Goat Restraining or Pigeon Toed Stance

[Sihing73]

Of course I know it's not WC. Since people all agree that the "pigeon toed stance" is just a "training stance". The outlook of the training stance should not limit your combat application.

The day that you may consider to use your "pigeon toed stance" to stick your leg on your opponent's leg, and build your "leg bridge", you will understand that your "pigeon toed stance" has no usage than you may think.

So why continue posting on a Wing Chun forum things that are not Wing Chun???

Please go and read some of my posts; you will see that I have often stated that application will differ from specific practice "techniques"
This is because it is the concept which is used not the shape, in some cases. In other cases the shape is used while applying a concept.

I think you meant to say: you will understand that your "pigeon toed stance" has more usage than you may think
Then again maybe you did mean what you wrote.

[YouKnowWho]

So why continue posting on a Wing Chun forum things that are not Wing Chun???

As I have said, it's just a suggestion and I don't like to get into any argument.

[YouKnowWho]

Please go and read some of my posts; you will see that I have often stated that application will differ from specific practice "techniques"
This is because it is the concept which is used not the shape, in some cases. In other cases the shape is used while applying a concept.

Then we agree that "combat application can be different from training stance". I just suggest another combat application. What are we arguing about here?

[Sihing73]

The day that you may consider to use your "pigeon toed stance" to stick your leg on your opponent's leg, and build your "leg bridge", you will understand that your "pigeon toed stance" could have more usage than you may think. It's just a "suggestion" for a very valuable combat usage, "build the leg bridge" since so far nobody has mentioned about this so far.

I will not try to speak for other lineages but leg bridging was something we were taught early when I did WT.
We usually incorporated from the sidelong stance, which was really just the YJKM turned and weight on the rear leg for simplification.
No need to step outside the system either as it is already built into the Wing Chun I trained.

Of course, if you are looking from outside of the system you could, in error, think you found something new or a novel approach to training.
However, if you train in the system and develop deeper understanding you may come to see that what you thought was absent was there all along.

[YouKnowWho]

leg bridging was something we were taught early when I did WT. ... you may come to see that what you thought was absent was there all along.

If it's already in your WC system, that's excellent. No more argument from me.

[Sihing73]

Then we agree that "combat application can be different from training stance". I just suggest another combat application. What are we arguing about here?

There would be little point in any "training" if it did not develop attributes that carried over to "application"

Not really arguing per se, just find it kind of amusing that some from outside the system come to a Wing Chun board and attempt to "school" those who actually practice the system. Not saying those others may not be good at how they do things, just that they may not really understand the art they are commenting on.

For example, I like Silat and I find that it blends well with how I do my Wing Chun. I enjoy it. However, Silat is not Wing Chun and while some of the exercises carry over, it is not the same as doing Wing Chun. Now there is nothing wrong, imho, with blending them if I want, and if someone wants to discuss the similarities that is fine. But is not Wing Chun. So I will not come onto a Wing Chun forum and espouse the art of Silat, I will do that on a Silat forum should I so choose.

Someone who does JKD for example may take some things from Wing Chun and blend it with some other arts, but they are not doing Wing Chun. Also, since they never truly explored Wing Chun they do not have a deep enough understanding of that art to go outside of the system. Now if someone does delve deeper than they can go outside the system but they will still do things from that foundation and a Wing Chun perspective.

When I practiced Pekiti Tirsia I did it from my base of Wing Chun. When you observed my Guru and I interacting you would see that while we used the same movements, we each had a different "flavor". This was due to my foundation of Wing Chun and my movements came from that foundation and concepts. Kind of hard to explain on a forum. Then again I have always said that each person needs to internalize their approach and make the system their own.

This is different that simply training several different arts and throwing them all together and calling it Wing Chun, or whatever system you train.

It is hard enough to have any meaningful discussion with other Wing Chun practitioners than to add those who do not even practice the system.
While much of outside information can be useful, it is not, imo, of benefit to come onto a forum and try to "teach" those who train the system in their own system. Kind of like me going to Germany and trying to teach German to the native inhabitants there. While I may know German, I am sure that any native speaker would know it better than I.

[YouKnowWho]

training several different arts and throwing them all together and calling it Wing Chun ...

I won't call it WC. I will call it "combat".

All I have said was:

It (pigeon toed stance) can be used for ...

I use the WC

- center line theory,
- deflect and strike back at the same time,
- protect center from inside out, and
- double Tan Shou application,

to develop my "rhino (big fist)" strategy. I use WC principles but I don't train WC as a "system". I'm a "cross training" guy. The word "style" has no meaning to me. I only use whatever that I want to use and not any system wants me to use.

