How does the following sound to you all? Without getting into side topics (yet), during the training of the stance changes back and forth from “left sitting horse” to “right sitting horse,” let me use as an example training of the vertical fist punch, where the non-punching hand comes back to chamber. As this is training, not fighting, one goal is that the center of gravity of the practicioner remain along the same vertical axis as the stance shifts from one side to the other, IMHO to train twisting force. Assume we are all on the same page in that the weight when stationary is concentrated through the K-1 “bubbling springs” point, about 2/3 of the way from the heel to the tip of the foot. If you stand in a 50-50 stance, then your center of gravity (COG) is along an axis midway between your K-1 points - or slightly closer to your front heel than your rear heel. Using the K-1 points as the axis to turn your feet would leave your COG stationary. While, if you stand in a 60-40 stance, then your COG is more towards the rear foot, approximately right between the heels. Thus, turning on you heels leaves your COG stationary. To summarize: In 50-50 stance, turning on your K-1 points in the feet leaves your COG stationary. In 60-40 stance, turning on your heels leaves your COG stationary. With either method, your left and right punches will line up - try it if you like. I hope I explained the geometry well. I have been exposed to both methods of turning, but I have never seen a geometrical explaination of the difference. Do you agree with my assessment?
And if you stand in a 90-10…
then your COG is a few inches behind you? This is an oversimplification.
All are correct.Use what you need for when you need it.
Go back to school
If you are in a 90-10, then your COG is between your heels and very near to the rear heel, not behind you. And there would be no part of your foot that you could pivot on to keep your COG constant. Actually, I did neglect to mention that your COG in all these cases lies a few inches forward of the line in between your heels, as your weight is not on your heels, as mentioned before. ROY: The issue is not which is better, what I’m really trying to get at is: How have the weight distribution preferences of various practioners affected the point on the foot in which the pivot is made. If you just try both methods you will see that your punches line up.
When you need it is only when you are training. You can train to side-step forward or back from your sitting horse stance when you punch, to train footwork. The training exercise I am describing is to train linking/twisting power, and yes, there are probably more ways to do it than what I described. However, these 2 I mentioned seem to be popular, and my point is that both methods cause the center of gravity to remain in a constant position.
center of gravity constant?
why do you want to keep your COG (center of gravity) in the same spot? in punching wouldnt you rather have your center of gravity moving fowards, hence hitting your opponent with the force of your body?
when your in contact with your opponent, and any force is transferred to you, you have a different center of gravity
- this could require a change in YOUR weight distribution but would allow for your COG and the overall weight distribution to stay the same
how you shift would have more to do with the circumstances and how to keep a proper root, and less on where your feet and own body weight is i would think
however mabye im wrong
peace
travis
Receive what comes, Escort what leaves, and if there is an opening, rush in
School is in and I am your professor.
If I lift my front foot completely off the ground, does that force my COG over the rear heel?
Of course not. I can move MY COG to yongquan or even toe by shifting my body, and without putting my foot down. This is accomplished by repositioning hips, vertebrae, arms, head, etc.
So, as I said, you are oversimplifying. :rolleyes: Furthermore, the spine can maintain constant in a turn without a fixed point of rotation in the foot.
P.S. TjD, we are talking specifically about turns.
every move should be in balance. and can be done as suck regardles of the weight distribution. Hope you Find It. 
Edited Version
Every Move should be done in balance and can be done as such regardless of weight distribution. Hope you Find it!!! 
censored
“School is in and I am your professor”
NOT IN MY SCHOOL, SUNSHINE!!! 
clarification
Censored - Yes, I was oversimplifying, I didn’t want to be long-winded. TJD - I was talking about a specific training exercise where you don’t move forward - maybe this was developed to accomodate the size of the training space. We do have something we train called the “embracing step” which is kind of like turning while moving forward - I’ve only gotten this to work well for me by turning on the heels, and sinking into my rear leg, BTW. When I am sparring (we use boxing gloves) I am usually too concerned with the punch coming at my face to ponder the finer points of weight distribution. Maybe when I start training wooden man I’ll have the footwork more ingrained into my movements. For now, I am happy if just a few things I do in sparring come out "Wing Chun, " maybe you can feel this. I also have a penchant for theoretical discussions…
FAJINGK - I am all for theoretical discussions, but they lose all value when they become imprecise.
Roy - This is a WC board, not an Aikido board, so quit the “everyone is special” routine. When everything is right, nobody learns.
sunkuen - Think twice, cupcake.
cense
Censored
if you see my answers being more for Aikido, then perhaps you should be on the Aikido board.
The problem with many Wing Chun practitoner’s understanding of Yin Yang is that it is very limited.
If one understands that Yin & Yang exist’s together, then one will understand Wing Chun more completely! I hope you understand.
Avoid meaningless words
Roy,
The reason I am on here right now, and not generally on the Aikido board, is that people here have meaningful comments.
Statements such as “All are correct” (while technically true in the largest sense), belong to sophistry and do not serve discussion or learning. It is nearly impossible for someone to understand this kind of remark in its proper context, and without significant elaboration, it really does more harm than good to our practice of martial art.
