How the punch can relate to the rest of the system

[Juany118]

Well stated. Continuing a circle once you actually engage is doing to yourself what I would do if I can attach to you. Circles are not the friend of stability, unless you are the center.

Well, and this may sound a bit disrespectful to my Sifu, if he was to tell me otherwise (we actually have that picture on the wall of the school, but remember we also learn FMA which has some Spanish influence due to 300 years of occupation) I would say "are you high?!?!?" likely because, while my path was different than yours and I no longer formerly train I still consider myself an Aikidoka.

 

[APL76]

This is why the OP asked me "why would you want to move in a circle?"

No, that’s not why he was asking you why you would want to move in a circle; we will try to get into the “blind side” as much as anyone else where appropriate. Nor are we fixated on getting in “the front door” as you call it, indeed we try to avoid that if possible and put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else (which, though it is a pretty common goal in wing chun, as others have mentioned, some wing chun people get fixated on a head on clash in the name of centreline). The point was that if you can use the stepping and circling leg components from chum kiu and bui ji together with the jun ma appropriately timed and fast enough, you will be up in an opening on your opponent’s “blind side” in the instant they thought their attack would be landing (at least). You don’t need to move around in a circle.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, that’s not why he was asking you why you would want to move in a circle; we will try to get into the “blind side” as much as anyone else where appropriate. Nor are we fixated on getting in “the front door” as you call it, indeed we try to avoid that if possible and put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else (which, though it is a pretty common goal in wing chun, as others have mentioned, some wing chun people get fixated on a head on clash in the name of centreline). The point was that if you can use the stepping and circling leg components from chum kiu and bui ji together with the jun ma appropriately timed and fast enough, you will be up in an opening on your opponent’s “blind side” in the instant they thought their attack would be landing (at least). You don’t need to move around in a circle.

That almost sounds like a strategy from the aiki arts. @Juany118, is that a similar approach, but for striking?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

put our centreline onto the opponent and their centreline off somewhere else ...

If this is what you want to achieve then why don't you just say, " I want to force my opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm." In other words, you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If this is what you want to achieve then why don't you just say, " I want to force my opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm." In other words, you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.

Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?

Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.

Unless that's not the only reason to move to the "blind side".

 

[APL76]

Without using the term "center line", the concept of "leading arm jam back arm" can be much more simple and easy to understand.

Well, we are talking about wing chun here, centreline is a key principal.

 

[Juany118]

That almost sounds like a strategy from the aiki arts. @Juany118, is that a similar approach, but for striking?

First I wanted to clarify for @APL76 (since he is new) that, I am only a practitioner of WC, not an expert BUT I believe I am being asked this question because I also have a fair amount of previous Aikido experience.

That said yes, it is similar. Example in the WC I study it's not just about getting to the blind side. I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found that the principle of footwork in WC also applies to defense in a way similar to Aikido. If we do not move, ultimately we are still using force against force. You may be able to deflect a fair amount of the force but you can never deflect all.

The idea is that force moving forward is always more powerful than a static target's ability to receive it. Just using a structurally sound stance is not enough to receive that force and even if I successfully divert the force of the first attack, that took a lot of my personal energy and the next will hurt even more. So you use footwork, not just to get to the blind side for a superior tactical position for attack but also to assist in defense. A simple use of footwork as your bil sau (tan, bong, gan, whatever) diverts an attack absorbs far more force than either remaining static or worse, insisting on moving up the middle and directly into the attacker's "kill box.". The bil deflects a fair amount of energy and the fact your release step is "going with the flow" diverts more. Very Aiki imo.

Why is that any clearer (or less clear) than the way he said it?

Well, we are talking about wing chun here, centreline is a key principal.

I put these two together because it is illustrative of what I think is an argument falling into semantics. Let me explain in a bit of detail. First picture the master's wheel I linked previously. Yes there is a point to the target where your footwork may move in a literal circle but once inside a specific range your foot work is linear BUT stop looking at the footwork alone for a moment and picture just the heads of the two combatants moving with each other. It can easily be seen like two bodies in orbit... Meaning circles.

