In response to T.D.O.

[guy b.]

Sorry, I still see a rotation and it's even more pronounced when he's doing "sparring" demos with the other guy. The few times when he doesn't I'd suffice to say they're not very powerful attacks but I may be wrong.

I've never argued the point that you can't hit someone without rotation. You can. But if you're even remotely in an upright WC position, you're most likely using arm power and not your body to do it.

SPM is not wing chun. The main body mechanic is up back out front and there isn't rotation around any vertical central axis. It is more like pushing with legs, centre is a rotating ball, and force is whipped out through the c shaped back. One side or the other might lead but it isn't used as part of the force generation.

[k gledhill]

VT uses the heel to engage the line of force wherever we face. This can be forward angles, back at angles, sideways and any combination to make force and or face.
Wc1277 is simply confirming this two arm chi sao approach requires rotation to reach to block to pivot energy away incorrectly using loss of facing. In sparring with someone who stays facing, we have techniques for fighting rotating , weird coincidence ?
It requires good hand coordination and ambidextrous techniques to fight " human rotators ". ; ) anyone can swing shoulders, slt is addressing this issue.why we wait until this is taught before adding chum kil, otherwise with movement of chum kil and rotating shoulders we will be doing another style ; ).

[tc101]

This discussion is another case of refusing to recognize that there are valid ways of doing things besides how you do them.

There are wing chun people who have great power without rotating and there are wing chun people who use rotation in almost everything they do and develop power that way/ There are people in wing chun that use deflection and there are people who don't who instead wedge or even stop the opponent. There are people who are weighted on their heels and people weighted on their toes. People who like Wellington and people who don't.

I think trying to talk about how to optimize things as some have mentioned is impossible because you have to optimize those things that work best for you and what works best for one person may not work best for another.

[WC1277]

To everyone:

I'm not trying to be stubborn. In regards to the people who hit without rotation I even stated that I may be wrong. If you need to hear it again then I guess "I was wrong".

In regards to the rotation I was trying to discuss. First off, we don't "turn", as some here like to term it, as much as you think. The hand isn't to go past the shoulder of the opponent on either side if they're even facing us at all. It's a very narrow range, and more often than not, the "balancing foot" is more of a slight step to literally "brace" the rotation. As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation. And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation. I agree with Keith that there are elements of both however. Where it leans to the opposite ways of thinking has to do with once force is applied. We still "wedge" when closing the gap and/or true center contact. You have to. However, the way I understand it, you can only "wedge" without muscle when facing true center. But if the force coming in attempts to turn us off center, only then do we "chisel". Which is what I was trying to discuss. And because we don't change the distance once we're in range and don't angle out, if anything, this allows you to wedge over and over and over again with each return to true center without having to "re-rotate" the body as others do.

I'm trying to look at the big picture. If you train to have a natural human balanced structure, all the time, it can be translated regardless of surroundings or position of original facing. Kevin wants to say that it's the human folly to rotate but I disagree. It can be an incredible strength if conditioned and IMO a more realistic approach. It's obvious that people's "forced" structures are the first to go in a real altercation.

My two cents...

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.

[Vajramusti]

To everyone:

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listening- without agreeing or disagreeing is a lost art... specially on net forums.

[Hendrik]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.


This is an issue from thinking this is it.

There are different ways of turning
and power generation itself has the body type and force line type.
Turn in a body type and turn in a force line type are different.

Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.

To everyone:

I'm not trying to be stubborn. In regards to the people who hit without rotation I even stated that I may be wrong. If you need to hear it again then I guess "I was wrong".

In regards to the rotation I was trying to discuss. First off, we don't "turn", as some here like to term it, as much as you think. The hand isn't to go past the shoulder of the opponent on either side if they're even facing us at all. It's a very narrow range, and more often than not, the "balancing foot" is more of a slight step to literally "brace" the rotation. As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation. And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation. I agree with Keith that there are elements of both however. Where it leans to the opposite ways of thinking has to do with once force is applied. We still "wedge" when closing the gap and/or true center contact. You have to. However, the way I understand it, you can only "wedge" without muscle when facing true center. But if the force coming in attempts to turn us off center, only then do we "chisel". Which is what I was trying to discuss. And because we don't change the distance once we're in range and don't angle out, if anything, this allows you to wedge over and over and over again with each return to true center without having to "re-rotate" the body as others do.

I'm trying to look at the big picture. If you train to have a natural human balanced structure, all the time, it can be translated regardless of surroundings or position of original facing. Kevin wants to say that it's the human folly to rotate but I disagree. It can be an incredible strength if conditioned and IMO a more realistic approach. It's obvious that people's "forced" structures are the first to go in a real altercation.

My two cents...

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.

[Vajramusti]

[B]



Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.

----------------------------------------------------------
I think you are repeating yourself without being any clearer. Structure is important but forcing oneself to hold a structure is not the only possibility. Sure other principles including multi directional balance are also important.

[tc101]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.


This is an issue from thinking this is it.

There are different ways of turning
and power generation itself has the body type and force line type.
Turn in a body type and turn in a force line type are different.

Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.

If your point is that structure is not mechanics then I will agree. If you are saying you can use similar or even the same structures with different mechanics I also agree. This is true in wing chun and boxing also.

Even the same movement or action can use different mechanics.

I think that it is helpful to think in terms of general classes of structures, mechanics and so forth and see that wing chun gives us those and does not restrict us to only highly specific structures, mechanics and so forth. That is why we see a wide range of structures, mechanics and so forth that have similarities so they are in the same class of structures, mechanics so forth yet are very different in specific details. For example many ways of performing a tan sau. That is why when people argue there is only one right way to do something I think they do not see the bigger picture.

[KPM]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.

