Wing Chun Stance Flawed

[judge88]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

[AdrianK]

I think stance is one of those things that should be naturally expressed.

Of course, only after understanding stance.

YGKYM serves as a section of knowledge on stance, and thus should not be removed from the system, but I agree that it has several flaws.

I don't use the stance personally, but I utilize the concepts it demonstrates.

[TenTigers]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

I take it, you don't actually study WCK....?

[sihing]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

The YJKYMA as done in SNT is a training stance. In YJKYMA each foot is representing the back foot of that particular side forward stance (e.g. left foot in YJKYMA is back foot when right leg is forward). The back foot/leg is the engine and connecton to the ground, which is generating the power you will need in your footwork, strikes, helping actions, etc..

Rather than using a specified # to classify weighting in a stance (50/50 or 0/100 weighting), I like to use the word balance. When I am practicing alone my balance is "50/50" since there is no force being applied against me, unless I engage in Mok Jong practice. When force is applied to your stance then you must balance yourself by applying body structure to accept the force that is coming into your body, this will automatically change the weighting in your stance to something that provides the proper counter balance to the force coming into you, as well as using footwork to secure a superior position. When using the entire body to generate force in your strikes you cannot have a 50/50 weighting, as you then are not using the ground as a power base.

Fighting square or with no front stance is something I used to do when I practiced TWC, and it can work in some situations. It allows you access to all your weapons, and really only gives you one side facing the opponent, the front side. This type of stance is only used while outside kicking range (or the pre contact stage of combat), as it does not facilate good forward/backward movement for chasing or retreating, but it is a good stance for avoiding takedowns, and "cutting off the ring" persay. Just before contact range is established one can enter into a more aggressive frontal stance to begin the attack.

These are some of the concepts behind using the YJKYMA practically.

James

[Pacman]

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

IMO the 50 / 50 weight distribution allows for the most mobility. a boxer or karate type lead off stance is like a car with a long wheelbase --the most immobile.

when i first started, my legs were not strong enough and thus it was very hard to move, but later as my legs got stronger i saw how i could be very mobile.

50/50 weight distribution also allows for shifting of weight from side to side which is how WC punches are thrown. weight is not shifted like in boxing.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

the problem with a sideways body is that you are already handicapping yourself. two of your weapons (rear arm and rear leg) will already by "shorter" than the other. although being sideways your body might seem smaller to the front, you have the other sides of your body exposed and if you think about it, blocking will be harder because you really only have one arm to use.

[k gledhill]

here we go again...

The basic stance is adopted for 'drilling' purposes...an equally weighted and positioned stance to do 'drill's from.

The inward turned toes develop stability in the HIP JOINT , try standing with a lead leg toes turned out and have someone lightly push you from the side, ...then turn your toes inward....

We fight by facing the attacker in a preliminary face off with a side stance, it can be left /right...moving wherever it is required , fluid not rigid like your a statue.

The reasons for this are the techniques /tactics/concepts guiding what we have spent all our time training in 'drills'.

If you are delivering a line of force [punch/grab/kick etc...] randomly from either side of your body I cant have a pre-rehearsed response ready...so I have spent untold amount of time doing 'drills' from a BASIC stance that I move OUT OF and into angling structures, moving attacking entries, responding to random attacking and counter attacking , with a 'drilling partner'

We both need a BASIC STANCE to START FROM as we DRILL the random entry and angling responses to random attacks etc...for each others benefit. We call this 'drill'
Chi-sao.

In chi-sao one of the main drills we practice is mutual entry and counter to randomy delivered strikes/entry etc...so we can each train to respond naturally to a side of the persons entry...example Im in a basic stance so is my partner...we are both going to [in stages] sep in and try to exchange force to develop each others striking ability , ability to endure an aggressive entry without collapsing our counter attacking structure...this can be arm /shoulder connection, hips feet positions , balance..and more...under random delivery and reacting to by angling offside the given strike/step entry we can start to be fluid in our fighting ....by responding naturally to move and flank offside the 2 arms potential to work on us from the attacker/partner...If I adopt a lead leg it is obvious what it inhibits in the 'drill'...seung ma - toi ma

Because we both dont know what side is going to come at us from one second to the next we adopt a stance that allows equal ability to move left or right or step in left or right ...add the distance of a face off doing side stances and you can see the development stages to FIGHTING...

very important stage of training to be able to move and attack in close quarters wile fluidly adopting stances from the attackers actions...

Yip Man, " the attacker will show you what to do "

We dont do chi-sao 'drills' when we fight , so we dont adopt a BASIC DRILLING STANCE.

We now have an additional space & time before us and our attacker, within this space and time , we need to react fluidly and thoughtlessly , intrinsically adopting facing angles while ATTACKING the attacker with immediate counterattacks to their randomly delivered 'line of force'

We use a lateral shifting and angling entry that cannot be done correctly from an inwardly turned basic stance, not meant to be , redundant 'drilling' position for forms etc...

Sadly the system is in the hands of those who dont know and cant go back and say ooops 'my bad' because they have spent their lives trying to make it work another way sad really...

leading to the waddling forward in my drilling stance responses. The Im not going to move from my superman stance and deliver magic bullets all day ! waddle waddle waddle , who waddles ?

TWC is similar to WSL methods in blindsiding / flanking

The knives give a clear and unarguable rational for NOT adopting a static basic 'drilling' stance when facing an equally armed opponent or partner .