We should talk about the things which can be talked about, and leave the rest to experience.
My experience with Aikido people is that they are good at talking about Yin and Yang, but they don’t really understand what they are saying, and consequently they get knocked on their ass more often then not. I have been learning from their mistakes for 3 years now, and I hate to see others repeat them.
Aikdio
Hello,
Just want to jump in for a moment here
Censored,
I think that Roy makes a valid point in stating that all are correct. What I get from this is that each method of weight placement/distribution has its own place. Since all of us are individuals it is only natural for us to tend to do things which compliment our phsical structure. I have been taught how to shift using the heels, center of the feet and balls. Each one, IMHO, has its own place and application. Perhaps one can not use one method to meet all circumstances. On the other hand, if one trains exclusively in only one method one may be able to adopt that approach and make it work, for them, in various circumstances. A lot has to do with how hard one trains and with ones deeper understanding of the method being applied.
I think that striving to maitain a 50/50 weight distribution has the advantage of allowing one a more balanced stance. You are in the middle and can react without the need to shift your weight/body as much as if you are in a more 60/40 or 70/30 or even 0/100. Now each weight distribution has its place and again, some people can make any one of them work iregardless of the situation. Still, I think that when one considers the average person a more mid level type of approach will often have the best “overall” results.
As to your comment about Aikdo people not really understanding Yin and Yang; that could be said of many Kung Fu people as well. Aikido may take longer to grasp and be able to put into application but someone who really understands the art can be quite formidable. I don’t know who you have been privilieged to see but a high ranking Aikido man, or even good Judoka or Ju Jitsu guy for that matter, is a pleasure to watch in action. I can assure you that they can be quite good and have an understanding of Yin and Yang, though perhaps from a different perspective than others. Like any good artists the seperation will come from the amount of effort put into training. Still, I feel it is a bit presumptious to dismiss all Aikdo people as having no real understanding of Yin and Yang.
I just want to caution everyone not to let their emotions get the better of them. Retain respect for each other. There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion but all views haver merit.
Peace,
Dave
heels and toes
Hi Dave,
Could you please post some examples of how and when you would use shifting on the toes or heels instead of the K1 point? I shift on the K1 point and have found that it supports the body structure the best in application. I am open to new ideas, however, so if you or anyone else who uses all three methods of shifting could elaborate a bit more I would appreciate it.
Dzu
Censored
The Unfortunate part of Wing Chun, is that people are looking for the perfect technique. This happens in all Martial Arts.
Many do not comprehend that every technique has a counter. Therefore no technique is perfect, if your definition of a perfect technique is an uncounterable technique. Sorry it dors not exist.
what does exist is the understanding of where you are open with each of our techniques.
The Wing Chun you have trained has already taught you that what I said is correct. And I can prove it. Unless you don’t have footwork in your system of Wing Chun?
Turning-ideal versus reality
Hi Dzu,
Forgive this short reply, I promise to post more later.
In essence I belive that Alan Lamb put out a very good article some time ago detailing the three methods of turning. He stressed that the balls would be used to take a more aggressive stance and go into the opponent. The Heels would move you slightly away from the opponent and would be used if you were not sure of your ability to deal with the opponents force. The turning on the center of the foot allowed one to maintain about the same relative position and was the middle line. Of ocurse these are oversimplifications
I would tend to utilize turning on the heel in rough or uneven terrian. If there were objects on the ground such as rocks or broken glass etc, then I might wish to turn on the heels as I would be able to raise my foot slighlty and skim the surface. It would also allow me the greatest distance of my body from the opponent in case I screwed up and need to recover quickly, just a little more of a cushion. Its funny, but if you train on different surfaces you may find that the method you normally prefer may need to be modified slightly in order to work on various surfaces.
Short answer, I am sure we will get into this more deeply as time permits.
Peace,
Dave
50-50 vs. 60-40 weighting, and turning - a theory
Dear fajing:
I dont understand your “geometry”- too many variables-weighting, accu points, c of g, etc-
an inelegant model IMO. There are differences in what you do step by step by for development and what you do in a real application.In the developed stage you can manipulate those things…so the exact weighting becomes less relevant and you cant and should not be dogmatic. But for development 50-50 swings you out the least when in motion IMO. Of course I could be wrong! What do I know! BTW do you really fajing?
How? I am curious and envious!
I don’t think anyone is getting carried away by emotion here (unless you include a certain anxious moderator who is a little too eager to please.)
My comment on Aikido people was directed at the group as a whole, it is generally correct and I do not need to apologize for it (nor do I need others to apologize on my behalf). There are, of course, noted exceptions. That is beside the point.
The point is, their use of quasi-philosophical nonsense is unusually high, and their ability to demonstrate is unusually low, i.e. there is a correlation. “All are correct” is the gateway to misunderstanding. What purpose does this serve?
I do agree completely with Roy’s further elaboration.
In the world of martial arts, all views do not have equal merit. I know it, you know it. (In fact, some posts of unequal merit have been moderated right off this board.) So let’s quit the newspeak and stop kidding ourselves. :rolleyes: