Don't bother to read this

[roache]

Before the thread on "Seeking the Bridge" was pitched in the rubbish bin my classmate asked me a question. I respect my brother's enthusiasm and commitment to learning and I know him well enough (I think) to know he is a good guy and he deserves an answer. But since I don't really know who he is I have to answer here.

So the question was: Are you telling me you don't "rotate"?

My answer is yes, but not past my target and only when appropriate. (ymmv)
Now here is what might seem like the (really) odd part, as a teaching method I am o.k. with a school that teaches "rotation is a human error" because I have seen that it is apparently all too easy to do wrong. To say it "never" should be done is not how I have been taught, but I can appreciate the subsequent emphasis on position and facing. Two key components of good w.c. (in my opinion).

Over rotation of your body past your target, as well as habitually rotating with every motion, are mistakes that can be easily taken advantage of. Furthermore, my opponent's action as well as their inaction should be cues for me to strike. If I am always allowing their action to initiate my rotation I can quickly fall one step behind and be overrun. Rotation does have its place in our school, but it is not given a free pass either.

Now since we have all encountered the problems inherent in writing about wing chun, rather than hands on instruction, let me give only a very basic example of what I feel are some of the limitations of rotation using pak da.

Please consider:
How much can you rotate with pak before your punch is adversely affected?
How much can you rotate with your punch before your pak losses effectiveness?
If you rotate to the shoulder line with each motion how much of a gap in time between the (now) 2 motions do you allow before the whole thing losses effectiveness during the speed of a fight?

Obviously how you use pak da will depend on the situation and I understand there are nuances in describing a physical motion. But this is a basic example, only showing a simple limitation. There are others as well.

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

[WC1277]

Before the thread on "Seeking the Bridge" was pitched in the rubbish bin my classmate asked me a question. I respect my brother's enthusiasm and commitment to learning and I know him well enough (I think) to know he is a good guy and he deserves an answer. But since I don't really know who he is I have to answer here.

So the question was: Are you telling me you don't "rotate"?

My answer is yes, but not past my target and only when appropriate. (ymmv)
Now here is what might seem like the (really) odd part, as a teaching method I am o.k. with a school that teaches "rotation is a human error" because I have seen that it is apparently all too easy to do wrong. To say it "never" should be done is not how I have been taught, but I can appreciate the subsequent emphasis on position and facing. Two key components of good w.c. (in my opinion).

Over rotation of your body past your target, as well as habitually rotating with every motion, are mistakes that can be easily taken advantage of. Furthermore, my opponent's action as well as their inaction should be cues for me to strike. If I am always allowing their action to initiate my rotation I can quickly fall one step behind and be overrun. Rotation does have its place in our school, but it is not given a free pass either.

Now since we have all encountered the problems inherent in writing about wing chun, rather than hands on instruction, let me give only a very basic example of what I feel are some of the limitations of rotation using pak da.

Please consider:
How much can you rotate with pak before your punch is adversely affected?
How much can you rotate with your punch before your pak losses effectiveness?
If you rotate to the shoulder line with each motion how much of a gap in time between the (now) 2 motions do you allow before the whole thing losses effectiveness during the speed of a fight?

Obviously how you use pak da will depend on the situation and I understand there are nuances in describing a physical motion. But this is a basic example, only showing a simple limitation. There are others as well.

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

Emmet,

I appreciate your candid response and I apologize if I offended you in any way.

First off, I should of been more careful in my wording with "we" and it is something I try really hard not to do but do admit I've have slipped a few times. I also hope my response to you wasn't too brash, as once again, it's easy to mistake intentions in written words. So I apologize for that as well. I do wish to remain anonymous despite any of this "misunderstanding" and I think you may know why. There's many a "traditional" attitudes in our school and it's a drama I wish to avoid.

I do agree with you that "over" rotation is not a good thing. It's easy to dip in and out of a "topic" in multiple threads thinking that everyone has the same continuum of thought as you. I don't know if you've been following my posts over the past few months but my main message was with regards to "balanced" rotation. Even Joy, in so many words, has agreed by acknowledgement with many of my points.

I was speaking of Chum Kiu principles in relation to this as well. Every horozontal motion that goes to the left or right of target, the very next motion must come back to center/zero point. Every vertical motion that goes up/down must go vice versa in the next motion. Every rotation of shoulder side forward, opposing footwork must ensue. i.e. bracing. I spoke about it in the following post a few weeks back:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...17&postcount=1

If you read that you may recognize that drill that I challenged people to try. And you may also have noticed that I stated to "not go past your partners shoulder". There IS a limit of shoulder rotation Emmett that I do recognize and advise.

