When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.

[TwoManSaw]

Hello,

I was wondering how people interpret the following statement, and whether it is a common saying in their kwoons.

"when striking, the limbs do not vibrate". Taken from 'Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie and Y.Wu.

Thankyou

[watzun]

Could the author be speaking about the directness of the strike? Maybe he is expressing that, the striking movements of the style are practiced over and over, muscle, memory, and muscle memory evolve and create a more direct focused hit. Maybe he is trying to explain how, say, like how the degree of improvement of one's directness of hit from beginner to a mid level karate who can break a board, so should it be improved from a learning practicioner to an expert like himself.

Just thought I would give it a shot.

-WATZUN

[Mckind13]

Punch w/ localized muscle and with locking the arm all the way out... It Vibrates

Stay relaxed and push your punch out. Keep the shoulders out of it and thrust from the ground up... No Vibration, instead you have steady, powerful energy.


:p

David

[Savi]

"When striking, the limbs do not vibrate."
---------------------------
I understand this quote as referencing energy use, whether it be a punch or kick.

A. Striking is a complete release of energy: to go from a state of emptiness, to a state of fullness, and back to a state of emptiness. To be either full or empty at the moment; continuously changing - no more, no less.

B. To me, 'vibrate' means to stay in the state of fullness. Constant tension in your muscles and being rigid/stagnate causes them to shake - to vibrate. If your strike vibrates, you have held on to more energy than you should have. Also, the full potential of the strike was not given to the receiver. 'Pushing' the punch/kick forward (as I interpret it) drags/forces the energy to become; as if fighting yourself and trying to slow Time down. But striking should have full force whip, thrust, and snap; to move as Time and Space move.

In the VTM family's Yip Man Curriculum there are six basic principles at the SNT level:

1) Go to and occupy center.
2) Continuous forward energy
3) Inside and Outside Gates
4) Hand replacement
5) Two parts work as one
6) Body unity; sinking the horse to the root

Punching should involve the entire body. Body Unity is the driving factor. There is no body part EVER working in isolation. One hand works with the other hand, the hands work with the feet, the limbs work with the torso, you work with your opponent. From your root to the tip of your fist (or any other striking surface), all 6 of the above should unify in the moment to effectively illustrate these Wing Chun principles. There is always a Yin and Yang.

So to me the above quote holds true.
Just my understanding :) ...
-Savi.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


A lot of interesting thoughts being presented, all making sense, and I thought I would give mine which is;

The punch should not rebound at its end. Basically it should not bounce back or shake.

This of course may be a kind of simple answer but I look at WC as simple genious!

Any thoughts?


Regards,

[reneritchie]

The way I meant it (not sure if Robert or Yewmun would agree) was that the power should be quiet (focused purely in the direction of its expression, not left to bounce around in all directions).

Jim - You can retract after you punch. IMHO that's an application question (eg. if you need to use the hand somewhere else immediately thereafter or you want to put power into rather than through a specific target).

RR

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Rene,


Point one: Totally agree. When sending out energy it has to go direct and smooth (yau ging) to and thru the point of direction. Hence, releasing like an arrow. If the fist vibrates it is not doing the proper job.


Point two: Totally agree again. This of course is "after" you punch. This concept is enhanced (or further developed) thru our Lin Wan Fai Jeung practice in PSWC.


Thanks,

[AndrewS]

Hey Rene,

alright, I'm confused. Do you mean power when expressed on a body or in air? In a punch from character two (goat clamping) into air, when force is expressed, as I understand it, the fist has a slight forward 'shake' to it.

In relation to a striking a body, I can relate to a smooth application of force going through, and proving useful for projections, throwing, and uprooting. Shocking forces seem to favor the use of contraction and sinking, either on their own, as the contrary of the uprooting force, or as a conclusion to the smooth flow of force (application time of either type of force seems to be one of the important modulatory components of force expression), producing the penetrating thing you describe.

The maintence of body unity against the momentum of the forward impulse of a punch in the air will always produce this effect to a degree when done at speed, as the connective tissue and muscle of the elbow, shoulder, shoulder girdle, rib cage, serratus anterior, black box which seems to be spinal flexion, abdominal wall, adductors, hip flexors, and anterior compartment of the lower leg act to decellerate the forward impulse of the punch from elbow extensors, arm elevators at the shoulder, posterior shoulder girdle, spine extensors, psoas, hams, gluts, and calves.

Ummm- agree, disagree?

These are a couple of ideas, I've been toying with. Thoughts?

Andrew

[reneritchie]

Hey Andrew,

In the air, and I'm referring to shaking in directions perpendicular to the expression of power (shaking in a circle up, down, and around, for example). To help with this, we train Da Yeung Juk (punching at the candle), but not always to extinguish as some do, but to get as clean an effect on the flame as possible (make it move straight back, not just jump around chaoticaly).

I agree with you on striking the body. I'm currently playing with both the Chum (Sink) and Yiu (Waist) methods of doing this, trying to get my body and brain on the same page.

I think maybe we're playing in similar sand boxes 8)

RR

[AndrewS]

Hi Rene,

thanks for mentioning the candle punching. I've never worked that before, but in this context it seems like a useful tool. I'll play with it.

On similar sandboxes- to me, the nastiest bit of non-target dependant power evolution I can do single-handed, is a waist turn and weight drop (with or without switching weighting, though the switch makes things bigger and more obvious, and hence easier). This seems to produce the greatest 'bite'. Is this your experience?

An observation- it seems to me that punching with short power at extension in the air allows much more relaxed expression, than punching with short power with the fist just off the body (and without significant forward travel). This seems to hold true when striking a body but to a much lesser degree, as you can use the body to provide a good bit of decelleration, which, midair, must be entirely provided by the architecture of the body.

Dunno where this leads, but it seems a number of traditions Wing Chun and otherwise, seem to claim to develop power primarily from striking air. The one's I believe generally seem to hit the air with something pretty heavy, but I'm generally of such a mind that I have great difficulty believing in power that doesn't come strongly linked to hitting stuff.

I *think* only bits can be trained without a target, and some bits are less suited to that training than others (i.e. hitting short at positions less than extended).

Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?

Wish I could contribute something useful, but I'm not even sure I understand the question let alone the ensuing discussion.

My inclination is pretty simplistic, much as David's (McKind13).

As for short power/long power, etc. I pretty much avoid that in general discussions, and rarely if ever assume we're talking the same language (the general "we"). I have often wondered if different groups use same words for opposing things.

From my perspective, a relaxed, non-muscular, fully extended strike (in the way I train) should have what is referred to in our circles as "long bridge energy." (The kind of power which is fully and completely transmitted through long bridges, in a "long and lasting" manner for full and maximum expression and impact, and relies on relaxation with proper structure and positioning, rather than muscular strength.)

I would agree that it is more difficult to apply and rely on [the same degree of] muscular strength with long bridges, so this seems somewhat consistent with what you (AndrewS) describe as "short power," no? (E.g., Long bridges travel short distances to strike.)

I don't know if or how this relates to what others are describing, but toss it in the hat, FWIW. And mainly to let you know someone is out here paying attention, even if feeling a bit useless, and in hopes to keep the thread alive awhile longer. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[teazer]

Originally posted by AndrewS
An observation- it seems to me that punching with short power at extension in the air allows much more relaxed expression, than punching with short power with the fist just off the body (and without significant forward travel).

Perhaps something to do with the vector's angle to the ground?

[AndrewS]

Kathy,

our branches of the family seem to use fairly different terminology for long/short bridge, as I understand things. For me, working with a long bridge means working at the outer limit of 'good' for my positions (which has some tactical advantages, and refines one's pressure exquistely). Pressure expressed from the body in this extended position is referred to as 'long-bridge force'. From what I've heard, y'all like to keep the arms way tight to the body and work what I'd consider a very short bridge (near the inner tolerance of good position, and aren't fans of positions further out than that.

I've heard the same term used by other lines to describe segmental power from the arm, so, yeah, I think we (Wing Chun in general) often talk about different things here under similar names.

The short/long power thing- I go with the ' force over time' (*not* the force as in Newtons, btw, force as in colloquial usage) description. Long power, as I understand it, is exerted smoothly and through the body acted upon. Short power is exerted for a shorter time, either by briefly exerting long power then ceasing to do so, or by briefly exerting long power then 'cracking the whip' by contracting in the opposite direction. There seem to be a number of ways to do this both locally and globally.

Teazer,

I see what you're saying- the angle is much more acute. Still, I can give a decent little shoulder strike at the same distance (nothing great, but a meaningful shot), and hence with the same angle. Walking is basically practicing this in the air. . .

What I was getting at, and dunno if is right or not, is that to practice that close hit midair without going to extension, pretty much seems to require that 'contraction' thing to decellerate it, particularily muscle local to the arm, instead of letting connective tissue, various stabilizer and core muscles, and a variety of stretch reflexes to provide the decelleration. When hitting a body, the arm can stay relaxed, and the 'contraction' element can be performed either by the shoulder girdle alone, or using the shoulder girdle as a connector to torso action.

Again, please don't take this seriously, these ideas are not in any way polished, well tested, or well understood by me at the moment. Just stuff I'm playing with.

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Kathy,

our branches of the family seem to use fairly different terminology for long/short bridge, as I understand things.


This is my general assumption in conversations until proven otherwise, LOL.



For me, working with a long bridge means working at the outer limit of 'good' for my positions (which has some tactical advantages, and refines one's pressure exquistely). Pressure expressed from the body in this extended position is referred to as 'long-bridge force'.


That sounds like what we refer to as "long bridge energy" as well, especially in light of your "pressure" comment.

