Wing Chun VS Boxing (kickboxing/mt)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not to create any controversy :D

Having seen a few clips that are actually quite excellent, such as the Sifu Kwook ones on you tube, I have a question for the WC practioners out there.

How does WC truly deal with a trained boxer/kickboxer?

Reason I ask is this, I have a couple friends that I use to bounce with and they are two of the few that I have seen not only use WC in the street and ring effectively, but it even LOOKED like WC :eek:
They do, however, cross train in MT and submission grappling.
They do this to learn how to use their WC VS the aforementioned systems.
One of them once told me that a WC fighters "worse" nightmare is a well trained boxer with fast hands and that was the main reason for training in MT ( for him at least).
I have seen some clips of how WC is SUPPOSE to deal with "typical" boxer.kick boxer attacks but to be truthful the attacks come sloppy and wide and with very little power AND they are premeditated and controlled, not the best way to drill these things, but I do also undertsand that a demo is jsut that, a demo.

Hence my question.

[RGVWingChun]

Wing chun deals with boxers or kickboxers the same way as anything else...you have to make your bridge, either by allowing them to extend out their attacks and bridge with your defensive maneuvers, or you create your bridge and then you have to control and attack.

For instance, if a boxer is through jabs, you can just pak sao his jabs, wait for his cross to come and take control of that and go for your strike. My point is basically have control of their arm(s) before you decide to strike. You don't have to rush in blasting with chain punches cause you will probably get hit. Get your bridge, control and attack. That is why Master Kwok's video look so good and even feels even better in person ;)

Moses

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wing chun deals with boxers or kickboxers the same way as anything else...you have to make your bridge, either by allowing them to extend out their attacks and bridge with your defensive maneuvers, or you create your bridge and then you have to control and attack.

For instance, if a boxer is through jabs, you can just pak sao his jabs, wait for his cross to come and take control of that and go for your strike. My point is basically have control of their arm(s) before you decide to strike. You don't have to rush in blasting with chain punches cause you will probably get hit. Get your bridge, control and attack. That is why Master Kwok's video look so good and even feels even better in person ;)

Moses

Hmmm, interesting, I don't wanna focus on Sifu Kwok's videos because the techniques are done against really bad attacks, not taking anythign aways from Sifu Kwok's excellent skill level, just stating the fact the those attacks are, well, lousy.

Pak sao the jabs eh?
I have heard that could be the worse thing to do, considering not only the speed of the jab but how many times hooks come off jabs...
Care to expand on that?

[KPM]

I agree that one of the most dangerous opponents you could face is a good boxer! I can't say that I've sparred with a "quality" boxer, but I have played a bit with training partners. You can't let the boxer stay at his range and "snipe" at you, or he will pick you apart. You have to close quickly, take his space, and keep him off-balance so that he cannot reset. Bridging in on his jab isn't easy, but it is doable. Respond with a Pak or even a Huen as you go in and EXPECT the cross. Jam his rear hand as you go in to either prevent the cross or stop it before it can develop fully. Watch for him to turn the cross into an overhead or a hook and be prepared to turn your jamming Gum/Pak into a Biu. If he seems to be over-committing with his jab, zone to his outside with a strong Pak at his elbow to turn and off-balance him. Then close at an angle that prevents him from using his rear hand (like one of the steps in the dummy form). Most boxers are not used to leg attacks. So one of the things I like to do is move in with a front leg "jab kick" to his lead shin/knee to get him to momentarily drop his hands a bit and then continue the step in with a Pak Da that jams his lead hand and hits. Just some random thoughts. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

By boxers I also mean KB/MT fighters, just to make that clear.

[KPM]

By boxers I also mean KB/MT fighters, just to make that clear.

They can be very different, and strategies have to change to reflect that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

They can be very different, and strategies have to change to reflect that.

Indeed.
So, and this is not just applicable to WC, how does on formulate a strategy to deal with a trained Boxer?
I have always advocated cross training with trained boxers and developing the skills needed to defeat them in that way, you don't become a boxer ( unless you want to), but you do get exposed to real boxing as opposed to someone throwing what they think is a boxing attack at you.

[monji112000]

Indeed.
So, and this is not just applicable to WC, how does on formulate a strategy to deal with a trained Boxer?
I have always advocated cross training with trained boxers and developing the skills needed to defeat them in that way, you don't become a boxer ( unless you want to), but you do get exposed to real boxing as opposed to someone throwing what they think is a boxing attack at you.

It depends on the strategy the boxer is playing. If he is a straight boxer he is a at dis-advantage becouse of the lack of kicking. Allot of WC can be counter punching, coming in and retreating. On the other hand you can jam in and attack and attack.
Mostly its timing and footwork. In reality its strategically different than boxing or MT.
The biggest difference is the footwork. I'm not talking about standing square.

All that being said its not as common for WC schools to train at this level. One of the issues with WC is you will find vastly different things depending on the school. To be honest it should be called something other than WC... becouse its like calling all grappling Gracie JJ (sambo, free style wrestling, greco, modern BJJ ect..)

for example allot of people advocate doing some type of chi sao when clinching. Its not practical for the most part, becouse nobody is wanting to "play" chi sao. Ofcourse elements are used, but its not so simple. Its better to grab and knee or try to make distance and cover.

The best clip I can produce is old. I don't personally know the guy, but he is a good fighter from a MT background. He trained WC for some time and has his own school. I'm pretty sure he did some MT fights and continues to do them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqkNgTyothc
again its not sparring its only drilling. Nobody likes to be taped I guess.
Please don't flame the clip, I don't want any backlash from the people in the video. (techniques arn't 100% perfect.. but nothing ever is in real life).

[sanjuro_ronin]

I actually like that clip.

[monji112000]

I actually like that clip.
Like I said he is a good fighter. Its not sparring, and nobody has sparring clips online.. I guess everyone is camera shy. He has other clips on his account, they are all good in my opinion, but everyone can have their own criteria.

In the end it all looks the same (as a general concept).

[sihing]

We enter (by attacking first if possible, if not you attack the attack), hit and keep on hitting, all supported by a body structure and engine that can give and accept force while adapting to whatever changes happen during the process. WC teaches to track the Center Axis on someone, if you affect that they lose their balance for a moment, at that moment you are on them. WC teaches to fight in close, where most people feel uncomfortable, here they feel the need to either retreat to make space or grapple to control you, you hit while here in an aggressive manner, with power in the strike (whether it is a punch, elbow, headbutt or knee strike, all the same) from full body unity. The key is to attack, go forward, track center, put massive pressure on the opponent, so they have little chance to think of attack, this increases our chances of success but guarantees nothing. Of course if the opponent has high level skills, harder training practices than you and is used to gettin hit, you will have more problems, that's why you give them little chance to figure you out, attack without mercy, all learned from the training method. WC is about training certain skill sets and attributes, not about applications, IMHO. I fight, not WC.

The same tactic is used against any and all fighters. WC is no good for comps, once people figure out your strategy they can counter it easy, but on the street you won't know what my tactic is, nor my strengths or weakness, or anything for that matter about me, all you will know is that I am hell bent on finishing you off ASAP.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

We enter (by attacking first if possible, if not you attack the attack), hit and keep on hitting, all supported by a body structure and engine that can give and accept force while adapting to whatever changes happen during the process. WC teaches to track the Center Axis on someone, if you affect that they lose their balance for a moment, at that moment you are on them. WC teaches to fight in close, where most people feel uncomfortable, here they feel the need to either retreat to make space or grapple to control you, you hit while here in an aggressive manner, with power in the strike (whether it is a punch, elbow, headbutt or knee strike, all the same) from full body unity. The key is to attack, go forward, track center, put massive pressure on the opponent, so they have little chance to think of attack, this increases our chances of success but guarantees nothing. Of course if the opponent has high level skills, harder training practices than you and is used to gettin hit, you will have more problems, that's why you give them little chance to figure you out, attack without mercy, all learned from the training method. WC is about training certain skill sets and attributes, not about applications, IMHO. I fight, not WC.

The same tactic is used against any and all fighters. WC is no good for comps, once people figure out your strategy they can counter it easy, but on the street you won't know what my tactic is, nor my strengths or weakness, or anything for that matter about me, all you will know is that I am hell bent on finishing you off ASAP.

James

Interesting indeed, thanks, excellent description by the way and a very interesting view in regards to WC and competition.

[kamikaze]

Of course if the opponent has high level skills, harder training practices than you and is used to gettin hit, you will have more problems, that's why you give them little chance to figure you out, attack without mercy, all learned from the training method. WC is about training certain skill sets and attributes, not about applications, IMHO. I fight, not WC.

