS issue, it's just a term that SOMEWHAT applies), is that power generation can really mess up footwork if it isn't trained together, and messing up footwork is a recipe for disaster, ime.

Since you do not practice WC, maybe it would help if you define what you mean by 'footwork' because I am having a difficult time following what you are saying here.

[Faux Newbie]

Since you do not practice WC, maybe it would help if you define what you mean by 'footwork' because I am having a difficult time following what you are saying here.

Sure.It's basic stuff. If throwing an attack that is to land at the moment you step into range, so not stepping in and then attacking, but stepping in to attack at the moment your step brings you in range as part of the step, a fighting style's power generation tends to not sacrifice balance issues in order to generate power, because this can put you in a bad situation.

So, using the boxing example, if stepping in and crossing after a jab, they use a relatively wide stance, not having their feet in one line with the opponent, because then the torque would destabilize their stance and leave them vulnerable.

If a person works stationary power generation exercises but does not train the same power generation with steps that it works well with, when they do move trying to use it, it is very likely that they will have issues that force them to either fudge the overall step and power generation, or be put in a bad spot. By matching them early, they quickly realize things like that they lean slightly forward on a turn which destabilized their rotation, or lurching forward and having a moment where they are sitting ducks due to weight distribution issues, things like this. Less likelihood of training a compromised version in order to make up for errors that the stepping drills could solve.

[JPinAZ]

Nice to know we agree. Making sure one has been able to exploit the ground reaction force, that is having a good connection to the ground, also seems to meet with agreement by all.

Not sure I follow, as I thought I was agreeing with what Wayfaring was saying which is who I quoted in my reply. Unless you are trying to imply some connection you see we may have now that you didn't think existed before?

FWIW, I've never argued that connecting of the major joints isn't important, as I see it existing in all good WCK. It's a concept that was introduced to me very early on in both lineages of WC I've studied and is basic WC mechanics (or should be). If that is what you are referring too, then yes, we most surely agree!
I don't want to take this thread too off topic and already regret that I am going to bring it up, but one part I don't agree with is the un-ending 7 bows stuff that gets blasted into every thread here for the past few years, as I think the 7th bow (the foot) is way off the mark. It is already covered by the ankle joint and is totally missing the link between the upper and lower parts of the body - the spine.

[Faux Newbie]

Not sure I follow, as I thought I was agreeing with what Wayfaring was saying which is who I quoted in my reply. Unless you are trying to imply some connection you see we may have now that you didn't think existed before?

He was agreeing with what you were saying, regardless of who it was focused on.


FWIW, I've never argued that connecting of the major joints isn't important, as I see it existing in all good WCK. It's a concept that was introduced to me very early on in both lineages of WC I've studied and is basic WC mechanics (or should be). If that is what you are referring too, then yes, we most surely agree!
I don't want to take this thread too off topic and already regret that I am going to bring it up, but one part I don't agree with is the un-ending 7 bows stuff that gets blasted into every thread here for the past few years, as I think the 7th bow (the foot) is way off the mark. It is already covered by the ankle joint and is totally missing the link between the upper and lower parts of the body - the spine.

Interesting. Not including the spine is something I would find problematic, especially since it literally bows.

[JPinAZ]

Sure.It's basic stuff. If throwing an attack that is to land at the moment you step into range, so not stepping in and then attacking, but stepping in to attack at the moment your step brings you in range as part of the step, a fighting style's power generation tends to not sacrifice balance issues in order to generate power, because this can put you in a bad situation.

So, using the boxing example, if stepping in and crossing after a jab, they use a relatively wide stance, not having their feet in one line with the opponent, because then the torque would destabilize their stance and leave them vulnerable.

I appreciate your boxing analogy and also agree with the idea of a boxer not stepping in with feet in one line to an opponent. But then, I don't think functional WC does that either. Are you implying this is how you understand WC to work? If so, maybe you need more face-time with WC :) FWIW, in HFY, we always avoid have our lead foot anywhere inside/between our opponent's feet as it typically gives up leverage or any positional advantage as well as the things you mentioned.

The issue I have with using non-WC arts to discuss WC mechanics is WC doesn't operate like most other arts. For one example: for the most part, WC doesn't look to strike from outside using footwork. WC looks to bridge and close the gap to gain a position of advantage to our opponent prior to using our short range striking with equal reach with both hands. Boxing doesn't do this. It typically looks to strike form a longer range using rotational power generation that doesn't allow for WC's ideas of simultaneous offense/defense and equal reach with both hands. Yes, boxers do fight closer in as well, but again, not with WC's ideas of efficiency & economy of motion in mind.


If a person works stationary power generation exercises but does not train the same power generation with steps that it works well with, when they do move trying to use it, it is very likely that they will have issues that force them to either fudge the overall step and power generation, or be put in a bad spot. By matching them early, they quickly realize things like that they lean slightly forward on a turn which destabilized their rotation, or lurching forward and having a moment where they are sitting ducks due to weight distribution issues, things like this. Less likelihood of training a compromised version in order to make up for errors that the stepping drills could solve.

This makes sense to me and I agree 100%! so not sure I see your point as don't see anyone here advocating only doing stationary power generation exercises and not trying it with footwork as well (?)

[Hendrik]

as I think the 7th bow (the foot) is way off the mark. It is already covered by the ankle joint .



Feet bow is feet bow. Ankle joint is a different thing and has different function.

Ankle does not cover feet bow.



In fact, feet bow were deliberately missed out to block one from develop the advance handling. It is law of physics, the feet bow is the coupling between body and ground. Those who needs to issue force flow needs to get the seventh bow or feet bow master.








and is totally missing the link between the upper and lower parts of the body - the spine.