If my way of thinking may upset others here, and since you are the moderator, if you want me stay out of all WC threads, I will.

[Sihing73]

to develop my "rhino (big fist)" strategy. I use WC principles but I don't train WC as a "system". I'm a "cross training" guy. The word "style" has no meaning to me. I only use whatever that I want to use and not any system wants me to use.
If my way of thinking may upset others here, and since you are the moderator, if you want me stay out of all WC threads, I will.

Not my forum so I will not tell you to stay away.

However, realize that you come across, at least to me and perhaps some others, as a "jack of all trades, master of none".
Especially when you make statements like I use what I want to and not what any system teaches, to paraphrase.

[bawang]

the stance is called five tigers rip apart sheep stance.

there are soft kung fu styles. there are no FEMINE kung fu styles.

[YouKnowWho]

However, realize that you come across, at least to me and perhaps some others, as a "jack of all trades, master of none".
Especially when you make statements like I use what I want to and not what any system teaches, to paraphrase.

Of course you will need a primary system. After you have a strong primary system as your foundation, you can pick and choose whatever that you like from other systems. All your minor systems are just to enhance your primary system.

[Faux Newbie]

Wing Chun did not develop in a vacuum, it is more similar to other southern gongfu styles than different, so it seems like the more appropriate relation would be dialects of German.

The only reason wing chun is not in the southern forum is because of the popularity of the style, so that its practitioners can populate a whole forum.

One could certainly say that YM did not do the wing chun he first trained, but was open to influence by what was around him.

Additionally, sometimes raising questions is not a search for who is right and wrong, but openness to the pleasant surprise of someone's answer being interesting.

[Frost]

Not my forum so I will not tell you to stay away.

However, realize that you come across, at least to me and perhaps some others, as a "jack of all trades, master of none".
Especially when you make statements like I use what I want to and not what any system teaches, to paraphrase.

really jack of all trades and master of none? I dont always agree with John but calling someone who was a disciple of one of the greatest fighters and masters to come out of china this is a bit silly isnt it?

[Grumblegeezer]

really jack of all trades and master of none? I dont always agree with John but calling someone who was a disciple of one of the greatest fighters and masters to come out of china this is a bit silly isnt it?

Good point. Maybe you could say, "Jack of many trades and master of one"? Regardless, I often disagree with John's observations on WC based on his experiences nearly 40 years ago. But his input is interesting. Sometimes an outsider perspective is a good thing.

[Phil Redmond]

the stance is called five tigers rip apart sheep stance.

there are soft kung fu styles. there are no FEMINE kung fu styles.

You are very wrong. Wu Mei Pai (Ng Mui Pai) is a feminine system. It was tha style that Ng Mui did.

[Sihing73]

really jack of all trades and master of none? I dont always agree with John but calling someone who was a disciple of one of the greatest fighters and masters to come out of china this is a bit silly isnt it?

So using your logic, anyone who trained with Yip Man was definitely good at Wing Chun, yet based on much of the infighting I would propose that is not the case.
Then again using the same logic if my father was a great cardio surgeon and I became a general practitioner I would, by inference, be a great doctor. Not always the case..................again.
Also along your logical line of thought; a great fighter would, by virtue of their ability, naturally produce other great fighters............again not the case.

John admits in his posts that he takes whatever he wants and applies that in his own way and not necessarily in relation to his original style.

He further comes to a Wing Chun forum and posts things which have little, if anything to do with Wing Chun.
He also failed to answer simple questions when I posed them to him, go read my posts and the responses he gave.
To be blunt, in many ways he reminds me of another poster who recently left, and I am sure will return again soon.

I am not saying he is not skilled but again using your logic; Hendrick was reputed to have been a fighter of some note, though not in Wing Chun, so we should give heed to what he said as he fought at one time.

My main point is that while it is sometimes interesting to hear from someone outside, when they post as though they have the secret sauce then it is time to call them on it. This is a Wing Chun forum and we have enough trouble with people that practice the style without someone with a limited understanding of this system coming and trying to enlighten us.

Compare it to a Harley forum where people discuss Harley motorcycles.
While it may be okay for someone who rides a Honda to come on and post from time to time, would it be proper for the Honda rider to try to school those that actually own and ride a Harley? While some things may be in common some are specific to that brand. While there is a degree of commonality in all martial arts, would you really listen to a Judo guy posting about Wing Chun? Particularily if by their own admission any exposure to Wing Chun training was almost a half century earlier?