The same tactic is used against any and all fighters. WC is no good for comps, once people figure out your strategy they can counter it easy, but on the street you won't know what my tactic is, nor my strengths or weakness, or anything for that matter about me, all you will know is that I am hell bent on finishing you off ASAP.
James

My response is only dealing with a boxer.

Most of the WC practitioners that I've worked with lacked in conditioning, and that makes a big difference in a fight or sparring. Also, solely training in close range trapping/sparring exercises will not be enough to engage a boxer that is moving around, working their punches. My sifu in NY encouraged me to cross train in order for your endeavors to be successful, and I suggest that to all other people training in WC.

WC has a lot of techniques that are used by boxers. If you take the time to analyze the 2nd and 3rd form, then you'll notice hooks, uppercuts, and wicked cross punches. So you can box with a boxer for a period of time before going into the trapping range to finish the fight.

You also mentioned that WC is no good in competition, but there are lei tai competitions held in MD for various styles of kung fu. I believe Sifu Redmond's WC squad earned medals last year. Most styles can be used in sport. All it take is a couple of adjustments.

[sihing]

My response is only dealing with a boxer.

Most of the WC practitioners that I've worked with lacked in conditioning, and that makes a big difference in a fight or sparring. Also, solely training in close range trapping/sparring exercises will not be enough to engage a boxer that is moving around, working their punches. My sifu in NY encouraged me to cross train in order for your endeavors to be successful, and I would suggest that to all other people training in WC.

WC has a lot of techniques that are used by boxers. If you take the time to analyze the 2nd and 3rd form, then you'll notice hooks, uppercuts, and wicked cross punches. So you can box with a boxer for a period of time before going into the trapping range to finish the fight.

You also mentioned that WC is no good in competition, but there are lei tai competitions held in MD for various styles of kung fu. I believe Sifu Redmond's WC squad earned medals last year. Most styles can be used in sport. All it take is a couple of adjustments.

Comps (sparring or fighting a boxer in a ring to test yourself, something that I don't discourage doing personally, it is great training and experience to put yourself outside of your comfort zone, even when you are defeated you gain much in experience and wisdom) is not fighting or self defence without weapons in my book, so you are talking apples while I am talking bananas. Conditioning does play a big part when you are "fighting" or comparing skills against other skilled fighters, in a environment with rules and regs, on the street both participants have the element of the unknown working for both them, strange person, strange environment, strange circumstances, no protection or ref/doctor/rules/preconceived idea of the outcome at play there. You can of course, adapt the system to whatever needs you like. I've used the TWC system in tournaments before, and others students in that school have fought successfully in full contact events using it, but for me that is competitions, and something I am not really interested in.

If I knew the person I was fighting with was a boxer, I wouldn't box with him, because that is his specialty. Don't kick with a kicker, box with a boxer or wrestle with a wrestler, do something different than what they are doing for better odds at defeating them. On the street there is no luxury of pre-knowledge of your opponents abilities or style preferences, so the key is to be aggressive, attack them first and let your training express itself thru you in a natural way. If your training sucks, or your system of WC is of low quality then I guess you will have more problems, as not all WC is the same or equal. Now for me, besides a couple of weeks of judo and karate back when I was a pre teen, and some wrestling in public school, all of my MA training has been within the WC system. Saying that, does that mean I am limited to a Man/Wu sau bai jong structure, and all the clichés that surround WC when engaging an opponent? Well if your goal is to perform WC while you fight, then yes. If your goal is to get out of a real situation alive and unharmed, you USE your training to help you do just that, prevail and survive. I use the WC, it doesn't use me, and since it is a conceptually based training method, only my imagination limits me. With today's technology it is easy for anyone to gain exposure of other MA methods, and maybe use that exposure to adapt your training to make it more effective. Even where I live, there is a good MMA school and when the day comes that I want to experience that I will pursue just that, but for now I still have lots to learn in the system I am training in, I find it enjoyable to train and to teach others what I know of it. The learning never stops, WC for me is fun that is the major factor why I continue to train it.

James

P.S.
"Most of the WC practitioners that I've worked with lacked in conditioning, and that makes a big difference in a fight or sparring." Regarding your statement:
For me I don't look at what or how others use the system, as no one can completely represent a training method like WC, as the application of it is totally up to the individual using it. I've found the key thing for me is to understand what WC is trying to teach totally. It's an aggressive, sneaky system. Someone once described it as an "Assassin's Art", when dealing with an assassin you won't know what is going on, and when you do it is too late, your already dead. Think of it this way, there are tiny six shooter snub nose hand guns out there, guns that you can easily hide in a holster or pocket. These types of guns are not the most powerful, useful, totally complete gun in the world, but it gets the job done, as if you approach someone concealing this weapon and they use it on you, your dead before you knew they even had it, even if the person you are shooting is experienced with all sorts of guns. WC is like this, it is most useful when the element of surprise and unknown is on your side.

[RGVWingChun]

Pak sao the jabs eh?
I have heard that could be the worse thing to do, considering not only the speed of the jab but how many times hooks come off jabs...
Care to expand on that?

Sure...what I meant was pak sao the individual jabs but with no follow up attack. Just plain pak sao, possibly with a slight retreat to draw him into using the cross so you can take advantage of that since it would be a more committed attack on his part.

[RGVWingChun]

the other strategy would be the bridge with your longest weapon which would be your kicks....just another thought

[sihing]

Sure...what I meant was pak sao the individual jabs but with no follow up attack. Just plain pak sao, possibly with a slight retreat to draw him into using the cross so you can take advantage of that since it would be a more committed attack on his part.

Your Chasing Hands, a cardinal NO NO is WC.

JR

[couch]

Sure...what I meant was pak sao the individual jabs but with no follow up attack. Just plain pak sao, possibly with a slight retreat to draw him into using the cross so you can take advantage of that since it would be a more committed attack on his part.

This IS a common boxing defense. In boxing, you stuff the jab (similar to a pak) and then follow up with a cross, etc.

James, it might seem as though you're chasing hands, but as long as you chase the centre when the hand comes out, theory should be okay on that one. ;) Plus, I'm not advocating just standing there and receiving all these jabs, but to immediately chase the jab back to the opponent, move, etc. The opponent reached out to created a bridge (and if it's a jab, it's on the centre too - yay!) and you should at least have the decency to meet him half way. (Or move off the line, etc, of course!)

Best.

[sihing]

This IS a common boxing defense. In boxing, you stuff the jab (similar to a pak) and then follow up with a cross, etc.

James, it might seem as though you're chasing hands, but as long as you chase the centre when the hand comes out, theory should be okay on that one. ;) Plus, I'm not advocating just standing there and receiving all these jabs, but to immediately chase the jab back to the opponent, move, etc. The opponent reached out to created a bridge (and if it's a jab, it's on the centre too - yay!) and you should at least have the decency to meet him half way. (Or move off the line, etc, of course!)

Best.

Hey Kenton,

If your distancing is off and your not in close then the pak could be on the arm, and like you said it will still chase the centerline from there (like in pak sau drill, we pak the forearm, in the direction towards the centerline, and then learn to come in from there in a variety of ways). I would look at this as a purely defensive move, like in a situation where I'm surprised, but if I was lined up with a guy, ready for action my first instinct learned from the training is to hit first, and use my elbow over top to trap the hit underneath (sort of a fok concept), rather than going for any type of parry or block. This way I'm at the least putting the attack back on the other guy.

James

[k gledhill]

don't forget to kick them :D ...agreed the pak should NOT chase across the line , it holds the line by ballistic displacement using the elbow to line .....to our line so we can hold the center to deal with follow ups etc... work the triangle split by the line and little will enter while flanking . facing a boxer like your his heavy bag is a no-no. get them to commit by perimeter shifting movement to draw them etc...play the game of feinting , don't try to magic bullet his moves , like 'touch' the jab :D the jab is his way of drawing just that redundant act...so if you do move to interrupt it while punching only go to line and strike out yourself to be striking /kicking and giving some stimulus back rather than letting the guy jab and x and play you...if its not on the line of entry its not er ah entering :D don't chase it ..if you are constantly moving and making the guy face , play them to see how good they recover their moving at you...go left go right go back stop shift , don't be a hanging bag waiting to do magic bullet chi-sao ;) don't go lead leg back and forth into them , until you have an entry to sides or make them turn....your just a bag swing in and back be more of a heavy bag than a bag can be :D

eyes/mind will never be as fast/react as the hands ergo we fight to cover our line of entry while flanking to avoid the follow up hand , ergo dont stay in the path of the second hand or move to its side of functional delivery in other words make him shift to face and stop his ability when possible or attack over thrown attempts ...seung ma - toi ma drills give us the offside to choose instinctively to avoid being centered and moving back and forth in a straight line lead leg ready ready to be kicked by thai boxers...the rest is no thinking so thats your mind not mine.



a leg is another tool often overlooked for the hand game . kick him and use it as your jab / stop kick , make him think.

just suggestions.