Unless one can handling the spine join by join. As in the emei 12 zhuang using the snake slide worm move technology, beginner or those who are not family with ones body rather distribute the handling of power in the seven bows. Otherwise, it is trouble which lead to causing disk damage.



Seven bows is not a philosophy or theory it is basic human force handling mechanics.

[Hendrik]

I will say from the outset that I am sad and embarrassed to report that I recently badly hurt someone when they asked me to demonstrate comparatively short range power generation, despite the large stack of books and pads I used to offer some measure of protection in addition to, I thought at the time, not putting much into the strike.

Anyone that is familiar with 'Newton's cradle' will perhaps appreciate, as I now do, how disingenuous some of the demonstrations of wing chun's penetrative strikes are. The gentleman I hurt ended up with a bruised lung and a suspected fractured rib, so I do caution against demonstrations of that type.


I always warn wcners to not do such a demo.
1. It proof nothing. 2. It harm the opponent.



When I try to explain things by using a yoga ball to cusion a lite strike , many make joke at me. But really, if one can penetrate a three feet diameter yoga ball with light touch what is not already shown? People usually talk about scientific, but how scientific is the type of gung-ho demo like Bruce Lee? It is just absurd, not concerning the others.

As for those who is taking punch for the demo, how is one going to cure them if internal injury is caused? In ancient Chinese, one needs to take massage and taking herb to open up the stagnation cause by strike even if it is not causing serious internal issue such as the above on lung and ribs.

Are you going to leave your students or friends a life time internal problem? Who is going to responsible for it?


Just to share with you guy, I know guy who fight in kyokushin tournament even though did not get ko but take punches . Cause chest area injury And never got cure even with western or Chinese dit da medicine , and after decades has to study the six healing sound to clear the internal injury. That is how serious it is.


So, it is your choice if you want to get into these type of inch punch demo with phone books...etc. I just think it is looking for trouble. What if you hit some ones heart or lung, cause issue and he has to live with it for his whole life?


For the person above, my advise is in addition to western doctor, one needs to go see a good Chinese dit da doctor ASAP, there are things the western medicine think it is ok but causing long term issue in real life is not threat.

[LFJ]

Those who needs to issue force flow needs to get the seventh bownor feet bow master.

Seventh bownor? :confused:

[JPinAZ]

Seventh bownor? :confused:

LOL, yeah, sorry I brought it up. I knew it was going to be a 'stiff' subject

[Faux Newbie]

I appreciate your boxing analogy and also agree with the idea of a boxer not stepping in with feet in one line to an opponent. But then, I don't think functional WC does that either. Are you implying this is how you understand WC to work?

No, I am not implying that. I am using an example of how one style balances striking, footwork, and balance issues, in iterating that ALL styles do this.


If so, maybe you need more face-time with WC :)

If so is the key part here.:p


FWIW, in HFY, we always avoid have our lead foot anywhere inside/between our opponent's feet as it typically gives up leverage or any positional advantage as well as the things you mentioned.

Interesting. NO HIDDEN MEANING TO THIS COMMENT.


The issue I have with using non-WC arts to discuss WC mechanics is WC doesn't operate like most other arts.

Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step.

But I wasn't using boxing to discuss WC mechanics. I used it as an example of the universal necessity for martial styles to match footwork with power generation. I could have used WC as an example, or Tai Chi.


For one example: for the most part, WC doesn't look to strike from outside using footwork.

I thought your kicks often involved a side step? I do recognize that wing chun often seeks to strike from the outside by way of direct in stepping and bridging. It seems to me this would only enhance the importance of integrating power generation with footwork, as that bridge still benefits from it.


WC looks to bridge and close the gap to gain a position of advantage to our opponent prior to using our short range striking with equal reach with both hands.

Again, I'm not sure how this does not become a strong argument for integrating power generation and footwork?


Boxing doesn't do this.

It was one example. I could have chosen others. I was pointing out that even a style that has the luxury of maximizing power generation to hand strikes still balances this with footwork.


It typically looks to strike form a longer range

Long range boxing strikes are the minority of boxing strikes. Boxing seeks to strike from all ranges, all the time.


using rotational power generation that doesn't allow for WC's ideas of simultaneous offense/defense

Boxing has defense built into some strikes, but yes, it is a different approach. However, not all boxing strikes use rotational power.


and equal reach with both hands. Yes, boxers do fight closer in as well, but again, not with WC's ideas of efficiency & economy of motion in mind.

Technical boxing is actually rather obsessed with efficiency and economy of motion, but yes, with a different expression of it.

The example had to do with power generation and footwork, and how not linking power generation and footwork is problematic.


This makes sense to me and I agree 100%! so not sure I see your point as don't see anyone here advocating only doing stationary power generation exercises and not trying it with footwork as well (?)

It's just minutiae. The when. I know a lot of teachers will have people work the stationary stuff endlessly, then make making it useful by attaching it to footwork “advanced". Since, in fighting, odds are enormously high that footwork precedes or follows anything you do, not doing this seems to me to produce "advanced" students who just started doing basic stuff. NOT SAYING THIS WAS TRUE OF WING CHUN SCHOOLS, NO HIDDEN MEANING HERE!:D Since power generation, fighting itself, is never free of the context of footwork, there is literally nothing one can fully understand without drilling it in context to footwork. So, for me, the idea that one gets good at stationary without the footwork is problematic. It's an impossibility, and, since footwork tends to point to problems in power generation, there is really no reason to avoid integrating it as soon as possible. It will not increase error, it will decrease error, imo.

