Wing Chun Attack/Defend Lines

[couch]

Hey Capt. Meyers, in TWC we defend the centerline and strike along the central line. I'll make a new thread with a clip so as not to hijack this one.


---Ok great! But I think we're still just talking about different semantics. :) Do you do things differently against the straight punch attack that I described above?

With my limited TWC knowledge, I look at what I do with my WC and what I used to do in TWC and see only minor variations.

While training TWC, I was always taught to place my Tan on my centre and have my centreline line up with the attacker's attack. I was also taught to step into this attack to negate the force while punching out on the central line towards the attacker's face.

What I saw was some 'hard-fast' rules in TWC compared to what I do now (not putting down what TWC does...just the best way for me to explain my experience). With my WC, I would just fill the space with Tan, not going past my opponent's shoulder. Instead of my centreline being attached to my Tan Sau and facing all of this in the direction of the attack, I'm somewhere in between.

Plus, depending on the attack and angles, for the most part, I'm stepping in and towards the attack somewhat.

So from my POV, it's not too much different! Hope this makes sense!

Maybe I'll try to make a vid too.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

[KPM]

Hey Kenton!

Sounds like we may do things pretty similarly! :) The terminology I was taught goes like this:

Picture a straight punch coming in directly towards your center. You respond with Tan Da. The Tan Sao motion sweeps across the "original" centerline to deflect his punch and make the opening for your own punch to go out along that "original" centerline. But the Tan Sao has to go past the "original" centerline to deflect and make the opening. It ends up stopping on what I call the "defensive line." The punch goes out on what I call the "attack line." The Tan and the punch cannot occupy the same line at the same time because two things can't be in the same place at the same time! The "attack line" is centered on the target of your punch, and the "defense line" is centered on the attack. If the punch had been a wide loopy punch instead of a straight punch the same ideas would apply. The Tan would got out on the "defense line" which would be aimed at the center of the attacking limb (mid-point of his forearm) and the punch would go out on the "attack line" aimed at his face or sternum.

[couch]

Yup. Agree here. Good written example (WC/MA sucks to talk about online sometimes)!

The difference I see between the TWC and my WC (need Phil to correct/elaborate) is that in your example, my centreline would be facing somewhere between the Tan line and the Da line.

In TWC, the Tan & Centreline are together (body shifted f ar ther/not really shifted, however, already facing that way due to the stepping in TWC).

[KPM]

Yup. Agree here. Good written example (WC/MA sucks to talk about online sometimes)!

The difference I see between the TWC and my WC (need Phil to correct/elaborate) is that in your example, my centreline would be facing somewhere between the Tan line and the Da line.

In TWC, the Tan & Centreline are together (body shifted ****her/not really shifted, however, already facing that way due to the stepping in TWC).

---Yes. I agree with you. My actual "center" (defined as a line extending straight out from my vertical mid-line and perpendicular to my shoulders) would also be pointed somewhere between the attack and defense lines in my examples. We'll have to get Phil to clarify the TWC version for us! :)

[Phil Redmond]

I just did this quickly after class. There are some things I left out but I can elaborate later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upAD5F85Kc

[couch]

I just did this quickly after class. There are some things I left out but I can elaborate later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upAD5F85Kc

That was awesome Phil.

Thanks,
Kenton

[KPM]

That was awesome Phil.

Thanks,
Kenton

Yes! Thanks Phil! You were right Kenton! :) And I stand corrected. The angling that Phil is describing is just a little different than what I have been doing. And after standing up and working with it a bit, I think it is better biomechanics. That little bit of additional turn that lines the "defense line" up with the centerline does redirect incoming force into the rear leg better and also allows for a little additional reach with the punching hand. Never stop learning! Never assume you know all the answers! :-)

[Phil Redmond]

Yes! Thanks Phil! You're both very welcome.
Never stop learning! Never assume you know all the answers! :-)
You can say that again. I'm still learning.

[Matrix]

I just did this quickly after class. There are some things I left out but I can elaborate later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upAD5F85KcPhil,
I'm looking forward to your elaboration, because quite frankly I'm not in agreement with what I'm seeing in the video. It looks like chasing hands to me. The opponent has 2 hands as well, so you've set yourself up to be taken out on the his 2nd punch by over commiting to the first punch. All of your energy has gone into "blocking" the hook, so even if you land that punch - which I'm doubtful of because of your position and distance from an opponent with such a reach advantage - you don't have much power to have an effect.
Of course, I may be totally out to lunch here - it wouldn't be the first time. I just think the overall approach doesn't work for me on several levels.

