First Posting So I will start with a question rather than an opinion…
One of the major “Principles” of Wing Chun, irrespective of lineage is that of “Economy of Motion”, my understanding of this is that when playing Wing Chun you should always use the quickest motion to acheive your goal.
Why then when we open stances for Sil Lum Tao and Chum Kiu do we first turn our toes out then our heels? Surely this is two distinct motions using two limbs, surely it would be a more “Economical” use of motion to move 1 leg instead of two and simply slide/place the foot at the desired angle.
Or am I missing a hidden application in this double movement??
Nat from UK
PS. To all of the current Forum members, congratulations on having the best forum of its type on the Web. I Hope to positively contribute when and where I can ..
Some lineages do open the stance using the Huen Bo rather than using the extending of the steps as you described.
However, one reason for using the turning feet method is that it insures the proper placement and distance for your stance. If you just tried to estimate the foot position and angle you could be slightly off.
Not sure if this answers your question but hope it helps.
nice to see another brit in the forum and i agree with the forum being the best on the net too.
in regrds to the opening of the stance i was taught to do this slowly as with the rest of the 1st section of SLT as it has benefits for focus and balance.also helps me with the pelvis alignment.
where abouts in england are you from and who do you learn from Nat?
Sihing73 and Whipping Hand are right (Whip, that’s the second time today I’ve agree with you tables are turning eh?)
Wing Chun in training is much different than in practice. Training enforces certain concepts. Many techniques in the forms are not executed the way we do them in the form but rather, they allow us to understand their applications. The rotating into stance helps posturing and trains the legs, not to mention being asthetically pleasing
An example of what I mean is in the dummy form. In the second section where three paks is followed by a left side-jut and neck strike then a gum sau with a simultaneous punch to the mid-section. In real combat we would not do gum on an opponent’s hands and punch below them but rather gum the opponent’s hands down and punch over them. The reason for the difference is because it’s impossible to press the dummy’s hands down when they are solid wood stuck in the body
My line does not advocate using the conventional opening of the horse for the forms. Instead, we use the huen ma/huen bo from Biu Jee to open up our horse. Aside from the obvious applications, we believe that the conventional heel pivot/toe pivot does not properly align the knees with the shoulders for many people. This can cause a structural weakness resulting from too narrow a base. When the knees are too close together, the pelvis is obstructed and prevented from moving throughout its entire range of motion and the body cannot equalize the pressure by rooting. Everyone’s body is proportioned differently and the circling of the legs gives a better approximation for where the knees and feet should be as well as freeing up the pelvis.
We also do not pidgeon toe are stance to such an extreme and also do not pinch the knees inwardly. The knees should move forward in the same direction of the knee from a biomechanical standpoint or else there is unwanted strees on the knee itself. The knees come together and move forward when we sink our horse and not because they are consciously clamped together with a horizontal force in a locked stance.
I have yet to be kicked in the groin or pelvis due to my knees being too far apart. At most my knees are two to two and 1/2 fist distance apart without my feet being pidgeon toed at an extreme angle. Some people prescribe a fist distance apart between the knees, but IMHO that is generally too narrow a stance to root very well. If it works for you then it’s no big deal to me. WC should be functional. I’ve tried various methods and have chi sau’d with people from different lineages. Some of them have used that argument but when I explain my thinking and show them my lineages methods, they understand that this groin/pelvis ‘vulerability’ already has been accounted for.
I seriously doubt that the loss of structure, root, and power is worth the extra fist distance to prevent a foot from fitting up in there. My experiences in chi sau validate this. I’d rather rely upon my mobility, root, intercepting, sensitivity, and chi gerk skills to defend against a groin attack rather than a locked stance.
no, you definitely wouldn’t want to sacrifice those elements
My concern is not so much the distance between the knees, but the positioning of the feet. However, some people just physically cannot do it. Nothing more to say.
