generating power

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

is there more than one way to generate power in wing chun?

ive recently been thinking about how to issue a decent amount of power in my wing chun brought up by contradicting comments made by a couple of friends of mine.

one stated that wing chun is not known for its ‘single shot’ power and its the follow up techniques and control that give a fighter the edge

the other - which was more in line with what i thought - stated that its the first powerful blow which should end the fight.

this made me examine my wing chun and think about how to generate power.

you have the obvious way - the power of local muscles in the punch - but this to me seems limited and doesnt stand up to the idea of the arm being the nail and the body the hammer.

then you have the WT/bruce lee dropstep where your bodyweight is literally behind the punch but this doesnt seem practical in all situations.

i read a lot of articles on the net that state you need to get the body behind the punch - and that you should ‘hit with your body’

is this just through good structure? or is there some subtle movement? articulation of the spine? subtle twisting in the waist?

how do people generate their power?
just wonderin

thanks

2

then you have the WT/bruce lee dropstep

Both of whom got it from Jack Dempsey.

There are many ways to develop power, There are ever more different opinions about which of them are and aren’t WC.

Find a way to measure how hard you hit. Then find which way maximises that power.

As Geoff Thompson said the best way to defend yourself is to learn to “HIT F***ING HARD”.

3

anerlich wrote:

There are many ways to develop power, There are ever more different opinions about which of them are and aren’t WC.

Find a way to measure how hard you hit. Then find which way maximises that power.

I agree with you that the way to improvement is via measuring our performance, and in this case it’s by “how hard you hit”; if someone doesn’t have powerful strikes they are IMO obviously doing something wrong. IMHO power, other than localized muscular exertion, is rooted in body-structure and the four torso methods (sink, rise, swallow, spit) - all of which are (should) be a part of one’s SNT/SLT. I think is the most direct path to power is by first directly testing these and developing them, then second learning how to link our bridges to our body (to transmit that power). So IMO the place to start is at the beginning, i.e., the punch from YJKYM. My advice to Jon is to initially develop your YJKYM so that you can receive and generate power (two sides of the same coin) from it; next learn how to link your punch to your body so that you can transmit that body-derived power through your punch. TN

I am concerned with the implication your suggestion of “then find which way maximises that power”. As you correctly note “there are many ways to develop power”, but not all of them - and IME a great many of them, for example boxing’s - do not fit in with WCK’s approach. I don’t think it should be a case of “whatever you can make work” (and I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting) but instead taking those mechanics that are part of WCK (they’re in the forms) and finding how to make them truly functional. TN

Terence

4

There are many falsehoods about how stance ‘structure’ gives bodyweight behind a punch. I have even read long articles by some (shall remain nameless) wing chun ‘masters’ who rag on about how slight differences in ‘stance’ structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

You can however rely on basic movements thatdo add bodyweight power. The ‘falling step’ is devastating if properly applyed. And full credit to this goes to boxer Jack Dempsy. Also, do not forget that you can turn your hip and torso into the punch. This adds reach as well as body weight and is found in the wooden dummy. Spine extension also adds power as does forward motion. Chainpunches delivered only using the arms as in SNT form are not maximul power as they do not utilise full body weight. However, advanced wing chun teaches the methods decribed to add to this basic line of attack.

5

Originally posted by UltimateFighter
‘stance’ structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

No - it’s ridiculous to suggest that in Wing Chun structure is unimportant - if one follows this notion then the whole system goes out the window along with the fighter who gets tossed out of one.

Power is generated from the floor up through the body and out the hands - all of the body is used to generate this by using Wing Chun concepts like: sinking, body alignment, body unity and structure. Using a stance means being strongly connected to the ground and doesn’t require one to be rigid.

If you can’t keep your ‘horse’ in a real fight then I would suggest some remedial horse work. Do you use your ‘stance’ in Chi-Sao? Well if you don’t then your techniques will have no root or power and you will be relying on local muscles which will be of little use against a rooted opponent.

