for Terence...

[t_niehoff]

I did not say "rotation". I referred to using "hip action", which is not the same as rotation.

The horse analogy is both good and bad. If you are using a galloping horse (I'm referring to the animal here) then you have that power to drive the opponent off their horse. So the knight does not need to generate any power from his hips since the animal is doing that for him. Also, in the joust, the knights are on 2 different lines, they must angle off to ensure that the lance is on-target. If they remained perfectly square to their line of approach they would just run past each other. Not exactly the expected result.

But we DO have a horse (ma=horse).

You are taking the analogy beyond -- with angles, etc. -- what I was using it to illustrate (power).

When we hit, we hit with our center (think of it as a solid vertical beam or column of mass in our bodies), so that we strike, we actually are hitting with that beam/column into the opponent's vertical beam with our arm simply acting a a conduit (like the lance in the jousting analogy or the stiff-arm in football). It's not the arm that powers it, and hip rotation doesn't strike with your center but rotates around it. If you grasp this way of striking, you see why functionally we punch in the center, why the punch is straight (nothing to do with the shortest distance crap),why the elbow is down, why the fist is vertical, etc. And, you'll see why it's nothing like what a boxer or kickboxer does.

However, our horse must drive the punch from the ground up. I mentioned shifting and stepping too, since I interpreted your previous post as saying we stand in a YJKYM stance all the time including drill and chi sao. Since the opponent may move then we must be able to respond to that. Or, I may want to take a new line, depending on the situation - this may require a shift or footwork. I was not talking specifically about the punch. So that's my fault if I went off on a bit of a tangent.

Yes, the hip is involved but the power doesn't come from the hip but from our center driving into our opponent (we can't move without involving the hip). The body (our center) is the hammer and our arm the nail.

From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" but a horse, a way of using our body. You can step, turn, etc. and still use YJKYM. YJKYM is the hammer.

[k gledhill]

I did not say "rotation". I referred to using "hip action", which is not the same as rotation.

The horse analogy is both good and bad. If you are using a galloping horse (I'm referring to the animal here) then you have that power to drive the opponent off their horse. So the knight does not need to generate any power from his hips since the animal is doing that for him. Also, in the joust, the knights are on 2 different lines, they must angle off to ensure that the lance is on-target. If they remained perfectly square to their line of approach they would just run past each other. Not exactly the expected result.

However, our horse must drive the punch from the ground up. I mentioned shifting and stepping too, since I interpreted your previous post as saying we stand in a YJKYM stance all the time including drill and chi sao. Since the opponent may move then we must be able to respond to that. Or, I may want to take a new line, depending on the situation - this may require a shift or footwork. I was not talking specifically about the punch. So that's my fault if I went off on a bit of a tangent.

your bang on correct..hip action. major part of the system. the horse analogy is good and bad yes ; ) but conveys the point....we should say quarter horse that can cut out individuals from the herd...turn on a dime etc... galloping in one direction is a harder line of force to stop and re-direct...
something we try to avoid obviously.

what terence doesnt grasp is the subtlety of the arm actions in close quarters working this idea at full speed, attacking someone, not trying to 'control' them... you can explain it but its easier hands on to understand what your going through when its doen to you....over pretty quick.


and as for the hip and elbow connection in chum kil this for power generation from nothing..to sudden explosive energy bursts that are matched through form repetition...not elbow then hip or vice versa..together. Add arm actions and you harness this. hard to do in the drills takes focused trial and error.
Momentum is largely focused on as well...by being static we lose momentum and any efficient use of parry and strike in simultaneous actions...

Terence cant see this because hes following a different line of thought. Just because he cant see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist...: )

[t_niehoff]

You still dont get it....

Oh, I know what you are talking about -- but it's complete and utter nonsense.

[k gledhill]

Oh, I know what you are talking about -- but it's complete and utter nonsense.

you mean doing vt for years and ending up in a dirty clinch makes sense to you ?


I rest my case, terence is delusional.

[YungChun]

you mean doing vt for years and ending up in a dirty clinch makes sense to you ?


I rest my case, terence is delusional.

Well considering his sex addiction T constantly finding himself in a "dirty clinch" actually makes a lot of sense..

You are what you eat after all.. LOL

[Matrix]

But we DO have a horse (ma=horse).

T. I know we have a horse. C'mon give me a break. I was just saying that in your analogy the horse is a separate entity from the rider. But the analogy is valid none the less.

You are taking the analogy beyond -- with angles, etc. -- what I was using it to illustrate (power).

I could be. The problem with an anology is that it is only analgous to a point, after which it can go astray. Sorry about that.

When we hit, we hit with our center (think of it as a solid vertical beam or column of mass in our bodies), so that we strike, we actually are hitting with that beam/column into the opponent's vertical beam with our arm simply acting a a conduit (like the lance in the jousting analogy or the stiff-arm in football). It's not the arm that powers it, and hip rotation doesn't strike with your center but rotates around it. If you grasp this way of striking, you see why functionally we punch in the center, why the punch is straight (nothing to do with the shortest distance crap),why the elbow is down, why the fist is vertical, etc. And, you'll see why it's nothing like what a boxer or kickboxer does.