I tend to think of "long bridge" as a relative position, and "long bridge energy" as more of a quality. But I might be the only one who thinks of it that way, LOL. If any of my seniors lurking here would speak up more often, then perhaps we'd know. <hint hint> ;)



From what I've heard, y'all like to keep the arms way tight to the body and work what I'd consider a very short bridge (near the inner tolerance of good position, and aren't fans of positions further out than that.


All kidding aside, I never heard that before. Indeed, we do practice to be comfortable and functional at positions where our own bridge and elbow is close to the body as may be appropriate, necessary, or forced upon us. However, our nominal/central position is with elbow about a fist distance from rib cage, which I think is fairly typical, at least in conversation, if not in practice. We very much enjoy extending through the longer bridges when and as appropriate (with due caution of course); at least I do.

We also enjoy being very close to the partner/opponent, and with a shorter mutual bridge than many folks seem to prefer. I think that could easily be a point of confusion in dialogs such as these.



I've heard the same term used by other lines to describe segmental power from the arm, so, yeah, I think we (Wing Chun in general) often talk about different things here under similar names.

Yeah. And on that account there's a fair to middling chance we're all still talking past each other, LOL.



The short/long power thing- I go with the ' force over time' (*not* the force as in Newtons, btw, force as in colloquial usage) description. Long power, as I understand it, is exerted smoothly and through the body acted upon. Short power is exerted for a shorter time, either by briefly exerting long power then ceasing to do so, or by briefly exerting long power then 'cracking the whip' by contracting in the opposite direction. There seem to be a number of ways to do this both locally and globally.


What you are describing as "long power" sounds very much like our preferred "long bridge energy" and for which we also say "long and lasting." What you are describing as "short power" sounds more like what we would call "short bridge energy," and is something we don't much go for, at least not for striking. I can't even relate to the notion of "contracting in the opposite direction" anymore.

Having said all of that, I realize and regret I still haven't been able to contribute to your query.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

Andrew S's post:Dunno where this leads, but it seems a number of traditions Wing Chun and otherwise, seem to claim to develop power primarily from striking air. The one's I believe generally seem to hit the air with something pretty heavy, but I'm generally of such a mind that I have great difficulty believing in power that doesn't come strongly linked to hitting stuff.

I *think* only bits can be trained without a target, and some bits are less suited to that training than others (i.e. hitting short at positions less than extended).

Agree, disagree. . .

Anyone. . . anyone. . . anyone. . . Bueller. . .?
---------------------------------
I am not Bueller. But FWIW I think that proper air punching develops both long and short power. Proper is the key word.
What hitting something like a bag does is to help prevent injury to the joints from the contact.

In non WC- Ali had the power needed for getting the job done-
not just Foreman but the so called invisible punch that got Liston.
He spent more time in airpunching and shadow boxing than in
all out punching of the heavy bag.

joy chaudhuri

[AndrewS]

Hey Joy,

'proper air punching develops power'- I can see types of power where this would be the case. Do you think this is the case for the very close shots I was describing?

Dunno if Ali's training is good argument here. He definitely put some time in hitting stuff, but was definitely *not* a power puncher in the league of Foreman, Joe Lewis, Marciano, or Tyson. Ali did what he did on speed, saavy, and timing (and more heart than was good for him).

Hey Kathy,

from what I've heard in WT circles, our branches of the family have similar mechanics and feel, as opposed to other branches of Wing Chun which seem to do things quite differently.

The bridge-length thing- y'all's poon sao is at roughly the distance of one extended arm from person to person- that's the impression I have? Correct? Incorrect? This is the shorter mutual bridge you're talking about? If so, why do you work there?

Long and short power- hmm, on a simple strike will every shot go through with long force- kinda getting hit with a very big wet towel? If long force is the wet towel, the short power is like hitting with a rat-tail with the same towel. Does this fit with anything you do?

'Contracting in the opposite direction' - at full extension of the punch in the first form, the body stays stable, and the shoulder shouldn't come forward. A tight upper back would, I think, interfere with transmission of power from the body, yet at the end of the strike the shoulder doesn't come forward. Why doesn't the body rock forward- things stabilize it. Make sense?

Quick retraction on a jab in boxing is supposed to add to its 'snap'- (again this gets into force over time, which I think has some importance in the effects of a strike on the human body). Does the force at the end of the punch end any less quickly?

FWIW- I challenge a lot of conventional Wing Chun thinking on 'relaxation. I think the actual physiology is very different than the imagery we use to access it.

I'm kicking around ideas here, dunno if I'll agree with this stuff tommorrow, next year, or in a decade, but this is the direction some of my present thinking and training has taken.

Take care,

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Hey Kathy,


Mornin' and hey, back at ya.



from what I've heard in WT circles, our branches of the family have similar mechanics and feel, as opposed to other branches of Wing Chun which seem to do things quite differently.


From what I hear and read, it seems so to me as well. From you and a few other similarly analytical WT folks, at least. At a minimum, we seem to share some common features not so typical of other family-groups.

For the most part though, what I've seen on WT videos couldn't seem much ****her from the premises of our [me and mine] practice. I continue to contemplate, in an effort to understand the seeming inconsistency. Maybe promotional elements are a factor, or maybe proximity or attunement to Leung Ting versus those ****her fanned out in the organization. Or maybe it's a combination of other things. Dunno yet, and still thinking on it.

Of course in practice most of us [the general us] probably don't hold to or resemble our talk to the degree we should, me included. But I'm working on it. :)



The bridge-length thing- y'all's poon sao is at roughly the distance of one extended arm from person to person- that's the impression I have? Correct? Incorrect? This is the shorter mutual bridge you're talking about?


Yes, this is what I'm talking about. In routine practice, the distance depends on the partners (i.e., partners with similar bridge length vs. partners with very different arm lengths). Nominally, I am practicing at a distance close enough to my partner for penetrating a solid strike. With my "long and lasting," "girl hand," "long bridge energy." Same or similar to my distance when tapping the sandbag.



If so, why do you work there?


Lots of reasons. Here are a few easy ones ...


Learn not to be afraid at close range (consistent with a predilection for the inside position).
Learn my own distance for penetrating strikes.
Better able to hit my partner.
Better to learn positioning and neutralizing, lest my partner hit me. Sensitivity, timing, and responsiveness are also byproducts; there is no time for dallying when the strike is virtually already there.
Psychological and physical intimidation. We typically look 'em square through the eye without blinking too, LOL.
Maximize use of the full forearm for bridging, sticking, control and sensitivity. Not just hands and wrist.
Really works the horse!


[FWIW, I realize "preference" or predilection is a politically incorrect concept these days. However, I give myself permission for the terms, as I do indeed have distinct preferences in practice and strategy. Otherwise anything goes; and I don't go for that. At least not when I'm calling it Wing Chun.]



Long and short power- hmm, on a simple strike will every shot go through with long force- kinda getting hit with a very big wet towel?


Wet towel is a good analogy. I like wet noodle even better because of the "sticky" nuance. Al dente, LOL. But they are great big noodles, big as your arm, not some flimsy dinner spaghetti.



If long force is the wet towel, the short power is like hitting with a rat-tail with the same towel. Does this fit with anything you do?


I can't relate to rat tails. Are they good to eat? ;)



'Contracting in the opposite direction' - at full extension of the punch in the first form, the body stays stable, and the shoulder shouldn't come forward.


Okay, I can agree with this description. I still don't know about the contraction part; I sure don't "think" of it that way, but will try to be more cognizant about the degree to which that may indeed occur. With my mere lay person's awareness, it "feels" like more of a stretch than a contraction.



A tight upper back would, I think, interfere with transmission of power from the body, yet at the end of the strike the shoulder doesn't come forward. Why doesn't the body rock forward- things stabilize it. Make sense?


I think it makes sense, but you never know for sure! LOL. I do follow and relate about the sensation in the upper back.

Yes, I do see this as a factor in whether or not force/power/energy (in the colloquial sense) is fully expressed. But a factor that seems to lesson over time with development and practice, and as the body learns and is better able to "settle" in all respects. It seems so to me thus far anyway; I'll get back to you in a few more years to confirm or refute the trend.



Quick retraction on a jab in boxing is supposed to add to its 'snap'- (again this gets into force over time, which I think has some importance in the effects of a strike on the human body). Does the force at the end of the punch end any less quickly?


Not sure the answer to your question about force at the end of the punch. But you can be sure I'll be considering it for the next few years of practice, LOL. However, I do know I am not concerned about snapping a punch. When I strike, I want it to be long, lasting, and penetrating. I sound like a broken record on that, I know.



FWIW- I challenge a lot of conventional Wing Chun thinking on 'relaxation. I think the actual physiology is very different than the imagery we use to access it.


ROFLOL. Relaxation in this sense is one of the most strenuous activities I routinely engage in. :D

I tend to prefer the word "settle" though even that doesn't hint at how much work it is, at least for us mere mortals. And such benign terms don't begin to explain the resulting pool of perspiration, LOL.

My way of practice is admittedly and distinctly counter-intuitive in some ways.



I'm kicking around ideas here, dunno if I'll agree with this stuff tommorrow, next year, or in a decade, but this is the direction some of my present thinking and training has taken.


Same here. If I fully agree with myself next year or next decade, I figure I'll have done something very wrong or quite miraculous to achieve such a state of stagnation.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

Andrew S. posts:'proper air punching develops power'- I can see types of power where this would be the case. Do you think this is the case for the very close shots I was describing?

((Andrew- I do think so and have seen empirical examples. When
relaxed but steady( not slow) airpunching is done-the proper alignments are worked out and smoothened again and again and one can deliver anywhere along the path.))

Dunno if Ali's training is good argument here. He definitely put some time in hitting stuff, but was definitely *not* a power puncher in the league of Foreman, Joe Lewis, Marciano, or Tyson. Ali did what he did on speed, saavy, and timing (and more heart than was good for him).

