Circling Your Opponent

[S.Teebas]

Circling Your Opponent
If you know what handed your opponent is, being left or right handed, you need to circle your opponent in the direction away from their power hand. For example, if your opponent is right handed, circle to his left because his right hand will be his power hand. This will keep you out of his power range and keep you from getting knocked out.

It’s the same concept as hitting and moving. You don’t want to be in front of your opponent where he can inflict the most damage to you. It also goes along with head movement. A moving target is harder to hit. Sugar Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler this way. He was always a step ahead of Marvin and never allowed Marvin to post up on him.

When you circle your opponent, keep on the balls up your feet. Never rest on your heels, because if you receive a solid blow you will be knocked backwards or even down. Keeping on the balls of your feet will help you maintain your balance. And remember to not cross your feet.


What do you guys think of this advice? Ok, so this obviously a boxers perspective, but what would you say about this advice coming from a WC perspective?

[TjD]

i wouldnt say wing chun circles much, but instead the footwork allows us to zone off to an opponents weak side. for example, if their right foot is in the front, we can zone off such that the opponent would have to retract their right foot to shift to face us, as opposed to the other side where the opponent would be facing us without moving. in other words, our opponents right foot is forward, so we step forward to their right side (our left), with our left foot forward. if needed, the right foot can then follow using the somewhat arcing step found in the dummy, cutting off their right foots route of retreat, and giving us their back.

we go for the center, however the center can be attacked using the easiest entry route ;)

as to defense against the circle, i'd say wing chuns so called "advanced" SLT stance allows us to have no weak side per se, because chum kiu shifting allows us to face the full 180 degrees that our opponent could come in on us from and still use both our hands optimally.

[stonecrusher69]

If your apponet throws apunch I would not move to this left because he could hit you with his other hand.I would move to his right side which is much safer position as TJD pointed out.

[old jong]

It might be a sparring solution but...As we are in Wing Chun,we should not spar the guy.We should be preying on him and HE should be forced to fall back on this kind of strategy.Wing Chun is for attack!

[teazer]

We're actually doing the same thing as the boxer, but for different reasons -
They circle away from the power hand, which is on the same side as their rear foot. So they end up going to the outside of the front foot.
We'd just go their because it makes it more difficult for them to follow & exposes their center better.

[taltos]

I think the principle is similar, but I've never been taught to assume the power hand of my opponent. I HAVE been taught to flank the opponent so I am always coming in at them head on, but they are never fully facing me, and they always have to adjust their facing first to really threaten me. Sometimes I end up flanking on the side of their "power hand," sometimes not. But they never have two hand and two feet within threat range of me at the same time, so I always have greater numbers and superior position.

-Levi

[red5angel]

I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

[aelward]

TjD writes:
> i wouldnt say wing chun circles much, but instead the footwork
> allows us to zone off to an opponents weak side.

I'm going agree with TjD, who choses the verb "zone off" vs. other people who use more vague terminology such as "move" (how does one "move"? lots of ways...). That is to say, as someone bigger comes in (lol, more vague terminology), I will, for example, from YJKYM step forward with one foot to meet him and let the other foot (now the "back foot") readjust so that I am on his blind side. Assuming the opponent's stance is such where one hand becomes the "feeler" and the second hand becomes the "power hitter," he will be forced to readjust his body positioning so that his "strongside" hand can reach you. In all actuality, going the other direction (i.e., the non-blindside) also puts an opponent who uses a lot of torso rotation to generate power at a disadvantage (like WC's idea of "chao xing"-- front facing front); however, both of his weapons can still reach you (though maybe not the way he wants). Either way, it is still direct and efficient since you are still essentially going forward.

Either way, I think the key is that this kind of movement is passive- that is to say, it is a reaction to someone elses action. If I try to side step first, then my opponent can adjust so that he is still facing the way he wants to face me. And then, I have just wasted energy. On the other hand, if he moves forward, then my angling is an adjustment to his motion.

While boxing employs both passive and active circling, the latter, from my WC point of view is a waste of energy (though a boxer certainly won't tire from it if he has even the slightest about of conditioning!), and goes against the idea of "economy of motion." That is not to invalidate it, though, since there are many styles (like Ba Gua, Ba Ji, Liu He Ba Fa, etc) that employ it.

