Toe to testicle range [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

stonecrusher69

01-21-2006, 09:41 PM

chisauking The "modern" wing chun practitioners are so worried about the different ranges of combat. For example, grappling range, kicking range, clince range, boxing range, etc, etc.

The question I pose is why? Why make something so simple so complicated? Unless you are 8-foot tall, there will always be someone taller than you; someone with superior reach \ range than you. In other words, no matter how much you extend your range, someone will still out-reach you. If your opponent out-reach you by 10-inches, are you going to adopt the savate type of kicks by extending your little toes in your wing chun front kick? Or.....(roll of drums....) the most simple solution of all, why don't we let our opponent come to us? Dare I say it, would that be too simple?

Some would say that wing chun is lacking at longer ranges..the simple solution is, don't fight at those range which would favour our opponent. Let them come to us.
To me, wing chun is very simple -- you are either in or out of range. To compete on long range, someone will always beat you. Wong Shun Leung had proven that long range isn't a problem. Although sifu Wong barely stood above 5'4, he could beat opponent's whose range far out-reached his. How was this possible? Easy: he didn't fight his opponent in foot range, long boxing range, out-stretched toe range, long middle finger range....No, he simply let the opponent come within hitting range. LOL

sik siu siu ban doy bil

Excellent post...

viper

01-21-2006, 10:27 PM

Im 5`6 and id agree bout moving to the range ur comfortabl with but thats just good combat fighting ur fight not theres. ive perfected the best range though 300ft away running run away fight another day.

Edmund

01-22-2006, 01:09 AM

anerlich

01-22-2006, 02:43 AM

Yes Jill

Be careful you don't fall down and break your crown.

After that first post, are you sure it's not *you* who's obsessed with ranges? I'm not.

A worthy opponent is going to try to take you out of the zone where you are most comfortable.

If you're waiting for him to get where you can punch him and he kicks the crap out of you at distance and stays there, then your strategy failed.

Just because WSL did it (according to you) doesn't mean you or just any WC student can.

ghostofwingchun

01-22-2006, 08:23 AM

Just because WSL did it (according to you) doesn't mean you or just any WC student can.

Mr Anerlich what are you saying . . . lol . . . next you will be telling me that I can not play basketball like Michael Jordan . . . or box like Mohammed Ali . . . or surf like Kelly Slater . . . and so on . . . if I can not do it like these people or do what these people can do what is left for me. . . doing it as myself the best I can . . . finding my own way . . . lol . . . what a crazy idea!

Thanks,

Ghost

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2006, 09:05 AM

Did common sense fly out the window?
A leg is usually longer than an arm.

An opponent can kick you from a distance where you can't punch him.
So if you're waiting for him to move into punching range you could be in a position where you can get kicked and you can't punch back.

If you are comfortable with kicking than it's a different story but I don't believe WC people are usually at the technical level of other arts who specialize in kicking.

It would be a fools game to just sit isolated in one spot and wait for your opponent to come to you, especially when they are a long range fighter. You can manuver in and out of the long range to entice your opponent to commit to a strike, thats when you make your move. Lets not forget the fact that WC fighters are "allowed" to move around, lol. In fact, the more you move the better off you'll be because you are no longer a sitting duck...

AmanuJRY

01-22-2006, 09:28 AM

Mr Anerlich what are you saying . . . lol . . . next you will be telling me that I can not play basketball like Michael Jordan . . .or box like Mohammed Ali . . .or surf like Kelly Slater . . . and so on . . .

Mr. Ghost, are you just playing devil's advocate here?

How could you even begin to think you would have the skills to play like Michael, box like Ali, surf like Kelly Slater, skateboard like Tony Hawk, play guitar like Andreas Segovia (sp? - the list could go on) when your thinking goes something like this ". . . other areas of life that are more important to me than wc . . . so for me I know that being the best I can be is not a realistic option . . ."?:confused:

if I can not do it like these people or do what these people can do what is left for me. . . doing it as myself the best I can . . . finding my own way . . . lol . . . what a crazy idea!

I don't know what you're saying about 'finding my own way', but 'doing it as myself the best I can'....that is a novel (crazy) idea.:eek:

ghostofwingchun

01-22-2006, 09:52 AM

Mr Justin . . . I always play devil's advocate . . . lol . . . even with myself . . . because I am always questioning things . . . I know this can be annoying . . . I even find myself annoying . . . lol. In this case I was thinking that Mr Anerlich had good view . . . that we should not chase others . . . in this case try to be like late Wong Sueng Leung . . . it is great that these people provide inspiration for us . . . but there is difference between inspiration and trying to be replica of them . . . if you see what I mean. I am also thinking that Micheal Jordan and Kelly Slater and Wong Seung Leung and others achievements are because besides question of talent is that they do their acitvity their way . . . they not copy others . . . they get good being original individual . . . and then have followers who try to get good being xerox copy . . . lol . . . at least this was my thinking when I make post . . . I hope it not annoy you . . . as I say I can be annoying. If I annoy you I apologize.

Thanks,

Ghost

YungChun

01-22-2006, 09:57 AM

the simple solution is, don't fight at those range which would favour our opponent.

Sure but you have to train against those attacks, or better yet, those skilled in these venues in order to develop the ability to learn how to correctly bypass their ranges. It also helps to fully understand your range and how to keep it.

Each art has its range of specialization and each artist who chooses a range to specialize at should be familiar with how to get into that range. Understanding the general tactics at work at each range and getting experience with folks who use other methods is a no brainier for stacking the deck.

Or you could just do "don't hit me" Chi Sao all day and forget about all of this crazy stuff. LOL :)

"Know thy enemy and know thyself and you will always be victorious." - Sun Tzu

AndrewS

01-22-2006, 10:05 AM

CSK writes:

To me, wing chun is very simple -- you are either in or out of range

I'd agree, that's simple, in many senses of the word.

Most Wing Chun people appeal to this argument, which overlooks the reality that control of range is a *skill* to be learned. You wait for them to come to you? Great, that's called 'being a counterfighter'- incidentally not really how I'm told Wong fought (and not how most little guys fight big guys and win)- that style of fighting as with any other requires you know the difference between being 'in' and 'out' of range- something you overlook with such simplification. Learning the difference on a guy who knows how to close with a stiff jab to draw you, and moves off the jab, in, out, angling, with level changes, setting you up for the next punch, kick, takedown- that's a *skill*, saying it's 'very simple' is much like dismissing all of chi sao as 'just feeling'.

Andrew

Ultimatewingchun

01-22-2006, 10:41 AM

Good posts, AndrewS and Edmund. But for me, the key flaw to this thread can be found right here in chisauking's opening post:

"Some would say that wing chun is lacking at longer ranges..the simple solution is, don't fight at those range which would favour our opponent. Let them come to us."

***AS IT HAS ALREADY been pointed out, 5'4" Wong Shun Leung was known for bringing the fight to his opponents; and it's a cold day in hell when a smaller man can fight a big man (who's any good) successfully without bringing the fight to him.

Which means, as Edmund pointed out, he needs to be able to fight through the longer ranges. But "letting someone come to us" makes us a counter fighter (as AndrewS pointed out).

This is not a good strategy against any good fighter - not just bigger men.

Because if his attacks are good - you're almost always playing catchup - and you're letting him set the tone and therefore control the fight.

Bottom line? Sometimes you will have no choice about fighting at longer ranges - because you realize that you have to bring the fight to him and he's good at defending and attacking in the longer ranges...(made all the more pronounced if he's also a big man with long arms and long legs and good skills at trying to keep the fight in those longer ranges. Watch any of Mirko Cro Cop's fights to see what I'm talking about - as just one example).

Hence my belief in the value of using some fight strategies and techniques (from other systems) that specialize in those longer ranges - as a way to fight your way in...since wing chun is primarily a close infight. You can't just rely on the concept of..."well as soon as he starts to move in with an attack I'll make my move to come in on him".

Because it requires you to always have to correctly read his moves first, and then in the blink of an eye, find the perfect counter, the perfect angle for the counter, etc.

You're playing catchup constantly. Not smart. If he's fast, strong, and good at long range punching, footwork, and kicking - then you're almost always one step behind. Successful fighting requires that you always try to be one step in front...and to do this against a skilled fighter from a starting position of more than about three feet away (which could be very often)...you need some longer range moves other than what are commonly found in wing chun.

Edmund

01-22-2006, 04:59 PM

I'm in agreement with a lot of the posts.

Even if your strategy was to be a counter fighter, the longer range would be where you would have to focus a decent part of your training - to get the timing and angles.

And you would have to train with partners who were good at long range techniques to perfect your strategy against decent attacks.

You'd practice by getting your partner starting from out of reach, kicking, attacking in combinations etc. Even if you're weak at long range techniques, you need to practice against someone who's good at them.

In the end, it helps a lot if you're at least competent in some long range techniques yourself.

chisauking

01-22-2006, 07:25 PM

Ah, the good old internet. Just as usual, my point has been taken right out of context once again. Let me quickly address a few points...

Anerlick sez: Just because WSL did it (according to you) doesn't mean you or just any WC student can.

Good old Anerlick, you have this amazing perception to state the obvious. Just because some people understands wing chun, doesn't mean everybody understands wing chun. (stating the obvious)

In keeping with wing chun ideals, I try to keep every thing that I do simple, easy, and direct. My core point was, why complicate things? Why confuse people by saying "grappling range"? Does this mean that at this range, techniques are exclusive to grappling techniques? Ho, ho, ho. LOL. No, off course not. At this range, we can punch, palm, kick, elbow, jab, headbutt, etc., etc. Or, to simplify things, we can "simply" say we are in hitting range.

In response to critism that wing chun lacks long range ability, I tried to illustrate, with the example of Wong sifu, that this was not the case. I reasoned that if you need long range wing chun, then you will always be at a disadvantage to taller people. For example, no matter what "long range" wing chun sifu Wong tries to adopt, he will never out-reach an opponent that's 10-inches taller than him. So the idea is not to focus on the long range, but concentrate on the distancing between you and your opponent. I can't see the logic of appending millions of different styles to your wing chun skills in order to overcome the so-called weakness in wing chun's long range ability, when what you actually need is distancing \ closing the gap skills -- which is catered for in Chuim Kil. I simply refute that at the so-called 'grappling range', wing chun's skills is any less in dealing with your opponent. If you agree with me, why call it grappling range?

Here is some key points regarding distancing....

1) No matter how much you focus on 'long range' wing chun, some one will have a greater range than yourself, therefore only a fool, or a very, very tall person, would focus on this aspect of wing chun.
2) If you stay in your opponent's hitting range, but you are out of his range, then you are a fool
3 ) If you are facing a taller opponent than yourself with greater reach, you must bridge the gap so that you are also within hitting range. (there are more ways to acheive this than by waiting for your opponent to come to you, but it doesn't mean you have to include western boxing, BJJ, TKD, fencing, etc. etc. in your portfilo of techniques)
4) Don't worry if you are only in your opponent's so-called kicking range. If he can kick you, you can intercept his kicks also.
5) Just as you don't play your opponent's game, you got to be at the distance which you are comfortable with. At the end of the day,it's about closing the gap, and not fighting at longer range (whatever that means)

As many can see from the above examples, there are only 2 real ranges -- in or out of range. Also in keeping with wing chun's principles, I'd kept things simple and direct. By mastering distancing, I can match anyone, regardless of height and reach. By focusing on longer range techniques, you limit yourself to opponent's that's your height \ reach or only slightly taller.

Which method is simpler? You decide. Please: no more stating the obvious like: you can only master distancing skills if you have good footwork.

Edmund

01-22-2006, 08:39 PM

Like you're misunderstood?

You stated that WSL let people come to him therefore there's no need to practice or think about long range techniques. Everyone pointed out the simple arguments against that idea but you still keep ignoring the points made.

anerlich

01-22-2006, 10:28 PM

Edmund is correct.

YungChun

01-23-2006, 05:03 AM

So the idea is not to focus on the long range, but concentrate on the distancing between you and your opponent.

In order to become proficient at this one must gain experience working from that range; I think that's all most folks are saying, that and, it would be advisable to seek folks out who actually know how to use that range with some skill. How far to go is up to each person.

Why confuse people by saying "grappling range"? Does this mean that at this range, techniques are exclusive to grappling techniques? Ho, ho, ho. LOL. No, off course not. At this range, we can punch, palm, kick, elbow, jab, headbutt, etc., etc. Or, to simplify things, we can "simply" say we are in hitting range.

Yes you can say that - as you are being dragged down to the ground by a grappler, but I don't think it's going to help you...

Just as WCK has it's range of specialization so does BJJ, Catch, Sambo, Greco, etc. Now if you think that's the same range as WCK you are going to find yourself in a world of trouble.

Lets look at some positions:

1. Body Lock

Lets say you are in the midst of closing on the opponent and you find yourself in a body lock about to be lifted off the floor - your WCK technique choice will be what?

2. On your back

You are knocked down and on your back and the opponent has followed you down and has you in a side control - your WCK technique of choice will be what?

3. Opponent throws a lead and you do a perfect pak but sadly he goes low and has both arms around your lead leg as he drives into you for the takedown - your WCK technique of choice will be what?

While WCK is great it is not trained for use on the ground or against grapplers; they will be using different methods that a non-grappler will NOT be familiar with and using the floor to help control you. If you are in grappling range then you already missed your chance to use your WCK and are now in another world – unless you are training WCK techniques on the ground and to defend against takedowns, in which case please explain.

Again in order to deal with grapplers you need to work with grapplers and at least learn some grappling basics. This is a given today, anyone serious about being well rounded must add some grappling/groundwork into the mix. If you don't work with grapplers you will be grappled.

Bruce also thought he would be immune to the effects of grapplers until he found himself being sat on by Judo Gene Labelle. Later that day Bruce decided to add grappling into his mix and shortly after that MMA was born and even depicted in ETD.

chisauking

01-23-2006, 06:32 AM

Ah, the subject is moving off tangent now. From trying to keep things simple, folks here has made it even more complex \ confusing...

I just want to cover one more thing in regards to sifu Wong before I let the people who loves to argue for the sake of arguing take the soap box. It's quite true no matter where you are in the world, you will always get silly buggers.

Edmund sez: Like you're misunderstood?

You stated that WSL let people come to him therefore there's no need to practice or think about long range techniques. Everyone pointed out the simple arguments against that idea but you still keep ignoring the points made.

I'd tried to illustrate the point using Wong sifu simply because he was a very small guy. He could beat bigger and taller people NOT by resorting to 'long range' techniques, because no matter what long range techniques he could have applied, it still would not be as 'long range' as a vastly taller opponent. Letting your opponent come to you is one of the ways to get within hitting range, at no time did I state that was the ONLY way. If you want to contort what I'd said to get your argument across, go ahead.

YungChung sez: In order to become proficient at this one must gain experience working from that range; I think that's all most folks are saying, that and, it would be advisable to seek folks out who actually know how to use that range with some skill. How far to go is up to each person.

Stating the obvious again. Just like saying if you want to get good at wing chun you must practice hard and correctly. That's a given with every thing. It's your problem to make out there are many ranges in combat if you want, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are in hitting range, you can use practically what techniques you choose. If you want to delude yourself that there are significantly different ranges of fighting, whereby different techniques are exclusive to that range, you carry on complicating things.

Just a quick question to all the REAL fighters on this forum with all their battle experiences: What 'long range' techniques could a small guy use against a vastly taller opponent? What would you call that 'range'? LOL

ghostofwingchun

01-23-2006, 07:07 AM

***AS IT HAS ALREADY been pointed out, 5'4" Wong Shun Leung was known for bringing the fight to his opponents; and it's a cold day in hell when a smaller man can fight a big man (who's any good) successfully without bringing the fight to him.

Which means, as Edmund pointed out, he needs to be able to fight through the longer ranges. But "letting someone come to us" makes us a counter fighter (as AndrewS pointed out).

This is not a good strategy against any good fighter - not just bigger men.

Because if his attacks are good - you're almost always playing catchup - and you're letting him set the tone and therefore control the fight.

Bottom line? Sometimes you will have no choice about fighting at longer ranges - because you realize that you have to bring the fight to him and he's good at defending and attacking in the longer ranges...(made all the more pronounced if he's also a big man with long arms and long legs and good skills at trying to keep the fight in those longer ranges. Watch any of Mirko Cro Cop's fights to see what I'm talking about - as just one example).

Hence my belief in the value of using some fight strategies and techniques (from other systems) that specialize in those longer ranges - as a way to fight your way in...since wing chun is primarily a close infight. You can't just rely on the concept of..."well as soon as he starts to move in with an attack I'll make my move to come in on him".

