Blind side

[Phil Redmond]

I just recieved a video of an interview with Sifu Chan Chee Man. He is that former Choy Lei Fut student who was beaten twice by the young William Cheung in HK. He later asked William Cheung to take him to Yip Man so that he could learn WC. Anyway, on his interview he demonstrates how Yip Man taught him how to fight on the blind side. He does say fighting down the middle is OK but if your opponent is too fast to go to the blind side. I'd like to hear if any other WC people have been exposed to fighting on the blind side as well.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Phil

[couch]

In our kwoon in the Moy Yat family, we are taught to get to the blindside as quickly as possible without breaking any "idioms."

Sometimes it is not easily possible to get to the blindside if your exchanging hands aren't in a position to Gon Sau(for example) to force your opponent to spin: making his/her centerline face another direction. Or if the opponents hands are both to the outside in which case you could get yourself passed his/her elbows.

It's interesting about the fact that he talks about when an opponent is too fast to fight on the blindside...

I think in combat, because of Chi Sau, positions and manipulations will appear regardless of speed. Also, getting in close to the opponent is the range we've come to love the most...whether the opponents hands are high, low, to the outside of inside, etc...once you are in close enough you can break the structure of your opponent.

I also believe total speed is released when you are relaxed and are confident that Wing Chun will save the day.

I don't speak for everyone...just myself. It'll be interesting to hear what other people have to say.

[YongChun]

I would like to hear more about that interview. It's always nice to hear from these old timers who knew something about Yip Man and what he taught.

I find it is difficult to get to the blind side if the attack is not very committed and is short and abrupt. I have played with some BaGau and Aikido and unless you commit the attack it is difficult for them to get to the blind side. But ideally, it is good to get to the blind side. In chi sau we often get there by means of a center attack which is deflected to far off the center. That allows instant access to the blind side.

Ray

[Phil Redmond]

Hi Couch, I can send you a link with a small clip of him describing what Yip Man taught if you'd like. Just email me at; sifupr@wingchunkwoon.com.
Phil

[Phil Redmond]

Ray, I just sent you the link. I just checked the clip again and he does say that YM says if the person is too fast use the blindside.
Phil

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

When fighting from the blind side, you always let your opponent have good defensive structure (because of the fighting distance), which means that you can easily turn it into a fight. The only thing that your opponent has to do is move his feet and throw more than 1 or 2 punches (not the one hook wonder shot), this will automatically put you in the defensive mode, making your wing chun wild and unsure, slowing down your progress too laminate your opponent’s confidents in keeping good defensive structure. A good fighter always throws his strikes in 3 to 4 punch combinations stepping too the right or any direction keeping his feet moving (feet must follow the hands), he will not just stand there and become a punching bag, he’s going too keep circling just as you’re doing, so if the guy is faster then you, it would be wise too fight in the inside, if you don’t; your opponent will pick you apart. You move he moves and if he is faster, then he will get there first, this is nothing more then common sense, so cut him off at the path, taking it right too him. Procession is derived from pure love (wing chun), without that love and true understanding, procession would be nothing more then madness. What I am saying; is a known fact too many boxers. then again who am I too say, unless you try it yourself.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[SevenStar]

Is this the same as sidestepping and attacking from outside angles?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"When fighting from the blind side, you always let your opponent have good defensive structure (because of the fighting distant), which means that..."

TOTAL NONSENSE.

You obviously have no clue about what the TWC blindside strategy is.

[Phil Redmond]

Rahim wrote: >>What I am saying; is a known fact too many boxers.<<
The boxing couch I train with says the blindside theory is good in boxing as well. The blindside theory was also taught by Yip Man.
PR

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Is this the same as sidestepping and attacking from outside angles."
(SevenStar)

Yes it is...but there's a little more to it than that. To be more specific - it's like this:

1) Parallel leg blindside position - ie.- TWC has lead right leg to the outside of the opponent's lead left leg...and tries to get past the opponent's lead foot - thereby taking his flank and sealing off the area making it very difficult for the opponent to use his right hand/leg as weapons...(while creating a two-on-one advantage: the 2 TWC arms deal with only the left arm of the opponent)...

2) Cross leg open side position - ie.- TWC has lead right leg to the inside of the opponent's lead right leg...much more difficult to isolate 2-on-1 , and seal off an area...but does include moving from the cross to the parallel leg position as the hand/arm engagement is going on - which makes it easier to get the 2-on-1 blindside advantage.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Well we are not talking boxing, we are talking wing chun, which I thought in the most terms is called a close quarter combat system. Fighting from the blind side is not close combat, if the guy can move away successfully, And you are right I don't have clue, could you help us, I would like too know your understanding.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ali:

Just read my last post before this one for the answer...

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

In most cases battles that use flanks, the flanks usually start from a distance, developing in the heat of battle, usually to early (giving away their position) and most of the time too late. (Casualties) feeling the pain of battle (going on the defensive). Too run a flank you must simply cover a lot of ground, for me too much movement, for the platoon double time, hard work.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[YongChun]

Suppose two TWC are in arm contact like in chi sau, then do they find they can flank each other or is it only a distance fighting thing? We don't find we can get to each other's flank easily once in close contact, it's too easy to just turn and face. I also found it's difficult for some Ba Gua and Aikido people to flank unless the attack is quite commited.

Just a question.

Ray

[Edmund]

Originally posted by YongChun
Suppose two TWC are in arm contact like in chi sau, then do they find they can flank each other or is it only a distance fighting thing? We don't find we can get to each other's flank easily once in close contact, it's too easy to just turn and face. I also found it's difficult for some Ba Gua and Aikido people to flank unless the attack is quite commited.

Just a question.

Ray

This is a concept that is in all WC not just TWC. The reason we must turn and face the opponent is to be able to fight with both hands. If we can not, we are flanked.

In close it applies just as much if not more. When your hands are in contact with the opponent they can hold, push, pull, deflect and turn them. There are many techniques devoted to controlling the opponent: Pushing on the elbow, pulling the wrist, the neck pulling hand.

A push on the elbow will break their position unless they defend, deflect the push, take the hand off, move with the force in time etc. If you push and their arm moves across for an instant, they've already lost their timing - they are open to be hit.

You don't run around the opponent. That does not create the timing you need. It's a completely different idea to military manoeuvres. It's only one-on-one. You aren't going to be able to surround them.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Well we are not talking boxing, we are talking wing chun, which I thought in the most terms is called a close quarter combat system. Fighting from the blind side is not close combat, if the guy can move away successfully, And you are right I don't have clue, could you help us, I would like too know your understanding.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
I just recieved an email from some one that says Sum Nung also used that theory in YKSWCK. The video shows that Chan Chee Man learned it from Yip Man. So I guess some WC lineages do use the blind side. I would hope that both Yip Man and Sum Nung knew at least a little bit about WC fighting theory ;).
PR

[russellsherry]

hi phill at my first club we were tuaght stepping to the side on a 45 deggre angle plus 90 in some case "S ias randy says it does not matter who our sifu is as long as the concepts work for us thats what matters, by the way phil i spoke to dana wong last week i am going to call him later today about a ew things please say hi to joe saya for e i knew him a little bit back in melbroune at the old school by the way joe knows who i trained with before he can fil you in peace russell sherry

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by YongChun
Suppose two TWC are in arm contact like in chi sau, then do they find they can flank each other or is it only a distance fighting thing? We don't find we can get to each other's flank easily once in close contact, it's too easy to just turn and face. I also found it's difficult for some Ba Gua and Aikido people to flank unless the attack is quite commited.

Just a question.

Ray
Here's one of many ways.
http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/cs_lop_counter_fw.mpg
Phil

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by russellsherry
hi phill at my first club we were tuaght stepping to the side on a 45 deggre angle plus 90 in some case "S ias randy says it does not matter who our sifu is as long as the concepts work for us thats what matters, by the way phil i spoke to dana wong last week i am going to call him later today about a ew things please say hi to joe saya for e i knew him a little bit back in melbroune at the old school by the way joe knows who i trained with before he can fil you in peace russell sherry

Cool Russell, I went to a seminar Joe had in Toronto. I talk to him often. In fact I'm watching the movie called "The Circuit 2" where Joe has some fight scenes, (using WC of course). Some of the movie was filmed in one of the TWC schools in LA. I'll mention you to him tomorrow.
Phil

[sihing]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
When fighting from the blind side, you always let your opponent have good defensive structure (because of the fighting distance), which means that you can easily turn it into a fight. The only thing that your opponent has to do is move his feet and throw more than 1 or 2 punches (not the one hook wonder shot), this will automatically put you in the defensive mode, making your wing chun wild and unsure, slowing down your progress too laminate your opponent’s confidents in keeping good defensive structure. A good fighter always throws his strikes in 3 to 4 punch combinations stepping too the right or any direction keeping his feet moving (feet must follow the hands), he will not just stand there and become a punching bag, he’s going too keep circling just as you’re doing, so if the guy is faster then you, it would be wise too fight in the inside, if you don’t; your opponent will pick you apart. You move he moves and if he is faster, then he will get there first, this is nothing more then common sense, so cut him off at the path, taking it right too him. Procession is derived from pure love (wing chun), without that love and true understanding, procession would be nothing more then madness. What I am saying; is a known fact too many boxers. then again who am I too say, unless you try it yourself.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

Yes the boxer or anyone for that matter will try to circle and face you again (have two arms vs. two arms). The Blindside Theory/Advantage IMO only lasts for maybe a second, that is if I am standing still too, if I move in accordance then it will last longer but not forever. Now one of the advantages of the WC punching motion is that is allows us to execute anywhere from 5 to 8 punches in a second right. Therefore if the advantage is very short, like a half second, you should be able to pop off 2 to 3 punches which will slow the person down and maybe finish the fight all together. Another advantage the WC punch has is that it can be performed continuously while I am moving, chasing or retreating, whatever type of movement. Most boxers or other styles of MA that require hip/shoulder rotation to generate power cannot do this as effectively as the skilled WC practitioner.

As for letting your opponent have a good defensive structure while doing all this, usually an off balancing maneuver is employed at the same time, Lop Sao or Jut Sao can suffice.

If all WC has this strategy then why didn't I see it in any of the demo's the masters performed at the VTAA conference in 99'. Most of them stayed down the middle (centerline) and fought from there, two arms vs. two arms. Only GM Cheung showed the Blindside theory and you could tell just from watching how much more effective it is when used properly.

The best thing about this is that you don't always have to adhere to the concept. If the opening is there I can decide to go right down centerline if I choose, since this is the most efficient line of course, but if you haven't trained the concept then it is hard to just apply of the cuff.


James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"When fighting from the blind side, you always let your opponent have good defensive structure (because of the fighting distance)"...

IF YOU READ MY OTHER POST...the distance I'm talking about IS close - but it's just the parallell position on the outside of his lead leg.

"The only thing that your opponent has to do is move his feet and throw more than 1 or 2 punches (not the one hook wonder shot), this will automatically put you in the defensive mode, making your wing chun wild and unsure, slowing down your progress..."

DON'T HAVE TO PLAY DEFENSE...if I'm positioned correctly and am constantly attacking and moving closer and controlling/trapping/unbalancing/hitting before he can get off a whole lot of punches.

"A good fighter always throws his strikes in 3 to 4 punch combinations stepping too the right or any direction keeping his feet moving (feet must follow the hands), he will not just stand there and become a punching bag, he’s going too keep circling just as you’re doing..."

NO I'M NOT CIRCLING...just like him...Just the opposite...I'm always "cutting off the ring"...so to speak. Requires some serious footwork - but can be done.

"so if the guy is faster then you, it would be wise too fight in the inside, if you don’t; your opponent will pick you apart"...

AS I SAID...fighting on the blindside is fighting close...very close.

"so cut him off at the path, taking it right too him."

OF COURSE.