[JPinAZ]

He was agreeing with what you were saying, regardless of who it was focused on.

I appreciate your help, but you replying for him about him replying to me in regards to my reply to Wayfaring is getting way more involved than it needs to be. How about we let him just explain what he means himself. For that matter, I always found it best if we each just speak for ourselves and make it much simpler ;)


Interesting. Not including the spine is something I would find problematic, especially since it literally bows.

Haha, sure, but I don't think that's what they mean by 'bows'. Anyway, I'm already regretting bringing up the bows thing at all, so am going to move away from that subject before this thread spirals down into 7 bows obscurity like so many other threads do in this forum! There's enough repetitive content on that subject to make a separate sub-forum all it's own..

[Faux Newbie]

I bring up points not to prove I'm right, but because others may have a strong and valid point that changes my view. In fact, I expect this to happen, as it's a big world full of people who have worked hard on their own approaches.

I have many times disagreed with YKW or SoCoKungfu or others on a point, and then, as they explained themselves, found they had an excellent point. I have acknowledged this and the conversation continues.

I do a less common style that has commonalities, as all kung fu styles do, with other kung fu and other fighting styles, so I often find these conversations can be useful.

That said, my style has commonalities with Wing Chun. There are a number of times where the center line and equal reach with both hands are utilized. Likewise, like pretty much all kung fu styles, there is the same fundamental footwork.

Most of the differences are in how these factors are used. As an example, my style has a chain punch, but it could not be called the same as the wing chun chain punch. It is focused on manipulation of my center line for power hits that fall slightly off of that center line.

Just clarifying, since some seem to be making the mistake that I am attacking wing chun, since I am not.

[JPinAZ]

Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step.

For me, this is where the problem starts in the discussion. Before you speak for how WC operates (or any other system you don't have experience it), you should first have some actual training and experience in the system. And I'm talking more than a friend of yours studied WC. Because you couldn't be further than truth. Even different lineages of WC don't have common footwork, let alone WC footwork being common to most kung fu!


But I wasn't using boxing to discuss WC mechanics. I used it as an example of the universal necessity for martial styles to match footwork with power generation. I could have used WC as an example, or Tai Chi.

Again - and no offense intended - but if your boxing analogy wasn't relevant to WC mechanics but just a general mechanics example, then I still don't see with the point in continuing down that road. The example you gave for boxing stepping and punching isn't universal to all martial arts because IMO it wasn't representative of how WC functions. Same with if you used Tai Chi. So, while I have a deep love of boxing and appreciate the skills involved, I'll skip the rest of the boxing analogies and just use WC as an example from here on out.


I thought your kicks often involved a side step? I do recognize that wing chun often seeks to strike from the outside by way of direct in stepping and bridging. It seems to me this would only enhance the importance of integrating power generation with footwork, as that bridge still benefits from it.

I thought we were discussing striking with footwork? Now you're mixing WC bridging footwork and the previous point of WC striking with footwork. I fully agree though, WC engagement and bridging methods 100% benefit from the footwork as it helps provide full-body leverage and positional control! While it can be argued there is some overlap, bridging footwork and striking are two somewhat different topics.

Unfortunately, you lost me with the comment regarding kicks...


It's just minutiae. The when. I know a lot of teachers will have people work the stationary stuff endlessly, then make making it useful “advanced" by attaching it to footwork. Since, in fighting, odds are enormously high that footwork precedes or follows anything you do, not doing this seems to me to produce "advanced" students who just started doing basic stuff. Since power generation, fighting itself, is never free of the context of footwork, there is literally nothing one can fully understand without drilling it in context to footwork. So, for me, the idea that one gets good at stationary without the footwork is problematic. It's an impossibility, and, since footwork tends to point to problems in power generation, there is really no reason to avoid integrating it as soon as possible. It will not increase error, it will decrease error, imo.

Since I didn't have this experience in my traning, nor do I know of whom you're speaking of, I can't comment further except to say that I agree footwork should be trained early on.


NO HIDDEN MEANING TO THIS COMMENT


NOT SAYING THIS WAS TRUE OF WING CHUN SCHOOLS, NO HIDDEN MEANING HERE!:D

Please, you don't need to continue to qualify your statements by implying I'm skeptical of hidden meanings with bold disclaimers for my benefit. It's a bit insulting. Fair enough?

[Faux Newbie]

And this is where the problems start. Before you speak for how WC operates (or any other system you don't have experience it), you should first have some actual training and experience in the system. And I'm talking more than a friend of yours studied WC. Because you couldn't be further than truth. Even different lineages of WC don't have common footwork, let alone WC footwork being common to most kung fu!

If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. Biu ma is common, the pivot steps are common, these are all common steps. And I don't just have a friend who does it, he and I sparred and trained against each other for years, and he is a respected teacher here. I'm sorry, but your footwork, like all kung fu styles, was influenced by the kung fu of the day, and those steps are common. How you use them is unique, that is a given, but the steps themselves are all over kung fu, and so face common mechanics issues with other kung fu.


Again - and no offense intended - but if your boxing analogy wasn't relevant to WC mechanics but just a general mechanics example, then I still don't see with the point in continuing down that road. The example you gave for boxing stepping and punching isn't universal to all martial arts because IMO it wasn't representative of how WC functions. Same with if you used Tai Chi. So, while I have a deep love of boxing and appreciate the skills involved, I'll skip the rest of the boxing analogies and just use WC as an example from here on out.

How do you prove a principle is universal using only one style? You don't.


