Dave,
Regarding the pressure/stance turning drill,
the adduction makes you spring back as soon as the pressure is released.
You are storing your partners energy and releasing it.
vingtsunstudent,
Do you know the name of this guy or if he lives in southern Sweden?
WT
[This message has been edited by WT (edited 08-19-2000).]
wt
if u mean my sifu, yes i know his name
check this site to find out more
http://www.vingtsun.net/sifuba~1.html
No,I meant Sifu Lee’s swedish student.
WT
WT,
Here I may be at a loss to explain. In my experience I have always trained the adduction of the knees. Even when doing other than WT there is always the sinking and drawing towards one another of the knees. I think most Wing Chun people would train the adduction to a certain degree we may just disagree on the terminology. Since this is the way I was taught I do it at a subconcious level and am not even aware of the hows and whys anymore, though I need to be. I will give this a little more thought and play around with it from both variations and try to come up with a better answer.
Sorry, but I just got in and my head hurts so I need to rest and think about things. 
Peace,
Dave
Dave,
What about William Cheung,in his sideways
stance there seems to be no adduction?
WT
wt
sorry i’ve no idea of his name but will c what i can find out.
again i appologise as i know it’s very difficult to explain things in this situation
but i still can’t understand how u can have adduction of the knees & maintain constant foward pressure throughout the whole body?
vingtsunstudent,
Here is the link to WT Australia. http://www.auewto.com.au/
WT
wt
sorry bud. his student is in switzerland not sweden
WT,
I am afraid as to commenting on William Cheungs side stance I do not feel that my reply would be adequate. I have only been exploring his method a short time and to be honest my instructor is mainly teaching me application and fighting. We keep talking about going over the forms and such but at my present level I would not be qualified to comment on his version, at least not as far as the side stance. It’s funny, maybe it’s just me, but even when I move from the Parellel stance and take up a side stance from a T-Step, I still feel as though there is adduction in the knees. My opinion would be that it is there but just may not be apparent. Perhaps some of the William Cheung guys could explain it better than I.
Peace,
Dave
Okay, I know that this subject has already been stomped into the ground-lol-but I gotta throw in my 2 cents. If you like your footwork, no matter WHAT system, I’d say good!! Part of the choice of lineage has to do with what best suits each individual. I’ve studied Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Kali, Kichboxing, and Wing Tsun. They all have different footwork, and they all work just fine. Personally, I’d never go back to karate, due to it’s rigidness and open stances; Kali both in open hand fighting and weapons works great, but I feel uncomfortable putting so much wieght onto the front leg and “angling off” to the side, thus giving my opponent the rear of my shoulder (one strong pak-sau and my back would be turned toward my attacker–bad news!). I find WT footwork to be some of the most well thought out and sophisticated that I’ve ever seen. Both my Si-Sok Michael Casey and Sifu Emin have always been EXTREMELY smooth and fast as well as versatile is their footwork. One other point: The WT system stress covering all possible angles of attack. I’ve seen other lineages that utilize footwork–such as the 50/50 stances-- that take wider stances and leave the groin and both knees extremely vunerable to attack. For me, I want to cover all my bases, and I’m always looking to cover the “holes” (possible open areas) in my WT practice.
To each his/her own. Maybe ultimately it’s more about the competence of the practitioner and his “toolbox” of techniques than it is about the lineage.
Kali?You don’t do Latosa Escrima?
With weapons I don’t have any problems with
Escrima footwork,but unarmed it does feel
a bit unsafe.
WT
What a great thread!
Someone mentioned that the 0/100 stance is transitional, and I would tend to agree. You can’t move from your 50/50, 70/30, etc without shifting weight off the moving leg (into 0/100). By maintaining a rooted 0/100, you are in effect constantly ready to shift your weight into motion. With 0 weight on the front, you can turn and shift in any direction.
For those unfamiliar with the depth of 0/100 work it can intuitively seem awkward; in our normal everyday stances we are almost always in a state of imbalance. The 0/100 teaches a way of stacking the natural anatomy of the body so that you are always balanced, rooted, and poised to move. The shifting of weight from one foot to another can happen very, very fast.
For further study, compare the readings on 0/100 in the Taiji classics and works on other wu dang arts. Also see Peter Ralston’s work in Aikido and Cheng Hsin.
My question: in the Jeet Kune Do variation, the stance work goes back to double-weighted karate positioning with the boxer’s heel off the ground. Does this seem more like boxing or tae kwon do than something in-line with wing chun principles? Doesn’t taking the heel off the ground negate the basic rooting of the stance? No right or wrong, just viewpoints.
thats because bruce lee didnt learn steping as it was taught after the dummie back then
I am from William Chuengs lineage so I will help. We use the same footwork as boxing but it is lowered a little for stability purposes in the street.It is also turned inwards a little.
“take the pebble from my hand"The old monk from the TV show"Kung Fu”
“I just go at it as best I can”
Benny the Legend.
[This message has been edited by flavour54 (edited 09-05-2000).]
sorry to ask flavour54, but if your using boxing footwork but is just lowered for the street, doesn’t this mean that in fact you are not using wing chun footwork, as they are quite a bit different or at least i thought they were?
vts