Mr Parlati I am thinking that part of developing functional wc is the ability to . . . as you call it . . . fight through the longer ranges . . . sure some fighters are great at keeping the fight at longer range . . . but that is part of fight . . . if they can beat you they can beat you . . . so I am thinking it comes down to question of should I spend time trying to make my wc better . . . including fighting through longer range . . . or spend time learning to play same game as opponent . . . learning to kickbox with Cropcop . . . for me I rather spend more time trying to get better at wc . . . but I can see other view as well. On related note . . . my experience is that I can not wait when I am smaller fighter . . . this is in my thinking big man's game . . . but perhaps others can make it work . . . I do not know. My experience agrees with YungChun and you that ground is trouble for wc fighter. Here is link to Rickson Gracie interview http://www.geocities.com/global_training_report/rickson_gracie_2005.htm
he take interesting view that jujitsu fighters not need to cross train . . . that doing so misses point of jujitsu . . . this is interesting since he has fought . . . and because many in his family who fight today do cross train . . . perhaps there is no right answer for everyone . . . cross training may help some but not help Rickson . . . if this is case . . . maybe this is true for wc too . . . this is just my thinking at the moment.

Thanks,

Ghost

YungChun

01-23-2006, 07:16 AM

YungChung sez: In order to become proficient at this one must gain experience working from that range; I think that's all most folks are saying, that and, it would be advisable to seek folks out who actually know how to use that range with some skill. How far to go is up to each person.

Stating the obvious again. Just like saying if you want to get good at wing chun you must practice hard and correctly.

No pal,

Making a specific suggestion is not like making a general one. Let's look again at these two words:

General <> Specific

These two things are different. So, instead of making silly comments about my points on grappling and training to close from long range why not address them?

If you can....

Folks need to work FROM the outside with/against folks who are skilled in these other ranges as a specialty. Folks need to get themselves into situations that they are not comfortable with and learn to get comfortable with them. Learning means going OUTSIDE our comfort zone - and no that is not stating the obvious - it's making an important point that seems to completely allude you. There ARE other ranges of specialization and other arts use them, in different ways and to different ends than does WCK - that's why there are different STYLES.

If WCK folks wish to learn how to deal with these outside ranges/other styles then fighting/training with folks who know what they are doing in those ranges is key. WCK is WCK you are not going to get experience dealing with anything other than WCK by playing with your KF brothers forever unless you are lucky enough to have some brothers/buddies skilled in other arts and you work with them.

You can choose to keep it all in the family or you can come on outside and test the waters with other people who play other stuff. One way is safer the other way is where the learning continues.

Does your teacher agree that there is only one range and simply training Chi Sao with your brothers, etc. is going to teach you how to deal with grapplers/kickers/other styles, on the ground etc?

I would be very interested to know who he is and what his position is on these important topics. My guess is that even he would not agree with you.

ghostofwingchun

01-23-2006, 07:36 AM

Does your teacher agree that there is only one range and simply training Chi Sao with your brothers, etc. is going to teach you how to deal with grapplers/kickers/other styles, on the ground etc?

I would be very interested to know who he is and what his position is on these important topics. My guess is that even he would not agree with you.

YungChun please excuse me but I am thinking this is not appropriate question . . . and is some thing of a cheap shot . . . it is fine to question a person's views or experience behind their view . . . but to bring teacher into it does not prove anything . . . to cite teacher or big name is argument from authority . . . a well known rhetorical device and logical fallacy . . . it does not prove anything but attempts to discredit by showing person does not agree with big name . . . well big name can be wrong too . . . name or fact that he is teacher does not make his views true . . . and if person's views are different from teachers to state so in public forum may be form of discrediting teacher . . . for example I wonder if William Cheung agrees with Mr Parlati's view that wc has very limited range or if Moy Yat would have agreed with your views about need for sparring . . . these topics are not relevant . . . it is best I am thinking to leave our teachers out of our discussions . . . and to stick to our own views and expereince . . . sorry to criticize you . . . but I am thinking this is touchy area and not one that gentlemen should go into.

Thanks,

Ghost

YungChun

01-23-2006, 07:46 AM

YungChun please excuse me but I am thinking this is not appropriate question . . . and is some thing of a cheap shot . . .

I disagree.

However to clarify I do not intend any disrespect or intend any cheap shot. I am simply interested if this person's teacher agrees with/teaches the same ideas as expressed by the poster. He need not answer if he does not wish to.

Why? Because I do not think that any teacher would or should teach such things and if they do then in my opinion are doing a great disservice to their students.

Moreover, if the teacher does not agree then perhaps this is news to the poster and perhaps might help him/her reconsider his families’ position on the matter.

YungChun

01-23-2006, 07:56 AM

Moy Yat would have agreed with your views about need for sparring . . .
these topics are not relevant . . . it is best I am thinking to leave our teachers out of our discussions . . . and to stick to our own views and expereince . . . sorry to criticize you . . . but I am thinking this is touchy area and not one that gentlemen should go into.

I have no problem discussing our teachers thoughts or suggestions on any of these areas if they are relevant. In fact it is our teachers who, to a large extent made us what we are. If some folks do not want to discuss their teachers or schools that's fine but I see nothing wrong with asking questions about teachers, teaching methods or bringing to light things that our teachers have discussed regarding training or theory, etc.

ghostofwingchun

01-23-2006, 08:56 AM

I disagree.

However to clarify I do not intend any disrespect or intend any cheap shot. I am simply interested if this person's teacher agrees with/teaches the same ideas as expressed by the poster. He need not answer if he does not wish to.

Why? Because I do not think that any teacher would or should teach such things and if they do then in my opinion are doing a great disservice to their students.

Moreover, if the teacher does not agree then perhaps this is news to the poster and perhaps might help him/her reconsider his families’ position on the matter.

YungChun I am thinking that an individual's skill and performance is reality . . . and reality is not based on concensus of group or family . . . or family's position on matter . . . or even teacher's position on matter . . . experience across sports and in wc has shown me that what one person can do may not be what others can do . . . many things seem to be common sense to us and then some one comes along who defies our common sense or who does things we believe wrongly and in doing so gains great success . . . deference to authority whether teacher or family or group is one of reasons I am thinking that marital arts decline . . . I am not saying that it is not good to listen to others . . . I am only saying that we must do our own thinking and research . . . and draw our own conclusions . . . and not be persuaded by authority.

Thanks,

Ghost

YungChun

01-23-2006, 09:11 AM

Yes that's a reality.. And here is another reality..

Bad teachers or bad teaching gets students killed.

Yes we each have our own path, blah, blah, blah, discover our own truths, etc., however, some truths are universal and pretending they do not exist again is misleading, irresponsible and occasionally deadly.

In my opinion rooting out/discussing what is teaching responsibility/irresponsibility is something that is hard to find, hard to impossible for beginners to do and not something you are going to find on Sifu X’s website. What better place to discuss such realities than on this kind of forum?

Part of teaching MA responsibly is teaching what limits exist in training. One of the biggest MA fallacies is that traiing X covers ALL and this does get students killed. Folks need to talk about this stuff.

Reality is often painful – but no pain no gain.

AndrewS

01-23-2006, 11:10 AM

In reference to CSK's rant on ranges-

Free motion
Clinch
Ground

Pretty much sums it up, based on required motor and visual skills. You can divide things up as finely or coarsely as you care to, and is of use to you.

CSK,

The problem here isn't one of technical discussion, but of personality dysfunction. 'Chisauking', you seem to be under the impression that you're the unrevealed messiah of Wing Chun, and in your communications you mouth the platitudes of the experienced- things which are often said by both those who are good and those who s*ck. I can remember *no* deep technical knowlege which you've imparted while exercising your delusions of internet grandiosity (unlike Hendrick, who actually buries useful information in his ramblings usually in such a way that it only serves to confuse those to whom it's not obvious).

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I just haven't heard any depth past the surface platitudes that can be heard from a thousand other mouth boxers. You want to make this an interesting discussion, spend a few hundred words on specific methods to train people to close and develop a sense of range and timing.

Oh yeah-

Just a quick question to all the REAL fighters on this forum with all their battle experiences: What 'long range' techniques could a small guy use against a vastly taller opponent? What would you call that 'range'? LOL

Low thai kick, more gas in the tank, and much better motion. Ruas vs. Varlens for the clinic. Varlens had about 8" or more of height on Ruas.

Frankly, it has f*ck all to do with 'technique'- a smaller guy with much better sense of distance and timing can use whatever tools they've developed to stymie, frustrate, and exhaust a bigger man, before moving in for the kill.

Or from a 'real world' perspective- they can leave- most of use 225lb+ folks aren't up for long runs.

Andrew

YungChun

01-23-2006, 11:37 AM

Frankly, it has f*ck all to do with 'technique'- a smaller guy with much better sense of distance and timing can use whatever tools they've developed to stymie, frustrate, and exhaust a bigger man, before moving in for the kill.

B I N G O !

Nuff said. :cool:

anerlich

01-23-2006, 04:08 PM

Good old Anerlick, you have this amazing perception to state the obvious.

Thanks, CSK.

It's a talent I find occasionally useful in dealing with people whose opinions of their own intellect, wit, and appeal significantly outstrip the actuality.

You, for example.

Edmund

01-23-2006, 05:05 PM

I'd tried to illustrate the point using Wong sifu simply because he was a very small guy. He could beat bigger and taller people NOT by resorting to 'long range' techniques, because no matter what long range techniques he could have applied, it still would not be as 'long range' as a vastly taller opponent. Letting your opponent come to you is one of the ways to get within hitting range, at no time did I state that was the ONLY way. If you want to contort what I'd said to get your argument across, go ahead.

Your point has been repeated over a few times.
Others have argued that:
* You aren't WSL i.e. it takes a lot of skill to get the distance from a long range to a short one.

* If you are incompetent at long range your opponent can attack that weakness.

* You have to crosstrain against competent long range fighters doing long range techniques. (If it's so obvious then what training do you actually do like this? And what would you catagorize it as? Long range training perhaps?)

* You will find that your leg is longer than your arm giving you the chance to kick your opponent at distances where you couldn't punch them. That's regardless of whether you're moving or standing still. (How the hell you can consider that a bad thing I can't comprehend.)

You want to catagorize things so simply, you're welcome to but everyone's been pointing out the efficacy of making a distinction between long and short ranges and I don't think you've rebutted a thing.

Edmund

01-23-2006, 05:24 PM

so I am thinking it comes down to question of should I spend time trying to make my wc better . . . including fighting through longer range . . . or spend time learning to play same game as opponent . . . learning to kickbox with Cropcop . . . for me I rather spend more time trying to get better at wc . . . but I can see other view as well.

If you completely useless at kickboxing there's a big chance he's going to try kick your head clean off. It's not about out kicking him, it's about surviving long enough to do your thing. You need a bit of defence and offence.

Here is link to Rickson Gracie interview http://www.geocities.com/global_training_report/rickson_gracie_2005.htm
he take interesting view that jujitsu fighters not need to cross train . . . that doing so misses point of jujitsu . . . this is interesting since he has fought . . . and because many in his family who fight today do cross train . . . perhaps there is no right answer for everyone . . . cross training may help some but not help Rickson . . . if this is case . . . maybe this is true for wc too . . . this is just my thinking at the moment.

I think just about every pro that's fighting nowdays cross-trains. You don't HAVE to, since you aren't a pro fighter. But it doesn't mean that cross-training is wrong.
They're very successful in MMA using that approach rather than the specializing one.

chisauking

01-23-2006, 06:02 PM

AndrewS sez: Low thai kick, more gas in the tank, and much better motion. Ruas vs. Varlens for the clinic. Varlens had about 8" or more of height on Ruas.

I can see your strategy clearly, Andrew. The little guy will have far greater reach than the tall guy.

Frankly, it has f*ck all to do with 'technique'- a smaller guy with much better sense of distance and timing can use whatever tools they've developed to stymie, frustrate, and exhaust a bigger man, before moving in for the kill.

I thought you was talking about 'long range' techniques? Why are you repeating the words of a non fighter who knows very little -- distance and timing? I'm a very simple person. Can you please state clearly what 'long range' techniques would the little guy use, if you agree that wing chun lacks 'long range' ability? Perhaps you can spend a little time writing a piece of 250 words on training the 'long range' within wing chun. I'm sure you can contribute lots compare to me.

Just to please the rest of you, I shall measure the distance between my opponents. 12-inch apart will be toe kicking range; 11 will be heel kicking range; 10 will be middle finger range; 9 will be second finger range; 8 will be western boxing range; 7 will be wing chun boxing range; 6 will be knee to testicle range, etc., etc.

Please post any range I have left out so that I may write it down for my future reference. I shall deligently try to apply all those ranges the next time my life is on the line whilst fighting on the street.

ghostofwingchun

01-23-2006, 06:24 PM

If you completely useless at kickboxing there's a big chance he's going to try kick your head clean off. It's not about out kicking him, it's about surviving long enough to do your thing. You need a bit of defence and offence.

I think just about every pro that's fighting nowdays cross-trains. You don't HAVE to, since you aren't a pro fighter. But it doesn't mean that cross-training is wrong.
They're very successful in MMA using that approach rather than the specializing one.

Mr Edmund I am sorry that I did not make myself clear . . . I was trying to say that in my view I do not want to kickbox with kickboxer . . . I am playing his game . . . for me wc has provided strategy and tools to deal with that range . . . how well I can do that depends on how well I train . . . so I would rather spend the time developing my wc than spending my time kickboxing . . . however if you or someone else finds that their wc is lacking in dealing with kickboxers then by all means train kickboxing . . . I am not saying cross training is wrong . . . nor am I saying it is right . . . I am saying that each person must decide if it is right or wrong better or worse for them . . . Rickson says he does not need it . . . others apparently do . . . I do not understand why people think there is best way for everyone . . . and that best way is their way . . . lol.

Thanks,

Ghost

chisauking

01-23-2006, 07:41 PM

Here's an interesting account of how Wong sifu fought for REAL. Funny, it seems to contradict what all the professional fighters on this forum was saying about letting the opponent COME to you.

Barry Lee:

Sifu has a good friend who has trained in some Wing Chun, but normally doesn´t train in Wing Chun. He´s just a good friend who comes to talk to Sifu. This friend is an habitual gambler and has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time, and in this instance he owed a lot of money in gambling debts. Sifu and this person were in a restaurant minding their own business in the evening and more than 13 men came in, all with weapons of some kind in order to get this man. They were going to finish him and Sifu was forced to defend him. Normally Sifu would let them come to him but, because they were after the other man, he stepped between him and them and stepped into them. In his whole life, maybe more than 30 years of fighting, it was the first mistake of stepping in rather than doing the Wing Chun practice of allowing the fight to come to him. But he had to save his friend; otherwise he would have isolated a number of them and taken them out that way. Sifu fought them and knocked four or more of them down. He went to punch one of them and his sleeve – because he was wearing the long Min Lap (Chinese jacket with rolled up sleeves) at the time – the Min Lap unravelled and the man grabbed the jacket and came up with a knife. As the knife came up Sifu had the reflex action to move and the knife just caught him between the eyes (There is a scar on Wong´s forehead, between his eyes). The man grabbed his arm and as he pulled Sifu in, Sifu finished him with one punch. The rest of them ran away as the police came.
But Sifu never advocates fighting a man with a weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. In a group fight, you angle yourself so that you are facing one man and the group has to come from behind him to get to you. So you isolate them by taking the man at an angle. "

Ah, may be sifu Lee haven't fought for real and he doesn't realise there is 'long range' wing chun, and the 64 ranges of fighting. I will post him my list.

Matrix

01-23-2006, 07:49 PM

* You will find that your leg is longer than your arm giving you the chance to kick your opponent at distances where you couldn't punch them. That's regardless of whether you're moving or standing still. (How the hell you can consider that a bad thing I can't comprehend.)
1 - When you kick you are standing on one leg for a period of time.
2- Your mobility is limited for that period of time
3- Your balance may be compromised.

Other than that, I can't see much wrong with it.

I'm not saying kicks aren't great weapons, just be aware that there are some limitations.

Matrix

01-23-2006, 08:18 PM

* You aren't WSL i.e. it takes a lot of skill to get the distance from a long range to a short one.There was only one. What are us mere mortals to do?

* If you are incompetent at long range your opponent can attack that weakness..Incompetent may be too strong a term. Otherwise, The corollary to that is that you have to know your strengths and work from that strength. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none???

*
You want to catagorize things so simply, you're welcome to but everyone's been pointing out the efficacy of making a distinction between long and short ranges and I don't think you've rebutted a thing.Maybe you're making things too complex. I think Chisauking has made some good points. Besides, this is not a popularity contest.

