Boztepe's Hotel Workout

[Neo]

People have enquired about Sifu Emin Boztepe's hotel workout he undertakes, while travelling on the seminars. Here it is:

The 'Hotel Workout' circuit as described by Sifu Emin:

Max time: 10-12 minutes. (i.e. non-stop end-to-end, but expect to take 15
min)

A) 1 x 50 squats with chain punches, non-stop. (You could vary the width of
your stance for each set).
* NO BREAK! *
B) 1 x 30 push-ups. (You could vary the position of your hands for each
set).
* NO BREAK! *
C) 1 x 30(?) sit-ups with chain punches.
* NO BREAK! *
D) 1 x 30(?) Out Falling-step. Like karate stance. Bend knees, go down,
jump up & switch legs. With chain-punches
* NO BREAK! *
E) 50 x rolls with abdominal wheel.

NB: Repeat A to E three times.

This is just his maintenance routine - those that know him will know what his serious training involves - not bad for a 42 year old!

[jesper]

During, my friend

[red5angel]

What happened to the soft approach? the 'girl hands' of wing chun?

[gnugear]

IHMO I've found that pushups do more harm than good (for me). They make my shoulders tense and I can't feel as much. I can see how the squats would be good for your stance though.

Sounds like he's doing the routine to keep up his soloflex physique

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by red5angel
What happened to the soft approach? the 'girl hands' of wing chun?

There are a lot of different approaches to Wing Chun. William Chueng is another example of a leading practioner who was rather buff in his prime. That's one of the reasons why I love Wing Chun - it is good for the hard, and good for the soft. I have been focusing on the hard more than the soft, made great advances in my fighting ability, and now what? I have a well of soft aspects to explore, that's what.

I think we can also take a page from the other CMA classics: To have power, you must have Jing (energy) and Li (muscular force). Well, I'll go look in my Hsing-Yi book so I can get that quote right, but the point is that power generation IS partially dependent on your physical strength. It is not the MOST important component, but it is still important.

That said, suppleness also helps you to generate power, so the idea is to increase your physical strength, without decreasing suppleness.

-FJ

[red5angel]

"so the idea is to increase your physical strength, "

I have to disagree with this here, you shouldnt rely on your strength really, you should be able to get the job done relying on structure precision and good root. notice they have a high stance, that tells me shallow root, and hence the need to compensate.

[fa_jing]

So Red5Angel, where does the saying "bigger, stronger, same style, hard to defeat" come from? It is popular in the Kung Fu world--I read that in GM Leung Ting's book, although admittedly, he states that he saw a problem with that. After all, the most famous master of recent times, Yip Man, had no problem defeating practicioners twice his size.

Well, let me get further into it: I see body development in WC with a parallel to NBA basketball players. Before weight training became really popular, NBA players looked down on it. After all, isn't quickness the most valuable attribute in Basketball? And how much upper body development do you need to shoot a ball? But nowdays, weight training is essential for most NBA players. Why? Because of the incidental contact, the bumping, etc. And people realized that you could increase strength, at least to a degree, without compromising suppleness and speed. I see things the same way in Wing Chun - you can more easily move your opponent, and you are harder to be moved. You can take more punishment. You can hit harder.

What you said is technically true--you shouldn't RELY on muscular strength, you'll never learn to move, hit, or stand correctly within our framework. But, that doesn't mean it won't offer you some advantage IF you train WC correctly. And again, you shouldn't compromise suppleness or range of movement with your strength training. That's why I focus on bodyweight exercises, calesthenics, Chinese Kung Fu training methods, etc. to increase my strength. Also worth pointing out - my sifu says "you have to balance the Yin with the Yang." So if you're already big and strong, like my Sifu, you need to work on suppleness and being light on your feet. If, on the other hand, you are like me - naturally on the skinny side, you need to work on increasing strength. Your overall fitness and conditioning has a lot to do with your fighting prowess - Bruce Lee was right, although he was basing his perception primarily from what he observed from other arts. It is true that Wing Chun, and some other arts, rely comparitively less on muscular strength.

