Wing Chun Power Generation

[JPinAZ]

Seventh bownor?

LOL, yeah, sorry I brought it up. I knew it was going to be a 'stiff' subject

[Faux Newbie]

I appreciate your boxing analogy and also agree with the idea of a boxer not stepping in with feet in one line to an opponent. But then, I don't think functional WC does that either. Are you implying this is how you understand WC to work?

No, I am not implying that. I am using an example of how one style balances striking, footwork, and balance issues, in iterating that ALL styles do this.

If so, maybe you need more face-time with WC

If so is the key part here.

FWIW, in HFY, we always avoid have our lead foot anywhere inside/between our opponent's feet as it typically gives up leverage or any positional advantage as well as the things you mentioned.

Interesting. NO HIDDEN MEANING TO THIS COMMENT.

The issue I have with using non-WC arts to discuss WC mechanics is WC doesn't operate like most other arts.

Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step.

But I wasn't using boxing to discuss WC mechanics. I used it as an example of the universal necessity for martial styles to match footwork with power generation. I could have used WC as an example, or Tai Chi.

For one example: for the most part, WC doesn't look to strike from outside using footwork.

I thought your kicks often involved a side step? I do recognize that wing chun often seeks to strike from the outside by way of direct in stepping and bridging. It seems to me this would only enhance the importance of integrating power generation with footwork, as that bridge still benefits from it.

WC looks to bridge and close the gap to gain a position of advantage to our opponent prior to using our short range striking with equal reach with both hands.

Again, I'm not sure how this does not become a strong argument for integrating power generation and footwork?

Boxing doesn't do this.

It was one example. I could have chosen others. I was pointing out that even a style that has the luxury of maximizing power generation to hand strikes still balances this with footwork.

It typically looks to strike form a longer range

Long range boxing strikes are the minority of boxing strikes. Boxing seeks to strike from all ranges, all the time.

using rotational power generation that doesn't allow for WC's ideas of simultaneous offense/defense

Boxing has defense built into some strikes, but yes, it is a different approach. However, not all boxing strikes use rotational power.

and equal reach with both hands. Yes, boxers do fight closer in as well, but again, not with WC's ideas of efficiency & economy of motion in mind.

Technical boxing is actually rather obsessed with efficiency and economy of motion, but yes, with a different expression of it.

The example had to do with power generation and footwork, and how not linking power generation and footwork is problematic.

This makes sense to me and I agree 100%! so not sure I see your point as don't see anyone here advocating only doing stationary power generation exercises and not trying it with footwork as well (?)

It's just minutiae. The when. I know a lot of teachers will have people work the stationary stuff endlessly, then make making it useful by attaching it to footwork “advanced". Since, in fighting, odds are enormously high that footwork precedes or follows anything you do, not doing this seems to me to produce "advanced" students who just started doing basic stuff. NOT SAYING THIS WAS TRUE OF WING CHUN SCHOOLS, NO HIDDEN MEANING HERE! Since power generation, fighting itself, is never free of the context of footwork, there is literally nothing one can fully understand without drilling it in context to footwork. So, for me, the idea that one gets good at stationary without the footwork is problematic. It's an impossibility, and, since footwork tends to point to problems in power generation, there is really no reason to avoid integrating it as soon as possible. It will not increase error, it will decrease error, imo.

[JPinAZ]

He was agreeing with what you were saying, regardless of who it was focused on.

I appreciate your help, but you replying for him about him replying to me in regards to my reply to Wayfaring is getting way more involved than it needs to be. How about we let him just explain what he means himself. For that matter, I always found it best if we each just speak for ourselves and make it much simpler

Interesting. Not including the spine is something I would find problematic, especially since it literally bows.

Haha, sure, but I don't think that's what they mean by 'bows'. Anyway, I'm already regretting bringing up the bows thing at all, so am going to move away from that subject before this thread spirals down into 7 bows obscurity like so many other threads do in this forum! There's enough repetitive content on that subject to make a separate sub-forum all it's own..

[Faux Newbie]

I bring up points not to prove I'm right, but because others may have a strong and valid point that changes my view. In fact, I expect this to happen, as it's a big world full of people who have worked hard on their own approaches.

I have many times disagreed with YKW or SoCoKungfu or others on a point, and then, as they explained themselves, found they had an excellent point. I have acknowledged this and the conversation continues.