I thought we were discussing striking with footwork?

Kicks=striking. True, linguistically, Chinese separate these issues, but only for ease of description. Footwork and power generation still must support both, thus the kicking example.


Now you're mixing WC bridging footwork and the previous point of WC striking with footwork. I fully agree though, WC engagement and bridging methods 100% benefit from the footwork as it helps provide full-body leverage and positional control! While it can be argued there is some overlap, bridging footwork and striking are two somewhat different topics.

I was discussing power generation and footwork, since both striking and bridging integrate them, both examples are pertinent.


Since I didn't have this experience in my traning, nor do I know of whom you're speaking of, I can't comment further except to say that I agree footwork should be trained early on.

With power generation, not just footwork. Most kung fu applies its power generation to its footwork, other posts on this thread suggest wing chun does as well.


Please, you don't need to continue to qualify your statements by implying I'm sceptical of hidden meanings with bold disclaimers for my benefit. It's a bit insulting. Fair enough?

Sure. In response, you could simply ask "do you think wing chun fighters do X" before asserting ”If so, you need to meet more of them," which equally muddies the water unnecessarily.

[Paddington]

Not sure I follow, as I thought I was agreeing with what Wayfaring was saying which is who I quoted in my reply. Unless you are trying to imply some connection you see we may have now that you didn't think existed before?
[...]

Well, what both you and Wayfaring said was very similar to what I and others had already said and I particularly agreed with what you said about those parts of the body (those joints) and how they should work together. That was the point I was making too and I referenced it to chum kui, which is where I see that principle trained. I also mentioned getting a good connection with the ground, as others had done.


He was agreeing with what you were saying, regardless of who it was focused on.
[...]

Yes I was. I have had to twiddle some beads before composing a reply because my initial response was expletive ridden. But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

[Faux Newbie]

Yes I was. I have had to twiddle some beads before composing a reply because my initial response was expletive ridden. But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

I of course would not know what you are talking about.

[Faux Newbie]

Okay, to make it simple.

What do readers feel is a reasonable range of time a practicing student might to need to transition from practicing stationary power generation to also practicing it with appropriate footwork?

[JPinAZ]

But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

Says the guy that has to refrain from commenting so it isn't riddled it with expletives... Just because you don't say what you are really thinking doesn't mean the intent doesn't come thru loud and clear when you finally post. At least I say exactly what I think.

Look, let's just cut all of the BS ok? In regards to the basic ideas of connecting the 6 major joints for issuing and receiving force, I agreed with you, you agreed with me we both agreed on that as well. What else do you f'g want from me? I think you are waaaay over sensitve and expect way too much from people - you're not even happy when people are on the same **** page with you!!

[JPinAZ]

Okay, to make it simple.

What do readers feel is a reasonable range of time a practicing student might to need to transition from practicing stationary power generation to also practicing it with appropriate footwork?

haha, that might be too simple of a question. It really depends on the student and also what the teacher is focusing on. Some students pick up things way faster than others.

But ignoring that, one 'simple' answer could be - day one, stationary drilling. Day two, put it in motion. Day three, put it in application. Repeat.
Another could be replace days with weeks, or hours for that matter.. But IMO, it should be well balanced.

[Faux Newbie]

haha, that might be too simple of a question. It really depends on the student and also what the teacher is focusing on. Some students pick up things way faster than others.

But ignoring that, one 'simple' answer could be - day one, stationary drilling. Day two, put it in motion. Day three, put it in application. Repeat.
Another could be replace days with weeks, or hours for that matter.. But IMO, it should be well balanced.

Which I see as a reasonable timeline.

[Faux Newbie]

you're not even happy when people are on the same **** page with you!!

Totally poking you with a stick now, but that was literally your position further up this page. In the same conversation.

Just to poke further, you also were sensitive about my wording one post before accusing him of being sensitive.

[JPinAZ]

If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. Biu ma is common, the pivot steps are common, these are all common steps. And I don't just have a friend who does it, he and I sparred and trained against each other for years, and he is a respected teacher here. I'm sorry, but your footwork, like all kung fu styles, was influenced by the kung fu of the day, and those steps are common. How you use them is unique, that is a given, but the steps themselves are all over kung fu, and so face common mechanics issues with other kung fu.


Sure, if you look at it at a very general and basic level you are right - fwd is fwd, sideways is sideways, shifting is- well you get the point. But beyond those very common ideas that most footwork shares, things are pretty different when you compare arts and the ways they go about them.

Example: both HFY's primary footworks of Buhn Yeut Ma and Leung Yi Ma are nothing like I have seen before in most any other MA, and in most cases even other WC lineages. Yes, the general ideas are the same - move forward, move sideways/shift. But WC is a lot more than that. Beyond these basic generalities, the applications, focus, intent, etc are unique to WC and HFY more specifically. Boxers, MT guys, tai chi guys, TKD guys, yes, the all move fwd and sideways, but what and how they do them is not common to what I'm talking about. Even within various WC lineages the differences are clear to see both in how they move fwd or shift. Some use 50/50 weight, some 100/0, some shift their weight, etc. Some slide their feet, some pick them up. Even their ideas of biu ma vary, even within the same lineages!

Again, you said "Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step." and I still argue that without direct experience and training in at least one WC lineage, you can't fairly make this statement - 'specially not for all WC! And while it's good you've done it, I don't feel sparring with one just WC person is enough exposure to do so. Because what you say doesn't apply to either of the WC lineages I've personally trained in.


How do you prove a principle is universal using only one style? You don't.

