what block(s) to use

[mtod1]

Hi all.

Can someone give me a general guide to why they would use a certain technique over another. Particularly with redirecting incoming energy/attacks.

Eg. If an attacker throws a straight punch to your chest. You could Pak Sau, Jut Sau, Lap Sau etc.

Why in any particular circumstance would you use one over the other. Is it just a matter of preference? Or are there technical reasons.

Practical explanations would be really appreciated.

thanx
seeya

[mtod1]

Kinda redundant to post to myself... oh well.. but i think i just realized the answer to my question. Is the (block) used, chosen because of the energy its based on and the energy of the incoming attack? So to add to my initial post... how do you determine the direction or type of energy coming toward you.

Hope this makes sense.

seeya :+)

[kj]

Originally posted by mtod1
Kinda redundant to post to myself... oh well.. but i think i just realized the answer to my question. Is the (block) used, chosen because of the energy its based on and the energy of the incoming attack? So to add to my initial post... how do you determine the direction or type of energy coming toward you.

Hope this makes sense.

seeya :+)

Yes.

Though I resist the word "block" for its force-against-force connotation, preferring interception, connection or "stick" combined with redirection. Also, while "energy" is the common vernacular, it can be ambiguous and difficult for some, so I often substitute by saying "force vectors," depending who I am talking with.

The way you know is to be sensitive and a good "listener" (perceiver). It takes lots of experience to build such strong abilities in perception, and then more experience to know what to do with the energy once you recognize it, as well as the physical capability to deliver a response in a well timed and intuitive manner.

Means of achieving such skills involve partner practice to build sensitivity and appropriate responsiveness, beginning as early as don chi sau, lop kuen, and poon sau - all carefully and meticulously exercised and explored. IME, of course.

And, IMHO, these types of skills are somewhere between difficult and impossible to build without diligence and patience (or a good teacher to insist on these), and an attitude of learning and exploration. Things that will impede or prevent progress in this area include greediness, a desire to "win," impatience, lack of proper instruction and constant corrections, and reliance on a "sparring" platform or training that is too unstructured, especially in early years.

Appropriate and well timed responsiveness tie neatly back to forms practice as well. To me, the system of learning so many of us have been endowed with is nothing short of genius.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

A couple of things from my POV:

1) There is nothing wrong with "using force against force" - in fact, it is a necessary part of our method - as long as it is a "smart force against (to defeat) a dumb force". Our kuit tells us "mo jiu mo chak" (no fixed technique, no resistance) - using force to deal with force is not necessarily resisting force with force (i.e., wrestling with resistance). For example, Sum Nung broke an attacker's arm with his lan sao -- this obviously involved using a smart force against a dumb force. TN

2) As I see it, our bridge hands are not blocks or parries or deflections or redirections . . . these things are in their essence passive. Ideally (emergency situations may be different) all of our actions are active (the intent is to achieve a positive result). This is the same with our bridge hands. Our bong sao, for example, is not used so much to "deflect" or "parry" or "dodge" an opponent's attack but instead takes advantage of the opponent's commitment (force and its direction) to uproot him; the "deflection" is simply a by-product of the uprooting action, not the principal aim. As Sum illustrated (above), the lan sao wasn't just a "block" but was a positive action (attack). TN

Terence

[Phil Redmond]

As a student of TWC you learn no force against force. It's the smart way to fight. Ask Sifu Corles. As far as determining angles of attack, watch the elbow and practice your eye drills. I have trained in different versions of WC over the last 33 years. Force can work for some but smart fighting is better.
Sifu Redmond

[Marky]

Hi all,

"As a student of TWC you learn no force against force" PR

It's a paradox of the system, I suppose. If we wanted to be technical, isn't equalization applying force against force? But it's like t_niehoff said, when the opponent's force becomes "dumb" that we capitalize on it and strike.

[kj]

Hi Marky,


Originally posted by Marky
Hi all,

"As a student of TWC you learn no force against force" PR

It's a paradox of the system, I suppose. If we wanted to be technical, isn't equalization applying force against force? But it's like t_niehoff said, when the opponent's force becomes "dumb" that we capitalize on it and strike.

I agree about “dumb” force in degrees. I also agree that the system contains some delicious paradoxes.

The caveat is, some people may not know what is "dumb" versus "smart" force. Other readers may have a clear understanding, but their understanding may differ from yours. It may be helpful if you can describe the criteria for distinguishing "dumb" force from "smart" force from your perspective, or provide some examples which may illustrate a pattern.