Yes, the center-of mass. But since we are moving around this center of mass, it is the hip that transfers the power to the strike from the COM.

I'm increasingly getting the sense that we're saying pretty much the same thing, but we're each emphasizing different parts of the mechanics. For me the center of mass is there, and we move around the COM. I think of the hip to bring the whole body into the strike, but that's me. I'm a little crazy that way.

Yes, the hip is involved but the power doesn't come from the hip but from our center driving into our opponent (we can't move without involving the hip). The body (our center) is the hammer and our arm the nail.

You cannot move without moving the hip, of course. The key is, WHEN to move it, or end that movement, relative the strike. So it's a timing issue. I would say our whole body is the hammer, using your terminology. If you're stepping, or using hip action, then it must be timed so the whole body arrives in concert with the strike landing on the opponent.

From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" but a horse, a way of using our body. You can step, turn, etc. and still use YJKYM. YJKYM is the hammer.

OK. If you're making that distinction I'm following you. I've always thought of YJKYM is a stance and fairly static. Once you move it's a variation of YJKYM, but I just see it as a different thing. If you asked someone to show you YJKYM, there is a high probablity that they will go into that stance. But then again, that shouldn't limit an individual's point of view.

[t_niehoff]

T. I know we have a horse. C'mon give me a break. I was just saying that in your analogy the horse is a separate entity from the rider. But the analogy is valid none the less.

I could be. The problem with an anology is that it is only analgous to a point, after which it can go astray. Sorry about that.

No problem.

Yes, the center-of mass. But since we are moving around this center of mass, it is the hip that transfers the power to the strike from the COM.

I'm not sure I follow you. We are not moving around this center of mass, we are moving this center of mass itself, projecting it into our opponent.

It's not the hip that transfers power, it is our entire body. The hip is no more involved than our big toe (which is also involved).

I'm increasingly getting the sense that we're saying pretty much the same thing, but we're each emphasizing different parts of the mechanics. For me the center of mass is there, and we move around the COM. I think of the hip to bring the whole body into the strike, but that's me. I'm a little crazy that way.

I don't move "around" the center, I move the center -- that (the center) is what hits you (as a unit). The hip plays a role but no more that the legs, the feet, our buttocks, our waist, our etc.

You cannot move without moving the hip, of course. The key is, WHEN to move it, or end that movement, relative the strike. So it's a timing issue. I would say our whole body is the hammer, using your terminology. If you're stepping, or using hip action, then it must be timed so the whole body arrives in concert with the strike landing on the opponent.

To change analogies, consider when you throw a ball (as fast and as far as you can). Is it your hip that throws the ball? Or just your arm? Or, your legs? Or, your waist? Or what? It's the whole package, your whole body acting in unison, that throws the ball.

The other thing is that as I see it, it's not my whole body arrives in concert with the strike but rather my whole body is DOING the striking. For example, imagine doing a body slam into your opponent (with your chest/torso -- the hammer). That's the WCK punch -- only you have extended an arm (the nail). You punch WITH the body, not the arm.

OK. If you're making that distinction I'm following you. I've always thought of YJKYM is a stance and fairly static. Once you move it's a variation of YJKYM, but I just see it as a different thing. If you asked someone to show you YJKYM, there is a high probablity that they will go into that stance. But then again, that shouldn't limit an individual's point of view.

It's not a variation of YJKYM, it IS YJKYM. YJKYM is using your body in a certain way. You can do it stationary or while moving. You're right that most people would drop into a poor stance. That only illustrates their level. Same with ask someone to show you a tan sao and most will show you a shape and not an action.

[k gledhill]

Your analogy is so general, try tennis something your say your good at....remember, balls dont hit back

we have specific areas we concentrate on when doing stance drills ...for me to say " we use the whole body" is a blanket generalism that leaves the student in the same place , like using his whole body to walk to class, to go to the store, wck is that simple ...

Terence is still confused....after how long ? twitch twitch ,, the faat, twitch...

theres more to a VT punch than meets the eyes...thats why he cant explain what he cant see.


read what he isnt saying....when guys generalize, its because ?

Ive seen the same in other schools, a guy will take a student to the dummy show a move then walk away saying "feel the chi"!

[t_niehoff]

Your analogy is so general, try tennis something your say your good at....remember, balls dont hit back

we have specific areas we concentrate on when doing stance drills ...for me to say " we use the whole body" is a blanket generalism that leaves the student in the same place , like using his whole body to walk to class, to go to the store, wck is that simple ...

I've explained what I mean through several posts -- what don't you get? WKC's mechanic is to hit with our center into his center, like a hammer-nail, to break his structure. The whole body is a hammer, the arm is the nail.

Stance drills! LOL! There are no stances in WCK. The WCK horses are various ways of using our body to DO very specific things. You train the horses by doing those things.

Terence is still confused....after how long ? twitch twitch ,, the faat, twitch...

theres more to a VT punch than meets the eyes...thats why he cant explain what he cant see.

read what he isnt saying....when guys generalize, its because ?