[Phil Redmond]

First of all I'd like to say that the clip I sent to a few people here has Sifu Chan Chee Man demonstrating what he says Yip Man taught him. Some else here says that they learned it from Moy Yat. My Sifu says he learned it from Yip Man. Sum Nung (sp)? of the YSKWC is reported to have used it as well. So anyone that says it isn't part of WC must know something that the other sifus don't know or maybe they simply don't know all that WC has to offer. Also, you don't have to be on the side/flank to be on the blindside ;)
Phil

[sihing]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
First of all I'd like to say that the clip I sent to a few people here has Sifu Chan Chee Man demonstrating what he says Yip Man taught him. Some else here says that they learned it from Moy Yat. My Sifu says he learned it from Yip Man. Sum Nung (sp)? of the YSKWC is reported to have used it as well. So anyone that says it isn't part of WC must know something that the other sifus don't know or maybe they simply don't know all that WC has to offer. Also, you don't have to be on the side/flank to be on the blindside ;)
Phil

Yes, agreed. Basically Blindside Fighting to me means "Not dealing with two arms". Whether flanking him or taking advantage of a situation where he is twisted and you trap/control the elbow and make it hard to come back to the original position.

Some on this forum think this is too inefficient. Well it may take more footwork or time but the prize is superior position. Any time you go down the middle and stay in range of the two primary weapons, the hands/arms, you’re at risk. This strategy allows us to travel safely through "troubled waters" and apply our movements and techniques more effectively. At times this is not possible but it is a part of the repertoire and there for those that know it.

James

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by sihing
Yes, agreed. Basically Blindside Fighting to me means "Not dealing with two arms". Whether flanking him or taking advantage of a situation where he is twisted and you trap/control the elbow and make it hard to come back to the original position.

Some on this forum think this is too inefficient. Well it may take more footwork or time but the prize is superior position. Any time you go down the middle and stay in range of the two primary weapons, the hands/arms, you’re at risk. This strategy allows us to travel safely through "troubled waters" and apply our movements and techniques more effectively. At times this is not possible but it is a part of the repertoire and there for those that know it.

James
I can see fighting down the middle if you are a bigger and stronger than your opponent. I never said it was wrong. But a smaller person shouldn't be in the middle of a larger opponent. Too many things can happen. Why would a smaller person want to fight against two limbs of a stronger person? You could get picked up and slammed to the deck for one thing.
For those that say it can't be done well, I see it done all the time against uncooperating opponents. Of course you must train and have good footwork to do it. Any skill requires specific training. We train to use the blind side so we're able to apply it. If you don't train that way you won't appreciate it.
All I can say is that I know what works for me and my students.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Here's one of many ways.
http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/cs_lop_counter_fw.mpg
Phil

Thanks Phil. We do that as one of our movements as well. We do have lots of ways as well. Probably I was thinking of the case of the Ba Gua guys trying to circle around to our backs. That's not easy for them to pull off. In Hung style they 60 degree angle sidestep such that three steps would take you back to your original position. It's nice when you post clips to illustrate your points. Ernie and Jason are also doing some of that and that's great. I still need to buy a camera. They say a picture is worth a thousand words but it takes 10 times the memory on a computer to store a picture vs the words.

Ray

[sihing]

Phil,
What works for the small guy works for everybody. What works for the Big guy, works for BIG GUYS, lol. Sounds like the Chan Wah Shun vs. Leung Bik story. Chan's WC worked so well for him because of his size(apparently, he was a big Chinese Man). I'd rather learn to fight from a small person that knew how to fight than a big person, because they rely to much on their natural attributes.

James

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
I can see fighting down the middle if you are a bigger and stronger than your opponent. I never said it was wrong. But a smaller person shouldn't be in the middle of a larger opponent. Too many things can happen. Why would a smaller person want to fight against two limbs of a stronger person?

I asked Remy Presas about this one year in regards to stick combat because one very good teacher here always does the flanking thing too. Remy said essentially the same thing that a smaller opponent will usually have to do that.

Ray

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

How are you cutting off the path when your first movement is too flank or too run to the outside, it’s putting you on the defensive. The wing Chun that I know of always fight from the bridge, if it’s on a angle or straight in, if the bridge contact is there first (attacking the attack), putting you in the offensive position, this way it would be hard for your opponent too move his feet (chum), a lot of small people or master fight this way. If you are able too take control of the bridge or lines first, rather then stepping away setting yourself up for more kicks and more strikes, letting your opponent have time too move his feet. Making large movements before bridge contact, you would not gain the best position that way, if your opponent only moves his feet.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Edmund

You don't run around the opponent. That does not create the timing you need. It's a completely different idea to military manoeuvres. It's only one-on-one. You aren't going to be able to surround them.

Of course you are not surrounding the opponent, I’m talking time differential for an attack. to me flanking is the longest route for home.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Wingman]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
I can see fighting down the middle if you are a bigger and stronger than your opponent. I never said it was wrong. But a smaller person shouldn't be in the middle of a larger opponent. Too many things can happen. Why would a smaller person want to fight against two limbs of a stronger person? You could get picked up and slammed to the deck for one thing.
For those that say it can't be done well, I see it done all the time against uncooperating opponents. Of course you must train and have good footwork to do it. Any skill requires specific training. We train to use the blind side so we're able to apply it. If you don't train that way you won't appreciate it.
All I can say is that I know what works for me and my students.

Hypothetical question: If a TWC practitioner is bigger & stronger than his opponent, will he still prefer to fight in the blindside rather than fighting down the centerline?

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by sihing
Now one of the advantages of the WC punching motion is that is allows us to execute anywhere from 5 to 8 punches in a second right. In my opinion, that is one of the DISADVANTAGES of WC. Throwing that many punches that quickly comes at the expense of power. When you are punching five to eight times in a second, you end up with flicky stikes that don't do much damage unless you are significantly larger than your opponent.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

You are 100% right. Only punch that way when you have control of the bridge. that way you get more power from the floor.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwincghun.com)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
In my opinion, that is one of the DISADVANTAGES of WC. Throwing that many punches that quickly comes at the expense of power. When you are punching five to eight times in a second, you end up with flicky stikes that don't do much damage unless you are significantly larger than your opponent.

i agree and have tested that concept many times just walked right through a flurry of punches , if you know they can't hurt you [ fear of the blitz and you back up and cover ] thenall they do is sting for a second

if you can't explode from the elbow/hip / knee then you really don't have much of a punch

the faster you go the less time you have to build intent like a sign wave your always peaking on the top no depth

now i have felt people create good forward pressure with a athletic blast as a make the guy back up and turn tool

2 or 3 explosive connected shots will give you a better chance to knock some out

8 shots in second is doing nothing but a flashy demo ;)

[Vajramusti]

Originally posted by sihing
Now one of the advantages of the WC punching motion is that is allows us to execute anywhere from 5 to 8 punches in a second right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, that is one of the DISADVANTAGES of WC. Throwing that many punches that quickly comes at the expense of power. When you are punching five to eight times in a second, you end up with flicky stikes that don't do much damage unless you are significantly larger than your opponent. Knifefighter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and wrong.

Depends on what kind of wing chun and whose winchun.
I do not know or do sihing;s wing chun. A factual statement not a critical one.
Whether the(each)wing chun punch is properly developed and whther the wing chun type of whole body coordination is there
is the key.

A good machine gun does not shoot "flicky" bullets.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Wingman
Hypothetical question: If a TWC practitioner is bigger & stronger than his opponent, will he still prefer to fight in the blindside rather than fighting down the centerline?
Good question. It would depend on the mentality of the person.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

When fighting from the blind side and if your opponent is faster then you, then there is no way that you can flank him, without him keeping good defensive structure, because his feet is faster then yours. If your opponents is at the same level of understanding, and you both are fighting for the outside, then it would be madness because they both, would just be hopping around, one guy runs in while the other guy runs away. Since the other guy is running and the opponent is a fighter and thinker like the first one, he would do the same. Nobody wants too take a hit (because they do not understand inside fighting) and nobody wants too hit right away. This looks like two grown men playing “Pat De Cake”. If you are not on the same thinking level, but have the same speed, by you stepping back and away from the initiating warning of intent, can set your opponent up for his next move which can turn into a tussling match real quick, that’s why you see so many wing chun guys going down, because fighting that way gives your opponent room too move.
If you are faster then your opponent, then the outside is where you want too be. If he move slow like the “Mummy” then it will work every time (outside fighting).

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
In my opinion, that is one of the DISADVANTAGES of WC. Knifefighter,
I agree that it can be a disadvantage. However, this is not, IME, a characteristic of all Wing Chun. We are more concerned with clean and solid strikes as opposed to the rapid fire approach.

I see it as a question of quality versus quantity. Not that they are mutually exclusive characteristics. The problem is when you trade of quality strikes for speed.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
A good machine gun does not shoot "flicky" bullets. Bad analogy.Human physiology/anatomy is not a machine gun. As any student of exercise science will tell you, punching five to eight times in a second significantly decreases a person's power production and delivery.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
You are 100% right. Only punch that way when you have control of the bridge. that way you get more power for the floor.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwincghun.com)
Whoa...I agree with you. (You did mean "from" the floor right?)
PR

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

If you’re in a snowball fight and when you see the snowball coming from a distance, some try ducking it or running out of the way. When all they have too do is stand there and catch it, and throw it back at them.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

I think that the machine gun analogy is interesting. Like all analogies, we can find flaws in it, but it is useful to a degree.

Have you ever noticed that marksmen tend not use a machine gun? Why? Because relative to a high power rifle, a machine gun is "flicky". Machine guns are used to spray an area with rounds, often in close quarters such as house to house fighting. they tend not to be used when precision and accuracy is desired.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The machine gun analogy has definitely been overworked - and Ernie's comments are much more realistic - two or three heavy "machine gun" shots is about all that can be thrown with any real authority...and only AFTER an opening has been made....to just try and walk/blast your way in with the "machine gun" 8 bullets-per-second yadda yadda routine just doesn't cut it at all.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The machine gun analogy has definitely been overworked Hey, at least we're out of the swimming pool. ;)

Just in case my previous post was not clear. I'm in the 2 or 3 solid shots camp as oppossed to 8 rapid-fire shoots.

[sihing]

I use the machine gun analogy all the time to new students. The idea in the beginning IMO is to not hit the person once hard with all you got, but to overwhelm them with many attacks in a short period of time. Over time the power of each punch will increase and less will be more, if you know what I mean. Plus applying this occupies the opponent’s time and thoughts and puts them in a reactionary mode. Of course like everything and anything in MA there is a counter to it, the question is can you apply the counter and make it work? Sometimes easier said than done.

As for walking through the "flurry", I wouldn't recommend it but I have also done this against those that really don't punch correctly. I find that the new practitioners start to shorten their punches too much when the sh!t starts to hit the fan, virtually making them 3" punches, trying to get more off per second. When this happens there is little power in any of the punches, so I agree when this is the case, but this is not always the case, at least not with the skilled practitioners that I know. Plus as the "flurry" is on and an obstruction is met, then what do you think happens then? Chi-Sao reflexes take over and the appropriate movement is applied, you just don't keep on punching. An obstruction in this case can be anything, an arm, head, and shoulder, whatever.

Most of us here on this forum, with any amount of good quality WC training behind us don't need 5 or 8 punches in a second to apply a knock out, as we have experience with it and can generate good power with one or two punches from short range. Those with less experience will need more punches to create the same affect. But isn't it nice to know that if more punches were needed that the tools are there to deliver them, all with relatively the same power release. I'd rather have the ability to be able to hit someone that many times in a second with good power in each and not have to(meaning the first couple did the job), than not have the ability(the first couple didn't do the job) and need to have the ability.

James

[sihing]

Originally posted by Wingman
Hypothetical question: If a TWC practitioner is bigger & stronger than his opponent, will he still prefer to fight in the blindside rather than fighting down the centerline?

Good question. My Sifu has such a strong bridge that when someone tries to trap it or move it he doesn't need to apply the same amount of footwork as say myself for example, but he does know the footwork and/or proper response. I'm bigger than most in the class, but definitely not the biggest, and I apply it to everyone when it's needed. Over time you learn when to use and when not to use it. So in other words it's better to have the skill and choose when to use it, than to not have the skill at all.

The impression I'm getting from some of the nay sayers on this forum is that the Blindside strategy is inefficient movement and takes more time, which is anti-WC. Well it's not like I'm going to try this on someone from 4' away and start flanking them from there. Once bridge contact is made, or that area has been reached without contact I may or may not use the method. IMO the best place to be on a opponent is not down the centerline, in front of their two fists, but on either side behind the elbow but not in range for either cross/hook or spinning backfist to land easily. Plus if I decide to use it, it will be subtle and done while my attacking motion is on, it's not like your just standing there moving to the side doing nothing.