-FJ

[S.Teebas]

notice they have a high stance, that tells me shallow root, and hence the need to compensate.

Just becasue your stance isnt sunk as deep as some, doesnt mean it has no root or is using excess muscle to be effective. Root, as you call it, is about connection and stability.

[kungfu cowboy]

Sure, but I think that the lower the stance that you can hold with real ease together with the lower your center of gravity is,which will provide you with a stronger base, thus improving by degrees the effiency and structure of the stance as you go lower. In short it is a good stance at almost any height, but gets stronger as you go lower.

[S.Teebas]

Stonger base for what?..power? I assure you that you can develop knockout power from a stance that isnt sunk so deeply.

Efficent?..in what way? movement? I feel my the joints to be more free ..not to mention the ability to generate more force through the ability to move my mass in a natural way (freedom of movement thus giving the ability to accelerate efficently)

Im not saying the way i do things is the best for everyone, but its some thoughts from another point of view!

[kungfu cowboy]

Hmm. I was trying to make an unbiased statement about mechanical phenomena. Maybe I am making too broad a generalization here. I don't really feel that any gain will be in the "Wow, I have noticable superpowers now!" category. Just based on my personal imperfect learning about how stuff works, it seems in general this would be true, although the degree would be relatively small compared to absolute terms.

But I do think in each case that the slightly lower stance, all other things being equal would be a little more structurally sound.

Of course, this is not taking into consideration what is on top of that base. I think that good hands can win out over stance in certain situations, depending on skill level.

[kungfu cowboy]

I guess I was thinking of power and efficiency in terms of simplistic energy expenditure.

The lowering stance would be more powerful simply due to how it is increasingly harder to unbalance something the larger its base (in relation to the variable height) is, and the lower its center of gravity. Or maybe that it requires increasingly more power to unbalance you.

Efficient in terms of the decreasing amount of force you would require to maintain your balance against force as you become comfortable in an increasingly lower stance.

Also, I am thinking about these things occuring in an abstract and idealized situation, where there is no breathable atmosphere, and it's William Shatner against William Shatner.

[kungfu cowboy]

And I meant in a world where both William Shatners are anti- William Shatner.

[planetwc]

The other VERY important thing to note is...

You may not see someone in a deep stance if they don't need to use it against the person they are "engaged" with.

The real thing to observe is, if the stance is high or with no sinking is the person not rising up to deal with the opponent?
Or are their movements still settled?

Does the person who is demonstrating the approach, look to be focused around upper body strength, wobbly center of gravity (waist) or rising up as if to climb up on their opponent?

The stance development is there for when you need it. I think the higher your skill the less you need to go "deep" for lesser hands. Yet if you don't have that skill in your pocket and encounter someone you need it for, THAT is when the trouble can come in.

That said, if you would see video of me, I should be in a low stance, cause...

I need it. When I'm not there, my legs are tired from being that low or I'm being lazy.

Originally posted by S.Teebas


Just becasue your stance isnt sunk as deep as some, doesnt mean it has no root or is using excess muscle to be effective. Root, as you call it, is about connection and stability.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by red5angel
"so the idea is to increase your physical strength, "

I have to disagree with this here, you shouldnt rely on your strength really, you should be able to get the job done relying on structure precision and good root. notice they have a high stance, that tells me shallow root, and hence the need to compensate.

Hi Red5Angel,

Insightful. Superior upper body strength is not required, or a woman or small or slender man would generally be unable to do it against a (usually) more muscled man. Just like men, women can learn to harness real power in Wing Chun.

Cowboy, with enough time and effort, you will be in the "Wow, I have noticable superpowers now!" category. Yip Man had this kind of power; Leung Sheung had it, Ken Chung has it, and a handful of Taiji masters have it.

We might find some people able to generate a knock-out punch without training structure and root, but for anyone willing to put in the time, they can get that much power and more. Conversely, if they follow the Sifu Emin Boeztepe example, they may never achieve the ability if they don't have his strength, or they may lose the ability as they age.

Cheers,