An Observation on Pivoting

[Marnetmar]

I was playing around with a guy from another lineage and whenever I sensed incoming force from him I did a slight shift and "guided him" into my fists, so to speak. This really seemed to confuse him and he asked why I wasn't taking a big step back whenever he did an attack, to which I replied "in my style, we focus on making very small movements" which resulted in a nod and a confused expression.

I started thinking about this just recently and realized something: the reason he got so confused might have been because his style had a different way of shifting than mine. In my style, shifting is initiated at the knees and the pivot point is slightly towards the balls of our feet. In his style, shifting is initiated at the hips and the pivot point is on the heels.

BOTH OF THESE METHODS ARE EQUALLY GOOD AND VALID, MIND YOU.

Now, from what I understand, there is a conventional rhyme and reason to both of these methods:

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.
2. Shifting with the hips and pivoting on the heels eliminates unnecessary movement and allows you to stay in the same spot to make it easier to strike your opponent, while shifting on the balls of your feet moves you further away from your opponent.

Now then, I believe the reason that he got so confused was that if he were to attempt the same technique I did against an incoming attack, he would stay in the same place and would still get hit, while the method I was taught moves me out of the way a few inches off the line of attack.

From this I've concluded that a practitioner shouldn't use exclusively one method, but rather should use both methods in accord:

1. Shift with the knees and use the balls of your feet when an attack is coming in order to get off the line without bobbing and weaving.
2. Shift with the hips and use the heels if there's currently no attack coming and want to change directions without giving up your position.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on this. I'm just a student, after all. What are your guys' thoughts?

 

[drop bear]

There is an element of fighting systems where one method is specifically advantageous to another. So like the paper rock scissors dynamic where you method beats a guy his method beats a guy but the third guys method beats you.

Learning how all that integrates is expands your understanding of how martial arts works.

So in short. Yes I agree.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Your buddy should change styles.

 

[KPM]

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.

---Here is a key point biomechanically speaking....shifting near the balls of the feet (at the K1 point) makes it easier to maintain control of your balance. You can actually sink your weight while pivoting this way. Heck, you can sink so much that you are doing a "Gwai Ma" with the pivot. You can't do that with pivoting on the heels.


2. Shifting with the hips and pivoting on the heels eliminates unnecessary movement and allows you to stay in the same spot to make it easier to strike your opponent, while shifting on the balls of your feet moves you further away from your opponent.

---Shifting on the K1 point does not necessarily move you further away from your opponent. You can maintain 50/50 weight distro and pivot through a central vertical axis and still be pivoting at the K1 point. Therefore you don't need to learn two different ways of pivoting (heel vs. K1) to adjust your strategy as you are describing it. This is how we pivot in Pin Sun. Pivoting at the K1 point does not mean you have to swing your whole body around.


From this I've concluded that a practitioner shouldn't use exclusively one method, but rather should use both methods in accord:

---I think trying to pivot on the heels at some times and at the K1 point at others would just be confusing and not really necessary, as I noted above. Just work on doing your pivot without shifting the weight onto the rear leg. Keep your weight 50/50. Once you do it a bit I think you'll find it is rather easy and a better alternative to trying to shift on your heels if you are used to shifting on the K1 point.

 

[wckf92]

I was playing around with a guy from another lineage and whenever I sensed incoming force from him I did a slight shift and "guided him" into my fists, so to speak. This really seemed to confuse him and he asked why I wasn't taking a big step back whenever he did an attack, to which I replied "in my style, we focus on making very small movements" which resulted in a nod and a confused expression.

I started thinking about this just recently and realized something: the reason he got so confused might have been because his style had a different way of shifting than mine. In my style, shifting is initiated at the knees and the pivot point is slightly towards the balls of our feet. In his style, shifting is initiated at the hips and the pivot point is on the heels.

BOTH OF THESE METHODS ARE EQUALLY GOOD AND VALID, MIND YOU.

Now, from what I understand, there is a conventional rhyme and reason to both of these methods:

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.
2. Shifting with the hips and pivoting on the heels eliminates unnecessary movement and allows you to stay in the same spot to make it easier to strike your opponent, while shifting on the balls of your feet moves you further away from your opponent.

Now then, I believe the reason that he got so confused was that if he were to attempt the same technique I did against an incoming attack, he would stay in the same place and would still get hit, while the method I was taught moves me out of the way a few inches off the line of attack.

From this I've concluded that a practitioner shouldn't use exclusively one method, but rather should use both methods in accord:

1. Shift with the knees and use the balls of your feet when an attack is coming in order to get off the line without bobbing and weaving.
2. Shift with the hips and use the heels if there's currently no attack coming and want to change directions without giving up your position.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on this. I'm just a student, after all. What are your guys' thoughts?