Good question! I agree, basic principles are universal regardless of the art. Gravity is gravity, only one object can occupy one space at one time, shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, etc. You don't need to talk about boxing for that. But what an art does with these things and concepts derived from them will sometimes vary greatly from art to art, or even within a single art as I pointed out above.


I was discussing power generation and footwork, since both striking and bridging integrate them, both examples are pertinent.

And as I pointed out, often enough the methods for each are different. I don't typically use the same mechanics, strategies or tactics when engaging at long range as I do when striking/defending at short range. Sure, there's some overlap, but mostly the ideas are different based on range, facing, position, leverage point, etc. Boxers are the same way. Just look at jabs and then short rang hooks or uppercuts - are you saying the mechanics and footwork are the same for these. Then look at slipping and bob & weave and compare that to how they employ a short range upper cut. Are they the same?

----------------------

Totally poking you with a stick now, but that was literally your position further up this page. In the same conversation.

Just to poke further, you also were sensitive about my wording one post before accusing him of being sensitive.

Why do you feel the constant need to speak for other people? You really should 'stick' to your own conversations you have with people vs. trying to mediate what everyone else is talking about because I have no idea what you're going on about at this point. Thanks, but no thanks

[Faux Newbie]

Sure, if you look at it at a very general and basic level you are right - fwd is fwd, sideways is sideways, shifting is, well you get the poing. But beyond those very common ideas that most footwork shares, things are pretty different when you compare arts and the ways they go about them.

No. The stances are identical to a huge number of styles, the variations as well. Stepping from one to the other is, likewise, pretty consistent from kung fu style to kung fu style, with the caveat that the older versions tended to use the wave generation we discussed before. Later styles seemed to turn their rear toe more forward than the older ones. Even the weight differences and arguments for them are common to a huge range of kung fu styles.


And as I pointed out, often enough the methods for each are different. I don't typically use the same mechanics when engaging at long range as I do when striking/defending at short range. Boxers are the same way. Just look at jabs and then short rang hooks or uppercuts - are you saying the mechanics and footwork are the same for these. Then look at slipping and bob & weave and compare that to how they employ a short range upper cut. Are they the same?

I wasn't saying they were the same, they train the mechanics that apply to what they are doing with the footwork, just like wing chun, only in their own format. That there are more than one set of mechanics just means they train those, as well.


No idea what you are talking about here.

You asked for a common courtesy, I agreed as long as I see it coming back. You asked if I meant something in regards to wing chun fighters that I never suggested, instead of waiting for the answer, you included how I should view things if that were the case. Just ask, I'd be happy to clarify.

[Faux Newbie]

Why do you feel the constant need to speak for other people? You really should 'stick' to your own conversations you have with people vs. trying to mediate what everyone else is talking about because I have no idea what you're going on about at this point. Thanks, but no thanks

It's really not so hard to admit you're wrong. You got all weird because he CLEARLY agreed with you, then got on him for not accepting someone agreeing, you got touchy about me, then called him sensitive. If others have to read that all day, it does become their business. You were wrong, man up.

And "I don't wanoo" is not an adult answer.

[Faux Newbie]

A number of people on this forum want to judge others and not have their conduct judged, and include insults in every thread, the results should be no surprise.

Back to the topic.

In relation to weightedness, this has little bearing. If one practitioner has 100-0 stance, 60-40, or 50-50. in order to move the lead foot forward, they automatically have to transition to 100-0, even if they are in free fall forward. How they manage this is fairly consistent across kung fu styles. This does not mean they are not each unique, but, for the most part, how they manage this is very consistent.

[JPinAZ]

No. The stances are identical to a huge number of styles, the variations as well. Stepping from one to the other is, likewise, pretty consistent from kung fu style to kung fu style, with the caveat that the older versions tended to use the wave generation we discussed before. Later styles seemed to turn their rear toe more forward than the older ones. Even the weight differences and arguments for them are common to a huge range of kung fu styles.

Ok, you once again jumped to another point we weren't even discussing. Now you are arguing stances, where just the last few posts I thought we talking footwork and power generation. Are you just taking a p!ss at this point?

To give you the benefit of the doubt before I bow out of the conversation (as this bouncing around of subjects is getting old):
So if I have this right, you are saying that WC stances are "identical" to a "huge" number other arts along?(along with WC footwork and power generation apparently)
What exactly do you base this opinion on?
Please, share with everyone here, beside your apparent good amount of understanding of WC you gained from sparring against your WC friend, how many other styles have you personally studied to base this (IMO narrow) view of WC and sooo many other arts on and also to tell me 'no' (that I am wrong)? You do realize how silly this sounds right? And you say this even after I took the time to point out very specific examples from both my personal WC experience/understanding as well as a non WC POV the many differences beyond basic generalities (which I noticed you totally passed right over and didn't include in your reply).

If this sounds a bit direct, it should because that is my intention. While I don't pretend to know everything about anything, and everyone is free to their own opinion, I do share my views based on many years experience in 2 WC lineages as well as boxing. What do you base yours on to tell me 'no' and imply I don't know what I'm talking about?

[Faux Newbie]

Ok, you once again jumped to another point we weren't even discussing. Now you are arguing stances, where just the last few posts I thought we talking footwork and power generation. I think you are just taking a p!ss at this point?

Stance work and footwork are intrinsically connected. This is common sense.