James

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
When fighting from the blind side and if your opponent is faster then you, then there is no way that you can flank him, without him keeping good defensive structure, because his feet is faster then yours. If your opponents is at the same level of understanding, and you both are fighting for the outside, then it would be madness because they both, would just be hopping around, one guy runs in while the other guy runs away. Since the other guy is running and the opponent is a fighter and thinker like the first one, he would do the same. Nobody wants too take a hit (because they do not understand inside fighting) and nobody wants too hit right away. This looks like two grown men playing “Pat De Cake”. If you are not on the same thinking level, but have the same speed, by you stepping back and away from the initiating warning of intent, can set your opponent up for his next move which can turn into a tussling match real quick, that’s why you see so many wing chun guys going down, because fighting that way gives your opponent room too move.
If you are faster then your opponent, then the outside is where you want too be. If he move slow like the “Mummy” then it will work every time (outside fighting).

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

Flanking or fighting form the blind side was a concept taught by Yip Man, Sum Nung and I was told that it's used in Koo Loo as well. So is it or is it not a WC concept? Also when stepping back or away from your opponent you have to attack as well so as not to give a rushing opponent any means of retaliation.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
....if your opponent is faster then you, then there is no way that you can flank him, without him keeping good defensive structure, because his feet is faster then yours.

If your opponents is at the same level of understanding, and you both are fighting for the outside, then it would be madness because they both, would just be hopping around, one guy runs in while the other guy runs away.....[/URL]


Very True. No easy way out.

I think Blind side is great but one always has to be able to sustain the frontal...

just some thougths

[Matrix]

So, are you saying it is better to sustain a frontal attack from a stronger opponent, than attempt to move to one side of the other?

I do not agree that "one always has to be able to sustain the frontal..." What is the point of that? You need to change the situation. Move, do something. Sustaining an onslaught has a clear outcome, and it is not in your favour.

Thus I have heard.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Flanking or fighting form the blind side was a concept taught by Yip Man, Sum Nung and I was told that it's used in Koo Loo as well. So is it or is it not a WC concept? Also when stepping back or away from your opponent you have to attack as well so as not to give a rushing opponent any means of retaliation.


As it was said in general , if you can over power him go frontal, if you cant over power him go side.

I agree about attack as well so as not to give a rushing opponent any means of realiation.


What I see is before one moves side or outside one has to be able to sustain the frontal attack or atleast not let the others know one will go side/outside. and that is difficult with same level of skill opponent and can be a kiss of death when the higher level of skill opponent read one is going to side because one cant sustain the frontal. Such as when one is facing a grapper who is going to rush in frontal. ..

Just some thoughts.

[Phil Redmond]

It's an aquired skill that has to be honed like any other. Some times you fight down the middle. Some times you need to flank. There are many X factors in combat. Flanking is not running away from a fight as was implied by Rahim. I've NEVER run from a fight. In all of my "street fights" I've taken the fight to the opponent.
It's simply a strategy (sp)? that can be used if needed.
Phil

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Matrix
1, So, are you saying it is better to sustain a frontal attack from a stronger opponent, than attempt to move to one side of the other?

2, I do not agree that "one always has to be able to sustain the frontal..." What is the point of that? You need to change the situation. Move, do something. Sustaining an onslaught has a clearly outcome, and it is not in your favour.

Thus I have heard.


1, nope.
but one has to be sure the stronger opponent knows he is not going to get away easy for a frontal attack. otherwise, one becomes a prey.


2, the meaning of frontal sustaining is, you can get me from frontal but it is going to cost you too. so when one switch side one doesnt walk into trap. because in lots of case, one who was going side is not leading the game but being force side after the frontal is crash. and that is bad. IMHO.


just some thoughts

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
1, nope.
but one has to be sure the stronger opponent knows he is not going to get away easy for a frontal attack. otherwise, one becomes a prey.


2, the meaning of frontal sustaining is, you can get me from frontal but it is going to cost you too. so when one switch side one doesnt walk into trap.


just some thoughts
Like I said before you can "aquire" the blind side from a frontal aggressive position.
Phil

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Like I said before you can "aquire" the blind side from a frontal aggressive position.
Phil

agree.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Some times you need to flank. There are many X factors in combat. Flanking is not running away from a fight as was implied by Rahim. Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade? If only they had not charged head on into the mouths of the cannons.

I absolutely agree with Phil.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
1, nope.
but one has to be sure the stronger opponent knows he is not going to get away easy for a frontal attack. otherwise, one becomes a prey. Getting away easy from the frontal attack? Sorry, blind siding is not letting someone off easy.



the meaning of frontal sustaining is, you can get me from frontal but it is going to cost you too. so when one switch side one doesnt walk into trap. because in lots of case, one who was going side is not leading the game but being force side after the frontal is crash. and that is bad. IMHO. I guess that depends on how long you plan to sustain. Timing is everything. If you use the generalisations, I suspect that you should expect generalized results.

[YongChun]

I know it's not easy to outflank a dog that is trying to attack from the front. On the other hand, animals do seem to try to outflank each other. So it depends on relative skills I suspect.

Ray

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Hypothetical question: If a TWC practitioner is bigger & stronger than his opponent, will he still prefer to fight in the blindside rather than fighting down the centerline? "


Regardless of what his size - a TWC fighter always "prefers" to fight on the blindside - because of the built in structural advantage of isolating two arms vs. one of his arms...

but that doesn't mean that the blindside is always available.

If the situation requires fighting in the middle - then that's where you have to work from - regardless of your size.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Matrix
Sorry, blind siding is not letting someone off easy.


what do you mean? how do you do it?

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by YongChun
I know it's not easy to outflank a dog that is trying to attack from the front. On the other hand, animals do seem to try to outflank each other. So it depends on relative skills I suspect.

Ray


yup.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
what do you mean? how do you do it? Hendrik,
I believe that you already know what I mean, but I'll answer never the less.
When you move sideways (and it does not have to be strictly sideways), you must maintain forward energy while doing so. If you pull off, you allow the opponent to advance. When you blind-side you are changing the line of attack, not relinquishing it. You are continuing to press forward, but at a different angle.

Therefore, you are not letting them off, just changing the dynamic to your advantage.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Matrix
Hendrik,
I believe that you already know what I mean, but I'll answer never the less.
When you move sideways (and it does not have to be strictly sideways), you must maintain forward energy while doing so. If you pull off, you allow the opponent to advance. When you blind-side you are changing the line of attack, not relinquishing it. You are continuing to press forward, but at a different angle.

Therefore, you are not letting them off, just changing the dynamic to your advantage.
Yup, what Matrix said ;)
Phil

[Matrix]

Hey Phil,

I think you show that in your clip, earlier in the thread.
Not that you need any kudos from me. :D

[Tydive]

One of the problems that I have with flanking moves is correctly predicting where the target will be after I move... I know in theory where to go and how to get there, but moving into space that is already occupied (but won't be when you get there) is fairly difficult to do in real time. So what often happens is I end up chasing the person rather than cutting into their center. It's not just about good footwork.

What works best for me is when I flank as the person is committed to attacking or moving forward. I have also been able to flank after attacking but only when I manage to take the person out of center or shock them into immobility. Where it fails is if you don't set it up somehow, as Ali pointed out this is a longer attack and takes preperation.

Does anybody on this forum believe that attacking from a flank/blindspot is a bad thing? IMHO avoiding getting hit is a good thing, independant of your size.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

When using your wing chun you should never just run in the front door with all guns blazing, you use subtle forward energy bridging the gap, or an mon sao entry (asking hands). You just don’t run down the pike, then you would be the bull and he would be the matador. And if he steps away, then you switch the mon sao to the other hand adjusting the fighting line, this is when your don chi sao should be helping and working for you. When making bridge contact you should always try to keep with his backwards momentum (follow what goes), too jam the gap, and keeping him for having a secondary attack or momentum. By you asking and jamming the bridge, this will hurt his backwards momentum or footwork and will frustrate.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwinghcun.com)

[Matrix]

Ty,

You should not need to predict where they will be, you have a bridge with forward intent that allows to to track them. If you haven't bridged yet, then it can be trickier, but your tag line says it perfectly. Timing is everything.

And yes, it works really well when the opponent is committed to the forward attack. I like that scenario. :)

As for avoiding getting hit, while you certainly don't want to get hit, it may happen. I try to avoid worrying about that per se and think more on taking dominant position in the exchange. To the degree you worry about being hit, it will detract from the effectiveness of your strategy.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Only fools rush in.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Tydive]

Bill,

I hear you and agree. If anything I pay too little attention to getting hit, I see all attacks as openings and tend to counter attack rather than block, I also tend to jam attacks rather than move around them. What I do is not wing chun no matter how you look at it... but once I start training that should change. (Still in theory mode as I recover from a broken back).

Ali/Bill,

Bridges go both ways. When I am in physical contact with the opponent I try to crate pressures that take him out of center and redirect force once the opening is there, then I attack. The people that give me problems have better footwork and center than I do... which is what makes it fun. I have not done Chi Sau yet.

[Matrix]

Ali,

I agree. Only fools rush in. I like the Matador/Bull analogy. :)

My comments are specific to the blind-side concept. As we often say when someone asks a question about a specific technique, "It depends". Like everything else, it must be put in the proper context.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Tydive
I see all attacks as openings and tend to counter attack rather than block, I also tend to jam attacks rather than move around them. Now that's another matter. I often seen guys try to force their way into what looks like an opening. It's a recipe for disaster, IMO. Like you said, I think your training will make that key distinction very clear to you.


Bridges go both ways. When I am in physical contact with the opponent I try to crate pressures that take him out of center and redirect force once the opening is there, then I attack. The people that give me problems have better footwork and center than I do... which is what makes it fun. I have not done Chi Sau yet. Of course bridges go both ways, but not all bridges lead to success. If you try too hard to create pressure, that will work against you when dealing with an experienced opponent.

And yes, the footwork is vital. this is the understatement of the century

I can see that you've done some very interesting thinking for someone who hasn't done chi sao yet. I think you're going to do very well indeed. :cool:

BTW, take care of that broken back. That's gotta hurt!

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Matrix
Hendrik,
I believe that you already know what I mean, but I'll answer never the less.
When you move sideways (and it does not have to be strictly sideways), you must maintain forward energy while doing so. If you pull off, you allow the opponent to advance. When you blind-side you are changing the line of attack, not relinquishing it. You are continuing to press forward, but at a different angle.

Therefore, you are not letting them off, just changing the dynamic to your advantage.

Hi Matrix,

Actually I dont and not sure. There are lots of different ways and I dont want to guess. Thats why I ask.

Thanks and appreciated

[Matrix]

Hendrik,

OK, sorry to accuse you of anything.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Matrix
Hendrik,

OK, sorry to accuse you of anything.


No problem. just normal usual communication stuffs mis-understanding.


I was thinking in the line of before engaging or contact.. so as you said, lots of stuffs are generalized... so I am trying to understand.

[Simon]

I think the blindside concept (like anything) is something you have to experiment with and decide when and how it can work for you.

interestingly - last time I was training at GM William Cheungs Melbourne school, two older students (both 60 years plus) kept pummeling me down the centre as I searched for the blindside. The central line must still be in your control while you aim for it!! :D

I think also (Phil, Victor could correct me with their MANY more years of TWC experience) that the blindside is more of a pre-contact concept rather than once you have a bridge, though any commited attack can give you the blindside once contact is made (though evasive techniques)

[sihing]

The hardest people to apply this Blindside Concept to are people that know the concept also. When you have two relatively equally skilled exponents of this concept and others of the TWC method, then and only then will the attributes of superior speed and strength become more valuable to the practitioner, IMO. In my mind when a junior student to me transcends to a high level of skill in the WC art then he becomes somewhat of my equal in how the art will be expressed, regardless of how much more experience and knowledge I have of the system than he/she, so then it will come down to what I have superior to him/her, and in my case it will probably come down to my individual speed and explosiveness that will give me an advantage in applying any WC movement effectively against them.

James

[kj]

Good thread on this topic.

FWIW, though our strategy is quite different, we also don't mind taking the blindside. It's more a matter of accepting it when offered rather than striving for it.


Originally posted by sihing
... in my case it will probably come down to my individual speed and explosiveness that will give me an advantage in applying any WC movement effectively against them.

Understood.

Another FWIW. A fundamental premise that we hold in training is that we are (or likely will be) the more physically disadvantaged party. Often enough, that's true ... at least in my case!! ;) This premise is reflected in our training paradigm, and in contrast one reason we don't strive for (but willingly accept) taking the blindside.