Ultimatewingchun

01-23-2006, 08:25 PM

"Mr Parlati I am thinking that part of developing functional wc is the ability to . . . as you call it . . . fight through the longer ranges . . . sure some fighters are great at keeping the fight at longer range . . . but that is part of fight . . . if they can beat you they can beat you . . . so I am thinking it comes down to question of should I spend time trying to make my wc better . . . including fighting through longer range . . . or spend time learning to play same game as opponent . . . learning to kickbox with Cropcop . . . for me I rather spend more time trying to get better at wc ." (Ghost)

***IF YOU WOULD GO to the archives and look up a thread I once started entitled: WING CHUN BOXING...and read the first post...

You'll see that I AM NOT ADVOCATING LEARNING TO KICKBOX WITH CROCOP. To the contrary, I am advocating using Traditional Wing Chun central line principles with some long range boxing/kickboxing techniques and footwork as a way to get close enough to use wing chun squared up centerline principles and techniques (common to all wing chun systems) - and/or TWC close quarter central line principles and blindside strategies and techniques - which ever would be most efficient at any given moment.

In other words, I'm using some boxing/kickboxing moves to get close enough to form a bridge and go to work in the wing chun range - or to get close enough to forego a bridge altogether and just punch, palm strike, finger strike, side palm chop, elbow, knee, low kick, sweep, or whatever on an open line.

And if the fight gets closer (ie.- he bodylocks me, as YungChun pointed out)...then I'll switch to wrestling mode.

With this in mind, my answer to chisauking's question should be obvious. He asks:

"Just a quick question to all the REAL fighters on this forum with all their battle experiences: What 'long range' techniques could a small guy use against a vastly taller opponent? What would you call that 'range'?"

***STRAIGHT LEAD HAND PUNCHES that use shoulder and hip rotation (for longer reach)...the same with rear crosses; lead leg hop front kicks with the knee in and landing with the toe or ball of the foot...

(not with the knee out - as it is used in the typical shorter range wing chun front kick landing with the heel).

Also lead leg roundhouse kicks...(and rear leg longer range front kicks and roundhouse kicks have their place also) - with a slight bounce in the footwork (not exactly up-on-your-toes...but similar) - so as to provide some broken rhythm (deception) and explosiveness to the attack because you're exploding off the rear foot (heel).

All of the above will increase one's reach - whether it be the punches or the kicks.

Another potential big problem with allowing the fight to come to you is a good boxer/kickboxer type who uses feints, bob, weaves, and broken rhtythms and knows how to hook off the lead jab and other such combinations. You wait for him to come to you - and you're asking for big trouble. You have to take the fight to people - unless they're just exploding at you with a very committed move that they won't be able to interrupt in time if you counter it directly.

Matrix

01-23-2006, 08:26 PM

I was trying to say that in my view I do not want to kickbox with kickboxer . . . I am playing his game . . . for me wc has provided strategy and tools to deal with that range.Good point Ghost.

sihing

01-23-2006, 09:28 PM

Edmund

01-23-2006, 11:22 PM

There was only one. What are us mere mortals to do?

Well not use him as an example for a start.

Speak from your own experiences not some Sifu story where he beats 30 armed men. (?!)

i.e. When I spar, I only concern myself with 1 range. I sparred this guy and that guy who do MA "X" and "Y" ..... etc.

Incompetent may be too strong a term. Otherwise, The corollary to that is that you have to know your strengths and work from that strength. Jack-of-all-trades and master of none???

Everyone always states "Jack of all trades" like it's a bad thing.
Those guys can get stuff done.

Hasn't MMA shown that a jack of all trades can be quite successful? And a master of one trade can be beaten by attacking their weak area?

What sort of competence at long range skills do you gain without working with competent long range MAists and learning from them?

Maybe you're making things too complex. I think Chisauking has made some good points. Besides, this is not a popularity contest.

Ninja please. The reasons behind catagorizing long/short ranges have been stated as well! So it's NOT a case of having a lot of people posting "No way" without explaining. See my previous post and address the points. Or other peoples points. Are those reasons too complex?

At least take the time to acknowledge that someone posted an actual explanation. Not just state, "No it's too complex". CSK has stated his case but defended it with only some sarcasm which does not make a good argument.

Similarly you have not addressed why it's too complex.

Edmund

01-23-2006, 11:45 PM

Mr Edmund I am sorry that I did not make myself clear . . . I was trying to say that in my view I do not want to kickbox with kickboxer . . . I am playing his game . . . for me wc has provided strategy and tools to deal with that range . . . how well I can do that depends on how well I train . . . so I would rather spend the time developing my wc than spending my time kickboxing . . . however if you or someone else finds that their wc is lacking in dealing with kickboxers then by all means train kickboxing

Ghost, as I stated clearly before, it is about surviving at that range to get to the point of playing your game, not out-kickboxing a kickboxer. Not playing their game.

Cross training is not about playing the opponent's game.

It's about surviving when you are outside of your game.

Because that can happen.

And then you'll be beaten immediately if you are completely useless outside of your strength area.

Matrix

01-24-2006, 05:31 AM

Ninja please. You need to work on your long-range insults. They're a little weak. :rolleyes:

ghostofwingchun

01-24-2006, 06:34 AM

Ghost, as I stated clearly before, it is about surviving at that range to get to the point of playing your game, not out-kickboxing a kickboxer. Not playing their game.

Cross training is not about playing the opponent's game.

It's about surviving when you are outside of your game.

Because that can happen.

And then you'll be beaten immediately if you are completely useless outside of your strength area.

Thank you Mr Edmund . . . yes I understand the value of cross training . . . I even cross train myself . . . and train jujitsu . . . because I found that for me I was weak on ground . . . but I do not say every one should follow my example . . . and I have found that I do not need to cross train boxing or kickboxing . . . wc serves me just fine . . . this is me and I do not say it is right for everyone. Please understand I have no objection to your view or Mr Parlati's view . . . my objection is only when people think their view is the only right view . . . if you see what I mean.

Thanks,

Ghost

ghostofwingchun

01-24-2006, 06:50 AM

WC also provides strategy and tools to deal with any range of unarmed combat, long range (if there is such a thing in a real fight), mid range(boxing), trapping range (WC), and grappling range (Anti grappling concepts). Learning what the other guys do and what their arts promote regarding concepts, principals, strategy and tactics/techniques is always a good thing, and should be done by professional Martial Artists(teachers and the such), but trying to actually go out a start to study any or all of them requires too much time for the average guy. Yeah, if you have the income to support a full time training regimend, then all the best for ya, I would probably do the same also, and experience other MA more often. Unfortunately most of us do not have that type of income.

So I agree with Ghost, why learn the other stuff when the art provides answers for it. Learning it well, understand what you are doing, and test it at all stages..

James

Mr James I want to make a distinction in what I said . . . I said that for me wc has provided the strategy and tools to deal with stand up fighting . . . I did not mean that wc provides these things . . . so that any one practicing wc will find these same things . . . as I am thinking of it wc does not give us these things or answers . . . as I think of it wc only provides the means by which through training we can find our own answers . . . if we can not do it then we do not have the answer . . . if we do not put in the work to find the answers . . . we will not have the answers.

Thanks,

Ghost

sihing

01-24-2006, 07:46 AM

Mr James I want to make a distinction in what I said . . . I said that for me wc has provided the strategy and tools to deal with stand up fighting . . . I did not mean that wc provides these things . . . so that any one practicing wc will find these same things . . . as I am thinking of it wc does not give us these things or answers . . . as I think of it wc only provides the means by which through training we can find our own answers . . . if we can not do it then we do not have the answer . . . if we do not put in the work to find the answers . . . we will not have the answers.

Thanks,

Ghost

Putting in the work is a given, and always the prerequisite. Just signing your name on the application form for a Wing Chun school doesn't mean you know how to fight with Wing Chun, lol..

Why wouldn't it work for other's Ghost if it works for You? You have two arms, two legs like most of us on the planet? We all are really not that different. Attitudes are different yes, but if WC (the delivery system) can work for one it can work for all. Whether or not a person decides to put the work in to absorb it correctly is another story. You work the WC and it will work for you IMO.

James

AmanuJRY

01-24-2006, 08:39 AM

Why wouldn't it work for other's Ghost if it works for You? You have two arms, two legs like most of us on the planet? We all are really not that different. Attitudes are different yes, but if WC (the delivery system) can work for one is can work for all.

VS.

Whether or not a person decides to put the work in to absorb it correctly is another story. You work the WC and it will work for you IMO.

I think 'whether or not a person decides to put the work in to absorb it correctly' has a direct impact on whether or not it will work for them. I think people invest too much in what they could do and not enough in what they are doing (in other words, talk the talk...but no walk). WC won't work for (or, can't be learned by..) a person who's 'attitude' is 'different' (to use James' terms), therefore WC won't work for 'all'. ;)

It's like saying quantum physics can be understood by all...but only if they apply themselves to understanding it.:D

sihing

01-24-2006, 08:53 AM

VS.

I think 'whether or not a person decides to put the work in to absorb it correctly' has a direct impact on whether or not it will work for them. I think people invest too much in what they could do and not enough in what they are doing (in other words, talk the talk...but no walk). WC won't work for (or, can't be learned by..) a person who's 'attitude' is 'different' (to use James' terms), therefore WC won't work for 'all'. ;)

It's like saying quantum physics can be understood by all...but only if they apply themselves to understanding it.:D

Yes I agree, or did I not make my point in my post??;)

If the person learning doesn't put the effort into it then they will not learn it, at least not to a very effective level. A keen interest in the activity will also elevate the progression of learning, allowing one to learn it faster.

Don't work the WC and it will NOT work for YOU...:)

James

AmanuJRY

01-24-2006, 08:58 AM

Yes I agree, or did I not make my point in my post??;)

Yes, same point. I was merely trying to state that I don't separate the ability to learn WC ('can work for all'), from the Learner (student, which includes their 'attitude').

Ultimatewingchun

01-24-2006, 09:04 AM

"and if person's views are different from teachers to state so in public forum may be form of discrediting teacher . . . for example I wonder if William Cheung agrees with Mr Parlati's view that wc has very limited range or if Moy Yat would have agreed with your views about need for sparring . . . these topics are not relevant . . . it is best I am thinking to leave our teachers out of our discussions." (Ghost)

***AFTER 30 YEARS of wing chun, Ghost...and after now reaching the age of 55, ...there's no longer any need to look upon any of my teachers as some sort of almighty father who must never be contradicted in public. I let my own knowledge and experience be my primary guide at this point. (And it can be done in much less than 30 years, I might add). :cool:

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

AND FURTHERMORE, let me respond to this quote from CSK:

"Here's an interesting account of how Wong sifu fought for REAL. Funny, it seems to contradict what all the professional fighters on this forum was saying about letting the opponent COME to you.

Barry Lee:

Sifu has a good friend who has trained in some Wing Chun, but normally doesn´t train in Wing Chun. He´s just a good friend who comes to talk to Sifu. This friend is an habitual gambler and has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time, and in this instance he owed a lot of money in gambling debts. Sifu and this person were in a restaurant minding their own business in the evening and more than 13 men came in, all with weapons of some kind in order to get this man. They were going to finish him and Sifu was forced to defend him. Normally Sifu would let them come to him but, because they were after the other man, he stepped between him and them and stepped into them. In his whole life, maybe more than 30 years of fighting, it was the first mistake of stepping in rather than doing the Wing Chun practice of allowing the fight to come to him. But he had to save his friend; otherwise he would have isolated a number of them and taken them out that way."

***AS MUCH AS I RESPECT WONG SHUN LEUNG...how many trained boxer/kickboxer types - WITH THE KINDS OF MOVES that I (and others) have described on this thread...how many of these people did Wong ever fight?

Answer: No evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) of ANY. (And his experiences against Thai boxers - which wasn't always very successful...back in the 1960's...doesn't count for very much in this regard either; because as everybody who's looked into it knows...the Thai's back then were very good kickers, and very good at using elbows and kness in the clinch...but their boxing hands were no match for western boxing hands and related footwork.

Your problem, chisauking...is that you're living way too far back in the past!

I can't say it enough: Waiting for the fight to come to you only works well against an inexperienced and/or not-very-skilled fighter...or against a very committed move that's being launched far enough away that you have time to read it and react appropriately to it. And most good fighters today rarely attack in that manner.

AndrewS

01-24-2006, 12:03 PM

CSK writes:

I thought you was talking about 'long range' techniques?

40% of the American public lacks the basic reading comprehension necessary to detect bias or interpret a passage on a sophisticated level, according to one recent study. It seems this problem is not restricted to the Americas.

Once again-
Free motion
Clinch
Ground

I'm a very simple person.

According to your profile, you're a 17 year old boy. This medium being what it is, you may well be lying, but if you aren't, there's a chance you'll be less simple and irritating in a few years. Most males are utter morons until 25 or so. If you are lying about who you are, you're clearly out to demonstrate a new level of pathos in attention-seeking trolling.

Can you please state clearly what 'long range' techniques would the little guy use, if you agree that wing chun lacks 'long range' ability?

And again-
free motion
clinch
ground

None of these things is measured in meters. If you use center of gravity to center of gravity as a measure of distance, two guys throwing blows in the furball without clinch (free motion) can be closer together than the same two people in a leglock war (ground).

Hence, 'free motion' is the way being free- the bridge is weapon to target, no chasing hands, no control over your center of gravity by other person. What you're calling 'long range' is the decision to disengage after a hit or sequence of hits in order to rebridge, ideally weapon to target once again. Certain sports encouage this by dint of their rules, developing the ability do this in their participants- boxing, taekwondo, kendo, fencing, etc. The decision to fight this way is a tactical one, and is probably only wise if the other person is lousy at that skill set (striking/bridging) and very dangerous up close.

Perhaps you can spend a little time writing a piece of 250 words on training the 'long range' within wing chun. I'm sure you can contribute lots compare to me.

See my 20 pages of training notes on the S&C forum.

As to the Barry Lee piece you posted- you seem to be trying to imply WSL liked to stay in one place letting the other person step and attack then dealing with it from where he was while the other person has moved to the place they want to be- that sounds *nothing* like what I've heard Wong's approach was- aggressive, high pressure, decisive, going directly in once he found the line, always eschewing chasing hands for landing blows.

Andrew

anerlich

01-24-2006, 04:05 PM

Sifu and this person were in a restaurant minding their own business in the evening and more than 13 men came in, all with weapons of some kind in order to get this man. They were going to finish him and Sifu was forced to defend him.

I mean no disrespect to WSL, but many of these old time stories are full of hyperbole.

As another example, take William Cheung's fight as a teenager against 3 or four mature, tough sailors on the boat he took to Australia. A couple of KF practitioners who witnessed the fight said it was extremely impressive, even though to some degree the narrow shipboard corridors worked to GM Cheung's favour in that they prevented his attackers from surrounding him.

Someone writes a screenplay and suddenly he's locked in a compartment overnight with 27 tooled up ruffians, all of whom he dispatches easily. And people take it as gospel.

And all the time, the lily required no gilding.

Edmund

01-24-2006, 05:14 PM

You need to work on your long-range insults. They're a little weak. :rolleyes:

Firstly it wasn't intended as an insult.

2nd, you did not addressed any of my points. I believe I tried to reply to yours.

If people are going to criticize long range training, they could at least address the arguments for doing it.

Edmund

01-24-2006, 05:41 PM

Thank you Mr Edmund . . . yes I understand the value of cross training . . . I even cross train myself . . . and train jujitsu . . . because I found that for me I was weak on ground . . . but I do not say every one should follow my example . . . and I have found that I do not need to cross train boxing or kickboxing . . . wc serves me just fine . . . this is me and I do not say it is right for everyone. Please understand I have no objection to your view or Mr Parlati's view . . . my objection is only when people think their view is the only right view . . . if you see what I mean.

Frankly I think it depends on what experiences you base your view on.

chisauking

01-24-2006, 08:26 PM

In response to my question: "Just a quick question to all the REAL fighters on this forum with all their battle experiences: What 'long range' techniques could a small guy use against a vastly taller opponent? What would you call that 'range'?"

Victor replies:***STRAIGHT LEAD HAND PUNCHES that use shoulder and hip rotation (for longer reach)...the same with rear crosses; lead leg hop front kicks with the knee in and landing with the toe or ball of the foot...

(not with the knee out - as it is used in the typical shorter range wing chun front kick landing with the heel).

Also lead leg roundhouse kicks...(and rear leg longer range front kicks and roundhouse kicks have their place also) - with a slight bounce in the footwork (not exactly up-on-your-toes...but similar) - so as to provide some broken rhythm (deception) and explosiveness to the attack because you're exploding off the rear foot (heel).

First of all, thank you Victor for stating what wing chun's long range weakness is actually. Now that I know what you are talking about, we have a clear line of discussion. If your assumption of wing chun's weakness is based on the examples that you have posted above, then I personally don't think it's a weakness at all. You see, to really comprehend wing chun, you must understand some of its principles. For example, structure, balance, economy of motion \ directness. Without the attributes of the formentioned principles, you don't have the ability to generate maximum power, the ability to ground in-coming energy, quick mobility, and lastly to attack in the shortest time possible. For many wing chun practitioners, applying those techniques that you have suggested would enevitably mean that they break one or all of the principles that I had mentioned. Any techniques that requires over extending would lose you your structure and balance. Any techniques that takes an excessively large curve, like a round house kick, to apply would mean that your motion is not ecomonical or direct. For these reasons, most wing chun practitioners don't use the 'long range' techniques that you have advised. So, if they don't use it, how can it be a weakness?

Further more, if both the short and tall opponents used the same long range techniques that you had advise, you would find that although the tall person could reach the small guy, the small guy would not be able to reach the tall guy, since the taller guy could stand further back.
Ah, you could say, the small guy can move within reach....but at this range where they BOTH could reach each other, it's no longer considered 'long range' anymore, is it? Even worst, at this range the small guy is still using over extending techniques as you had suggested, thereby compromising his structure, balance, mobility, but the tall guy doesn't need to over reach at all, so he retains his structure, balance and mobility. He would hold all the advantages over you in this range....Game, set, and match! No matter how you see it, however much the small guy extends his long range, he still won't be able to match the taller guy applying the same techniques.

Maybe you could apply all those techniques without compromising your structure, balance, and directness. Good for you, Victor. But you will find most other wing chun practitioners don't have your special abilities.

ghostofwingchun

01-24-2006, 08:39 PM

Putting in the work is a given, and always the prerequisite. Just signing your name on the application form for a Wing Chun school doesn't mean you know how to fight with Wing Chun, lol..

Why wouldn't it work for other's Ghost if it works for You? You have two arms, two legs like most of us on the planet? We all are really not that different. Attitudes are different yes, but if WC (the delivery system) can work for one it can work for all. Whether or not a person decides to put the work in to absorb it correctly is another story. You work the WC and it will work for you IMO.

James

Mr James just because we are all human beings does not mean we all have same abilities . . . or same tendencies . . . or same likes and dislikes . . . and so on . . . any one who plays sports can tell you that players are very different . . . these differences make no two boxers the same . . . no two jujitsu players the same . . . and so on. WC is no guarantee . . . not even if put in the work . . . any more than golf is a guarantee . . . how many people play golf . . . take lessons . . . watch DVDs . . . play a lot . . . go to driving range . . . and so on . . . but never become really good golfers . . . it is the same in any sport . . . and it is the same with wc . . . this is my experience any way.

Thanks,

Ghost

Matrix

01-24-2006, 08:48 PM

Well not use him as an example for a start.

Speak from your own experiences not some Sifu story where he beats 30 armed men. (?!).I think WSL is a great example. We can look to the masters of our system for guidance. I do agree however, that we need to still find our own way within that context. However, WSL has been successful with WC, so he is someone who I can look too. It seems that BJJ guys often speak of the Gracies. It makes some sense. Reinventing the wheel takes too long, and often ends up in a lot of inaccurate results.

Hasn't MMA shown that a jack of all trades can be quite successful? And a master of one trade can be beaten by attacking their weak area?.I certainly can't claim to be an expert in MMA. I've watched several events with interest and enjoyed the Ulimate Fighter reality series. One thing I did notice is that they tend to be classified broadly as strikes and grapplers. It makes sense. We tend to gravitate to what we feel works for us physically and emotionally. Also, I'm not a professional athlete. I don't have the time to train multiple systems - it's just not practical. In your previous statements you used the word "incompetant" and that's what I question. Sure, adding some grappling skills would be great, but I'm sure that I will always gravitate to striking. I suspect that I will always be a better striker. But that's just me I guess.....

What sort of competence at long range skills do you gain without working with competent long range MAists and learning from them?.I came from the long range camp to WC. I feel "competant" there. Of course that's not an objective assesment by any means.

Ninja please.Can you please tell me what the point of this statement is? I took it as a snide remark. Maybe I missed something.

The reasons behind catagorizing long/short ranges have been stated as well!.Yes they have been stated, and you say it's been done well because you agree. And I think the other position has also been well stated. You just don't want to acknowledge it. That's fine by me....

Similarly you have not addressed why it's too complex.It's too complex because it is entirely unnecessary. Switching from boxing to WC and back and forth seems totally unnecessary and therefore makes things overly complex. But it's only my POV. We all need to find out what works for us. I certainly don't claim to have THE answer. I'm sure you are further along the path than I am.

stay tuned, I'm sure someone will jump in and resolve that dilema for us.

Matrix

01-24-2006, 08:56 PM

Maybe you could apply all those techniques without compromising your structure, balance, and directness. Good for you, Victor. But you will find most other wing chun practitioners don't have your special abilities.CSK, that's pretty much how I see it as well. Since our arms and legs are a fixed length, we are giving up structure and balance in order to entend our shoulders and upper-body so we can get that extra reach. However, If someone can make this work for them, then I say "more power to them". I'm mainly interested in results.

chisauking

01-24-2006, 09:02 PM

AndrewS sez: 40% of the American public lacks the basic reading comprehension necessary to detect bias or interpret a passage on a sophisticated level, according to one recent study. It seems this problem is not restricted to the Americas.

Are you an American?

AndrewS sez: According to your profile, you're a 17 year old boy. This medium being what it is, you may well be lying, but if you aren't, there's a chance you'll be less simple and irritating in a few years. Most males are utter morons until 25 or so. If you are lying about who you are, you're clearly out to demonstrate a new level of pathos in attention-seeking trolling.

Ah, so I see that you are so intelligent you would reveal all your personal details on the net for all to exploit?

Quote:
Can you please state clearly what 'long range' techniques would the little guy use, if you agree that wing chun lacks 'long range' ability?

AndrewS sez: And again-
free motion
clinch
ground

None of these things is measured in meters. If you use center of gravity to center of gravity as a measure of distance, two guys throwing blows in the furball without clinch (free motion) can be closer together than the same two people in a leglock war (ground).

Hence, 'free motion' is the way being free- the bridge is weapon to target, no chasing hands, no control over your center of gravity by other person. What you're calling 'long range' is the decision to disengage after a hit or sequence of hits in order to rebridge, ideally weapon to target once again. Certain sports encouage this by dint of their rules, developing the ability do this in their participants- boxing, taekwondo, kendo, fencing, etc. The decision to fight this way is a tactical one, and is probably only wise if the other person is lousy at that skill set (striking/bridging) and very dangerous up close.

Being a simple person, the above is mumbo jumbo to me. Now free motion, clince, and ground is 'LONG RANGE' techniques. I guess you can call apples as oranges if you are that way inclined.

Quote:
Perhaps you can spend a little time writing a piece of 250 words on training the 'long range' within wing chun. I'm sure you can contribute lots compare to me.

See my 20 pages of training notes on the S&C forum.

No thank you, Andrew. I have no interest in s&c. I prefer to use wing chun engine power instead.

AndrewS sez: As to the Barry Lee piece you posted- you seem to be trying to imply WSL liked to stay in one place letting the other person step and attack then dealing with it from where he was while the other person has moved to the place they want to be- that sounds *nothing* like what I've heard Wong's approach was- aggressive, high pressure, decisive, going directly in once he found the line, always eschewing chasing hands for landing blows.

I'm implying nothing at all. It's clearly stated by one of his most acclaimed students. You also stated 'going directly in once he found the line'. Why didn't he use 'long range' round house kick then?

Any way, don't get too upset. I'm not as educated as yourself. I'm one of the 40% public that lacks the basic reading comprehension necessary to detect bias or interpret a passage on a sophisticated level. I may have misunderstood you entirely, since I need the dictionariry to understand some of the words you use.

Matrix

01-24-2006, 09:08 PM

WITH THE KINDS OF MOVES[/B] that I (and others) have described on this thread...how many of these people did Wong ever fight?Victor, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There is nothing to gained by making these statements against WSL. Your point cannot be proven one way or another using this line of arguement, and at best you can only hope to offend someone. Maybe you should reconsider.....

sihing

01-24-2006, 09:09 PM

Mr James just because we are all human beings does not mean we all have same abilities . . . or same tendencies . . . or same likes and dislikes . . . and so on . . . any one who plays sports can tell you that players are very different . . . these differences make no two boxers the same . . . no two jujitsu players the same . . . and so on. WC is no guarantee . . . not even if put in the work . . . any more than golf is a guarantee . . . how many people play golf . . . take lessons . . . watch DVDs . . . play a lot . . . go to driving range . . . and so on . . . but never become really good golfers . . . it is the same in any sport . . . and it is the same with wc . . . this is my experience any way.

Thanks,

Ghost

Yes it is true that we all have different ability levels and attributes. But really I do not believe that we as human beings are all that different. The details and slight improvements in physical performance are really only important when you are talking about high level sporting events, like track & field, weight lifting events, etc.. Since we are not talking about sporting events, but more or less about WC effectiveness as a Martial Art in the street, the idea is to make it all work when one needs it the most, one should not have to be a Micheal Jordan or Bruce Lee type phenom physically, at least this is how I look at WC and what it can do for someone. The reason why I think this way is that to me WC is a skill based attribute MA, not a phyically based attribute MA. Once you learn the WC skills(two arm coordination, economy of motion in your movements, timing, distance control, perception skills, sensitivity, short range power, structure, positioning, etc...) you can maintain them easier without the same work intensity that was required in obtaining them. With physical based MA, once you stop training the speed, stamina, strength, endurance, toughness routines, you lose your effectiveness as a fighter and practitioner of the art.

As a teacher of WC I've had the opportunity to see hundreds of average people come through the various schools, and make use of the WC we teach them(meaning they gain skills they did not have before they came into the school). Yeah, not all of them pick it up easily, but that is usually not the case. I've had children with ADD pick this stuff up, so if they can use it, anyone can. And the fact is, they are more prepared to defend themselves with these skills than they were before they joined the school, and did not have the skills (fighting the best NHB guy in the world is very very unlikely, so why even try to compare it to someone at that level). If this statement is false, then all MA schools should be closed down and we should all just make it up as we go along with no one to guide us in the process.

James

AndrewS

01-24-2006, 09:51 PM

CSK writes:

Are you an American?

Stunning deductive powers.

Ah, so I see that you are so intelligent you would reveal all your personal details on the net for all to exploit?

So you're confirming that you're a liar? Or does the idea of all Cretans being liars simply amuse you?

Being a simple person, the above is mumbo jumbo to me. Now free motion, clince, and ground is 'LONG RANGE' techniques. I guess you can call apples as oranges if you are that way inclined

Free motion- other person has only impact with which to affect your center of gravity

Clinch- standing, both people seek to control the other's CoG using direct tactile contact

Ground- no longer standing, both in direct tactile contact

The perceptual and kinesthetic skills in each area are somewhat different.

Andrew

Edmund

01-24-2006, 11:08 PM

I think WSL is a great example. We can look to the masters of our system for guidance. I do agree however, that we need to still find our own way within that context. However, WSL has been successful with WC, so he is someone who I can look too. It seems that BJJ guys often speak of the Gracies. It makes some sense. Reinventing the wheel takes too long, and often ends up in a lot of inaccurate results.

Well to me, the example seemed to be hyperbole as AndrewN has also said.
I believe it was 13 armed men (not 30) but it's still unrealistic.

I don't have the time to train multiple systems - it's just not practical. In your previous statements you used the word "incompetant" and that's what I question. Sure, adding some grappling skills would be great, but I'm sure that I will always gravitate to striking. I suspect that I will always be a better striker. But that's just me I guess.....

I came from the long range camp to WC. I feel "competant" there. Of course that's not an objective assesment by any means.

Well coming from a long range camp, you have gained competence.
Those with no experiences like that would not have gained competence.

Can you please tell me what the point of this statement is? I took it as a snide remark. Maybe I missed something.

It's as flippant as the statement that it was referring to as far as I'm concerned.

You claimed it was a popularity contest, which dismissed the amount of explanations that people wrote.

Yes they have been stated, and you say it's been done well because you agree. And I think the other position has also been well stated. You just don't want to acknowledge it. That's fine by me....
It's too complex because it is entirely unnecessary. Switching from boxing to WC and back and forth seems totally unnecessary and therefore makes things overly complex.

I stated my arguments supporting cross-training and quite clearly I also stated you don't HAVE to cross-train.

If you want to criticize it as too complex then you could provide a reason why it's unnecessary and what's too complex about it.

Matrix

01-25-2006, 04:23 AM

It's as flippant as the statement that it was referring to as far as I'm concerned.

You claimed it was a popularity contest, which dismissed the amount of explanations that people wrote. . So are you saying that because more people share one point of view that we should all just adopt it?

If that's the case, there's no point in further dicussion, let's just run all these threads will polls, so I'll know what I'm supposed to believe. :rolleyes:

namron

01-25-2006, 06:47 AM

CSK writes:

Free motion- other person has only impact with which to affect your center of gravity

Clinch- standing, both people seek to control the other's CoG using direct tactile contact

Ground- no longer standing, both in direct tactile contact

The perceptual and kinesthetic skills in each area are somewhat different.

Andrew

From Mastering Jui Jistu if I'm not mistaken?

Great text, very soundly written IMO

Never realised the importance (and flexability) of the clinch range until branching out from TMA WC and getting some culture in grappling arts.

A somewhat winding path travelled with not a few injuries but definitely worth my time.

AndrewS

01-25-2006, 10:57 AM

Namron,

Yup- it's the best classification system I know, in terms of usefulness, and prevents the fairly stupid division of things into 'kicking' and 'punching' ranges (when a punch is one of the best ways to stop a kick).

As to working the clinch- the more experience I get in *any* clinch 'system' the more I appreciate Wing Chun. I also find that many Wing Chun apps are much easier to explain from clinch positions and much more readily applicable, as time runs a bit slower in the clinch than out in free motion land, and stuff like tan and fook become bread and butter there.

Later,

Andrew

namron

01-25-2006, 03:50 PM

No argument there Andrew.

With only small adjustments to balance and body pressure and Fook/Tan flow nicely into under/over hooks controls IMO.

Finding clinch work also helps me significantly with improving standing sweeps (control to sweep), just through better torso control, balance sensitivity and appreciation of biomechanics.

Ultimatewingchun

01-25-2006, 08:04 PM

"First of all, thank you Victor for stating what wing chun's long range weakness is actually. Now that I know what you are talking about, we have a clear line of discussion. If your assumption of wing chun's weakness is based on the examples that you have posted above, then I personally don't think it's a weakness at all. You see, to really comprehend wing chun, you must understand some of its principles. For example, structure, balance, economy of motion \ directness. Without the attributes of the formentioned principles, you don't have the ability to generate maximum power, the ability to ground in-coming energy, quick mobility, and lastly to attack in the shortest time possible. For many wing chun practitioners, applying those techniques that you have suggested would enevitably mean that they break one or all of the principles that I had mentioned." (CSK)

***AND INDEED, short range fighting principles should be violated when you're fighting in a longer range - since they don't fit the occasion! You need longer range principles in these instances. :)

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

"Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun***AS MUCH AS I RESPECT WONG SHUN LEUNG...how many trained boxer/kickboxer types - that I (and others) have described on this thread...how many of these people did Wong ever fight?

Victor, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There is nothing to gained by making these statements against WSL. Your point cannot be proven one way or another using this line of arguement, and at best you can only hope to offend someone. Maybe you should reconsider. (Bill/Matrix)

***ON THE CONTRARY, Bill...I mean no disrespect to Wong Shun Leung. I still watch his video from time-to-time, and and I know enough about him to know that he was clearly one of the very best wing chun fighters of the 20th century. But I'm just telling it like I see it. He didn't fight the western boxer-types of today. And if he were around today - my guess is he [B]would make the necessary long range adjustments to get close - precisely because his was such a streetfighter mentality. He would instinctively realize that big adjustments to his game needed to be made - and he would do it. That's my feeling about it.

You know, I've heard Ernie say a number of times that Gary Lam (a student of WSL) just turns on his wing chun when he wants to and cuts right to the chase against the guys that Ernie has seen - regardless of what stuff they try to use against Gary. That's all well and good.

But don't forget that Gary is over 6' tall and weighs in about 240. Has he ever fought/sparred a quality heavyweight boxer who stands 6' tall? A pro? Got to match apples-to-apples. Gary is a high quality professional wing chun guy. See my point? And if he has - then I want to see the video before I'm a believer in Gary's "wing chun only" claims.

And WSL was 5'4" tall....