Anyway, this is all nice theory, which definitely takes time and diligence to hardwire into the system. It is nice to say you want to attack someone's blind side; it is whole other thing to try and execute it against someone who is also in motion.

r5a predictably says:
> I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right
> down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

Definitely, if I have a size advantage over my opponent. However, give it a try against someone bigger with a little boxing training, and see how it works. I have seen many a WC person get caught with a circling jab or hook when trying.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

Enjoy getting hit.

A lot.

[teazer]

Originally posted by red5angel
I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

...that's why advancing directly ahead figures so prominently in WC forms;)

[red5angel]

MP, Aelward - I think partially its a matter of how you train, if you train to circle then you are going to be more comfortable and more proficient at it. Same with taking your opponent head on. MP, it actually surprises me you would express that. Circling takes more time and energy, and against a trained opponent can be hard to pull off. Atleast against a trained opponent and attacking straight in, you are not wasting energy trying to get to his side or outside.
In theory it sounds great, all I have to do is swing to his blindside and then I can destroy him, but like Aelward said, its different when you face an opponent in motion as well.

Let me ask you guys this, do you think you have as much of a chance hitting your oponent trying to get to his blindside as you do taking him straight on?

[taltos]

>>from red5angel...

>>Let me ask you guys this, do you think you
>>have as much of a chance hitting your oponent
>>trying to get to his blindside as you do taking
>>him straight on?

Probably yes, but head on he has the exact same opportunity to hit me as I have to hit him, which means I'm not playing Wing Chun, I'm playing "who's faster." Which also means that when I get older and slower, my Wing Chun gets less and less effective.

Rather than hit him as FAST as I can, I'd rather hit him as SAFELY as I can. My number one goal is not to hit, but to be in control of the situation, and THAT entails more than hitting. When I have him flanked he has (at max) one hand and one leg to my two of each, and I can unload on him with strikes, kicks, and forward energy while he struggles to face me again. I'm already ahead of game, and suddenly who's faster is a moot point.

Of course, this is all IMHO.

-Levi

[aelward]

r5a writes:
> I think partially its a matter of how you train, if you train to
> circle then you are going to be more comfortable and more
> proficient at it.

In our school, we train both. It is not a matter of comfort, but of common sense. To engage much bigger straight on is like a bicycle playing chicken with a Mack truck. Read one story about Yip Man, who faced a challenger during Japan's occupation of Foshan-- he engaged from the side, locked legs, and sent the guy to the ground.

> Circling takes more time and energy, and against a trained
> opponent can be hard to pull off.

I have to disagree. Passive angling (once again, not the boxer dancing around you, but intercepting at an angle) takes no more energy or effort than going straight in. It embodies the concept of feng sao (enveloping hands), only extrapolated to include the body-- in essense, you are "trapping" the body.

> Let me ask you guys this, do you think you have as much of a
> chance hitting your oponent trying to get to his blindside as
> you do taking him straight on?

See above. Yes, it is just as easy, maybe even easier depending on how your opponent is positioned as either you or he enters.

taltos writes:
> but head on he has the exact same opportunity to hit me as I
> have to hit him, which means I'm not playing Wing Chun, I'm
> playing "who's faster." Which also means that when I get older
> and slower, my Wing Chun gets less and less effective.

I am going to agree in that engaging head-on becomes a matter of who is faster-- however, I think you have to look at both physical speed and structural speed-- Our speed should be coming from good position - whether that is body positioning (from flanking) or hand position (when going straight in). So hopefully, as you get older and physically slower, your wing chun structure will be getting better and structurally faster and stronger (saying you are still training). Did they not say that Yip Man at 70 was still untouchable when he wanted?

> Rather than hit him as FAST as I can, I'd rather hit him as
> SAFELY as I can. My number one goal is not to hit, but to be in
> control of the situation,

I agree 100% here-- my sifu always emphasized that safety comes first-- his example: even a 2-year old can hit someone, pull their hair, poke eyes, etc-- so offense comes quite naturally; attacking safely, however, is much harder and takes training.

[taltos]

aelward, I agree 100% with you comments on speed. I was stumbling over saying that, and you clarified it nicely. thanks.

Our Sifus are in agreement about safety. I've always been taught that step one is PROTECT YOURSELF. Then worry about everything else.

Also, as aelward pointed out, taking a better flanking position upon/during interception really take no more energy at all. And if you have properly set up upon the outset of the conflict (with your foot to the outside of the opponents leading foot, or through several other means), then it actually becomes the shortest distance. That's the beauty (and simplicity) of making your opponent go around your structure... they have to break structure somewhere (hands, feet, facing) to do so, and you start out one step ahead.