But to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time (as this is bouncing around is getting really old):
So now you are saying that, along with WC footwork and power generation, WC stances are the also basically "identical" to a "huge" number other arts along, with? What exactly do you base this opinion on? Please, feel free to share with everyone here how many styles have you personally studied along with your apparent good amount of understanding of WC you gained sparring against your WC friend, to base this view on and also tell me 'no' (that I am wrong). Even after I pointed out with specific examples from both my personal WC POV as well as a non WC POV the many differences beyond basic generalities. (which I noticed you totally passed right over and didn't include in your reply)

Those stances were not unique to wing chun. They simply are not. They are common stances. Provide pictures of unique wing chun stances, and I would be happy to change my assertion, but those simply are common stances. Don't worry, you're still a beautiful butterfly, it's just not because of unique stance work, but what you do with those stances.


If this sounds a bit direct, it should because that is my intention. While I don't pretend to know everything about anything, and everyone is free to their own opinion, I do share my views based on many years experience in 2 WC lineages as well as boxing. What do you base yours on to tell me 'no' and imply I don't know what I'm talking about?

Knowledge of three other kung fu styles, general knowledge of other kung fu styles that use the same stances.


** I'm going to ignore the rest of the non-topic remarks/post from you as I'm really not interested in debating that nonsense dribble with you. And frankly, I'm starting to get the impression you are beginning to troll at this point.

Not trolling, you expect to be treated a certain way that you don't treat others, no need to discuss that further, our opinions are clear.

[Faux Newbie]

The idea that a broad range of styles with the same common stances are each ignoring how the others transition from stance to stance and reinventing it is at odds with what appear to have been the norms before the modern age. And since then, the issues faced have been faced by all styles with those same transitions to make, and how they have dealt with it has influenced each other greatly.

[JPinAZ]

Ok, it needs addressing


..... If others have to read that all day, it does become their business........

And "I don't wanoo" is not an adult answer.

Don't like it, don't read it. No one asked you for your 2 cents and no one forced you to give it. It's only your business if your ego can't take not being part of every discussion and you make it so. Fact is, I think you get off on playing this weird WC forum cop gig you've taken on and really, it's a bit disturbing that you would act like this.

Now, if you don't like that adult answer, then here's the childish one - go f' yourself ;)

[Wayfaring]

The idea that a broad range of styles with the same common stances are each ignoring how the others transition from stance to stance and reinventing it is at odds with what appear to have been the norms before the modern age. And since then, the issues faced have been faced by all styles with those same transitions to make, and how they have dealt with it has influenced each other greatly.

I just ran that paragraph through a WTF meter, and all I got out of it was "there are many roads to reach your destination" :confused:

[Faux Newbie]

I just ran that paragraph through a WTF meter, and all I got out of it was "there are many roads to reach your destination" :confused:

So, do you think that all kung fu styles transition through predominantly the same stances in entirely unique ways that are not influenced by each other?

[Faux Newbie]

Ok, it needs addressing



Don't like it, don't read it. No one asked you for your 2 cents and no one forced you to give it. It's only your business if your ego can't take not being part of every discussion and you make it so. Fact is, I think you get off on playing this weird WC forum cop gig you've taken on and really, it's a bit disturbing that you would act like this.

Now, if you don't like that adult answer, then here's the childish one - go f' yourself ;)

If we're reading responses on content, there's no warning sign that someone has taken time YET AGAIN to include some old bs flame war.

[Wayfaring]

So, do you think that all kung fu styles transition through predominantly the same stances in entirely unique ways that are not influenced by each other?

Painting with a brush that takes one stroke per barn, are we?

My experience with kung fu styles, as well as other martial arts styles is that many styles associate a stance and a movement together as a single concept to train or an intertwined concept. While two arts' stances may appear outwardly similar, my experience is that many times the movement and power generation ideas associated with that stance are vastly different. Thus I would say yes, the stances themselves are different even though they may look similar because you can't really extract the position of the feet and arms from the movement to get to and from there.

[Faux Newbie]

Painting with a brush that takes one stroke per barn, are we?

My experience with kung fu styles, as well as other martial arts styles is that many styles associate a stance and a movement together as a single concept to train or an intertwined concept. While two arts' stances may appear outwardly similar, my experience is that many times the movement and power generation ideas associated with that stance are vastly different. Thus I would say yes, the stances themselves are different even though they may look similar because you can't really extract the position of the feet and arms from the movement to get to and from there.

Clear enough, and I can get what you mean in that context. I would suggest that that still leaves more similarities than differences, but I suppose that would be entirely situational to what the various limbs are doing for the move.

[Wayfaring]

Clear enough, and I can get what you mean in that context. I would suggest that that still leaves more similarities than differences, but I suppose that would be entirely situational to what the various limbs are doing for the move.

To me any similarity / difference conversation always has to be entered with a view to the level of detail discussing.

For example: "It's the same" 15,000 foot level

"No it's completely different" 5 foot level

"OK I see where you are coming from" somewhere around the 4500 foot level or varies.

[Faux Newbie]

To me any similarity / difference conversation always has to be entered with a view to the level of detail discussing.

For example: "It's the same" 15,000 foot level

"No it's completely different" 5 foot level

"OK I see where you are coming from" somewhere around the 4500 foot level or varies.

I've put some thought into your earlier post, and even within one style, two moves that may both begin rear weighted and end in bow, due to the different actions, express very differently overall. Much of the intermediate motion is often the same, but ultimately, yes, big differences, so "I see where you are coming from".

And the above post(yours) was an excellent way of putting it.

I still think there are a lot of commonalities, but clearly differences cannot simply be discounted as superficial if they change the overall expression.

