Controlling an Opponent's Balance

[tc101]

How much clearer can I make it? I've talked about disrupting the opponent's balance or COG or breaking his structure as all being the same thing. I've described it as making the opponent take a step to recover his balance, turning or twisting him so he can't respond, etc. I quoted Terrence Niehoff talking about doing this by using a strike, push, pull, press, lift, jerk, etc. I've posted videos of Alan Orr, Jerry Yeung, and this boxing guy doing it. ****, what more do you want????

No, bobbing and weaving to get to an opening is not "breaking the opponent's structure" because you have done nothing to the oppoent. But shoving his elbow into his body to turn him away from you and create an opening for a strike (as in the video) is "breaking structure." I've given multiple examples. You just don't want to see it!

What more do I want? Ok you talk about disrupting the opponents balance or somehow manipulating him so that you get a MOMENTARY opening as breaking structure, right? If you get that SAME opportunity and opening by not physically manipulating the opponent then you have not broken his structure, right? Even though you have the exact same situation. In both situations what you did was get position.

I also do not agree that making your opponent step or turn or whatever breaks his structure since he still has his structure intact and it does not mean his balance was disrupted. This is why I think the term breaking structure is confusing.

My major problem with all this is that it is at most a minor consideration since it is going to occur very infrequently in sparring or fighting. I think you are blowing it all out of proportion to its true usefulness in fighting. Realistically your training should be less concerned with this sort of thing and instead focused on important stuff like getting position - and this stuff may be one if many tactics for getting position- and landing solid shots. This is just one of many many means of getting position.

So I guess what I am saying is this is a limited tactic for getting position. It is like a snap down in wrestling. The goal or objective in wrestling is not to do a snap down but to get to his legs and you do that by getting position on him. The snap down is a tactic to SET UP an opportunity for position. Like all tactics one means to and end. Some wrestlers use it and some don't. This is why I am saying the focus should not be on your so called breaking structure and that your use of that tactic as some indication of skill level but focus first and foremost on getting position on the guy to land a solid shot.

[KPM]

If you get that SAME opportunity and opening by not physically manipulating the opponent then you have not broken his structure, right? Even though you have the exact same situation. In both situations what you did was get position.

No its not the same. Physically manipulating the opponent is also aimed at making it more difficult for him to respond or fight back. Simply looking for an opening does not.

I also do not agree that making your opponent step or turn or whatever breaks his structure since he still has his structure intact and it does not mean his balance was disrupted. This is why I think the term breaking structure is confusing.

Sure someone can take a step and still remain solid and balanced. The point is to make him take an awkward step, or to turn him so his power base is affected, or to yank him forward, etc. Just look at the terminology...."break", "disrupt", "disturb." It should be pretty clear!


My major problem with all this is that it is at most a minor consideration since it is going to occur very infrequently in sparring or fighting.

I disagree. I think it happens all the time. I've provided examples. For some reason you just don't want to get what I'm saying. Think of like "breaking base" in BJJ. That happens doesn't it? Heck, the whole are of Judo is centered around "breaking structure"!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm all out of explanations and examples at this point if you just aren't seeing it.

[JPinAZ]

Much of this conversation has turned to the bizzarre. Whoever doesn't think you can effect, or have an effect, on another person's balance has no idea what they are talking about.
Watch any grappler take another person down, or a judo guy get a throw. Without off-balancing their opponent first, it gets FAR more difficult, and in a lot of cases impossible to do these things. That is why the frist idea of wing chun centerline, SELF centerline or one-line, is so important when defending against a takedown or throw. Once someone breaks my centerline/upright posture, I am now being off balanced and need to regain control over my balance instantly or fall victim to thier attempt of taking me down.

In a fight people are constantly being unbalanced and regaining their balance at every moment there's contact - And even when there isn't contact (throwing a jab has the effect of unbalancing ourselves even if it dosn't make connect). Granted, it's happening in micro seconds, but it's happening. This 'balancing act' happens naturally any time we move. Even when we are just walking, we are really just 'regaining our balance' the entire time without thinking about it. And we learn it very early on from the moment we are able to stand on our own 2 feet as an infant. And it takes years to get down. Now, add in a strike to the head and watch how you lose this ability to rebalance and you start bobbling all over the place like you're a newborn again. Any good boxing match will show you this

In wing chun, we gain our a superior position (if that is our goal) mainly in 2 ways: our opponent gives it to us thru mistakes or lesser skill (and now that I think about it, any example I can think of would involve them becoming unbalanced), OR we unbalance them, if even for a micro second, so we can gain the superior position (either 'guide' them when they are momentarily unbalanced, I reposition myself during this time, or a combination of both). The ideas of loi lau hoi sung are the first things that come to mind in how we achieve this.