The un-pigeoned stance doesn’t matter in real fighting. The purpose of the goat-restraining posture is for stability and leg strength. However, the un-pige stance makes it harder for one to remain stable. Try pushing somebody with their feet in a parallel stance and then on somebody with their toes slightly pointed towards each other. I think the latter practioner is more stable.
I agree that some people are not able to rotate much at all due to lack of flexibility or injury. I have seen some lines advocating a 45 degree inward rotation and others advocating feet parallel (0 degrees). While I don’t believe in using a gross inward rotation of the feet, I do turn the toes in slightly, perhaps 5-10 degrees. This is enough to create the wedge/pyramid structure at the feet without sacrificing the pelvis.
I have to somewhat disagree with your comparison of the more stable of the two stances. In my line we are constantly checking each others horse using pressure and while we do not use parallel feet, we also do not rotate the toes in more than 5-10 degrees. Each person is different of course, but I can root better at the feet parallel extreme than I can at the feet rotated in at 45 degrees extreme. So I guess the bottom line is what one considers slightly turned in. IMHO the key is the pelvis actively using it to root and not the leg strength gained from standing in a locked stance for long periods of time.
There are many reasons for the Ip Man Wing Chun standard opening and closing of the feet when setting up Yee Chee Kim Yeung Ma.
The two motions - opening and closing - are called Hoi Ma (open stance) and Mai Ma (closing stance), and are principles in and of themselves.
Here are a few examples:
The motion of opening and closing of the feet/leg simultaneously works the flexibility of the connecting joint between your pelvis and femur. This helps with smoother leg motions when changing angles with your legs (either stepping or kicking).
When stepping or shifting you have to turn your feet either in or out (depending on direction and angle traveling) before you transfer your weight over. Hoi Ma/Mai Ma trains this subtle aspect of being able to quickly tranfer weight when doing fast footwork/body shifting.
The Hoi Ma position (open stance) is your basic “kicking stance” (supporting foot and knee turned out). Training the Hoi Ma/Mai Ma movement in your forms makes you quicker at setting up kicks and better able to support the kicking power you are delivering.
Leg locks and stance disruption (my personal favorite ). Hoi Ma/Mai Ma used in conjunction with Huen Bo in more close quarters situations (forearm/pai jarn range or clinching) can be used to circle your legs in on the inside or outside of your opponent’s leg (whichever one is the more accessable) and wrench his knee joint [Huen Bo will bring your leg into his, while the twisting motion of Hoi Ma (if your leg is on the outside of his leg) or Mai Ma (your leg is on the inside of his leg) will lock up the knee and wrench the joint when you bring your weight forward. It either dumps him or severely disrupts his balance if he tries to pull his leg away to keep from goind down.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s a valuable movement to train in your forms.
I have a boxer aquaintance that I work out with infrequently that gave up trying to work a clinch on me because I’d keep tearing into his knees with the wrenching motion I mentioned above. I took him down the first time I used it on him and he’s been p!ssed off ever since.
One is weak because he makes preparation against others;
he has strength because he makes others prepare against him.
– Sun-Tzu
I agree that those things are important. However in my line we train those things separetely or they are included in other parts of the forms. I can’t speak for Sifu, but I would have to guess that he felt the proper body alignment was more basic and fundamental than those other things and therefore should be emphasized first. Just a difference in methodology.
I completely understand, and I hope you didn’t take my comments as me being on some sort of superiority trip.
You’re right, teaching methodologies differ. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that “proper body alignment was more basic and fundamental than those other things and therefore should be emphasized first” when training SLT.
Using those movements I mentioned to train kicks and leg locks doesn’t come along until CK and BT respectively. It’s one of those things that when you get up to learning all those different aspects my Sifu will point back to SLT and say, “See, it was there all along too.”
I appreciate your perspective. Thanks.
One is weak because he makes preparation against others;
he has strength because he makes others prepare against him.
– Sun-Tzu
tables are turning eh?)