I do a less common style that has commonalities, as all kung fu styles do, with other kung fu and other fighting styles, so I often find these conversations can be useful.

That said, my style has commonalities with Wing Chun. There are a number of times where the center line and equal reach with both hands are utilized. Likewise, like pretty much all kung fu styles, there is the same fundamental footwork.

Most of the differences are in how these factors are used. As an example, my style has a chain punch, but it could not be called the same as the wing chun chain punch. It is focused on manipulation of my center line for power hits that fall slightly off of that center line.

Just clarifying, since some seem to be making the mistake that I am attacking wing chun, since I am not.

[JPinAZ]

Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step.

For me, this is where the problem starts in the discussion. Before you speak for how WC operates (or any other system you don't have experience it), you should first have some actual training and experience in the system. And I'm talking more than a friend of yours studied WC. Because you couldn't be further than truth. Even different lineages of WC don't have common footwork, let alone WC footwork being common to most kung fu!

But I wasn't using boxing to discuss WC mechanics. I used it as an example of the universal necessity for martial styles to match footwork with power generation. I could have used WC as an example, or Tai Chi.

Again - and no offense intended - but if your boxing analogy wasn't relevant to WC mechanics but just a general mechanics example, then I still don't see with the point in continuing down that road. The example you gave for boxing stepping and punching isn't universal to all martial arts because IMO it wasn't representative of how WC functions. Same with if you used Tai Chi. So, while I have a deep love of boxing and appreciate the skills involved, I'll skip the rest of the boxing analogies and just use WC as an example from here on out.

I thought your kicks often involved a side step? I do recognize that wing chun often seeks to strike from the outside by way of direct in stepping and bridging. It seems to me this would only enhance the importance of integrating power generation with footwork, as that bridge still benefits from it.

I thought we were discussing striking with footwork? Now you're mixing WC bridging footwork and the previous point of WC striking with footwork. I fully agree though, WC engagement and bridging methods 100% benefit from the footwork as it helps provide full-body leverage and positional control! While it can be argued there is some overlap, bridging footwork and striking are two somewhat different topics.

Unfortunately, you lost me with the comment regarding kicks...

It's just minutiae. The when. I know a lot of teachers will have people work the stationary stuff endlessly, then make making it useful “advanced" by attaching it to footwork. Since, in fighting, odds are enormously high that footwork precedes or follows anything you do, not doing this seems to me to produce "advanced" students who just started doing basic stuff. Since power generation, fighting itself, is never free of the context of footwork, there is literally nothing one can fully understand without drilling it in context to footwork. So, for me, the idea that one gets good at stationary without the footwork is problematic. It's an impossibility, and, since footwork tends to point to problems in power generation, there is really no reason to avoid integrating it as soon as possible. It will not increase error, it will decrease error, imo.

Since I didn't have this experience in my traning, nor do I know of whom you're speaking of, I can't comment further except to say that I agree footwork should be trained early on.

NO HIDDEN MEANING TO THIS COMMENT

NOT SAYING THIS WAS TRUE OF WING CHUN SCHOOLS, NO HIDDEN MEANING HERE!

Please, you don't need to continue to qualify your statements by implying I'm skeptical of hidden meanings with bold disclaimers for my benefit. It's a bit insulting. Fair enough?

[Faux Newbie]

And this is where the problems start. Before you speak for how WC operates (or any other system you don't have experience it), you should first have some actual training and experience in the system. And I'm talking more than a friend of yours studied WC. Because you couldn't be further than truth. Even different lineages of WC don't have common footwork, let alone WC footwork being common to most kung fu!

If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. Biu ma is common, the pivot steps are common, these are all common steps. And I don't just have a friend who does it, he and I sparred and trained against each other for years, and he is a respected teacher here. I'm sorry, but your footwork, like all kung fu styles, was influenced by the kung fu of the day, and those steps are common. How you use them is unique, that is a given, but the steps themselves are all over kung fu, and so face common mechanics issues with other kung fu.

Again - and no offense intended - but if your boxing analogy wasn't relevant to WC mechanics but just a general mechanics example, then I still don't see with the point in continuing down that road. The example you gave for boxing stepping and punching isn't universal to all martial arts because IMO it wasn't representative of how WC functions. Same with if you used Tai Chi. So, while I have a deep love of boxing and appreciate the skills involved, I'll skip the rest of the boxing analogies and just use WC as an example from here on out.

