Food for thought on the "Bai Jong" or "ready position"

[KPM]

Wing Chun Fight Club - Wing Chun vs Pure Grappler DVD Excerpt - Side Stance

I've long disagreed with the commonly held belief that the Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma is not a "fighting stance", that it is a "training stance" only. Why would you spend so much time standing in a position that you aren't going to use in application? Here are some of the objections I have heard:

1. It is not mobile enough...being too slow to move out of. Maybe if you are using that extreme "clamping" thing where you are trying the squeeze the crap out of some poor innocent goat! ;-) But that is not what I mean by a YGKYM. I'm just talking about a relaxed by solid neutral stance with both knees directed a bit inward. This is pure potential. You can step out in either direction or forward with either leg with equal ease and unpredictability. You can pivot to either side equally. You have not committed to either side being forward yet. I train this to be a very mobile position.

2. You are vulnerable to a groin shot from a kick. Well, sure. ANY position is vulnerable to one kick or another. Standing square makes you vulnerable to a front kick. Standing with one leg forward in the typical "Bai Jong" makes you vulnerable to a round kick. So what's the difference? Both stances are equally vulnerable. If I am in a YGKYM and someone throws a kick to the groin all I have to do is a fast 1/2 pivot to cover with one knee. Or I simply time a forward step in the intercepts his kick with my lead leg as I angle my groin off the line of his strike.

3. But here is an ADVANTAGE to the YGKYM as a ready stance or fighting stance....it is less vulnerable to a shoot from a good grappler, as is explained in this video! The video is showing the side stance. But it applies equally to YGKYM, and to me....standing in YGKYM is as good or better than standing in the side stance. ;-)

 

[drop bear]

I've long disagreed with the commonly held belief that the Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma is not a "fighting stance", that it is a "training stance" only. Why would you spend so much time standing in a position that you aren't going to use in application? Here are some of the objections I have heard:

Same reason we do raptor walks lizard crawls and jump squats.

Because strong fighters are better fighters.

 

[KPM]

Same reason we do raptor walks lizard crawls and jump squats.

Because strong fighters are better fighters.

But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system? I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."

 

[Phobius]

You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.

I could be wrong and would gladly figure out how to make YGKYM more mobile without removing the crucial elements of it, meaning me being rooted or well structured.

Thirdly. You are not fighting a grappler, and whatever comes at you will risk going right through you when you focus on fending off a grappler. We can not sacrifize mobility for a good footing, because we can not dream to outrange our opponent. It is the nature of WC to always have the shorter hand. (Kicks not mentioned because how to quickly kick from YGKYM?)

Once more if you can give more information I would greatly appreciate it in order to reconsider my standpoint.

 

[Phobius]

But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system? I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."

I think BJJ use GI while training and sparring, this to help improve their balance when executing techniques. Could of course be wrong but it is what I have heard. Elements that are important in training may still only hold conditioning values.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Does anyone know if the "upcoming DVD" this excerpt came from was ever released?

 

[KPM]

You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.

---Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance. I've never used that in my training anyway. I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM. Relaxed but solid. Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile? It has one leg turned inward and one outward. If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards? Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.

 

[drop bear]

But do you do those while practicing the standard fighting techniques of your system? I think there is a difference between conditioning drills and saying something is "only a training stance."

Yes there is a half and half element. We do like to make the conditioning a bit martial arty.

 

[drop bear]

I think BJJ use GI while training and sparring, this to help improve their balance when executing techniques. Could of course be wrong but it is what I have heard. Elements that are important in training may still only hold conditioning values.

Bjj do use the clothes to fight. Again a half and half element there.

 

[drop bear]

You need to convince me that YGKYM is a mobile stance. In my view based on your positions with knees and feet it simply can not be mobile, which is ironic since it is that same fact that trains up your strength and tension giving you better mobility while maintaining proper structure.

---Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance. I've never used that in my training anyway. I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM. Relaxed but solid. Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile? It has one leg turned inward and one outward. If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards? Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.

Knees in line with feet to be structurally strong.

Strong so if you eat a leg kick you knee dosent collapse.

 

[drop bear]

By the way. If that stance is so good to defend takedowns why does wrestling which is all takedowns have a different stance?

 

[KPM]

By the way. If that stance is so good to defend takedowns why does wrestling which is all takedowns have a different stance?

The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward. Did you watch the video?

 

[guy b]

 

[guy b]

 

[wckf92]

Guy, what's your point with these two photo's you have posted?

 

[guy b]

Guy, what's your point with these two photo's you have posted?

The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward. Did you watch the video?

 

[drop bear]

The point was only that it is a bit less vulnerable to a takedown that a stance involving putting one leg forward. Did you watch the video?

Yeah. I watched the video. I dont think it is a bit less vulnerable. And instead of bogging down with the technicalitys of why. And resulting in i think, you think posts.
I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.

 

[guy b]

I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.

This forum is slightly crazy in terms of the way nobody is able to admit it when they are wrong

 

[Phobius]

Like I said before Phobius, I'm not talking about the tense "clamping" version of the stance. I've never used that in my training anyway. I'm talking about more of a "neutral stance" version of YGKYM. Relaxed but solid. Would you agree that the side stance shown in the video is mobile? It has one leg turned inward and one outward. If you agree it is mobile, then ask yourself...what would be the significant difference between that and having both legs turned inwards? Maybe I will try and shoot a video showing what I mean.

Problem is not with the clamping as you say, and if you dont use it perhaps try it out. It helps improve speed and bodily structure while moving. At least for me.

The side stance in the video is mobile yes, but it is not the same if you turn both knees, legs and feet inwards.In such a position I find it you have no tension built up to generate a moving force in any direction. You become rooted but unable to move forward without shifting weight, unable to move backward as well as sideways. All movement requires you to shift your weight. The only option I see is moving backwards from YGKYM stance, which is perhaps effecting if sprawling but in my view WC needs mobility far more than such a situational stance.

Could of course be wrong but I have not really found many directions to move into quickly from YGKYM without going into another stance first before moving feet.

 

[KPM]

Yeah. I watched the video. I dont think it is a bit less vulnerable. And instead of bogging down with the technicalitys of why. And resulting in i think, you think posts.
I just asked the most basic question that really should define whether or not it is less vulnerable.

I think I will defer to the opinion of the guy in the video that has all the grappling credentials.