As an aside and not unique to the subject at hand, the best description, IMHO, is the one that helps each individual to practice correctly and advance in overcoming their unique barriers to understanding. The description that clicks for me may be different from the description that clicks for someone else; similarly, a description that fails for me on one day may be unexpectedly helpful to me on another day. So far my hypothesis has withstood time. In this light, and IMHO, a technical description bears somewhat less importance than the actualized result. One reason why "conversation" is such a cool tool, especially in a medium like this where "richness" of communication necessarily and severely suffers.

I find that the challenges in Wing Chun reside in the human elements every bit as much as the technical ones. It also makes things infinitely interesting and sometimes even fun.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Phil Redmond]

The type of force I'm talking about would take from the interruptability principle of TWC.

[kj]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
The type of force I'm talking about would take from the interruptability principle of TWC.

Hi Phil.

As I don't practice TWC, there is a risk I may misunderstand the vernacular. By interruptability, do you mean the ability for you to change efficiently, appropriately and quickly based on the dynamics of the situation? If that is what you are getting at, I agree that this is very important.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

KJ writes:

The caveat is, some people may not know what is "dumb" versus "smart" force. KJ

That's probably true. But if they're practicing WCK, they should have instructors that know (if they don't, it's time to find another instructor IMHO), see it firsthand in the drills, gain more understanding from experience, etc. TN

Other readers may have a clear understanding, but their understanding may differ from yours. KJ

This is fundamental, core stuff IMO and goes to the heart of our method and application. TN

It may be helpful if you can describe the criteria for distinguishing "dumb" force from "smart" force from your perspective, or provide some examples which may illustrate a pattern. KJ

Dumb force can be strength or power committed too soon, brute, unfeeling, unaware, resisting -- everything that WCK eschews. Smart force is strength applied smartly, with awareness, not committed too soon, feeling, changeable, etc. Using force or strength in direct opposition to the opponent's strength is not necessarily "resisting" but is obviously using "force against force"; a case of using smart force against a dumb force in direct oppostion may be that I attempt a gum sao (pinning hand), pushing my opponent's hand into his body, but he resists it, and I use that resisitance (smartly) by issuing a short, shocking force (hitting) into his resistance thereby destroying his balance and structure. Of course, there is much more to it. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

I think there are two problems. First, people don't realize what the word 'force' means, and mistake it for something brutish.

Phil - force is just one way to translate Ging (Jing) into English, which is refined power, force, strength, etc. (a refined, specifically directed form of Lik). In Cheung sifu's WCK, like everyone elses, I wager, you use Ging.

The second problem seems to be people don't realize what the word "against" means, and mistake it for something equally opposing, resistant, clashing, and just as brutish.

In fact, if you didn't use any force against force, you would be a noodle, coiled up on the floor.

The key, IMHO, is to use the most economical and intelligent force possible. WCK Kuen Kuit exemplifies this with the saying "Apply force in the direction of the wind". If you've ever had the wind in your face as opposed to at your back, this saying can be quite illuminating.

Just like Taiji says '4 ounces to defeat 1000 lbs.', there is still those 4 ounces.

I think KJ is also correct, however, in that this can be difficult for new people to get their head around, so maybe swinging the pendulum the other way for a while gets them to give up the muscled approach, which can be a good thing. The mistake would be taking the beginners lesson and assuming it applied to whole progression of the art as an absolute. Like only learning SNT and insisting WCK had no steps. It would be correct, but very limited in scope.

So, in sum, if you use Tan Sao to cancel a punch, you are using force against force. You are using the economical and intelligent force of your Tan Sao (which, wholely absent force would be hanging limp at your side, or crushed completely by the punch) to cancel (shear, redirect, swallow, whatever) the incomming force of the punch.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by mtod1
Hi all.

If an attacker throws a straight punch to your chest. You could Pak Sau, Jut Sau, Lap Sau etc.

Why in any particular circumstance would you use one over the other. Is it just a matter of preference? Or are there technical reasons.




Certainly based on technical reason: Position, distance, momentum, timing, and what out come one wants to achive.

Basically, the white crane 5 elements momentum counter is a good rule of thumb.....

Feeling and adapting is necessary.


A straigt punch is too general.

Is it a cannon punch which was deriver with rotation and drill in?
a sun punch with sligh upward momentum?
a phenix punch hammering down?
A spear punch twisting in but with sligh down ward momentum?

Where is your position?

In door?
Out door?

Where are you moving to?

what is the In coming timing versus the response timing?

You like to intercept it? neutralized it? breaking the unity of the limbs? slide in to in door? slide in to side door?..... what do you want?