6

UF,

IMHO, your line of reasoning is on the right track. Static tests of power and root are markers of understanding of optimal mechanics, but it is not realistic to assume one is going to be functioning under ideal circumstances. I’ve found working on hitting from off-balanced positions, learning to gain power from regaining balance, and working on achieving root, balance, and power under suboptimal conditions to be quite useful in translating static ideals into pressure/application.

Basically, all those nice static and cooperative things are there to show you what ‘right’ is, before you try to pull ‘right’ off under more difficult conditions. That being said- application with variability should follow technical and structural work, preferably on a timescale of hours, not years.

Later,

Andrew

7

Andrew wrote:

Basically, all those nice static and cooperative things are there to show you what ‘right’ is, before you try to pull ‘right’ off under more difficult conditions. AS

Of course. BTW, these are not “static tests” (“Static tests of power and root are markers of understanding of optimal mechanics” AS) but rather stationary tests – one can’t develop power from being static but can develop a great deal of power even while stationary. TN

but it is not realistic to assume one is going to be functioning under ideal circumstances. AS

Body mechanics are body mechanics. TN

=============

“Yong Chun” wrote:

Power is generated from the floor up through the body and out the hands - all of the body is used to generate this by using Wing Chun concepts like: sinking, body alignment, body unity and structure. Using a stance means being strongly connected to the ground and doesn’t require one to be rigid. YC

Good point. But I’d say that there is no “stance” in WCK. The horses (from our training) are there to show us the way to using the body (as you describe above) but are not techniques (stance #1, stance #2, etc.). Whether stationary or moving, we are connected to the ground, aligned, with body-unity, etc., and most importantly our body-structure is alive (adaptable, changing, etc.).

Terence

8

Terence had some very good points. Defiantly read his and Robert Chu’s articles on Rene Richie’s site www.wingchunkuen.com.

UltimateFighter, I would like to know witch articles you are referring to so that I can read them. Your referral to the drop step and body weight use doesn’t seem accurate enough for me. While we need to have our body weight behind the punch, the one real necessity in my mind is complete body unity and proper body mechanics (expressing power and body mass with good alignment).

I can think of numerous fights where it wasn’t the striking in and of itself that finished it but the body used correctly.

Terence also wrote: Good point. But I’d say that there is no “stance” in WCK. The horses (from our training) are there to show us the way to using the body (as you describe above) but are not techniques (stance #1, stance #2, etc.). Whether stationary or moving, we are connected to the ground, aligned, with body-unity, etc., and most importantly our body-structure is alive (adaptable, changing, etc.).

Terence – Maybe our method is the method of standing without standing. The Way of no MA :stuck_out_tongue:
I completely agree with you that power can be received and issued from almost any position and does not require a formal stance to function, but I also think there are also certain points of alignment that will always have to happen and certain fixed points we will occupy when sending and receiving force.

For instance, I may receive power and create an alignment that allows me to stay in position. While my whole body is not static, certain parts have to be to receive that power and stay. Just as my structure isn’t always on, certain parts of my body (post contact) will always have to have active alignment and structure, while other parts can be active or inactive in other ways.

I think I need a better language to describe it. Maybe you should come to LA for a visit. We can talk it over and I can finally scratch my itchy knuckles.

9

I am concerned with the implication your suggestion of “then find which way maximises that power”. As you correctly note “there are many ways to develop power”, but not all of them - and IME a great many of them, for example boxing’s - do not fit in with WCK’s approach. I don’t think it should be a case of “whatever you can make work” (and I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting) but instead taking those mechanics that are part of WCK (they’re in the forms) and finding how to make them truly functional.

To address your concern, I guess you want to limit the possible methods of power generation to those which do not violate other WC principles, whatever they may be in your lineage. I agree that placing emphasis on power to the exclusion of other necessary attributes (balance, mobility, covering the gates, etc.) is not a plan likely to achieve success if effective self-defense is your goal.

I regard “hitting hard” as a WC principle, be it in the kuen kuit or not.

In the WC I was taught by Rick Spain, there is not the fundamental inconsistency between WC power generation and boxing power generation that you seem to espouse. I’ve discussed this with yuanfen a few times and we agreed to disagree. TWC power generation has more in common with the Dempsey approach than that of many other lineages. As I said, before, there may be (and appears to be) more than one valid approach.

