The Way of Least Resistance

Introduction Readers might recall that last year I wrote a piece titled " A pivotal question " - an essay where I analysed where and when one should pivot on the ball of foot versus the heel . In that essay I noted that most of the time we martial artists pivot on the ball of the foot.  Why?  Principally for two reasons: balance and "power" .  This sentiment is echoed by Lucio Maurino sensei in the video below (one that is embedded in Jesse Enkamp's recent  article covering this issue ): But really, judging by the comments on Jesse-san's article I really don't get any sense that people are aware of where and when it might be appropriate to pivot on the heel - which is something I've previously covered.  Some insist that it is never appropriate, while others insist on defending their own particular tradition.  But relatively few seem to accept that both ball of foot and heel are appropriate pivot points depending on one's objective

Stances: the foundation of traditional martial arts Four years ago, almost to the day, I wrote an article about the function of stances in traditional martial arts.  At the time I was pleased to see that my piece met with a fairly universal positive reaction in traditional martial circles - regardless of style. I suspect this is because almost all traditional martial arts share the same stances  (more or less) and these are used  for pretty much the same pedagogic reasons: You have a forward (or bow) stance, a reverse stance, a cat stance, a horse stance, a twisted stance and, from southern China and Okinawa, " sanzhan/sanchin " - an hourglass stance.  While there are a host of other less common stances, for the most part these constitute nothing more than minor variations of, or transitions between, the previously-mentioned stances. The "odd man out": xingyi's principle stance But what if there were a stance that seemingly "bucked the trend"

In my recent article  on zhan zhuang I referred to martial arts teachers who start "believing their own hype" and the tendency this has to make the teacher's students more prone to becoming complicit (usually unconsciously) in the process. This is something today's marital artists commonly call "teacher chi" (a term first coined, I believe, by respected uechi ryu karate instructor  Dana Sheets ). In my experience, you often (though by no means always) see "teacher chi" in schools that test "pushing" . Now I want to be clear that in general I think tests of "pushing" are fine: solid structure can give you a good foundation for developing a strong push.  If such tests are presented appropriately, I have no issue with them at all.  An example of an unobjectionable "pushing test" is the yiquan one below. Nonetheless, I think that the data gained from such a "test of pushing" is of limited value.  Wh

Introduction There is a tendency in the Chinese, and increasingly in the Japanese, martial arts to venerate “standing post” training - what is known as zhan zhuang (站樁 - literally “standing like a post”).  In particular the internal arts of China are known for this practise.  Even more particularly, the art of yiquan (意拳 - literally “concept fist”) focuses almost entirely on this as a martial training method. Yiquan, which is also called “da cheng quan” (大成拳 - literally “great achievement boxing”), was developed by xingyiquan master Wang Xiangzhai (26 November 1885 - 12 July 1963).  One of his students was the Taiwan-based martial artist Wang Shujin (a master of xingyiquan, baguazhang and taijiquan who happens to have also been one of my grandmaster Chen Pan Ling's main students). In Japan the yiquan tradition was continued by Kenichi Sawai, founder of the school of taikiken (体気拳 - literally “mind and spirit fist”). So what is the point of “standing post training”?  Can