Defeating wing chun

[Void Boxing]

Through my nine years of training in JKD and wing chun, ive found the most valuable tactic to dealing with a wing chun practitioner is the PIA tactic or progressive indirect attack. :(??? Here is why. The pracitioner expects you to just throw a punch or a kick, he expects to parry and strike at the same time. When you feint deeply into their guard they try to gain contact to use chi sao. When you understand this you can decieve both the chi sao and the parries.

Tonight i discovered that you can make a wing chun practitioner parry themselves and you can confuse their chi sao with varying degrees of tension in your arms. You can make you arm go tense and jerk forward to make them react and then you can disengage their arm swiftly to score with SA - simple attack. You can decieve their parries with a deep attack that suddenly changes and hits on another line i.e straight palm strike to the face feint, change angle and hit with an angulated attack combined with angle footwork.

This worked because i almost knocked my mate out whilst playing with him. Hope you find this useful, i sure do.

[Ernie]

ahhh the dreaded chasing hands curse

a lot of guys will bite a pia , high low high . and sia with a pressure fake , but if your sia has a pressure fake it is now a pia ,

but don't be fooled when you run into a guy that doesn't chase hands , doesn't need a bridge , and doesn't care what your doing , he will just single mindedly attack what ever center of mass he see's things will change .

the game will go to who every can eat up the others position and space with the least amount of resistence and the most stability ,

if you really want to mess him up chi sau with him drive the pressure up for a second then drop low for a single or double leg , and take him into a firemans carry around the room for a while :D

[Phil Redmond]

I do TWC. We don't chase hands and we don't depend on simutaneous blocks and strikes. I simply cover a point in space. Plus I train for and enjoy the fake. I do it with boxers all the time.

[Ernie]

come on phil you telling you never bit a fake:D
how you doing man , hope all is well

[reneritchie]

Nice to see that even basic WCK concepts like leak and intercept hitting can be 're-discovered' through personal training and insight, even if it does take several years. Just goes to show what works, works.

Next, you might want try to find some more experienced WCK people who will just hit on feint or on loss of contact.

(More seriously, however, you don't beat systems, you beat individuals, if I can smash some poor PE class kid in the face before he can greco suplex me, doesn't mean I figured out how to beat wrestling and should be stepping into the ring with Couture...)

[Mckind13]

Rene,

Are you training to fight Couture?

Wow, what a stud :)

David

Void,

You are correct that you can fake people and I have done some dumb stuff playing with my kickboxing and boxing friends.

On the other hand when we train and focus on the fundamentals it makes it hard to get faked. You attach, I hit. You fake, I hit.

[Phil Redmond]

Good to hear from you Ernie
"come on phil you telling you never bit a fake"
Heck yeah, but I'm coming in hitting or kicking....;)
Mckind13 's last two sentences says it all.

[reneritchie]

David,

Yeah, Bubba Couture. 4'7", 87lbs, 0-8-0, of pure infant fury! You know him? Got any tape??

BTW- Did you get the stuff I sent? Was it usable?

[Mckind13]

Hey Rene

Off topic - yes I did! They are great my hotmail freezes when I send stuff.

**** Hotmail.

On topic

Bubba by submission in 14 minutes :P

David

[reneritchie]

sc3w that! Bubba's getting ownded! By waterbottle R12 96:37s

[S.Teebas]

....you can confuse their chi sao with varying degrees of tension in your arms. You can make you arm go tense and jerk forward to make them react and then you can disengage their arm swiftly to score with SA - simple attack.

IME ive found tension in the arms is actually a big problem when you face someone who can use their body mass properly.

[old jong]

I don't mind when people think they can fool "Wing Chun" with some peekaboo tricks!....It makes them vvvvvveeeeerrrrry easy to beat!...;) ;)
It's OK....Continue like that!...;)

[Keng Geng]

Originally posted by Void Boxing
The pracitioner expects you to just throw a punch or a kick, he expects to parry and strike at the same time. A Wing Chun idiot would, yes.


When you feint deeply into their guard they try to gain contact to use chi sao. What!!! A Wing Chun idiot would, yes.


Tonight i discovered that you can make a wing chun practitioner parry themselves and you can confuse their chi sao with varying degrees of tension in your arms. Clearly the person with whom you were training does not quite get Wing Chun.


This worked because i almost knocked my mate out whilst playing with him. Hope you find this useful, i sure do. Perhaps raising the bar with respect to your training partners would be in order. Your conclusions are ridiculous.

[russellsherry]

hi guys"S i never regard a fake as a fake someone makes a move to hit me depending the move or what punch ill hit him as hard as possiable to make him realise faking is a waste of time i arggee with earnie as always if he is in frount of you and trys to contack hit him peace russellsherry

[Void Boxing]

Rene - More seriously, however, you don't beat systems, you beat individuals

**** good point that - you dont beat the system, you just beat the individual. Cheers for the correction friend.

MC - You attach, I hit. You fake, I hit.

Either way, throw something into them to disturb them. Good. Cheers.

[glenn richards]

Hi VB
Being a fellow Sydney sider i'm interested in who you trained with in WC.
Incidentally, im in agreeance with most of the previous posts... it does sound like your training partner "chases hands"
regards
Glenn

[Void Boxing]

Sifu Joe Molnars students - they trained under grandmaster.

Sydney um, do you train with rick spain?....

Note: The training partners are not that great, i dont get to spar with the good training partners because they are too busy getting beginners up to scratch.

[anerlich]

Sydney um, do you train with rick spain?....

Glenn doesn't, but I do.


Sifu Joe Molnars students - they trained under grandmaster.

Haven't heard of him, which is not to say he's no good. Grandmaster who?


The pracitioner expects you to just throw a punch or a kick, he expects to parry and strike at the same time. When you feint deeply into their guard they try to gain contact to use chi sao.

I'm not expecting you to "just throw a punch or kick". I'm expecting to hit you or take you down as or before you try to get a shot off. I call this the PDA, or "preemptive direct attack" :cool:

.
Tonight i discovered that you can make a wing chun practitioner parry themselves and you can confuse their chi sao with varying degrees of tension in your arms. You can make you arm go tense and jerk forward to make them react and then you can disengage their arm swiftly to score with SA - simple attack. You can decieve their parries with a deep attack that suddenly changes and hits on another line i.e straight palm strike to the face feint, change angle and hit with an angulated attack combined with angle footwork.

That's good, but really none of these are earthshattering revelations. Most people who spar and chi sao regularly, especially with people MORE SKILLED THAN THEY (caps intentional) have worked these things out for themselves.

Seriously, if the people you work out with are this predictable, you need to look further afield for more challenging training partners. You haven't found a way to defeat WC, you've found a way to beat up less experienced practitioners.

[namron]

Originally posted by Void Boxing
Sifu Joe Molnars students - they trained under grandmaster.

Sydney um, do you train with rick spain?....

Note: The training partners are not that great, i dont get to spar with the good training partners because they are too busy getting beginners up to scratch.


Have you tried this tactic with sifu Joe Molnar? He sticks a lot closer and through personal experience is direct.

Was that at the Knox branch?

[Snake n Crane]

LOL, Pity I found this many years too late. I know Mr. Void Boxing. he is, was and will always be a delutional person. He trained with Sifu joe just the once and got his ribs busted for the effort. Despite his talk all he ever did was overthink and under support his theories. Waste of time. Most of Void Boxing was delutional drivel and the bits that weren't were stolen directily from the people around him except he got it all wrong.

One man's frustration at the world is not another man's working MA.

[k gledhill]

Through my nine years of training in JKD and wing chun, ive found the most valuable tactic to dealing with a wing chun practitioner is the PIA tactic or progressive indirect attack. :(??? Here is why. The pracitioner expects you to just throw a punch or a kick, he expects to parry and strike at the same time. When you feint deeply into their guard they try to gain contact to use chi sao. When you understand this you can decieve both the chi sao and the parries.

Tonight i discovered that you can make a wing chun practitioner parry themselves and you can confuse their chi sao with varying degrees of tension in your arms. You can make you arm go tense and jerk forward to make them react and then you can disengage their arm swiftly to score with SA - simple attack. You can decieve their parries with a deep attack that suddenly changes and hits on another line i.e straight palm strike to the face feint, change angle and hit with an angulated attack combined with angle footwork.

This worked because i almost knocked my mate out whilst playing with him. Hope you find this useful, i sure do.

WSL training uses feinting as a primary method to show chasing, we feint each other constantly during training, in chi-sao , sparring etc... to rid ourselves of the bad habit.

Its a common tool in our class ...alignment of cycling jum & tan strikes is accomplished by a student knowing that the arms arent what we attack :D We dont seek to control arms unless the arms allow it...meaning we hit first trap later, always trying to hit with free hands, being the attacker.
It is when the student wants to seek the hand to control, that you begin to control them ;) wow that was deep :D

you can do takedowns easily too for students who chase your high feints while pivoting in one spot.

[SAAMAG]

We dont seek to control arms unless the arms allow it...meaning we hit first trap later, always trying to hit with free hands, being the attacker.

Good post. That's the way I thought all wing chun people train to do it.

It's a simple equation really. Guy has intention of attacking, you hit first, if that attack finds resistance, you remove that resistance and continue the attack. Simple. Don't chase hands, aim for center mass, continue until center mass is jello.

Style aside...feinting is a good skill to have and use in general. It is something that can be as minute as a shift of the weight, a twitch of the shoulder, even a look of the eyes. It helps to shed light on what your opponent will do, how acute their perception is, and whether or not they'll attack you anyway even on a deep feint (wing chun ;)).

With a deep feint though--I consider those to be moreso what I call uncommitted attacks because if the DF gets no reaction I'm going to go ahead and hit them. If it does get the expected reaction, I am ready to react to the counter anyway in order to get to my intented target.

E.G. a simple direct attack is usually countered or at least defended by any fighter who is aware of things and has some experience, even if the timing was right and you hit in the half beat and so forth. At least, I wouldn't underestimate someone with it. I stay wary of the counter for a SDA because of the fact that its got no setup (outside of timing) and isn't part of a combination. If it hits, great! It if doesn't it becomes part the catalyst for a PIA and will eventually find its mark (hopefully :D)

[k gledhill]

When fighting in bars 'n' streets I rarely used a parry , just facing strikes with movement to the attackers movements...pak to trap is common if a guy over-swings...usually a strike, palm to head, fist to jaw / head, kicks ...simple stuff .
The jaw is fragile ...I worked with a guy from Newcastle who would either insult your mother or offer you a cigarette just to get you to open your jaw a little before punching you to the side of the lower jaw, now opened up a little...ko every time :D

[SAAMAG]

When fighting in bars 'n' streets I rarely used a parry , just facing strikes with movement to the attackers movements...pak to trap is common if a guy over-swings...usually a strike, palm to head, fist to jaw / head, kicks ...simple stuff .
The jaw is fragile ...I worked with a guy from Newcastle who would either insult your mother or offer you a cigarette just to get you to open your jaw a little before punching you to the side of the lower jaw, now opened up a little...ko every time :D

Yep...you never want to get punched with your mouth even slightly open. Bad stuff for sure. I've always preferred to use the actual punch as the primary way to deflect and counter attacks. It just seems...smarter. Why do it in three counts when you can do it all in one? Then again, you can always evade and punch at the same time as also...which I like equally well. Nothing like ducking under a punch while jamming them in the solar plexus at the same time.

[YungChun]

I never relied on blocking.......

Blocking is something I hoped my opponent would do..

Terence is correct when he talks about being behind the timing with a block.

And I never developed the ability to do the block/strike under high pressure...though I still think it may be worth working on more than I did.

If the opponent fakes (not feints) then if he is in range I attack.. I prefer to stay in an attack mode, or working on getting into attack mode at all times.

[k gledhill]

the strength of the vt idea is to simply attack regardless of what is put before you..feint and your still striking on the same line, intercept and your still attacking etc....alignment drills start in dan chi-sao..elbows in not wrists dropping on tans etc... the parries/blocks of vt are the strikes at the basic level....the natural angles from slt etc..and drills ingrain a method of striking that has the simultaneous strike / deflect angles with tactical X angling movement ...the cycling striking arms naturally intersect anything coming towards your centerline...nothing stopping the strikes and your simply hitting when the hands are free....staying with the guy as he moves around avoiding your constant ability to attack...

the techniques of the vt system allow the ability to have an attacking action with every move...no 2 defensive actions follow another...er shouldnt anyway :D

as for the opponent blocking..I have found in fights that hitting the guy is the easiest part, it comes down to standing firm allowing them to come at you, then hit them but 'what with' , who's first , ie fingers, fist or elbows as they come at me, distances , height of head/s....ground level after punching ; ) for follow up kick to head ,......low front midsection kicks for those moments you want pick guys up off their feet and slam them into walls ...then kick them in the head on the ground so they dont get up too quickly ...trying to avoid teeth marks in your feet.
Or vertical palms to head down charges...makes them grab their heads with both hands like instant migraine...
I personally found a lot of guys will grab my lead wrists as they try to control with common untrained actions, 'the leading left arm grab followed by the big right' , like a leading lop sao bad idea, takes the hand out of the fight....making an easy thing from chi-sao , turning them reversing the charge into me and slamming them into objects, walls, cars, tables or down a flight of stairs....asa they grab my hands i get calm like a chi-sao match and let them get on with it ...you know they cant hit you until they let go ....and as soon as they do... your hand is free.

[SAAMAG]

If the opponent fakes (not feints) then if he is in range I attack...

Realizing that a lot of the internet banter comes from varying semantics--for clarification purposes--what is your definition of a "fake" and a "feint"? How do they differ for you?

I ask this because I use the term "feint" for any motion that implies a false attack. Regardless of whether its something as simple as leading with the eyes, or as pronounced as deeply faking a punch through someone's guard.

[YungChun]

Realizing that a lot of the internet banter comes from varying semantics--for clarification purposes--what is your definition of a "fake" and a "feint"? How do they differ for you?

I ask this because I use the term "feint" for any motion that implies a false attack. Regardless of whether its something as simple as leading with the eyes, or as pronounced as deeply faking a punch through someone's guard.

A feint is nothing in particular, could be a sudden head/body twitch, eyes as you said, assisting....



Feint is a French term that entered English from the discipline of fencing. Feints are maneuvers designed to distract or mislead, done by giving the impression that a certain maneuver will take place, while in fact another, or even none, will.

While a fake is an action like a Progressive Indirect Attack.. Or other action that is designed to lead the defense, into typically a parry/block.. It involves the user executing some part of an attacking motion designed to convince the defense of a particular action/target, which can then be easily changed to another--also used to close the gap...

The WCK way as I know it simplifies all of these things into a simple question of if I can now attack...

[mjw]

Chase the man, not the hand.....

[SAAMAG]

A feint is nothing in particular, could be a sudden head/body twitch, eyes as you said, assisting....
That's pretty much how I see it...though the english term "fake" reads the same. In fact the word "feint" is even used as part of the definition of "fake":



Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
2. Sports A brief feint or aborted change of direction intended to mislead one's opponent or the opposing team.


While a fake is an action like a Progressive Indirect Attack.. Or other action that is designed to lead the defense, into typically a parry/block.. It involves the user executing some part of an attacking motion designed to convince the defense of a particular action/target, which can then be easily changed to another--also used to close the gap...

The WCK way as I know it simplifies all of these things into a simple question of if I can now attack...
See...I consider this more like drawing or luring the opponent. Where you leave an area open to entice the opponent to attack that spot, OR you could take an action to draw out a desired reaction from your opponent. My personal use of the PIA was such that it is a natural progression from a simple direct attack when the fist attack is countered. I realize that the majority of people will say you lead the PIA with a feint, but I figure that there's no reason not to make the first attack a real one. If it's countered, then you naturally move into something else. You attack, it's blocked, parried, whatever...then you go into the "trapping" phase to give way to another attack. Note that this is indeed different than a combination where the original intent was to attack in a predetermined sequence.

But...we all have our own interpretations of JKD...which is the beauty of it. Nothing set in stone and these are just concepts after all. You can name them whatever you want really. (Yea...I said it...CONCEPTS. Sorry T'!)

[YungChun]

See...I consider this something called "drawing". Where you leave an area open to entice the opponent to attack that spot, OR you could take an action to draw out a desired reaction from your opponent.


Well if we go by JKDs Five Ways of Attack, these are two of the five ways.


Five Ways Of Attack

* Single Angle Attack (SAA)/Single Direct Attack (SDA).Is a single motion (Punch or Kick) which moves with no effort to conceal it, directly to the target on the most economical route. It can also be indirect, beginning on one line and ending on another. Such as a punch that starts to the stomach (mid line) and ends on the chin (high line). SAA is an attack that is launched from an unanticipated angle that is achieved by moving in such a way as to create an open line into which to strike.[6]
* Hand Immobilization Attack (HIA) and its counterpart Foot Immobilization attack, which make use of trapping/parrying to limit the opponent's function with that appendage.
* Progressive Indirect Attack (PIA). Simulating an attack to one part of the opponent's body followed by attacking another part as a means of creating an opening.
* Attack By Combinations (ABC). This is using multiple rapid attacks, with volume of attack as a means of overcoming the opponent.[7]
* Attack By Drawing (ABD). The goal when using attack by draw is to "draw" the opponent into a committed attack by baiting him into what looks like an exposed target, then intercepting his/her motion. One can execute a motion that invites a counter, then counter attack them as he takes the bait.[8]



My personal use of the PIA from was such that it is a natural progression from a simple direct attack when the fist attack is countered.

SDA is SDA

One is direct, the other is not direct..



You attack, it's blocked, parried, whatever...then you go into the "trapping" phase to give way to another attack. But...we all have our own interpretations of JKD...


That's Attack by Force or Hand Immobilization Attack.. I'm just going by JDK's 5

[SAAMAG]

Well if we go by JKDs Five Ways of Attack, these are two of the five ways.

SDA is SDA

One is direct, the other is not direct..

That's Attack by Force or Hand Immobilization Attack.. I'm just going by JDK's 5

Like I said, everyone has their interpetations of JKD, hence why it's got so many different variations and the whole idea of it is that there's no one person that does it the same. Again, semantics are just that--semantics.

For example, you said that what I described was two of the five ways, but in your quoted definition that you posted...what I said seems to fall in line with just one of the principles...attack by drawing. In short, its a lure for them to attack or a feint for them to react.

Secondly, MY interpretation of the PIA isn't so much of the common theme of feinting to cover distance and build upon the feint to eventually come to an attack. MY interpretation and the way I like to use it is to simply attack. If it hits great, if it doesn't it flows into something more. My interpretation is that once the SDA is combined with other elements it is no longer considered a SDA. Hence the reason why I said what I did. Again, all these principles are is a set of names someone gave to describe certain tactics. There's no right or wrong here. Only interpretation.

[YungChun]

Like I said, everyone has their interpetations of JKD, hence why it's got so many different variations and the whole idea of it is that there's no one person that does it the same. Again, semantics are just that--semantics. To show you what I'm talking about...here's another website I found just now with those same guiding principles; and yet they're a little different than what you wrote. As a disclaimer I have no formal affiliation with these guys, it was just the first site that popped up on google and its to illustrate only the variability in one's training perspectives and their interpretations of JKD.



Looks exactly the same, what's different...?

The 5 ways of attack are well established in JKD.

SDA is direct as it says.

PIA is not direct as it says.

HIA/FIA/ABF is what it says..

And ABD Draw is the same in both...you draw them into attacking...etc

The difference between Direct and Indirect are clear, real and important differences...

[SAAMAG]

Looks exactly the same, what's different...?

The 5 ways of attack are well established in JKD.

SDA is direct as it says.

PIA is not direct as it says.

HIA/FIA/ABF is what it says..

And ABD Draw is the same in both...you draw them into attacking...etc

The difference between Direct and Indirect are clear, real and important differences...

I was looking at the attack by drawing...which is described as I stated to which you said was "two" of the methods. I changed the post because I didn't want a long repeat of the remaining elements.

Did I misinterprete what you meant by that original statement? I don't consider fake and feint to be different from one another, hence the reason why I asked you to clarify.

Not only that...but you're going off on the whole direct and indirect thing...when I'm talking about it being single or progressive. If you want to be technical...all attacks are direct, they're just hidden amongst other elements like feints and combinations.

That also brings to light one thing I noticed long ago...many of the principles are described in much the same light but given different acronyms. Think about it for a second. Do you really need all these different "principles" that are essentially overlapping and/or stating the obvious?

"PIA" = feint to get reaction + [counter] attack to that reaction (by attacking another target)
"ABD" = feint a target or feint an action to get a reaction + [counter] attack to that reaction...whereby you're still attacking another target.

So the way I see it...I can still achieve the same end with making the first attack a real attack, if I get a reaction, I can counter that by attacking another spot or going into trapping or doing something else...and the SDA then becomes something different. Get what I mean? FWIW I was really into the whole "breakdown" that JKD provided when I was a teenager...now the whole "concepts" thing seems redundant and unecessary to a degree. Perhaps its experience...been there done that sort of thing.

Now its more intuitiveness...just flowing with the environment.

[YungChun]

I was looking at the attack by drawing...which is described as I stated to which you said was "two" of the methods. I changed the post because I didn't want a long repeat of the remaining elements.

Did I misinterprete what you meant by that original statement?


I don't know..

I think JKD's 5 ways are clearly defined.

I said two methods meaning you described two of the five methods..

Here:


See...I consider this more like drawing or luring the opponent. Where you leave an area open to entice the opponent to attack that spot.. {snip}


That's ABD



OR you could take an action to draw out a desired reaction from your opponent.

That's PIA



My personal use of the PIA was such that it is a natural progression from a simple direct attack when the fist attack is countered.

Well you can certainly use it anyway you want.. However the SDA countered does not 'become' a PIA because each has a distinct method which is different.

However SDA and PIA--one is direct and the other is not.... which is no small difference.. At close range a PIA is not recommended.

In other words a failed *single direct attack* does not then 'become' a PIA or indirect because it was by definition not indirect to start with and is now over.. (don't know if that is what you meant or not) You might then *follow it* with another (different) attack (could be any of the five).

Point only is that each method is distinct, regardless of what follows.

THAT is why I was 'going off' on that..

The Five Ways of Attack, and other goodies are clearly defined in the Tao of JKD..

[SAAMAG]

I said two methods meaning you described two of the five methods..
See that's where there's a hiccup. The ABD is derived in either method...at least my understanding of it is as such. Leave a lure or proactively create a reaction. As stated very clearly in the definitions that you posted from the website. I do concur that the PIA is also the same as the latter method...which is why there's different interpretations.



In other words a failed *single direct attack* does not then 'become' a PIA or indirect because it was by definition not indirect to start with and is now over.. (don't know if that is what you meant or not) You might then *follow it* with another (different) attack (could be any of the five).

Point only is that each method is distinct, regardless of what follows.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what it started out as...only what it ended up as; and that's why I call it what I do. Those principles are merely snippets of time in the totality of a fight. A single attack is only a single attack for that instance. Combine it with something else (with no break in the flow) and now the entire exchange is no longer a single direct attack (even though that was the intent).

Again, no need to be so adamant considering we're not even talking about a real style here. Remember that JKD is by definition SELF expression. You can change and interpret whatever you want however you want, and that's the beauty of it. Following even JKD dogma is counteractive to what the founder of intended in the first place.

[YungChun]

See that's where there's a hiccup. The ABD is derived in either method...at least my understanding of it is as such. Leave a lure or proactively create a reaction. As stated very clearly in the definitions that you posted from the website. I do concur that the PIA is also the same as the latter method...which is why there's different interpretations.

No idea what you mean here but.

As I said each attacking method is distinct.. Meaning each is different. A<>B, A<>C, B<>C, ABD <> PIA, etc..