How do you prove a principle is universal using only one style? You don't.

I thought we were discussing striking with footwork?

Kicks=striking. True, linguistically, Chinese separate these issues, but only for ease of description. Footwork and power generation still must support both, thus the kicking example.

Now you're mixing WC bridging footwork and the previous point of WC striking with footwork. I fully agree though, WC engagement and bridging methods 100% benefit from the footwork as it helps provide full-body leverage and positional control! While it can be argued there is some overlap, bridging footwork and striking are two somewhat different topics.

I was discussing power generation and footwork, since both striking and bridging integrate them, both examples are pertinent.

Since I didn't have this experience in my traning, nor do I know of whom you're speaking of, I can't comment further except to say that I agree footwork should be trained early on.

With power generation, not just footwork. Most kung fu applies its power generation to its footwork, other posts on this thread suggest wing chun does as well.

Please, you don't need to continue to qualify your statements by implying I'm sceptical of hidden meanings with bold disclaimers for my benefit. It's a bit insulting. Fair enough?

Sure. In response, you could simply ask "do you think wing chun fighters do X" before asserting ”If so, you need to meet more of them," which equally muddies the water unnecessarily.

[Paddington]

Not sure I follow, as I thought I was agreeing with what Wayfaring was saying which is who I quoted in my reply. Unless you are trying to imply some connection you see we may have now that you didn't think existed before?
[...]

Well, what both you and Wayfaring said was very similar to what I and others had already said and I particularly agreed with what you said about those parts of the body (those joints) and how they should work together. That was the point I was making too and I referenced it to chum kui, which is where I see that principle trained. I also mentioned getting a good connection with the ground, as others had done.

He was agreeing with what you were saying, regardless of who it was focused on.
[...]

Yes I was. I have had to twiddle some beads before composing a reply because my initial response was expletive ridden. But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

[Faux Newbie]

Yes I was. I have had to twiddle some beads before composing a reply because my initial response was expletive ridden. But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

I of course would not know what you are talking about.

[Faux Newbie]

Okay, to make it simple.

What do readers feel is a reasonable range of time a practicing student might to need to transition from practicing stationary power generation to also practicing it with appropriate footwork?

[JPinAZ]

But anyway, it is frustrating to see the pair of them, JP in particular, unable to acknowledge agreement and refrain from social slights and demeaning gestures, c'est la vie.

Says the guy that has to refrain from commenting so it isn't riddled it with expletives... Just because you don't say what you are really thinking doesn't mean the intent doesn't come thru loud and clear when you finally post. At least I say exactly what I think.

Look, let's just cut all of the BS ok? In regards to the basic ideas of connecting the 6 major joints for issuing and receiving force, I agreed with you, you agreed with me we both agreed on that as well. What else do you f'g want from me? I think you are waaaay over sensitve and expect way too much from people - you're not even happy when people are on the same **** page with you!!

[JPinAZ]

Okay, to make it simple.

What do readers feel is a reasonable range of time a practicing student might to need to transition from practicing stationary power generation to also practicing it with appropriate footwork?

haha, that might be too simple of a question. It really depends on the student and also what the teacher is focusing on. Some students pick up things way faster than others.

But ignoring that, one 'simple' answer could be - day one, stationary drilling. Day two, put it in motion. Day three, put it in application. Repeat.
Another could be replace days with weeks, or hours for that matter.. But IMO, it should be well balanced.

[Faux Newbie]

haha, that might be too simple of a question. It really depends on the student and also what the teacher is focusing on. Some students pick up things way faster than others.

But ignoring that, one 'simple' answer could be - day one, stationary drilling. Day two, put it in motion. Day three, put it in application. Repeat.
Another could be replace days with weeks, or hours for that matter.. But IMO, it should be well balanced.

Which I see as a reasonable timeline.

[Faux Newbie]

you're not even happy when people are on the same **** page with you!!

Totally poking you with a stick now, but that was literally your position further up this page. In the same conversation.

Just to poke further, you also were sensitive about my wording one post before accusing him of being sensitive.

