[QUOTE=Knifefighter;963751]It always strikes me a funny when someone claims to be all about structure and then makes statements that show they don’t even know the basics of what constitutes structure.
Don’t use it because of the fact that it compromises one’s base and makes it significantly easier to be taken down.[/QUOTE]
ok, we may have different interpetations of structure. Could you please tell me what your definition of structure is, and why my comment is flawed?
Also, I was referring to using triangle footwork for offensive/defensive mobilty in your stand-up game. Could you also in detail explain your points? Thanx.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;963816]ok, we may have different interpetations of structure. Could you please tell me what your definition of structure is, and why my comment is flawed?
Also, I was referring to using triangle footwork for offensive/defensive mobilty in your stand-up game. Could you also in detail explain your points? Thanx.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to your comment regarding having “root” on one leg. One of the basic tenants of structural stability (you can ask a structural engineer about this) is that the narrower the base, the less stable the structure.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;963840] …One of the basic tenants of structural stability (you can ask a structural engineer about this) is that the narrower the base, the less stable the structure.[/QUOTE]
That’s just silly. Human stability depends on adaptation to forces, not on a synchronic posture. We train in single-leg stances against body crashes as a regular part of our curriculum. The foot usually moves, but balance is maintained. Isn’t that a kind of “rooted” stability?
[QUOTE=jdhowland;963844]That’s just silly. Human stability depends on adaptation to forces, not on a synchronic posture. We train in single-leg stances against body crashes as a regular part of our curriculum. The foot usually moves, but balance is maintained. Isn’t that a kind of “rooted” stability?
jd[/QUOTE]
Of course stability in movement requires adaptation to applied forces. That’s what I said in my first post. That still doesn’t change the fact that the narrower the base, the more precarious the stability.
There’s a reason that one of the first things you are taught in all competitive sports that require contact is to never bring your feet together.
I get that. I was pointing out that it is based on alignment and adaptation to directional force more than “base,” when someone connects to your bridge, but yes, when dealing with the overall stability of the body, the wider the base, the greater the stability. So we’re pretty much in agreement on that.
The reason I mentioned that is because many people-especially in TCMA (who were incorrectly trained) feel that rooting is all about standing low,wide, and flat-footed.
So, could you address the triangle footwork? Thanx.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;963860]I get that. I was pointing out that it is based on alignment and adaptation to directional force more than “base,” when someone connects to your bridge, but yes, when dealing with the overall stability of the body, the wider the base, the greater the stability. So we’re pretty much in agreement on that.
The reason I mentioned that is because many people-especially in TCMA (who were incorrectly trained) feel that rooting is all about standing low,wide, and flat-footed.
So, could you address the triangle footwork? Thanx.[/QUOTE]
Bringing your feet together gives more options in terms of directional changes. However, it is very easy for an opponent to time this and use it to his advantage.
This type of footwork is much better suited for weapons (especially blades) where mobility is more important than stability.
[QUOTE=ChinaBoxer;963371] . . . hopefully you get why you can’t do this method of wing chun structure and try to incorporate it with a muay thai stance, or a boxers stance which has you light on your feet, heels off the ground, rotating your shoulders etc…
this video shares with you how i teach my students this “grounding” concept, which is the “heart” of Hawkins Cheung’s method of Wing Chun and IMO what makes him completely different than almost every other Wing Chun instructor in the world. . . .
Jin[/QUOTE]
I bet these guys wouldn’t fight like this, nevertheless there’s an idea at play here that if you can successfully maintain structure and balance against pressure on the smallest base possible, then it becomes much easier with a bigger base. Also it’s cool at parties.
I’d like to see something similar but with varying force vectors and strategies.
I bet these guys wouldn’t fight like this, nevertheless there’s an idea at play here that if you can successfully maintain structure and balance against pressure on the smallest base possible, then it becomes much easier with a bigger base. Also it’s cool at parties.
