Sticking Hands

[k gledhill]

So what if you chi sao'ed with Robert (how many years ago? in a friendly visit). That you think this is somehow meaningful proves you are clueless.

I can see for myself how Bayer moves, his structure, what he is doing and not doing from his own clips. He's not putting them up on youtube because HE thinks they are good examples of poor WCK (so he must not know any better). And I go by what YOU write concerning his "idea" of WCK.

Thats beside the point, being, you pass judgments without any FIRSTHAND experience....

you might think you see things, but like eating an apple you can look at it and imagine all you like how it will taste....you have to bite it with your own mouth, not others.

I can at least give informed opinions, regardless, because i actually experienced the methods mentioned.....friendly or unfriendly

[t_niehoff]

Thats beside the point, being, you pass judgments without any FIRSTHAND experience....

Yes, so what? If you say that you can levitate, do I need to meet you firsthand to know that you are full of sh1t?

I KNOW fighting. I train WCK, BJJ and MMA. I've put in a ton of work. I know what sorts of things are possible -- even if I can't do them -- and what are not. I see what things happen in fighting. So when someone tells me they will do this or that, I know from firsthand experience that whether they are talking sense or nonsense.

Your description of Bayer's theory/idea of WCK indicates that it is extremely limited, and rests essentially one one tactic of WCK. You seem to have missed the larger picture. I don't need to train personally with you or Bayer to know that you will NEED more -- much more -- to be able to fight successfully. And if you spent 30 minutes in a MMA gym, you'd know it too.

WCK's method is to control while striking. What makes WCK work is the control aspect, not the punching, not the elbow, etc. Without that control, we have nothing. It is the cornerstone of the method. It is our defense, it sets up our offense, etc.

[Sean66]

Yes, controlling the opponent while striking or controlling/disrupting the opponents "center" while remaining "centered" oneself is indeed the cornerstone of WCK.

And this is exactly what Bayer does.

He controls through his use of leverage/angling, through his sense of distance and timing, and through bringing his whole body mass behind every action.

At least that's what I've felt when rolling with him. like rolling against a wall. My own equilibrium being destroyed and my attacks falling into emptiness while he was hitting me. Same feeling that I had when rolling with WKL one time in Hong Kong, by the way.

There are many ways to control an opponent in a fight. I've already mentioned timing and distance, but also superior strategy and even psychology.....you don't necessarily have to have contact with the opponent to control/manipulate him.

Anyway, I really don't understand this bickering. Bayer is making the most out of what he learned from WSL and it works for him and his students. He never claimed to be the best, but has only sought to improve his skills (and those of his students) to the best of his ability.

Mr. Orr also has a good thing going and it works for him and his students. And to my knowledge he's not claiming to be the best either.

So where exactly is the problem? Or did I miss something?
I am new here, so please forgive my ignorance when it comes to old themes.

[CFT]

Sean, you're too "good" for this forum.

If you stick around long enough you might be dragged down to the level of the mob.

[KPM]

heels pivot...upper body gets compromised otherwise, been there done that...

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy.

[couch]

I disagree. My foundation is from a lineage that teaches to pivot on the heels. I practiced that way for many years until guys like Robert Chu and Zopa Gyatso on forums like this convinced me to try it otherwise. When I tried it I didn't get the results or acknowledge the difference right away. I had to keep practicing until I was good at the different method before I could admit that they were right. The upper body absolutely is not compromised when not pivoting on the heels....as long as you are doing it correctly. I also found my structure was much more solid by avoiding pivoting on my heels. Its comes down to simple biomechanics. If your weight is already on your heels when you are pivoting, then you have very little "reserve" to support your structure if pressed during the pivot. Any kind of "push off" against the opponent to apply "forward pressure" has to come almost exclusively from the hips and thighs, because being on the heels takes the calf muscles out of the equation. Again....lineage considerations aside and looking strictly from a biomechanical standpoint.....pivoting near the K1 point with close to 50/50 weight distribution engages the calf muscles for forward pressure and provides a "springy" reserve, almost like a shock absorber. The upper body absolutely does not get compromised, but is actually even more solid and functional. Been there...done that. But it took time and practice to do it well enough to see the benefits. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you can't argue against the fact that having the weight on the heels doesn't allow good use of the calf muscles or use of the the elasticity of the calf and arch of the foot. That is not to say that pivoting on the heels doesn't work. Obviously guys like WSL made it work very well! But it is not optimal from a anatomical viewpoint. And I know anatomy.