10

UltimateFighter

wing chun ‘masters’ who rag on about how slight differences in ‘stance’ structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

Doesn’t Leung Ting advocate the use of structure? I was under the impression that he did. Anyway, I’ve seen guys who practice this meticulous structural alignment make guys twice their size, yes in a “real fight”, cry on ground begging for them to stop after being hit a few times (acting in self defence of course). Seems to work ok to me.

Spine extension also adds power as does forward motion.

I agree that inertia is good to have on your side, but what is spine extension?? As far as I know the spine should sit one vertebrae on-top of the next to allow force to travel through it. Alternatively, extending the spine activates supporting muscles (which are required to extend the spine) Thus causing tension, which can be used against you by someone who’s attacking your balance…looking for something to press on tense muscles are prefect; and if the tension is at your core you get rocked. UF can you explain your theory of spine extension?

Chainpunches delivered only using the arms as in SNT form are not maximul power as they do not utilise full body weight.

That’s not to say they are worthless. If you can generate a lot of power from stationary chain punching don’t you think if you add a step that power can only multiply?

11

Re: UltimateFighter

Originally posted by S.Teebas
[B]

Doesn’t Leung Ting advocate the use of structure? I was under the impression that he did. Anyway, I’ve seen guys who practice this meticulous structural alignment make guys twice their size, yes in a “real fight”, cry on ground begging for them to stop after being hit a few times (acting in self defence of course). Seems to work ok to me.[/B]

My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken. The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. The SNT stance is not a fighing stance. If this has not been explained to you yet I recommend you understand this. It is a pre-fight stance only but aftre that movement and turning are the key.

[b]

I agree that inertia is good to have on your side, but what is spine extension?? As far as I know the spine should sit one vertebrae on-top of the next to allow force to travel through it. Alternatively, extending the spine activates supporting muscles (which are required to extend the spine) Thus causing tension, which can be used against you by someone who’s attacking your balance…looking for something to press on tense muscles are prefect; and if the tension is at your core you get rocked. UF can you explain your theory of spine extension?.[/B]

Spine extension occurs when you hit with a good structure. Think of raisng the chest and straightening the back (the spinal column is always slightly curved in humans). Hitting with a slouched position is very bad. I do not understand the ‘tension at you core’. The wing chun/Tsun stance is an upright one at least in yip man lineage. I think the word ‘tension’ in this case is inappropriate.

[b]

That’s not to say they are worthless. If you can generate a lot of power from stationary chain punching don’t you think if you add a step that power can only multiply? [/b]

Who said anything was ‘worthless’? They are a training tool and your point is in agreement with mine. Stepping is the forward motion I mentioned. Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms.

12

Re: Re: UltimateFighter

Hello Ultimate.

Originally posted by UltimateFighter
[B]

My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken.
[/B]

I don’t recall anyone saying that here, though I may have overlooked it.


The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power.

I hope you will explain your POV in more detail. How do you retain structure when in off balance positions? Furthermore, what do you mean when you use the term “structure”? There’s a good chance we mean different things when we use the term.


The SNT stance is not a fighing stance.

Then our viewpoints differ here. The statement above does not universally represent the view of Wing Chun as taught by Ip Man to his students.

I agree that there are no “static” stances, and that we do not strike a pose of any sort and merely expect to hold it. However, in application, we (me and mine) do indeed transition through and with the very same stances we train.

I would like to understand your POV better, especially if you meant otherwise.

We may agree that training in the stances serves some less obvious purposes as well.

To my mind, Wing Chun is an extremely efficient system of training, with nothing wasted and nothing discarded. Inasmuch as our ability to retain Wing Chun in a fight will be challenged and ofttimes suffer, we at least try to maintain and hold to our training in Wing Chun as best we can, and improve on that over time. I cannot help but wonder if your view on this differs.


If this has not been explained to you yet I recommend you understand this.

Looks unnecessarily ad hominem and presumptuous, though perhaps you didn’t mean it that way. Being human, indeed, we all have things to understand better.