Maybe people don't like the idea that you can 'control another person's balance' - ok fine. But you sure can influence thier ability to control (or not control) their own balance. And, when that happens, our opponent has lost ability to fully control their balance, if even for a micro second - and it's during that time with our developed awareness thru bridge sensitivity that we take advantage of that loss of control.

[KPM]

Thanks JP. I was beginning to think I was going crazy or something! There could be 10 of us thinking the same thing, but when no one else speaks up, tc101 could very well think I am the one that is "out there."

[JPinAZ]

Thanks JP. I was beginning to think I was going crazy or something! There could be 10 of us thinking the same thing, but when no one else speaks up, tc101 could very well think I am the one that is "out there."

Well, you very well may be crazy and 'out there' - for one, you train wing chun, and two you still believe this place is a good place to have sound dialog/discussion about wing chun

[KPM]

Well, you very well may be crazy and 'out there' - for one, you train wing chun, and two you still believe this place is a good place to have sound dialog/discussion about wing chun

I refuse to give up faith in either one!

[tc101]

Much of this conversation has turned to the bizzarre. Whoever doesn't think you can effect, or have an effect, on another person's balance has no idea what they are talking about.
Watch any grappler take another person down, or a judo guy get a throw. Without off-balancing their opponent first, it gets FAR more difficult, and in a lot of cases impossible to do these things. That is why the frist idea of wing chun centerline, SELF centerline or one-line, is so important when defending against a takedown or throw. Once someone breaks my centerline/upright posture, I am now being off balanced and need to regain control over my balance instantly or fall victim to thier attempt of taking me down.

I do not know what you are talking about. The centerline is the line between me and my opponent. If I control that line he cannot get in to take me down or throw me. What you are talking about is posture or structure.

In a fight people are constantly being unbalanced and regaining their balance at every moment there's contact - And even when there isn't contact (throwing a jab has the effect of unbalancing ourselves even if it dosn't make connect). Granted, it's happening in micro seconds, but it's happening. This 'balancing act' happens naturally any time we move. Even when we are just walking, we are really just 'regaining our balance' the entire time without thinking about it. And we learn it very early on from the moment we are able to stand on our own 2 feet as an infant. And it takes years to get down. Now, add in a strike to the head and watch how you lose this ability to rebalance and you start bobbling all over the place like you're a newborn again. Any good boxing match will show you this

Perhaps you should go back and reread my posts. I did not say unbalancing never happens. I said you will not in all likelihood control a persons cog and even if you do it will only happen for a split second. People spend their entire waking lives practicing keeping their balance and they are very good at it. Good fighters even better.

Your idea that striking someone will have them bobbing all over the place like a newborn is completely false. If you do watch any boxing match you will see that this rarely occurs and only when someone is staggered.

In wing chun, we gain our a superior position (if that is our goal) mainly in 2 ways: our opponent gives it to us thru mistakes or lesser skill (and now that I think about it, any example I can think of would involve them becoming unbalanced), OR we unbalance them, if even for a micro second, so we can gain the superior position (either 'guide' them when they are momentarily unbalanced, I reposition myself during this time, or a combination of both). The ideas of loi lau hoi sung are the first things that come to mind in how we achieve this.

I agree that one tactic you can use to try to get superior position is to momentarily disrupt their balance. Wrestling does this. But there are others like holding they guy while you pivot like was in the boxing clip. There are others.

What I am saying is the goal is getting position not the tactic to do that. Like any tactic you cannot rely on it since it only works in limited situations.

Maybe people don't like the idea that you can 'control another person's balance' - ok fine. But you sure can influence thier ability to control (or not control) their own balance. And, when that happens, our opponent has lost ability to fully control their balance, if even for a micro second - and it's during that time with our developed awareness thru bridge sensitivity that we take advantage of that loss of control.

I do not like the idea of thinking you can do unrealistic things in fighting.

[kung fu fighter]

"Attack the center - control the center - destroy the center = Refers to attacking the centerline, but also attacking the center of gravity, of the opponent by joining to and controlling the center of gravity."

[trubblman]

I maintain that good Wing Chun will involve gaining control over an attacker's balance or center of gravity. Its not just about standing back and punching. By turning and off-balancing an attacker you limit his ability to continue to respond.