Your percentage for survivaal of a 'water fight' go way down...your standing in a kill zone with 2 razor sharp blades wildly swinging around you...where do you think you want to be and are you waddling around back and forth in a basic stance ?

I would venture that if you faced any sharp object being stuck at you , you would want to be highly mobile , fluid and try to counter the leading off-side of the person trying to kill you ...by adopting this simple idea to bare hands you are also minimizing your attackers repetoire for training on hitting hanging bags that dont move ...


Your right though, the basic ygkym stance is flawed for 'fighting' because its for vt practitioners to do 'drills' from...turning , shifting, starting equally in front of a partner who will step into them attacking with either leg/arm in chi-sao...we then train to angle off [toi ma] and check our positions, stance, balance etc..impact force , counter attacking strikes to the attacking entry strikes tan versus jum .but thats another thread

btw we dont adopt a lead leg until we are entering from a side/flank...no back and forth lead leg work , this allows thai low kicking easy targets, and commits you a line of entry before you even know what side to enter from....another thing we dont do..no leading leg pre-fight stance.

We dont use 2 extended arms in a basic stance waddling from the basic stance...

Theres a lot of redundancy in the system of 'drills' ...

reading your post you reference being 'square', this tactic allowsa vt practitioner to use 2 arms in rotation against one leading arm....each arm is trained equally in basic facing square drills so we can develop each side so it has the same ability to face the entry from an attackers left or right sides....
or the attacker turns before us repeatedly during an exchange...from the square facing drills, we learn to shift at angles while staying with and delivering a barrage of strikes and force to carry our attack intent to an end....
Where the guy goes as we attack them is unknown so we have to have stances to shift alongside, offside facing as if they where sliding along a wall behind them...fron attackin stance to dopt when we are entering their side having turned them..but still able to change directions and face another fighter , for facing multiple attacks it works seamlessly, Ive used it against multiple attackers on numerous occasions ...my point is that it worked to face random entry from guys I didnt know would come first..rather than their skill levels [ thats for terence ; ) ]

[Vajramusti]

Get thee good instruction on the stance. The stance is quite unique when done and practiced right.

When properly done it's for development of key wing chun attributes. Unfortunately many folks including many badly taught so called wing chun people don't understand it and easily slide into
doing something that is not wing chun.


joy chaudhuri

[Phil Redmond]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.
. . . . .

You obviously don't study WC. That stance is not for fighting. It's to train your stance while you learn to apply the hand positions. There are other fighting stances in WC. Also, not all WC people use a pigeon toed stance.

[taojkd]

Obviously you have studied some WCK and found it to be flawed. I did also, but let me express what I got out of the stance.

1.Mobility
The stance is designed so you can "pinch" the ground with your legs using adduction to grip the ground. This doesnt mean you need to be death gripping the ground with every step like you see in most youtube vids of people "using" WCK. Its designed so that in a terrain where you could slip easily (wet grass, snow), you can use your same boxing footwork without having to change to a lower stance. So you can be as light on your feet as you need to be to keep your balance and use the adduction stance when appropriately.

2.
Even weight is not good. I have seen different WCK people do different weight. I personally like the 0/100 from a front stance. MT also uses this to deliver faster front kicks and it seems to work just fine for them too.

3.
Square target but without one foot forward you are actually a little ****her away from opponent. He needs to step in deeper to connect with his kicks/punches. It allows you see your opponents attacks from a half/full step. Obviously some practice with distance drills is necessary to make this happen. Some MT systems use the same square stance. This allows you to zone to the opponents outside and counter attack from a more safer angle. And you can front kick with either leg. I've gotten teep'd to hell with a guy who could set up those front kicks of either leg. He peppered the crap out of my liver/abs

Advice:
Find a decent WCK instructor that can spar somewhat. Then find a decent MT school and see who they make it work in the ring/mma. WCK has decent theory, but most don't fight enough.

[lkfmdc]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!

a boxer or karate type lead off stance is like a car with a long wheelbase --the most immobile.

Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility?

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

[Vajramusti]

A boxer has plenty of mobility.

Trolls attract responses from gabby folks.

joy chaudhuri

[couch]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!



Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility?

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

I concur. I actually thought that just about everyone was responding to the troll quite adequately other than this 'boxing' remark.

Stance = drilling purposes.

Combat/Sparring = my natural self-expression.

A boxer has plenty of mobility.

Trolls attract responses from gabby folks.

joy chaudhuri

Sometimes I just wish our forum had a 'Like' or 'Thumbs Up' button like Facebook. I would give Joy's post a "Thumbs Up.'

[monji112000]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

why are you taking the stance literally out of the form? its an "idea" not an un-flexible law. You do not have to be square and neutral to use the stance's ideas. The idea of a pigeon toe when doing the form is for many reasons, one being to hint at the foot work. The second is when you are in a shifted horse (more of a normal fighting stance), to be at a 45 angle. Its like you read a passage from the bible about G-d's hand, and you literally believe that its talking about a hand. Your trying to figure out how many fingers and what the hair on the hand looks like... your missing the whole picture.

if it doesn't seem to be logical your messing something up.

[punchdrunk]

You know he brings up a funny point... how many Wing Chun people try to fight or spar the way SNT looks? Or the way they do punching drills at that level? Lots of instructors do it in videos or articles, you know trying to have "perfect" posture, stance, structure whatever... and it is so far from reality. Truth is not many people get past that level because not many have experience outside of forms and drills to know something is wrong.

[stonecrusher69]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

Who said the YJKYM was used for fighting? of course it does not work.It's only good as training stance when yoiu fight you have to move.