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages; we all pick our poisons.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm beginning to think that the TWC definition of the blindside - and the blindside strategy - may be different than what some non-TWC people around here think it is.

Consider what Simon wrote:

"I think also (Phil, Victor could correct me with their MANY more years of TWC experience) that the blindside is more of a pre-contact concept rather than once you have a bridge, though any commited attack can give you the blindside once contact is made (though evasive techniques)..."

The pre-contact TWC blindside strategy is to line up parallel leg with the opponent...as I've said before - if he has a lead left leg - I go with a lead right leg - that will move slightly to the outside of his left leg during the engagement - therefore setting up the possibility (and strategy) of passing his lead left leg - putting me on his left flank - and using hand techniques that might result in both of my arms/hands on the outside of his lead left arm - then the 2-on-1 blindside advantage I've been describing is clearly obvious...but if I wind with my right arm on the inside of his left arm - while seemingly meaning that I'm now fighting in the middle - I could still attain a blindside advantage by controlling his left arm (particularly at his elbow) and unbalancing him and moving up very close to him (but on his left side)...and then face my centerline toward where his other (right) shoulder is - at this point I have a different kind of 2-on-1 advantage (my two hands vs. his left) - but because of the unbalancing controls that hand is really not a threat - I'm punching/trapping with both hands - while monitoring his right hand - which is somewhat out of play because I'm so far up on the other side of his body. (It's the unbalancing pressure on his left side that helps keep his right hand put of play - because it's harder for him to turn and face me under this pressure - and becasue I constantly move toward his flank as he tries to turn and face...but always being VERY CLOSE to him and attacking with strikes).

Now this is the classic TWC blindside "position" (meaning...PARALLEL leg) - but there are other possibilities of attaining the 2-on-1 blindside position - including starting from the other leg-to-leg position...CROSS leg - (ie. my lead left leg goes to the inside of his lead left leg).

But the idea that this is basically a long range strategy is simply not true: on the contrary, it is meant to come in very close to the opponent but with the idea of trying to manipulate the situation to a 2-on-1 arm advantage....

UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF ENDING THE FIGHT FIRST!

That's the other point I've been trying to make...TWC is not just about getting to the blindside - sometimes fighting right down the middle is simply the way to go - because the opening is there to take advantage of....or because at that moment there's simply no other place to be.

It's like a BJJ fighter - he would prefer to take the opponent's back - or perhaps the top mount position...because these are the "best" positions - but a good BJJ fighter knows that he has to take what's in front of him - if there's an opportunity to gain an advantage and/or do some damage from a different position - then he goes with that.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun




That's the other point I've been trying to make....is not just about getting to the blindside - sometimes fighting right down the middle is simply the way to go - because the opening is there to take advantage of....or because at that moment there's simply no other place to be.

It's like a BJJ fighter - he would prefer to take the opponent's back - or perhaps the top mount position...because these are the "best" positions -


but a good BJJ fighter knows that he has to take what's in front of him -


if there's an opportunity to gain an advantage and/or do some damage from a different position - then he goes with that.


Great post!

Agree.

as it said, one shouldnt give up or lost even one inch of ground at frontal.

[couch]

On no...6 pages later..look what you started Phil! :) Good thread.

Just my 2 cents on stronger opponents vs. the blindside. Because of Chi Sao, I believe that you would have an advantage over the big/powerful/strong opponent no matter your size of condition. Because of the subtle energies you have trained to learn and love, you are in control of the fight. If the energies are pushing towards you...disperse them or send them down...to the left, help them to the left, etc.

Someone said that the TWC blindside theory only/usually happens when you are non-contact (I know about lining up the lead legs, etc.)...but all fights start non-contact and the Chum Kiu teaches to create a bridge.

Why do we create a bridge? Because feeling is believing! Laf.

Wing Chun (for me) is designed to protect your centreline and to force the centreline of your opponent away from yours allowing you to have the advantage. Even just the slightest change of the opponents centreline gives you the advantage. Now the blind side is where the opponents centreline is quite a bit away from yours....

and of course, I'll attack anyone's Yang any day. :) In it to win it.

Take Care,
Couch

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Simon
. . . . I think also (Phil, Victor could correct me with their MANY more years of TWC experience) that the blindside is more of a pre-contact concept rather than once you have a bridge, though any commited attack can give you the blindside once contact is made (though evasive techniques)
The blindside is usually aquired during the contact stage, not the pre-contact stage. You usually don't know where you opponent is going until you make a bridge. If your sensitivity traing is up to par you can then get control of the blindside whetehr you are flanking or not.
Phil

[YongChun]

In the non-traditional WC as defined by the TWC, there is blindside attacking everywhere. In the 108 dummy, everywhere there is going to the blind side to control both arms from one side. In Chi sau, Pak sau, Lap sau, use of the elbow, Bil sau etc. all create a flanking position. In training much of the time is spent on center to center fighting in case you cannot get to the flank side. This way of fighting is more difficult and so more time is spent there. I am talking about a previous version of Wing Chun I learned in the Wang Kiu system. TWC talks about controlling one arm with two but Wang Kiu Wing Chun always talked about the opposite which was to control two arms with one. So they welcomed people trying to control one arm with two.

I noticed in Western boxing flanking is difficult, they have cutting off the ring. I also have seen Tyson do some good wide hook knockouts to people trying to flank.

I think to flank or not to flank is just a strategy to be used at the right time. If you can flank do it, it's better because you have more weapons facing the opponent. If you can't, well, who cares because you are very comfortable with center to center fighting too.

Maybe, for flankers their weakness is center to center fighting because they spend less time doing it. For center to center fighters,maybe their weakness is fighting from the flank, because they spend less time doing it. For 50/50 flankers/center to center fighters their weakness is both because they spend less time on flanking than the flankers and less time on center to center fighting than those kind of fighters.

But anyway for the center to center fighters their dummy forms have a lot of flanking. The structure of the dummy form in TWC and regular WC is not that different.

Ray

[Vajramusti]

Blind side is a twc preoccupation and lingo. For a good non twc person can use any side when needed -& not be a slave to dogma.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Blind side is a twc preoccupation and lingo. For a good non twc person can use any side when needed -& not be a slave to dogma." (Joy)


WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.

I'd be willing to bet that Joy...(given his track record and recent admission that he doesn't bother watching video of other systems)...has never seen ANY of what I've been describing as the TWC blindside strategy....and has never done the moves either.

As usual - without any clue of what he speaks - he gives us the basic (in so many words)..."If it's not part of what I learned 20-30 years ago it's not worth bothering about".

Or to put that another way: "Good wing chun doesn't need the TWC blindside."

dinosaur.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Blind side is a twc preoccupation and lingo. For a good non twc person can use any side when needed -& not be a slave to dogma.
Joy, I will never be a slave to any dogma or a blind follower of any thing. It's not in my nature. Ok, let's use the term flanking, fighting from the outside. Does that work for you? It doesn't matter to me what coined phrase is used. It's up to the individual to chose what works best for them. What can I tell you? Most of my fights were won on the blindside. Remember this, I'm a martial artist, not simply a TWC man. I advocate what works, period.
Phil

[Ultimatewingchun]

"In the non-traditional WC as defined by the TWC, there is blindside attacking everywhere. In the 108 dummy, everywhere there is going to the blind side to control both arms from one side. In Chi sau, Pak sau, Lap sau, use of the elbow, Bil sau etc. all create a flanking position..."

This is all true, Ray.

But it's the full sidestep footwork, the foot placement rules of engagement, and the facing of the centerline to square up parallel to the shoulders of the opponent - and oftentimes to directly face the centerline to the strike (not the opponent's body)...that makes TWC's approach to the blindside different than most other WC systems.

[Vajramusti]

Victor sez:

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.
((You are so full of it- your detection system is gummed up))

dinosaur.
((When ability to discuss fails- name calling shows up.Poor choice of logic)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil sez:
Ok, let's use the term flanking, fighting from the outside.
((Sure it can BUT outside/ inside -either one depending on the realities of the situation)

Also-Phil-
(As Ray pointed out you are always facing the jong in training.
The jong gives you practice on half a circle- 180 degrees. Practicing that and going round and round really teaches you control for a full circle and there are attacks and defenses every where.
Lots of folks including some of the first generation did not learn learn the full flow of the dummy motions-it shows. The dummy has very effective coordinated footwork for each angle.

If you are comfortable with what you do that is great. But we should be able to discuss things without resorting to name calling.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Please note that the main thrust of what I wrote....


"I'd be willing to bet that Joy...(given his track record and recent admission that he doesn't bother watching video of other systems)...has never seen ANY of what I've been describing as the TWC blindside strategy....and has never done the moves either.

As usual - without any clue of what he speaks - he gives us the basic (in so many words)..."If it's not part of what I learned 20-30 years ago it's not worth bothering about".

Or to put that another way: "Good wing chun doesn't need the TWC blindside".....


DIDN'T GET ADDRESSED IN JOY'S REBUTTAL.

Enough said.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Great post!

Agree.

as it said, one shouldnt give up or lost even one inch of ground at frontal.


But that's what you're doing when you're working the blind side.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingcun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Phil Redmond

The blindside is usually aquired during the contact stage, not the pre-contact stage. You usually don't know where you opponent is going until you make a bridge. If your sensitivity traing is up to par you can then get control of the blindside whetehr you are flanking or not.
Phil


If the blind side were controlled at contact stage, wouldn’t it be true too say that the big movement’s in the pre-contact stage is a waste of time, for what you’re saying, you want know anything until bridge contact is made, so why slow down your progress by stepping away, and letting him have time too move his feet?

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[sihing]

What Big movements in the pre-contact stage? And before contact is made things will be known as the elbows/knees will be feeding visual cues as to the opponents intentions in the pre-contact stage.

James

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Anytime you step back before stepping in and making a defensive move before making offensive move those movements, why not attack the attack, what ever happen to simultaneous strike and block “da”, wing chun’s timing and time management. Wing chun has always been known to get there first far as combat concern. If things will be known from visual cues why step away?

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[wing nut]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Anytime you step back before stepping in and making a defensive move before making offensive move those movements, why not attack the attack, what ever happen to simultaneous strike and block “da”, wing chun’s timing and time management. Wing chun was always has known to get there first far as combat concern. If things will be known from visual cues why step away?

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
There is no stepping away or back. If you side step, you will still be close enough for connecting with your simultaneous counter attack.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"One shouldnt give up or lost even one inch of ground at frontal...
but that's what you're doing when you're working the blind side."
(Ali)

NOT TRUE. YOU'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY GROUND WHEN COMING FROM THE BLINDSIDE.

You're just coming from a slightly different angle.

But why do I have to keep repeating all of this to you?

Is it because you just don't get it? Or because you just DON'T WANT to get it?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

From the demo’s that I seen they step back and away, would you like too see the videos yourself? They only attack after they done a defensive move first, so where's the “da”.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwinghcun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

You're just coming from a slightly different angle.

So what ever happen too the flank. not just a slightly diffferent angle. but one big move.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[wing nut]

what demo are you refering to?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"From the demo’s that I seen they step back and away..."

THEN YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ENOUGH TWC.

[wing nut]

Who ever said a flank has to be one big move?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

all of Redmonds demo videos.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

No one said it, IT’S A FACT, and the vectors speaks for themselves.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I think I have seen enough, Redmond is a “Master”. so I would listen too him before you.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[wing nut]

If you watch Redmonds left foot, you will notice that it doesn't move(other than angle) when his right foot moves back. This way he keeps his contact and creates an angle to the outside.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Still when the foot moves back and someone fills that gap by keeping his feet moving and maintaining the bridge, then the one that moved his foot back instead of forward or standing his ground will have too adjusted his balance and bridge, and from all that mess, still have too find a line before attacking, by then your opponent defensive structure will be strong, that's if he keeps his feet moving.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Good wing chun tries too never step back, if you step back, a guy who knows what he is doing, will never let you have the forward momentum again. That’s bottom and top triangles.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
one shouldnt give up or lost even one inch of ground at frontal.

But that's what you're doing when you're working the blind side.
Ali,
While there is a danger of giving up ground while blind-siding. It can be executed so that does not have to be the case. In fact, it should not be the case.

