Stepping 'back'.

[Mr Punch]

Er, made it into a poll but any chat about it welcome too!

Of course it varies with the situation (I would hope) which is why I put 'generally' in the question!

Cheers.

[Nick Forrer]

Hmmmm

I try not to step back if I can avoid it during chi sau...this forces you to develop your structure and your turning more....and I never step back unless my opponent steps in

That said its fine to step back as long as

a) you step back to your advantage rather than just stepping back (i.e. you get an angle (that may be less or more than 45 deg. it depends on how much your enemy steps in...no dogmatic answer re: the ideal angulation)

b) you are not stepping out of range to counter attack (a common mistake esp. for beginners is that they step back too much as it makes them feel safer). As the Kuen Kuit tells us you have to recieve what comes...not run away from it. If you get it right your enemy should walk onto your counter attack.

The best way to develop this is the Seung Ma Toi Ma drill (A steps in with Tan from rolling hands..B steps back with fook and bong at an angle in response.....then Huen sau to change sides and then A steps in with the other side Tan and B steps back the other way ad nauseum.

[Mr Punch]

Originally Posted by Nick Forrer

Hmmmm

I try not to step back if I can avoid it during chi sau...this forces you to develop your structure and your turning more....and I never step back unless my opponent steps in

Sure, I liie to practice without moving quite a lot. Then we up the intensity and start putting in more footwork.

I should have specified though., I was talking more about general fighting principles.

I only put the 'Never step back' thing in the poll as a gag, but somebody actually clicked it!

Let me open it up a bit.

IME some Leung Ting guys (and others) say 'never step back'. I always figure it's a joke or they've never been in a fight.

Most Leung Ting guys I've trained with step back straight.

William Cheung: at 90 ish, certainly wider than I'm used to.

Most WSL (and others) at 45 ish, which is where I'm comfortable.

Straight back seems to lead your square WC stance being very open to being steamrollered by big people or taken down by grapplers.

90 ish I'm not sure about... I can see its merits in som situations but I haven't tried it enough... I tend to think it takes you too far out of range and has your energy going off to the side. If you always practice this way I can see how it could really make you good at sending power into your punches from any angle, not the rather slavish centre-to-centre centreline style of attacking from square on.

45 seems to me to be a good, natural extension of just turning to 'accept what comes' it also gives you a good chance to establish/maintain contact with your lead arm and have a good power punch from off your back foot.

These are just my observations. Discussion welcome.

BTW, I'm not having a dig at Leung Ting's lot, just a couple of observations from people I've trained with. I am having a dig at people who generally say 'Never step back'. You're on crack!

[Liddel]

Originally Posted by Mr Punch

I am having a dig at people who generally say 'Never step back'. You're on crack!

I totally agree - i use all of the above angles with regard to stepping back.
Although stepping back to me, is seperate from a retreat.

A retreat to me is to evade/avoid and envolves dis engaging from the action - say to let a kick or punch pass.

Stepping back however is in my mind all about 'range management' and is generally only a half step at most in any direction at any angle to suit the situation.

IMO a half step gives the advantage of gaining space and position without loosing the range to retaliate/follow up.

Never say Never in fighting its just narrow minded....

[Ravenshaw]

Ideally, I try not to step back, but in sparring these things aren't always ideal. I guess now that I think about it, I usually go straight back or on a diagonal. What would be the advantage of 90 degrees over 45 degrees?

As far as "never stepping back," Sigung LT and his students say some things as if they are universal truths when they probably aren't. They say things as if to sound confident and authoratative, but really it just invites criticism. I find that it can also close the minds of some WT students, because they hear these claims and take them at face value. Isn't it good to also know what to do in a less-than-ideal situation? I love WT, but I have to take these things with a grain of salt...

[IRONMONK]

in the WT chi sao sections there is "stepping back " footwork

[AmanuJRY]

You might want to re-phrase the question.

When forced to step back, I would step back...in all other instances, I will turn, step or move off line.

The question then, is what would force you to step back vs. turning offline???

[Mr Punch]

Good point.

In a very quick off the top of my head answer before I hit the sack, I'd say centreline attacks or attacks that pressurize both sides of your body at once, rendering it impossible to turn off on an axis running through you centre of balance. Like a double handed bar-fight opening shove to your chest.

With a half step (depending on how strong and how far through the attack is coming) it should be possible to turn/step off-line even if you start going directly back. This is desirable because you can spring-load your counter. I reckon.

Good night!

[wingchuntaiji]

Hi! All,

I am new to this forum, but I think that the stepping back question needs to include "All of the above and Other". There are also more alternatives than just stepping back to deal with incoming force that can't be dissipated. There are in fact more stepping backs than what are listed. It depends on the level of the practitioner and whether he or she can fully absorb, neutralize, or redirect the opponet's force. To some high-level practitioners, not the agressors, they never need to step back. Most people would use straight line. But, the less you need to step back the better in a Chi-Sao situation. Some fighters use stepping back to deliver powerful release of an attack and/or to cause a bigger impact in sparrings.

God Bless,

wingchuntaiji

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Most Leung Ting guys I've trained with step back straight.
William Cheung: at 90 ish, certainly wider than I'm used to.
Most WSL (and others) at 45 ish, which is where I'm comfortable.

Straight back seems to lead your square WC stance being very open to being steamrollered by big people or taken down by grapplers.