Yes unbalancing is part of many martial arts. In Japanese martial arts this is often referred to as Kuzushi. I am sure in Chinese Arts of Bagua and Shuai Jiao they seek to unbalance. Even in VT there are grabs. Grabs presuppose unbalancing and controlling structure right?

[JPinAZ]

I do not know what you are talking about. The centerline is the line between me and my opponent. If I control that line he cannot get in to take me down or throw me. What you are talking about is posture or structure.

You are talking about a very important aspect of centerline, which I call A-to-B centerline because it is in reference the line between you andyour opponent. But this is not all that there is to centerline principles in my experieince. And you are correct, I was talking about posture and structure. That is why I specifically said SELF centerline. Please reread my post you quoted for your above response.
IMO, without SELF centerline (proper neutral weighting, gravity & balance of your own body) understanding set first and foremost as your A refence point, you cannot draw the line to your opponent and the (A-to-B) 'centerline' that you're talking about doesn't have much usefullness.

Perhaps you should go back and reread my posts. I did not say unbalancing never happens. I said you will not in all likelihood control a persons cog and even if you do it will only happen for a split second.

This is exactly what I am talking about - the split second it happens and WC a practitioners (or anyone elses) ability to capitalize on it thru the bridge. Our approaches and/or understanding of WC concepts must just be very different, because this is what WC's ideas and bridging skills of chi sau in fighting is all about!

Your idea that striking someone will have them bobbing all over the place like a newborn is completely false. If you do watch any boxing match you will see that this rarely occurs and only when someone is staggered.

I think we're just talking past each other now - I was specifically talking about when someone is staggered. The boxing example was just that, an example.

I agree that one tactic you can use to try to get superior position is to momentarily disrupt their balance. Wrestling does this.

Ok, it looks like we are saying the same thing, as this has been my point all along.. And, as I pointed out, most good bridge/'connected' arts do this all the time. Wrestling, BJJ, Tai Chi, most southern TCMA's, etc.

But there are others like holding they guy while you pivot like was in the boxing clip. There are others. What I am saying is the goal is getting position not the tactic to do that. Like any tactic you cannot rely on it since it only works in limited situations.

Again, we are in agreement that superior position is a very important goal, and there are different tactics for achieving this. But since this thread is talking about one specific WC tactic of unbalancing an opponent, that is what I'm commenting on here to keep the discussion on topic. And it seems you actually agree with me that it is a very useful one that is not unique to only WC. I guess where we dissagree is just how useful.

People can do things however they want. If someone wants to step off line and run around to gain a superior position without physcially effecting their opponent's own facing or gravity in the process, that's their choice. And if they have speed on their side, they could be probably pretty effective at. But, in my experience, this is ignoring WCK A-to-B centerline principles, as well as WC's ideas of efficiency/economy of motion. And, I'm not saying this is what you are advocating here (or maybe you are, I don't know). But even with your example of holding a guy and pivoting in boxing - there surely is gravity awareness and disrupting when doing this, if even slightly and only for a brief moment! Otherwise, you won't really be successful at rounding that corner, as the opponent can just as easily re-face or chase/persue because they still maintain full control of their own balance & reactions. To do this correctly, you typically make contact at the elbow and 'guide' the opponent at the same time as you pivot, effectively splitting the difference. You can't do this without some form of manipulation/effet on the opponents COG.

I also agree there are different ways to 'get position'. But to stay on-topic, from a WC perspective this can be accomplished without moving your positions at all given the right situation and intent from the opponent! Obviously this isn't ideal in all situations, but it can happen often enough. And, in my experience it almost ALWAYS is achieved by unbalanced and redirected the opponent using WC's idea of Loi Lau Hoi Sung (among other WC concepts) in that split second of unbalancing, which results in the ability to guide your opponent so you achieve superior position we're talking about while still holding true wo WC's ideas of efficiency & economy of motion. From a puerly technique POV, this is where Tan Sau really excels. This is also what SNT teaches us in the beginning (being able to stand our ground and deal with what comes without giving up our position). But that doesn't mean I'm advocating strictly fighting from YJKYM either - again, it's just one example. Add some footwork when needed and it works even better. Now we're talking CK

I do not like the idea of thinking you can do unrealistic things in fighting.

It seemed we were actually in agreement on this unbalance thing, but now you're backing off and saying effecting someone's balance/COG is unrealistic again.. I may be wrong, but now it seems you are just arguing to argue.