You are correct, both methods are valid. And both are contained within the Yip Man family.
I do disagree about the lack of mobility. Mobility is destined to hinge around the heel or the K1 or the ball. It has to do with where your adversary is located in reference to you.
I also disagree with heel shifting and staying in one place. That is certainly an option with the 50/50 mindset; however you can turn on your heels, and load the rear leg, thus getting 'off the line' and guiding him into your fist.
Responding to your post is difficult due to us not knowing more about you and your buddies current skill level and depth of knowledge about the WC you are learning. As for the "big step back"....perhaps that is just how he trains in his kwoon(?). [*if so, that seems a bit weird TBH]
Anyway, which method of shifting one uses to deploy tools from the toolbox involves lots of important things like timing, reach, getting offline while increasing distance of your own weapons, angles, and most importantly...power generation.
Thanks for the post dude...gives us all something to think about and discuss. It reminds me of a similar encounter I had once with a LT guy. Who also shifted on the balls of the feet.

 

[LFJ]

1. Shifting with the knees and pivoting on the balls of the feet allows for easier mobility.

I find heel pivoting can seamlessly drive into seung-ma or collapse off line into teui-ma, both with use of hips and ground connection via the rear leg to deliver power punches from any position. Since we don't use rotating punches like a boxer, this is important in order to have knockout power in our VT punches.

 

[Danny T]

We do both.
Something I asked of my sifu many years ago while observing his movement. His reply, "Ahh, sometimes on the ball of your foot, sometimes on the heel. We use whatever we need to do depending on what is needed. After you learn it, understand it, then do what is natural, just move."

SLT no movement, Chum Kiu we pivot on the ball, Bil Jee we pivot on the heel, after that just move.

 

[Vajramusti]

I find heel pivoting can seamlessly drive into seung-ma or collapse off line into teui-ma, both with use of hips and ground connection via the rear leg to deliver power punches from any position. Since we don't use rotating punches like a boxer, this is important in order to have knockout power in our VT punches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. Heel pivoting does not mean that one leans back on the heel. ...for development... in application one adjusts as needed.
Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.

 

[geezer]

It reminds me of a similar encounter I had once with a LT guy. Who also shifted on the balls of the feet.

Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time on the center of the foot using the force of the knees. The weight shift is 100%. Now in practice, depending on the surface you are standing on, the type of shoes you wear, etc., the pivot point is often a little bit in front of the center, toward the balls of the feet, but never on the toes.

I prefer this method of turning. I find it gives me greater stability and better power generation since, as KPM stated, you can keep your weight sunk and at least one foot is firmly rooted at any given moment. Where I differ from my old sifu is that I do not believe that a 100% weight shift is always optimal. But this turning method can be used with anything from 50-50 to 100% weight shift depending on the situation.

Turning both legs simultaneously with the weight toward the heels has other advantages, not the least of which is speed. But I'd rather stick with the method described above for the sake of simplicity and consistency. In other words, exactly what KPM said.

 

[geezer]

Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.

In completing a turn and delivering a punch, etc. the rebounding force is indeed directed into the ground via the heel. This does not mean that in turning you have to turn both feet simultaneously and weight only the heels. I have seen good Wing Chun using both approaches.

 

[KPM]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. Heel pivoting does not mean that one leans back on the heel. ...for development... in application one adjusts as needed.
Ip Man, Ho Kam Ming, WSL, Augustine Fong all know that the gravitational path goes through the heel.. the rest of the foot helps with stability.
This question appears from time to time and the same diversities appear.

Sorry. But that statement is just flat wrong. Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot. For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.

 

[Bkouba]

There is an element of fighting systems where one method is specifically advantageous to another. So like the paper rock scissors dynamic where you method beats a guy his method beats a guy but the third guys method beats you.

Learning how all that integrates is expands your understanding of how martial arts works.

So in short. Yes I agree.

Well said, that's where the 'style makes fights' cliche comes into play. It's always interesting to see what appears to be a more skilled fighter lose to one that possess a certain skill set - even if very limited, but then again if they are beaten are they the more skilled in the first place? God I love martial arts haha

 

[drop bear]

Well said, that's where the 'style makes fights' cliche comes into play. It's always interesting to see what appears to be a more skilled fighter lose to one that possess a certain skill set - even if very limited, but then again if they are beaten are they the more skilled in the first place? God I love martial arts haha

Mohumed ali Joe Frazier is often used as an example of this. By all accounts Joe was the better boxer. But got caught by better tactics.

 

[JPinAZ]

Sorry. But that statement is just flat wrong. Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot. For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.

This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement. While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!