Also, we need to be clear about the distinction between giving up "ground" and forward intent to control the centerline. When the angle changes, the relative direction of what is forward changes. In otherwords, are you really concerned about holding a specific piece of real estate, or are you concerned about dominating the centerline?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Hey Matrix.

Concerned about holding a certain ground, because if I step back that gives my opponent time too gain the forward momentum taking my balance or slowing down my progress to adjust my offensive structure, and if that happens I would have too use a defensive move. I want too be the first one too control the bridge and the only way too do that with any true power is too maintain your balance stand your ground and dig in. To your opponent it will feel like he is caught in a spider web because it will be harder for him too move his feet (chum).

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Sorry Ali,
That's not what I meant. I guess I'm not being clear enough.
I agree that we do not want to give up position. What I'm trying to say is that as you step to one "side" or another, the centerline changes as well. That piece of ground that I was standing on before is no longer relavent. If my opponent continues to move into that old space, I don't care so much. I'm not there any longer and the dynamics of positioning have changed.

Also, not only do I need to maintain my balance, I want to take balance away from my opponent.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

If your opponent moves, why go too where he was, or use too be? That’s the bull and the matador again. If your opponent moves, you adjust your movements off his bridge or bridge contact, that’s why it is wise too get control of the bridge first, stay with what comes and follow what goes. Ps. You always need your balance too take someone else balance.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
If your opponent moves, why go too where he was, or use too be?
Sorry Ali,

Once again I seem to failing to make my point clear. I'm not suggesting that we move to where the opponent used to be. No sense in that....


You always need your balance too take someone else balance. No doubt about it. That's why I said "not only do I need to maintain my own balance,...."

Oh well, time to call it a day. :)

Peace,

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

A lot of people may not understand where I’m coming from with all of my posts. Here it is in a nutshell, your best defenses is a good offenses. So why step away, putting you on the defensives end?

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[couch]

Hey Ali brother...

Maybe I can explain it with a train analogy to help you visualize what they are all talking about?

If you are standing on some train tracks facing the train and the train comes to you, imagine that you take a step to the left. Not forward left, or backwards left...just left off of the tracks. Now the train's light(it's centreline) will be facing in the direction of the tracks and you will come back in maybe at an angle. Now your centreline faces the train's centreline and the train's centreline is facing another direction but yours.

It's just another way of getting the centre's to line up in your favor. I totally understand where you're coming from as I enjoy fighting down the centre myself. I receive what comes and follow what goes while my centreline faces my opponents centreline (almost) at all times.

Good day,
Couch

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I like that post; but you did say step to the right or the other side you still have too adjust your balance and bridge too find a fighting line, it’s fine too step but only during bridge contact, that way your opponent can’t guide you straight too h*ll. By stepping too the sides you would have too adjust your bridge, try pivoting before stepping, that way you get bridge contact a lot sooner.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Anytime you step back before stepping in and making a defensive move before making offensive move those movements, why not attack the attack, what ever happen to simultaneous strike and block “da”, wing chun’s timing and time management. Wing chun has always been known to get there first far as combat concern. If things will be known from visual cues why step away?

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
Redirection.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Here is a quote from Master Miyamoto Musashi Japan greatest swordsman who killed over 60 warriors.

THE STUPIDITY OF FANCY FOOTWORK:

Do not attempt to be clever with your feet. Many attitudes of footwork seem to me to be simple a waste of time because their only intention is to get your attention and throw you into confusion. Likewise, when your shuffle your feet or make quick little jumps to the side (or make any useless moves), you lose your advantage against a skilled fighter (he would never let you have forward momentum again).

. Besides, you are not there to dance. You are there to kill the enemy. Again, the emphasis is on not relying on a specific “walking” or “moving” pattern. The definitions of the types of walks reflect their users and are to be considered as indicating the spirit in which they are used. For example, a jumping pattern indicates a jumpy spirit, don’t you think?
When I move in on the enemy, I move with resolve and surefootedness. I walk in as naturally as if I were walking into the house.
My strategy does not permit change in composure, regardless of the ground being fought on. By being surefooted I can overcome most obstacles in my path. This way I do not lose my rhythm. When I make changes in rhythm it is based on the enemy’s rhythm(from bridge contact), and by moving fast or slow I close in on him and kill him.
Why would you want to change your methodology in midstream your spirit has to catch up, regardless of how quickly you move? Eventually you are going to have to come back to your natural state. So why leave it in the first place (stepping back)?
You must maintain a natural rhythm and a natural timing. Anything that you add to or delete from this naturalness will cost you the advantage when you are proceeding to destroy the enemy (flanking). Moving in a natural gait will afford you the opportunity to move either fast or slow and will thus enable you to follow the enemy with a much steadier attitude (bridge contact). Your spirit will remain intact and you will be able to defeat the enemy.

Miyamoto Musashi.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

By stepping back and too the side, how can you redirect anything? Unless your opponent let’s you, by standing still and throwing one or two punches at a time.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
A lot of people may not understand where I’m coming from with all of my posts. Here it is in a nutshell, your best defenses is a good offenses. So why step away, putting you on the defensives end? Ali,
Ideally I would agree with your point of view. It certainly is the preferred method of doing business.

However, not all of us are 6' 4" and 250 lbs. So, there are times when a more powerful opponent will power their way forward, and we must move to the side to redirect that energy and alter the line of attack. You can step to the "side" without giving up your forward intent. The right footwork and timing is critical. But I know that you already know that.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
By stepping back and too the side, how can you redirect anything? Unless your opponent let’s you, by standing still and throwing one or two punches at a time.[/URL] Ali,
I don't believe you should step back, and even stepping to the side is not strictly sideways.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Here is another quote:

THE BASHFUL MONKEY’S BODY

The Bashful Monkey does not reach out with his arms. There is no sprit in the intention of the attack and it is usually used by those who do not understand the strategy of an attack (using defensives moves first then using offensives moves next), the Bashful Monkey is unsure of himself and is probably thinking of the possibility of being hurt. By keeping yourself at more then arm’s distance from the enemy, you are essentially not being sure of your own abilities. The attitude of destroying the enemy with one cut or hit is based on the attitude of “going in” to the attack. If not, your sprit is lacking and your resolve is less then complete. You must always close in on the enemy regardless of the indication of the enemy’s strength.

Miyamoto Musashi.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

Ps. one more time; You must always close in on the enemy regardless of the indication of the enemy’s strength.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Ali,
I don't believe you should step back, and even stepping to the side is not strictly sideways.

Vectors will show different, math doesn’t lie. That’s almost like calling the kettle white.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Vectors will show different, math doesn’t lie.Ali, Vectors of force are fundamental to this concept. I believe that my geometry and physics are sound.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about what you saw in Phil's videos. His application scenario is somewhat different. I'll just leave it at that.

Peace

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
By stepping back and too the side, how can you redirect anything? Unless your opponent let’s you, by standing still and throwing one or two punches at a time.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
That statement that you can't redirect by stepping back and to the side simply doesn't make sense. You are 6'5" and 300 lbs. You may prefer to barrel down the middle. Others, including Yip Man, taught both ways. The video of Chan Chee Man that I sent a few people here shows him demonstrating what "Yip Man" taught him. So was Yip Man wrong?
PR

[hunt1]

Interesting thread. You can attack forward and step back at the same time. For that matter you can step to the side and attack forward at the same time. Forward attacks with ging are not limited to standing still or forward stepping.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Phil Redmond

That statement that you can't redirect by stepping back and to the side simply doesn't make sense. You are 6'5" and 300 lbs. You may prefer to barrel down the middle. Others, including Yip Man, taught both ways. The video of Chan Chee Man that I sent a few people here shows him demonstrating what "Yip Man" taught him. So was Yip Man wrong?
PR

You have never seen me write anything about barrel down the middle (the bull). It’s all skill, I never overpower anybody, and all of my lady students would stand up too that statement. What I do is based on timing structure and positioning NEVER FORCE, it all happens because I take the bridge first. And most of the people that I spar with, say that they can’t feel or see my attacks coming, that's because I stand my ground and I take control of the bridge upon contact. Then chum kicks in because I maintain my balance while my opponent sticks himself under my offensive structure. Pretty much my opponent does half the work, that way I can maintain the soft approach. Sounds like someone is getting desperate I’m 270lb, with 4% body fat.

Ali Hamad Rahim.



Phil Redmond

So was Yip Man wrong?


You ask yourself that question, maybe something got twisted up along the way, I don’t know. maybe that's why they never killed anyone.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[old jong]

I heve been watching Ali's videos on his website and one thing is evident to me:Even with his big size,he doesn't uses brute force.It is even surprising to see such a big guy using "non resistance" to that level.

[chisauking]

It will AWAYS be disadvantages for a fighter to move off centre adgainst their opponent because it's not the most efficient and shortest line of travel. For example, if one person was in Fook-sau and the other was in Tan-sau, and the person in the Tan did a Heun-sau to punch, the person in the Fook-sau would have the advantage of a shorther path in reaching you with a punch because he his the shorter distance of travel.

However, just like every rule, there are exceptions. If your opponent is bigger and heavier than you, and he's closing on you fast, you may not be able to nullify his weight and size advantage, so you would have to move to either side and backwards (you must move backwards, however slight, otherwise you would still be in the line of attack).

At the end of the day, you and your opponent's size would determine whether you should move off centre.

Jik-seein (stright line) wing chun will ALWAYS be more efficient than Wang-seein wing chun. This angle was actually covered in Prodigal son. Leung Jan was saying to Leung Yee Tai that he was lucky not to have Wong Wah Bo as his sifu, because he was always fooling him about. Leung Yee Tai replied that he was wrong, because Wong Wah Bo could teach him Jik-seein wing chun, and that's when they started to trick Wong Wah Bo into teaching Leung Jan.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by old jong
I heve been watching Ali's videos on his website and one thing is evident to me:Even with his big size,he doesn't uses brute force.It is even surprising to see such a big guy using "non resistance" to that level. OJ,

We can all see that Ali is quite skilled at what he does. I don't believe anyone is questioning that. I know I'm not.

One thing to keep in mind that even without Brute Force, the pure mass of a much larger person is a force in and of itself. Also, the more relaxed approach seems to translate into an even heavier mass than a tense/forceful approach.

We more "average" sized people need to use the same relaxed energy, and also keep in mind that as a larger mass comes in, we should not attempt to unduely resist it, but rather redirect it and even change (ever so slightly) our position to maintain a position of control. Larger masses tend to take more time to change than smaller ones, although this is a generalization that should not be depended upon.

Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear. ;)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by chisauking
It will AWAYS be disadvantages for a fighter to move off centre adgainst their opponent because it's not the most efficient and shortest line of travel.
I cannot agree with this statement. Of course the straight line is ALWAYS the most efficient approach. If you can overpower the opponent, do so quickly, and directly.

However, moving off the center can turn a disavantegeous position into a superior position as long as it is well excuted and well timed. And this has more to do with the skill and power of your opponent rather that size. You can go direct on a bigger guy, but may need a less direct approach on a smaller but more powerful opponent. Let's not get blinded by size alone........ In Ali's case, he is both bigger and skilled.

As for the Prodigal son, it's just a movie. A movie we all know and love, but it is the stuff of legend. Nice to see, but not necessarily practical. Just my opinion.......

[sihing]

I agree that the most efficient path is straight in, no arguement there, but when a obstruction is in the way, do you a)stay on line and remove it with force, but still be in range for the other limb to engage also(this is difficult for most fighters as they are not a adept at using both arms at the same time like WC fighters are) or b) go offline, using either footwork to bring you offline or manipulating the opponent to force them offline of the obstructions force direction, while trapping and controling at the elbow point.

In the movie Prodical Son, Samo Hung's character, Wong Wah Bo, was bigger and more powerful than Leung Yee Tai was, so he could still control while down the middle, but Yee Tai couldn't because he was smaller and had to go around. Wah Bo had more options because he knew both methods therefore he is more effective as a fighter. This is the key point, knowing both methods, what we like to call "hard method" and "soft method", no options or methods should be left unlearned by the student or teacher teaching it. If you had only one choice I would choose the method of a smaller, lighter teacher as that will work for everyone.

James

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Matrix I feel you, I know what you saying, do something for me. When you and your opponent face off (find the biggest friend that you have) Attack him or let him attack you, you will know when too go in. Just take the line with no hesitation try controlling the bridge with your chum. If you get there before him your structure will stop his forward momentum in its tracks because he never had time too adjust or gain his momentum. Just like the reason for using a brick too jam the back tire of a car when on a hill, when doing that it don’t make a different on how big the guy is, my sifu stop me every time he wanted too. STAND YOUR GROUND MAN NO MATTER WHAT DON'T BACK DOWN. just stand your ground and fight.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[sihing]

Almost sounds like fighting force with force...

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

It’s can sound that way, but if you know how too turn that entry into a strike by bridge walking; BING, the strike will be on point right on the chin, if you get to the bridge first, and stay soft.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwincghun.com)

[sihing]

You see that's the delemma. If you stay down the middle you may have a more direct and efficient line, but if you fail to clear the path properly then you are in for trouble, your "gambling" and taking more risk. The Blindside makes for a safer route, although it is not the most efficient at times. Positioning is important too at the pre-contact stage to make the Blindside work, and since the TWC side neutral stance is different from most WC stances, it facilitates it easier.

James

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

By you jamming the bridge your still have the offensives advantage because of your forward momentum that’s where lops, pins, or traps take place in that stage of the entry.
You know, your secondary momentum, you should know this stuff already, when you were taught too bridge the gap. You guys are killing me.

Al Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Matrix I feel you, I know what you saying, do something for me. When you and your opponent face off (find the biggest friend that you have) Attack him or let him attack you, you will know when too go in." (Ali)

YOU CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO TELL US HOW HE'LL KNOW.

"Just take the line with no hesitation try controlling the bridge with your chum." (Ali)

REALLY?!...HOW EXACTLY HOW DOES HE DO THAT? (No hesitation you say?...Supposing the opponent is huge and coming in with a powerful strike right on the line you're telling him "to take"...easy for you to "say" this - but that doesn't mean it's reality).


"STAND YOUR GROUND MAN NO MATTER WHAT DON'T BACK DOWN. just stand your ground and fight." (Ali)

And with this - you clearly tip your hand. YOU'RE MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT. (I...Ali...the warrior...will never retreat...under any circumstances...yadda...yadda).

Now if your opponent was 7' 5" tall and 400 lbs. - you might be wishing you knew how to sidestep his force and his forward rush...and looking for instruction as to how to angle in and attack from a different line - which could be BEFORE - could be during - could be after...a bridge has been established.

"By you jamming the bridge your still have the offensives advantage because of your forward momentum that’s where lops, pins, or traps take place in that stage of the entry.
You know, your secondary momentum, you should know this stuff already, when you were taught too bridge the gap. You guys are killing me." (Ali)

NO...NO...ALI...It's you who's cracking me up!

By your constant attempts to hi-jack this thread. And your hi-jack METHOD is to constantly DENY the logic of what you've been told over and over about attacking on the blindside...and using sidesteps so as to not have to fight force-with-force.

What a waste of time this is! This thread is not about you. It's about the blindside as a fighting strategy.

[sihing]

Well it looks like you've decided to teach us all, so please continue wise one, lol....

Look, I don't claim to know more than you Ali, or less for that matter, so please don't treat us like children. More than likely we are just on two different wave lengths and have different understandings of similar concepts and theories, no big deal..

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Well it looks like you've (Ali) decided to teach us all, so please continue wise one, lol...."

I've got a better idea for Ali.

Don't continue - because it's getting really boring.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

My bad I was getting lazy. I know I’m wrong is h*ll. you guy are right I walked dead into that one. maybe it is time too talk about something new.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
Well it looks like you've decided to teach us all, so please continue wise one, lol.... James,
Quite frankly I think Ali has much more to teach me than you do. Just my opinion, but life's like that. Since his comments were directed to me, please put a sock in it.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
And with this - you clearly tip your hand. YOU'RE MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT. (I...Ali...the warrior...will never retreat...under any circumstances...yadda...yadda). Victor,
I find this comment interesting coming from a man who is constantly lecturing us all about sparring. :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Victor,
I find this comment interesting coming from a man who is constantly lecturing us all about sparring."

Bill:

That's a fair statement...but my "politics" about sparring is at least non-partisan - I don't care what your lineage is - just SPAR!

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

And I have video of him sparring with a woman he really kicks her but good LOL. Also have a lot of footage of him fighting LOL.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwincghun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I only stop because the subject changed, but I’m happy too write more about the blind side I’ll try too gave it 20-40 hopefully more good posts. I’m going out to dinner with my wife and I’ll be back 3-4hr. see yah then.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
That's a fair statement...but my "politics" about sparring is at least non-partisan - I don't care what your lineage is - just SPAR! Victor,
Honestly, I respect that. :cool:

Thank you,

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
And I have video of him sparring with a woman he really kicks her but good LOL. Also have a lot of footage of him fighting LOL. Hey Ali,
Just who are wa talking about here? I seem to have lost something in the thread.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

No lineage is better then another lineage, wing chun is wing chun. Some work hard for an attack and some don’t.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

I doubt you will find any lineage related posts from me. I don't consider it to be relavent. I actually enjoy discussing and analyzing the different views on the system.

If we're just going to come up here and post things in absolute agreement all the time, then there is little value and quite frankly I might find it a little boring. ;)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
. . . . STAND YOUR GROUND MAN NO MATTER WHAT DON'T BACK DOWN. just stand your ground and fight.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
Hmmm, would you teach a female student this concept?
PR

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim


Phil Redmond

So was Yip Man wrong?


You ask yourself that question, maybe something got twisted up along the way, I don’t know. maybe that's why they never killed anyone.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
So according to you Yip Man must have gotten things "twisted up" and the reason is "they" or "he" ( I guess??), never killed anyone.
Ok, I've heard it all now :).
PR

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Hmmm, would you teach a female student this concept?
PR


Good question.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I’m not about too teach, but check this out; your learn all this stuff from chi sao, if you learned the concept of never letting your elbow go backwards and the ideal of bridge walking when using chum. You learn how too stay within arms reach of your opponent,
therefore you can operate your wing chun from very close in. Ladies should always be shown the same way as a man, you don’t have too punch anyone in the face. When doing drills we always put each others fist on each others chest, if the drills are some what of a contest, like timing drills, we must hit each other on the chest and in chi sao and wooden man the same way, so from training that way, we are comfortable in staying inside of our opponents structure, that’s why we don’t force anything, it’s natural for us too stay in that close you don’t need forces. That’s why I think that wing chun should be taught inside out, not outside in. I like to use the flank when I do demos, because I can go full speed with everything I got, I have more control with my punch without hurting anyone. By stepping too the outside my punches are not to close, no one gets hurt (“bashful monkey body”) its looks good in demos, but if he moves his feet, well that’s a different story. I may hit him if he is not ready. This is the only way that I can answer these one-sentence rebuttals. Even still not with the thread topic.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Stevo]

Nice video clip, Phil.

I'm not from TWC, but what you showed in your clip is also something I do practise. Some things I've observed whilst practising it:

If the opponent has a good defence, it's hard to get to their outside elbow without stepping around to their side- then they can easily counter it using the 'clearing Biu Sau' under the elbow from BJ, along with an evasive step of their own.

If an opponent is lifting their arms too high, it's easy to apply a forward-pressing Wu Sau or Paak Sau to their upper outside arm, along with a simultaneous low body strike while stepping in.

When moving in to their side, as an alternative to striking, it doesn't take much to off-balance and sweep them.

I try to get at least onto the elbow or further up the arm with a forward-pressing Wu Sau (/insert hand shape) - otherwise the opponent counters with Larp Sau (as happened in Phil's clip).

Stevo

[Phil Redmond]

Thanks Stevo, you are correct. That clearing biu from underneath we call a cheun (threading) arm can be used to counter. And there is a counter for that....and a counter for that...... and......and....and....... What I was demonstrating was a basic drill that progresses with the skill level of the student.

Phil

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Thanks Stevo, you are correct. That clearing biu from underneath we call a cheun (threading) arm can be used to counter. And there is a counter for that....and a counter for that...... and......and....and....... What I was demonstrating was a basic drill that progresses with the skill level of the student.

Phil

Thanks, Phil. I'm not yet at the level of being able to treat it like a game of chess and plan sophisticated counters to counters in advance like that - I just try to react in the moment using simple movements with the overriding intention of getting to the opponent's centre as directly as possible (via front or side) through or around whatever he throws up.

On reflection, maybe what you're saying relates to training the same thing, but stated in a different way!

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Phil Redmond quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim


Phil Redmond

So was Yip Man wrong?


You ask yourself that question, maybe something got twisted up along the way, I don’t know. maybe that's why they never killed anyone.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So according to you Yip Man must have gotten things "twisted up" and the reason is "they" or "he" ( I guess??), never killed anyone.
Ok, I've heard it all now .
PR


I never said that yip Man got it mixed up, if people look at what you posted on this thread closely, they will see that you put a lot of words in other peoples mouths. I never said anything about Yip Man, I said something or someone, and you also said that my reason was that they didn’t kill anybody. What the h*ll is that, come on man you can do better that that. I have other posts on this thread you can talk about, so why mix things up. Thats what I’m saying how things get twisted up. Oh yeah, the key words of that statement is simply put; "I don't know". The short bus rides again.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.con)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

(I...Ali...the warrior...will never retreat...under any circumstances...yadda...yadda).


You better ask somebody!

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

(I...Ali...the warrior...will never retreat...under any circumstances...yadda...yadda).


You better ask somebody!

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)


You're a little late with this one, Ali..and I'm just a little tired of all your chest-beating. Do you really think any of us really care about any of this?

It's not about you.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I really hope not. Take care Victor, all is fair.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[A Soave]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
[B]How are you cutting off the path when your first movement is too flank or too run to the outside, it’s putting you on the defensive. The wing Chun that I know of always fight from the bridge, if it’s on a angle or straight in, if the bridge contact is there first (attacking the attack), putting you in the offensive position, ..................Ali Hamad Rahim.

It would seem reasonable to me that one would seek the offensive position while seeking to keep the opponent on the defensive position.......i.e. the blind side.

If you're fighting at the blindside optimally (i.e. out of reach of at least one of the hands and likely both legs as you maintain the bridge and attack, by definition you keep somebody off balance while advancing.......that to me sounds like the BEST place to be.

[Phil Redmond]

Good article.
http://www.hkwingchun.com/WillowEng.html
Phil

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

UNDERSTANDING THE MOVMENTS OF YOUR BODY THROUGH PROPER FOOTWORK

There is no difference between walking and running in everyday life except for speed. Proper movements of the body depend entirely on the matter in which you carry yourself. The feet carry the body and the body directs the feet. Tread firmly with the heel touching the ground first and roll forward to the ball of your foot. Practice this until you appear to move without motions. Do not use different types of steps such as jumping, gliding or hopping.

Miyamoto Musashi

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
UNDERSTANDING THE MOVMENTS OF YOUR BODY THROUGH PROPER FOOTWORK

There is no difference between walking and running in everyday life except for speed. Proper movements of the body depend entirely on the matter in which you carry yourself. The feet carry the body and the body directs the feet. Tread firmly with the heel touching the ground first and roll forward to the ball of your foot. Practice this until you appear to move without motions. Do not use different types of steps such as jumping, gliding or hopping.

Miyamoto Musashi

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
WC is a Chinese art. The Japanese were (maybe not as much now), a "rigid" society especially during the life of Musashi. This is reflected in their martial arts which are "generally" harder than the Chinese arts (Aikido is one exception of course).There was a saying in Japan that "any nail that stands up should be nailed down". Though he won many or all of his contests Musashi quotes will convey the rigid thought of his period. The "Willow" link I sent is more in line with the WC concept of fighting.
PR

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
There is no difference between walking and running in everyday life except for speed. Don't say that to any race-walker that's been disqualified from an event. You may remember the heart-breaking disqualification of a race-walker who was disqualified as she was just about to enter the stadium at the Sydney Olympics, and I beleive that she was winning the event at the time. Ouch, that's gotta hurt! :(

Having said that, what I mean is that when walking, one foot is always in contact with the ground. When running, there are distinct periods when both feet are off the ground. These changes are necessary to achieve the increase in speed, but there are several significant differences in what the body does when walking versus running........ I may be putting to fine a point on it, but as a former marathon runner I have a certain sensitivity to this topic. ;)

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Though he won many or all of his contests Musashi quotes will convey the rigid thought of his period.