Bill

[Lee Chiang Po]

The technique that Mr. Redman demonstrated is basic machanics. I think maybe he was just over emphasizing to make a point. It was driven into my head that tan never leaves your center line. You turn to face contact or it will not work. However, like you, I would see that one could over do it somewhat. The actual movement to shift center is only a few degrees. It does not leave your other side unprotected.
This is an interesting thread. Bill, what would be your alternative, without actually violating your basic principals of center line?

[Phil Redmond]

The technique that Mr. Redman demonstrated is basic machanics. I think maybe he was just over emphasizing to make a point. It was driven into my head that tan never leaves your center line. You turn to face contact or it will not work. However, like you, I would see that one could over do it somewhat. The actual movement to shift center is only a few degrees. It does not leave your other side unprotected.
This is an interesting thread. Bill, what would be your alternative, without actually violating your basic principals of center line?
Hi, it's Redmond. ;)
Matrix made a good point but you did as well. It was simply a demo. The bottom line is that myself and many other TWC people can pull off what we train. A little proof is what an MMA guy who visited our school Thursday wrote on another forum: "Hey, everybody. As promised, I went down to Keith Mazza's Traditional Wing Chun school, tonight, and met up with *******. I'll have a more full report for you, tomorrow; but for tonight, suffice to say that I was very pleasantly surprised by what I encountered there." Internet speculation is one thing. Feeling is another. We are here in NJ come and see. You'll also be surprised.

[KPM]

Hey Bill!

It looks like chasing hands to me.

---How is blocking and striking at the same time with a Tan Da or Biu Da "chasing hands"?



The opponent has 2 hands as well, so you've set yourself up to be taken out on the his 2nd punch by over commiting to the first punch.

---It doesn't look over-committed to me. Phil has good balance and can move quickly. Plus, by actually landing the punch (in application and not in a demo) he is going to disrupt the opponent's structure and balance and make it somewhat difficult for him to throw an effective second blow.



All of your energy has gone into "blocking" the hook, so even if you land that punch - which I'm doubtful of because of your position and distance from an opponent with such a reach advantage - you don't have much power to have an effect.

---If you watch the clip closely you'll see Phil's partner "wince" a couple of times. So evidently he didn't have any doubt that Phil could have landed his punches. :) And, as has been pointed out...it was a demo. Phil was not moving into his partner to disrupt his balance. If he did, his punch would have more power and penetration.



I just think the overall approach doesn't work for me on several levels.

---Then please tell us how you use the idea of Attacking and Defending lines. The only thing I have been doing essentially different from Phil was failing to line up the Tan or the Biu on my center when pivoting. Now I see that what Phil illustrated is better biomechanics. By lining up the defending motion on the center, it has better support from the overall body structure. The force is absorbed through your structure and directed into the ground. By not accepting the force in that alignment, your defensive technique has a higher potential to be overwhelmed and collapse. When used against a straight punch with a pivoting deflection rather than a round punch, that wouldn't be a big a factor. Put the little extra pivot to align the defensive technique on the center would still give the strike a little extra reach and penetration.

[Matrix]

Hey Keith and Phil and Lee,

I just want to say that my comments reflect my own point of view. It's not a question of I'm right or he's wrong. The point of a forum is to present opinions. I've met Phil, very briefly, in California. He's definitely skilled and real gentleman to boot, so I hope my comments are not taken out of that context. I actually wanted to send this as a PM to Phil, but he has PM disabled.


---How is blocking and striking at the same time with a Tan Da or Biu Da "chasing hands"?.I call it chasing hands because the tan and the main body motion is directed at the wrist of the incoming hook. It's not the tan da or biu da per se that's the issue. It's where and how it's being applied. You need to determine if you're going to go in and attack directly or stay more to the outside.

In the demo where the hook is overpowering the tan, then you need to change the hand to something else, for example an inside lap or whatever else feels correct given your perception of the incoming force, rather than try to apply more force to the tan. Tan, or any hand for that matter, is not a static position. For optimum effectiveness it should be dynamic. Once you freeze and try to add force to hold it, you're dead.


------It doesn't look over-committed to me. Phil has good balance and can move quickly. Plus, by actually landing the punch (in application and not in a demo) he is going to disrupt the opponent's structure and balance and make it somewhat difficult for him to throw an effective second blow."Like I said, this is my POV. If you think it's cool, then more power to you. He moves quickly, but in at least one case, it's right into the power-arc of the strike which forces him to over-rotate into the incoming punch to save his bacon. In the case of the Biu Sau, it attackers punch is clearly out of range. Help it to go past, instead of "blocking", and go to the outside.


-
----If you watch the clip closely you'll see Phil's partner "wince" a couple of times. So evidently he didn't have any doubt that Phil could have landed his punches. :) And, as has been pointed out...it was a demo. Phil was not moving into his partner to disrupt his balance. If he did, his punch would have more power and penetration.You're kidding me, right?? He 'winced'. :rolleyes: On one hand you're asking me to take things with a grain of salt because it's a demo ( I'm happy to do that), but you want me to believe that he delivered enough power in that strike to hurt the opponent., because the guy flinched or winced or made some other facial expression. Sorry...

Hitting is about using the force of your entire body, not merely hand position to deliver the blow. The body angles and direction of the footwork seem not to be aligned with the goal of delivering that to hitting the target. You asked to to watch the clip closely, so I'll ask you to return the favour. Look at the footwork and angle of the body relative to the strike. Of course this may be a camera angle thing, but I can only comment on what I see.

Also use your imagination; do you thing the guy is going to throw one hook and drop his other hand so you can hit him. If he throws a 2nd hook from the other side, are you going to swing around 180 degrees to do the same thing over there? If not, why not?


---Then please tell us how you use the idea of Attacking and Defending lines. The only thing I have been doing essentially different from Phil was failing to line up the Tan or the Biu on my center when pivoting. Now I see that what Phil illustrated is better biomechanics. .Yes, the biomechanics are better, if you're going to chase the hand. I'm saying you should not be standing there in the first place. If you get stuck there or caught off guard for some reason then I guess it's OK. You're just leaving the guy with his balance and allowing him to rain punches on you. Attack. Step inside the hook and hit the the guy - if you hit that shoulder you're going to kill his power point, and you will be more square to him for your next technique. If you don't feel confident enough to go in, then go outside.

Like I said earlier, you either need to go inside to the eye of the hurricane or move outside. Don't sit there and leave yourself in a bad position.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Bill

[Matrix]

Hi, it's Redmond. ;)
Matrix made a good point but you did as well. It was simply a demo. The bottom line is that myself and many other TWC people can pull off what we train.
Phil,
I have no doubt that you can pull it off. I give you props for posting videos and standing by everything you say.

Just because I have a different point of view doesn't make either one of us wrong. My point in posting is just to say that there may be another way of looking at this. Otherwise we can all sit around and pat each other on the back on how great we are. LOL. Which in reality would be a total waste of time.

Peace,
Bill

[k gledhill]

With my limited TWC knowledge, I look at what I do with my WC and what I used to do in TWC and see only minor variations.

While training TWC, I was always taught to place my Tan on my centre and have my centreline line up with the attacker's attack. I was also taught to step into this attack to negate the force while punching out on the central line towards the attacker's face.

What I saw was some 'hard-fast' rules in TWC compared to what I do now (not putting down what TWC does...just the best way for me to explain my experience). With my WC, I would just fill the space with Tan, not going past my opponent's shoulder. Instead of my centreline being attached to my Tan Sau and facing all of this in the direction of the attack, I'm somewhere in between.

Plus, depending on the attack and angles, for the most part, I'm stepping in and towards the attack somewhat.

So from my POV, it's not too much different! Hope this makes sense!

Maybe I'll try to make a vid too.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along. Same as jum sao , the inside of the arm is used to hold the line while striking in unison with the tan/striking arm. Adopting angles that make these strikes function requires perimeter /protractor maneuvering before an opponent , who's entry line of arm/leg isn't known. IOW waiting to do an application you know will work to a partner who throws just the right punch and no follow ups...assuming one has a perfect response always is not % thinking .
We will all get wet sooner or later by fighting a water fight in front of the others line of fire...
Timing to draw the water before throwing ones counter is critical , so angling with the movement , not before, or after .
Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you. Sure it works , like any martial arts answers work for them, but its the percentage basis that is overlooked and when faced with a torrent of water OVER AND OVER AGAIN , slowly one sees a nose broken, a tooth broken , a face smashed, a knife just got through once , how many times can you afford to risk being chopped with a large knife ? me none :D

SOOOoooo... we adopt a 'wait n see' were you stick the knife and from what side and from what angle etc... relative to my knives angles etc...not standing in the center facing the swings and stabs of random attacks but attempting to always maintain the % in our favour by staying to the side of one or the other not inside the potential arc's of both, getting 'wet' in England is slang for being slashed by a knife/razor .
Even if you dont see the blade your moving outside the potential for either hands holding it to 1/2 ..better than 100% inside the swings of both.

Tan simply becomes a shape to develop the elbow angles to fight outside gate while striking nothing to do with the hand shape , the jum inside gate after the tan has retracted . jut's , pak's, bong's all work to clear a side entry attack from our committed counter attack's, or they will reface us to try again raising the % back to themselves. If we maintain the assault longer than they do, who holds the better % of the outcome? there are no guarantees or set pieces that can fall apart , just odds in our favor raised against a stranger with 2 sharp knives .

Try thinking your fighting an armed man when doing your training , one knife in each hand. Same in chi-sao ..I stab you , you stab me , you step in to stab me I angle angle stab you back, test repeat 1,000,000 times. I try to stab over your arm you do bong I recover my ability to stab again by dropping my bong to tan . You use inward jum sao stabs to deflect an inside gate attack.

Only when doing the real deal , will you always hold a life line in the rear hand aka vu sao .
the hand that stabs after the front has finished . chisao gives us working angles to take to a knife fight before we go ouch to slow, ouch to low, ouch not enough deflection angles and I was offbalance when I tried to stab you so i fell backwards , lets do it again
add trapping , chasing to kill ...and the idea beocmes life or death not point fighting.
Although bare hands is close for the obvious reasons that there is a lower % of death than a knife. We still use the knife TACTICAL approach from weak sides not strong centers.

If you have 2 knives as well, then how would you face them ? equally chop for chop center to center , swinging back and forth opening up your centerline with each arcing swing ? % ?'s or adopt a one attack forwards one protects your life , that one goes forwards and the previous attacking cut comes back to hold the life line ...letting the other guy do whatever he wants :D

Your using 2 knives in fast rotation along the fastest stab line against one now flanked/unable to regain a facing cut to you fast enough...over.

% survival -/+ ?

If your caught in the center then you can duck by all means ; ) use a knife to do whatever the hell it need s to but beware the flood , escape to the outside or take the wild swing after it has passed over , allowing the opponents flankign energy to go over and past...again would you stay there so the other hand follows into the kill zone or attempt to recover a flank or perimiter face off to start again ? % best odds for surviving ?

you begin to see that trying to turn the energy of a knife stab and turning your body this way and that become a redundant idea , as doing the fancy stuff while standing in the center of 2 knives lines of entry.

the knives teach the hands, guiding the way up, not SLT up blind to the path before it.

We adopt random angling and small step attack lines so we never get countered like a bull charging a matador with a sword hidden behind the cape. In chi-sao we adopt the role of bull v matador so we can try to react/angle /counter strike to the horn nearest and angle in and offline to the force behind it, but close enough to stab and kill it at any given point in time , the bull goes were the matador goes , he aint stupid either ; ) only he too tries to go for one side not facing the potential to be countered, add random sides each trying to catch the other i preparation for what ?
I love this system

[KPM]

Hey Bill!

I just want to say that my comments reflect my own point of view. It's not a question of I'm right or he's wrong. The point of a forum is to present opinions.

---Exactly! That's what makes for good discussions! :)



I call it chasing hands because the tan and the main body motion is directed at the wrist of the incoming hook. It's not the tan da or biu da per se that's the issue. It's where and how it's being applied. You need to determine if you're going to go in and attack directly or stay more to the outside.

---I still don't follow you. Responding to an attack with a simultaneous block and strike is Wing Chun 101. Phil was basically just showing one thing to illustrate his explanation. He didn't show the follow up. Maybe he would have moved in on the next beat, maybe he would have kicked, etc.



In the demo where the hook is overpowering the tan, then you need to change the hand to something else,

---Of course! If you have time! But why not position with good biomechanics so that the Tan is not overpowered? That was what Phil was illustrating.



for example an inside lap or whatever else feels correct given your perception of the incoming force, rather than try to apply more force to the tan. Tan, or any hand for that matter, is not a static position. For optimum effectiveness it should be dynamic. Once you freeze and try to add force to hold it, you're dead.

---Who said anything about applying extra force to hold a position? Of course Tan is dynamic. Again, Phil only showed step 1 of what would likely be a multi-step response. I'm sure he would have flowed right into the next move and his Tan then wouldn't appear to be static.




On one hand you're asking me to take things with a grain of salt because it's a demo ( I'm happy to do that), but you want me to believe that he delivered enough power in that strike to hurt the opponent., because the guy flinched or winced or made some other facial expression. Sorry...

---Well, you said you didn't think the punch would have landed because of the distance. I pointed out that the guy "winced" on several occassions. I don't think that would have happened if the guy didn't think he had the potential of being hit. Therefore Phil's distance must have been closer than you think. How much power he would have produced is hard to say. My point was that he was close enough to land, or the guy wouldn't have winced! I'm not going to twist your arm to make you believe me. But it seems kind of common sense to me! :D




Yes, the biomechanics are better, if you're going to chase the hand. I'm saying you should not be standing there in the first place.