[SAAMAG]

It depends on the strategy the boxer is playing. If he is a straight boxer he is a at dis-advantage becouse of the lack of kicking. Allot of WC can be counter punching, coming in and retreating. On the other hand you can jam in and attack and attack.
Mostly its timing and footwork. In reality its strategically different than boxing or MT.
The biggest difference is the footwork. I'm not talking about standing square.

All that being said its not as common for WC schools to train at this level. One of the issues with WC is you will find vastly different things depending on the school. To be honest it should be called something other than WC... becouse its like calling all grappling Gracie JJ (sambo, free style wrestling, greco, modern BJJ ect..)

for example allot of people advocate doing some type of chi sao when clinching. Its not practical for the most part, becouse nobody is wanting to "play" chi sao. Ofcourse elements are used, but its not so simple. Its better to grab and knee or try to make distance and cover.

The best clip I can produce is old. I don't personally know the guy, but he is a good fighter from a MT background. He trained WC for some time and has his own school. I'm pretty sure he did some MT fights and continues to do them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqkNgTyothc
again its not sparring its only drilling. Nobody likes to be taped I guess.
Please don't flame the clip, I don't want any backlash from the people in the video. (techniques arn't 100% perfect.. but nothing ever is in real life).

That's the Duncan Leung line. They do a lot of sparring/fighting drills and sparring as well. That's a great line of wing chun with very capable students. The guy with our back to us is the guy you're talking about right? I like his movement of the counterattacking in the last bit of the video.

To the OP:

The way I've always fought boxers/kickboxers; is to use use boxing and kickboxing types of movements while in the proper ranges. Now as soon as we cross bridges or get into the range of crossing bridges, I switch to wing chun and attack the CENTER--be sure not to chase hands.

Also, Wing chun is chinese boxing in my opinion, the movements can be done pretty much in the same way as western boxers do. You don't have to chain punch, or fight in a blinding fury of uselessness...you can pick apart your guy just like he's trying to do to you, but doing it the wing chun way you'll use angles, simultaneous attack and defense, and you will continually close the distance. Just watch out for those shovel hooks, knees, and elbows, and don't be afraid to use some of your own!

"Loy lao hoy sung, lut sao jik chueng"

Wing chun isn't bad; when it's in its element, is some of the best stuff out there, if not the best imho. You've just got to train it in a way that's conduscive to your personal goals. If your goals are fighting, than fight with it. If it's to get good at chi sao, than do what 80% of all the schools do. If it's just for excercise and commradery, than it doesn't matter what you do.

Good luck man. Now get out there and duke it out!

[couch]

and like you said it will still chase the centerline from there (like in pak sau drill, we pak the forearm, in the direction towards the centerline, and then learn to come in from there in a variety of ways). I would look at this as a purely defensive move, like in a situation where I'm surprised, but if I was lined up with a guy, ready for action my first instinct learned from the training is to hit first, and use my elbow over top to trap the hit underneath (sort of a fok concept), rather than going for any type of parry or block. This way I'm at the least putting the attack back on the other guy.

James

Same here: chase the centre, whether I get wrist, forearm or elbow makes no difference to me. I just want energy displacement on the opponent's centre so that they "lose" their balance.

I understand the fook/punch concept. I'm on the same page as you (or maybe at least the backside of the same page). :cool: I would prefer to hit first, as well as put the attack back in any case.

Kevin: Yah. Kicking definitely is part of the repertoire. :)

[couch]

If it's just for excercise and commradery, than it doesn't matter what you do.

Yes it does! You have to drink beer and talk a lot! :)

Can't I have it all?

[sihing]

That's the Duncan Leung line. They do a lot of sparring/fighting drills and sparring as well. That's a great line of wing chun with very capable students. Was it the guy with our back to us is the guy you're talking about right? I like his movement of the counterattacking in the last bit of the video.

To the OP:

The way I've always fought boxers/kickboxers; is to use use boxing and kickboxing types of movements while in the proper ranges. Now as soon as we cross bridges or get into the range of crossing bridges, I switch to wing chun and attack the CENTER--be sure not to chase hands.

Also, Wing chun is chinese boxing in my opinion, the movements can be done pretty much in the same way as western boxers do. You don't have to chain punch, or fight in a blinding fury of uselessness...you can pick apart your guy just like he's trying to do to you, but doing it the wing chun way you'll use angles, simultaneous attack and defense, and you will continually close the distance. Just watch out for those shovel hooks, knees, and elbows, and don't be afraid to use some of your own!

"Loy lao hoy sung, lut sao jik chueng"

Wing chun isn't bad, when it's in its element, is some of the best stuff out there, if not the best imho. You've just got to train it in a way that's conduscive to your personal goals. If your goals are fighting, than fight with it. If it's to get good at chi sao, than do what 80% of all the schools do. If it's just for excercise and commradery, than it doesn't matter what you do.

Good luck man. Now get out there and duke it out!

Good post Van, I agree with what you say. WC is chinese boxing, with the idea to use it as such. I also like what you said in the last paragraph. Everyone has different goals with the system, so we will all look at it differently. And guess what, the goals may change over time, so you change the intention of the training/application as well. There is no final destination or mastery of Martial Arts, it all about the journey and self discovery gained thru that process.

The best way to deal with a boxer, is to get in there with them and learn personally what they are all about, that way whatever they do won't be a total surprise to you if you happen to meet one on the street. I believe Paul mentioned this on another post about Cross training, with the goal of learning how to use what you already have against a specific adversery, then moving along from there. Personal experience in Martial Arts is critcial, as you can only go so far with someone elses experience guiding your training. There's a time for training and a time for individual application, both must be seperated IMO.

James

[sihing]

Same here: chase the centre, whether I get wrist, forearm or elbow makes no difference to me. I just want energy displacement on the opponent's centre so that they "lose" their balance.

I understand the fook/punch concept. I'm on the same page as you (or maybe at least the backside of the same page). :cool: I would prefer to hit first, as well as put the attack back in any case.

Kevin: Yah. Kicking definitely is part of the repertoire. :)

Yeah, that is what I like about the pak drill, it also teaches us proper aim of our tools and alignment of our elbows. We can't aim with our shoulders as they are on the sides of our bodies. If you want to attack center, you have to aim with the elbow, as they can come into the center (SNT practice), whereas the shoulders cannot. Pak trains that as well I've found. It's harder than people think to chase centerline, most want to chase hands (which can mean chasing energy or following the power) as a natural instinct, WC as a training method gets rid of that bad habit. So even if the boxers jab came in and you were unable to get your shot in, either the pak would jar their centerlines, or the elbow in would do something similiar. I've heard it said that if you can deal with a good jab, most everything else is easier:)

James

[t_niehoff]

WC is chinese boxing, with the idea to use it as such.

I have a different view. My view is that WCK is NOT chinese "boxing", nor is it a good idea to use it that way. The classic/tradtitional WCK faat/method/approach is described by dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi. That doesn't describe boxing or kickboxing.

When we try to use WCK at the free-movement range -- the outside -- it ends up "looking" like boxing or kickboxing because it has to. That's what fighting on the outside is. And so, if you fight on the outside you will end up not using most of WCK's technical repetoire (because those are contact skills and you are not in contact) and you'll begin to find you need to move like a "kickboxer" (with their mechanics) and need to incorporate more and more "kickboxing" technical repetoire.

We know that boxing and the various methods of kickboxing (savate, MT, etc.) can reliably produce very highly skilled fighters, including world-class level fighters. So if I want to fight on the outside, to box or kickbox -- and if you fight at the free-movement "range", that's what you will end up doing -- it makes more sense to just learn to box or kickbox. Just like if I want to fight on the ground it makes more sense to learn BJJ.

[RGVWingChun]

I'm certainly not advocating "chasing the hands" but I am advocating having a bridge to be able to have accountability and control of where his weapons are so that I can get my strike in without having to worry if he's going to throw some counter and hit me while Im' on the way to attack. I'm advocating wooing him to use his strongest weapon so that I can neutralize and control that to be able to strike with no problems. Just creating a bridge....

probably not doing the best to explain it in writing. sorry about that.

Moses

[Liddel]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
Pak sao the jabs eh?
I have heard that could be the worse thing to do, considering not only the speed of the jab but how many times hooks come off jabs...
Care to expand on that?