-Levi

[aelward]

I can predict that this thread may soon tangent into the issue of "safety first" vs "offense as the best defense." Just to clarify, "safety first" does not mean not being offensive. It means being cautiously offensive, that is, your attack should take into consideration hand and body position so as to minimize risk to yourself and maximize potential damage to your opponent.


btw Taltos, what lineage do you come from?

[taltos]

I study both Yip Man Wing Chun (through the VT Museum and Moy Yat family for 5 years now) and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun (for 2.5 years now).

It all boils down to efficiency in its totality. The point you're striving for in a physical engagement is to end it as quicky as possible with as little harm to yourself as possible. In order to end it quickly, you must be assertive and aggressive (and relentless in your attack and pursuit). In order to minimize your potential for harm, you must recognize position and structure, and be able to identify the immidiate threats (if any). Efficiency is about finding that perfect balance between the two: the point where nothing can be added OR taken away before you loose advantage OVERALL.

-Levi

[TjD]

Originally posted by red5angel
I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!


have you ever even sparred at your current school? circling in wing chun may be bad, but charging in like a bull throwing chain punches is a great way to get hit, unless your sparring with a punching bag

[anerlich]

Moving to the outside / blind side is one of the basic tenets of TWC strategy. It is not always possible or even easy, but if the opportunity is there, taking it will put you in a strategically superior position.

[S.Teebas]

Anerlich and Old Jong are correct.

Im trying to work out if this guy is talking about constantly circling away from your opponents power hand or what?

The reason i posted this is to see if circling away is really that good of an idea. Would anyone step into the direction of the power arm?

Surley the entire body mass of the WC person can overpower the arm? (and throw in a bit of 2 way force)

[Merryprankster]

S. Teebas--a little non-WC perspective :D

You circle to their jab because it cuts down the oomph on their power hand. They have to throw the cross across their body to reach you or pivot and reposition, both of which can buy you some time to do what you want to do.

Thing is, that power hand isn't just an arm. Sure, it is in isolation, but thrown as a punch, whether it's a cross, rear hook, or uppercut or shovel hook, etc...--it's got just as much body behind at as you have behind your movement. Theoretically, you're running the risk of eating a big punch. That's all dependent of course. How big a puncher is the guy, how fast is he, how fast are you, etc.

In other words, it boils down to do you have a good reason to do it? It's not a hard and fast rule. Plenty of guys when they move will move towards the power hand--they might be trying to draw a rear hand shot to counter punch off of. I have occasionally managed to slip a rear hand lead thrown off a jab feint, and that usually results in me being able to step in with a power side hook to his lead side floating ribs.

I have seen guys with big lead side hooks who will sometimes circle to the power side, slip the rear side punch they know is coming and land a couple of nice shots. I would never try this as I KNOW my lead side hook sucks--the return on my investment isn't worth it.

If you're just circling to stay moving, which has its merits as well as it's downshots, so everybody just hush, you don't want to just circle to their power hand--you need to have some plan to go with it. That's more what they are getting at.

Generally speaking, however, you will see that boxers tend to circle to their opponent's lead hand, and PIVOT when they want to engage their opponent's power side.

Red, I gotta ask the question--how much full contact sparring have you done? I'm an inside fighter and coming straight in will get me killed every time. ESPECIALLY if the opponent is taller or has substantially more mass. Moving into your opponent is about taking short angles, staying slightly off their center as you keep them on yours, keeping them moving backwards, and especially counterpunching aggressively--making them pay for every shot they try to land.

Now... if only I could do that with any regularity... :D

[old jong]

Why not use your man sau/wu sau? and have the guy forced to go around your structure?....
Anyway do you guys think that sparring in a boxing context will make your Wing Chun better?...
Do you think those sparring strategy's would work in a real fight?...
Remember you have kicks,elbows,knees,palms,lop sau,chin na etc...
No doubts a good boxer can be a dangerous opponent but we can be as dangerous if....We play
our game. ;)

[aelward]

OJ writes:
> Anyway do you guys think that sparring in a boxing context will
> make your Wing Chun better?...

H*ll yes! Boxers have such fast hands, excellent combinations, good physical conditioning; so many people look down on what is a really awesome style. Sparring boxing rules will of course impose limitations (but from r5a's expert opinion, limitations are good!), but will definitely help visual reflexes and the ability to read someone's body language and learn how they use their positioning. One WC instructor I met defined "functionality" of WC as being its ability to hold up in a boxing ring. I don't agree wtih him 100%, but I think it is a view.

> Remember you have kicks,elbows,knees,palms,lop sau,chin na
> etc...

Better yet, if you have some boxing (or kickboxing) friends, go out and spar with them with basic protective rules (i.e., no eye gouges, groin shots, etc). The first time I did this was a very eye-opening experience, and quickly doused a lot of my brash overconfidence (for the better).

The danger, I feel, is that some people will refuse to go out and spar with technique limitations because it will overwrite the trained reflex to use "deadly" or "vicious" techniques like elbows, knees, finger jabs, etc. To me, this is a huge fallacy, because these reflexes probably aren't that hardwired into you if you don't practice them on a regular basis. It harks back to the old days of Judo vs. Jujitsu (in Japan) where the Judo players would work their Jujitsu counterparts because they were constantly training mat work for competition; while the Jujutsu people did not have a format for training their "deadlier techniques."

[old jong]

Well!... I know! We are in maybe practicing an outdated art!...We are like the old jujutsu styles. Boxers are so much better. MMA's rule.
Why the hell are we still practicing this crap?....Let's all enroll in BJJ/Muay thai and forget all about this poor old patty cake for hippies passtime of ours.

Let's get it on!....




































Of course you know I'm only kidding!;)

[old jong]

BTW
I still believe that Wing Chun is not to be compared to boxing and should not be put in a sport sparring context.

Put that same boxer out of his ring and without his gloves and his rounds and his trainer and everythings he secure himself with and he will fell as bad as a Wing Chun man in a boxer world.

Those are the days!:(

[HuangKaiVun]

fighting more than one opponent

being grappled and trying to wiggle out of holds

entering the bridge via various means and angles

facing an opponent who's bigger, stronger, and faster than you.

[yuanfen]

H*ll yes! Boxers have such fast hands, excellent combinations, good physical conditioning; so many people look down on what is a really awesome style. Sparring boxing rules will of course impose limitations (but from r5a's expert opinion, limitations are good!), but will definitely help visual reflexes and the ability to read someone's body language and learn how they use their positioning. One WC instructor I met defined "functionality" of WC as being its ability to hold up in a boxing ring. I don't agree wtih him 100%, but I think it is a view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yuanfen comment:
1. If you(wing chun person) box a decent boxer in a boxing ring
with gloves on- if it is serious you are likely to lose- unless the boxer is an old man with shot reflexes and you are a very experienced wing chun person.If you practice with someone pretending to be a boxer, you dont learn much
2. No harm in gettinga good boxer agree to throw things at you so that you can adjust your wing chun timing and direction. But serious boxers wont let you hurt them without lowering the boom on you.
3. The wing chun learning curve is slower than boxing at first but
after several years( of good kung fu) wing chun will pass boxing for martial purposes.
4. Too many moves and weapons and footwork in wing chun.
5. With progress in wing chun all moves including advanced moves can become hardwired into ones reflexes - I dont see why not....if you drill, combine and practice with control. Kung fu takes time. Good boxing coaches bring their people along and dont throw them to the wolves. Since wing chun takes longer- the
stepping up of exposure to different challenges should also be accordingly measured.

[YungChun]

I once heard it put as follows:



If his forward defense is weak we can attack him head on. If his forward defense is strong we can flank.


Works for me.

[YungChun]

Originally posted by yuanfen
1. If you(wing chun person) box a decent boxer in a boxing ring
with gloves on- if it is serious you are likely to lose- unless the boxer is an old man with shot reflexes and you are a very experienced wing chun person.



This 'theory' has been proven wrong in the past. Believe it or not WC students have visited gyms and found this simply wasn't the case. Come on 'old man with shot reflexes' GMAB. What's more important is the quality of the fighters. Wing Chun guys are limited with gloves and rules but not so pathetically defenseless as you illustrate. Boxers all have one thing in common - they take punishment. Not all students of other styles like Wing Chun are going to be that hard core. However, watch out for the ones who are.


Originally posted by yuanfen

4. Too many moves and weapons and footwork in wing chun.



Really? Let's see - one main punch and palm used 80% of the time and one major footwork step (Chum Kiu) with the other major footwork emphasis being placed on facing. I'm not seeing the information overload here. Wing Chun is an art of simplicity - indeed, Wing Chun defines itself by simplicity and directness.