((he did hit heavy bags and of course the speed bags... but his heavy bag hitting was deliberately more of the "tapping" kind when compared to Foreman. IMO- he had plenty of power but he worked on both the warhead and the missile development.
Power is not useful if it cannot be delivered.Enough power to knock out Shavers, Foreman, Moore, and lots of other good strong folks. On the last item- heart he had and has, Sadly, like many he didnt quit the game early enough.((He had early training camp in Northern Arizona for one of his fights)) Foreman does have greater power but he has to crank to get it out....specially aginst folks that moved around...not only Ali but he lost to another who also moved- I forget his name. The issue is one of usable power.
Tua hasa dynamite left hook--- couldnt get it to land on Lewis.
Tyson now has similar problems against folks who dont just stand there. Lewis and Marciano's power was good in their time but both were on the lower end of the heavyweight class in weights.))

Joy

[reneritchie]

Andrew & KJ - I'm not sure if 'Long Bridge Power' is a compound term or not, but IMHO, length of bridge is separate from quality of power (you could have short bridge long bridge, long power short bridge, long power long bridge, short power short bridge, and other types). To me, persistance of power (what I think is being referred to?) is an application oriented question, and use of it depends on what you want to do to an opponent (or in some cases what they allow you to do to them if they are of skill). Long power, while probably more of an intermediate skill (haven't seen many beginners with it) is also sort of merciful in my experience, sort of like turning a fire hose on. Its very unpleasent, and can cause impact trauma, but it's not a destructive as other types that put power into very specific places (note: I've only ever seen Wujia Taiji do this in a similar manner to WCK, though I'd guess more arts do as well).

As to 'bite', yes my experience is thusfar the same. I find that stuff like very fine chocolate. It's just amazing to experience. I've had some good folks do it to me and the subtleness of their movements when doing it where as cool as the results were unpleasent.

I sometimes wonder if punching in the air allows less brain interference than punching a target. I find myself really able to let loose in the air, and also on the dummy, but when a human being is on the other end, there's so much mental baggage about being careful that my technique seems to suffer along with the purity of power expression.

RR

[kj]

Hi Rene.


Originally posted by reneritchie
Andrew & KJ - I'm not sure if 'Long Bridge Power' is a compound term or not, but IMHO, length of bridge is separate from quality of power (you could have short bridge long bridge, long power short bridge, long power long bridge, short power short bridge, and other types).


I'll remain conservative about assuming a common language even now, LOL.

My earlier comment about viewing "long bridge energy" as more of a quality than a position seems consistent with your assertion here. I was intentionally reserved about mentioning it for fear of leading the conversation astray, but indeed I do also [try] to apply "long bridge energy" even when my bridge has been foreshortened. I try to retain the same general quality regardless of hand/elbow/bridge position or length.



To me, persistance of power (what I think is being referred to?) is an application oriented question, and use of it depends on what you want to do to an opponent (or in some cases what they allow you to do to them if they are of skill). Long power, while probably more of an intermediate skill (haven't seen many beginners with it) is also sort of merciful in my experience, sort of like turning a fire hose on. Its very unpleasent, and can cause impact trauma, but it's not a destructive as other types that put power into very specific places (note: I've only ever seen Wujia Taiji do this in a similar manner to WCK, though I'd guess more arts do as well).


Regretfully, I am totally unqualified to comment on the Wu/Wujia Taiji thing.

In my personal experience, long bridge energy has the potential for trauma and destruction to a frightening degree. I realize everything has advantages and disadvantages, and all kinds of people can make all kinds of things work, especially if they work the thing enough. So I'm not holding this out as a "my damage is better than your damage" kind of thing.

At the extremes, I'd rather have my skull cracked than my innards imploded. I know that's the wrong word, but I'm looking for visuals here, LOL. Seriously though, I'd rather risk broken bones any day over damage to internal organs. That is not to say the primary purpose of long bridge energy is internal organ damage; I don't believe it is, rather a potential and potentially convenient by-product. It is dramatic disruption and control we're initially after, IMHO; the rest is icing on the cake.

But even at far lesser magnitudes, which is where (at risk of offending some sensibilities) I think most of us are at, long bridge energy combined with proper neutralization and control can be quite effective and useful. Especially considering that even tiny and otherwise non-athletic people can develop those skills.

When it comes to actually breaking things, it doesn't take that much force to break at least some things ... a nose, a rib, or the tip of a sternum, or get the opponent's attention through some other centrally located features once the opportunity presents itself. Again, even a tiny person can learn and develop to do this much, even if it has a firehose type of quality. Is it foolproof? Nope, not in my estimation. Then again, neither is anything else. We all pays our money and takes our chances.



As to 'bite', yes my experience is thusfar the same. I find that stuff like very fine chocolate. It's just amazing to experience. I've had some good folks do it to me and the subtleness of their movements when doing it where as cool as the results were unpleasent.


Yes, that too. This is where it becomes worthwhile even if it were only for the "art." But why stop at art, LOL.



I sometimes wonder if punching in the air allows less brain interference than punching a target. I find myself really able to let loose in the air, and also on the dummy, but when a human being is on the other end, there's so much mental baggage about being careful that my technique seems to suffer along with the purity of power expression.


In observing myself and many other learners, I have noted that there is less interference from the brain in at least one significant way: Without touching a physical target we can focus more on "allowing" proper positioning, placement, and movement. Whereas with striking a physical target, we often have a natural tendency to "try" hitting which carries us in the wrong training direction.

It's the same darn "Don't be greedy; don't be afraid" dilemma we constantly face. Soon as we get a person or an object in front of us, our natural tendency kicks in whereby we want to feel and hear the "power!". Unfortunately, this conflicts with the necessary patience to "allow" this particular type of power to naturally develop. Our preferred strikes are "placed" not "forced" when executed properly, whether in air practice and on physical targets (which I do believe is also necessary and appropriate at the right times). It takes a lot of practice.

This in part hearkens back to my "non-intuitive" comment earlier. At least this is a typical problem at earlier phases of learning and development, which we (in my group and some others) proactively work to alleviate.

That is all just from my current perspective of course. I full well realize others MMV.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

'' When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.''

The image that comes in my mind is : Strike a brick wall with a baseball bat and it will vibrate sending back energy in your arm and body. Now, strike the same wall with a whip or chain and the energy will be send without coming back at you.


;)

[zerozero]

"When striking, the limbs do not vibrate."

What is the Cantonese phrasology for this English translation? Does anyone have access to the Chinese characters? Perhaps a native speaker could help make more sense of this if he/she saw it in the original.

[reneritchie]

It's not a Kuen Kuit, if memory serves, just part of general instruction (like don't cross your eyes and stick out your tongue while trying to remember the Jong set...)

[YungChun]

Originally posted by TwoManSaw
Hello,

I was wondering how people interpret the following statement, and whether it is a common saying in their kwoons.

"when striking, the limbs do not vibrate". Taken from 'Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie and Y.Wu.

Thankyou

I with Savi and Old Jong

To me it's about releasing all of the energy into the opponent - energy left in the arm/body (tension) is energy that should have been released into the target.

[Marshdrifter]

Originally posted by reneritchie
...just part of general instruction (like don't cross your eyes and stick out your tongue while trying to remember the Jong set...)

:eek:

uh-oh...

I uh... gotta go practice a bit more... yeah.

:)

[AndrewS]

Hi Kathy, Rene,

the differences between WT and Ken Chung's teaching of Leung Sheung's method- there are probably a lot of things which conspire to make things look different here, possibly even actual difference. I think this bridge distance thing highlights one of them- we work with the idea that one should work at a distance in chi sao where one is not able to touch with an extended arm and the shoulder back, where body motion is required to get in. Hitting people in chi sao without someone moving is generally either a cheap shot (giving the shoulder or turning to exploit/create a hole in such a way that you're leaving a hole), or playing to show holes, train the other person, or simply demo some flashy stuff, depending how it's done.

This longer distance re-enforces our idea of chi sao as something which occurs during the close. If I touch your bridge on the way in, it should be in such a way that I have as much room, and commensurate time, to react as possible. I want to move through that distance, controlling, and safe, winding up where I can hit with good power and control, about where my elbow is a fist off my ribs.

The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.

Hitting air- I think I understand what you're saying about it being easier to let loose. Striking people brings up some of the psychological problems you mention (luckily, I've had some training partners I don't much care for). For me, the most useful tool for working on my power has been a good training partner holding a couple of pads and giving me feedback on the quality of the shots. Moving from one to two to three stacked focus mits to make it through 20 minutes of playtime without making each other feel too sick has been quite statisfying. . . :D

Andrew

[kj]

Hi Andrew.

Thanks for your reply. What you write makes a lot of sense to me.

I am curious about one aspect of your chi sau at a wider distance, in particular the poon sau/luk sau rolling exercise. Are students in your classes also taught to practice poon sau/luk sau for long periods of time (sans explicit attacks) at this distance?

If so, I am interested to better understand what you perceive as some of the goals and benefits of doing luk sau in general, but more specifically at the wider distance. [I follow your earlier reasoning as it relates to bridging and closing; we deal with this as well of course, but typically during more extended variations of chi sau (e.g., gwar sau), and other exercises.] Also, are you primarily connected at or near the wrist then?

Perhaps there are some benefits in common with a closer range luk sau (e.g, maximizing use of forearm), and perhaps some different benefits. I realize everything has advantages and disadvantages.

I appreciate that there is a time burden to address such questions, and hope you don't mind my curious probing. In any event, thanks for the exchange.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[AndrewS]

Hi Kathy,

Good talking to you, and a pleasure to be able to answer some questions.

