This is also based on another discussion in the facebook Wing Chun forum. I was planning on posting my thoughts, but you guys already started the discussion in the "Three Components of Wing Chun" thread! So I already know that some of you agree with what I'm going to say. But I'll say it anyway.
Here is what was posted on the facebook forum:
As we know the YGKYM is a basic training stance. We also know that is should never be used in combat because it hinders mobility and leaves you vulnerable to attack. Here is a quote by a teacher and former student of Samuel Kwok "It must be stressed that the Wing Chun training stance is not a stance in which one would fight. The stance is used to develop leg muscles and balance."
I know that many Wing Chun lineages teach this, but I have never understood why! Maybe if you are standing with your weight back on your heels with your pelvis tilted so that you are leaning backwards and hunching the shoulders over to compensate...maybe then your stance would limit your mobility and leave you vulnerable. But that's not how I do YGKYM!
In Pin Sun we stand very upright with a "floating Kwa" and the weight centered over the arch of the foot near the K1 point. This is a neutral position that allows quick and unpredictable movement in any direction. It is also a very structurally sound position that can receive force well without being collapsed or over-run. Standing with the weight over the arch/K1 loads the Achilles tendon so you can spring out forward or to either side. Some favor the pivoted position or "sideling" stance as a fighting stance. How is this any different? In fact, if you are standing in the sideling stance pivoted toward your right, your ability to move suddenly to your left is affected. Standing in a neutral YGKYM you can move equally well in either direction.
Some people argue that it makes one vulnerable to a snap kick to the groin. But I say you are just as vulnerable to a round kick to the groin when you are in the front stance that many favor. Some will say that standing in the sideling stance protects the groin because you only have to slightly drop one knee to cover. Well...in the YGKYM you only have to drop EITHER knee to cover.
We spend many hours standing in YGKYM doing forms, Chi Sau, Pak Da Drilling, etc. Why would we do this if we aren't going to use it a real encounter? You can also do Chi Sau with one leg forward in a front stance. Some train this in Chi Sau at times, but it isn't their default position. Shouldn't it be the main stance used in Chi Sau if they in fact believe that the YGKYM shouldn't be used in a real situation?
As geezer pointed out in the other thread, YGKYM is the mother of all the stances and source of all the footwork. When pivoting we transition through the YGKYM. All the other stances are just permutations of YGKYM. So why wouldn't it show up in fighting?
Here is footage of one of Alan Orr's students Aaron Baum in his first MMA fight years ago. Note that for much of the time he is essentially in his YGKYM:
So to me, the whole teaching or idea that YGKYM is a "training stance only" just doesn't seem right.
Here is what was posted on the facebook forum:
As we know the YGKYM is a basic training stance. We also know that is should never be used in combat because it hinders mobility and leaves you vulnerable to attack. Here is a quote by a teacher and former student of Samuel Kwok "It must be stressed that the Wing Chun training stance is not a stance in which one would fight. The stance is used to develop leg muscles and balance."
I know that many Wing Chun lineages teach this, but I have never understood why! Maybe if you are standing with your weight back on your heels with your pelvis tilted so that you are leaning backwards and hunching the shoulders over to compensate...maybe then your stance would limit your mobility and leave you vulnerable. But that's not how I do YGKYM!
In Pin Sun we stand very upright with a "floating Kwa" and the weight centered over the arch of the foot near the K1 point. This is a neutral position that allows quick and unpredictable movement in any direction. It is also a very structurally sound position that can receive force well without being collapsed or over-run. Standing with the weight over the arch/K1 loads the Achilles tendon so you can spring out forward or to either side. Some favor the pivoted position or "sideling" stance as a fighting stance. How is this any different? In fact, if you are standing in the sideling stance pivoted toward your right, your ability to move suddenly to your left is affected. Standing in a neutral YGKYM you can move equally well in either direction.
Some people argue that it makes one vulnerable to a snap kick to the groin. But I say you are just as vulnerable to a round kick to the groin when you are in the front stance that many favor. Some will say that standing in the sideling stance protects the groin because you only have to slightly drop one knee to cover. Well...in the YGKYM you only have to drop EITHER knee to cover.
We spend many hours standing in YGKYM doing forms, Chi Sau, Pak Da Drilling, etc. Why would we do this if we aren't going to use it a real encounter? You can also do Chi Sau with one leg forward in a front stance. Some train this in Chi Sau at times, but it isn't their default position. Shouldn't it be the main stance used in Chi Sau if they in fact believe that the YGKYM shouldn't be used in a real situation?
As geezer pointed out in the other thread, YGKYM is the mother of all the stances and source of all the footwork. When pivoting we transition through the YGKYM. All the other stances are just permutations of YGKYM. So why wouldn't it show up in fighting?
Here is footage of one of Alan Orr's students Aaron Baum in his first MMA fight years ago. Note that for much of the time he is essentially in his YGKYM:
So to me, the whole teaching or idea that YGKYM is a "training stance only" just doesn't seem right.
Last edited by a moderator: