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?
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?