We practice poon sao at roughly the position I described earlier, sometimes for reasonably long periods (20-30 minutes). Some folks will work this way for about an hour. Leung Ting's classic recommendation is about 2hrs of this a day (with at most simple attacks), but I think that's excessive, and have never found a training partner with patience enough for it. Moreover, I think prolonged practice is a recipe for neurologic burnout and repetive motion injury. Short, sweet, and focused works way better for me.

As to distances, we aim for wrist to wrist contact at all times in basic poon sao, with the idea that if enough sliding occurs to break static friction and move over the pull of the skin, you've done something wrong, and are losing position. I will work this at even more extended distances than normal with very light force to improve 'pressure', as it seems hardest to get forward energy from the body into the arms at more extended positions where the extensor arm is alreadily heavily contracted. This working with very light forces at extended positions seems to refine one's ability to 'feel' small forces.

Goals and benefits of poon sao- to me, all ability to change, and the core of all Wing Chun mechanics may be found in poon sao. At wider distances you must keep your shoulders back and down, and cannot get away with rotating on the central axis to 'cheat' and hit as easily. IMHO, just as there is a point at which the elbow gets near the body at which you must turn, there is a distance at which the elbow is away from the body where you step forward if you feel the way is free. This longer distance helps work both sides of this.

After thinking about this a good bit, I really think the biggest things about working from this place are an increased need for footwork, and the subsequent development of the ability to work while in motion.

Oh yeah- I think the longer distance gives me some play to absorb with the limbs, before I'm pushed into a place where I must absorb with my body rather than be collapsed. That being said, this shouldn't be something you have to do, just sometimes something you can do if you need to.

BTW- what's gwar sao? Anything to do with the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu and Slymestra Hymen? (As the strains of 'Have you seen me lately?' echo in my mind and fond memories of pits past dance in my head).

Later,

Andrew

[Mr Punch]

ttt

[John Weiland]

Hi Andrew,

Originally posted by AndrewS

the differences between WT and Ken Chung's teaching of Leung Sheung's method- there are probably a lot of things which conspire to make things look different here, possibly even actual difference. I think this bridge distance thing highlights one of them

One of which? A difference, I think. :) Wing Chun in Ken Chung's interpretation of Leung Sheung is designed for a smaller, weaker person who we conceive of as a small woman. Not that a smaller weaker person will automatically excel in it or that a large person will be unable to learn it.

This being the case, the distance at which he/she needs to fight must be smaller than the distance of the larger opponent. Therefore we seek the inside. If you are small, a la Yip Man, you have to conserve your energy and receive the energy and use it. Your best position are the inside hands. You use your legs (or larger muscles) to accomplish what other styles do with their upper bodies. You uproot, not overpower. Divert, trap, or use our opponent's energy whenever possible.


we work with the idea that one should work at a distance in chi sao where one is not able to touch with an extended arm and the shoulder back, where body motion is required to get in. Hitting people in chi sao without someone moving is generally either a cheap shot (giving the shoulder or turning to exploit/create a hole in such a way that you're leaving a hole), or playing to show holes, train the other person, or simply demo some flashy stuff, depending how it's done.

I see similarities between us in most of this. But, I think we're at somewhat different distances, with Ken's lineage being as close as possible and still defensible.


This longer distance re-enforces our idea of chi sao as something which occurs during the close. If I touch your bridge on the way in, it should be in such a way that I have as much room, and commensurate time, to react as possible.

We want to ensure that we are in control, so we need to be close and work to be so.


I want to move through that distance, controlling, and safe, winding up where I can hit with good power and control, about where my elbow is a fist off my ribs.

Yes, but our emphasis is getting there and staying there. It sounds as if you are more concerned about closing the gap and less about just hanging out at the distance. Of course, there are similarities, but I'm highlighting the differences as I see them. :D


The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.

Yeah, please expand. :)


Hitting air- I think I understand what you're saying about it being easier to let loose. Striking people brings up some of the psychological problems you mention (luckily, I've had some training partners I don't much care for).

LOL :D


For me, the most useful tool for working on my power has been a good training partner holding a couple of pads and giving me feedback on the quality of the shots. Moving from one to two to three stacked focus mits to make it through 20 minutes of playtime without making each other feel too sick has been quite statisfying. . . :D

I'll stick to the wall bag for now. More of an ideal positioning thing from my experience. But I may change my mind some day.

This thread has evolved a lot. It moved to this before I could comment on long range v. short power. :D

Regards,

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
After thinking about this a good bit, I really think the biggest things about working from this place are an increased need for footwork, and the subsequent development of the ability to work while in motion.

Oh yeah- I think the longer distance gives me some play to absorb with the limbs, before I'm pushed into a place where I must absorb with my body rather than be collapsed. That being said, this shouldn't be something you have to do, just sometimes something you can do if you need to.


Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to further elaborate in such detail.



BTW- what's gwar sao?

I am refering to an extension of chi sau beyond the basic luk sau exercise, which encompasses attacking and may even begin in a non-contact position. A.K.A. gor sau, gwor sau, or other spelling of your choice.


[B]
Anything to do with the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu and Slymestra Hymen? (As the strains of 'Have you seen me lately?' echo in my mind and fond memories of pits past dance in my head).[/Q]

Yikes! :eek: Not that I am aware of ...

Regards,
- kj

[Grendel]

Originally posted by John Weiland

One of which? A difference, I think. Wing Chun in Ken Chung's interpretation of Leung Sheung is designed for a smaller, weaker person who we conceive of as a small woman. Not that a smaller weaker person will automatically excel in it or that a large person will be unable to learn it.

This being the case, the distance at which he/she needs to fight must be smaller than the distance of the larger opponent.

Yes, but Andrew S. is combining grappling skill with WT, so these generalizations potentially apply to him as well. What he seems to be practicing is to start at an outside distance beyond bridge distance and working his way to the inside, whereas the previous states seemingly an assumption of starting at the close range of chi sao. :p


Therefore we seek the inside. If you are small, a la Yip Man, you have to conserve your energy and receive the energy and use it. Your best position are the inside hands. You use your legs (or larger muscles) to accomplish what other styles do with their upper bodies. You uproot, not overpower. Divert, trap, or use our opponent's energy whenever possible.

This is fine and dandy, but this is not contradictory from a grappler's perspective either. A small, skilled person can use leverage and a low center of gravity to overcome the strength and reach of a larger opponent. Heck, I've seen it done a lot.


I see similarities between us in most of this. But, I think we're at somewhat different distances, with Ken's lineage being as close as possible and still defensible.

Yes, possibly, but where do you set the starting distance? Is it right to assume that fighting begins at chi sao range? :rolleyes:


We want to ensure that we are in control, so we need to be close and work to be so.

This could as well be describing the grappler's dilemma.


Yes, but our emphasis is getting there and staying there. It sounds as if you are more concerned about closing the gap and less about just hanging out at the distance. Of course, there are similarities, but I'm highlighting the differences as I see them. :D

It's possible the perceived differences would disappear in a hands-on comparison, but then again, maybe not.


Originally posted by Andrew S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yeah, please expand.

I wish Andrew would. :)


I'll stick to the wall bag for now. More of an ideal positioning thing from my experience. But I may change my mind some day.

There is a big difference between punching a wall bag and working out with a partner holding training bags who moves in and out, side to side, forcing you to adjust to changing distances in striking. :rolleyes:


This thread has evolved a lot. It moved to this before I could comment on long range v. short power.

I've never heard any term like "short bridge" in a Ken Chung's lineage discussion. As was previously expressed thread-wise, the term "long bridge energy" is not separable, IMO. I assume that short power is a manifestation of long bridge or elbow energy. Maybe someone has some thoughts on clarifying this for us.

Regards,

[AndrewS]

Hi John, Kathy, Grendel,

John-

smaller/weaker- 'weaker' is a disingenuous term. In reality, one wishes to maximize one's strengths. If a set of body mechanics can allow someone 80-90lbs lighter than another person to throw the larger person around like a rag doll, they're stronger, no matter who has the higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers.

inside hands- there are a couple of places I disagree with you here. It is of great advantage to be very close in, at the point your strength is maximized (again, if you hurl someone across the room, I consider you strong, whether you are a powerlifter, Wing Chun player, taiji man, or Bob Sapp). The 'sweet spot' for your power probably exists at each point along the body, with some mobility, compensatable by some torso stuff, so for purposes of this discussion, lets assume we're primarily thinking about expressing power through the hand/wrist parallel to the sagitally plane. With these restrictions in mind, here is the obvious logical flaw to your argument- if one person has longer reach, is larger, they will *not* be operating at optimum position if they try to work inside the optimum position of a smaller person/ person with shorter reach. Good structure/ good mechanics/ relaxed body usage, all these can still operate on the outside, but I would argue that on someone smaller than you trying to force yourself to work inside can prove to be a disadvantage, especially when you now bring into consideration not only reach with arm length providing the hypotenueus of the triangle being used to wedge in, but the breadth, the distance from shoulder to shoulder, the base of a wedging triangle. While there are many other factors involved, looking solely at the upper body (not implying that this is the primary source of strength), the optimum angle for force delivery at a given limb length, probably changes with increasing broadness of the shoulders- as the base of the triangle gets wider. A more obtuse angle of arm to body seems to support force transmission better (I think this may be generalizable), hence the superiority of the elbow in position. At the same limb length and increasing shoulder breadth, two people will have different mechanical advantages at the same range and it will be to one person's advantage to be closer (and I need to go dig out my Feynman's and check the chapter on levers to figure out who this is).