90 ish I'm not sure about... I can see its merits in some situations but I haven't tried it enough... I tend to think it takes you too far out of range and has your energy going off to the side. If you always practice this way I can see how it could really make you good at sending power into your punches from any angle, not the rather slavish centre-to-centre centreline style of attacking from square on.

45 seems to me to be a good, natural extension of just turning to 'accept what comes' it also gives you a good chance to establish/maintain contact with your lead arm and have a good power punch from off your back foot.

These are just my observations. Discussion welcome.

BTW, I'm not having a dig at Leung Ting's lot, just a couple of observations from people I've trained with. I am having a dig at people who generally say 'Never step back'. You're on crack! " (Mr. Punch)


***WANT TO NOT ONLY talk about William Cheung's 90 degree full side step...the name of which should tell you that it's not so much meant to be a step back (and certainly not a step done in a straight line)...but rather as means of letting the opponent's attack pass you by...

and would also like to talk about the 45 degree turn, and all other related moves - including simply going straight back.

Let's start with this part of your post: "Straight back seems to lead your square WC stance being very open to being steamrollered by big people or taken down by grapplers."

***I AGREE that this can happen but I also see times when using a step straight back (or a step back and forth) is helpful as a means of working distance, mobility, and deception issues to your advantage from longer ranges than actual limb-to-limb contact range...and sometimes even within a very short range if such a step allows you to readjust your hand(s) and arm(s) to a more favorable position...

But the 45 and the 90 degree turns are very helpful in allowing the opponent's attack to bypass you - and ANY degree between 45 and 90 may come into play depending upon the commitment and speed of your opponent's attack (you won't be out of range with a 90 degree move if he really tried to penetrate your space very quickly and very hard...ie.- the bull and the matador).

You also wrote this about the 90: "I can see how it could really make you good at sending power into your punches from any angle, not the rather slavish centre-to-centre centreline style of attacking from square on."


***THAT'S RIGHT.

As I've said numeorus times - ONLY using the centre-to-centre in attack and defense really limits your weaponry, your mobility, and your power - while showing too much target to the opponent.

But oftentimes it's excellent from a very close standup striking range.

Assuming that's where we are in the fight at any given moment.

But like the 90 degree footwork move - which allows more angles to strike upon...it's still just one piece in the game. As are the 45, the straight back, and simply holding your ground.

[Edmund]

Originally Posted by AmanuJRY

You might want to re-phrase the question.

When forced to step back, I would step back...in all other instances, I will turn, step or move off line.

The question then, is what would force you to step back vs. turning offline???

Good question. For some people, a stiff breeze would do it. For others, a broken arm.

[Shaolin]

Forced to do anything in confrontation means you were not in control from the begining.

[sihing]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

Forced to do anything in confrontation means you were not in control from the begining.

Control is an illusion my friend. If you do have control, it is only for a moment, so there will always be times when the other guy has the upper hand, and a sort of retreat is needed to gather your bearings and set the other guy up. To say that you will always be on top and have the advantage is naive thinking when it comes to combat IMO. One of the reasons why I love WC so much is that it teaches you many ways to go from bad position (losing) to winning positions and success in combat.

If you retreat in a straight line, you are still in the line of fire. If you retreat on a 90deg angle you avoid the line of fire but limit your target area, so that method is good and not good. The 45 deg angle (or something similar, anywhere offline is preferred), is the optimum to hopefully achieve as this puts you offline from the opponents force and allows ample target area to attack simultaneously. Of course, in the reality of things you have to do what you can and what your body reacts to, nothing is in stone and just getting out of the way, in any direction is sufficient when it's life and death.

James

[AmanuJRY]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

Forced to do anything in confrontation means you were not in control from the begining.

Maybe not in control of the centerline at that moment...it happens, in a dynamic environment control can change hands several times in a moment.

And if I wasn't in control from the beginning I should just give up?

being 'forced' to do something different than your original strategy is very
common, otherwise few would know what 'plan B' means.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Maybe not in control of the centerline at that moment...it happens, in a dynamic environment control can change hands several times in a moment."


***SOMETIMES occupying the centerline doesn't mean you're in control. You can still be hit with round (hook) punches, uppercuts, or overhands precisely because you're right in the middle (the center)...in between his two arms/fists - but without sufficient control.

In other words, there are several factors involved in order to achieve this control. For one, you must be very close to your opponent for exclusive occupation (and complete control) of the centerline to mean anything.

AND YOU MUST NOT ONLY BE VERY CLOSE - BUT ALSO HAVE ENOUGH CONTROL OF HIS ARMS/HANDS/ELBOWS/BODY to get the upperhand - because having the "position" (controlling/occupying the centerline) by itself doesn't necessarily mean a thing - even if you're very close. You can still get hit.

And having enough control (the way I just described it) doesn't necessarily mean always locking down/pinning/trapping/deflecting/redirecting one or both of his limbs...unbalancing his body, etc. - but rather, it means having enough control of this environment so that you can deliver a strike (or strikes) that will go unanswered.

(Not that you'll never get hit. Nobody can block, deflect, or avoid everything. But cutting that down to the barest minimum is the goal here, obviously).

Furthermore, one of the factors in gaining the kind of control I'm talking about (even if only for a moment or two - which could still be enough time to change the course or outcome of the fight)...is the proper footwork and distancing...whether it's going forward, going back in some way...moving to the side...etc.