This is true. However, as I noted before, I think there are two "schools of thought" here. This applies to the rotation/pivoting in Chum Kiu as well. To make it easier to write I will refer to the 1st school of thought I mentioned before.....rotating to deflect and generate power...as "rotators." And I will refer to the 2nd school of thought...driving in a wedge shape to deflect and generate power...as "wedgers." No derogatory meanings are intended!

"Wedgers" most certainly use rotation. But they use it a bit differently than "rotators" do. Picture standing in a ready stance with the hands out in front. The front hand or "Man Sao" hand is like the front site on a gun. It is used to aim directly at the opponent's center of mass. The "front site" also stays on the center directly in front of the person doing it aligned at a 90 angle with the shoulders. Any rotation used by a "wedger" is primary to align the "sites of the gun"....like pivoting the turret of a tank to bring the cannon barrel in line with the target. So once the "wedger" has placed his sites "on target" by rotating his stance or stepping, he drives the wedge in with footwork generating translational force in his punch. If he meets an attack, he will "wedge in" to deflect as he moves into the opponent. He uses defensive hand forms like Tan Sao as part of the "wedge" to deflect as he goes in.

A "rotator" approaches it a bit differently. The "sites of the gun" do not stay directly out in front aligned 90 degrees with the shoulders. The alignment of the arms are allowed to swing a little off the 90 degree line in either direction. When he pivots, rather than the "sites of the gun" staying on the 90 line and moving with the pivot, the "sites" may actually stay in the same place as the rest of the body moves. So now, the "front site" or Man Sao hand is going to go forward as the person pivots rather than swinging around like the turret of a tank. So rather than "wedging in" with a translational force, he will pivot to drive a punch in with rotational force. If he meets an attack, he will pivot so that the shoulder moving back deflects with a defensive hand form like Tan Sao while the other shoulder moves forward with the strike.

So you see, both approaches use plenty of pivoting or rotating. But they apply it a little differently. And as I said before, what I described would not be exclusive to either school of thought. "Wedgers" will still use the pivot to deflect defensively at times, and "rotators" will still drive in like a wedge at times. Its a matter of preference or emphasis.

I hope all that makes at least a little bit of sense!

[Hendrik]

For example many ways of performing a tan sau. That is why when people argue there is only one right way to do something I think they do not see the bigger picture.

There are many ways of performing tan sau , but Wck tan sau never goes side ward.
If you violate that you are not practicing Wck.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

The issue is there are two class of power generation , the body type and the force line type.

The assumption wc1277 made is he thinks it is only body type exist. And within body type only a certain way exist.

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.

This is true. However, as I noted before, I think there are two "schools of thought" here. This applies to the rotation/pivoting in Chum Kiu as well. To make it easier to write I will refer to the 1st school of thought I mentioned before.....rotating to deflect and generate power...as "rotators." And I will refer to the 2nd school of thought...driving in a wedge shape to deflect and generate power...as "wedgers." No derogatory meanings are intended!

"Wedgers" most certainly use rotation. But they use it a bit differently than "rotators" do. Picture standing in a ready stance with the hands out in front. The front hand or "Man Sao" hand is like the front site on a gun. It is used to aim directly at the opponent's center of mass. The "front site" also stays on the center directly in front of the person doing it aligned at a 90 angle with the shoulders. Any rotation used by a "wedger" is primary to align the "sites of the gun"....like pivoting the turret of a tank to bring the cannon barrel in line with the target. So once the "wedger" has placed his sites "on target" by rotating his stance or stepping, he drives the wedge in with footwork generating translational force in his punch. If he meets an attack, he will "wedge in" to deflect as he moves into the opponent. He uses defensive hand forms like Tan Sao as part of the "wedge" to deflect as he goes in.

A "rotator" approaches it a bit differently. The "sites of the gun" do not stay directly out in front aligned 90 degrees with the shoulders. The alignment of the arms are allowed to swing a little off the 90 degree line in either direction. When he pivots, rather than the "sites of the gun" staying on the 90 line and moving with the pivot, the "sites" may actually stay in the same place as the rest of the body moves. So now, the "front site" or Man Sao hand is going to go forward as the person pivots rather than swinging around like the turret of a tank. So rather than "wedging in" with a translational force, he will pivot to drive a punch in with rotational force. If he meets an attack, he will pivot so that the shoulder moving back deflects with a defensive hand form like Tan Sao while the other shoulder moves forward with the strike.

So you see, both approaches use plenty of pivoting or rotating. But they apply it a little differently. And as I said before, what I described would not be exclusive to either school of thought. "Wedgers" will still use the pivot to deflect defensively at times, and "rotators" will still drive in like a wedge at times. Its a matter of preference or emphasis.

I hope all that makes at least a little bit of sense!

[tc101]

There are many ways of performing tan sau , but Wck tan sau never goes side ward.
If you violate that you are not practicing Wck.

Yes yes yes I know do it as Hendrik says or it is not wing chun. I am sure this makes you feel very important in your own mind to define what is and is not wing chun but really I do not care how you say to do things I care about making my wing chun work for me.

[Hendrik]

You can do anything you like.

As for what is wck tan sao, it is not only what I says, Gm Ipman says it too in the following classical interview. Beside the snt set has define it.

Yes yes yes I know do it as Hendrik says or it is not wing chun. I am sure this makes you feel very important in your own mind to define what is and is not wing chun but really I do not care how you say to do things I care about making my wing chun work for me.

[tc101]

You can do anything you like.

As for what is wck tan sao, it is not only what I says, Gm Ipman says it too in the following classical interview. Beside the snt set has define it.

If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.

[Hendrik]

You are just telling the world you are just moving limbs and called that your Wck, but have no idea what is Wck and its force flow.


You description is exactly where it is screw up , this is not Wck per Gm Ipman definition in his interview above.

If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.