Uh, long rambling on one of my present problems aside- the bottom line is that 'inside' is not the best place to be for every person at every instant. Unless you *are* Yip Man's size, you will wind up treating larger and smaller opponents differently because of differing points of contact and mechanical advantage on contact (i.e. if you're taller, you will tend to make contact on the outside, 'fishing' to get inside seem rather silly if you can crush them from where you are).

Closing the gap- yes, I have no problem saying that in WT we perceive that as a major issue, and handling problems during that is one thing for which we train chi sao. Once in, the ideal is to be **** close (elbow a fist-length or off the ribs, front leg pressing and active), but *ideally* not to be there unless the other person's ability to strike back has been drastically curtailed.

Staying close and controlling- perhaps I'd view that more as a tertiary goal, focused on at a later phase of training. In an ideal world- someone thinks to attack, I hit first and attack until they're incapacitated. In a less ideal world, they attack, I move and hit them, never contacting the attack or being in their line of fire. Less ideal, I must deal with the attack by bridging, and hitting, again destroying their ability to reply. Less ideal yet, I bridge, get close, and they can still reply, then I control and hit, until I can attack unanswered.

This last one, dealing with another Wing Chun player, is pretty low on my priority list, and I work this more against a covering boxer, kicker trying to break distance, or grappler closing for a tie-up (often off a punch or kick).

Through this I always wish to preserve the ability to move out should someone else come along.

Kathy,

if you want a laugh, check out <www.gwar.net>. The overlap of terms is oddly appropriate.

Grendel,

I'm not combining grappling skill with Wing Tsun- any application of rolling kneebar attempts, go-behinds to trips, arm-drags, or key-locks are purely for the education of my training partners. Purely. ;-)

More seriously, when I train WT, I do WT, not some hybrid art, and I feel compelled to state that up front. My grappling sucks worse than my Wing Chun, and I'd far prefer to rely on the latter than the former. All this being said, I train with a fairly profound awareness of the methods of other systems, *particularily* grappling, as we've had a healthy respect for grapplers in WT for longer than has been fashionable, and a number of my training partners have some mat time.

While Wing Chun likes to be close, grapplers like to be closer, and the ideal is to never play another's game.

'Starting in chi sao range'- I think this is one of WIng Chun's great strengths- we do train a lot in places where fights happen- with someone close. That being said, if you're training to fight you should probably train to deal with things starting **** near anywhere- from near/far, front/back/side, laying, sitting, etc with stress on the most likely scenarios and a lot of work on range management.

'Changing distances'- I hear you on focus mitts occasionally being rather humbling (and a great learning tool). Boxing with a boxer- just exchanging blows- ain't a great strategy, but I prefer to train to maximize my chance of first contact being collision of my fist and another's face. Lop/pak/jut/tan/bong work much more nicely when being used to keep a covering opponent from being able to hit while inflicting damage.

BTW- a really cool place to work from is off-balance- having multiple partners checking, pulling, and tripping you, with you attack the pad held by the last attacker, hitting off a weight-drop being used to dissolve a push, etc.

The direction thing -I'll try to come up with something coherent. I have some work to do and have rambled for a while. Basically, I think a modulator of power is when motion cycles turn over to make the vector of force expression change direction. If you step twice in succession, the change from drive off the back leg to weight drop and adduction as the legs drag up provides a crisp release of power, as should the subsequent change back to drive. Rapid direction changes allow for cessation of power expression with less muscular activity- less tension, and hence allow the next motion to be more explosive. By this thinking, immediate conversion of punch to jut or jut to punch should up the shocking character of the force of the first. This is just an idea I'm playing with, please don't take it seriously. I remain convinced that the amount of time over which one applies force has serious effect on the resultant effects on the body, with shorter impulses proving more dangerous.

FWIW,

Andrew

[kj]

LOL, AndrewS. This is one of those awkward moments when "Thanks for the link" seems somehow inadequate.

Regards,
- kj

[John Weiland]

Hi Andrew,


Originally posted by AndrewS

John-
smaller/weaker- 'weaker' is a disingenuous term. In reality, one wishes to maximize one's strengths. If a set of body mechanics can allow someone 80-90lbs lighter than another person to throw the larger person around like a rag doll, they're stronger, no matter who has the higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers.

Hmmm. This is only a metaphor for us. We don’t surgically alter our physical selves to achieve some puny, weak ideal. Another way we express our ideal of Wing Chun is that if a small woman cannot do it, it isn’t really Wing Chun, but if a small woman can use it to control a stronger person (with higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers), that is the ideal. Sandy Wong, Ben Der’s longest student, along with Ben himself, exemplify what Wing Chun can do for us.


inside hands- there are a couple of places I disagree with you here. It is of great advantage to be very close in, at the point your strength is maximized (again, if you hurl someone across the room, I consider you strong, whether you are a powerlifter, Wing Chun player, taiji man, or Bob Sapp).

Strong is not in our lexicon. :)


The 'sweet spot' for your power probably exists at each point along the body, with some mobility, compensatable by some torso stuff, so for purposes of this discussion, lets assume we're primarily thinking about expressing power through the hand/wrist parallel to the sagitally plane. With these restrictions in mind, here is the obvious logical flaw to your argument- if one person has longer reach, is larger, they will *not* be operating at optimum position if they try to work inside the optimum position of a smaller person/ person with shorter reach.

This conclusion comes from the awkwardness of expression in this medium. Of course, for every individual, there is a different distance, but for the smaller person to work inside the ideal distance of the larger is an advantage. Obviously, the larger person will want to work at their own distance. So, if you’re picturing yourself against a larger person, where would your ideal position be? I might work inside or outside in this case, depending on the opponent or partner’s relative skill and style, but I train to be comfortable inside, which you won’t see much in other Wing Chun in my experience, although or because working inside requires the most skill and confidence in one’s hands. Fundamentally, we want to be in control and working at our distance.


Good structure/ good mechanics/ relaxed body usage, all these can still operate on the outside,

No argument on that.


but I would argue that on someone smaller than you trying to force yourself to work inside can prove to be a disadvantage, especially when you now bring into consideration not only reach with arm length providing the hypotenueus of the triangle being used to wedge in, but the breadth, the distance from shoulder to shoulder, the base of a wedging triangle. While there are many other factors involved, looking solely at the upper body (not implying that this is the primary source of strength), the optimum angle for force delivery at a given limb length, probably changes with increasing broadness of the shoulders- as the base of the triangle gets wider. A more obtuse angle of arm to body seems to support force transmission better (I think this may be generalizable), hence the superiority of the elbow in position. At the same limb length and increasing shoulder breadth, two people will have different mechanical advantages at the same range and it will be to one person's advantage to be closer (and I need to go dig out my Feynman's and check the chapter on levers to figure out who this is).

Don’t bother with Feynman for my sake. :) I agree that wider shoulders may give the larger person a better angle for working outside. I haven’t thought about whether it precludes working inside. I don’t envision it doing so in my mental chi sao. Another difference between Ken Chung’s teaching and some others, we don’t think in terms of triangles, but I see the utility in this analogy. :)


Uh, long rambling on one of my present problems aside- the bottom line is that 'inside' is not the best place to be for every person at every instant. Unless you *are* Yip Man's size, you will wind up treating larger and smaller opponents differently because of differing points of contact and mechanical advantage on contact (i.e. if you're taller, you will tend to make contact on the outside, 'fishing' to get inside seem rather silly if you can crush them from where you are).

I’ll have to work this out on some likely victim when I return to class. I don’t agree that I/we are fishing for the inside; we just go there when it’s the thing to do. If I can crush my opponent from where I am, then that’s the most direct response. We don’t add movements or technique complications. We’re always looking the simplest response.


Closing the gap- yes, I have no problem saying that in WT we perceive that as a major issue, and handling problems during that is one thing for which we train chi sao. Once in, the ideal is to be **** close (elbow a fist-length or off the ribs, front leg pressing and active), but *ideally* not to be there unless the other person's ability to strike back has been drastically curtailed.

We don’t consider closing the gap to be a problem. We expect our opponent to do it for us in most cases, but once engaged, which can be from across a room, we work to find our ideal position. We step to bring our weapons close in. We don’t use so-called long-range weapons such as lunges or high kicks. The elbow position you describe is for us too, but we don’t have a front leg---both are legs are in a neutral side-to-side stance unless there is an opening to fill. A leading leg is a liability IMO, because one cannot defend equally on either side. Finally, we are comfortable close-in because we assume that we will be able to shut down an opponent’s offense before they can launch it.



Staying close and controlling- perhaps I'd view that more as a tertiary goal, focused on at a later phase of training. In an ideal world- someone thinks to attack, I hit first and attack until they're incapacitated. In a less ideal world, they attack, I move and hit them, never contacting the attack or being in their line of fire. Less ideal, I must deal with the attack by bridging, and hitting, again destroying their ability to reply. Less ideal yet, I bridge, get close, and they can still reply, then I control and hit, until I can attack unanswered.

I guess I consider the last to be the ideal. Not that I’d be doing chi sao on the street, but by controlling them and then striking, I’m not being greedy or afraid. Sometimes the urge to strike is based on fear of not being in control of the situation. Absorbing the opponent’s force and defusing their attacks, eating their hands---as Ken says---gives us the maximum security and the maximum offensive opportunity.



This last one, dealing with another Wing Chun player, is pretty low on my priority list, and I work this more against a covering boxer, kicker trying to break distance, or grappler closing for a tie-up (often off a punch or kick).

This is another difference between us. Since Wing Chun has the best angle on the centerline and the most control, matching against Wing Chun gives me the biggest challenge.



Through this I always wish to preserve the ability to move out should someone else come along.