I've always been curious as to how the heel-shift developed. A lot of my Moy Yat 'family' members shift on the heel...but when I talk to those who trained directly under Moy Yat, they advocate shifting with the 'whole foot' or on K1, etc.

A good friend of mine who practices Red Boat Wing Chun was taught by his Sifu, simply, to just shift. As long as the hips were moving correctly, he let the rest come naturally. I wonder if that's perhaps how teachers like Ip Man did things...and then that's why we have such differences between families.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, controlling the opponent while striking or controlling/disrupting the opponents "center" while remaining "centered" oneself is indeed the cornerstone of WCK.

OK, then we are on the same page. But this is not what Kevin says . . . .

And this is exactly what Bayer does.

Perhaps you're right. I would expect so considering his teacher was WSL, and that other WSL students, Lam, Wan, etc. focus on controlling the opponent while striking him. BUT, that isn't what he shows on his videos and isn't how his teachings have been "portrayed".

He controls through his use of leverage/angling, through his sense of distance and timing, and through bringing his whole body mass behind every action.

Yes, but there is more to it than that -- you also have to use the right tools to control the opponent. Punches alone can't control your opponent (except in rare cases). You also NEED to push, pull, wedge, lift, sink, etc. your opponent to both break their structure and keep it broken, which is the prerequisite to controlling him.

At least that's what I've felt when rolling with him. like rolling against a wall. My own equilibrium being destroyed and my attacks falling into emptiness while he was hitting me. Same feeling that I had when rolling with WKL one time in Hong Kong, by the way.

And that is what chi sao is for: to learn/practice controlling the opponent while striking him.

There are many ways to control an opponent in a fight. I've already mentioned timing and distance, but also superior strategy and even psychology.....you don't necessarily have to have contact with the opponent to control/manipulate him.

I think it more accurate to say that there are various levels of control, from very little to very high levels. Yes, you can have low levels of control on the outside (when not in contact). The problem is that WCK's is a close range, inside game, not an outside game (and so doesn't equip us with the tools to fight on the outside). If you compare WCK's tools with those of boxing, kickboxing, etc. -- which focus on the free-movement (outside) game - you can see this.

There is a reason that chi sao is our signature, core drill. And why boxing, kickboxing doesn't have an attached drill like that.

[KPM]

I've always been curious as to how the heel-shift developed.

---Me too! In my investigation of the mainland versions of WCK like Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan, I discovered that none of them that I encountered shifted on the heels. I know that Ho Kam Ming and Wong Shun Leung taught the heel shift. My hypothesis was that one of these senior Yip Man students was the one that began teaching it this way. But I have nothing solid to back that up.



A good friend of mine who practices Red Boat Wing Chun was taught by his Sifu, simply, to just shift. As long as the hips were moving correctly, he let the rest come naturally. I wonder if that's perhaps how teachers like Ip Man did things...and then that's why we have such differences between families.

---I think that's a pretty good theory! When I watched the limited video footage that we have of Yip Man, it was often hard to tell what part of the foot he was shifting on. Sometimes it looked like K1, and sometimes it looked like the heel. So he may very well have not been very specific on this topic and his students developed their own ideas on which was better. If WSL was the one to start teaching the heel pivot specifically, then it makes sense that some of his Si Dai would pick up on it and start doing it as well, since he was so well respected. But I have seen no Wing Chun methods that weren't connected to Yip Man that pivot on the heels.

[Peaceful Orchid]

Why would one shift on the heel? That is the least stable position. One can be knocked over easily if shifting on the heel. Plus, you can't develop any power on the heel.

[sihing]

The pivot is not "on" the heel, it is "from" the heel. The weight when pivoting does not go back on the heel for us to pivot, lol. The weight is evenly as possible distributed on the whole foot. If I found this to be weak when pressure was applied to my structure, I would have given it up 4 yrs ago.

The idea is to learn how to keep your center stable and straight, rather than swaying side to side, and is a very small part of the training, as you would never pivot like this in application. It gives you hip/waist sensitivity, connects the waist to the upper body which means we learn how to move as a unit with the legs/glutes providing power and stability to the upper body.

James

[sihing]

Why would one shift on the heel? That is the least stable position. One can be knocked over easily if shifting on the heel. Plus, you can't develop any power on the heel.