I disagree. From my understanding of Musashi's work, he advocated fluid motion over the rigid.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
I disagree. From my understanding of Musashi's work, he advocated fluid motion over the rigid.
Ah so..Musashi also used the outside line then.
Phil

[SAAMAG]

Personally, my favorite mushashi quote lies at the bottom of all my posts. From my understanding however, he did stress keeping the body fluid, but most of all it seemed that good strategy was his primary weapon of choice. But then....that was my interpretation of it.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Ah so..Musashi also used the outside line then.
Phil


:D :D :D

[Vajramusti]

Mushashi was talking about martial uses of running and walking
specially witha weapon in hand.

In my books- there is nothing rigid about Mushashi or his thinking and not obsolete in my books though we dont run around with a katana these days.

I highly recommend - Tokitsu's latest very well done work on
"Miyamoto Mushashi. His life and Witings".(Shambala Press) His duels- about 60 by the time he turned 30- are very well documented by Tokitsu
who compared all the available evidence available and gives the deatils of each and every encounter. There is a good translation of Mushashi's writings- the best that I have seen- plus reproductions of some of his calligraphy and writings.

The end of the samurai era and the closing of Japan resulted in broken continuities in skills. Still the author points out in passing the martial roots of jujitsu and Kano's Kodokan judo.

Phil-in the kind of duels that Mushashi was involved in- somebody usually died- sometimes badly injured. He killed his first man at age twelve- reacting with something like a fireman's carry and
a wooden sword that made out of firewood.

He was adept at individual duels and military strategy as well.

His skills were singularly/collectively above nationality.

[SAAMAG]

Sooo...then is it better to be on the blind side or better to shoot straight into the bridge? ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Van:

Let's put it this way...if my opponent is standing with a left leg lead...there is a slight advantage to my coming in with my right leg leading - and just slightly to the outside of his lead leg (just slightly means just a few inches).

This is still coming in TOWARDS him - hence my amazement earlier in this thread about how people talk of this as an outside game as opposed to a typical wing chun infight game....

IT'S STILL AN INFIGHT....what I'm describing.

But the difference is that from this position I have a greater opportunity of taking his rear weapons out of play (his right arm strikes and his kicks from the right leg)....if I'm skilled enough to work this position and possibly get a two-on-one advantage (my two arms are dealing with only his left arm, and not only neutralizing his left leg - but also gaining an angle that makes his right leg no threat at all...even if only for a brief moment...while pressuring him and getting very close on his left side).

This is the optimal "blindside" position that TWC talks about.

It can give a decided advantage if worked right.

[SAAMAG]

Actually from what I've been told this is the preferred method according to yip man, as it allows for the defender to use all his weapons and only have to worry about half the opponent. Hoi Mun or the "outside gate" is simply a safer entry, and can be just as direct as the inside line. I use it all the time and have no problems "taking it to them" as it takes no more time and the stepping is only subtly different then moving in. (now granted there are many different ways to step in doing this, the one Im talking about is a forward step while angling a bit to take the outer gate - different then what Sifu Redmond had on file)

In addition, if someone is going to be downplaying the idea of using the outside line (blindside as the thread implies) due to the idea that stepping anything other then forward is wrong...then I would advise not having available tons of video footage wherein you step to the side and step back constantly. Just a little advice without having to say names. ;)

ALSO, wing chun is a ever changing and alive art form, and as history has shown is adaptable to many types of individuals. No right or wrong way persay in the application, only what works for you. Keep in mind as well that the bottom line is that when we do a particular technique in wing chun, it's not because WE chose the technique, it's because the opponent did. In other words, when he punches and we use tan, we didnt choose to use tan, he chose to when he crossed the outer gate of the bridge.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
WC is a Chinese art. The Japanese were (maybe not as much now), a "rigid" society especially during the life of Musashi. This is reflected in their martial arts which are "generally" harder than the Chinese arts (Aikido is one exception of course).

There is a 7th degree blackbelt teacher in Vancouver who doesn't consider Aikido a soft art at all. I also know a 6th degree YoShinKan Aikido teacher who also has very little softness about him. Furthermore I have seen some Aikido teachers get angry when the student resisted and then used brute force to make the lock or throw work. The only softness idea is in the concept of not using force against force. Judo has that idea too but it's hard to implement so you don't see much of it maybe in any art including Tai Chi (other than when they do forms).

The Japanese arts seem like fine sand. The Chinese arts seem like water. The discrete can approximate the continuous as is done in Integral Calculus where thing rectangles are used to approximate the area of a curve and in digital sampling to play analogue music.

With millions of techniques , one's art can seem smooth and seamless and indistinguishable from a continuous art.

Ray

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Is everyone’s rigid if they don’t fight on the blind side? There is nothing rigid about the “Samurai Saint” Miyamoto Musashi. Fighting on the blind side is more rigid; I have seen two or three videos that prove it. Redmond and his own students demonstrated it themselves. The guy who had on the headgear (video #1 the shorter person) http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/bong-wu-da.mpg
stood there and took a hard hit too the head after he tried a defensive move first (thinking blind side makes you use defensive moves first) and when he tried too retaliate with a strike of his own, he could not catch up to the guy who hit him, because he used a defensive move at the start of his counterattack and the bigger guy could just step away with his defensive structure ready too go, no up rooting and no unbalancing (not close combat). Like I have been saying all along, fighting from the blind side let’s your opponent have time too move his feet or using a defensive move first (the same). (Video #2) http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/bong-wu-da2.mpg Then again there was a guy on one video that stood there and attack the attack and did not move his feet very little if any, Bing! Got the jump on his man every time, which proves my theory. maybe it's the same guy I don' t kown, but even still.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[SAAMAG]

Again I say, if one has videos available on a website doing that which he is claiming is wrong to do, then one should rethink what he says on a public forum.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Notice; the guy is bigger then the one who doesn’t move his feet.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

That guy is a pretty good inside fighter, I would love too teach him, he got the right ideal. Most Canadian guys can fight anyway. I had some real good fights in Canada. Those guys like to hit, they don’t back down. I’m sure it would be hard too teach them different.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[SAAMAG]

:confused:

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I only know what I know, take care.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
Most Canadian guys can fight anyway. I had some real good fights in Canada. Those guys like to hit, they don’t back down. I’m sure it would be hard too teach them different.

We call it Hockey! ;)

[Vajramusti]

One of the late Dangerfield's jokes was about his confusion when he went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out.

Baseball fights are more hilarious when they come out of the dug outs and go at it. If they knew something they would be dangerous.

[A Soave]

QUOTE:
Fighting on the blind side is more rigid; I have seen two or three videos that prove it. Redmond and his own students demonstrated it themselves. The guy who had on the headgear (video #1 the shorter person) http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/bong-wu-da.mpg
stood there and took a hard hit too the head after he tried a defensive move first (thinking blind side makes you use defensive moves first)

Several comments here:

1. Wow, is that what you see (getting hit to the head)????? The shorter guy did NOT get hit hard in the head.

2. Because the shorter guy didn't spring forward as the guy swinging retreated, he didn't even get to the blind side, so this wasn't even a good example. My guess is that the guy is a little bit new to fighting...........no problem.

3. Either you don't know what getting hit hard is, or you've gotten hit there too many times to create a perceptual distortion. Where does it show he gets hit hard? Sounds more like animus than it does any rational critique.........

Where are you coming from man?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

No matter how you look it, you can’t flip it, just like the Rodney king video, the proof is on tape, so is my theory, which has been proven. If he is new to fighting then the inside is for him. or for any new guy in wing chun. The videos proved that, if that’s the case (new to fighting). The reason that it was not a good example is that the movement he tried was not natural, so his sprit could not catch up. but the second time it was very natural by him standing his ground. Ok maybe he was not hit that hard, enough with all the hitting stuff, that still does not off set my theory.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Several comments here:

1. Wow, is that what you see (getting hit to the head)????? The shorter guy did NOT get hit hard in the head.

2. Because the shorter guy didn't spring forward as the guy swinging retreated, he didn't even get to the blind side, so this wasn't even a good example. My guess is that the guy is a little bit new to fighting...........no problem.

3. Either you don't know what getting hit hard is, or you've gotten hit there too many times to create a perceptual distortion. Where does it show he gets hit hard? Sounds more like animus than it does any rational critique.........

Where are you coming from man?" (A Soave)

.................................................. .........................

Let me tell you where he's coming from:

HE'S A TROLL.

With some serious jealousy issues when it comes to Phil Redmond. (They both have schools in Detroit...Get the picture?)

Enough said.

Now of course he's going to come back on here (after I've exposed him like this) and give some mumbo-jumbo huffin' and puffin' self righteous "don't mess with me cause I'm dangerous" bull5hit...

But pay no attention.

He ain't worth it.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

All the name calling and anger! I stick with the subject. I did nothing wrong. If someone quoted me, then I start talking, nothing more and nothing less. Why such hot air? I think the moderator should keep a close eye on this one LOL. I tried too let the thread go away. but some clown started it up all over again by using his first post to quote me and I wrote back that's all. So I'm the bad guy cuz you don't have anything more too say.
about the blind side? everyones LOL. AT LEAST FROM THE E-MAILS THAT I HAVE. The three stooges. you can't shut me up and you want shut me up. Just keep it real or have a seat.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Hi All, The videos were to show one method to train a smaller person to absord a hard blow. The shorter guy in the video had misgivings about his ability to stop a hard outside punch so I had one of the bigger guys gradually punch harder at him. The larger student eventually punched as hard as he could. He wore forearm pads with the padded side on the yin (inside), part of his forearm so the he was protected. The headgear was just in case a punch got through. I told him to do what ever follow up he wanted but them main thing as a new student, was to give him confidence that he could with maintain his bong/wu against a full power blow. His goal was accomplished. He did stop the blow from a stronger person. It's as simple as that.
Phil

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

But couldn’t hit back from the out side, but could from the inside.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.cm)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
.Phil-in the kind of duels that Mushashi was involved in- somebody usually died- sometimes badly injured. He killed his first man at age twelve- reacting with something like a fireman's carry and
a wooden sword that made out of firewood.

He was adept at individual duels and military strategy as well.

His skills were singularly/collectively above nationality.
Thanks Joy, I've read The Book of Five Rings, with Musashi's, history, calligraphy, sculpture, and paintings. So, would you say a Katana uses the same principles as a Gim?
Phil

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
But couldn’t hit back from the out side, but could from the inside.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.cm)
Both outside and inside are used in WC. I never said to only use the outside. In fact that drill was to train on the inside. If a haymaker is thrown at you you have to start from the inside.
PR

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

You said if the guy is bigger and have more power. you should move too the outside, never barrel down the middle when I said that was not true, you said that Iwas wrong. It should be full contact far as the videos, that's what you said when you posted them. If you tell them what too do, then it is not real. you can get in the inside on a jik chung also.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwincghun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
You said if the guy is bigger and have more power. you should move too the outside, never barrel down the middle. and when I said no, you said I was wrong.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwincghun.com)
Please read my last posts carefully. When I said that some fights start in the middle I said nothing about barreling down the middle. I also said the student was training to stop full power outside or circular strikes. It IS possible to get to the outside from the center. The WC I've learned over the last 34 years teaches both outside and inside. My preference for the outside doesn't mean that fighting in the middle can't work. I've won full contact matches using the center as well. I'm not going to argue with you about this and I'm not changing my tactics based on these discussions. I'm done with this for now.
PR

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

I was talking about an earlier posted that you made about two days ago. dealing with barreling down the middle. when I said stand and hold your ground, you made that statement. and you also said humm you teach ladies that way. Now it's all good, what's up with that.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
I was taking about an earlier posted that you made about two days ago. dealing with barreling down the middle. when I said stand and hold your ground, you made that statement. and you also said humm you teach ladies that way. Now it's all good, what's up with that.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
????? I said, Hmmm, would you teach a female student this concept?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

yeah that's right, but now it's all good, what's up with that.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
yeah that's right, but know it's all good, what's up with that.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)
My question still is would you teach a small female student to stand her ground and barrel down the middle against a larger stronger opponent?

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Always, look in my photo detperment on my web site and you will see a young lady holding her ground. This is my second time answering that question.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Thanks for the answer.
PR

[A Soave]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
My question still is would you teach a small female student to stand her ground and barrel down the middle against a larger stronger opponent?