If you don't see each of the 5 as distinct then we don't agree.. And that's okay.. :)


In my opinion, it doesn't matter what it started out as...only what it ended up as; and that's why I call it what I do.

Disagree because..



Those principles are merely snippets of time in the totality of a fight.

Right and each is a snippet--its own tactic.

Anyway classification and set arguments are best left to others who like to type.

[chusauli]

In my opinion, WCK has SDA, SAA, ABC, ABD, HIA/FIA, PIA.

Bruce Lee's categorization is merely an attempt to categorize combat...

[wtxs]

To Vankuen and Yung Chun

Excellent exchange, reminding all of us why there is an WC forum ... freely to express, exchanging and share ideas. Civil as possible. ;)

[SAAMAG]

I think so. Every interaction on here for me, is generally to invoke thought, learn, and discuss the various mental aspects that the martial arts brings to the table.

I'm never trying to have an "argument"...unless you're talking about the greek definition of argument whereby the goal was to seek the "truth" through civil interactions.

I admit though I've had my fair share of insults and pointless exchanges with a particular person on here--and every interaction I have with this person is intended to be a simple conversation based on logic and reasoning...but due to certain personality conflicts it always tends to degenerate. Such is life.

I originally thought this thread was going to be a reverse analysis of wing chun and how to defeat the style from other style's perspectives. Sort of a critical self analysis...which I thought would prove interesting and thought provoking. Maybe I should make another thread about it! :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

I think that the easiest what to defeat a WC fighter who spends too much time doing chi sao is to feed them predictable techniques for them to counter in predictable manners for which you then provide unpredictable counters.

[SAAMAG]

I think that the easiest what to defeat a WC fighter who spends too much time doing chi sao is to feed them predictable techniques for them to counter in predictable manners for which you then provide unpredictable counters.

Care to elaborate? Because ALL the techniques used in wing chun are predictable by the sheer nature of the training.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Care to elaborate? Because ALL the techniques used in wing chun are predictable by the sheer nature of the training.

Some individuals and schools stick to the classical curriculum without deviation. This results in a phenomenon that I call "playing Wing Chun." Classical Wing Chun is limited and most good schools will support the WC cirriculum with boxing, kickboxing, and other striking arts.

When a person from a good school encounters a person from a weak school, the easiest thing to do is to show the weak school player that you are a classical guy who wants play Wing Chun which results in a trapping battle or some nonsense. Give the guy something easy that he can pak and follow-up with boxing hands that exploit the opening.

[SAAMAG]

Some individuals and schools stick to the classical curriculum without deviation. This results in a phenomenon that I call "playing Wing Chun." Classical Wing Chun is limited and most good schools will support the WC cirriculum with boxing, kickboxing, and other striking arts.

When a person from a good school encounters a person from a weak school, the easiest thing to do is to show the weak school player that you are a classical guy who wants play Wing Chun which results in a trapping battle or some nonsense. Give the guy something easy that he can pak and follow-up with boxing hands that exploit the opening.

Nice. That's thinking on more realistic terms. I remember a sparring session during my wing chun training where we kept having to "force" ourselves to stay within the wing chun mindset while sparring.

He came in using lin wan kuen, and I lan sau'd at first, following with an outside step lap da...but the "da" was a muay thai elbow that I instinctively threw, it cut his eyebrow and almost knocked him out. After he recouped, we went at it again, and he started to use takedowns (like double legs and such). We kept having to stop because we realized that we weren't using wing chun anymore! :p

So sparring and staying within the confines of an art and then sparring and using different arts really shows people how confining that arts truly are. True there are conceptual ideals that should allow you to transcend the technique, but unfortunately the human mind doesn't work that way with physical techniques learned through neural and mechanical repetition.

[wtxs]

I admit though I've had my fair share of insults and pointless exchanges with a particular person on here--and every interaction I have with this person is intended to be a simple conversation based on logic and reasoning...but due to certain personality conflicts it always tends to degenerate. Such is life.

Noooo way man, not on this forum! :rolleyes::p:D