WCK facing

[YungChun]

Hand Unity--hands working as one, Hand Replacement maintaining pressure and position, Chun Timing, Energy Issuing, using the legs and hands together with the body to break him down, FanSao, etc, all require facing the opponent... Much the same as in grappling, also as is seen in most other close range arts--it's part and parcel of the close range fight.

Rotation can be used to assist our maintaining of facing/position when dealing with great pressure; rotation can also be used to unbalance and IME for finishing as a secondary assist for power generation in striking or with elbows..

[t_niehoff]

In TWC we do SNT/SLT and "some" chi sao training square on but we never fight square on.
And we're still able to strike the same points in space with both hands. I know most will disagree with that but I'm good with it.

Cheung sees WCK as a form of kickboxing, so it is not surprising that he doesn't advocate square-on facing. Square-on facing is essential for inside/contact fighting, not the outside game.

[t_niehoff]

So what you are advocating is a "small" rotation? What are you using the rotation for?

---Yes a small coiling or rotation like the small almost imperceptible "twist" that goes into a Tan Sau, Fook Sau, or Bong Sau. This small "twist" adds to the power generation.

What exactly is twisting?

And, if you use rotation for striking power, even a small rotation for power, doesn't that then mean you can only use "half your weapons"? Since once you rotate, the lead side (since you are no longer square-on) is dead?

---No, I don't think so. There is an element of "elastic recoil" that is part of normal physiology that brings the body back to "square" quickly without any real effort. Just as the punch naturally drops back without having to pull it back. Unless of course, someone has exaggerated the rotation.

I don't see any evidence of this "elastic recoil". If I rotate with a punch, my body doesn't automatically return to square-on, does yours?

[t_niehoff]

So here is where theory departs from reality.

MT also has the element being different from boxing of having 2 sides live. In contrast, you see much shallower stances, with greater lateral movement, and a shorter distance between the back side strikes and kicks than you do in boxing.

In boxing there is the jab / cross. However, there is a long/short disparity in boxing - the cross has a much ****her distance to travel to land than the jab. This is counteracted by the jab being a quicker and lighter strike to open up target areas for the cross to traverse and strike.

And this rotation in both MT and boxing pertains to outside (free-movement) fighting.

WCK is built upon centerline, and having 2 sides live.

WCK isn't"built on the centerline." Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?

However, this does not mean a square stance. A square stance is weak front and back, and does not have depth structure. However, it is stronger in dealing with clinch / grappling.

In reality, even in the most square stance, there still are 2 gates - the outer and inner. In WCK this is represented by the man sau and wu sau hand skills. There can be no true structure in the wu sau hand in a completely square stance.

What you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Mun sao and wu sao are actions, and have nothing to do with "gates."

You CAN always have structure, the question is are you using the appropriate structure for the moment. Structure isn't a static or fixed thing but dynamic.

Whether your feet are square or whether you have one leg forward pertain IME more to what it is you are doing (feet square is often used to setup penetration, one leg forward is to penetrate). Of course, all this refers to inside/contact.

IMO WCK in a live environment there is migration between a square stance and a stance that has more structure, which is a 6 gate stance, with structure involved in the wu sau hand. However, there is not a complete commitment one side to the point where you lose the 2 sides live element.

6 gate stance is more nonsense. As I see it, when we are inside, in contact, there is NO stance, there is only dynamic structure -- dynamically using our body to try and control and strike the opponent and not be controlled. How the body/legs move is therefore fluid and organic.

There is ALWAYS SOME functional rotation or curvilinear motion in any powerful strikes.

Why?

However, in WCK this is not the extreme rotation found in the larger movements of the boxing power punches. There is an element of the bridge, controlling the opponent's center, and forward pressure along the centerline. With absolutely no functional rotation in body parts there can be no power in striking.

Why?

BTW, I am not talking about rotation of body parts (my shoulder, being an ball and socket joint obviously has to rotate) but rotation of/at the waist.

[YungChun]

Any rotation of the waist in the standard hammer nail power generation is extremely minimal to the point of being almost non existent. The hammer/nail power is still very much there when done correctly and IMO quite powerful...

[KPM]

What exactly is twisting?

---Same as "coiling" or "spiraling"....forward progressive rotational motion around a central axis. Better demonstrated than explained.



I don't see any evidence of this "elastic recoil". If I rotate with a punch, my body doesn't automatically return to square-on, does yours?