Originally posted by yuanfen


5. With progress in wing chun all moves including advanced moves can become hardwired into ones reflexes - I dont see why not....if you drill, combine and practice with control. Kung fu takes time. Good boxing coaches bring their people along and don’t throw them to the wolves. Since wing chun takes longer- the
stepping up of exposure to different challenges should also be accordingly measured.


This is what Chi-Sao is all about - it burns the theory and sensitivity of Wing Chun into the body, creating instant contact reflexes. Not slow in my experience, more like the fastest method of ingraining a system humanly possible.

Just wondering what your background in Wing Chun is?

[S.Teebas]

Merryprankster good and informative post as usual from your self and its good to get another non-Wc perspective!


In other words, it boils down to do you have a good reason to do it?

I agree with alot of what you have said, especially this quote above. A reason to step into the atacking hand is to cut off power prematurely before its gets to its maximum force. Also by applying 2 or 3 way force you can uproot your opponent and finish him quickly while he's at disadvantage without balance or structure.

I agree that boxers and the like also have structure and its evident by watching a few matches on the TV. Although these systems are undeniabily good fighting tools, i dont believe they address the 2 or 3 way force handeling the way WC does.


Generally speaking, however, you will see that boxers tend to circle to their opponent's lead hand, and PIVOT when they want to engage their opponent's power side.

This above is the begining of more than one way force, but specific WC exercises, drills etc can allow much more force to be disperced than by simply pivoting.

[teazer]

Wing Chun is an art of simplicity - indeed, Wing Chun defines itself by simplicity and directness.

Perhaps efficiency rather than those mentioned. Often it's the same, sometimes not.

[Merryprankster]

I agree with alot of what you have said, especially this quote above. A reason to step into the atacking hand is to cut off power prematurely before its gets to its maximum force. Also by applying 2 or 3 way force you can uproot your opponent and finish him quickly while he's at disadvantage without balance or structure.

I agree that boxers and the like also have structure and its evident by watching a few matches on the TV. Although these systems are undeniabily good fighting tools, i dont believe they address the 2 or 3 way force handeling the way WC does.

This may or may not be the case, but I'll tell you right now that good inside fighters all have one thing in common--the ability to maintain their stance, balance, and therefore, the ability to maintain their punch, while getting bulled around, hit, shucked, clinched or having their gloves trapped. The difference in being able to handle vectors is readily apparent with somebody who can or can't.

I agree that jamming the attacking hand is a fine idea, but a lot of those jammed crosses still pack a structural wallop, and if they stop your forward progression simply on the force of the shot, watch for the follow-up lead side hook or uppercut. Don't try to jam an uppercut or hook--you'll very likely eat it with nasty results.

I've come to the conclusion that jamming is less something you do to a particular strike and more something you do to your opponent overall, through proper positioning. I jam my 6'5" sparring partner when I make it inside. He can't throw anything with tons of power and I'm where I want to be. I don't ever really think about jamming his individual weapons because there's too much danger from other stuff.

[yenhoi]

I would think speaking style vs style as we are that boxers would be better at handling 2-3 way forces from boxing (trapping) / clinch range because they do it (for "reaL") more then a WC guy does.

Non-style vs style - any guy who spends time and energy preparing for that range will be better then other people who dont spend as much time and energy preparing for that range. This includes dealing with 1-2-3way forces and what not.

[S.Teebas]

I think you may have misinterpreted something I said if you get the impression im implying to JAM an attack.

WC actually advocates to never take force head on. As soon as contact is made the sensitivity kicks in and the force is dispersed while using body mass to attack from another angle in milliseconds - chi sau training.

[Merryprankster]

You're right. I did misunderstand. But the part about handling force still applies just fine. Boxing itsn't just fists hitting. It's body part bumps and shoulder clashes and pushing around, etc.

I think you'll find it's common to any style. Fighting is fighting and involves those things. Some will be better than others at handling them.

Side note--NO style teaches you to take force head on, if you can help it.

[Sam]

Siu Baat Gwa

The Little Octagon - eight (8) directional chi palm change and invisibility set contains angling, circling, spinning, stealth and walking inner & outer circle. Can be done on the moi fa stake poles. This is an evasive invisibility set which puts one in an advantageous position for an immediate counter strike.
Siu Baat Gwa also contains sinking, angling, torking, hollowing, and rising evasive body and footworks which is similar to bobbing and weaving only the spine posture never changes.
http://hometown.aol.com/jcama108/myhomepage/index.html