The reason I said "we don't train to maintain square center facing" was because, our system, the way I understand it, only does square center on first contact to "wedge". But once force is exchanged, it is of my understanding that rotation occurs or "chiseling". And yes, depending, it may flucturate back and forth, but it is of my opinion, that a lot more of our training is focused on this "chiseling" for a reason. "Wedging" is not an incredibly difficult thing to do in a lot of respects and has little to do with non-sparring chi sao IMO.

The other point that I probably didn't convey too well in my discussion with LFJ was that if you were to take a snapshot in time of "balanced" rotation and looked at the big picture, you would see that the positioning is of a square on stance but not necessarily in relation to the opponents center line. This is because the "attacking line" and "defending line" are relative to your own position and by consequence of keeping the rear hand on your "own" center despite rotation there is always a straight line to the opponents "central" line. And the "chiseling" creates this dynamic. For instance, I wedge into my opponent, there's a clash, I let him turn me, so to speak, so as to not fight the force, no further than his shoulder line. Momentarily, with proper balanced rotation and footwork, I am essentially in a forward facing position but NOT square to him. But since I "rotated" my shoulder side, my rear hand now has a direct line to his center(open or not) despite the non-square facing. The "attacking line". On the flip side, if I initiate the balanced rotation myself I setup the same dynamic but in reverse. Since every "active" motion has that side shoulder going forward with the balanced footwork every time the opponent tries to reface he's actually not facing you. He'll be "mirroring" your shoulder side forward. And if you lose your timing and he catches you, all that happens is square one, "wedging". I don't know if any of that made sense, as it is always hard to convey in words, but you see, there is very little "square center facing" going on in an actual exchange. And that was my point. And it follows chum kiu principles to the T. I think too many misinterpret sil lum tao to mean "square shoulder facing" when it in fact is just teaching to keep "your" own hands on center despite rotation. And "chum kiu" shows this as well.

Now to the big picture. The real big picture. We're obviously not going to be using chi sao in a real altercation. So what's the overall point? Of course there's many attributes developed but why so much emphasis on adjustment to attack center? What about if there's absolutely no arm contact? And most likely there won't be.

It is of my opinion, and an opinion that has been validated, so to speak, that by training this "balanced" rotation of the body with regards to facing, one is developing the skill to simply "face" quickly while maintaing a balance of attacking side forward, opposite side foot forward. That position delivers the most force and allows the most balance. Now a lot of people will look at that statement and just say "no sh!t" but those people also don't realize how hard it would be to stay true to that positioning with "every" motion in a real situation. You know the footwork Emmett and you know the jist of the rotation. Now, just connect the dots...

[Graham H]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about?

[BPWT]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about?

Rotate when you you need to, don't rotate so far that it impedes your ability to strike (or over-exposes you), always return to the optimum point.

-----------

Over rotating, and/or over turning, is a common fault with every WC/WT/VT practitioner, regardless of lineage, IMO. God only knows I am often guilty of it. Not least because when you train with people better than you they will not only exploit it, but also position in a way that makes you do it.

[LFJ]

Rotate when you you need to,

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

[Graham H]

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

Yes and that idea is complete nonsense.

[Buddha_Fist]

I didn't bother.

[k gledhill]

Wc1277 is confused.

[k gledhill]

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

Crazy idea.

[WC1277]

To paraphrase a regular used line from you guys. 'You don't understand the method'. I can only "try" to explain so much through words alone just as you. Often phrases are used thinking that others understand the context...

[Wayfaring]

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

So basically, in "going past his rhetorical target", he over-rotated on the internet?

LOL

Good times.

[KPM]

Yes and that idea is complete nonsense.

I don't think so. If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

[wtxs]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about?

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Crazy idea indeed Where did WC come up with the stupid idea of "using your opponent's force against him"? Close eyes - close mind.

[k gledhill]

I don't think so. If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Those aren't VT options. Typical attempt to assign basic chi sao to combat.

[k gledhill]

Crazy idea indeed Where did WC come up with the stupid idea of "using your opponent's force against him"? Close eyes - close mind.

You're on the right track but not the way of redirecting crap. Keep eyes open and mind will follow.