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

[KPM]

The pivot is not "on" the heel, it is "from" the heel. The weight when pivoting does not go back on the heel for us to pivot, lol. The weight is evenly as possible distributed on the whole foot.

James

Hi James!

You can "lol" all you want. But the fact remains that in order to pivot "from the heel", the majority of your body weight has to be "on the heels." This is not the optimal place for it to be. I agree that the weight can be as evenly distributed as possible to the whole foot. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you cannot pivot at the heel without the majority of the body weight being carried through that pivot point. You don't see boxers or kickboxers standing with their weight on their heels. They call this "standing flat-footed." They see it as an easy way to get knocked backwards if they are "caught" standing this way. They keep the majority of their weight further forward near the balls of the feet. The same is true for wrestlers, MMA fighters, track athletes, tennis players, football players, etc.

You cannot pivot around a point unless that point is carrying the majority of your weight. During a pivot "from the heel", there is a point during the pivot when you are vulnerable to being off-balanced to the rear because the majority of your weight is carried through the pivot point in order to allow the rest of the foot to shift. As I said before, you are also missing out on being able to use the calf muscles to generate power and the calf and arch of the foot to serve as a "reserve" when the majority of your weight is on your heels. These are physical/anatomical facts. So please don't laugh about it until you have taken the time to truly consider what is being said.

[KPM]

Go to a gym, and the squat area. Place two 45lbs plates on each side of a barbell, get in the middle of the bar and perform a squat with your heels off the ground, then with the heels on the ground, let us know which feels stronger/more stable and activates the thigh muscles.

James

P.S. If while squating down, you go back in direction (barbell behind your heels), you will fall over backwards, but if you adjust the direction of your squating, so that the barbell is centered with your feet, then you will have balance and power.

Squatting with a barbell is a poor analogy. It doesn't even come close to replicating the biomechanics of WCK. Here's a better experiment: have someone chase you around the gym trying to smack you with a wet towel. Avoid him as best you can. How much time do you spend with your weight back on your heels?

[sihing]

Hi James!

You can "lol" all you want. But the fact remains that in order to pivot "from the heel", the majority of your body weight has to be "on the heels." This is not the optimal place for it to be. I agree that the weight can be as evenly distributed as possible to the whole foot. But from a biomechanical standpoint, you cannot pivot at the heel without the majority of the body weight being carried through that pivot point. You don't see boxers or kickboxers standing with their weight on their heels. They call this "standing flat-footed." They see it as an easy way to get knocked backwards if they are "caught" standing this way. They keep the majority of their weight further forward near the balls of the feet. The same is true for wrestlers, MMA fighters, track athletes, tennis players, football players, etc.

You cannot pivot around a point unless that point is carrying the majority of your weight. During a pivot "from the heel", there is a point during the pivot when you are vulnerable to being off-balanced to the rear because the majority of your weight is carried through the pivot point in order to allow the rest of the foot to shift. As I said before, you are also missing out on being able to use the calf muscles to generate power and the calf and arch of the foot to serve as a "reserve" when the majority of your weight is on your heels. These are physical/anatomical facts. So please don't laugh about it until you have taken the time to truly consider what is being said.

Hi Keith,

My "lol" was directed more towards those that think one is back weighted and off balance (like a chair that is ready to be pushed over). All stances or situations where one is static causes one to be off balance somewhere, you may be able to handle pressure in one place, but not in a 360deg reference.

Now as one that pivots from the heel, that doesn't mean I'm a slave to it, or that the weighting in my stance is always there, it's ever changing and not always set in stone, the key thing like I mentioned it to learn how to keep one's center stable and not swaying side to side. Some in WC go away from center when they pivot, I don't, my center stays where it is and I absorb, deflect the pressure coming upon it. It's like someone that runs from pressure vs someone that takes the pressure and uses it. In my training, I've found that the thigh muscles are kicked in for the most part but on the releasing of my energy into my partner, the calf muscle kicks in as it is here that the heel rises a bit to release (which is just like any sport).

For me this has worked well in enhancing my structure, making it capable of handling some pressure and not having to run for it, other's may have a different experience, guess it depends on who they are learning from and how well they understand it.

James

[sihing]

Squatting with a barbell is a poor analogy. It doesn't even come close to replicating the biomechanics of WCK. Here's a better experiment: have someone chase you around the gym trying to smack you with a wet towel. Avoid him as best you can. How much time do you spend with your weight back on your heels?

Actually Keith I think we will have to agree to disagree. Much easier to discuss this stuff in person

James