What has your dating life got to do with it? :D :D :D

Regards,

[Grendel]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Grendel,

I'm not combining grappling skill with Wing Tsun- any application of rolling kneebar attempts, go-behinds to trips, arm-drags, or key-locks are purely for the education of my training partners. Purely. ;-)

:D

I find Wing Chun energy best lends itself to a Wing Chun response. When I find my partner using non-Wing Chun feeling energy, different applications come out just to see what they'll do. What's the definition of a "key lock", btw?


More seriously, when I train WT, I do WT, not some hybrid art, and I feel compelled to state that up front. My grappling sucks worse than my Wing Chun, and I'd far prefer to rely on the latter than the former. All this being said, I train with a fairly profound awareness of the methods of other systems, *particularily* grappling, as we've had a healthy respect for grapplers in WT for longer than has been fashionable, and a number of my training partners have some mat time.

While Wing Chun likes to be close, grapplers like to be closer, and the ideal is to never play another's game.

Quite so. I like to play against other martial arts, but mostly in comparing "what-if" scenarios. Wing Chun principles are tough to defend against in most arts except by very skilled exponents of those arts. I wouldn’t want to have to fight a born and bred Thailand-raised Muay Thai fighter. They may all be washed up at 30, but up to that age, they can take tremendous punishment and keep coming. Personally, I don’t want to take any punishment. I want to play my game and keep it short and sweet.


'Starting in chi sao range'- I think this is one of Wing Chun's great strengths- we do train a lot in places where fights happen- with someone close. That being said, if you're training to fight you should probably train to deal with things starting **** near anywhere- from near/far, front/back/side, laying, sitting, etc with stress on the most likely scenarios and a lot of work on range management.

I agree. The range is important. Wing Chun range is all about taking away the opponent’s game.


'Changing distances'- I hear you on focus mitts occasionally being rather humbling (and a great learning tool). Boxing with a boxer- just exchanging blows- ain't a great strategy, but I prefer to train to maximize my chance of first contact being collision of my fist and another's face.

:D I like boxing, but I can’t always get a partner to just stand still while I hit him. And it’s also nice when he can’t hit me back. :) Truth to tell, I'd like to add it back into my training just for the fun of it.


Lop/pak/jut/tan/bong work much more nicely when being used to keep a covering opponent from being able to hit while inflicting damage.

They work equally well for Chi Sao and Chi Sao-like street situations. Or, so I’ve been told. :D :p


BTW- a really cool place to work from is off-balance- having multiple partners checking, pulling, and tripping you, with you attack the pad held by the last attacker, hitting off a weight-drop being used to dissolve a push, etc.

I don't understand how you can drill that, exactly. Do you let them push and pull you, or does the drill let you attack as they do so?


The direction thing -I'll try to come up with something coherent. I have some work to do and have rambled for a while. Basically, I think a modulator of power is when motion cycles turn over to make the vector of force expression change direction. If you step twice in succession, the change from drive off the back leg to weight drop and adduction as the legs drag up provides a crisp release of power, as should the subsequent change back to drive. Rapid direction changes allow for cessation of power expression with less muscular activity- less tension, and hence allow the next motion to be more explosive. By this thinking, immediate conversion of punch to jut or jut to punch should up the shocking character of the force of the first. This is just an idea I'm playing with, please don't take it seriously. I remain convinced that the amount of time over which one applies force has serious effect on the resultant effects on the body, with shorter impulses proving more dangerous.

I’ll await your next installment. I feel as KJ has said, that a lingering strike has the kind of force I want when the **** hits the fan.

Thanks.

[YungChun]

So I take it that some lineages begin a Chi-Sao session with wrist to wrist while others start closer? How close? If so do those people who are training closer ever train further away? IMO at a certain distance past the wrist someone is already compromised if even to a small degree. At a very close range I would hypothesize that people may well be training recovery rather than precise control. In my experience the wrist to wrist beginning in Luk-Sao is a standard and it gets even further away as you advance in the system i.e. moving on to Long Arm Chi-Sao - where contact may begin using fingers/hands, and later on to doing no contact combat drills: Progression then being from inside to outside - not static.

Starting Chi-Sao at the wrists normally requires the use of footwork to close the gap. I've heard it said, even among various lines, that Wing Chun uses the hands and the feet/body together but also separately. Like a car's suspension filling (seeking) dips in the road - when the bridge penetrates beyond a certain (minute) distance the whole body moves as a unit - like a car going down a hill - the suspension reacts first but with sufficient release (down a hill) causes the whole car to go down and move as a unit.

Likewise, the hands/arms at wrist to wrist distance use forward spring energy from the elbow to seek an opening or fault in the partner's structure. In this case the arms are supported by the body but move independently of it. When the elbow energy begins to penetrate the opponent and you take a line this is when the hands and body are connected to form a single powerful energy issuing weapon to fill up and attack that crack originally sensed by the bridges.

[kj]

Hello YungChun.

A few brief notes before becoming fully immersed in today's cooking duties and visiting.


Originally posted by YungChun
So I take it that some lineages begin a Chi-Sao session with wrist to wrist while others start closer? How close?

As I mentioned previously, for our standard luk sau rolling:

Nominally, I am practicing at a distance close enough to my partner for penetrating a solid strike. With my "long and lasting," "girl hand," "long bridge energy." Same or similar to my distance when tapping the sandbag.



If so do those people who are training closer ever train further away?

Sure, but not typically for the standard luk sau rolling. For example, my mention of gwar/gor/gwor/etc. sau. Obviously, more extended workouts or sparring would provide this kind of experience and opportunity as well (with Wing Chun or other stylists). We begin close, and move ****her away at later stages.

It is annoying that I must manually diddle with the word "****her" each time I use it, LOL.



IMO at a certain distance past the wrist someone is already compromised if even to a small degree. At a very close range I would hypothesize that people may well be training recovery rather than precise control.

That is one way to view it. Another view is that we work on elements of sensitivity at this range. This includes intense self-correction and perception of the partners errors (as AndrewS alluded in passing). It is an understatement to say that this work for sensitivity and minute precision is a very big deal for us. IMHO, this alone justifies the time spent in close work, even if other arguments appear less compelling.



In my experience the wrist to wrist beginning in Luk-Sao is a standard

I too have seen many families who practice something in this range as their standard or nominal distance. Good thing I don't mind being different sometimes, LOL.

Naturally, there is some compensation and compromise in mutual distance when people of different heights/arm lengths are working together. Another case where many hands benefit, by offering an extended range of experience.



and it gets even further away as you advance in the system i.e. moving on to Long Arm Chi-Sao - where contact may begin using fingers/hands, and later on to doing no contact combat drills: Progression then being from inside to outside - not static.


If I understand you, yes. We too start close in (apparently closer than many or most), and extend the range of practice over time, dealing with wider ranges in terms of distance, footwork, hands, level of intensity, etc. Starting simple, growing in complexity as skill and knowledge builds makes enormous sense to me. And as it appears, we start closer in than many or most, though far away is probably common for all of us. :)



Starting Chi-Sao at the wrists normally requires the use of footwork to close the gap.

Yes, and this reasoning or supposition is a point of interest for me. For those who perform the standard luk sau/poon sau exercise exclusively at wider distances such that footwork is required (e.g., wrist to wrist contact), what does this imply about the chi sau training for those who do not yet have a well developed stance or footwork? Is the exercise postponed until footwork is sufficiently developed? Also, what relevance does the luk sau exercise play in helping to develop the stance at such wide distances, if any? Is there any notable impact on the tendency to resort to physical force (versus mechanics) or leaning at that range?



I've heard it said, even among various lines, that Wing Chun uses the hands and the feet/body together but also separately. Like a car's suspension absorbing (seeking) bumps - when the bridge penetrates beyond a certain (minute) distance the whole body moves as a unit - like a car going down a hill - the suspension reacts first but with sufficient release (down a hill) causes the whole car to go down and move as a unit.


Thanks for the descriptor, and one I'll add to my growing repertoire of metaphors and imagery. Some ways of thinking and viewing seem more or less useful to different types of learners, and at different stages of learning and development.



Likewise, the hands/arms at wrist to wrist distance use forward spring energy from the elbow to seek an opening or fault in the partner's structure.

Uh oh, there goes that dreaded "spring" word again, LOL. I don't mind the term, per se, but it has such a wide range of potential connotations that there is a good chance of talking past each other with it. While I might agree with a very limited perspective of "springiness" in our practice (e.g., the tendency to go forward to fill a hole when it presents itself), there are other connotations that would be distinctly inconsistent with how we aim our practice (e.g., springiness driven from large muscle groups).



In this case the arms are supported by the body but move independently of it.

Yes. To clarify slightly by restating from my perspective (which may or may not differ from yours), the body must be correct in order for the hands to be and operate correctly. At the same time, we must not allow our own body to become disturbed or upset by the work of the hands.



When the elbow energy begins to penetrate the opponent and you take a line this is when the hands and body are connected to form a single powerful energy issuing weapon to fill up and attack that crack originally sensed by the bridges.

Whether or not we would achieve this end by the same mechanism in practice, I can indeed agree with the words and description as written. IMHO, unity (in various levels of meaning and nuance) is key. In my current way of thinking (note the caveat, LOL), anything short of unity encompasses some form of recovery and correction.

Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
- Kathy Jo

[YungChun]

Originally posted by kj
I too have seen many families who practice something in this range as their standard or nominal distance. Good thing I don't mind being different sometimes, LOL.


Hey KJ,

Okay, just in an attempt to be clearer as it always seems that things could be so.

The key with the wrist to wrist thing is that this distance is a starting point only. The tools like the Tan and Fook fit together in this starting distance with a specific geometric symmetry allowing for mutual control 50/50 - of the Centerline with contact and energy - structural integrity for both to start.

Like two high pressure water hoses pointed at each other sharing the Centerline whoever moves first will get wet - best to start off dry. The two tools could be seen geometrically as two inverted triangles fitting together to form a rectangle sharing the Centerline space evenly at this distance - more or less may distort this shape.