I would call it in this context.... a check.

I use Pak Sao against my boxing friends during sparring sure.
Im not talking an over commited Pak trying to press away the punch. It is a movement of little more than an inch and must never move your arms down or away from protecting your head.
You can even use such an action with little elbow movement and more wrist forearm turning driven from the body moving...so your still protected should your opponent land from anywhere.

Hence why i call it a check.

Depending on timing, i can move the jab down to create space for my own follow up punch (textbook Pak IMO) but for the most part its a check with a boxer with good hand speed because im aware of the timing of follow up actions like said hook.

I find it quite useful for gaining time to land lower kicks. As i check, i cross kick the inside of the opponents lead leg or stomp a knee, it can unbalance them long enough for you to gain the initiative to land other attacks. Like my fav choice of closing the gap for elbows.

Although if i was sprring my MMA friend then id change for fear of takedown but MT/KB it works fine for me.

DREW

[RGVWingChun]

there ya go...a "check" would probably be what I mean to say

[monji112000]

I'm certainly not advocating "chasing the hands" but I am advocating having a bridge to be able to have accountability and control of where his weapons are so that I can get my strike in without having to worry if he's going to throw some counter and hit me while Im' on the way to attack. I'm advocating wooing him to use his strongest weapon so that I can neutralize and control that to be able to strike with no problems. Just creating a bridge....

probably not doing the best to explain it in writing. sorry about that.

Moses

Bridging is over rated.

[Liddel]

sanjuro_ronin has a great point, and judging on what ive read from him over a long time here id take note of what he says....my sparring partners are good but not competitors at high levels and my experience is limited compared to his..... so its all relative ;)

One thing with Pak in this context is you have to move -
No horse no kung fu.

Ive found with regard to a hook comming from the jab, that if when you check/Pak :p the outside of the jab, you are stepping towards the outside also while giving a lower body shot with the inside you can avoid the power line and sweet spot of the hook while landing your own shot.

A common move for a boxer IMO is to do this with a weave to avoid the hook while throwing the body shot. With my VT ive accomplished a similar result but using the Pak/check or a bridge contact if you will, WITH stepping to gauge distance and timing to avoid the punch.

A lot of the VT ive learnt has taught me that even if i take a shot, im taking it in a place that is out of the pocket, cutting angles or distance enables me to get hit before an attack is fully loaded with the opponents force, lessening the impact :rolleyes:

These are all parts of the whole....all benificial, none unbeatable :o

DREW

[k gledhill]

Bridging is over rated.

most guys wont offer a 'bridge' so I create my own :D..I just punch them in the head creating a bridge for my ground to fist idea work.

Creating bridges is not the idea, its what to do if they attempt to make one with you..you sink it .;) destroy thew attempt to interrupt your bridging with their head.

We attack not think to look for bridges, if the bridge finds us we should be moving in no thinking mind using chi-sao contact to know how to clear the path to maintain an attacking action. NOT to give them a breather as we rest on their arm 'bridging ' :D

[SAAMAG]

I have a different view. My view is that WCK is NOT chinese "boxing", nor is it a good idea to use it that way. The classic/tradtitional WCK faat/method/approach is described by dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi. That doesn't describe boxing or kickboxing.

When we try to use WCK at the free-movement range -- the outside -- it ends up "looking" like boxing or kickboxing because it has to. That's what fighting on the outside is. And so, if you fight on the outside you will end up not using most of WCK's technical repetoire (because those are contact skills and you are not in contact) and you'll begin to find you need to move like a "kickboxer" (with their mechanics) and need to incorporate more and more "kickboxing" technical repetoire.

We know that boxing and the various methods of kickboxing (savate, MT, etc.) can reliably produce very highly skilled fighters, including world-class level fighters. So if I want to fight on the outside, to box or kickbox -- and if you fight at the free-movement "range", that's what you will end up doing -- it makes more sense to just learn to box or kickbox. Just like if I want to fight on the ground it makes more sense to learn BJJ.

Well..it's more semantics than anything else--calling it chinese boxing. The term to me can be synonomous with wushu and gung fu (gung fu being the broadest of them). Now I'm not saying to use wing chun in the outer ranges, because you're right, than I'd simply use my MT. But when on the inside, I'm just saying that it's not always necessary to go for that constant bridge and hand flurry (although that is how to saying goes: accept what comes, escort what leaves, shoot in at loss of contact).

To me, economy of motion is making sure all the shots count, and the method of always trying to bridge and flurry isn't always condusive for that. Pick the shots, combination shots should be used only when they're likely to work.

[Edmund]

The best answer IMO is playing to WC's strengths: Because of all the bare handed practice, WC people have more variety of technique and everyday experience in pushing and pulling.

MT does clinchwork but because of the gloves they don't have the holds that regularly occur in WC. Your hands can clench something or palm off something far more easily with no gloves on. Pushing or pulling on the wrists, elbows, head, neck, torso etc is done many times in lots of different ways in WC practice. It's a fundamental basic for WC used in defence and attack but other striking arts such as kickboxing and MT don't do it as much.

The term, "bridging", implies a passive action. "Push" and "pull" are a form of offense. It's a threatening action putting the opponent into a dangerous position setting up strikes, takedowns or throws.

The "free-movement" range that Terence refers to is where a pure striker is strong. But once the distance closes it's hard to widen it up again.

[Matrix]

The term, "bridging", implies a passive action.
Really? That's not my understanding. As Keith pointed out, a punch to the head can be a bridge.

Bill

[Edmund]

Really? That's not my understanding. As Keith pointed out, a punch to the head can be a bridge.

Bill

I believe that would not be the standard translation of the term. A punch in the head would be called a strike, "da" in Cantonese. Not a "Kiu" - bridge.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I must apologize because I promised some months ago to post some new vids on this very subject by now....with several big logistical reasons for why it's yet to happen - but I can say this much - as I've said a number of times in the past...

but with a new and very current twist...

Since I got to do some sparring today with one my best (if not the VERY best) student that I've ever had (he started with me 19 years ago) - and we haven't done any sparring at all for several years now:

I was very aggressively using stiff boxing leads and rear crosses (sometimes followed by rear front kicks or rear roundhouse kicks) as a means to gain entry to the closer range wing chun preferred distance - and it was working VERY WELL.

(Mike is not only very skilled in wing chun by now but has had karate, wrestling, and boxing training as well)...

I used the leads and crosses to atttack his shoulder lines - those "lanes" he'd have to use to attack me - and quite often the followup kicks were purposely placed on a line that one his legs legs would have to use to kick me...

in other words...in more "conventional" wing chun terms - I was owning the "centerline" (in TWC terms these are two of the important "Central Lines")...and going forward with aggressive forward penetration and intention - forcing him to either go around my arms and legs with hooking/round blows - thereby ensuring that I control the shorter, faster path...

or forcing him to have to move back or to the side...(wherein I would follow up with more pressure and space-taking)...

or forcing him to "bridge" (KIU)...as in making limb-to-limb contact)...which gave me the opportunity to start manipulating his arms off the lines I wanted to strike on or possibly to begin some sort of two-on-one or pinning or trapping or swim through/punch through type scenarios...

or forcing him to try and come forward and tie up looking for a clinch or an opportunity to shoot for the legs.

In either case putting him on defense/and or forcing him to react and counter MY attacks - putting me in control of the fight on lines (and lanes) that I was tightly occupying.

Hopefully I'll get someone to film/post a vid about it the next time we get together - which we plan to do more often from here on in.

[KPM]

Hey Terence!

When we try to use WCK at the free-movement range -- the outside -- it ends up "looking" like boxing or kickboxing because it has to. That's what fighting on the outside is.

---I agree!

So if I want to fight on the outside, to box or kickbox -- and if you fight at the free-movement "range", that's what you will end up doing -- it makes more sense to just learn to box or kickbox. Just like if I want to fight on the ground it makes more sense to learn BJJ.

---But I don't entirely agree here. I do think that to fight effectively from the outside, at least long enough to close to where WCK works best, we need to acknowledge that we have to do things a bit differently and learn some lessons from boxing/kickboxing. But I don't think we have to entirely drop our WCK and learn to box/kickbox just like they do. I think we should be adaptable enough to learn to function effectively from that range without starting over from scratch in our training. This is where "Wing Chun boxing" comes in. It may not be exactly the same thing as "classical" Wing Chun used closer in, but it isn't exactly the same thing as "classical" boxing either. I seems like Alan Orr and his guys are good at making this work.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think it is a good idea to modify WC to work form the outside, it is an infighting system and the power generation is based on that.
Easier and perhaps better to do MT form the outside, close the gab and WC form the inside, for lack of a better way old describing stuff.
I know that some don't liek this whole "range" thing, neither do I, at least not how it is used typically - punching range, kicking range clinching range, etc.
I prefer to look at it as "power generation ranges" :D
The type of power we need to generate to make our strikes (for example) effective from a "longer" range is typical of MT, whereas, when we get "up close and personal" that very same power generation is less optimal and the "short" power of systems like WC and SPM then to work better.