From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant. I do this all the time, and I don't have to 'lean back' to do it. It can be done quite easily while still having a 50/50 balanced weight and COG. In your above statement, I think you're forgetting about how our opponent can also influence things. When we have a bridge, we also have to take into account the amount of pressure we are receiving from out opponent, and it's direction. This greatly changes how and thru what part of the foot we 'ground' these forces.

In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'? Personally, I don't really do the feet-stay-on-the-floor type shifting anyway. In our lineage, we typically pick the feet up when changing facing. Would it be wise for me to then tell the entire Yip man lineage they are wrong regardless if they shift on the heal or the toes?

 

[Danny T]

This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement. While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!

From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant. I do this all the time, and I don't have to 'lean back' to do it. It can be done quite easily while still having a 50/50 balanced weight and COG. In your above statement, I think you're forgetting about how our opponent can also influence things. When we have a bridge, we also have to take into account the amount of pressure we are receiving from out opponent, and it's direction. This greatly changes how and thru what part of the foot we 'ground' these forces.

In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'?

Yeap, Yeap, Yeap!
Never say never. We may work for something specific but... it may not happen in reality.
You have to deal with what is not with what should be.

 

[KPM]

This is why it's safe not to speak in absolute certainties telling someone they are 'flat wrong'. There are far too many factors to take into account before you make such a broad (and somewhat silly) statement.

---It is simple biomechanics. Nothing "silly" about it.

While yes, you are 'correct' in one regard, I can think of many instances where your above statement is incorrect. Try telling a ballet dancer their 'gravitational path goes thru the center of the arch of the foot' when they are up on their toes lol. And you better believe their weight is well balanced!

---Uh....in case you didn't realize....we are talking about Wing Chun here, not ballet.

From a WC POV, to 'receive' energy from an opponent thru your root and into the ground, it surely can go thru the heals, if even for a brief instant.

---But we were talking about pivoting in general. A specific case scenario was not what was being discussed. Joy made a general statement, and that general statement was flat wrong. End of story. You can nit-pick all you want. It doesn't change the biomechanics of it. In general, when you pivot your gravitational path does NOT go through the heels unless the majority of your weight is back over the heels.

In the end, really, what does it matter! If it works for someone, who are we to tell them they are 'wrong'?

---If you were actually paying attention, I did not say that the way they were pivoting was wrong. I said that Joy's statement of the "gravitational path" was wrong. There is a big difference there!

 

[Jake104]

Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time on the center of the foot using the force of the knees. The weight shift is 100%. Now in practice, depending on the surface you are standing on, the type of shoes you wear, etc., the pivot point is often a little bit in front of the center, toward the balls of the feet, but never on the toes.

I prefer this method of turning. I find it gives me greater stability and better power generation since, as KPM stated, you can keep your weight sunk and at least one foot is firmly rooted at any given moment. Where I differ from my old sifu is that I do not believe that a 100% weight shift is always optimal. But this turning method can be used with anything from 50-50 to 100% weight shift depending on the situation.

Turning both legs simultaneously with the weight toward the heels has other advantages, not the least of which is speed. But I'd rather stick with the method described above for the sake of simplicity and consistency. In other words, exactly what KPM said.

I was originally taught the one foot at a time method. Now I use whatever's needed to move without giving up my balance/COG/ structure or any physical advantage I might have..My teacher once said after I asked why is our fighting stance 60/40? He said "it's not it's more of a reference or starting point. In fighting you'll always be transitioning..He used the example of walking and how weight is constantly being transferred from 0-100 to 100-0. If there was a rule that said we must walk at a maintained 60/40 we'd all look silly. So I feel the same about pivoting. The wrong way to pivot, is pivoting without forward intent and or over pivoting. Which to me is the exact same thing..

 

[wckf92]

Actually LT's method is to shift one foot at a time on the center of the foot

Yes, I recall he did turn one foot at a time.

but never on the toes.

Never said toes...

 

[wckf92]

I was originally taught the one foot at a time method. Now I use whatever's needed to move without giving up my balance/COG/ structure or any physical advantage I might have..My teacher once said after I asked why is our fighting stance 60/40? He said "it's not it's more of a reference or starting point. In fighting you'll always be transitioning..He used the example of walking and how weight is constantly being transferred from 0-100 to 100-0. If there was a rule that said we must walk at a maintained 60/40 we'd all look silly. So I feel the same about pivoting. The wrong way to pivot, is pivoting without forward intent and or over pivoting. Which to me is the exact same thing..

Correct! You have a wise teacher.

 

[Vajramusti]

Sorry. But that statement is just flat wrong. Biomechanically speaking, the gravitational path goes through the center of the arch of the foot. For it to go through the heels, you would have to be leaning back with your weight entirely over your heels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry too. Same old differences.