Wing chun footwork, is it mobile enough?

[SAAMAG]

Although many things are relative depending upon the situation... generally speaking, do you all think that the wing chun footwork is "mobile" enough for fighting in it's totality?

I've noticed a lot of different variances from one wing chun system to the next as far as placement of the feet, direction of the feet, weight distribution on the feet, and whether or not to be on the heels or if it's okay to be on the balls of the feet at times during an encounter.

What's your take on it?

[45degree fist]

everyone is gonna give you there take on whats right and whats wrong.
but plain and simple if you train at doing something a certain way your gonna get good at that method.

whether it is right or wrong is a different story.

my personal opinion about mobility in wing chun is that your training and training to fight at a certain range. different fams have different ranges. once you leave what you know is when you get in trouble.

but alot of stances are not very mobile.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Van:

Footwork and mobility...especially from a longer than just-outside-of-contact-range distance...has always been a big sticking point (no pun intended) in the modern WC world.

Some styles are clearly more up-to-date and mobile than others.

[KingMonkey]

I believe that 50/50 on the toes footwork is the best. Some WC lineages train that way TWC maybe ?
A lot dont, I was initially taught 0/100% weighting.
Trying to move around like that is just plain silly.

[sihing]

50/50 with the weight centered on the foot is recommended. ON the toes would mean your leaning too much and can be off balanced easier.

Mobility is key to success in combat/self defense, a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. But efficient movement that is more precise and only enough movement to get the job done is not as easy to learn and requires patients & consistent effort in learning to apply it successfully.

James

[Jeff Bussey]

So does anyone have any good stepping drills that they use to improve mobility?
I did a tiny bit of boxing and in the stance, our heel was lifted on our back foot to give a forward spring. We definitely had weight on the front foot and pretty close to a 50 / 50 stance.
It was pretty mobile.

J

[sihing]

In my system, we have the opponent’s foot and knee down the center of our stance. Now one of the drills we do is a simple one, follow your partner around as he tries to circle you or moves left to right, all the while keeping the original alignment mentioned above. We always try to cut off the opponent and never circle around like boxers, basically "cutting off the ring" to use a boxing analogy. For more advanced students when the partner tries to flank us and we can't recover but he is in range a pseudo entry, or entry technique would be used to begin the attack.

James

[yellowpikachu]

Until the power generation, the power delivering execution, and the foot work become one. most of the time is an unsatisfactory mobility.

Thus, one needs an MDX 4 wheel drive (joking)

My two cents.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jeff:

Besides keeping the weight 50/50...when you move forward - don't drag the feet. Lift them..and practice drilling so as to land on the balls of your feet first and then let the heels come to the floor. Nothing dramatic - just a slight lift of the heel off the floor when stepping - so that the balls of the feet land first.

Your mobility will greatly improve. That's a big part of what's taught in TWC.

[SAAMAG]

Honestly, I see where the theory of keeping the heels on the ground comes from. You're more rooted, it facilitates all the wing chun movements as far as turning, sidestepping, bracing stances etc. But just as walking is to running, one is faster then the other.

In all my experience in martial arts, regardless of style, faster stepping and movements were on the balls of the feet. Forward shooting stances, back shuffles, sidestepping, all of it. I was a bit suprised honestly when I was first introduced to wing chun and found the stepping and stancework to be only on the flat feet. Now...years later, I find myself still altering the footwork a little bit to accomodate my needs. The core rules still apply, but there are times when I feel using the calf muscle by springing off the ball of the foot seems more appropriate. It works better for me anyway. Almost like going from heel and rolling the foot off for the "spring action" and then landing on the balls and onto the heels. Heels for stability, and balls of the feet more mobility.

This may be what Ultimate is talking about...but the info could be getting misinterpreted.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Besides keeping the weight 50/50...when you move forward - don't drag the feet. Lift them..and practice drilling so as to land on the balls of your feet first and then let the heels come to the floor.

Victor,
In TWC, Is this principle of landing on the ball of the foot first, the same short and long steps? Just curious.......

Thanks,

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by 45degree fist
my personal opinion about mobility in wing chun is that your training and training to fight at a certain range. different fams have different ranges. once you leave what you know is when you get in trouble.

Ranges have a definate affect on stance/footwork, IMO. At long range it's better to be on the balls of the feet and have a 50/50 distribution, this is much better for mobility. When in close range it is better to be on the heels for grounding and power and weighted more to the rear for ease of kicking/chi gurk.

Also, once you have attained a degree of skill, it's ok to leave (or venture forth from) what you know for the sake of improving it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Now...years later, I find myself still altering the footwork a little bit to accomodate my needs. The core rules still apply, but there are times when I feel using the calf muscle by springing off the ball of the foot seems more appropriate. It works better for me anyway. Almost like going from heel and rolling the foot off for the "spring action" and then landing on the balls and onto the heels. Heels for stability, and balls of the feet more mobility.

This may be what Ultimate is talking about...but the info could be getting misinterpreted."


That's exactly what I mean, Van.

And Bill - good question...and AmanuJRY provided most of the answer:

The smaller the steps needed - the closer you are to the opponent - so landing flat will provide more rooted power...the longer the step required - the more landing on the ball first provides greater speed and mobility.

Like he said:

"At long range it's better to be on the balls of the feet and have a 50/50 distribution, this is much better for mobility. When in close range it is better to be on the heels for grounding and power."

But I don't agree about having the weight on the back foot when close (can needlessly slow you down)...I only advocate the weight on the back foot when you're going to kick off the front leg - with just a few exceptions (certain scenarios may require it).

And therefore I wouldn't say have the weight on the heels when close - just move flat when very close.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
But I don't agree about having the weight on the back foot when close (can needlessly slow you down)...I only advocate the weight on the back foot when you're going to kick off the front leg - with just a few exceptions (certain scenarios may require it).

My view on that is when I'm in close range, I like to use my front leg/foot a lot. Whether it's kicking, kneeing or just being used as a 'man gurk' to sense my opponent's stance and destroy it. So, in using my front leg in close range, I use a more rearward stance.

as kj would say, milage may vary.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The smaller the steps needed - the closer you are to the opponent - so landing flat will provide more rooted power...the longer the step required - the more landing on the ball first provides greater speed and mobility.

Victor,
I just wanted to know if TWC had a different theory. Thanks for the detailed response.