---Sure it does! You are probably rotating too much. The motion is slight and hard to see. Its like a wave....once it crashes forward, it automatically rolls back. Or like "cracking" a whip...once it strikes it naturally recoils. Or like pushing open a door....once your forward pressure is released, your arm naturally drops back.


Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?

---Going by the conclusions of a prior thread (which I liked).....another reason would be so that one arm can "attach" and control while the other strikes.



BTW, I am not talking about rotation of body parts (my shoulder, being an ball and socket joint obviously has to rotate) but rotation of/at the waist.

---I agree. Powered by the legs, the main "cog" or driver being the waist or Kwa, transmitted by the spine and then out the attacking limb. Its a small "impulse" not a big "turning."

[Wayfaring]

And this rotation in both MT and boxing pertains to outside (free-movement) fighting.

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools.

WCK isn't"built on the centerline." Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?

WCK lives and dies on the centerline. Both sides free offers simultaneous defense.

What you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Mun sao and wu sao are actions, and have nothing to do with "gates."

And those actions take place at different ranges. Mun sao asks at a distance away from the body, wu closer to the body.

You CAN always have structure, the question is are you using the appropriate structure for the moment. Structure isn't a static or fixed thing but dynamic.

No, remaining in a square stance you cannot always have structure. Simple illustration - try passing the guard (grappling) while remaining square throughout the movement. You will get collapsed on one side or the other unless your opponent doesn't know what they are doing. The standard grips as well as hip and foot placement are for structure, same as in a good WCK stance.

Whether your feet are square or whether you have one leg forward pertain IME more to what it is you are doing (feet square is often used to setup penetration, one leg forward is to penetrate). Of course, all this refers to inside/contact.

Yes your feet are connected to your body, and footwork is for a purpose.

6 gate stance is more nonsense. As I see it, when we are inside, in contact, there is NO stance, there is only dynamic structure -- dynamically using our body to try and control and strike the opponent and not be controlled. How the body/legs move is therefore fluid and organic.

You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense". If you have dynamic structure and pressure on the inside you yourself will probably be traversing through these. Yes these are fluid inside, but there are basic alignment principles of your own body parts involved in good structure to permit you to continue controlling your opponent on the inside with forward pressure. There are keys to this as it pertains to hip, knee and elbow.

There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

[SAAMAG]

Once again, if you simply dismiss another viewpoint and tell them it's nonsense you're not argueing in the Greek sense of the word. You're arguing in the Internet sense. Do you win court cases simply by dismissing another's testimony as nonsense?

If you disagree give your own reasons as to why based on logic, common knowledge, and experience. Coming at it in an authoritative "it is" or "it isn't" isn't productive.

So if wck isn't built on the centerline and having both arms available--what is it built on and what evidence do you have to support that theory?

Additionally, what evidence do you have that the wck system doesn't have gates or set postures? If an instructor uses gates in his presentation of ideas--then for that subset gates do exist. Doesn't matter if you agree or not. If another subset of wc wants to use the term man and wu sao as descriptors for hand positions (which they do) then they are both actions and static positions. Again, you can disagree all day long but it's existence in that context is real.

[SAAMAG]

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools.

To be fair, he means unattached more than likely. So while knees and elbows are typically done attached the hooks and uppercuts are not...typically.

You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense".

He's aware, just doesn't like to use them in his training method.

There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

Good point. Though the whipping aspect is a different sort of punch then the nail and hammer styled punch that T may be referring to. So apples and oranges so to speak. The whipping punches are used heavily on MT as opposed to leg and body driven punches--that's one of the subtle differences in muay thai's boxing versus conventional boxing.

[Lee Chiang Po]

We use the word "Stance", but like T says, it is not really a stance as such, but more a dynamic structure that we maintain in order to apply our strengths. Footwork gets us from a to b while we maintain this dynamic structure. I don't turn into a punch to generate power, mainly because it does not really generate power. If it does, it is not really much and it reduces the ability to use both sides in rapid succession. Your structure should allow you to apply all the force that you are capible of mustering, and at a very rapid succession of movement. You can have a right forward, or left forward, and still maintain the center line. You can not do so from a true side on "stance". This does limit your fighting ability to half. You can not fully defend from a side on unless your opponent is doing a side on. If he is doing a side on, it puts him at a serious disadvantage if you are facing him. Any punch or blow that comes from turning is about like a hook. It depends on momentum more than physical power, and you have to actually fully commit.
Any action has a reaction. Not always equal, but close. So when you hook or use a turning motion to generate your power, it fades off with a certain amount of reaction. When you use your dynamic structure, your reaction force is blocked and so goes forward with that power, increasing your punch power. I don't think I explained that well. But that is how I look at it.