Once a structural fault is detected and things start happening the distance is highly variable but starting at the wrist, to me, ensures that a reasonable spectrum was addressed and use of the horse was required - since both partners must engage their horses and move to deal with the dynamics of the exchange. Distance may start 'outside' (SLT-YJKYM) or suddenly get real close (Chum Kiu/Chi-Gerk) using elbows or anywhere in between. In any case both players start YJKYM parallel stances but then have to get in - seek the bridge - Chum Kiu.

One of the reasons that I have trouble with the past the wrist thing is that in my experience a small change can offer a huge advantage. With most of my partners I find, for example, that if my Tan passes the Fook’s wrist a bit (say 1-3 cm - is that passing the bridge?) that Tan can displace Fook. Under this condition I can often do a slow motion conversion to palm and despite great muscular effort to stop it - can go in like butter. Likewise it seems with other positions having an optimum balance point beyond which causes some kind of displacement, making initial integrity (control of the line) questionable for one or both players.



Originally posted by kj
For those who perform the standard luk sau/poon sau exercise exclusively at wider distances such that footwork is required (e.g., wrist to wrist contact), what does this imply about the chi sau training for those who do not yet have a well developed stance or footwork? Is the exercise postponed until footwork is sufficiently developed?


In my lineage the progression is: Stationary drills like Punches, Pak Sao, Pak Da, Lop Sao, Dan Chi-Sao, (note all at the wrist) etc., while the student is on SLT. Moving Chi-Sao (Toy Ma) begins only when the student is introduced to Chum Kiu - thus footwork development can happen naturally.


Originally posted by kj
Also, what relevance does the luk sau exercise play in helping to develop the stance at such wide distances, if any?


Well, YJKYM is used in Luk-Sao and at some point there is a transition to Chum-Kiu when the gap closes and we seek the bridge. Likewise the horse YJKYM must adapt at the Luk-Sao distance and maintain good SLT position without leaning since doing otherwise could result in a quick demise.



Originally posted by kj
Is there any notable impact on the tendency to resort to physical force (versus mechanics) or leaning at that range?


In Luk Sao, now that I think about it, perhaps it is since the range is ‘longer’ it forces the players to not rely on force since leverage is diminished and things are more ballistic further away it seems.

BTW: I've seen pics/vids of Sifu Wong Sheung Leung doing Chi-Sao and didn't note anything odd about distance. He seemed to use more or less wrist to wrist Luk-Sao.

Happy Turkey Day!

[AndrewS]

Continuing on in this very enjoyable discussion. . .

John-

The 'small woman' thing- in reality, if you have two roughly equally trained and motivated practioners using your methods, (ignoring the gender thing) and one is 220lbs while the other is 130lbs, to whom does the advantage go?

Against a larger person, I tend to find myself on the inside. The folks much smaller than me who are better than me tend to wind up in on the inside on me, too. By the same token, at 6'1" and 240lbs, most people I work with are smaller than me. Getting underneath their hands puts me at mechanical disadvantage, and pursuing an inside position too aggressively will lead me to ignore holes which will be filled by the first to note them.

The wider shoulders thing is weird, and something I'm still puzzling about as I try to figure out optimum strategies for my build (which disturbingly resembles that of a white Tony Tubbs). My present take is that if I try to get inside on someone with much narrower shoulder girdle who keeps relatively good positions, then I'm almost trying to force my way in somewhere I don't fit. Bad position, bad force, I'll wind up inside relatively easily. Bigger guys, I get inside.

Closing the gap- letting the other person come to you is one way to do that. Not trying to be obnoxious, but how would a 5'2" person handle a 6'2" person with a decent jab without closing the gap? There are a lot of scenarios one can play out, but I do think there is great merit (if one is precontact) to being able to put forth the threat that one may be going in (if nothing else).

Leading leg- not able to defend to either side? With the legs? Or being able to shift side to side?

Matching against Wing Chun vs. against other systems. I won't offer an opinion as to which would be the greater challenge on a theoretical basis. In reality, I'm far more likely to fight someone dangerous from another approach- boxing, wrestling, football, steroids and methedrine. . . Those folks move and present different positions from Wing Chun, and while there's some excellent developmental overlap which allows us as an art to learn to solve things generally from training according to principle, specific work on such problems does provide great advantage in solving them.

As to my dating life- my priorities are diametrically opposed tom those in fighting where I'm actively trying to avoid engaging two people at the same time. . .

:D

Grendel,

as I understand it, a keylock is one in which a limb is inserted at the junction of a joint which is then compressed. I've heard this used in reference to the elbow, knee, and ankle. By this definition a guillotine converted to a neck crank is actually a keylock. MP might be a better person to ask for an exact description.

'What if' and Wing Chun principles- sadly attacks don't occur in theory- if they did, I'd be in Pride. As much of an advantage as Wing Chun offers, year for year, it's by no means invincible. Aside from arts, I make a serious distinction between professionals and amateurs. A pro fighter, a national level competitor in any combat art/sport is a seriously different animal from a hard-working amateur.

I've never had formal boxing training, but a few of my peers have from amateur to pro level backgrounds, so I've gotten a good intro to some basics, and do a couple of rounds of light sparring a few times a week. Nothing deep, but it's a hell of a lot of fun, and a great way to work on reading people.

That drill- you let them push and pull from whichever direction they choose. It's a nice balance/mobility game, which very closely replicates what is often first contact. Loads of fun, too.

Yung and Kathy-

'spring' do we want to start another thread before getting into this one. . .

Andrew

[reneritchie]

A keylock is one of the Western Terms for the Japanese Jujitsu/Judo technique Ude-Garami. Americans typically call it keylock, hammerlock, and I've heard others as well. Brazilians tend to distinguish the forearm pointed up version by "Americana" and the forearm pointed down version by "Kimura" (in honor of the legendary Japanese Judoka who broke Helio Gracies arm with the technique).

Carlos Newton just won a match beautifully with this move in UFC 40.

(BTW, I tend to grip differently for Ude-Garami than I do for neck cranks/locks, holding one hand on the wrist for the former, and both hands together for the latter. In WCK, though, I typically don't grip with both hands, or if I do, its transitional to break as a method of clearing the line of entry (technique itself is similar, just method of setup differs, as does intent of delivery, probably closer to Vale Tudo than sub sport. And if MP knows the 10-Finger method BTT uses, I'm all ears!!)

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Continuing on in this very enjoyable discussion. . .

I'm enjoying it too. :D


John-

The 'small woman' thing- in reality, if you have two roughly equally trained and motivated practioners using your methods, (ignoring the gender thing) and one is 220lbs while the other is 130lbs, to whom does the advantage go?

Obviously I am not making the point well, probably because I’m so familiar with the concept. In fighting, the larger person has the natural advantage. To counter this, the smaller person learns Wing Chun principles that enable the smaller to defeat the larger. No matter how big the Wing Chun practitioner, the fighting principles apply to one’s training, if one seeks to maximize one’s potential.


Against a larger person, I tend to find myself on the inside. The folks much smaller than me who are better than me tend to wind up in on the inside on me, too. By the same token, at 6'1" and 240lbs, most people I work with are smaller than me. Getting underneath their hands puts me at mechanical disadvantage, and pursuing an inside position too aggressively will lead me to ignore holes which will be filled by the first to note them.

Starting with the last sentence above, we don’t pursue the inside. The energy and position of our partners determine whether we are inside or outside. We don’t neglect the outside hands position, but we will not be concerned if we find ourselves inside. We do train to be able to be inside against any opponent. It has never occurred to me to modify this approach because I’m working with a smaller partner, since this just forces/enables me to work on my positioning and sensitivity. If you find it hard to be inside against a smaller person, are you giving your smaller partners forward energy? We feel comfortable getting very low in our stance when required. Often I find I’m eye-to-eye with a smaller person.


The wider shoulders thing is weird, and something I'm still puzzling about as I try to figure out optimum strategies for my build (which disturbingly resembles that of a white Tony Tubbs). My present take is that if I try to get inside on someone with much narrower shoulder girdle who keeps relatively good positions, then I'm almost trying to force my way in somewhere I don't fit. Bad position, bad force, I'll wind up inside relatively easily. Bigger guys, I get inside.

Tired of using myself as an example, I’ll give you Ken Chung, who as Wing Chun goes, is pretty big, at 5’10” and around 200 pounds. He has no problems going inside on smaller folks. Perhaps KJ can shed some light on this phenomenon.


Closing the gap- letting the other person come to you is one way to do that. Not trying to be obnoxious, but how would a 5'2" person handle a 6'2" person with a decent jab without closing the gap?

I’ve always taken the rhetorical position that we close the gap.


There are a lot of scenarios one can play out, but I do think there is great merit (if one is precontact) to being able to put forth the threat that one may be going in (if nothing else).

We always close the gap and fight closer than other Wing Chun families that I’ve met, seen, touched, or corresponded with. :D


Leading leg- not able to defend to either side? With the legs? Or being able to shift side to side?

Once in contact, it’s not as dangerous, but in closing the gap, I wouldn’t want to present a backside which I couldn’t defend against a good kicker or fast grappler.


Matching against Wing Chun vs. against other systems. I won't offer an opinion as to which would be the greater challenge on a theoretical basis. In reality, I'm far more likely to fight someone dangerous from another approach- boxing, wrestling, football, steroids and methedrine. . . Those folks move and present different positions from Wing Chun, and while there's some excellent developmental overlap which allows us as an art to learn to solve things generally from training according to principle, specific work on such problems does provide great advantage in solving them.