[t_niehoff]

So if I want to fight on the outside, to box or kickbox -- and if you fight at the free-movement "range", that's what you will end up doing -- it makes more sense to just learn to box or kickbox. Just like if I want to fight on the ground it makes more sense to learn BJJ.

---But I don't entirely agree here. I do think that to fight effectively from the outside, at least long enough to close to where WCK works best, we need to acknowledge that we have to do things a bit differently and learn some lessons from boxing/kickboxing.


Yes, we (as individuals, not as WCK) need to learn some lessons from good outside fighters, to see what they do, how they do it, what they don't do, why they don't, etc. However, we don't need to box or kickbox unless we stay on the outside. As I see it, WCK is an inside game (control while striking), and part of that game is getting to the inside. How good we get at that will depend upon (among other things) how much time we've put in (trying to get inside) against good outside fighters.



But I don't think we have to entirely drop our WCK and learn to box/kickbox just like they do. I think we should be adaptable enough to learn to function effectively from that range without starting over from scratch in our training. This is where "Wing Chun boxing" comes in. It may not be exactly the same thing as "classical" Wing Chun used closer in, but it isn't exactly the same thing as "classical" boxing either. I seems like Alan Orr and his guys are good at making this work.

Part of my view is based on what I call "the demands of the range". If you fight on the ground (that "range"), for instance, there are certain fundamental things you need to be able to do, some things that are not good to do (mistakes), etc. This is why all good groundfighters, regardless of their style/art, have a consistency about what they do. It isthe same for free-movement and for clinch.

If you fight from the outside, that is a different game than the inside. It has different demands, different metchanics, different tactics, different strategies, different mistakes, etc. You can't take a ground art and try to make it work in the clinch. You can't take a clinch art and try to make it work in (extended) free-movement. If your game is on the inside, the longeryou are on the outside, the longer you are playing his game. And if you play his game, you're playing to lose.

[t_niehoff]

The term, "bridging", implies a passive action. "Push" and "pull" are a form of offense. It's a threatening action putting the opponent into a dangerous position setting up strikes, takedowns or throws.

Edmund, I agree in part with you. The way I see it, everything we do should "threaten our opponent." For me, "bridging" means to establish and maintain an attached contact relationship with our opponent, to get the inside, to "clinch". This is something that I see as an active objective. The first step in the faat (the WCK approach/method ofcontrolling while striking) is to join to the opponent ("clinch"); we do that by establishing "a bridge". We can do that in various ways, including with a strike (the strike is not the "bridge", it's what we do after the strike that creates the "bridge"). That "bridge" or connection or attachment is what permits us to push, pull, etc. our opponent. Without that attachment, we have no control over an opponent. The kuit even tells us "when there isn't a bridge, create one".

[k gledhill]

If you hit someone with a punch there is no need to follow them to the floor creating a bridge ;) , a lot of redundant thinking comes from little understanding.

Your thinking requires thinking , this is redundant to the whole process..we dont seek by thinking . Your idea is to 'feel' and be safe by controlling ...clinching dirty.... You are also offering your opponent the same ability ...he can feel to . If he cant feel you what do you think he does? he seeks your arms, by grabbing , blocking etc...trying to turn away from your attack...it is the skill of the VT fighter not to seek the arms but to know to simply hit through them using the techniques born of ideas to back it up...sometimes a vt fighter can take his hands away completelty allowing futile lateral attempts to divert the striking intent....a skill Im after not clinching . Clinching by its nature can help your opponent to maintain you too...; ) allowing them to shoot knees in and work you equally facing hand for hand head for head, leg for leg...we strive to become over whleming to this idea of equality.. we have 2 guns each we fire at each other , were do you want to be ? in a potential shot line ooops ? there is no ooops . Tactics my son tactics , what follows allows those tactics to become functional as we deliver an attack without being in the firing line.

the very basic positions we adopt arms forward while striking elbows inward, are to cover the line of entry using the flanking idea...the arms will be traveling the line to strike while holding the line to enter to our center/head /neck...individually while the other either strikes freely or the lead is interupted and we clear the bridge by jut /pak so we can hit freely ..NOT seeking to clinch ourselves from striking ...I cant say it clearer.

If an arm seeks to hit us along our own attacking line our arms will react IF CONTACT IS MADE [or not in your case; )] WITHOUT THOUGHT .

Why do you think the arms are like this strange elbowy in thingy ? for fun ? to develop chi ?.

they travel the line we need to cover while delivering a strike that can defelct/control entry /trap etc...only as long as it takes to regain the ability to strike with 2 hands again...

the contact made is because the arm came into the attacking line we fire on....the straight line beats a circle is in full effect here. Plus you cant face me to strike while I attack you . the elbows kept low and not strightening out making easy levers use the angles they make in rotaton to keep the line closed while we strike...because they hold these angles fro SLT training dan chi etc...

they offer a natural barrier that only reacts when its touched by another object , otherwise we simply and I mean simple.... hit the guy with a free mind to amneuver according to the resulting efforts to avoid or regain the facing , we allow or not the movements to get what we need .

[monji112000]

I don't think it is a good idea to modify WC to work form the outside, it is an infighting system and the power generation is based on that.

thats a interesting topic. Actually Ip Man did teach people to fight both on the "inside" and the "outside". its more based on a clinch distance and a punching or kicking distance or even further.
Thats why its called both a long fist and short fist fighting style. Most people arn't familiar with its long fist features.

[sanjuro_ronin]

thats a interesting topic. Actually Ip Man did teach people to fight both on the "inside" and the "outside". its more based on a clinch distance and a punching or kicking distance or even further.
Thats why its called both a long fist and short fist fighting style. Most people arn't familiar with its long fist features.

Did not know that.

[t_niehoff]

If you hit someone with a punch there is no need to follow them to the floor creating a bridge ;) , a lot of redundant thinking comes from little understanding.

Your thinking requires thinking , this is redundant to the whole process..we dont seek by thinking


Of course, if you hit him and knock him out -- anywhere along the process -- there is no need to do anything else, the strategy ends because the game ends. The method/faat of WCK is our strategy, the way we go about fighting or palying the game. It doesn't take "thinking" or "redundant thnking" -- anymore than GNP's method of take him down, get superior postition, and begin pounding takes thinking or redundant thinking. And, btw, if a GNPer knocks you out with the takedown (which does happen), he doesn't need to continue his strategy either. The game is over.



the very basic positions we adopt arms forward while striking elbows inward, are to cover the line of entry using the flanking idea...the arms will be traveling the line to strike while holding the line to enter to our center/head /neck...individually while the other either strikes freely or the lead is interupted and we clear the bridge by jut /pak so we can hit freely ..NOT seeking to clinch ourselves from striking ...I cant say it clearer.

If an arm seeks to hit us along our own attacking line our arms will react IF CONTACT IS MADE [or not in your case; )] WITHOUT THOUGHT .


This is what I call the "fencing theory" of WCK -- that the arms are like a fencer's foil, that pokes, parries, repokes, etc. wherethe object is to just to hit. Well, it doesn't work like that -- except against other WCK people programmed to let you do it. If you are on the outsidein free-movement, it will look like boxing/kickboxing. That sort of thing won't work (Ican't even call it a strategy since it isn't a strategy). On the inside, it won't work since if you aren't actively controlling the opponent, he will be actively blasting you.

[k gledhill]

Of course, if you hit him and knock him out -- anywhere along the process -- there is no need to do anything else, the strategy ends because the game ends. The method/faat of WCK is our strategy, the way we go about fighting or palying the game. It doesn't take "thinking" or "redundant thnking" -- anymore than GNP's method of take him down, get superior postition, and begin pounding takes thinking or redundant thinking. And, btw, if a GNPer knocks you out with the takedown (which does happen), he doesn't need to continue his strategy either. The game is over.

k gledhill said ; so no need to control because the simple thinking worked .


This is what I call the "fencing theory" of WCK -- that the arms are like a fencer's foil, that pokes, parries, repokes, etc. wherethe object is to just to hit. Well, it doesn't work like that -- except against other WCK people programmed to let you do it. If you are on the outsidein free-movement, it will look like boxing/kickboxing. That sort of thing won't work (Ican't even call it a strategy since it isn't a strategy). On the inside, it won't work since if you aren't actively controlling the opponent, he will be actively blasting you.