[JPinAZ]

Those stances were not unique to wing chun. They simply are not. They are common stances. Provide pictures of unique wing chun stances, and I would be happy to change my assertion, but those simply are common stances. Don't worry, you're still a beautiful butterfly, it's just not because of unique stance work, but what you do with those stances.

I never once discussed stances with you. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote earlier, as I was talking specific HFY WC footwork and even took the time to name them. If you want to continue playing these silly word games go ahead. But I am starting to think you must just be trolling at this point, otherwise why do you keep changing the subject?


Knowledge of three other kung fu styles, general knowledge of other kung fu styles that use the same stances.

You have 'knowledge' of 3 styles?! what the he11 does that even mean? I have knowledge of a neighbor that just moved in down the street, but doesn't mean I know anything about them, or even their name.
I asked you about actual experience you base your opinions on to tell me 'no' I am wrong, and you speak of 'general knowledge' and can't even list one style/art? hahahaha.
Looks like the truth is, you don't have much real experience which you base your opinions on outside your one art. No wonder you can't stick with a normal conversation and keep playing word games.

Not trolling, you expect to be treated a certain way that you don't treat others, no need to discuss that further, our opinions are clear.

sorry, not buying the not trolling bit any more..

[Faux Newbie]

I never once mentioned a stance. I was talking specific HFY WC footwork, which you have no idea or experience of, which is why you are playing these silly word games. And I am sure of it now, you're just trolling at this point - and poorly at that.

Not trolling. I did a search on the terms you used (as I do not speak cantonese, I could not simply put the characters in Baidu), and the stances I saw were plenty familiar, though I did not see footage. However, since I already agreed with Wayfarer's point that the expression of it do to what the limbs do with create unique expressions, and thus stated that my original assertion was heavily overstated, this part of the conversation has moved on.


You have 'knowledge' of 3 styles?! what the he11 does that even mean? I have knowledge of a neighbor that just moved in down the street, but doesn't mean I know anything about them, or even their name.
I asked you about actual experience you base your opinions on to tell me 'no' I am wrong, and you speak of 'general knowledge' and can't even list one style/art? hahahaha.
Looks like the truth is, you don't have much real experience which you base your opinions on outside your one art. No wonder you can't stick with a normal conversation and keep playing word games.

Taixuquan is what I teach and is my primary art, my first kung fu style was longfist, and I have studied Chen style.


sorry, not buying the not trolling bit any more..

That's fine, though I'm not trolling, you may believe what you like.

[JPinAZ]

Not trolling. I did a search on the terms you used (as I do not speak cantonese, I could not simply put the characters in Baidu), and the stances I saw were plenty familiar, though I did not see footage..

LOL, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode

You asked me "If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. ", which I was gave a very detail reply here:http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67780-Wing-Chun-Power-Generation&p=1272016#post1272016
For you to reply 'No. The stances are identical to a huge number of styles, the variations as well' What part of my reply said anything about stances? If you didn't understand, you could have simply asked

You and a few others complained that 'we' don't want to share info about our art. But when I do, look how it's received. And you wonder why some people get frustrated around here..

[Faux Newbie]

LOL, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode

You asked me "If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. ", which I was gave a very detail reply here:http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67780-Wing-Chun-Power-Generation&p=1272016#post1272016
For you to reply 'No. The stances are identical to a huge number of styles, the variations as well' What part of my reply said anything about stances? If you didn't understand, you could have simply asked

You and a few others complained that 'we' don't want to share info about our art. But when I do, look how it's received. And you wonder why some people get frustrated around here..

1) I never complained that you don't want to share information about your art. I complained about people not reigning in their flame wars.

2) I already stated that I looked at still images, and thus did not inform myself enough.

You like to hide when you are wrong and point out when others are wrong, so I am hardly going to feel bad for a simple error on my part.

If you can't deal with miscommunications, that is your issue.

[KPM]

Okay, to make it simple.

What do readers feel is a reasonable range of time a practicing student might to need to transition from practicing stationary power generation to also practicing it with appropriate footwork?

I think it varies with the individual. I want to see a student getting the technique down as well as being balanced and controlled. Then the footwork can be added. Some students may take longer to get there than others. But generally its not long. I agree that adding the footwork can provide feedback to how the student is using the body for power generation. So we might start on the footwork, then back off for awhile and go back to doing it without the footwork to incorporate some of that feedback. Then get back to the footwork again. But in Pin Sun WCK, the short sets are practiced on the dummy almost right from the beginning. You can't work the dummy very well without footwork. So some basic footwork is incorporated right from the start.

[JPinAZ]

1) I never complained that you don't want to share information about your art. I complained about people not reigning in their flame wars.

Hmm. Didn't you join in on the discussion of the recent, now-deleted HFY thread by kff, pointing out how there were many posts and still no content from us HFY guys? I could have sworn you did..... but since it's not here any more, maybe I was wrong.


2) I already stated that I looked at still images, and thus did not inform myself enough.


I must have missed that, was this is it?
"However, since I already agreed with Wayfarer's point that the expression of it do to what the limbs do with create unique expressions, and thus stated that my original assertion was heavily overstated, this part of the conversation has moved on."

If so, my mistake - I honestly had a difficult time understanding what you were saying there.


If you can't deal with miscommunications, that is your issue.

I can deal with them fine, if I'm aware they are happening. Anyway, I'm over it let's move on.

But I do agree with you on one thing you said today, you are an arsehole. You fit in just fine around here ;)

[KPM]

The idea that a broad range of styles with the same common stances are each ignoring how the others transition from stance to stance and reinventing it is at odds with what appear to have been the norms before the modern age. And since then, the issues faced have been faced by all styles with those same transitions to make, and how they have dealt with it has influenced each other greatly.