Regards,

  • Kathy Jo
13

“UF” wrote:

My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken. The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. UF

If a “stance” is rigid, then the only power one can generate or use is localized muscle (like the shoulders). The “horses” (“stance” is the english word we’ve, unfortunately IMO, adopted and one that implies posing; a “horse” - the chinese word - implies something alive that carries and supports us), IMO teach us how to use our body - how to generate force, how to receive force, how to move while doing both, how to coordinate our body with the hands, etc. When I perform a tan sao, for example, I’m not just using my arm but my whole body from head to arm to toe. If you are off-balance, then one’s ability to generate and receive power with the body is compromised (if you are in contact with someone and they are resisting - pushing back into you - with force, your correct alignment will lead the incoming force into the ground, allowing you to maintain balance and stability; if you should compromise your alignment, your opponent’s force will immediately upset your balance and position (more), making you succeptable to their attack; moreover you’ll be confined to using localized muscle in anything you do). TN

Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms. UF

If you see the YJKYM (“the SNT stance”) as static, then I can see why you fail to appreciate how it is the core aspect of WCK’s approach to generating power: one can’t generate or receive power with a static structure. What’s interesting is that you mention “spine extension occurs when you hit with a good structure. Think of raisng the chest and straightening the back” – if one’s YJKYKM is dynamic and alive one will be able to use this method (rising, 1 of the 4 torso methods) while stationary or while moving. The significance in these methods to our (WCK’s) approach toward fighting has to do with the extreme close-quarter nature of WCK – we must be able to generate (and receive) enormous power very, very quickly with very, very small movement (btw, “siu” as in SNT denotes small, efficient, compact) since in extreme close-quarter fighting we can’t always step or turn, especially without giving away our cog, and perhaps our intention. TN

Terence

14

Power is generated from your mind intent. Trying to explain how it is generated is very difficult. You should find someone to show you. The end result is the acceleration of mass over a distance in a certain period of time. If the target is closer to you, then it will require a faster acceleration. This can be accomplished by connecting your entire body. SLT helps develop the foundation of your power. Chim Kui helps develop the body integration. You should find that the vast majority of your power starts in the ground and travels through the legs and is transmitted through waist, shoulders and hands if punching, or through the hips and legs if kicking. I’m no expert, but I do hit hard.

15

“nvisblfist” wrote:

Power is generated from your mind intent. Trying to explain how it is generated is very difficult.

IMHO this is not helpful. Of course any conscious movement we make requires intent (of some sort). Body-structure requires proper “mind-intent”. Bad WCK requires “mind-intent” too. :wink: TN

You should find someone to show you.

Good idea. TN

The end result is the acceleration of mass over a distance in a certain period of time. If the target is closer to you, then it will require a faster acceleration. This can be accomplished by connecting your entire body.

Is this the old F=ma nonsense? It is like learning to throw a curveball in baseball. It doesn’t help one lick to have the “physics” explained to you (particularly by folks that don’t understand the physics); it helps to learn the mechanics of throwing the pitch (in this case we have it from the get-to, the punch from YJKYM) and then practicing, investigating, thinking, etc. all in an effort to fully develop it. TN

SLT helps develop the foundation of your power. Chim Kui helps develop the body integration.

SNT doesn’t just develop the “foundation” for power but IMO shows us how to generate our own power or receive an opponent’s power, whether stationary or moving. TN

You should find that the vast majority of your power starts in the ground and travels through the legs and is transmitted through waist, shoulders and hands if punching, or through the hips and legs if kicking. I’m no expert, but I do hit hard.

Lots of people hit hard, but that doesn’t mean they are using good WCK mechanics. How hard can you hit from YJKYM (while stationary) against someone pressing forward (toward you as in trying to run over you) with an airshield or focus mitt on their chest? Can you stop his forward rush and knock him backward or do you fall over from the rebound or the forward rush? You cited a nice tai ji kuit (to explain how tai ji generate power) but in WCK we have a different kuit, “ging chong gwut gun faat, lik chong gerk jang sheng” (bone joints generate power, trained strength is rooted in the heels). TN

Terence

16

some points

one stated that wing chun is not known for its ‘single shot’ power and its the follow up techniques and control that give a fighter the edge

I tend to dislike the “one shot one kill” mentaliity when it comes to HTH combat. While it is possible for a single, devastating blow to fell an attacker, i don’t see it as likely. Add to that, in the time it takes them to “go down” what are you doing, admiring your handywork?