Hendrik

[t_niehoff]

RR,

My objection to language such as "don't use force against force" is that (1) it is overssimplistic (there are times when we do use force in direct opposition to an opponent's force much to our advantage) and (2) is not an accurate verbal expression of what is really going on (as you also correctly pointed out), and is thus misleading. And unfortunately many of these "slogans" are promulgated without really examining or thinking about them. TN

You wrote: "WCK Kuen Kuit exemplifies this with the saying 'Apply force in the direction of the wind'." RR

A very good metaphor. Sailors (perhaps this kuit comes from the Red Boats!) in the past used the wind to help power their boats (via sails); they didn't fight it (i.e., struggle against it) or avoid it -- both those situations would have been disasterous and would not have let them achieve their ends. They "used" the wind. In terms of WCK, we sometimes apply our force in the direction of the opponent's force (pulling him when he pushes, pushing him when he pulls for example), sometimes we apply our force at an angle to his force, sometimes we apply our force in direct opposition to his force (he runs at you and you punch him - your forces are moving in direct opposition), etc. I think the common demoninator in all of this is that we in WCK strive to use the opponent's force (strength or power) to his disadvantage and to our advantage. TN

Terence

[Marky]

Hi kj,

I generally define "dumb" force as "that force which is not necessary". For example, trying to push someone else's arm across the center line. In that case, an equalizing "smart" force will recognize that the "dumb" force is excessive, and one's arm will circle around it and hit.

"dumb force" also tries to hit an area that is already blocked. For example, trying to push through someone's block; an adjustment using "smart force" would be to redirect the energy of the punch, and not try to "keep blocking". "Dumb force" will sometimes do the opposite; after blocking, it will relax even though contact persists. When the "smart force" is equalizing, the practitioner will realize that the opponent's block is "empty", and he/she will attack.

So to sum up, "smart" force is economy of motion and energy, as I understand it.

In regard to your post, I'm in total agreement. It's all about perspective and personal experience.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

"WCK Kuen Kuit exemplifies this with the saying 'Apply force in the direction of the wind'."




RR, TN,

this kuit is depend on what one wants.
Talking about neutralized or issueing power forward, yes.

But, if one wants to bounce off or break the structure of others, then apply force in the reverse direction of the wind. but not force against force, sometimes a light crispy slap did it....



When one link and root, that is the time one will get up root from certain angle..that is the time the oponent link up his body as one piece to let you be able to use it....

how do you think Wang Xiang Chai of Yee Chuan bounce off others?...


The one who is good at war, make use of the momentum...
and both forward and reverse momentum can be used. that is the art of using 4 kati to break thousand pound.... make the system instablely overshoot and let it colapse by it's own momentum or own weight.....


Hendrik

[TjD]

arms touch then:

if their structure is weak - a cleaving or wedging motion like tan sau or a punch will break through it.

if their structure is strong - a redirection fook type motion will move them off center; using the elbow as a hinge

if they are in too deep for a fook type motion, a bong sau type motion will redirect using the shoulder as a hinge.

[Phil Redmond]

Kathy Jo wrote:
>Hi Phil.
As I don't practice TWC, there is a risk I may misunderstand the vernacular. By interruptability, do you mean the ability for you to change efficiently, appropriately and quickly based on the dynamics of the situation? If that is what you are getting at, I agree that this is very important.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo<

Yes that is what I'm saying. I meant the kind of force that can be exploited.
Phil

[kj]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond

Yes that is what I'm saying. I meant the kind of force that can be exploited.
Phil

Gotcha. Agreed.

Regards,
- kj

[nvisblfist]

if you are in a right lead, the four gates have techniques that are used as a foundation, Tan sau for upper outer gate, pak sau for inner upper gate, gaun sau for the lower outer gate, and gum sau for the lower inner gate. I can and have handled the majority of punches with the above techniques.

[mun hung]

Does anyone believe in "breaking the weapon" of the opponent?

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by mun hung
Does anyone believe in "breaking the weapon" of the opponent?

If it's in the way, it gets punished.

[mun hung]

burnsypoo - not exactly what I meant, but still applicable.

What I mean is the limb destruction of the attacking arms or legs.

[Matrix]

It looks to me like you're both saying the same thing. If not, please explain?

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by mun hung
burnsypoo - not exactly what I meant, but still applicable.

What I mean is the limb destruction of the attacking arms or legs.

If it's in the way, it gets punished.
:)

[mun hung]

How about - it comes to you and gets punished.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by mun hung
How about - it comes to you and gets punished. No problem. As it turns out, I was in the neighbourhood. :cool:

[reneritchie]

I tend to follow the same concepts with the hands as with the knives. I strike to finish, which means the most vulnerable parts of the center mass of my opponent. If I can't reach that (there's an arm in the way), I will hack through the limbs on the way to the center mass. If I can't reach that (there's a leg in the way), I will close and systematically hack away until I get to that center mass.

I don't believe in ignoring limbs, but neither in chasing after them. So, in essance, Burnsypoo is correct.

[kj]

I concur with what René wrote.
- kj