Kempo Basics: Describe Your Systems' Default Stance

[Drunken Monkey]

"We might move into a similar stance, but would almost never start from this type stance."

 

well, as i said, this is done if there is sufficient space between you and the threat.

 

it exists only for that fraction of a second that you need to judge the direction to move.

 

if you like, it is more of an instant reaction "ready position".

 

even if you fail to make the bridging step,

 

you are still neutral and should have a guard up.

 

this means that theoretcally,

 

you are on an even ground,

 

as opposed to being one/half step/beat ahead

 

(timing issues: beats, half beats, off beats....)

 

and can still receive safely.

 

 

 

in most cases, you'll find yourself stepping straight to that direction without 'settling' into the neutral stance.

 

the key here is basically to have your hips square on to allow unbiased movement to either side.

 

"except it sounds like you are more side on to your opponent"

 

nope.

 

you face the other guy face on.

 

the feet are at the 45 degrees position but your hips are rotated to face squarely.

 

this moves your weight forward slightly (and creates some tension in your hip unit

 

('coiled like a cat'... sorry, saying from chinese)

 

and is part of the constant forward pressure you hear about.

 

if you move your rear leg,

 

it will want to go forward naturally (falling).

 

even if you move to the side, your hip unit

 

(and weight) also moves forward slightly,

 

again, forward movement which equates to the otehr wing chun thing you hear about:

 

there is no back step

 

(but this is up for debate as to what constitutes a back step....)

 

generally, the important of the stance is the direction your hip is facing.

 

if it is turned to one side,

 

it is going to be biased towards that side.

 

the only time when it can be turned is when you are going/stepping forwards and the hip is turning to add torque to hand techniques as you enter/force forwards.

 

"AK does this, but we look at it as an "open ended triangle'"

 

i think i'm beginning to understand what you mean when you talk about triangles.

 

i guess it's more or less the same thing we are talking about when we talk about joints/points.

 

wing chun tends to disect other styles using it's own rules.

 

(not too literally....)

 

we use what works.

 

if we stand in a certain way it's because it works.

 

in wing chun's case, the odd standing postion maintains structural integrity.

 

i.e to disrupt the stance you have to 'attack' the point that affects your own stance

 

i.e base (ankle), root (knees), or connection (hips)

 

the same for the top.

 

to disrupt weight you 'attack' the bits you focus on yourself:

 

(breathing/stomach area - any target), the shoulders or the head.

 

hmm, not sure if we are talking about the same thing now that i've typed that.....

 

um, not entirely sure what you're asking....

 

how/why we choose certain targets?

 

how/why we find certain targets?

[delta1]

as opposed to being one/half step/beat ahead

 

(timing issues: beats, half beats, off beats....)

 

Interesting. We also talk ablout 'beats' in discussing timeing. How many of the other systems do this, I wonder?

"except it sounds like you are more side on to your opponent"

 

nope. you face the other guy face on. the feet are at the 45 degrees position but your hips are rotated to face squarely. this moves your weight forward slightly (and creates some tension in your hip unit

 

('coiled like a cat'... sorry, saying from chinese) and is part of the constant forward pressure you hear about. if you move your rear leg,

 

it will want to go forward naturally (falling). even if you move to the side, your hip unit (and weight) also moves forward slightly, again, forward movement which equates to the otehr wing chun thing you hear about:

 

there is no back step... generally, the important of the stance is the direction your hip is facing. if it is turned to one side, it is going to be biased towards that side. the only time when it can be turned is when you are going/stepping forwards and the hip is turning to add torque to hand techniques as you enter/force forwards.

The square on stance sounds more like WC. I misinterpreted your description.

 

This sounds like a different concept of movement, emphasizing different principles than AK does. We move quickly in any direction, even with one side facing more forward to the opponent. Similar to Taiji, one leg is full, the other shifts (except that we go more to a 50/50 weight distribution, whrere Taiji avoids that).

 

 

"AK does this, but we look at it as an "open ended triangle'"

 

i think i'm beginning to understand what you mean when you talk about triangles. i guess it's more or less the same thing we are talking about when we talk about joints/points....um, not entirely sure what you're asking....how/why we choose certain targets? how/why we find certain targets?

 

The joints would be targets you access by going into an open ended triangle. Controling and moving a joint would (in addition to a lot of other things) expand the triangle, or open up new triangles in which you can attack. The open ended triangles are formed by his body position and posture, and his limbs. I was asking if WC uses a similar concept, and what it might be.

[Drunken Monkey]

"We move quickly in any direction, even with one side facing more forward to the opponent"

 

well, regarding the square on hips.

 

think of it as the ideal start position.

 

in theory, once you start to move in wing chun, you don't stop moving,

 

so you'll find that the hips don't stay square on for long periods.

 

it's only square on when you're not moving.

 

there is only one HARD rule and that is your hips should not be pointing away from opponent,

 

(unless you are letting him 'leak' in/away but that's something else again)

 

"The joints would be targets you access by going into an open ended triangle"

 

hmm, we don't openly target a joint.

 

we really do mainly aim to go for body or head shots.