---That easy to say. For that matter, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place! But what happens when someone surprises you and you turn suddenly to see that big looping punch headed right at your head? You don't always have a choice in your positioning. If you respond with bad structure, it could be the end.

---But you still haven't explained how you see the attacking and defending lines.......

[KPM]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write. :confused:

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?


Same as jum sao , the inside of the arm is used to hold the line while striking in unison with the tan/striking arm.

---You said this before on the other thread and it made no sense to me. You said the Tan and the strike were the same thing. Now I can see a Tan structure with a closed fist being used to strike. But your comment above makes no sense to me.



Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout! :)



Try thinking your fighting an armed man when doing your training , one knife in each hand.

---OK. So in Phil's example.....the opponent is swinging wide with a sword/club/etc, I turn and meet it with a Bue Do that cuts into the oncoming forearm or oncoming weapon at the same time that I am thrusting with the other knife into his face/throat/chest. Seems like the same thing to me!


Same in chi-sao ..I stab you , you stab me , you step in to stab me I angle angle stab you back, test repeat 1,000,000 times. I try to stab over your arm you do bong I recover my ability to stab again by dropping my bong to tan . You use inward jum sao stabs to deflect an inside gate attack.

---The idea of thinking of the hands as knives is a good one. But it has limitations as well. You can apply damage with a blade much more easily than with an empty hand. So you often need to have better structure and more power output when empty-handed than when using the knives.




If your caught in the center then you can duck by all means ; ) use a knife to do whatever the hell it need s to but beware the flood , escape to the outside or take the wild swing after it has passed over , allowing the opponents flankign energy to go over and past...

---Phil will probably get a chuckle out of that one. :) Flanking is one of TWC's key strategies. And one that they sometimes catch criticism for as "chasing hands."



the knives teach the hands, guiding the way up, not SLT up blind to the path before it.

---Then why don't most train with the knives right from the beginning? I do. But most don't!

[Matrix]

Hey Keith,


---I still don't follow you. Responding to an attack with a simultaneous block and strike is Wing Chun 101. Phil was basically just showing one thing to illustrate his explanation. He didn't show the follow up. Maybe he would have moved in on the next beat, maybe he would have kicked, etc.Yes, simultaneous attack and and defense is a basic concept - the point I'm trying to make is that it needs to be in the correct direction. To go after the attacking hand (chasing hands) weakens your attack and your position. You've mentioned a follow up, and that makes the orginal position even more important. The more you stray from keeping square to the center of mass of the opponent, the more time, energy and movement you will require for the followup action.


---Of course! If you have time! But why not position with good biomechanics so that the Tan is not overpowered? That was what Phil was illustrating. More often then not you will have time. Certainly in the context of the demo it didn't look like some kind of sucker punch so I'm assuming there's more than enough time.


---Who said anything about applying extra force to hold a position? Of course Tan is dynamic. Again, Phil only showed step 1 of what would likely be a multi-step response. I'm sure he would have flowed right into the next move and his Tan then wouldn't appear to be static. Maybe so, that's why I asked for elaboration on my initial post to this thread. We can what-if this thing forever.


---Well, you said you didn't think the punch would have landed because of the distance. I pointed out that the guy "winced" on several occassions. I don't think that would have happened if the guy didn't think he had the potential of being hit. Therefore Phil's distance must have been closer than you think. How much power he would have produced is hard to say. My point was that he was close enough to land, or the guy wouldn't have winced! I'm not going to twist your arm to make you believe me. But it seems kind of common sense to me! :D....... When I hit someone, I don't want to make them wince, or even just touch them. I want to hit through the target. I just don't feel that a powerful blow would have resulted from that action. I'm just trying to say that I think there is more efficient and effective ways of dealing with this. I think (but I may be wrong) that we are all trying to figure out ways improve on what we know - or think we know. ;) One way to do this is to be critical of our own understanding of things. So I like to stretch things out from time to time, just for fun.

---That easy to say. For that matter, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place! But what happens when someone surprises you and you turn suddenly to see that big looping punch headed right at your head? You don't always have a choice in your positioning. If you respond with bad structure, it could be the end........ I just think that the footwork needs to support, even drive the structure. Static structure is death. As for not having a choice with positioning, I would say at the very least there are superior and inferior options in any given situation. I just feel that there's a better option here. That's one of the main reasons why we train, to be able to quickly and efficiently determine the best course of action in just this time of scenario.

As for attacking and defending lines, I like your description - that's why I didn't comment further. I would only add that that the tan 'sweeps' across the line as the result of the movement of the body/hip as a whole unit, not from moving the arm/hand as a separate independent entity. I know you didn't say otherwise. I just wanted to add that little bit of detail if I may.