Your saying just hitting you in the head doesnt work ? :D I have to do it your way or its no good ?


what do you think I'm doing while the 'other guy' is blasting me ? lmao , you make it sound like I HAVE TO CLINCH to be functional ...? my punch isnt going to hurt him because its a vt way ?
lame ...

I know you dont understand the way Im thinking , but trying to argue your case without understnding the way is ...ignorant, simple blind loyalty to your way of thinking , closed and sitting ina well , thinking all you see is all there is, eating any cricket brining in a new idea to you ..
ribbet ; )

[SAAMAG]

"At least empty your cup and try..." -Bruce Lee.

I think a lot of the debates that go on here are due in part to the fact that most of us are set in our ways. I agree with a lot of what T' says; though I don't agree with it all. But he's a smart guy, with real world knowledge to backup his statements. Most of the time using logic as the backbone to the argument.

I agree with KG that that WC can be used in both the longer and shorter punching ranges, but like T said there are different mechanics, goals, and so forth involved there than in the bridging range. Does this mean it's not possible? Of course not. I continually use it both in longer and shorter ranges, though I agree it is going to be someone "limited" in the longer ranges since most of the tools are for the shorter range of punching. Or you could say that not all the tools are necessary on the longer punching ranges, depending on your perception.

On the outside, it's about footwork, angles, intercepting, and closing (to me).

[monji112000]

Did not know that.

What people call short fist is normally around clinch distance. Its not clinching, I have only seen a few things that people could call clinching. They were mostly grabbing and knees. Its more of covering, and attacking, and continuing to attack. Allot of it revolves around the idea of covering, which comes from Chi sao. Its the same idea a good boxer has and a good kickboxer has. If I'm in this position, he just attacked me with this limb, I'm open here.. I cover here.
For example a right jab, if I evade to the side opens be up to difference things depending on the side I evade. He can immediately follow with his other hand or foot . He can't punch with much power from the same side hand or foot he just used. He would need to adjust first. Its not something you think about, its instinct.. and common sense. So I don't need to wait for him to punch or kick with the other side, I cover right away. Thats why you will see people cover a punch right after a round kick or sidekick. Its not really a power punch.. but its the idea being drilled over and over again. If the punch isn't present, it makes not difference.

Thats one of the main goals of Chi sao, to build instinct into covering open areas. I'm really not great at it, but I have played with some people who are amazing. This aspect is 100% translated into fighting. Its the same idea that is applied to a boxer who weaves in and out of punches. The weaving sets him up, and places him in a position that allows him to be attacked at a small amount of places. Thats the basic concept of short fist or "in fighting". its very fast, and I don't like it. I suck at it. Its interesting to mix this with MT and greco/free style wrestling clinching and "dirty boxing" clinching. I have not really but I'm interested in seeing the outcome. I would need to really master one area to start mixing.

The "long fist" or distance fighting is more realistic for me. I have bad timing, slow reactions ect.. Its just as dangerous. I think most of the time you will be in this distance anyway.. Its definitely the safer distance. Same basic ideas apply, but on a "macro level". One leads to the other and then back again to the previous.

in reality these ideas are shared with allot of modern fighting arts. The big difference I see is that for example the WC round kick isn't really used for hitting people in the head. Its almost a sweep, although I have seen it done to someone's mid-section. Allot of kicks are done with the intention of getting the opponent to fall. It would be nice if his legs are broken or his knee is fed up.. but thats an added bonus. Once he is on the ground, I think allot of people believe the fight is almost over. That seems to be the prevalent idea in old school Kung Fu fighting. I'm pretty sure the people in the lama camp would agree on this one. I'm not saying its 100% accurate, but its not to fare from the truth. If your on the ground and I'm standing your in very bad position.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What people call short fist is normally around clinch distance. Its not clinching, I have only seen a few things that people could call clinching. They were mostly grabbing and knees. Its more of covering, and attacking, and continuing to attack. Allot of it revolves around the idea of covering, which comes from Chi sao. Its the same idea a good boxer has and a good kickboxer has. If I'm in this position, he just attacked me with this limb, I'm open here.. I cover here.
For example a right jab, if I evade to the side opens be up to difference things depending on the side I evade. He can immediately follow with his other hand or foot . He can't punch with much power from the same side hand or foot he just used. He would need to adjust first. Its not something you think about, its instinct.. and common sense. So I don't need to wait for him to punch or kick with the other side, I cover right away. Thats why you will see people cover a punch right after a round kick or sidekick. Its not really a power punch.. but its the idea being drilled over and over again. If the punch isn't present, it makes not difference.

Thats one of the main goals of Chi sao, to build instinct into covering open areas. I'm really not great at it, but I have played with some people who are amazing. This aspect is 100% translated into fighting. Its the same idea that is applied to a boxer who weaves in and out of punches. The weaving sets him up, and places him in a position that allows him to be attacked at a small amount of places. Thats the basic concept of short fist or "in fighting". its very fast, and I don't like it. I suck at it. Its interesting to mix this with MT and greco/free style wrestling clinching and "dirty boxing" clinching. I have not really but I'm interested in seeing the outcome. I would need to really master one area to start mixing.

The "long fist" or distance fighting is more realistic for me. I have bad timing, slow reactions ect.. Its just as dangerous. I think most of the time you will be in this distance anyway.. Its definitely the safer distance. Same basic ideas apply, but on a "macro level". One leads to the other and then back again to the previous.

in reality these ideas are shared with allot of modern fighting arts. The big difference I see is that for example the WC round kick isn't really used for hitting people in the head. Its almost a sweep, although I have seen it done to someone's mid-section. Allot of kicks are done with the intention of getting the opponent to fall. It would be nice if his legs are broken or his knee is fed up.. but thats an added bonus. Once he is on the ground, I think allot of people believe the fight is almost over. That seems to be the prevalent idea in old school Kung Fu fighting. I'm pretty sure the people in the lama camp would agree on this one. I'm not saying its 100% accurate, but its not to fare from the truth. If your on the ground and I'm standing your in very bad position.

I understand where you are coming from.

[k gledhill]

I dont disagree with T either just pointing out he doesnt know the development of a certain way so labels all inefficient ...ribbet froma well to me , and yes empty cups always allow new brew .:D I encourage students to hear speak listen to all. not burden them with one way or the highway.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I dont disagree with T either just pointing out he doesnt know the development of a certain way so labels all inefficient ...ribbet froma well to me , and yes empty cups always allow new brew .:D I encourage students to hear speak listen to all. not burden them with one way or the highway.

Most of us agree with T, we just don't like his "blanket painting brushing" or the fact that he's lawyer.
:D

[LoneTiger108]

thats a interesting topic. Actually Ip Man did teach people to fight both on the "inside" and the "outside". its more based on a clinch distance and a punching or kicking distance or even further.
Thats why its called both a long fist and short fist fighting style. Most people arn't familiar with its long fist features

In all honesty monji, the longfist system of WCK is a speciality of the pole, therefore if you have no pole you have no understanding of longfist.

With all respects, I've seen very little pole being taught openly in WCK families.

Most of us don't just 'play kung fu', it's our life and we put everything into it. As for a comparison to Boxing/Kickboxing, there is no comparison! We have within the style all tools to compete against most sports these days, it just depends on how much hard work and time you put in yourself.

[t_niehoff]

Your saying just hitting you in the head doesnt work ? :D I have to do it your way or its no good ?


what do you think I'm doing while the 'other guy' is blasting me ? lmao , you make it sound like I HAVE TO CLINCH to be functional ...? my punch isnt going to hurt him because its a vt way ?
lame ...

I know you dont understand the way Im thinking , but trying to argue your case without understnding the way is ...ignorant, simple blind loyalty to your way of thinking , closed and sitting ina well , thinking all you see is all there is, eating any cricket brining in a new idea to you ..
ribbet ; )


I'm not saying you have to do it "my way" -- I'm saying that if you fight on the "inside" with good, solid fighters, you'll see that what you describe just won't work. And that's because good fighters will seek to control (via the clinch) *you* on the inside. It's analogous to what goes on when you hit the ground: a good fighter will seek to control his opponent. That control not only will provide safety, but be the basis of his offense as well. If you don't control your opponent, he will control you. This is the nature of fighting on the ground. That's just the way it is. Similarly, if you get the "inside" in stand-up, it will be a clinch, with your opponent trying to control you. He won't stick, he won't throw WCK straight punches, keep his elbows in, etc., he'll be grabbing, pushing and pulling, hitting, trying to control you. That's the nature of the "inside". You can either be prepared for that ("the fight"), develop a strategy, skills, etc. to do that, or have it done to you. You'll either be controlloing them or they will be controliing you.