IMHO wing chun fighters can, and should, strive to land multiple, damaging blow, or “cumulative truama” as my Sifu calls it.

UF said, in no paticular order

Who said anything was ‘worthless’? They are a training tool and your point is in agreement with mine. Stepping is the forward motion I mentioned. Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms .

The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. The SNT stance is not a fighing stance.

There are many falsehoods about how stance ‘structure’ gives bodyweight behind a punch. I have even read long articles by some (shall remain nameless) wing chun ‘masters’ who rag on about how slight differences in ‘stance’ structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

Let me see if i understand you.
In a real fight, you don’t use your stance. you may use some of the agility/strength gained from training your stance, but not the actual stance of the SLT form, nor its progressions in CK.

And what do you consider slight as far a stance is concerned? I’ve had my sihing corect only a minor shift of my forward foot, and suddenly everything else clicks into place. Just a slight tucking of the hip can lock in the upperbody. there is little, but critical, difference between a limb that is straight and a joint that is locked.

In a fight do you strive to keep your knees bent? do you try to maintain addcution between the legs? do you keep your back straight and your head up? Do you duck and shuffle, bobbing weaveing away from danger, or do you boldly claim the centerline as your own?

The “horses” (“stance” is the english word we’ve, unfortunately IMO, adopted and one that implies posing; a “horse” - the chinese word - implies something alive that carries and supports us)

excelent point t_niehoff! I was taught to use “moveing stances” intead of “tranitional footwork” We are shown this as a difference from or 7* brothers, whom step and even jump from stance to stance with more traditional footwork. or as our Sifu has to say too often “thats good Mantis. terrible wing chun, but good mantis” :smiley:

17

SLT stance is not a fighting stance

Originally posted by kj
The statement above does not universally represent the view of Wing Chun as taught by Ip Man to his students.
Indeed it does not! It appears that most of Ip Man’s followers are stuck at the SLT level. i.e. stuck in the pigeon toe stance.

It would be difficult to realize the stance’s limitations and its freedoms with a tunneled perspective.

18

IMO, the stance is always there in spirit and feeling, just not always in appearance

as to one shot kills, i think every strike should have the potential for it - and thats where the stance comes into play

19

Re: some points

Originally posted by OdderMensch
[B]

UF said ,
In a real fight, you don’t use your stance. you may use some of the agility/strength gained from training your stance, but not the actual stance of the SLT form. In a fight do you strive to keep your knees bent? do you try to maintain addcution between the legs? do you keep your back straight and your head up? Do you duck and shuffle, bobbing weaveing away from danger, or do you boldly claim the centerline as your own?

[/B]

It is you who has twisted my words somewhat. Firstly, I made no mention of the CK stance, which is entirely different. That is a stance that is used on stepping and is entirely applicable. The SNT stance is not a fighting stance in that in a fight, you do not stand rigidly in stance at an point (except pre-fight). Once a fight starts, you use stepping and turning, and you may make a transition to SNT stance for a few brief moments before moving again. Yes, we strive for adduction and rootedness in our movemtents, but if you think that rootedness can only be acieved by standing in SNT stance, your wing chun will be severely limited.
So when I say you do not use SNT stnace as a fighting stance, I mean you do not stand rigidly in any one position, akthough it may be a trasitional position coupled with movements from CK stance and stepping turning. If the fight goes to the ground, youcan still apply Wing Chun/Tsun, but not from the way it is trained in the forms or rigidly face to face in chi sau. Be more open minded in your thinking. This is a fighting art, the forms and chi sau are a means to an end. I think you have been seeing them too much as the end in themselves.

20

Re: Re: some points

Originally posted by UltimateFighter
[B]

It is you who has twisted my words somewhat. Firstly, I made no mention of the CK stance, which is entirely different.[/B]

the only differences i see between the chum kiu stance and the siu lim tau stance are purely asthetitic, at best.