I’d like to see something similar but with varying force vectors and strategies.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Both Jim Fung and Tsui Tseung Tin are out of balance as they are leaning into the person “pushing”. The guy “pushing” has his arms extended, and can therefore not exert any significant pressure as he’s not walking forward. A circus trick with absolutely zero value.
Simple statics: The narrower the base, the smaller is the “resisting moment” opposing the “overturning moment”. This applies also to bodies in motion. What is needed is a stable/balanced stance that is highly mobile. The wider the stance the better - until it affects mobility.
[QUOTE=Buddha_Fist;964206]Nonsense. Both Jim Fung and Tsui Tseung Tin are out of balance as they are leaning into the person “pushing”. The guy “pushing” has his arms extended, and can therefore not exert any significant pressure as he’s not walking forward. A circus trick with absolutely zero value.
Simple statics: The narrower the base, the smaller is the “resisting moment” opposing the “overturning moment”. This applies also to bodies in motion. What is needed is a stable/balanced stance that is highly mobile. The wider the stance the better - until it affects mobility.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TenTigers;963860]I get that. I was pointing out that it is based on alignment and adaptation to directional force more than “base,” when someone connects to your bridge, but yes, when dealing with the overall stability of the body, the wider the base, the greater the stability. So we’re pretty much in agreement on that.
The reason I mentioned that is because many people-especially in TCMA (who were incorrectly trained) feel that rooting is all about standing low,wide, and flat-footed.
So, could you address the triangle footwork? Thanx.[/QUOTE]
What is the purpose of rooting? In your opinion?
Also why would you need to root on one foot? What would be the purpose?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;963390]What is “rooting” and why do so many highly effective systems of combat never bother to address it specifically?
The two systems you mentioned, boxing and MT, develop excellent power in their strikes and never is one coached about “rooting”.[/QUOTE]
you know the answer to this–we discussed the differences in another post
its not to say that you cannot generate any power without it, but it only makes sense that having a solid base allows you to deliver your power better
other styles may not focus on this, but anyone who throws a punch at a solid object knows he needs a solid base
the reason WC and other styles focus on this is because like other soft styles wing chun focuses on the use of shifting body mass for power generation and not as much on the muscles of the arms/torso
[QUOTE=Pacman;964419]you know the answer to this–we discussed the differences in another post
its not to say that you cannot generate any power without it, but it only makes sense that having a solid base allows you to deliver your power better
other styles may not focus on this, but anyone who throws a punch at a solid object knows he needs a solid base
the reason WC and other styles focus on this is because like other soft styles wing chun focuses on the use of shifting body mass for power generation and not as much on the muscles of the arms/torso[/QUOTE]
do you actually really believe boxing generates its power from muscles and not shifting its body weight…
[QUOTE=Frost;964446]do you actually really believe boxing generates its power from muscles and not shifting its body weight…:([/QUOTE]
you know what? sometimes a student will take his opinion of something from his sifu, and his sifu may have valid reasons for his own beliefs. but, IMHHHHO, i think that every sifu should offer his experience and beliefs - but not enforce them
i honestly think that this is akin to an instructor teaching only the parts of the art that he likes or those that work for him. if that happens then you are missing something, and i dont think its good. you can be shown the ‘best’ way, but you must also be shown the other ways too.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;964449]you know what? sometimes a student will take his opinion of something from his sifu, and his sifu may have valid reasons for his own beliefs. but, IMHHHHO, i think that every sifu should offer his experience and beliefs - but not enforce them
i honestly think that this is akin to an instructor teaching only the parts of the art that he likes or those that work for him. if that happens then you are missing something, and i dont think its good. you can be shown the ‘best’ way, but you must also be shown the other ways too.[/QUOTE]
You can’t blame the instructor it is down to the student not to blindly follow him but to intelligently question everything he is told.
If this does not happen you end up with stupid beliefs like. oh i don’t know… boxers not using bodyweight in shots.. wrestler being easy to knock out as they bend over tand run in to take you down.. with correct stance training you will never be taken down…my system is the only system that uses correct structure and root…it goes on and on…