Cheers,
Bill

[k gledhill]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write. :confused:

many havent heard this way of explanation

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?

it is primarily to train an elbow angle,using the outside of the arm

Same as jum sao , the inside of the arm is used to hold the line while striking in unison with the tan/striking arm.

---You said this before on the other thread and it made no sense to me. You said the Tan and the strike were the same thing. Now I can see a Tan structure with a closed fist being used to strike. But your comment above makes no sense to me.

tan is a loaded gun , once the bullet goes it returns to elbow in , tan IS A STRIKE the first 1/2 of the strike a 2 part punch that starts from tan ...
Jum is elbow in ,using the inside of the arm ..following the tans outside arm, jum inside striking, each creates a 'continous deflection' line alternating from each arm to the other , either side..;)

Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout! :)

thats an option too but remember the % you can get wet too , so can I .



Try thinking your fighting an armed man when doing your training , one knife in each hand.

---OK. So in Phil's example.....the opponent is swinging wide with a sword/club/etc, I turn and meet it with a Bue Do that cuts into the oncoming forearm or oncoming weapon at the same time that I am thrusting with the other knife into his face/throat/chest. Seems like the same thing to me!

this is 'sh&t happens' we cant stop a situation but we know what we want and where to be what to avoid for %


Same in chi-sao ..I stab you , you stab me , you step in to stab me I angle angle stab you back, test repeat 1,000,000 times. I try to stab over your arm you do bong I recover my ability to stab again by dropping my bong to tan . You use inward jum sao stabs to deflect an inside gate attack.

---The idea of thinking of the hands as knives is a good one. But it has limitations as well. You can apply damage with a blade much more easily than with an empty hand. So you often need to have better structure and more power output when empty-handed than when using the knives.


add space and time , we adopt random attack counter to make it instinctive to move to certain places and not "oh can you take the knife out i made a mistake , thanks?"
blades require more space than hands 2 different footwork in one system. Cutting intersecting lines for bare hands , wide angles for knives .



If your caught in the center then you can duck by all means ; ) use a knife to do whatever the hell it need s to but beware the flood , escape to the outside or take the wild swing after it has passed over , allowing the opponents flankign energy to go over and past...

---Phil will probably get a chuckle out of that one. :) Flanking is one of TWC's key strategies. And one that they sometimes catch criticism for as "chasing hands."


VT/WSL always has been flanking in the system, from knife tactics % the key idea. wonder why twc shares the idea ? :D remember with the knives we attack the arms first , this done with empty hands can seem like hand chasing..it is if the knife distances are used when fighting empty handed....2 different ranges ..hands are close using close line cutting across arms to body ..ergo the idea of strikes that are holding deflections as the attack goes in....with knives we cut arms and retreat big steps ..cut the body and retreat, we arent doing traps just killing and evading a dying mans last actions.


the knives teach the hands, guiding the way up, not SLT up blind to the path before it.

---Then why don't most train with the knives right from the beginning? I do. But most don't!

the knife THINKING , THE IDEA in woids :D how to think about using the various modules and not get lost in the quagmire of redundant chi-sao .

[couch]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write. :confused:

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?


Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout! :)



Hey Keith,

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes. I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!

Kevin talks a lot about never standing in front of the attack, because just like a bucket of water thrown on you, there's a chance you may get wet. So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different. I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

It takes a lot of heart and guts to fight at this range and I love it.

Best,
Kenton

[k gledhill]

additional to the last post..

the dan chi teaches the 2 stage development of tan ->strike in fighting we just strike.
the tan develops alignment to stike while the elbow spreads off /leaves the line developing lateral force in the direction the elbow leaves from..then returns to do it again. This why I say the tan never leaves the line , because its training the elbow positions for a strike along the line...the tan elbow spreads off the line the tan fist goes to the nose/jaw etc..this idea only works from tada the flanks ,, why ? : )

Jum sao 2 stage punch in training [unless the wrist is being redundantly used] the 1st 1/2 of the deflecting strike is by moving the elbow into thew line using the pectoralis contraction, while pointing at the head, then we strike , the 2nd 1/2 of a 1strike inside deflection ...

