Wing Chun Stance Flawed

[sanjuro_ronin]

YJKYMA is an excellent stance, all-purpose too, I stop grapplers and BJJ BB all the time with it, heck one time I even stopped a runaway car with it, of course I have the REAL WC and not some cheap import from HK, my WC came from the jungles of the chewsomemuff village, where the REAL WC was created, developed and pressure tested in the brothels of Macao !!
I can teach you this, my padawan wannabe, for a mere $3999.99 per month and all I will need is 12 months !!
That's right 12 months to make you into an uber deadly WC fighter than can hammer nails with your ***** into 6" wood and rip them out with your butt cheeks !!
And that is just the first lesson !!

[Yoshiyahu]

Yee Kim Yeung Ma-

The Problem may be your experience. Its like anything if you practice a form all day and never learn to fight with it then your form is useless. Same with YGKYM.

Of course you don't stand still in that stance the whole time you fight. From Ygkym if your opponent moves in you side step or counter step to their flank. Similiar to dummy form. You can stand in forward bracing stance an step forward attacking your opponent. If you enter his gate and wish to hit him with both elbows and use your shifting to generate power for a technique or two then you go to YGKYM. Of course you don't fight the whole fight using YGKYM. Nor do you fight a whole fight using just Tan Sau. Will you tan sau a round house kick? or Front Kick?

The problem I see is people see WC as a static fighting art. It is alive. It should be flowing from one technique to another and from one stance to another. It should be continously attacking and defending. Evading and Feinting. bridging and destroying the bridges. WC is inclose fighting system. An when your in elbow range thats when I find YGKYM is the most effective. Long kicking range you have your Forward Bracing stance or Forward advancing stance.

But every thing in WC can be use for fighting. The key is how do you apply it. The YGKYM has specific purposes that you may not completely understand. But Just because you can not fight with it doesn't mean others can not. Thus it should remain with in the WC system as a useful stance.

Boy the YGKYM has saved my groin on several occasions!!!

[mjw]

**Shifting and circular steping makes mobitity from the stance as well as avoiding your opponents power..
You can shift or twist your hips to generate power through use of body weight
The square formation keeps both of your hands in range to attack when in range and staying square makes it harder for one to get to your back side.

Further more it is developmental much like in karate etc the deep horse stances are used to develop leg power etc. Later on you find ways for your body to adapt and make adjustments to the force etc. I also see it as almost a ready stance when I know a threat may be coming yes I put one leg forward though I do stay square etc with my upper body and utilize the concepts of WC/VT but there is also a lot of out of the box substance that comes in when a real altercation occurs.

[k gledhill]

they do muff testing of the jgkym in macao....koool

[TenTigers]

Sometimes I just wish our forum had a 'Like' or 'Thumbs Up' button like Facebook. I would give Joy's post a "Thumbs Up.'

some people post the quote and then post,"QFT" which means, quoted for truth.
The forum equivilent of the "thumbs up."

[grasshopper 2.0]

Calling the stance useless is like telling a boxer that skipping rope is useless for fighting too.

Such things shouldn't be taken so literally and be placed into context.

I do believe that there is a falling step in wing tsun (and rising step), as well as stances that use weight distributions from 0/100 to 100/0 and everything in between.

WT/WC/VT can easily, imo, be judged and represented by its extremes (eg tan sao, 0/100 weight distribution), rather than seen for its continuum of movements.

[Pacman]

This is most likely a troll thread and not worth much effort but I need to comment on this response, just can't let it go!



Did you just write that a boxer's stance has no mobility?

Eh gad! PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR CAVE ONCE A DECADE AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND

It's statements like the above that are the reason many don't take CMA people seriously....

i didnt say no mobility. please read. please read and then try to comprehend

i said a lead off stance has the least mobility when compared to a squared stance.

i also did not say that you would fight in a YKJM, but i was advocating a squared stance vs a sideways body

its easy to show. get in a lead off stance and try circling an opponent or moving forward or backward with small hops.

now do the same thing with a squared off stance. its easy to see which allows the most mobility

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

then he stops circling and settles into his lead off stance, face to face, toe to toe and then he doesn't move much anymore.

im not advocating the foot shuffling, but look at how ali is when he's moving vs when he settles in to strike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD99VbFzqAg

obviously boxers have their reasoning for using a lead off stance to strike and WC has its reasons for a squared off stance when we strike, but the fact is that the squared off stance allows for better mobility

[AdrianK]

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

Ali had a very unorthodox boxing stance. Actually its kind've the embodiment of the idea of moving naturally...

But anyways, mobility has more to do with balance, coordination and strength. You can be in a traditional stance, an SPM stance, even horse stance, and as long as you have the leg strength and balance, you can be as mobile as you'd like.

[-木叶-]

Troll and flame bait spotted

[OdderMensch]

I am convinced that the Wing Chun Horse Stance (Yee Jee Kim Yong Ma) is flawed.