Matrix

01-25-2006, 08:22 PM

***ON THE CONTRARY, Bill...I mean no disrespect to Wong Shun Leung. .....He would instinctively realize that big adjustments to his game needed to be made - and he would do it. That's my feeling about it.Victor,
This sounds much different than the previous post - at least it does to me. Even though it is pure speculation, although it certainly is a distinct possibilty, it is a much more positive message. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the last one. In either case, Thank you for the clarification. :)

chisauking

01-25-2006, 08:33 PM

AndrewS sez: According to your profile, you're a 17 year old boy. This medium being what it is, you may well be lying, but if you aren't, there's a chance you'll be less simple and irritating in a few years. Most males are utter morons until 25 or so. If you are lying about who you are, you're clearly out to demonstrate a new level of pathos in attention-seeking trolling.

Ironic, really, coming from a man that resorts to calling people a liar simply because they didn't reveal their personal details on a internet forum.

And then...when asked to name wing chun's 'long range' weaknesses, you could not, but unlike answering truthfully like Victor, you want ahead anyway and made the following list: free motion, clince, ground. By no strecth of any one's imagination can you really say those were long range techniques.

Your need was so great to prove your right and your intellectual superiority that you had to twist and contort your words to get your arguments across. I guess my 'words of truth' must have got to you badly.

Ever thought about running for the whitehouse?

It makes my day when I know I can wind people like you up like a broken watch: no resistance!

Victor: each to their own.

chisauking

01-25-2006, 08:42 PM

Victor sez: But don't forget that Gary is over 6' tall and weighs in about 240. Has he ever fought/sparred a quality heavyweight boxer who stands 6' tall? A pro? Got to match apples-to-apples. Gary is a high quality professional wing chun guy. See my point? And if he has - then I want to see the video before I'm a believer in Gary's "wing chun only" claims.

In finding wing chun's long ranges weaknesses, have you, Victor, fought / sparred a quality wing chun man? One of the very few wing chun practitioners that can appy wing chun fighting? If you have, I want to see the videos before I'm a beleiver

Not trying to wind you up, Victor, but can't you see the flaw in such questioning?

Ultimatewingchun

01-25-2006, 08:52 PM

"And then...when asked to name wing chun's 'long range' weaknesses, you could not, but unlike answering truthfully like Victor, you want ahead anyway and made the following list: free motion, clince, ground. By no strecth of any one's imagination can you really say those were long range techniques." (CSK)

***LET ME INTERCEDE ON AndrewS's behalf, chisauking...

I think you misinterpret his remarks and his intentions. I gave you specific long range techniques that I think answered your question. What Andrew was doing, if I'm not mistaken - was talking about ranges in general principles.

Perhaps not a direct answer to your question - but very pertinent to the theme of this thread nonetheless.

Sometimes what Andrew referred to is called STANDUP, CLINCH, AND GROUND.

And in standup - it's free range of motion striking/kicking - as Andrew described it. But there are long standup ranges and short standup ranges (my point).

And Andrew's ideas about wing chun's possibilites in the clinch range are correct - wing chun can offer a great deal in that range precisely because wing chun is primarily short range fighting.

Ultimatewingchun

01-25-2006, 09:58 PM

CSK:

While there's no way to define this against top flight wing chun guys (as of yet)...I can tell you this much: the event in Cleveland last May was an eye-opener for some wing chun people about using and dealing with longer range non-wing chun moves and footwork...and much of the sparring that occurred looked more like what I'm talking about than "wing chun pure and simple." (And not just from me and my student who attended either - but others from different lineages as well. Contact sparring with protective gear answers alot of questions - I'll say it again. :) )

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

"Furthermore, if both the short and tall opponents used the same long range techniques that you advise, you would find that although the tall person could reach the small guy, the small guy would not be able to reach the tall guy, since the taller guy could stand further back.
Ah, you could say, the small guy can move within reach....but at this range where they BOTH could reach each other, it's no longer considered 'long range' anymore, is it? " (chisauking)

***THIS IS A CLASSIC REALITY fighting dilemma, not one just peculiar to wing chun. But look at it this way: the shorter guy has very little chance of getting to the close quarter inside position by just using the walk right in routine with his short range stuff. He needs some explosive long range material (footwork) and longer punches and kicks (than what he usually has)....if he's to have any chance of getting close. That's how I see it and have experienced it. (When up against a quality long range fighter - not a fish.)

Are you old enough to remember Roberto Duran? An incredible lightweight champion (5' 7"...135 lbs.) for many years - and then he moved up to welterweight and had some very memorable fights - against Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns especially.

I actually saw Duran fight live at Madison Square Garden here in NYC when he was still the lightweight champ back in the 1970's - and he had this amazing ability to use long range stuff to get very close - he really liked to bull people from the inside clinch position and knocked many people out from very close range. (He dropped a very tough Mexican fighter in the fight I witnessed live in the 8th round with a single left hook to the body - simply amazing for a lightweight wearing boxing gloves! They used to call him hands of stone. Really powerful punches for a lightweight!)

I learned alot from watching Roberto Duran over the course of many years - precisely because his specialty was close quarter infighting (similar to wing chun) - but he knew how to fight his way into this range (and it wasn't by waiting for the other guy to make the first move. LOL.)

And then he ran into Tommy Hearns up in the welterweight division. Hearns was only 147 lbs. - and stood 6' tall. LOL for Roberto. And Tommy had a wicked stiff straight lead with a very long reach and great footwork. Roberto couldn't get past the long range - and was knocked out cold with one long range rear cross.

It happens. There are no guarantees. But if you're to have any chance at all against a quality long range fighter who's bigger and with a longer reach - you need long range stuff yourself...in order to work your way in close.

As for Bill's point (Matrix) about this being too complicated to master: granted that it does take extra time and work - as does fighting in the clinch and on the ground. But it's time well worth spending, imo.;)

chisauking

01-26-2006, 04:55 AM

Victor, there's a fine distinction between long range fighting and bridging the gap. The main point for me is, I'm not trying to compromise my own structure, balance, speed, fighting at a distance that would favour my opponent. People on this forum make a lot of noise about letting your opponet come to you, but I think it's perfectly adapt for the wing chun mindset. First, he's brought himself close to you and given you a bridge to cross. Second, if he doesn't cross over, you don't even have to fight........Pure enconomy, pure economy.

Also: ***LET ME INTERCEDE ON AndrewS's behalf, chisauking...

I think you misinterpret his remarks and his intentions. I gave you specific long range techniques that I think answered your question. What Andrew was doing, if I'm not mistaken - was talking about ranges in general principles.

Aha, that's why I didn't understand him. I was talking about Karate!

Matrix

01-26-2006, 06:28 AM

As for Bill's point (Matrix) about this being too complicated to master: granted that it does take extra time and work - as does fighting in the clinch and on the ground. But it's time well worth spending, imo.;)I don't believe that I said it was too complicated to master, but rather that the added complexity was not required - in the case of "long range".

If you're referring to the MMA training, then it's merely a question of time - rather than complexity. I have a full time job. I'm not a professional martial artist. Besides, I'm way too old for Ultimate Fighter. But this old dog is willing to learn some new tricks if I can see the value. :)

AndrewS

01-26-2006, 10:29 AM

CSK writes:

Ironic, really, coming from a man that resorts to calling people a liar simply because they didn't reveal their personal details on a internet forum.

I·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

So you're profile was just a mistake from one of the other boards you're on? And why are you pretending to be a teenage boy? Hmmm, the possibilities. . .

And then...when asked to name wing chun's 'long range' weaknesses, you could not, but unlike answering truthfully like Victor, you want ahead anyway and made the following list: free motion, clince, ground. By no strecth of any one's imagination can you really say those were long range techniques

I never made any comment regarding Wing Chun's 'long range weaknesses'. As I've said over and again, I don't find distance to be a helpful categorization.

My point was and remains that much of the reason that there is any argument here is your personal style combined with lack of presentation of substantial information. Simply put, you're trolling, not trying to exchange information, the only currency of worth in this medium.

Andrew

Ernie

01-26-2006, 04:16 PM

"

You know, I've heard Ernie say a number of times that Gary Lam (a student of WSL) just turns on his wing chun when he wants to and cuts right to the chase against the guys that Ernie has seen - regardless of what stuff they try to use against Gary. That's all well and good.

But don't forget that Gary is over 6' tall and weighs in about 240. Has he ever fought/sparred a quality heavyweight boxer who stands 6' tall? A pro? Got to match apples-to-apples. Gary is a high quality professional wing Chun guy. See my point? And if he has - then I want to see the video before I'm a believer in Gary's "wing chun only" claims.

And WSL was 5'4" tall....

--- I find this argument hilarious but since my name was mentioned let just offer some information

Vic,
WSL and Gary do the same thing but different, neither just sits there and waits to be hit in some stupid pose as some wish to believe.
They constantly move even if just a little to cause the person to make adjustments and then use that ''moment '' to bridge. There both very tuned into that, or they just take it to the person and pressure them to react, this could be a punch kick or any sort of distraction.

Now I have video of WSL SPARRING not chi sau but really moving in and he makes the science of in fighting look like crap, he was fast and ballistic all footwork and powerful punches [not chain punching]
Vic you would love to see the mans level of cultivated footwork, wing Chun stepping yes but boxer speed and interrupt ability

I also just got a review of some one that got to see tons of his early stuff and they were blown away by the mans ability to close and finish

Now that means nothing to me and you since we [nor anyone I have ever seen] has cultivated there WC footwork to that level, with out making structure changes.

Gary on the other hand is big and very fast with great timing [developed from fighting in the ring and preparing his fighters] he knows his size and he is really a tough man he will let you kick or punch him with your best shot and just smile and tell you '' see you have nothing''
I got video of him doing this last year in Germany; even out of shape he is just a tough dude [might be from all the Thai fighting and training who knows]

But same thing moves around just enough to cause the person to react and ''bam'' he is in and it's over, bodies are hitting the floor

You have seen me move in clips we have shared and I’m no slug, I have sparred hit and he can intercept me most of the time, but even when I get in it still doesn't matter he uses my hit as a bridge to hit me harder

And again this means nothing to you or I

As for zoning or flanking I have always seen that as unnecessary motion I will go right in but how I set that up well that's a whole something else :cool:
BACK 2 BICKERING.COM

Edmund

01-26-2006, 04:17 PM

So are you saying that because more people share one point of view that we should all just adopt it?

If that's the case, there's no point in further dicussion, let's just run all these threads will polls, so I'll know what I'm supposed to believe. :rolleyes:

No. It's not based on the number of people sharing one viewpoint.
I said people gave reasoning which is MORE THAN JUST AN ARGUMENT BASED ON NUMBERS.

Ultimatewingchun

01-26-2006, 08:51 PM

Ernie:

I've seen Moy Yat move like you described many times - and William Cheung move in all kinds of ways - including the way you described...many times. Neither just simply stood and waited for the opponent to come in. This is nothing new to me. I've worked with these kinds of moves myself countless times.

But because of the wing chun centerline principle - the shoulders are always pretty much parallel to each other...so that there is no lead shoulder and foot like there is in boxing - thereby giving longer reach to the straight lead punch (also supplemented in the attempt at more distance (reach) by the use of shoulder and hip rotation)...and the same applies to the boxing rear cross for the same rotation reasons and the fact that the shoulders are not held back and parallel to each other.

Which is why I refer to wing chun as a very close quarter standup infight. This should be self evident.

And you're saying that 5'4" WSL, because his footwork and timing as to when to come in was so good - that he could make up that discrepancy in distance (because he's up against a weapon with a longer reach)...and do it against a real skilled boxer (including one with much more height and reach I assume?)...and not eat a hook off a lead jab as he tries to close...or not eat a ballistic rear cross that was preceded by a stiff lead jab...or not get hit hard with a lead hook or a lead uppercut that was set up by a rear cross coming out first.

I've heard these kinds of wing chun claims before (God knows how many times over the course of the last 30 years)...and I've yet to see ANY WING CHUN GUY actually do it against a real skilled boxer or kickboxer - simply by using the short movements, quick-to-close timing, and pure wing chun centerline principles that you describe.

And as for Gary eating people's punches or kicks and laughing as he keeps coming in...show me a video of him doing that against a Mirko Cro Cop (6'2" and 220 lb. PRIDE fighter)...as just one example...

before I'm convinced that Gary will still be laughing and moving forward after eating a Cro Cop punch. (and I'm not even going to get into the power, explosive speed, and flawless timing that exists on a Cro Cop rear roundhouse kick that seems to come out of nowhere!)

I'm just not buyin' it. :o

Sorry! :rolleyes:

Tom Kagan

01-26-2006, 09:20 PM

Ernie

01-26-2006, 10:25 PM

vic you don't have to buy bro i'm not selling anything ;)
find me any 50 + year old man that can handle a professional fighter from what ever style even MMA and i would be impressed

that's a weak comparison buddy

i have sparred heavy wieght professional boxers 250-350 i am fully aware what that ''feels'' like
and how they move

no matter what you practice your not hurting those guys , so i wouldn't try and fool myself or anyone else with what if's

i to have seen WC and MY move and it was not as balistic as what i saw WSL doing , he moves like a knife fighter

you can tell a guy with weapon skills that are highly developed over those that are not

but it means nothing to you or i or Crop hahaha

PS
Vic , dealing with boxing is not that big of a deal if you have boxed now is it ;)
good luck on your journey my friend :cool:

YC-- yep funny convo --- dog chasing it's tail until it's dizzy [G.clinton ]

chisauking

01-27-2006, 04:50 AM

Victor sez: I've seen Moy Yat move like you described many times - and William Cheung move in all kinds of ways - including the way you described...many times. Neither just simply stood and waited for the opponent to come in.

Can I just quickly say that letting your opponent come to you doesn't mean you have to stand still. You are keeping aware of distancing all the time

Matrix

01-27-2006, 05:03 AM

And as for Gary eating people's punches or kicks and laughing as he keeps coming in...show me a video of him doing that against a Mirko Cro Cop (6'2" and 220 lb. PRIDE fighter)...as just one example...:Victor,
If that's the standard, then I would expect the same from you. :rolleyes:

Ultimatewingchun

01-27-2006, 07:06 AM

I understand that Gary lam is now in his 50's...and I was using Cro Cop as an example because so many people nowadays know who he is and have seen him fight, and knowwhat he can do.

But my point is that when you compare apples-to-apples...you can't talk about 6' 240 lb. eating punches and laughing on his way in unless he's up against a highly skilled professional boxer or kickboxer type (since Gary is a highly skilled professional wing chun guy).

And I've seen a number of vids that Ernie has sent me about Gary - but never against someone like I just described. That's the point!

As for Wong moving like a knife fighter but William Cheung doesn't....now it's my turn to laugh. I've seen William Cheing not just at seminars open to the public but behind closed doors numerous times- and while he's now 65 years old - I met him when he was still 42 - and I've never seen anyone in wing chun world move like that - including when he had two butterfly swords in his hands.

So let's not play that game, shall we?

As for cutting ties with Ving Tsun (Moy Yat)..Tom Kagan....I still use alot of what I learned from him when I get very close and fight in the middle...not that William Cheung doesn't know these things..because he does...but William emphasizes other aspects of wing chun.

stricker

01-27-2006, 07:56 AM

My dad's harder than your dad. :p

Ernie

01-27-2006, 08:41 AM

Vic ,
you should know me better then to play that game [who's who and what's what]

lets remove the names and make it simple so people don't get emotional

it's about distance and how one manipulates it

what ever one wishes to call the punch or kick [boxing ,Thai,WC ,,,,,] they are just lines of attack

and if your just 1 inch outside of the most powerful punch or combo of what ever

then the strikes are meaningless

what you hit back with is also meaningless as long as it's effective [boxing ,Thai ,WC,,,]

people that do allot of weapons sparring [and can carry the skills over to empty hands] not just isolate it to the weapon at that time

have an acute sense of timing [coming in at the end , meeting,or as it passes ]
and they usually have the ''suddenness'' to capitalize on the moment

it's about opportunity not techniques

i used Gary and WSL to show contrast [ the smaller is lightning quick and had to work in a small window of time and be presice ]
[the larger could just move in and use the shot as a bridge ]
both applying the same core concepts yet adapting to there personal attributes

you need to ''Know yourself '' and be honest about what you can do , then build up refine your tools and training approach to make the most of that .

here is a simple idea to play with that entry , spar against a guy with a stick[and you empty hand] and time the way in , then have him put the stick down and use his hands , he will look like his is moving in slow motion , you can hit him how you like
you have changed the way you process the ''distance''

now this is more for the ''street insurance policy'' were it one shot get in do damage and hope to get home

not a sparring match were there are rounds then the strategy is different more of a chess game

so the idea of long range VS short range weapons is funny to me ,,,,,,, it's really about ,managing your range and your most ballistic tools [your money makers]

if you got a great jab/cross/hook then use it [control your distance ] a great Thai kick well god bless you have at it ,,,,,,,, if all you got is clinch and elbows , then get good at getting there

and so on and so on and so on :cool:

CFT

01-27-2006, 08:44 AM

I guess I don't know much about Wing Chun and certainly not much about boxing, so shoot me now!