when we do , say, the left tan striking it takes an arm say a left arm offline by the elbow spreading off the centerline , while the fist still goes to the guys head , from a flanked side...this is the way we fight sides ..then the jum strike , developed earlier idn dan chi-sao , with tan strike, follows [if needed] to hold the left arm 'shut down' as we sidle in still striking but able to retract the tan strike back to re fire , because the jum took over along the line .Each strike performs 2 actions independently of the other arm
allowing us to overwhelm the 1 weak sided arm. with ourn2 free [in rotation along our centerline] using one lead [mansao] and the rear [ vu-sao] to perpetually feed strikes in regardless of the lead hand being stopped or disrupted..not using lopsao unless we have a bad position or we need to change the direction of the water hose ; )

chi-sao becomes simpler than we think. Its a next stage of moving closer and now hitting and deflecting , using the roles of attack/counter attack. we have sensitivity , what we need is correct reactions timing further development of the initial attacking abiloity using the arms independantly of the other...or we fight one arm with our 2 in unison ALWAYS [ping]

it will make you faster because you arent wasting time with one arm doing chasing blocks that is reserved for bil gee.

in dan chi-sao the tan trains the jum, the jum trains the tan...then the jum is deflected by bong sao, fook is to recover an errant elbow to a neutral [not tan or jum] before cycling again.

after a few times I ask the student to simply punch me and deflect my strike while being able to hit me...then we see the angles need to change to allow each arm to reach doing facing as the dummy entry angles...only in the dummy we use each arm , not to attack like this tan sidplam aka jum sao
but to make sure the lines are correct and one can reach to hit with either one...testing not application.

simultaneous blocking/deflecting strikes is VT 101..... not one arm blocks while the other strikes , thats bil gee..

subtle change of words that leads to 2 different ends

the primary coaching involves developing this simple idea , using jut sao;pak sao;bong sao to remove the lead or simply strike into the available space before us ..it isnt as easy at it sounds ergo
dan chi,,,chi-sao without arm chasing or arm wasting by 'over-fighting ' one arm on its own flanked with 2 of ours together...what skill is it to fight 1 arm with 2 ? but have 1 arm acting like its 2 against 1 ...! thats the goal of basic arm strikes.

[k gledhill]

Hey Keith,

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes. I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!

Kevin talks a lot about never standing in front of the attack, because just like a bucket of water thrown on you, there's a chance you may get wet. So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different. I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

It takes a lot of heart and guts to fight at this range and I love it.

Best,
Kenton

you just may see them one day, your own :D kidding ;) why train one way then fight another..all that changes are the distances from hands to knives but always seeking the relative safety of the weakside of a jabbing entry a front kick,stabbing knife hand , facing off to a guy we dont know how he will enter so we adopt side turning shifting stances,....we can all do the kamikazee centerline airpunch blast from 4 ft away ; )

[Matrix]

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different. Hey Kenton,
Thanks for bringing up Tony Blauer. I did a Youtube search and found this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--74CtXS6Y4)which I feel may help Keith understand what I'm getting at with my previous comments. Yes, there may some minor variations but I like the direction of the action and the intensity, etc. There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point. :cool:

Peace,
Bill

[couch]

There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point. :cool:

Peace,
Bill

Also, the 'testing' he's done in regards to how the muscles contract (bicep) when the fist is clenched (forearm tense), I find interesting. I look at how us WC people use open handed 'blocks' and I see similarities as well.

Here's the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ_DdP85Qvw

Best,
Kenton

[k gledhill]

T Blauer has good ideas, The elbows lifting on taller guy's can be a vt correction simply by elbow control. Elbows low for a reason...what is that ? Its our way of deflecting energy off our arms while they go in to strike , using the acute angles created by SLT training , the arms leave from such tight angles that they naturally deflect force along flanking angles we adopt for % fighting.
It takes no strength due to the fact that the smaller person is avoiding force by angling to its inward path , while striking with deflecting , naturally stalemating arm angles, that don't need to leave the centerline to 'block' in the classic sense.
Why YM kicked butt, he wasn't using block's that left the line , he pointed the line at angles that worked his idea, the rest is history :D He would put guys in funny positions because they 'chased' his leading arm to miss or overturn trying to use blocking force on wrong lines , by allowing this and following with the rear vu he could simply feed his next straight line in and deflect the preceding line away so you looked like a human pretzel. He didn't have to hit you...;) he just let you move and show him how to work you.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have always liked Tony's stuff, simple effective and applicable to all.
Canucks are the uber-cool in terms of MA.
:D

[KPM]

Hey Kenton,
Thanks for bringing up Tony Blauer. I did a Youtube search and found this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--74CtXS6Y4)which I feel may help Keith understand what I'm getting at with my previous comments. Yes, there may some minor variations but I like the direction of the action and the intensity, etc. There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point. :cool:

Peace,
Bill

Hi Bill!