That sounds great to train against other arts and the drugs sound enticing too. :D I have nothing against, and in fact like such training. But, (you knew there’d be a big but after reading this far)…but, Wing Chun works well against any style I’ve ever seen.


As to my dating life- my priorities are diametrically opposed tom those in fighting where I'm actively trying to avoid engaging two people at the same time. . .

There are bigamy laws in this state, you know. :p Or, are you referring to the “Lucky Pierre” syndrome? :D

Stay out of trouble. :D

[AndrewS]

Hi John,

part of the point that I'm trying to make with this bigger/smaller thing is that if you're taller and sit low to get under someone smaller who is already low, you may well compromise your body alignment and mobility relative to the smaller person, particularily if they are working from a dropped balanced center of gravity.

In working with smaller people, I used to be in the habit of dropping lower to deal with them. The past few years of working with my seniors I have been encouraged to avoid doing this, and to stand as tall as I can while still maintaining our idea of good structure. This is still sunk relative to drawing oneself up to full height, but gives me significant room to sink lower, either to absorb pressure or express power.

Being bigger and getting inside- here's my experience- when I go in on smaller people, even from inside positions, they tend to get twisted across themselves and drop very easily, often after being folded down the middle T-ed off to me. Bigger guys it's easier for me to wind up dead in front of them, playing their arms like being between the dummy arms, breaking their balance straight back. This may be my flaw, I dunno, but this is something I'm trying to figure out- handling relative differences.

Using Ken as an example on taking the inside may not be the best course- superior practicioners can pull off **** near anything, especially on students they trust. BTW- this is *not* a slam- but a general observation on teachers and students. How do you guys handle a boxer fighting from a low crouch working hooks and uppercuts a la Smokin' Joe? Inside seems a bad place to be with folks like that. A grappler trying to swim in?

Fighting closer- hmm, this I'd like to see. At what approximate distance for a 6' person do you abandon fist/palm work for elbows when head on?

Closing the gap and lead legs- presenting a backside? What do you mean by this? How do you close the gap? We step with hips aimed at the other person, one leg coming forward with the intent of kicking.

I'll agree Wing Chun works well against any style, but I've got a healthy respect for other approaches and would counter with this statement (based most dramatically on my experiences with floorwork)- the unexpected is the most dangerous attack. Even passing familiarity is far superior to ignorance, when it comes to making Wing Chun work.

Bigamy laws? When was I talking about marrige? Though looking at my married friends, marrige doesn't seem to do anything but double your capabilites when it comes to hunting down something interesting to bring home on a Friday night. . .

:cool:

Andrew

[reneritchie]

Hey John,


We always close the gap and fight closer than other Wing Chun families that I’ve met, seen, touched, or corresponded with.

You guys seemed pretty in-line with the Chi Sao range I learned. I've also found many other WCK people seem to stay further away. Do you ever go to *extreme* close range? (Shoulder/Hip striking range) in your Chi Sao? We'll flirt with that, and go back and forth between it and the usual range.

RR

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by AndrewS
part of the point that I'm trying to make with this bigger/smaller thing is that if you're taller and sit low to get under someone smaller who is already low, you may well compromise your body alignment and mobility relative to the smaller person, particularily if they are working from a dropped balanced center of gravity.

You make a very good point, and I thought I'd stated so previously, but I must be lacking something in my expressions of agreement. :D


In working with smaller people, I used to be in the habit of dropping lower to deal with them. The past few years of working with my seniors I have been encouraged to avoid doing this, and to stand as tall as I can while still maintaining our idea of good structure. This is still sunk relative to drawing oneself up to full height, but gives me significant room to sink lower, either to absorb pressure or express power.

I cannot argue with this. I must have been unclear. :(


Being bigger and getting inside- here's my experience- when I go in on smaller people, even from inside positions, they tend to get twisted across themselves and drop very easily, often after being folded down the middle T-ed off to me.

I dunno if this is true across the board. Several of my seniors, including my sifu are smaller than me, and if you're saying your smaller partners drop their hands or simply drop to the floor, then the people in question must have structural problems, including their horse and elbow position, and a lack of development of timing, sensitivity, and elbow energy. With proper structure, they should be able to keep you out, shouldn't they, until you break their structure, but that shouldn't be a given.


Bigger guys it's easier for me to wind up dead in front of them,

You shouldn't be caught dead being dead....Oh, wait, I guess I misread you at first. :D


playing their arms like being between the dummy arms, breaking their balance straight back. This may be my flaw, I dunno, but this is something I'm trying to figure out- handling relative differences.

I think this sounds right to me as you say you are breaking their balance. It sounds as if you are able to uproot them, getting them on their heels, and using inside position to walk through them.


Using Ken as an example on taking the inside may not be the best course- superior practicioners can pull off **** near anything, especially on students they trust. BTW- this is *not* a slam- but a general observation on teachers and students.

We are all trying to emulate Ken in that what he does is what we're striving to do. However his timing and sensitivity is matched only by his correct structure and phenomenal power, which he doesn't use in chi sao, or we'd all be afraid to touch his hands. He demos his power only under controlled circumstances to limit the deaths and consequent lawsuits. :p


How do you guys handle a boxer fighting from a low crouch working hooks and uppercuts a la Smokin' Joe? Inside seems a bad place to be with folks like that. A grappler trying to swim in?

Smokin' Joe was awesome, wasn't he? I'm not good at the hypothetical. I'd do basic Wing Chun, take the centerline, and with loss of contact, rush forward and hit. :D


Fighting closer- hmm, this I'd like to see. At what approximate distance for a 6' person do you abandon fist/palm work for elbows when head on?

There is no set formula. There is only proper timing and sensitivity to the energy felt. We let our opponent in. They should feel no resistance until they are in our distance.


Closing the gap and lead legs- presenting a backside? What do you mean by this? How do you close the gap? We step with hips aimed at the other person, one leg coming forward with the intent of kicking.

We don't do what you describe. We walk straight forward, looking at our opponent, anticipating his actions by sensitivity to his eyes' tells. By extending one leg forward and stepping to close the gap, you expose the side of your body from which the leg is extended forward, and are also subject, especially prior to contact, to being unbalanced by certain attacks.


I'll agree Wing Chun works well against any style, but I've got a healthy respect for other approaches and would counter with this statement (based most dramatically on my experiences with floorwork)- the unexpected is the most dangerous attack. Even passing familiarity is far superior to ignorance, when it comes to making Wing Chun work.

Well said. However, I don't need to practice the other approach; I just need to practice against it, right?


Bigamy laws? When was I talking about marrige? Though looking at my married friends, marrige doesn't seem to do anything but double your capabilites when it comes to hunting down something interesting to bring home on a Friday night. . .

Reminds me of the current movie, I Spy (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1807816352) in which Owen Wilson's character asks Eddie Murphy's,"Does she have a sister?" and the reply is "What do you care? If she has a sister, it'll just be the three of us." I suspect that somehow, he has impure motives. :p

Regards,

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by reneritchie
You guys seemed pretty in-line with the Chi Sao range I learned. I've also found many other WCK people seem to stay further away. Do you ever go to *extreme* close range? (Shoulder/Hip striking range) in your Chi Sao? We'll flirt with that, and go back and forth between it and the usual range.

Sorry I missed you when you were in Frisco. We don't generally flirt with each other in Ben's classes :p, but yes, we can and do go to extreme close range when called for, but we don't ideally, ever go so extreme in range that we break contact.

What we want to do, is to have our opponent come in close before we drop the hammer, so there's no escape, and we don't have to chase him.

Often, shoulder or hip contact is useful as another way to strike when we find ourselves in position when are hands are not free. Was this what you meant? :)

Regards,

[AndrewS]

Hi John,

back from some family matters. . .

The risen/sunk relative height thing- this is something I've thought about a lot, and, IMHO, the little guys have an advantage here (as do the truly huge), as they tend to have to learn to deal with only one set of proportions- bigger than them. People in between midget sized and giant, will have to adapt to deal with both those bigger and those smaller. I really don't try to do things differently with different sized folks- but I've noticed different results occur, and some things seem to happen with greater ease to bigger folks, some to smaller, if that makes sense. Bundles of fast twitch fiber and aggression are more succeptable to soft and sneaky routes to control, than big tense guys, for whom shocks seem to work more nicely. Just some thoughts.

Taking apart smaller people- yeah, my point is basically that when I'm better, they seem to crumple differently from the bigger guys.

Smokin' Joe- Nice drill- have someone cover, bob, weave, and push, try to stay balanced while you try to continuously hit (but only landing lightly) and control- much like Frazier's game. This puts you at a disadvantage, but is a great way to get some feel, and is a nice first stage to just letting someone throw random boxing attacks from clinch range. FWIW- the inelegant, but effective solution I like is to let the weave go to the outside, trade gum and kao to keep them there, using strikes to keep the head and torso down, combined with the pressing action of forward pressure to drive them into/over something solid. This is definitely a bit of a brute force solution- not the ideal, but it's d*mn practical.

Closing the gap and walking straight forward- so you close staying in character two/goat clamping? How do you find stepping forward with a lead leg to expose the stepping side of the body- the leg goes out unweighted and covers the back leg, the body stays erect and square, with a fair bit of ability to rotate on the central axis, hand positioning is unchanged? Being unbalanced by certain attacks? If you put weight forward or you hip is stiff, sweeps are definitely a danger. Is that what you mean?

Practicing the other approach vs. practicing against it- the bottom line is that the better a group is at giving attacks from outside the system well, the better they will be at solving them. A little work on a decent jab or shoot makes your Wing Chun better, as now you have people who can give you a better, smarter attack. Best is to work with folks with good experience in other arts, but learning something about those arts and giving them the credit they're due is an excellent step to building students who can deal with them.

Take it easy,

Andrew