[JPinAZ]

If you could point me to more than one single step in wing chun footwork that isn't common to all kung fu, I would be shocked. Biu ma is common, the pivot steps are common, these are all common steps. And I don't just have a friend who does it, he and I sparred and trained against each other for years, and he is a respected teacher here. I'm sorry, but your footwork, like all kung fu styles, was influenced by the kung fu of the day, and those steps are common. How you use them is unique, that is a given, but the steps themselves are all over kung fu, and so face common mechanics issues with other kung fu.

Sure, if you look at it at a very general and basic level you are right - fwd is fwd, sideways is sideways, shifting is- well you get the point. But beyond those very common ideas that most footwork shares, things are pretty different when you compare arts and the ways they go about them.

Example: both HFY's primary footworks of Buhn Yeut Ma and Leung Yi Ma are nothing like I have seen before in most any other MA, and in most cases even other WC lineages. Yes, the general ideas are the same - move forward, move sideways/shift. But WC is a lot more than that. Beyond these basic generalities, the applications, focus, intent, etc are unique to WC and HFY more specifically. Boxers, MT guys, tai chi guys, TKD guys, yes, the all move fwd and sideways, but what and how they do them is not common to what I'm talking about. Even within various WC lineages the differences are clear to see both in how they move fwd or shift. Some use 50/50 weight, some 100/0, some shift their weight, etc. Some slide their feet, some pick them up. Even their ideas of biu ma vary, even within the same lineages!

Again, you said "Wing Chun footwork is common to most kung fu, not one unique step." and I still argue that without direct experience and training in at least one WC lineage, you can't fairly make this statement - 'specially not for all WC! And while it's good you've done it, I don't feel sparring with one just WC person is enough exposure to do so. Because what you say doesn't apply to either of the WC lineages I've personally trained in.

How do you prove a principle is universal using only one style? You don't.

Good question! I agree, basic principles are universal regardless of the art. Gravity is gravity, only one object can occupy one space at one time, shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, etc. You don't need to talk about boxing for that. But what an art does with these things and concepts derived from them will sometimes vary greatly from art to art, or even within a single art as I pointed out above.

I was discussing power generation and footwork, since both striking and bridging integrate them, both examples are pertinent.

And as I pointed out, often enough the methods for each are different. I don't typically use the same mechanics, strategies or tactics when engaging at long range as I do when striking/defending at short range. Sure, there's some overlap, but mostly the ideas are different based on range, facing, position, leverage point, etc. Boxers are the same way. Just look at jabs and then short rang hooks or uppercuts - are you saying the mechanics and footwork are the same for these. Then look at slipping and bob & weave and compare that to how they employ a short range upper cut. Are they the same?

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

Totally poking you with a stick now, but that was literally your position further up this page. In the same conversation.

Just to poke further, you also were sensitive about my wording one post before accusing him of being sensitive.

Why do you feel the constant need to speak for other people? You really should 'stick' to your own conversations you have with people vs. trying to mediate what everyone else is talking about because I have no idea what you're going on about at this point. Thanks, but no thanks

[Faux Newbie]

Sure, if you look at it at a very general and basic level you are right - fwd is fwd, sideways is sideways, shifting is, well you get the poing. But beyond those very common ideas that most footwork shares, things are pretty different when you compare arts and the ways they go about them.

No. The stances are identical to a huge number of styles, the variations as well. Stepping from one to the other is, likewise, pretty consistent from kung fu style to kung fu style, with the caveat that the older versions tended to use the wave generation we discussed before. Later styles seemed to turn their rear toe more forward than the older ones. Even the weight differences and arguments for them are common to a huge range of kung fu styles.

And as I pointed out, often enough the methods for each are different. I don't typically use the same mechanics when engaging at long range as I do when striking/defending at short range. Boxers are the same way. Just look at jabs and then short rang hooks or uppercuts - are you saying the mechanics and footwork are the same for these. Then look at slipping and bob & weave and compare that to how they employ a short range upper cut. Are they the same?

I wasn't saying they were the same, they train the mechanics that apply to what they are doing with the footwork, just like wing chun, only in their own format. That there are more than one set of mechanics just means they train those, as well.

No idea what you are talking about here.

You asked for a common courtesy, I agreed as long as I see it coming back. You asked if I meant something in regards to wing chun fighters that I never suggested, instead of waiting for the answer, you included how I should view things if that were the case. Just ask, I'd be happy to clarify.