Also @Kung Fu Wang noted a part of the principle of centerline theory, followed by what that + fighting on the blind side enhances...

you want to reach to a point that both of your hands can reach to your opponent but only one of your opponent's hand can reach to you.

Now some may say instead "attack and defend simultaneously with both hands" instead of the first part of his statement but for practical purposes the mean the same thing. Then in the second half you have the portion of centerline theory which says a goal is to disrupt your opponent's center so he can not do the same.

The issue is some "schools" of WC teach that you can move to the blind side on your own as well, not simply rely on your attack to force the opponent to give him your blind side. I believe @APL76 is saying through the use of proper footwork we can move ourselves to the blind side, I just think the use of the word "circle" has created a false conflict and that we are all actually talking about the same thing. He even said "circling footwork" of two of the forms in his one argument followed by it doesn't mean you have to move in a circle.

I think I understand what he was trying to get at there. Even if moving to the blind side we want to be moving forward, even if "only" on an angle, so that we can use that forward momentum to produce power. Thing is one can argue that this is moving in a circle. I remember LFJ critiquing my lineage when he said he watched a bunch of videos and believed our strategy of trying to get the blind side resulted in us walking in circles as our opponent would constantly readjust but I see it as working the angles... semantics.

 

[geezer]

...I see it as working the angles...

Yep. Me too. That's what FMA has done for me.

 

[Danny T]

Yep. Me too. That's what FMA has done for me.

'Angles'
Greater part of the footwork is about such.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So what strategies do you use to prevent your opponent from moving into your "side door" (blind side)?

 

[Danny T]

Change directions.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Unless that's not the only reason to move to the "blind side".

The other reason that you want to move to your opponent's "side door" (blind side) may be to take advantage on his weight distribution. That's important for throwing art but may not be that important for striking art such as WC.

Depending on which side door that you move in, you can apply throws such as:

蹩(Bie) - Break,
撩(Liao) - Back kick,
扣(Kou) - Knee seizing,
切(Qie) - Front cut,
削(Xiao) - Sickle hooking,

or

踢(Ti) - Forward kick,
撮(Cuo) - Scooping kick,
粘(Zhan) - Sticking kick,
撞(Zhuang) - Trunk hitting,
靠(Kao) - Advance squeeze,

But for the striking art, a punch to the head is just a punch to the head.

 

[APL76]

First I wanted to clarify for @APL76 (since he is new) that, I am only a practitioner of WC, not an expert BUT I believe I am being asked this question because I also have a fair amount of previous Aikido experience.

That said yes, it is similar. Example in the WC I study it's not just about getting to the blind side. I was actually pleasantly surprised when I found that the principle of footwork in WC also applies to defense in a way similar to Aikido. If we do not move, ultimately we are still using force against force. You may be able to deflect a fair amount of the force but you can never deflect all.

The idea is that force moving forward is always more powerful than a static target's ability to receive it. Just using a structurally sound stance is not enough to receive that force and even if I successfully divert the force of the first attack, that took a lot of my personal energy and the next will hurt even more. So you use footwork, not just to get to the blind side for a superior tactical position for attack but also to assist in defense. A simple use of footwork as your bil sau (tan, bong, gan, whatever) diverts an attack absorbs far more force than either remaining static or worse, insisting on moving up the middle and directly into the attacker's "kill box.". The bil deflects a fair amount of energy and the fact your release step is "going with the flow" diverts more. Very Aiki imo.






I put these two together because it is illustrative of what I think is an argument falling into semantics. Let me explain in a bit of detail. First picture the master's wheel I linked previously. Yes there is a point to the target where your footwork may move in a literal circle but once inside a specific range your foot work is linear BUT stop looking at the footwork alone for a moment and picture just the heads of the two combatants moving with each other. It can easily be seen like two bodies in orbit... Meaning circles.

Also @Kung Fu Wang noted a part of the principle of centerline theory, followed by what that + fighting on the blind side enhances...



Now some may say instead "attack and defend simultaneously with both hands" instead of the first part of his statement but for practical purposes the mean the same thing. Then in the second half you have the portion of centerline theory which says a goal is to disrupt your opponent's center so he can not do the same.