Condensing some of Victor's arguments for adding boxing techniques: extended range in hand techniques because of use of shoulder and side-body stance. Quicker footwork from "on your toes" stance to bridge the gap.

Which Ernie says can be mitigated by reading your opponent, positioning and some bloody fast WC footwork.

I'm not trying to put anyone on a pedestal or on the spot, but just my interpretation of "two" camps.

What the hell were we arguing about anyway?

EDIT: oh well, Ernie pre-empted my post. Nice one. It's that bloody fast tippity-tap Wing Chun keyboard technique again.

Ernie

01-27-2006, 08:58 AM

CFT
no argument here buddy
use what you need to use as long as it gets you home
there is no need to limit yourself to anything if it's within your abilities

i have gone the building up ''weapons of mass destruction'' route
you name it i have tried it and tried to pull it off sparring [except for the ground were I'm not very savvy ]

and in the end it still comes back to distance and timing , if i use and jab or flying buffalo beak ;) from the hypocrite dynasty in the kool aid empire :D

edit-- [CFT}told ya it's about timing

CFT

01-27-2006, 09:03 AM

edit-- [CFT}told ya it's about timingYes. Brings to mind something Andrew S. wrote a while back.

To paraphrase: you can train everything, but timing is a b1tch.

chisauking

01-27-2006, 09:16 AM

CFT sez: Condensing some of Victor's arguments for adding boxing techniques: extended range in hand techniques because of use of shoulder and side-body stance. Quicker footwork from "on your toes" stance to bridge the gap.

You can use anything you want or capable of, Chee, but there are limits to playing the 'long range' game, especially with someone taller than yourself. Master distancing \ timing and, just like having a colt 45, all is equalled.

What the hell were we arguing about anyway?

It started with me saying it's silly to have all stupid names for different distance of combat, then it snow balled from there. Not all bad though. I'd a good lecture on the use of the queen's English.

Ultimatewingchun

01-27-2006, 10:06 AM

sihing

01-27-2006, 11:22 AM

Look, it's not about personalities guys...I agree. :cool:

IT'S ABOUT STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES...regardless of who the person is.

It's about comparing apples-to-apples when he consider skill, size, reach, distancing, footwork, and timing...and the fact that when someone tries to close using the wing chun principles and body structure that we've been talking about - against a skilled boxer type...he's vulnerable to hooks, uppercuts, overhands, stiff straight leads on a different line, and rear crosses on a different line at the very moment he's coming in for his straight line, shoulders-pretty-much-held-square-and-parallel-to-each-other....punch or punches.

AGAINST A HIGH QUALITY BOXER OR KICKBOXER TYPE.

That's the key.

I've closed in on countless people during the 21+ years I'm teaching who were shorter in height, shorter in reach...as well as people bigger but without the high quality skills - and I've done the exact kinds of things that Ernie and others have described. They couldn't stop my explosion into their space and the wing chun punches mixed with lop, pak, gum sao, lan, etc.

And that was it. And I could go through whatever they may have landed without getting hurt and took it right to them. As for boxing moves - I've knocked people out or put them down on the ground in streetfights...sometimes with one boxing punch.

Put a 5'11" 230lb. real nasty semi-pro football player type down once with one left hook; on another occasion I beat two guys - both about my size (5' 10", 170)...the opening salvo being me putting one of them right down on his back with one rear cross.

We all have our war stories.

But my point is that when I go up against one of my guys very skilled in boxing - and he's 6', 200 lbs....then I'm up against a structural difference that's very hard to surmount - without using the longer range boxing/kickboxing type moves I've been talking about...to do what?

CLOSE THE DISTANCE.

Particularly hard to do against a boxer who likes to hold his hands back (as my man, Rich, sometimes decides to do)...using a style more like a Tyson or a Marciano rather than an Ali or a Ray Leonard.

Now there's virtually no chance for a bridge first ...and he bobs and weaves and starts to come in with his hands back protecting his head and elbows protecting his sides - and I close for the straight line hit - because I have no choice since he's coming into my space - and he hooks or uppercuts or overhands around my straight line wing chun structured punch at that very moment. My timing might be spot on - but I still take a heavy punch - BECAUSE HE'S GOT EXCELLENT TIMING ALSO.

And he's got a longer reach. And I get hit with a heavy punch. Unless I make the long-to-short-range adjustments I've been talking about. Meaning that I'm going to use the longer reaching, further extended because of the rotating shoulder and hip...straight line punches into his space.

So I now have a longer weapon (imagine the weapon in my hand that Ernie's been referring to when he talks about weapons training as a guide to empty hand timing and distancing)...so I now have a longer reaching weapon AS I BEGIN TO ENTER HIS SPACE...making me less vulnerable to the types of hits I described my man Rich as using.

But it's not just me. I'm just using myself as an example.

IT'S THE STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES I'M ADRESSING....not the personalities.

And when we compare apples-to-apples..I've yet to see any wing chun guy close that distance (and not eat a very heavy punch) - just using the pure wing chun principles, footwork, and techniques we've been discussing.

You might do it against someone whose reach is the same or shorter than yours - you might do it against anybody if you were already at a pretty close range when you decided to move in - and he didn't have much room to move or adjust.

I know that wing chun can work very well in these circumstances.

But I'm taking it to the next level. I'm interested in being able to do that against anybody...regardless of their skill, their size, strength, distance, or terrain under our feet.

Again this is not a knock against Wong Shun Leung, Moy Yat, or anybody else.

I'm talking about scientific structural differences.

Period.

Firstly, I can agree with the fact that the more skilled a guy is and if he has a physical advantage over you, like height, weight, reach, speed, etc...then these types of things will make it harder to achieve victory over them. Fighting someone with no experience is allot easier than someone with experience and physically developed attributes for sure. But some of the above I just don't get. For example, coming in on the straight line and getting hooked. Yeah I understand what is happening here, but it looks to me that if you are getting hooked repeatedly then your timing and distancing is off, not the movement or the concept behind it. Plus there is the fact that Victor is sparring with someone that is familiar with Victor and his movement, secondly familiar with WC, and its timing and structure, etc.. So therefore the element of surprise is taken away, which makes it harder also. Set ups are allot easier to pull off when you have an idea of what the other person might do to respond to your initial movement. This is the basic problem with sparring, you get in a rut with who ever you are with and it becomes less realistic.

If your positioning is correct, and timing is on, then it should be hard for the other guy to hook you. One should be crowding the other guy to prevent this type of thing from happening, and be inside his range, since WC is a closer range system. If you do not set up this positioning thing, then you will be open for the hook.

For me, in essence, WC should make the other guy slower in motion, because we have a structure enabling us to cover our vital areas, as well as cover open areas easier with economy of motion. With the central line closed off for attack (the entire upper gate), the other guy NEEDS to use a longer motion to come into our space. Long motions require more time to execute/finish and are more telegraphic in movement to set up. So therefore we have essentially slowed him down enough to interpret better what he is going to and attack with. Plus watching the proper areas on the limbs helps to better perceive the attack coming towards you.

Of course, nothing is fool proof, and guaranteed to work all the time, since fighting is about ever changing environments while in motion. No two fights are the same, so therefore adaptability and the ability to execute what you want to do, instead of letting the other guy play his game is essential.

James

P.S. Please, please no this looks good on paper BS ya butts. We practice this all the time and it works if you work it and learn it correctly. Everything we talk about here on this forum is some sort of theory or concept in the written form. The higher the skill of the guy you are using it against does effect it's effectiveness for you, but really to me it just means you have to get more skilled with it, not that the concept does not work. Practice practice and more practice is always a good thing, with a healthy dose of understanding too

Tom Kagan

01-27-2006, 11:59 AM

i have sparred heavy wieght professional boxers 250-350 i am fully aware what that ''feels'' like
and how they move

no matter what you practice your not hurting those guys , so i wouldn't try and fool myself or anyone else with what if's

If you really want to have a very different take, try stepping up with a lightweight. Less than a year after my knee reconstruction, I had the pleasure of a friendly session with Joe "trouble" Figueroa. In all 64 of his professional fights, all he would do was stay away until the last 15 seconds a round. Get this: his professional record is 9-50-5. Every fight went the full distance, save for 3 wins (KOs) and 1 loss (doctor stoppage due to cut). He regularly helped train and spar heavyweights at his gym and he still had all of his faculties - no matter what you practice, I doubt you're going to hurt him, either. :)

i to have seen WC and MY move and it was not as balistic as what i saw WSL doing , he moves like a knife fighter

you can tell a guy with weapon skills that are highly developed over those that are not

I'd have to guess that, if you saw him on a tape, it probably was after his first stroke. Almost every "instructional" tape he made was after then. Moy Yat was also a tall and very skinny guy, and looked quite "geekish" most of the time regardless of how good (or bad) the result of his movements were.

I'm not making excuses, so please don't think that I'm somehow "offended" by your remarks and I'm "defending the honor" of my master or something like out of a bad KungFu movie. :D All I'm saying is that making such a comparison would be more like making comparisons to a different Sifu who managed to drink himself to death during the time when he was greatly hobbled by the hand life was dealing him. Such comparisons, though innocuous, are anything but fair and appropriate.

But that's all neither here nor there.

Truth be known, I never really seen Moy Yat as being all that fast; "ballistic" as Ernie describes it. The funny part is many people over the years have accused him of being "lightning fast" and covering up his flaws with a genetic gift. However, in my humble opinion, he just had great skill in timing and a huge body of experience to draw from in "reading" a situation. It was as if he was always "at the right place at the right time" and always picked the most devastating of responses. Like a pool shark running the table, he made it look like child's play - as if he were talking a stroll and slightly bored. All the attack lines and shots just happened to align for him, as if by luck. But I think every skilled person here would agree that when something like that happens for them, it's not usually luck that's in play - certainly not when you can repeat it year after year. :)

Whenever I examine the mechanics of Moy Yat's stance, footwork, and hip/body interaction, I was always thinking "this guy would be a natural golfer." He never developed a taste to play golf, though. :D

I'll have to dig up the BaatChamDo tape - the one with film of him in his youth - to refresh my thoughts some more.

sihing

01-27-2006, 12:00 PM

If one is interested in performing against the "PRO's" persay, wouldn't one have to train with the same intensity, time, effort, etc..like them? To compare with them, shouldn't you have to be like them. How then can one try to compare when you are unable to adhere to that type of lifestyle? Personally I'm not worried about those sort of things, because I realize that the chances of meeting someone on the street with that calibre skills is highly unlikely, secondly, I have a life outside of training. Thinking about your skills and if they can stand up to the best is a waste of time if you ask me. As long as you have some skills to help you in what ever way you want to use them, then you have succeeded. I'm interested in skills that work effectively for everyday people that are LIMITED in how long and hard they can train on a weekly basis. Of course, more training time would mean more effectiveness regarding how they use what they are learning. That's why I like WC so much, it works well and is effective for the person using it, once the skills have been absorbed and understood. Plus they are easy to maintain once the skills are there.

James

stricker

01-27-2006, 01:21 PM

Ok a more useful post... i read through and picked out a few choice quotes i thought were good food for thought (sorry no names as just a quick cut and paste job) :

Even if your strategy was to be a counter fighter, the longer range would be where you would have to focus a decent part of your training - to get the timing and angles.

And you would have to train with partners who were good at long range techniques to perfect your strategy against decent attacks.

In order to become proficient at this one must gain experience working from that range; I think that's all most folks are saying, that and, it would be advisable to seek folks out who actually know how to use that range with some skill. How far to go is up to each person.

Learning means going OUTSIDE our comfort zone -

you are not going to get experience dealing with anything other than WCK by playing with your KF brothers forever unless you are lucky enough to have some brothers/buddies skilled in other arts and you work with them.

You can choose to keep it all in the family or you can come on outside and test the waters with other people who play other stuff.

Frankly, it has f*ck all to do with 'technique'

a good boxer/kickboxer type who uses feints, bob, weaves, and broken rhtythms and knows how to hook off the lead jab and other such combinations. You wait for him to come to you - and you're asking for big trouble.

Hasn't MMA shown that a jack of all trades can be quite successful? And a master of one trade can be beaten by attacking their weak area?

What sort of competence at long range skills do you gain without working with competent long range MAists and learning from them?

I came from the long range camp to WC. I feel "competant" there.

Well coming from a long range camp, you have gained competence.
Those with no experiences like that would not have gained competence.

wing Chun stepping yes but boxer speed and interrupt ability ... great timing [developed from fighting in the ring and preparing his fighters]

, dealing with boxing is not that big of a deal if you have boxed now is it

so hey theres a bunch of quotes i liked after reading the thread again that pretty much point me in the direction of doing wing chun but using boxing sparring to gain skills of distance timing etc so you know when and how to do your wing chun manouvers so really it seems like victor (ultimatewing chun) is using boxing as like a base system then busting in wing chun as just one option but hes got other options like jab cross lead hook etc too. which seems cool but i can see from a pure wing chun point of view the disadvantages of boxing techniques etc like chisaoking said wing chun is all kept perfect structure balance posture where other styles dont worry about putting the shoulder right out etc. but then a (not very good like mine) pak sao is over commited compared to a thai boxing little parry and slip where they just use like 2 or 3 inches of movement to not get hit or maybe the glove brushes their cheek (also works with no gloves)

Ultimatewingchun

01-27-2006, 06:01 PM

"...it seems like victor (ultimatewing chun) is using boxing as like a base system then busting in wing chun as just one option but hes got other options like jab cross lead hook etc too. which seems cool but i can see from a pure wing chun point of view the disadvantages of boxing techniques etc like chisaoking said wing chun is all kept perfect structure balance posture where other styles dont worry about putting the shoulder right out etc..." (stricker)

***I'm using boxing as a way to get to the close quarter wing chun infight range - because the longer reaching boxing punches (due to the shoulder and hip rotation and the bounce off the rear leg)...provide a safety factor when coming in from a distance of more than three feet or so. (I could also talk about kicks and TWC entry techniques in this regard as well - but I'll leave that alone right now).

And I'm using these longer reaching straight boxing punches within a wing chun framework, specifically the Traditional Wing Chun central line principles with an emphasis on using your left arm to work against his right arm...and your right arm to work against his left...unless he crosses the line with one of his arms - or you force him to cross the line.

So the "type" of boxing I'm doing is built around a wing chun central line framework principle - and therefore can easily be transitioned into a more conventional centerline concept...with shoulders-squared-up-and-parallel-to-each-other...and my main centerline facing the middle of his body - as I get closer to him.

Take a look at this for more details: (And to those of you who may have read this post before on a different thread - I just amended it and expanded it somewhat so as to make it more understandable).

I've been using certain techniques and principles that resemble boxing somewhat...and yet are still very much Wing Chun in orientation.

It concerns NOT trying to simply attack the "center" of the opponent. But rather to also look upon both of his arms (particularly near his shoulders)... as vertical centerlines running down toward his legs.

I'm in a front stance - whatever front stance. Could be a left front stance vs. his left front; or it could be my left front stance vs. his right front.

Either way, my two arms are matched up against his (ie.- my left arm vs. his right arm) - and it is fighting his right arm for CONTROL of the vertical centerline that I just described...while my right arm is fighting his left arm for control of the other vertical centerline.

(All of this is being done IN ADDITION TO my main centerline that runs down the actual center of my body).

So at the moment I'm talking about 3 centerlines...with special emphasis on the two outside lines. But I'm in a side body position - meaning that my main centerline is turned slightly off to the left or right - and not facing the center of his body directly (in other words - like a boxer would stand).

And It's as if I'm dueling with a foil in each hand against his two foils simultaneously.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'LL CONSTANTLY JUST CHASE HIS HANDS...

On the contrary, - suppose he just dropped his right hand lead from his guard position right down to his side - I wouldn't chase his arm/hand - I would simply punch into the line that is now completely open with my left fist (but I'd probably throw a low to medium height punch - not a head shot - so as to maintain control (and occupy) the line if he decided to immediately come back up again with that hand that he dropped.

Furthermore...I would NOT be moving toward him with my MAIN centerline directly facing his center...I would be in a more basic boxing type pose - which means that - in the example I just gave of him dropping his right arm down - and I was in a left lead stance...the left punch I would throw would look like a boxer's stiff straight lead - with body torgue (ie.- hip and shoulder rotation) and with the punch being thrown almost horizontally. (Not the vertical wing chun sun punch).

Because I'm assuming that the distance would require this type of punch (for extra reach). I'm not assuming that I'm already in a very close limb-to-limb contact or trapping range.

So I'm using such a long range "wing chun boxing" type strategy as a means to get closer to the inside close quarter position - while hopefully also landing punches (and possibly kicks)....as well as maybe beginning to trap, pin, pak, or lop an arm....but most of all - by CONTROLLING, OCCUPYING, AND GOING FORWARD on a "centerline".