Wow, trying to keep this guy following a line of reasoning is a little like teaching an ox quantum mechanics. First he says that the shorter guy gets hit hard in the head (the bigger guy doesn't even TOUCH him).

Take that **** shower curtain off of your head so you can see!!!!!!

Then he can't answer the question: Would you teach a small female student (i.e. the genesis of wing chun) to barrel down the middle (when she could elude the forces and trap/pin and strike)????

And THEN he talks about YOU misquoting.........????????? Its as obvious as the pillowcase on his head that, based upon his website, he's only trying to compete with you rather than have a rational, collaborative discussion.

The first clue should be, anyone who "advertises" that GM Cheung was "beat" by Emin "the Jumping Jackal" Boztepe
can't have too many brain cells that keep in touch with one another. That old, stupid, farse of a edited piece of garbage little video bite has been dispelled as trash, but this guy uses it as a deliberate slam toward GM Cheung. For what purpose??


Victor was right on the money.........

[Knifefighter]

Teaching a small woman to hold ground and work the middle against a larger opponent:

= smart if the woman has the initiative and element of surprise on her side in the first place.

= stupid if the opponent has the initiative and is attacking.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Well tell us your reason and I will listen, if it's reasonable.
so far you have no reason. be nice, stick with the facts.

Ali Hamads Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Vajramusti]

Thanks Joy, I've read The Book of Five Rings, with Musashi's, history, calligraphy, sculpture, and paintings. So, would you say a Katana uses the same principles as a Gim?
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil- Mushashi's skill and usage was not limited to the katana.
Adjustment to different weapons was an important part of his persona. His own school of two swords was quite unique.
Long swords of different lengths, short swords, two swords, knives, the jitte, the staff and shuriken's- he could use them all
in one on one duels.

Plus he was involved in one against many and battlefield engagements. He could fight on foot and horseback. Narrow space,closed space, open space- he adjusted his applications.

The Tokitsu book is a painstaking scholarly book- not a romanticization of Mushashi. But rigid he was not.

My above comments are just about Musashi- not on other aspects of this thread.

[SAAMAG]

Bottom line:

Techniques using both the inside and outside line exist in wing chun, and both are useful in their intended application.

Yip man stated that to use the outside line is a good tactic due to it's "safety" in comparison to using the inside line. It was also intended to use as a means of dissolving a strong attack without having to absorb it fully from the front. This is in fact a good tactic for those that are smaller in stature, or when the attack is so strong that it is necessary. As I stated earlier somewhere, you do not choose the technique to use, the opponent does when he crosses your bridge. One doesn't "choose" the outside line, it just happens where necessary.

Going straight in to break the centerline/bridge is more direct, economical, and preferred in terms of shutting down the opponent in the fastest manner possible, and theoretically should be possible in just about any occasion...but the sad fact of the matter is it just isn't. NOTHING works 100% one hundred percent of the time.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

You learn both ways inside first, then outside last. A women can be just as good of a fighter than a man can, if he/ she work hard at it. Don’t count ladies out. They can learn just like anyone else can. I know a women that can kick a man's as* here in Detroit without MA or wing chun.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[sihing]

Originally posted by Vankuen
Bottom line:

Techniques using both the inside and outside line exist in wing chun, and both are useful in their intended application.

Yip man stated that to use the outside line is a good tactic due to it's "safety" in comparison to using the inside line. It was also intended to use as a means of dissolving a strong attack without having to absorb it fully from the front. This is in fact a good tactic for those that are smaller in stature, or when the attack is so strong that it is necessary. As I stated earlier somewhere, you do not choose the technique to use, the opponent does when he crosses your bridge. One doesn't "choose" the outside line, it just happens where necessary.

Going straight in to break the centerline/bridge is more direct, economical, and preferred in terms of shutting down the opponent in the fastest manner possible, and theoretically should be possible in just about any occasion...but the sad fact of the matter is it just isn't. NOTHING works 100% one hundred percent of the time.

Good post Vankuen,

I agree totally with this, safety is the intention behind the blindside theory, but directness can be used to when it is called for. The main question is if you don't train blindside theory & application then can you do it when needed?

James

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
A women can be just as good of a fighter than a man can, I've had the priviledge of of training with some of the world's women's top strikers and grapplers. The fact of the matter is they cannot usually hang with men who have some decent training and are bigger and/or stronger.

I've also worked with a number of "average" women and have learned it is in a woman's best interest not to teach her to go head to head with a man unless she has the element of surprise and initiative in her favor.

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Originally posted by Vankuen
Bottom line:

Techniques using both the inside and outside line exist in wing chun, and both are useful in their intended application.

Yip man stated that to use the outside line is a good tactic due to it's "safety" in comparison to using the inside line. It was also intended to use as a means of dissolving a strong attack without having to absorb it fully from the front. This is in fact a good tactic for those that are smaller in stature, or when the attack is so strong that it is necessary. As I stated earlier somewhere, you do not choose the technique to use, the opponent does when he crosses your bridge. One doesn't "choose" the outside line, it just happens where necessary.

Going straight in to break the centerline/bridge is more direct, economical, and preferred in terms of shutting down the opponent in the fastest manner possible, and theoretically should be possible in just about any occasion...but the sad fact of the matter is it just isn't. NOTHING works 100% one hundred percent of the time.


I was going too say the same thing, but you beat me to it, great post. you alway have good post. I like that keep them coming.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Ali Hamad Rahim]

Sure most men are stronger then a woman, but being over confident can kill you quicker than a gun can. wing chun is wing chun no special way for a lady. all the same. I never heard of a surprise wing chun system either you don't or you do. the super surprise stuff barely works for a man. you know it will never work for a woman, so just teach straight up wing chun nothing fancy just simple as h*ll stuff.

Ali Hamad Rahim.

detroitwingchun.com (http://detroitwingchun.com)

[Phil Redmond]

Here's clip of Chan Chee Man demonstrating what Yip Man taught him.
http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/ChanCheeMan_blindside.mpg
Of course we won't be dogmatic about the term blindside. It can be called what ever fits you.
Phil

[Phil Redmond]

Working to the outside.
http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/JutBiuLauh.mpg
http://www.free-element.com/wingchun/JutBiuLauhCounter.mpg
Phil

[SAAMAG]

I like the second clip a little better then the first, mostly I think because of the forward intention.

[Phil Redmond]

Hi Vankuen,
I understand exactly what you mean. The second clip was "a" counter to the first clip.
PR

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Vankuen
NOTHING works 100% one hundred percent of the time. Yep, that's why I like to do nothing! :D

Very Gandhiesque! The sword of no-sword! The art of not fighting (or the minimum of effort)!

Seriously, great post Vankuen. And also seriously, if you use the principles of using as little effort as possible, when you meet an immovable resistance down the centreline is maybe when you should flow round to cut the angle to the blind side.

I have one question related to the blind side. Some of you have said that when you take blindside, you are effectively fighting one of his arms with two. When you have fought/sparred with none wingchunners do you believe this to be true?

When practising aiki this is a principle which is often used, but in aiki, as in boxing and wing chun, I've found it very difficult to actually get this effectively, because essentially it's slower to move your whole body round your opponent's danger zone to negate his use of both arms than for him to turn his body on the spot.

While of course you can do this very well pressing the centre against other wingchunners, against for example boxers who often just will not allow you to press their centre, do you find it works?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I have one question related to the blind side. Some of you have said that when you take blindside, you are effectively fighting one of his arms with two. When you have fought/sparred with none wingchunners do you believe this to be true?

When practising aiki this is a principle which is often used, but in aiki, as in boxing and wing chun, I've found it very difficult to actually get this effectively, because essentially it's slower to move your whole body round your opponent's danger zone to negate his use of both arms than for him to turn his body on the spot.

While of course you can do this very well pressing the centre against other wingchunners, against for example boxers who often just will not allow you to press their centre, do you find it works? " (Mat)

Time to repeat this post:

Let's put it this way...if my opponent is standing with a left leg lead...there is a slight advantage to my coming in with my right leg leading - and just slightly to the outside of his lead leg (just slightly means just a few inches).

This is still coming in TOWARDS him - hence my amazement earlier in this thread about how people talk of this as an outside game as opposed to a typical wing chun infight game....

IT'S STILL AN INFIGHT....what I'm describing.

But the difference is that from this position I have a greater opportunity of taking his rear weapons out of play (his right arm strikes and his kicks from the right leg)....if I'm skilled enough to work this position and possibly get a two-on-one advantage (my two arms are dealing with only his left arm, and not only neutralizing his left leg - but also gaining an angle that makes his right leg no threat at all...even if only for a brief moment...while pressuring him and getting very close on his left side).

This is the optimal "blindside" position that TWC talks about.

It can give a decided advantage if worked right.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by me
...Some of you have said that when you take blindside, you are effectively fighting one of his arms with two. When you have fought/sparred with none wingchunners do you believe this to be true?...
While of course you can do this very well pressing the centre against other wingchunners, against for example boxers who often just will not allow you to press their centre, do you find it works? "


UWC
Time to repeat this post...Try reading mine! :D

I wasn't disagreeing with getting the blindside being a part of typical wc strategy, I was asking if you believed that you can 'neutralize' some none sticky, non-wc fighter's right arm from this position...
But the difference is that from this position I have a greater opportunity of taking his rear weapons out of play (his right arm strikes and his kicks from the right leg)....if I'm skilled enough to work this position and possibly get a two-on-one advantage (my two arms are dealing with only his left arm......which you obviously do. Fair enough. In my exp, you get blindside on a boxer or thai boxer and they do a good job of sticking to you, by simply turning their body on their front leg axis and dropping their weight through you, giving them a good opportunity to strike. Not saying it's impossible, just that getting blindside to me does not often confer the advantage that I can prevent them from hitting me with the other hand.

Cheers for the answer.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"you get blindside on a boxer or thai boxer and they do a good job of sticking to you, by simply turning their body on their front leg axis and dropping their weight through you, giving them a good opportunity to strike. Not saying it's impossible, just that getting blindside to me does not often confer the advantage that I can prevent them from hitting me with the other hand." (Mat)

Good response, Mat. (I've GOT to get my computer skills up so I can post some clips)...but anyway...I work against a good boxer all the time (one of my most senior students first learned to box before joining my class from his cousin who fought Golden Gloves - and has always kept his boxing skills up).

What I'll have a hard time expressing in words is the way the forward pressure I put on him can manipulate his balance - along with using the "crossing the centerline" principle...since I'm always manipulating his arm(s) in-between (or during) strikes...trapping (grabbing) an elbow...following him wherever he tries to go...so that whether I wind up with both my hands to the outside of his lead arm or both on the inside (but still pressuring his left side)...he's forced to try and make big adjustments in order to turn his body on his front leg axis...but it won't be "simple" for him to do this without paying a price...I'm slowing him down...by crowding his space...not allowing him to extend his arms...manipulating his balance if he does try to extend...forcing him to either deal with the 2-on-1 blindside or to back up...which will result in him getting kicked or followed or possibly getting his arms trapped - or at the very least - eating some punches or being forced to defend them...and possibly getting one of his arms temporarily nullified....and all the while I'm using whatever footwork is required to keep the pressure on (in other words - I'm not married to the idea that I have to keep my lead right leg just to the outside of his lead left leg all through this exchange).

With a Thai fighter they'll probably try to go to clinch mode against this...but I have adapted my fight in this range to include some of their moves (knees, elbows, takedowns and sweeps) along with Catch-as-catch-can Wrestling moves....so I'm very comfortable in the clinch and grappling on the floor.

[sihing]

Blindside positioning is a temporary place in time, and the advantage of 2 arms vs. 1 arm will only last a second tops(maybe less) before the opponent will turn, in this time a good WC practitioner can throw out 6 to 8 blows to all sorts of areas on his opponents body, not including combination elbow/lop sao neck pull or headbutt/dbl lop sao to the neck combinations. It will be difficult for the Thai guy or anyone to clinch when they are eating up attacks like that. Another thing to do is to also lead them to the ground while you have blindside positioning, this gives them less opportunities since you have struck them all ready, sweeped them or lead them through the ground with a chin-na tech, and now have mount to continue your strikes.

I've found it was harder to apply the blindside positioning to the WC people as compared to others in different MA, just due to the fact that WC practiticoners like to face square on and have better contact reflexes, so as soon as they realize that I'm trying to flank them they turn faster, that's why you use a lop sao to off balance them to gain superior positioning.

James