[Matrix]

I believe that would not be the standard translation of the term. A punch in the head would be called a strike, "da" in Cantonese. Not a "Kiu" - bridge.
Why are we limiting ourselves to "standard translations"? It seems to be a narrow view of things. The strike can become the bridge if you want it to, or not. It depends on how you play it. Either way, I don't see bridging as passive - unless of course that's what you want it to be.

Bill

[monji112000]

In all honesty monji, the longfist system of WCK is a speciality of the pole, therefore if you have no pole you have no understanding of longfist.

With all respects, I've seen very little pole being taught openly in WCK families.

Most of us don't just 'play kung fu', it's our life and we put everything into it. As for a comparison to Boxing/Kickboxing, there is no comparison! We have within the style all tools to compete against most sports these days, it just depends on how much hard work and time you put in yourself.
I will have to respectfully disagree. I don't know the pole form and I am pretty sure that the "long fist" or "long bridge" or whatever phrase you use to describe it isn't 100% from the pole. If anything you can say its from the dummy and the second and third form.. but really its all from all three forms. I don't know about the knife forms. I have seen both versions of them a long time ago. I don't know enough about them to comment on the relationship between fighting empty hand and them.. but I assume everything builds on the other.

As I said most people don't know about or didn't learn or are not interested in the this emphasis. This is were you will see allot of what JKD has adapted, but doesn't want people to think its from WC. Guys like poteet, and other JKD practitioners use a great deal of long bridge kicking and fist techniques. The whole straight lead , ect.. its a different expression of the same concepts. If you follow all the same ideas we should really be talking the same language.. just maybe different phrases.

JMO

It would be nice to learn the pole one day and the knife forms. I am more concerned with learned the empty hand movements completely, and learning the chi sao completly, and developing a decent standup game. Give those goals the dummy form and learning how to take it apart is my major goal I hope one day to reach. Its not like I'm going to fight anyone with a long pole or a knife. I'm not saying its worthless, I'm pretty sure its vital to your WC kung fu.

[monji112000]

Why are we limiting ourselves to "standard translations"? It seems to be a narrow view of things. The strike can become the bridge if you want it to, or not. It depends on how you play it. Either way, I don't see bridging as passive - unless of course that's what you want it to be.

Bill

I was under the impression everytime you touch the other person its a bridge. Striking seems like a perfectly reasonable method to me.

[Edmund]

Why are we limiting ourselves to "standard translations"? It seems to be a narrow view of things. The strike can become the bridge if you want it to, or not. It depends on how you play it. Either way, I don't see bridging as passive - unless of course that's what you want it to be.


Well if the standard term is useful, it's not really a limitation at all. I'm not saying I don't punch people in the head but I do use different words to describe different ideas.

The point of using a different term, "bridging", instead of "striking" is to make a distinction between the two ideas and explain what you're doing in more depth.

When you make "bridging" a broader term that encompasses punching the guy in the head AND any other contact with the opponent, it's so broad that it's not as descriptive.

I use "striking" to say that I punch the guy and "bridging" to say that I'm getting control of my opponent with my arms. And I think that's fairly understandable and standard terminology.

So having said all that: You can "seek a bridge" by striking first. *IF* the opponent manages to block the strike, you can use the striking arm to get control of your opponent - grab a limb or around the neck or torso.

I think this is where you and others are a bit confused. If you just KO someone, you haven't created a bridge IMO. You may try to KO them and they block and you grab that block - that's the bridge.

Or maybe you elbow them on the head, then use the same hand to pull their head down for a knee. The strike CHANGES to a bridge when you get the control of the opponent.

[Matrix]

Well if the standard term is useful, it's not really a limitation at all. I'm not saying I don't punch people in the head but I do use different words to describe different ideas. Terms and definitions are helpful to a degree, until you allow them to limit your thinking. These terms are just abstractions of concepts. When you become dynamic, the static definitions can become restrictions if you allow them to be.


I use "striking" to say that I punch the guy and "bridging" to say that I'm getting control of my opponent with my arms. And I think that's fairly understandable and standard terminology.So, for example, you punch someone in the chest and leave your hand there to control the opponent - now the strike has become a bridge. If you want to get hung up of the terms you miss the forest for the trees, IMO.

I think this is where you and others are a bit confused. If you just KO someone, you haven't created a bridge IMO. You may try to KO them and they block and you grab that block - that's the bridge.Of course, if you KO someone a bridge is not required. I'm not counting on a KO, but I'll take it if it comes. ;) "Grabbing" blocks can be a bridge, just make sure that you are controlling it, and it's not being used against you. As for being confused, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are confused. It's just a different point of view. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

Cheers,
Bill

[Matrix]

I was under the impression everytime you touch the other person its a bridge. Striking seems like a perfectly reasonable method to me.It has the potential to be bridge, at least that's how I see it. I think you need to do more than just 'touch' the other person, but maybe I'm being too picky.

[Matrix]

I don't think it is a good idea to modify WC to work form the outside, it is an infighting system and the power generation is based on that.Hey SR,
There is a saying in Wing Chun that goes ..." inside is the easy way - outside is the best way". Or something along those lines. I'm sure someone will correct me. ;)

[Edmund]

Terms and definitions are helpful to a degree, until you allow them to limit your thinking. These terms are just abstractions of concepts. When you become dynamic, the static definitions can become restrictions if you allow them to be.


I think we can try to describe dynamic concepts using terms. It's not trying to control thinking. The thinking has no bounds. It's already occurred and the language is just conveying your thoughts to another person.

If one word doesn't describe your thoughts you use more language to be more descriptive.



Of course, if you KO someone a bridge is not required. I'm not counting on a KO, but I'll take it if it comes. ;) "Grabbing" blocks can be a bridge, just make sure that you are controlling it, and it's not being used against you. As for being confused, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are confused. It's just a different point of view. Maybe we should just leave it at that.


Well you've used a similar example to mine IMO.

Now others have said, Just punching someone is an active example of bridging but I feel that doesn't quite fit the definition of bridging hence it's a bad example. I don't agree with that definition and I don't think you do either based off your reply to monji112000.


My issue is not with the concept.
I said fairly clearly that it was the word "bridge" implied something passive because the verb "bridge" is not a particularly active word. Hence it's not describing that the active nature of the concept. I think "Pushing and pulling" is a very clear term which is why I used it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hey SR,
There is a saying in Wing Chun that goes ..." inside is the easy way - outside is the best way". Or something along those lines. I'm sure someone will correct me. ;)

I heard that, but the "outside" in that saying is still in-close, just outside the opponents centerline, which is NOT against WC principles, why? because OUR centerline is still controlled.
Sort of like when you do moves on the Wooden Dummy, since it doesn't move per say, you need to move, you move in and out and around it, always maintaining YOUR centerline in line, but not the dummies.
Someone once told me, and this wasn't WC specific but centerline systems specific, that we don't control the opponents centerline, we control ours, we put ourselves in the correct place to be the most effective.
The wooden dummy teaches us this, the value of putting ourselves in the right place at the right time.

[LoneTiger108]

I will have to respectfully disagree. I don't know the pole form and I am pretty sure that the "long fist" or "long bridge" or whatever phrase you use to describe it isn't 100% from the pole. If anything you can say its from the dummy and the second and third form.. but really its all from all three forms. I don't know about the knife forms. I have seen both versions of them a long time ago. I don't know enough about them to comment on the relationship between fighting empty hand and them.. but I assume everything builds on the other.

As I said in my post "In all honesty monji, the longfist system of WCK is a speciality of the pole, therefore if you have no pole you have no understanding of longfist." A speciality doesn't mean it's origin comes from it 100%, what I'm saying is pure common sense.

A pole is a straight long weapon, used to develop specific strengths, tactics and alignments of the body to be used or 'carried over' into empty-hand practise. Our 1st point is a side-body movement, typically called 'biu gwan'. This set alone cultivates biu jii power used in the third form and is designed to develop our 'longest reach'. And as I've said, without it really, what WCK do you know?


... If you follow all the same ideas we should really be talking the same language.. just maybe different phrases.

I've said things like this since I started posting here. I totally agree with you, but what is the language, what are the phrases?


... Its not like I'm going to fight anyone with a long pole or a knife. I'm not saying its worthless, I'm pretty sure its vital to your WC kung fu.