It is not a stance that can be used effectively in combat. No professional fighters use it.

There are 3 main reasons:

1. mobility - the pigeon toed formation coupled with the tension in the leg muscles (from the knee bending) ensures that the stance is immobile.

How does tension render a body part immobile? Only if the tension is never changed. The YJKYM is the mother stance that all other stances (in WCK) are built off of. alter the tension on one side and you alter the weight and body angle. Pull a bit more on one side (or I as say release some tension on the other side) and that immobilizing tension will move the upper body quite a bit.

2. Even weighted - the 50:50 weight distribution on each leg does not allow effective use of body weight. The concept of a "falling punch" used by boxers requires that weight distribution move completely from one leg to another enabling all of the boxer's body weight to be utilized in delivering the punch.

Chum Kiu's first movements show that the weight can, should and must move from 50:50 to 100:0.

As for shifting all of my weight to one side or the other for power I much prefer WCK in that I only move about 80:20 when weight shifting for power. This gives me much of my weight while retaining much of my stability and mobility. Also going 100:0 into a punch will add a few inches of reach, but at the cost of the complete loss of on hand.

3. Square on formation provides a larger target. Coupled with 1 and 2 above the Wing Chun practitioner is unable to effectively avoid the opponent's power.

"We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong."

This has always been a sticky point to me. I present a larger target? Really? Don't most people throw round attacks and head shots as well as straight punches to the body? I would agree if we were talking ballistics or baseballs but in hand to hand fighting I strongly disagree. I train to avoid the opponent's power by meeting with and negating that power while counter attacking whatever he opened by striking me. I can't see how you do that without a good YJKYM!

I believe that Wing Chun could be developed into a far more effective martial art if the stance was removed from the system!

I suspect I will get alot of dissenting views ... but to this day I cannot understand why practitioners of the art cling on to this stance. We should strive for improvement, not cling on to archaic dogmas that are clearly wrong.

I am a dissenting view then. I train with it. I fight with it. That has always been the Wing Chun Marching Song to me.

[monji112000]

i didnt say no mobility. please read. please read and then try to comprehend

i said a lead off stance has the least mobility when compared to a squared stance.

i also did not say that you would fight in a YKJM, but i was advocating a squared stance vs a sideways body

its easy to show. get in a lead off stance and try circling an opponent or moving forward or backward with small hops.

now do the same thing with a squared off stance. its easy to see which allows the most mobility

if you look at a person who can box and who is light on his feet. lets say ali. he will move around and circle around his opponent. when he does his legs come away from a lead off stance because its difficult to move laterally with your legs like that

then he stops circling and settles into his lead off stance, face to face, toe to toe and then he doesn't move much anymore.

im not advocating the foot shuffling, but look at how ali is when he's moving vs when he settles in to strike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD99VbFzqAg

obviously boxers have their reasoning for using a lead off stance to strike and WC has its reasons for a squared off stance when we strike, but the fact is that the squared off stance allows for better mobility

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward.

[k gledhill]

fighting or sparring stances and actions involve 'cutting' entry invasion from all angles stances...etc..sadly many just see a slt stance , and pass judgment

sparring invades, cut space off, but you can always hang and let them come to you...reaction or action up to you

[Pacman]

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward.

thats fine i respect your opinion. one thing i have to say is that the difference is not just the target size (which to me involves other factors but thats another discussion) but also shortening the range of one arm and one leg with the lead off stance as well as putting those limbs at a f2rther distance from their target.

on top of that, a lead off stance does not give you good stability sideways--just from the front and from the back where as a squared off stance will give you better stability side to side and from the front.

[taojkd]

sorry to disagree with you. I find that a squared stance is 100% less mobile.. unless you are going directly sideways.. and never forward or backward or in any circular/triangle pattern.

WC has a shuffle step...what you didn't learn it? I have seen it and learning a little of it for kicking.

I really believe that people just take things to literally and don't look at the big picture. the stance from the forms and the "sideways" or shifted horse or "fighting" stance follow all the same ideas. The only difference is that one you are squared off giving a bigger target, while the other you are not. Everyone knows that staggering your feet allows for more stability if a wider range of directions not just forward

on top of that, a lead off stance does not give you good stability sideways--just from the front and from the back where as a squared off stance will give you better stability side to side and from the front.

A former instructor answered this very nicely for me. You only have two legs so there is always a weak point in any stance, and at some point, someone will get in between and uproot the two irregardless of your stance, structure or stepping. What makes their "stance, structure or stepping" better is the timing of how they used it.

[t_niehoff]

The YJKYMA as done in SNT is a training stance.

I disagree.

In my view, the YJKYM is not a "stance" but a particular sort of body mechanics, a way of using the body (to perform a certain sort of task). Those that see it as some sort of training stance are IMO missing both the mechanics and what those mechanics are for. The mechanics (body structure) of the YJKYM are fundamental to WCK's fighting method.