In other words - I'm establishing a bridge through the use of longer range boxing technique - BUT GUIDED BY WING CHUN CENTRAL LINE AND CENTERLINE PRINCIPLES. Or no bridge because It might be possible to strike his body or head directly, depending on how the fight develops.

And I will also oftentimes purposely throw horizontal longer range boxing type punches into the very lines that he may be covering with a tight defense so as to purposely create a bridge (and a "centerline") to try and take control of. I'm forcing his arms to either engage mine or run the risk of taking a hit to the body or head - because the punches are directly on one (or both) of these outside centerlines - and are therefore the shortest distance between the proverbial two points.

* In the above I refer to the vertical centerline running down the exact center of my body as the MAIN CENTERLINE.

In TWC parlance, all the other lines I referred to would be considered CENTRAL LINES...but I sometimes referred to them as "centerlines" (not the MAIN CENTERLINE)...but "centerlines" - so as to use terminology that I know is familiar to non-TWC people reading this.

It's the concept that's important - not the words we use to describe them.

YungChun

01-28-2006, 06:51 AM

Who 'wins' comes down to attributes - skill. In the end if the other guy is overall much better, his attributes are better, meaning timing, visual sensitivity, distance management and he is bigger, faster, stronger, etc, then any painstaking search for a simple mechanical solution is absolute folly IMO.

For any mechanical variation there is going to be a plus and a minus. If you torque your body one way to maximize your reach then you are also maximizing the time to needed to torque your body back the other way to get your hand/fist to the target for follow-up - a gamble for sure - sometimes worth it, usually not IMO during entry.

If you go bouncy bounce or leapy leap to increase momentum and increase distance covered then your center of gravity is ballistic and unchangeable for a longer period of time; It's simple math. Adaptiveness is slower when you use momentum like this and boxers IME do not normally "leap" meaning try to cover large distances in a single step - THAT is called Shotokan - Karate.

If the additional two inches or whatever makes THAT much of a difference, then it won't when the opponent has ANOTHER two inches of reach or a *knife* and if the opponent is truly that much more skilled than you then it just won't matter - you will loose. WCK can jab, it can make larger steps it can even leap or reach, as can "boxing mechanics" and footwork but there isn't much of a difference here IMO, in fighting you have shuffle steps, you have forward movement, backward movement, push off steps, sideward steps, diagonal steps you can sink or float, etc.

There is no official boxing style footwork it's all too similar when applied in real fighting, some boxers are very light on their feet and others are not. Any stylist must abide by the laws of physics they can either use lots of momentum or be economical they can float, they can sink, they can use linear power or they can use rotational torque or some combination of the two. There is no one right way for everyone in every sparring or fighting situation. The key is to what degree one's OVERALL attributes are cultivated.

The question is how we apply the basic concepts of the system. Do we see value in the concepts of the system? The many concepts in the system are multi-dimentional and applicable in all things to different degrees. Hand Unity, Bi-directional movement, Hand Replacement, Economy of Motion, *Center Space Theory*, Three Movements Together, Continuity of Attack, Balance Destruction, and on and on are not limited in their application and IMO are simply what drives effective combat.

As I mentioned when Micky used to have me chase him around the school with my karate. I could do all kinds of great fast long range kicks back then - I was at my peak. Mickey could easily move around evading my kicks with great agility and without being STUCK to the ground, but he was indeed using *highly mobile" WCK footwork - this does not have to be an oxymoron if we open our eyes and minds. No where in the official WCK manual does it say that WCK footwork or movement is supposed to be slow, robot-like, flatfooted or stiff - that's a very limited way of seeing the system.

In the end the key in distance management comes down to what happens when critical distance is reached by both opponents. We see Pros all the time dancing around and around, until they edge closer and closer approaching that critical distance where everything is going to either work or not. As this range is met, in whatever fighting venue we often see both fighters slow their movements down, caution often takes precedence, movement becomes more economical as the final measurements are made.

Then suddenly the attack/clash happens, where in a split second both fighters will attempt to make that final move and make their attack count. Sometimes there is clean domination and sometimes there is an exchange and sometimes neither land, but the point is that no matter how much bouncy bounce, etc you use to set things up in the end the first to land or bridge in that last *blink of an eye* will be the one who has better attributes, better timing, structural and conventional speed, use of distance, power, economy, etc. It's about the big picture and you can put any name on it you want; But in the end it comes down to a comparison of two complex sets of skills that have little to do with which way the toe points or the name of the punch that lands and it happens in between heartbeats...! :rolleyes:

Ultimatewingchun

01-28-2006, 08:13 AM

Yung Chun:

Now we're getting down to details !!! :D Good. Let's discuss or debate details. Because the devil (or the angel) is always in the details.:cool:

So you wrote this:

"Who 'wins' comes down to attributes - skill. In the end if the other guy is overall much better, his attributes are better, meaning timing, visual sensitivity, distance management and he is bigger, faster, stronger, etc, then any painstaking search for a simple mechanical solution is absolute folly IMO."

***UP UNTIL YOUR LAST sentence you were spot on. I rarely talk about attributes because I always take them as a given (ie.- of course you need to be in shape, strong, good cardio, sharp timing, flexible, solidly developed hand/eye coordination, good sense of timing and distance due to reaslistic drills and sparring, etc.)...

but assuming for the moment that you and your opponent are more-or-less equal in those things (and in the will-to-win)...then it's the man with the best (because more scientifically structured) technique that wins.

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

"For any mechanical variation there is going to be a plus and a minus. If you torque your body one way to maximize your reach then you are also maximizing the time to needed to torque your body back the other way to get your hand/fist to the target for follow-up - a gamble for sure - sometimes worth it, usually not IMO during entry." (YC)

***NOW WE'RE TALKING details....I always emphasize to my students that when using the hip and shoulder rotated boxing type straight punches - they should always take care to never overdo the torqueing motion...or you take your other hand out of play and give him an opportunity to use two hands against one of yours - or to counter your overcommitment in some other way.

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

"If you go bouncy bounce or leapy leap to increase momentum and increase distance covered then your center of gravity is ballistic and unchangeable for a longer period of time; It's simple math. Adaptiveness is slower when you use momentum like this and boxers IME do not normally "leap" meaning try to cover large distances in a single step - THAT is called Shotokan - Karate." (YC)

***SAME BASIC ANSWER AS ABOVE....We keep the bouncing motion to a minimum - always paying attention to not disturbing our center of gravity to the point of being unbalanced.

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

"If the additional two inches or whatever makes THAT much of a difference, then it won't when the opponent has ANOTHER two inches of reach or a *knife* and if the opponent is truly that much more skilled than you then it just won't matter - you will loose. WCK can jab, it can make larger steps it can even leap or reach, as can "boxing mechanics" and footwork but there isn't much of a difference here IMO, in fighting you have shuffle steps, you have forward movement, backward movement, push off steps, sideward steps, diagonal steps you can sink or float, etc." (YC)

***AGAIN, just subtle differences here. We use just a slightly raised heel when coming in or out - so that we can return to a basic shuffling type movement very quickly and seamlessly.

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

"The question is how we apply the basic concepts of the system. Do we see value in the concepts of the system? The many concepts in the system are multi-dimentional and applicable in all things to different degrees. Hand Unity, Bi-directional movement, Hand Replacement, Economy of Motion, *Center Space Theory*, Three Movements Together, Continuity of Attack, Balance Destruction, and on and on are not limited in their application and IMO are simply what drives effective combat." (YC)

***I AGREE WITH ALL THAT, but I don't see the kinds of boxing/kickboxing adjustments I'm making at a longer distance as violating any of those principles - especially since I married these things to the TWC centraline principles.

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

"As I mentioned when Micky used to have me chase him around the school with my karate. I could do all kinds of great fast long range kicks back then - I was at my peak. Mickey could easily move around evading my kicks with great agility and without being STUCK to the ground, but he was indeed using *highly mobile" WCK footwork - this does not have to be an oxymoron if we open our eyes and minds. No where in the official WCK manual does it say that WCK footwork or movement is supposed to be slow, robot-like, flatfooted or stiff - that's a very limited way of seeing the system." (YC)

***I'M QUITE AWARE of the fact that good wing chun is not robotic in it's footwork; but quite frankly, it's not karate type footwork and it's emphasis on long range kicks that motivated me to start experimenting with the boxing/kickboxing framework...it's the faster systems that I responded to (boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai,etc.)

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

"In the end the key in distance management comes down to what happens when critical distance is reached by both opponents. We see Pros all the time dancing around and around, until they edge closer and closer approaching that critical distance where everything is going to either work or not. As this range is met, in whatever fighting venue we often see both fighters slow their movements down, caution often takes precedence, movement becomes more economical as the final measurements are made." (YC)

***ALL THE MORE REASON to make sure that there are no structural inefficiencies in one's reach vs. your opponent's reach when approaching the critical point and the clash begins. And in TWC in general, and with I'm doing in particular - we almost always slow down the movement somewhat as we enter that critical time and place - still fast enough to get in and do some damage - but not so fast that the movement can't be interrupted and changed instantaneously if need be. (The only exception to this being if I see that there is an opening for a very fast punch or kick to be thrown at a target with little-or-no chance of it being countered - then I let it fly).

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

"Then suddenly the attack/clash happens, where in a split second both fighters will attempt to make that final move and make their attack count. Sometimes there is clean domination and sometimes there is an exchange and sometimes neither land, but the point is that no matter how much bouncy bounce, etc you use to set things up in the end the first to land or bridge in that last *blink of an eye* will be the one who has better attributes, better timing, structural and conventional speed, use of distance, power, economy, etc." (YC)

***AND "USE OF DISTANCE" is the key phrase there, indeed. The more one understands, and works, and develops a high level sense of distance - in action...by using a higher knowledge of what can and what can't be done efficiently at any given distance (and of course by developing the necessary attributes like speed, power, and timing)...then the more he begins to lift his game up and beyond another skilled and well-attributed opponent - but one whose skill with distance is not as well developed.

That's why the whole issue of footwork (and the issues of distance implied under the heading of "footwork")...used by a Muhammad Ali or a Bruce Lee is what separated those men from their contemporaries and put them one step ahead of the pack - along with some other things (ie.- Bruce's willingness to crosstrain ;) ).

YungChun

01-28-2006, 08:43 AM

"Who 'wins' comes down to attributes - skill. In the end if the other guy is overall much better, his attributes are better, meaning timing, visual sensitivity, distance management and he is bigger, faster, stronger, etc, then any painstaking search for a simple mechanical solution is absolute folly IMO."

***UP UNTIL YOUR LAST sentence you were spot on.

Disagree because what I am saying is that ALL these factors COMBINED are what determines success. In other words mastering use of time and space will shoot down a longer strike - if these skills are even which never happens then longer still does not equal better it equals longer. If you want really long use your leg.

The best "technique" is only a tool. A longer arm, punch does not make for a better fighter it makes for a longer fighter, which is a stylistic choice IMO and could be better for that person if that long movement fits in with the rest of the package.

but assuming for the moment that you and your opponent are more-or-less equal in those things (and in the will-to-win)...then it's the man with the best (because more scientifically structured) technique that wins.

Again to me it comes down to the big picture of attributes and structure to me is a by product of that big picture..

Efficiency is whatever works.. BL

***NOW WE'RE TALKING details....I always emphasize to my students that when using the hip and shoulder rotated boxing type straight punches - they should always take care to never overdo the torqueing motion...or you take your other hand out of play and give him an opportunity to use two hands against one of yours - or to counter your over commitment in some of way.

Still its a choice, a compromise. If I can move into position and bring both hands to bear BEFORE my opponent then it may be over right there. If he is much better than I and he can get position and timing on me my long range whatever won't help.

***I AGREE WITH ALL THAT, but I don't see the kinds of boxing/kickboxing adjustments I'm making at a longer distance as violating any of those principles.

Then your doing WCK...

it's the faster systems that I resonded to (boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai,etc.)

Good Karate is slower? LMFAO!

DISAGREE! Spar with any full contact Oyama guys lately? LOL

And this doesn't change the fact that Mickey was demonstrating the reality of highly mobile WCK footwork!

Buddha_Fist

01-28-2006, 03:19 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Ultimatewingchun

01-28-2006, 08:24 PM

"In other words mastering use of time and space will shoot down a longer strike." (YC)

***IF THE WEAPON in my hand is 2' long...and the weapon in yours is 1' long...and the length of my arm is basically equal to yours...AND MY MASTERY OF TIME AND SPACE IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO YOURS - then LOL. :D

If you can understand that then you should also understand that all other things being equal (attributes, will, no huge discrepancy in size)...my longer reaching punches will give you all kinds of trouble as you try to close.

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

"Good Karate is slower? LMFAO!

DISAGREE! Spar with any full contact Oyama guys lately? LOL

***ONE OF MY BEST and oldest friends is a Kyocushin black belt many times over with his own school for many years. Their footwork, punches, and kicks are only as good as the individual's ability to work the more fluid footwork found in boxing, kickboxing and Thai boxing* into their act - and their hands are only as good as their ability to look like boxers. Otherwise, the basic parallel side TWC entry into their space with the followup wing chun hands works quite nicely against them most of the time, coupled with some of the longer range kicks and boxing hands I've been describing when they move back to longer ranges.

That's been my experience, and the experience of some of my students who have sparred with Al or some of his students. Not to say that they're not good fighters, that they're not in shape, or that they're not tough - because they're all of those things.

* AND PUT SOME THAI INFLUENCE INTO THEIR ACT - ALONG WITH SOME BOXING HANDS...is exactly what Mas Oyama and those who have succeeded him have done. :cool:

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

"And this doesn't change the fact that Mickey was demonstrating the reality of highly mobile WCK footwork!" (YC)

***HIGHLY MOBILE footwork while using a structurally shorter reaching punching platform does not change the fact that when up against someone with highly mobile footwork using a longer reaching punching system like boxing doesn't bode well for getting close without eating some heavy punches.

You seem to think that attributes will always save the day. But if you're up against someone also equipped with attributes...but a longer reach...then what?

Mr Punch

01-29-2006, 04:21 AM

"And this doesn't change the fact that Mickey was demonstrating the reality of highly mobile WCK footwork!" (YC)

***HIGHLY MOBILE footwork while using a structurally shorter reaching punching platform does not change the fact that when up against someone with highly mobile footwork using a longer reaching punching system like boxing doesn't bode well for getting close without eating some heavy punches.

You seem to think that attributes will always save the day. But if you're up against someone also equipped with attributes...but a longer reach...then what?Someone mention Hitler?! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law):D

Not picking on you Victor, but this final statement sums up what a waste of time this thread has become! It's become the typical 'what if' thread. If you're up against someone with similar attributes and a longer reach... you're ****ed! LOL. No amount of to-ing and fro-ing on an internet forum is gonna help you!

And Victor, you're saying your not going to mention the TWC footwork (which incidentally IS mentioning the TWC footowork!:p ) but in my wing chun there is the footwork to deal with longer range... in fact I would say that in everybody's wing chun from a relatively straight Yip Man lineage (I only make this qualification cos I don't know any other lineages) contains a) good footwork and b) long range techs.

I would only say this with the usual provisos:

1) It doesn't matter what your wing chun contains if you don't train it live.

2) Wing chun is not a method of fighting. It's a way of augmenting and improving your fighting skills.

To expand these provisos a little:

1) Doesn't have to be the Grand Ultimate Full Contact, but by now I think we should all have a fairly realistic idea of what sparring should be. And I've used my wing chun footwork to close on boxers and thai-boxers (in my shooto gym there are both, plus my teacher has won Thai tournaments in Thailand and has also trained with exclusively a lot of boxing so he's giving us the benefit of Thai with the heavier faster boxer's hands) so I know it works. Now of course, I still eat big punches and get put on my arse more than enough times (each session !) and I stagger around/get back up and get back into it. That's training. Ditto long range techs.

2) I used the words 'long range techs', but I'll just go into that a bit more. There are precious few techs in my wing chun. All of the 'principles' of 'long range techs' and funky footwork are in Chum Kiu and Biu Gee and the dummy. If you're looking for a tech, you won't find one. If you're looking for a horse to ride in on, it's there. Then again... If you're looking for wing chun that looks like wing chun, don't look at me! But it's all in there.