WCK was not created in a vacuum or on a distant planet. How could it NOT share stances and footwork with other systems. And there are only so many ways a human body can move. So I agree with you. But it sure seems like this thread has a whole lot of "well....duuuuh!" type insights. ;)

[Faux Newbie]

WCK was not created in a vacuum or on a distant planet. How could it NOT share stances and footwork with other systems. And there are only so many ways a human body can move. So I agree with you. But it sure seems like this thread has a whole lot of "well....duuuuh!" type insights. ;)

I think most of the last bit was mostly about what quantifies footwork, so yeah, a bit on the obvious side. Still, the devil is in the details sometimes.

[PalmStriker]

:)
well if it doesn't then perhaps you could do your job and just remove the offending posts rather than delete the entire thread? Yeah, it is more time consuming but i and others have already offered to help out with respects to moderating these boards. Ironically, your post above is off topic and has solicited my equally off topic reply to you. no soliciting.

[Hendrik]

I think you guys just make things too complicated


IMHO,

Footwork or no foot work the basic elements are :


1. Hitting or issuing force flow

2. Source of power, ground coupling , transportation direction , and target.

3. Action and reaction force .


Unless one address all of these basic handling, getting into foot work is just confuse the issue.
Stance doesn't tell the above basic either if one don't know these basic elements clearly.
Doesn't know these basic element clearly just mean one is default into ones own intrinsic . And god knows what is that because every person is born different.

Even worst if one getting into long fist ar or short strike art. Without the above basic elements sort out, jump into stance and footwork it is a mess

[GlennR]

I think you guys just make things too complicated





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! **** me, ive never laughed so hard!!!

[zuti car]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! **** me, ive never laughed so hard!!!

I almost fell off the chair

[Paddington]

Says the guy that has to refrain from commenting so it isn't riddled it with expletives... Just because you don't say what you are really thinking doesn't mean the intent doesn't come thru loud and clear when you finally post. [...]


Fair enough, I'll PM you instead of posting in this thread.

[BPWT..]

In our training we start things quite early. For example, footwork and hand motions are taught together from the beginning, and we often use chest protectors during set drills so that we can become familiar with hitting a 'human' target with some force. When you start out, your power generation and its use is bad, as is the correct distancing, timing, etc, as people aren't used to co-ordinating all of these things together. So lots of training is required :D

We also train power stationary too, on the wall bag, and work stepping with striking on the heavy bag. Sometimes we do pad work too - which really shows you your problems (you moving, the other guy moving, while you're trying to a: hit the target, b: do so with good force).

Once we get to Chi Sau training then its about controlling the power when things are happening quickly. In the Lat Sau training things can get rougher, as there's more momentum involved. One thing overlooked, IMO, is learning to let go of fear. It's hard to train power with a training partner if you're in fear of getting hit (everyone is so, when they start).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since western boxing was mentioned:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-techniques/body-movement/joint-strength-and-punching-power

Its a really good site that may also teach some people here HOW to discuss things because you will note that he not only discusses things openly BUT also SHOWS and DEMOS them and even links to videos to demonstrate his points.

[Hendrik]

IMHO, Wck has the seven bows training.
As in the issue 18 of Wing chun illustrated , article by sifu Robert Chu



Since western boxing was mentioned:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-techniques/body-movement/joint-strength-and-punching-power

Its a really good site that may also teach some people here HOW to discuss things because you will note that he not only discusses things openly BUT also SHOWS and DEMOS them and even links to videos to demonstrate his points.

[Faux Newbie]

In our training we start things quite early. For example, footwork and hand motions are taught together from the beginning, and we often use chest protectors during set drills so that we can become familiar with hitting a 'human' target with some force. When you start out, your power generation and its use is bad, as is the correct distancing, timing, etc, as people aren't used to co-ordinating all of these things together. So lots of training is required :D

We also train power stationary too, on the wall bag, and work stepping with striking on the heavy bag. Sometimes we do pad work too - which really shows you your problems (you moving, the other guy moving, while you're trying to a: hit the target, b: do so with good force).

Once we get to Chi Sau training then its about controlling the power when things are happening quickly. In the Lat Sau training things can get rougher, as there's more momentum involved. One thing overlooked, IMO, is learning to let go of fear. It's hard to train power with a training partner if you're in fear of getting hit (everyone is so, when they start).

I think this would describe most training experiences. Unless one is just working on stationary gongs for power generation and training nothing else (which no one really does in the modern age), or unless they are working on those and then working footwork, hand techniques, etc, without ANY power, they are already doing the things that require what the moving gongs are trying to teach, so, like in what you describe, earlier is better, because they are going to do things wrong anyway, may as well catch the errors early and give them more time to experience what they are doing. It seems like almost everyone agrees on this, not saying anything new here, mostly just agreeing.

[Vajramusti]

IMHO, Wck has the seven bows training.
As in the issue 18 of Wing chun illustrated , article by sifu Robert Chu----------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

You have mentioned this before. Now you insert it in a spamming way after sanjuro's post
on how to discuss.

[sanjuro_ronin]

----------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

You have mentioned this before. Now you insert it in a spamming way after sanjuro's post
on how to discuss.

I am surprised by your surprise.

[Vajramusti]

I am surprised by your surprise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not surprised at all.

[Wayfaring]

I am surprised by your surprise.

And I am surprised by your surprise at his surprise. :D

Can we stop now?

[GlennR]

And I am surprised by your surprise at his surprise. :D

Can we stop now?

Mmmmmmmmm........ surprising