Ive seen the same in other schools, a guy will take a student to the dummy show a move then walk away saying "feel the chi"!

I'm not generalizing, I'm saying WCK has a very SPECIFIC way of using our body to strike -- and it has nothing to do with how boxers or kickboxers use their body or the nonsense you talk about. I've described it. I've given several analogies to explain it. I've shown how that fits into the faat, how it is described in the kuit, how it is reflected in the forms and drills.

[k gledhill]

I've explained what I mean through several posts -- what don't you get? WKC's mechanic is to hit with our center into his center, like a hammer-nail, to break his structure. The whole body is a hammer, the arm is the nail.

Stance drills! LOL! There are no stances in WCK. The WCK horses are various ways of using our body to DO very specific things. You train the horses by doing those things.



I'm not generalizing, I'm saying WCK has a very SPECIFIC way of using our body to strike -- and it has nothing to do with how boxers or kickboxers use their body or the nonsense you talk about. I've described it. I've given several analogies to explain it. I've shown how that fits into the faat, how it is described in the kuit, how it is reflected in the forms and drills.

hammer and nail got it ....: )
wow that's so awesome...and you just move you ygkym ...ooooh double awesome..

over analogizing is also a sign....its called missing the small details.

your missing the small details....

[t_niehoff]

hammer and nail got it ....: )
wow that's so awesome...and you just move you ygkym ...ooooh double awesome..

over analogizing is also a sign....its called missing the small details.

your missing the small details....

And you're missing the big picture.

[Matrix]

I'm not sure I follow you. We are not moving around this center of mass, we are moving this center of mass itself, projecting it into our opponent.

Well, as I see it, it's both. You are moving the COM and moving your about it. In other words, the body is not a static object like a solid vertical beam, it more a system of component parts that must be made to work together. As my COM is moving to the opponent, I am also incorporating hip action into the process. I agree that legs, feet etc are all incorporated. For me, I think hip, everything else is attached, oddly enough. Maybe it's wrong to say hip action, but it works for me.

It's not the hip that transfers power, it is our entire body. The hip is no more involved than our big toe (which is also involved).

Yes, the big toe is involved, but that's a topic for another thread.
I have to say the hip action is more important than the big toe, but I'm partial to hip action.

The other thing is that as I see it, it's not my whole body arrives in concert with the strike but rather my whole body is DOING the striking. For example, imagine doing a body slam into your opponent (with your chest/torso -- the hammer). That's the WCK punch -- only you have extended an arm (the nail). You punch WITH the body, not the arm.

Yes. I absolutely agree. The question (already dealt with) is how do you get the full potential power of your whole body to Do the striking. Easier to say, than to actually do.

It's not a variation of YJKYM, it IS YJKYM. YJKYM is using your body in a certain way. You can do it stationary or while moving. You're right that most people would drop into a poor stance. That only illustrates their level. Same with ask someone to show you a tan sao and most will show you a shape and not an action.

Like I said the last time, I have no problem with looking at it this way, I just tend to think of it slightly differently. If we are having an online discussion and we use the term YJKYM, then do I have to ask "Is that stationary or moving?" If someone says Huen Ma, or Bik Ma I have a good idea what they're saying. In any case, I see what you're saying and don't have a problem with it.

[t_niehoff]

Well, as I see it, it's both. You are moving the COM and moving your about it. In other words, the body is not a static object like a solid vertical beam, it more a system of component parts that must be made to work together. As my COM is moving to the opponent, I am also incorporating hip action into the process. I agree that legs, feet etc are all incorporated. For me, I think hip, everything else is attached, oddly enough. Maybe it's wrong to say hip action, but it works for me.

You are focusing WAY too much on the hip. The hip plays no more of a role than anything else.

Yes, the big toe is involved, but that's a topic for another thread.
I have to say the hip action is more important than the big toe, but I'm partial to hip action.

Actually, the big toe perhaps plays a greater role than the hip. Do you use your hips when you run? Sure. Do you use your big toes when you run? Sure. Which is more important? As I see it, you can't run without both.

WCK striking isn't hitting with or from your hips. It's hitting with your body structure. And that structure begins with your toes (if you aren't on the balls of your feet, you don't have good WCK structure).

Yes. I absolutely agree. The question (already dealt with) is how do you get the full potential power of your whole body to Do the striking. Easier to say, than to actually do.

You need to have someone who can do that skill teach it to youl, and then you practice doing that skill. It's no more difficult to learn than the mechanics of a boxer's hook.

Like I said the last time, I have no problem with looking at it this way, I just tend to think of it slightly differently. If we are having an online discussion and we use the term YJKYM, then do I have to ask "Is that stationary or moving?" If someone says Huen Ma, or Bik Ma I have a good idea what they're saying. In any case, I see what you're saying and don't have a problem with it.

I think we may be further apart than you believe.

[Matrix]

I think we may be further apart than you believe.

After reading your last response, I've determined you're right. What the heck was I thinking?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Was waiting for that one, Bill...

You didn't disappoint!