Now... time to get off here... where was I...? Oh yeah, so, if you're up against the a Nazi with a longer reach than you and a Schmeisser...!

stricker

01-29-2006, 07:11 AM

good points mat.

ultimatewingchun (victor) thats quite a lot of stuff in there im a bit busy right now but will have a think about your ideas later. your thing about 2 centerlines and being like fencing with 2 foils is a bit like something i do at mma when we do this one drill which is wrestling for underhooks off the pummel. if someone steps back a bit the range instead of shoulder to shoulder body contact (which it should be) becomes more wrists or forearms contact so i imagine a centerline to go under the shoulder and use a bit of chi sao skills to shoot in (not like "a shoot" but shoot my hand in) for the underhook (even tho i try to keep mma and wing chun seperate :rolleyes: )

anyway thought you might like that as it fits in with your 2 centerline at the shoulder idea and youve said before you like wrestling :D

ps my idea above is not proven in mma just something i play with for myself so far... shoot me down! :D

YungChun

01-29-2006, 07:25 AM

You seem to think that attributes will always save the day. But if you're up against someone also equipped with attributes...but a longer reach...then what?

I respect your position on this Victor but I think we just see things differently. To me everything is an attribute or can be broken down into different attributes. Unlike the length of a person's arm or leg, which cannot be changed, attributes can be cultivated and refined.

Where we seem to diverge in thought is that as I see it you feel that you can mechanically increase your reach or range. Now while it is true that you can increase compression and extension on that lead straight, etc, as Bruce did. However you are not increasing the range of your structure, meaning your arms, but rather making a mechanical compromise as we agreed on earlier among the reach of each arm and that for every mechanical variation Ying/Yang there is a plus and minus.

So, for every inch you 'mechanically' increase your range with the lead you are adding time onto the rear hand. Now I have no problem agreeing that at times extending the lead may be just what the doctor ordered - I do not see having flexibility in how much or how little one may 'lead' as "not WCK" because again the mechanics are there for US to use as needed. I also see the footwork the same way and just as flexible as any other kind when one is open minded with it, seeing it in terms lines of movement and energy storage etc. But I disagree that any variable is always better to use THIS way or THAT way. What is needed is ALL WAYS both the long - the short and all the shades of gray in-between. Hey man what does the Tao say? It's never just one way or the other RIGHT? It's always a compromise and changing.

Even among clones possessing the same attributes if one chooses to use a longer mechanical lead I do not see it as any kind of guaranteed win for clone A. Why? Because clone B having the same skill set may well adapt to the long lead by simply making his entry during this longer extension - say slipping it - and then fill this extended gap that was created, in essence a hole in time and space. You can't have it both ways. Yes the extended mechanics give you range and yes I would even say more power BUT for each inch you gain with the lead you loose an inch with the rear and each inch means time and space changes. Depending on the mechanics used, as in the original JKD lead straight, for most folks it would take them MUCH longer to get their rear hand in play and then you have this door that even one equally skilled can use to enter through IMO. Thus IMO we are debating extremes in the system and in reality one most often needs the flexibility to be long or short, light or heavy, floating or sinking. Looking to the Tao again it says:

"In the landscape of spring, there is neither better nor worse. The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short."

Always changing is the way.

Ultimatewingchun

01-29-2006, 10:07 AM

Look guys...it's been a good discussion (though I don't remember Hitler being mentioned, LOL). :D

I'll try my best to make some new vids in the coming weeks this winter and post them, concerning using the boxing/kickboxing type punches, kicks, and footwork (mixed with some of the longer range TWC footwork and entry moves)...as a way of getting to close infight range - using the 3 centerlines.

And we'll keep the camera rolling while the close wing chun infight type stuff continues at that point.

I'm talking about spontaneous contact sparring with protective gear; although my guy, Rich Alvarado, trained in boxing, won't be in them. (Personal matters prevent his coming to class right now).

There are two other guys, however - one of whom is taller than me (he goes about 6"1.5'/ 6'2") and with a longer reach - who are coming along fairly well (and they have some knowledge of boxing/kickboxing moves for me to work against)...

as I will try to enter their space and close.

If I can get some of my other long time students to come and spar in the vids, I will - but can't promise, as their lives, schedules, responsibilities, and in some cases geographical location have changed through the years. One has moved to New Jersey, one to Connecticut, and one is in Japan at this time. (Including Rich, there are 6 guys who have trained with me for many years...all of them 6' tall or better, and 3 of them 200 lbs. or more...so it would be good to work against them to emphasize the whole issue of "reach" and "distance").

But as I said, although he's not at the same skill level as the 6 guys I just mentioned - one of the newer guys coming to class regularly right now is taller than me and with a longer reach - and he'll appear in the new vids.

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

"ultimatewingchun (victor) thats quite a lot of stuff in there im a bit busy right now but will have a think about your ideas later. your thing about 2 centerlines and being like fencing with 2 foils is a bit like something i do at mma when we do this one drill which is wrestling for underhooks off the pummel. if someone steps back a bit the range instead of shoulder to shoulder body contact (which it should be) becomes more wrists or forearms contact so i imagine a centerline to go under the shoulder and use a bit of chi sao skills to shoot in (not like "a shoot" but shoot my hand in) for the underhook (even tho i try to keep mma and wing chun seperate )

anyway thought you might like that as it fits in with your 2 centerline at the shoulder idea and youve said before you like wrestling." (stricker)

***LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, as I also put Catch wrestling into the mix when the fight gets to clinch phase or goes to the ground - including of course, pummeling drills.

Now take it a few steps longer than wrist and forearm contact and the picture gets clearer - I'm looking for hits on those two sides of his body rather than underhooks.

chisauking

01-29-2006, 06:05 PM

Victor Sez: There are two other guys, however - one of whom is taller than me (he goes about 6"1.5'/ 6'2") and with a longer reach - who are coming along fairly well (and they have some knowledge of boxing/kickboxing moves for me to work against)...

Would be very interesting to see how your long range techniques deals with your
students, especially if they used the same techniques to counter \ bridge you

Ultimatewingchun

01-29-2006, 07:33 PM

Good point, but as I've said before...I'm maximizing my chances with the longer range moves at the longer ranges.

Let's put it this way:

If the taller guy with the longer reach was only having to deal with my short range techniques...than he maximizes his chances of keeping me at bay or picking me off as I try to close in.

The idea is to use long range (longer reaching weapons) as a means to create openings and be safe as I come in - at which point I might even have a distinct advantage against the guy with longer arms and reach (assuming I can penetrate close enough that I'm now contacting his elbows or thereabouts)...

since now my shorter arms and the close range strikes can work more efficiently than his long arms.

(From 4 feet a way I'd prefer a weapon that's say 2' foot long....and from one foot away a 1' long weapon is better...right? :) )

Btw, CSK...I know you're trolling...

but thanks for the opportunity to make the point once again. :cool:

But my patience for trolling is limited, so if after this post you still make like you don't get it - then you're on your own. :rolleyes:

chisauking

01-29-2006, 07:42 PM

Victor sez: Btw, CSK...I know you're trolling

Victor, you have been offering to show us your hardcore sparring with your students for months...Of your own free will. But...every time it's been delayed for one reason or another.

So...when you offered again, I thought it would answer many of your points regarding long range strategy, since pictures = 1000 words.

Any way, if that is trolling, then I'm trolling.

Ultimatewingchun

01-29-2006, 07:47 PM

Yes it's been delayed. But then again, about a year ago I posted 5 vids that were on here for months...whereas...you're first vids are where? ;)

chisauking

01-30-2006, 04:37 PM

Victor, unlike you, I didn't offered to show my limited ability. Besides, it's not my style to make other people look bad in front of a large audiance LOL

anerlich

01-30-2006, 07:10 PM

Victor, unlike you, I didn't offered to show my limited ability.

Your posts have demonstrated that, and also your unattractive personality.

chisauking

01-31-2006, 05:55 AM

couch

01-31-2006, 11:20 AM

Anerlick sez: Your posts have demonstrated that, and also your unattractive personality

Why? Is it because I don't toe the line regarding MMA, and I question those that make wing chun far more complicated then need be? Is it because I talk about wing chun principles and concepts on a wing chun forum?

Or....sometimes the 'words of truth' really hurts?

I KNOW what really hurts: Getting popped in the head while thinking that my straight line can beat that curved line.

Crosstraining and using other ideas for other ranges other than close-range combat is a great idea!

:),
Kenton

Ultimatewingchun

01-31-2006, 12:01 PM

Look, CSK....

Let's skip the attempts at sarcasm, shall we?

I WILL post new vids this winter. Period. As for crosstraining, yes I believe it's a necessity nowadays - but I still look upon wing chun as my main art.

The sun around which everything else I do revolves; because as I see it, real fighting is not about having a long range move-in-throw-some-stuff-and-and-move-back-out boxing or kickboxing match....and going to the ground for a grappling situation in a real streetfight can be quite risky - especially if you can avoid it. (Or at least avoid following the man you just threw, swept, or otherwise put on the ground).

But If I'm grabbed in a standing clinch, or if someone tries to take me down, or does take me down - then I want to be able to fight him with some real clinch and/or grappling skills of my own...perhaps mixed in with some striking as well.

But primarily...I want to be able to punch, finger strike, palm strike, kick, knee, elbow, or sweep someone from a standup close infight range - as I'm going forward and pressuring him. That's the best place to try and win the fight, imo.

And wing chun (if executed and trained efficiently) is perfectly suited for that.

But getting to that very close range without taking any heavy punches or kicks is key.

And I believe that what I'm doing to work my way into that range is very efficient.

Very efficient - even if my opponent is bigger and with a longer reach. Somewhat more efficient than the wing chun I've seen from the longer range starting point. (Although I have seen, learned, and continue to use lots of closing the distance stuff taught by William Cheung, and to a lessor extent, by Moy Yat).

That's all.

You don't have to agree...that's not my concern.

So if you want to continue talking principles, theory, technique, strategy - fine. Let's talk. (And hopefully not simply repeating the same things over and over again - even though I may have already gave an answer to your question or comment).

But if you want to just hurl insults or trolling remarks - then count me out. I've got better things to do.

anerlich

01-31-2006, 07:14 PM

Is it because I don't toe the line regarding MMA, and I question those that make wing chun far more complicated then need be? Is it because I talk about wing chun principles and concepts on a wing chun forum?

No, it's because you're sarcastic and ill-mannered, and lack the charisma and intelligence to get away with it.

Or....sometimes the 'words of truth' really hurts?

Precious little of that in what you've written.

chisauking

01-31-2006, 07:16 PM

Victor: before it gets too emotional, let me start by saying sometimes what I try to convey in the written word gets taken out of context since my writting ability and intellect isn't very high. To be truthful, anyone can argue for or against any subject or thing just as well, so there's seldom a definate right or wrong in life anyway.

For many wing chun practitioners in the world, they like to add many, many arts into their repetoire of techniques in order to face 1 million different permutations of possibilities -- for example, what happens if some one gets me into a head lock, taken to the ground, eye jabbed, arm barred, leg locked, etc., etc.

For me, I believe in the old Chinese saying: prevention is better than cure. Meaning that I concentrate on my core wing chun techniques so well that I'm not forced into a compromising position in the first place, so I don't have to learn additional skills to deal with multiple ranges of fighting. For example, I could take another 5-years learning BJJ so that I could fight on the ground should I get taken there, or, as I've chosen to do, dedicate more time and effort into my wing chun to improve my skills in order to stop the rot even before it starts. To me, this makes more sense since letting your opponent past your by-jung would mean you having to face overwelming number of problems. Take the analogy of damp-proofing your walls. If you don't damp proof your walls, water and mositure would get in,causing a range of multiple problems. However, to stop the multiple ranges of problems occuring in the first place, you only needed to concentrate on one thing and one thing only: damp proof your walls. I truly believe that the best way to safeguard yourself from multiple permutations of problems is to learn your wing chun skills well in order to prevent the problems occuring first. If you choose to learn how to repair problems after they have occured, then you are faced with a never ending range of problems since one problem infects another ( once your walls are damp, it will infect the plasterboard behind, which will in turn infect your wall paper, which will cause a nasty stall smell in your living room, etc. etc.)

Another good analogy is the choice between learning all the fighting styles in the world so that you can counteract all those styles, or you can simply learn the very limited possible angles of attacks which would enable you to contend with any fighting style in the world, since all styles have to attack within those universal angles, which are limited (remember Lee -- your hero -- one good punch is better than 1000 lousy ones?)

Which way you choose is up to you. I have chosen the wing chun way, but if others feel the need to append BJJ, catch wrestling, TKD, western boxing, thai boxing, savate, etc. etc, to their wing chun, then it's all good for them.

Further more, is it possible to adhere to wing chun's basic principles whilst integrating many different styles into wing chun? I personally think not.

Lastly: as I have said before, I respect all the individuals that's been in wing chun for so long.....but don't expect me to agree with every thing you say. I personally think you take things far too seriously on a medium that's basically for a good natter and a bit of fun

Ultimatewingchun

01-31-2006, 08:00 PM

sihing

01-31-2006, 08:28 PM

CSK:

I've heard the rationale you give for only wanting to spend your time doing wing chun many times before. Don't let them past your by-jong and everything will be just fine. Don't let someone grab you in a headlock, or whatever.

And whatever could be many different things.

And you say that I take all of this too seriously. But perhaps what you fail to understand is where I live: Brooklyn, New York...(and have lived here my whole life). And Brooklyn, if it were a separate city - would be the 4th largest city in the United States. But Brooklyn is only one of 5 boroughs that make up New York City.

And 10 million people live in this city. And virtually anything can (and does) happen here all the time.

I know how easy it could be to be grabbed when your back is turned...or from the side...or punched, kicked, headlocked, attacked by multiple opponents, have weapons like knives pulled on you, or bottles, or baseball bats, or even guns.

And I have a pretty good inkling of just how many people walking around this town may have trained in boxing, wrestling, karate, kung fu, kickboxing, jiu jitsu, etc.

At one point when my school was located on Broadway, between Walker and White Streets, in lower Manhattan, for example...a street no more than maybe 60-70 yards long...and I was on that block for about 12 years or more...

at one point, including my school - there were 4 different martial art schools on the block.

On one city block!!!

And besides...you don't have to live in NYC to understand what I'm getting at. :cool:

Which doesn't even address another point...no matter where you live...even the best of wing chun people might find themselves on the floor in the middle of a fight. Didn't it happen to William Cheung in Germany, back in 1986?

Wasn't Boztepe, anothe rname in wing chun...on the floor with him.

Wasn't Boztepe in a headlock at one point.

Do you really want to put all your eggs in the basket that says that wing chun alone will always stop a really good wrestler, sambo, or BJJ guy from taking you down?

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think the odds of you ever having to fight a tall real good boxer type are very slim. And maybe they are. So maybe you'll never have to find out if you could close on him without eating a serious left hook or a rear cross to the face or head.

First of all, all the attacks you mentioned are addressed in WC. Like chisauking mentioned, you should look at angles and ranges of attacks not specific techniques against, when wondering if your tools are competent enough to deal with them all.

I think anyone that lives in a half decently sized city, deals with the same sh!t that New York has to offer, plus most people looking to do serious harm use lethal weapons, like knives or guns, so whatta gonna do if a guy has a knife to your throat and asks for your wallet? I would give it too him, as trying to get out of it would be too risky. The only time I would try that would be if I knew my life or someone elses life was in definite danger.

Portray yourself as weak or with Ego and you will be a target, portray yourself with real self confidence and you will be less of a Target.

Against the taller skilled boxer, why try to go straight in to the head anyways? Go for the lower limbs first to bring them down a notch then if needed go for the upper gate. Anyone much taller than yourself should be attacked low first as it is more difficult for them to counter and easier for us to attack. WC has a strategy & delivery system for this and also for countering any grappling attack intiated, as long as you are resisting along the way. Some moves are highly unlikely to escape from once fully applied to you.

Good posts Chisauking

James

chisauking

01-31-2006, 09:02 PM

Victor sez: Which doesn't even address another point...no matter where you live...even the best of wing chun people might find themselves on the floor in the middle of a fight. Didn't it happen to William Cheung in Germany, back in 1986?

Wasn't Boztepe, another name in wing chun...on the floor with him?

Wasn't Boztepe in a headlock at one point?

I shall quickly address your points for the last time. I will mention this incident NO more on this forum.

1) No matter who you are, if people want to ambush you and they are well prepared -- like one year beforehand -- then there is nothing in this world that would stop them

2) Time stands still for no man. Try fighting a youthful Kan Wah Chit or Gary Lam and you will know they are not the same 40 +

3) No one -- and I mean no one -- would wear a pair of Chinese slippers for fighting on a wooden floor if they had a choice.

4) Was old willy beaten up badly? Was he taken to hospital? Did he sustain any injuries? NO. Then I guess he did not do too badly then, even if it ended on the floor.

Victor, please show some respect to your old sifu. In respect of all the information you have leading up to the incident, why do you constantly bring this very sad incident up again and again just so that you can prove your point regarding ground fighting?

If this incident is the main motivator for your interest in wrestling, then I seriously urge you to reconsider your thinking.

In respect of sifu Cheung, I will not respond to any stupid comments on the matter any further