The issue is some "schools" of WC teach that you can move to the blind side on your own as well, not simply rely on your attack to force the opponent to give him your blind side. I believe @APL76 is saying through the use of proper footwork we can move ourselves to the blind side, I just think the use of the word "circle" has created a false conflict and that we are all actually talking about the same thing. He even said "circling footwork" of two of the forms in his one argument followed by it doesn't mean you have to move in a circle.

I think I understand what he was trying to get at there. Even if moving to the blind side we want to be moving forward, even if "only" on an angle, so that we can use that forward momentum to produce power. Thing is one can argue that this is moving in a circle. I remember LFJ critiquing my lineage when he said he watched a bunch of videos and believed our strategy of trying to get the blind side resulted in us walking in circles as our opponent would constantly readjust but I see it as working the angles... semantics.

just to clarify, what I mean by circling leg from the bui ji is the leg movement you do in opening the bui ji and repeat each time you go back to YJKYM throughout the form. For us that movement is an integral part of our flanking footwork, or taking angles, going to the blind side, and so on. And you are right, for us we will actively go to that position in relation to an oncoming attack (if appropriate), and not simply try to deflect an oncoming opponent off and force them to present it, though that might be an option too. So I guess where I'm saying circling footwork or circling leg I'm describing an actual leg movement (huen bo) rather than the actual strategy we would use in flanking an attack. When we flank an oncoming attack we will, generally speaking, try to cut as fine an angle to the oncoming attack as we can. What provides us with the necessary clearance to aviod the oncoming attack and deploy our arm leg techniques is the incorporation of the jun ma in the step; and hence why for us moving the body through jun ma is so important rather than staying on a central axis. So that's getting back to where I noted somewhere above about our flanking footwork, though it takes a straight line the body movement within that straight line has a circular aspect to it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Change directions.

Your opponent steps to your right side, you turn to your right and "change direction". He steps to your right side again, you change your direction again. If you keep doing that, your opponent may walk in a complete circle and you may have to turn 360 degree.

When will you stop "change direction" if your opponent keeps stepping to your right?

 

[APL76]

So what strategies do you use to prevent your opponent from moving into your "side door" (blind side)?

Don't over commit your own attack (which gets al the way back to the point about not throwing your body weight into punches when you learn them), have good practice at tracking your opponent's movement keeping your centreline on them, which means good jun ma and by extension, footwork.

 

[APL76]

Your opponent steps to your right side, you turn to your right and "change direction". He steps to your right side again, you change your direction again. If you keep doing that, your opponent may walk in circle and you may turn 360 degree.

When will you stop "change direction" if your opponent keeps stepping to your right?

you should have cut them off long before allowing them to lead you around in a circle. In my opinion to simply track a person around like that is far too passive.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

cut them off ...

Agree! That's the best strategy. Don't play your opponent's circular game. Take control back, and force him to play your game. If your opponent tries to step to your right, you can step in your right leg to the outside of his left leading leg. This way you have just interrupted his circular footwork.

 

[Juany118]

just to clarify, what I mean by circling leg from the bui ji is the leg movement you do in opening the bui ji and repeat each time you go back to YJKYM throughout the form. For us that movement is an integral part of our flanking footwork, or taking angles, going to the blind side, and so on. And you are right, for us we will actively go to that position in relation to an oncoming attack (if appropriate), and not simply try to deflect an oncoming opponent off and force them to present it, though that might be an option too. So I guess where I'm saying circling footwork or circling leg I'm describing an actual leg movement (huen bo) rather than the actual strategy we would use in flanking an attack. When we flank an oncoming attack we will, generally speaking, try to cut as fine an angle to the oncoming attack as we can. What provides us with the necessary clearance to aviod the oncoming attack and deploy our arm leg techniques is the incorporation of the jun ma in the step; and hence why for us moving the body through jun ma is so important rather than staying on a central axis. So that's getting back to where I noted somewhere above about our flanking footwork, though it takes a straight line the body movement within that straight line has a circular aspect to it.

The last part is why I made the analogy of just picturing the "heads" of the combatants, as if they were planetary bodies. To an extent I think the debate here is, at least in part, one of semantics. Are you picturing how you step, or Ultimately how you appear to move relative to your opponent's movement.