 

there are moves that are arm/elbow breaks but this is just an extension of the natural guard hands position (kinda but that's a different topic...)

 

i think i have to say we would go for a target that we know would get a certain type of response.

 

what i mean is,

 

if we feel the arm is weak for an arm break, we would just go for it

 

BUT

 

it wouldn't be the main objective.

 

er.... y'know, if it presents itself, take it.

 

generally, we use ourselves a guide.

 

you'll have heard me talking about the 6 gates

 

(ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists)

 

you'll notice that wing chun movements always involve contact/feel with one or more of these gates and when we engage,

 

we make contact with one or more of these gates.

 

i.e enter, check knee or foot

 

(doesn't mean we have to break/attack these)

 

and bridge or force a bridge.

 

i've said this is another thread but we work in pairs.

 

if i've stepped on your foot i'm going to work your head or arms.

 

i'm not sure if we have anything like a triangles way of thinking in how to find targets.

 

if anything, i think i have to say that wing chun is still prettty much about attacking 'pressure'/nerve points when not going for body/head

 

(like most other chinese styles)

 

when i was being taught,

 

i really was shown points that are good to hit.

 

(yes, there was a chart...... )

 

hmm, chances are, if i were to cross hands with you,

 

you could point out all of the 'triangles' i actually do.....

[delta1]

DM, here is what I was so clumsily trying to lead into:

 

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=201293#201293

 

Probably better in its;\' own thread any how!

[delta1]

OK, I'm probably going to step in it here, but I have to ask:

 

Doesn't WC have a stance that is similar to our neutral bow? Your right and left (bow?) stances have the same heel-toe allignment, and your guard is similar except for the 'immovable elbow'? And the torsoe and hips should be at 45' to the opponent? If your hips and body are square to the opponent, doesn't it render the classic WC guard position useless, as all he has to do is take a slight angle to go straight between your guard? Having a little trouble here adding 1+1, maybe. But then again, I ain' never been akused uf bein' a jeeneyus!

 

Also, don't you do a sitting stance where you sort of roll back onto one leg and turn hips and body 45' to your opponent while keeping your feet on a line perpendicular to the central line/plane? This would be transitory, and probably the defense against him taking an angle in between your guard. But again, it would move your hips and body 45' to your opponent.

 

Maybe I've been exposed to a different system or lineage than what you study. And I understand that WC is about the only family of systems out there that argues about such things more than AK ( ). But that is my limmited understanding.

 

Signed,

 

Confused in The Other Washington

[Drunken Monkey]

Doesn't WC have a stance that is similar to our neutral bow? Your right and left (bow?) stances have the same heel-toe allignment, and your guard is similar except for the 'immovable elbow'? And the torsoe and hips should be at 45' to the opponent? If your hips and body are square to the opponent, doesn't it render the classic WC guard position useless, as all he has to do is take a slight angle to go straight between your guard?"

 

um.... yes..... i think

 

it all depends on what we are doing.

 

when not doing anything, we try to maintain neutrality (square on hips).

 

or if we are strictly going forward we aim to have SOLID (non moving hip)structure.

 

at all other times

 

i.e moving, not necessarily forwards.

 

your hips will change from being square on to 45 degrees and even sometimes 180 degrees to opponent.

 

go back to the central plane.

 

we try to maintain our central plane to face his centre line

 

(actually it faces what we are 'hitting'...).

 

as i said before, we are only totally face on when we are not doing anything or going forwards (for the circular punching).

 

if they were to make a move to enter my guard, i should have already chosen a direction to move in which case my hips would've moved also.

 

because i'd be standing neutral, all it takes is the half turn to 45 degrees for me to 'close the door' and he would've hit my the small circle at my elbows (assuming he got past the bigger wrist circle).

 

hmm, methinks i need to do some drawings.....

 

***edit***

 

i've just spent ten minutes going through stances and foot work in the kitchen (smooth floors).....

 

y'know what, square on hips doesn't happen that often.

 

aside from the neutral square on pre contact 'ready' stance, my hips tend to go to square on when my structure is being compressed.

 

my left forward stance feels best with square on hips.

 

my right forward feels best at something less than 45 degrees.

 

my side stance feels best at about 25 degrees.

 

when i go forwards by shifting, my hips feel best taking an angle.

 

when i go forwards by stepping (changing feet) my hips want to be square on again (as i said before)

 

it seems that the thing that doesn't move in guard positions are the shoulders but then again, there doesn't feel to be much difference between angle or square on.....

 

all i lose is about 3 inches of reach if i turn slightly and my stance feels a little looser.

 

damn... now i'm confused.

[delta1]

YOU'RE confused??? ( :walks around, scratching... head: )

 

HEY!!! Wasn't this supposed to be a KEMPO thread???

[aefibird]

hmm, methinks i need to do some drawings.....

 

Monkey, it'd be great if you could do some stance drawings and post them on here! I think it would really help people who are following this thread. Thanks in advance.

[Drunken Monkey]

i'm working on that....

 

having a bit of trouble showing feet position, knee position, hip position and shoulder position all in one top down diagram.

 

might have to do it like a little table.

 

little stick men time!