My weapons/equipment are carried with me in my heart monji! I know it sounds stupid, but that's it in a nutshell. Even if I strike you with my fist, I'm still holding my stick in my mind! If not, the energy used will just be a calculated and probably incorrect guess :D


... It would be nice to learn the pole one day and the knife forms. I am more concerned with learned the empty hand movements completely

Ah! The double-edged sword! Monji, what I'm saying is this: without the weapon your hand will only ever be 'half-trained'! We all build from our core, and the bodies core is thoroughly trained with good pole plays. And without the body behind your hands, you're literally just flapping leaves in the wind...

[monji112000]

As I said in my post "In all honesty monji, the longfist system of WCK is a speciality of the pole, therefore if you have no pole you have no understanding of longfist."
You don't need to learn the pole to understand "longfist".

[monji112000]

I heard that, but the "outside" in that saying is still in-close, just outside the opponents centerline, which is NOT against WC principles, why? because OUR centerline is still controlled.
Sort of like when you do moves on the Wooden Dummy, since it doesn't move per say, you need to move, you move in and out and around it, always maintaining YOUR centerline in line, but not the dummies.
Someone once told me, and this wasn't WC specific but centerline systems specific, that we don't control the opponents centerline, we control ours, we put ourselves in the correct place to be the most effective.
The wooden dummy teaches us this, the value of putting ourselves in the right place at the right time.
I have always wondered what the fascination with "center" line. I don't understand why people believe you must keep you center line facing the opponent at all times. I know of no rule that says you must. I get lost in what center line people are talking about.

[CFT]

I have always wondered what the fascination with "center" line. I don't understand why people believe you must keep you center line facing the opponent at all times. I know of no rule that says you must. I get lost in what center line people are talking about.I think that to be able to maintain facing means that you have 2 "weapons" available at all times.

[monji112000]

I think that to be able to maintain facing means that you have 2 "weapons" available at all times.
well you have four (2 hands 2 legs). The point is at some point you must rotate your body to create torque, if you simple stay facing square you will be missing this key component. All your punches will be arm only. You drop allot of the kicks when you force yourself to stay square 100% of the time. its just not logical, and its a made up rule (no rules should exist) but this one is the worst.

JMO you can shoot me for it if you like.

[sihing]

well you have four (2 hands 2 legs). The point is at some point you must rotate your body to create torque, if you simple stay facing square you will be missing this key component. All your punches will be arm only. You drop allot of the kicks when you force yourself to stay square 100% of the time. its just not logical, and its a made up rule (no rules should exist) but this one is the worst.

JMO you can shoot me for it if you like.

This is why WC training specializes on creating force in strikes with little wind up or torquing, it all comes from the legs and hips anyways, that is the power generator for WC/VT movements. If you can develop this ability the facing concept makes more sense, if you can't then don't use facing in your fighting.

James

[monji112000]

This is why WC training specializes on creating force in strikes with little wind up or torquing, it all comes from the legs and hips anyways, that is the power generator for WC/VT movements. If you can develop this ability the facing concept makes more sense, if you can't then don't use facing in your fighting.

James

jamming in is one aspect, but many aspects exist in the whole style. Why limit yourself?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have always wondered what the fascination with "center" line. I don't understand why people believe you must keep you center line facing the opponent at all times. I know of no rule that says you must. I get lost in what center line people are talking about.

Some think its about controlling your opponents centerline, others say its about yours, fact is its about both to one extent or another.
Knowing where you opponents centerline is allows you do know where his strikes MAY come from, just as keeping your centerline towards your opponent allows you to able to deliver strikes from ALL angles with ALL weapons.

[monji112000]

Some think its about controlling your opponents centerline, others say its about yours, fact is its about both to one extent or another.
Knowing where you opponents centerline is allows you do know where his strikes MAY come from, just as keeping your centerline towards your opponent allows you to able to deliver strikes from ALL angles with ALL weapons.

thats true. I have always agreed with that. each concept has a positive and negative attribute.

[LoneTiger108]

You don't need to learn the pole to understand "longfist".

Point taken, but in WCK? Where else (or first?) do we practice side body alignment with a longfist then?

Granted, in Lee Shing Family we have single 'battlefist' strikes for side body striking but they're developed using the poles 1st set and just wouldn't be using the same strength without this specific weaponry training.

Why was the pole form introduced in the first place if it's so insignificant? It seems to be key to most people I've trained with over the years, but then again they do view the weapon differently than others. As do I.

Knives for short range, pole for long... ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

My pole is long. :D

[LoneTiger108]

My pole is long. :D

Let's not go there! :eek:

Next we'll be measuring and I've heard of a nine foot dragon pole! I just can't compete with that...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Let's not go there! :eek:

Next we'll be measuring and I've heard of a nine foot dragon pole! I just can't compete with that...

LOL !
Too much info !

On a side note, I do like how civilized this thread is going.

[monji112000]

Point taken, but in WCK? Where else (or first?) do we practice side body alignment with a longfist then?

Granted, in Lee Shing Family we have single 'battlefist' strikes for side body striking but they're developed using the poles 1st set and just wouldn't be using the same strength without this specific weaponry training.

Why was the pole form introduced in the first place if it's so insignificant? It seems to be key to most people I've trained with over the years, but then again they do view the weapon differently than others. As do I.

Knives for short range, pole for long... ;)
well the way I was trained we learned the first form and then learned the applications. Every application wasn't linked initally to its origin in the forms for one practical reason... it takes a great deal of time to learn all the forms. Most of the application from what I have been told is from the Dummy form, which is complicated.
So for me to attempt to explain every origin would be an insult to everyones intelligence. If you contact someone from my lineage that is more knowledgeable I'm sure you will get exact details.
that being said I'll give you my opinions...

were in the forms is a none square stance present? second and third in many places. don't know the dummy or knife so I don't know about those.

what techniques use torque? what some call the arrow punch others call a straight lead (BL). Also a cross, a hook, a uppercutt. these are all present in the curriculum I learned. All the kicks for the most part use some type of twisting motion and torque or hip movement. Push kick uses the hips pushing forward, but you must turn your body to deliver the kick. all the "low" kicks or shin kicks(sweeps) have these elements. Mostly its footwork, what we call triangle footwork torques the body. We also have other footwork that twists the body a great deal. The biggest example is some we call gan sao kick back. you basically step back to a angle throw a gan sao, twist and step forward cover with a pak and a shin kick, then arrow/jab forward twisting again. three twisting or torquing motions in a row. its a massive power generation and ab workout.

its funny becouse even just turning the horse (in both the second and third form) for power generation isn't square.

two different ideas of generating power. One is jamming/taking using structure other is torque (twisting or pushing of the hips).

I'm not saying the pole isn't useful, its probably very.. I just never learned it. Learning the application isn't Dependant on learning the form that it references first. JMO

[monji112000]

My pole is long. :D

my pole is bigger.:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

my pole is bigger.:rolleyes:

Long and thin eh?

Bah, she is not impressed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well I'm impressed with her...;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well I'm impressed with her...;)

See how well she guards her centerline :D

[Phil Redmond]

I have always wondered what the fascination with "center" line. I don't understand why people believe you must keep you center line facing the opponent at all times. I know of no rule that says you must. I get lost in what center line people are talking about.
In central line WC your center doesn't face the opponent's.

[k gledhill]

Same in my wsl thinking ,we dont center to center / shoulder to shoulder only as a starting point in drills like chi-sao ? why? it only makes us even ;) blade for blade, should be overwhleming forces against a flanked adversary on the run ...

[LoneTiger108]

On a side note, I do like how civilized this thread is going.

You say what? :confused:


Long and thin eh?

Bah, she is not impressed.

See how well she guards her centerline :D

Hmm :rolleyes:


... well the way I was trained we learned the first form and then learned the applications. Every application wasn't linked initally to its origin in the forms for one practical reason...it takes a great deal of time to learn all the forms.

So for me to attempt to explain every origin would be an insult to everyones intelligence. If you contact someone from my lineage that is more knowledgeable I'm sure you will get exact details.

that being said I'll give you my opinions...

I can see where you're coming from, and I mean no insult to anyones intelligence. As far as lineage goes, I believe everyone should have more similarities than not, especially if Ip Man is a factor.

Please don't think that I'm suggesting weaponry is good for you now, at this time in your training, but it is essential to WCK. Simple practices should never be overlooked, as I refer to excercises mainly not the advanced 'forms' we see these days online!

BTW it doesn't take that long to learn all the forms and your opinions, my opinions, everyones d@*n opinions are what makes a forum tick...

Wing Chun Vs Boxing? Where were we?

... tok?