[JPinAZ]

***CLOSE....but no cigar. In TWC we will fight square on once a line has been completely taken and occupied. From a side body position (ie.- not square on) we will fight for dominance - and after a hit has been made, for example, from the blindside positioning - a hit that gains us control because it did some damage...then we will often continue the attack by squaring up and blasting away as a fan sao (followup attack).

Actually, this sounds similar to our 6-gate Tin Yan Dei (TYD = Heaven/human/earth) and 4-gate TYD concepts. 6-gate TYD for kiu sau engagements (working on the edge of the box). Something similar to your side body position from TWC vids I've seen. Facing and alignments are a little different, but generally the same idea.
And then 4-gate TYD (more squared up) for attack/defense once we have the proper range, position & control (for working inside the box).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's a very simple and basic example of what I was talking about. Watch the squared up centerline fan sao positioning (and follow up strikes) that came after the initial side body response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ew7...eature=related

[t_niehoff]

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools.

Actually, you're right. They are a part of boxing and MT on the inside. And this is because neither permit takedowns, taking the back, etc.

WCK lives and dies on the centerline. Both sides free offers simultaneous defense.

You are confusing two things, the centerline and facing. The ability to use both sides freely pertains to square-on facing, not the centerline (which doesn't depend on facing).

And those actions take place at different ranges. Mun sao asks at a distance away from the body, wu closer to the body.

No. Mun sao can take place at ANY range (it is a TACTIC, not a specific WCK movement/action/technique), and so can wu sao.

No, remaining in a square stance you cannot always have structure. Simple illustration - try passing the guard (grappling) while remaining square throughout the movement. You will get collapsed on one side or the other unless your opponent doesn't know what they are doing. The standard grips as well as hip and foot placement are for structure, same as in a good WCK stance.

You MUST always have structure on the inside or you will be run over. I don't know what YOU mean by square stance; I mean one without having a leg forward. Of course you can't remain in that -- you have to be continually adjusting to what your opponent does. As far as square-on facing, on the inside if I am not facing square, then I am giving my opponent an advantage.

What happens on the ground does not illustrate what happens on the inside/stand-up.

Yes your feet are connected to your body, and footwork is for a purpose.

Yes, to control your opponent.

You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense".

I call anything based on fantasy/theory as nonsense. I don't need to "understand" the theory -- the mere fact it is theory tells me it is nonsense.

If you have dynamic structure and pressure on the inside you yourself will probably be traversing through these. Yes these are fluid inside, but there are basic alignment principles of your own body parts involved in good structure to permit you to continue controlling your opponent on the inside with forward pressure. There are keys to this as it pertains to hip, knee and elbow.

There are no "basic alignment principles" -- but there are basic alignment parameters. And this is not semantics. For example, being/moving from the balls of your feet isn't a "principle" but something you need to do. Same with keeping the knees bent, not allowing your shoulders to move over your knee, etc.

There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

The punch isn't a whip and doesn't move like a whip. Of course there is rotation in the joints but that isn't what I am talking about. I was talking about using waist rotation, and WCK doesn't use it. It is not in the forms, it is not in the dummy, it is not in the exercises.

[jeetsao]

Here's a very simple and basic example of what I was talking about. Watch the squared up centerline fan sao positioning (and follow up strikes) that came after the initial side body response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ew7...eature=related

Interesting discussion. With all due respect, I do not understand, and am pretty uncomfortable with the initial response that moves away from the punch without taking ground from the opponent ( as illustrated in the video). You can say that this is a sidestep but the "energy" appears to move away from the opponent. ( this is an honest inquiry, not a crack at W. Cheung)

[Ultimatewingchun]

No offense taken. But look at it this way: he's avoiding the head on force by doing a small side step as the punch comes in on him. It all depends upon the commitment of the attacker. The more the attacker tries to penetrate with that punch, the more unnecessary it is to "step in and try to take ground" - and a simple side step will do the job.