Yes! I've seen that Tony Blauer clip before. Its a good one! He's basically just doing a double Biu Sao. I see the point you are making and don't disagree. I think we've just been look at things differently. I've been addressing Phil's example directly and see nothing wrong with it for illustrating the point he was trying to make. I still see it as a legitimate "quick" response to a surprise attack. I think you're approaching it from the angle of considering the optimal response. I agree that moving in on his attack and disrupting his structure and balance is a better choice than standing in place and meeting his force "head on" so to speak. I also now see what you mean when you are using the term "chasing hands." Its obviously a term with multiple connotations. :)

Its interesting...... Tony Blauer comes up with a good "gee ****" response that people like and that works well and it turns out to be a common WCK technique. Similarly Mark Denny of "Dog Brothers" fame developed a initial response to a knife attack that he has been teaching in seminars alongside Gabe Suarez and that he calls the "Dog Catcher." Turns out its a WCK "gan/jum" technique. :)

[KPM]

Hey Kenton!

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes.

---You mean its not just me!? :D

I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!


So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

---You'd sure have to have some good fast footwork and reaction time to avoid the water that's already left the bucket and is arcing its way towards you in order not to get wet!!!



I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

---I agree with you. There's a time and place for both. I tend to really emphasize the "forward pressure" concept in my WCK and so am almost always moving in on the opponent. But not necessarily from directly in front of him! To me, using the knives as the primary strategy behind your empty-hand methods wouldn't put an emphasis on forward pressure, but rather on evasive movement. That's not the primary characteristic of my WCK.


I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

---I agree. Move in and disrupt his balance/structure! Take his space and smash his face!! :D

[k gledhill]

I just prattle on about an idea I heard about :D dont mind me ; )

[Phil Redmond]

My PM isn't disabled. I just got one from couch.
Also, I don't think any WC school teaches chasing hands. That's against WC principles. When all WC people do the pak sao in SLT they aren't chasing hands. They're covering a gate. When I did that demo it was just to show structure. I always teach that there are X factors in a fight. Your opponent can do this or that when you do this or that. It's like a game of chess. The man with the best strategy wins.

[Matrix]

I have always liked Tony's stuff, simple effective and applicable to all.
Canucks are the uber-cool in terms of MA.
:D Sounds like a winning combination to me. Since he's in Montreal I'll have to check it out the next time I'm down that way.

Bill

[Matrix]

My PM isn't disabled. I just got one from couch..Hey Phil, I could swear that there was on option to PM. I guess I missed it somehow. :confused: Sorry.


Also, I don't think any WC school teaches chasing hands. That's against WC principles. When all WC people do the pak sao in SLT they aren't chasing hands. They're covering a gate. When I did that demo it was just to show structure. I always teach that there are X factors in a fight. Your opponent can do this or that when you do this or that. It's like a game of chess. The man with the best strategy wins.Sure thing. You are correct, there are always x-factors which makes things fun. Don't pay any attention to my comments, I'm just rambling......
Peace,
Bill

[Matrix]

I see the point you are making and don't disagree. I think we've just been look at things differently. I've been addressing Phil's example directly and see nothing wrong with it for illustrating the point he was trying to make. I still see it as a legitimate "quick" response to a surprise attack. I think you're approaching it from the angle of considering the optimal response. Hey Keith,
I think you've summed it up quite well. I'm glad you can see my point and I certainly see Phil's. :)


Its interesting...... Tony Blauer comes up with a good "gee ****" response that people like and that works well and it turns out to be a common WCK technique. Similarly Mark Denny of "Dog Brothers" fame developed a initial response to a knife attack that he has been teaching in seminars alongside Gabe Suarez and that he calls the "Dog Catcher." Turns out its a WCK "gan/jum" technique.Wing Chun does not possess some special or secret information, IMO. I think we train in a different way, through forms and chi sao, etc, but the concepts are inherent in many other styles. I've seen other Tony B. videos where he refers to WC techniques by name, so he seems to have at least some knowledge of WC, maybe even more than just 'some' (not that that would be required). We can attach labels to it and categorize it but in the end good stuff, is good stuff - plain and simple.

Bill

[Phil Redmond]

All boxers call what they do boxing yet they box differently.

[couch]

Sounds like a winning combination to me. Since he's in Montreal I'll have to check it out the next time I'm down that way.

Bill

He was slated to come to Halifax, NS for May 10 but that has now been postponed. His office now says June 14.

He's teaching at a Law Enforcement College in Halifax. I'm going to have my eyes peeled for the course coming up and I'll let everyone know about it. It's on a Sat from 10:30-4:30 and it's only $99.00.

It's a seminar open to anyone.

Best,
Kenton

[Phil Redmond]

Here's a clip of random combos.
Combo drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolIZIFX-pg
This is a typical class at the NJ school. We start out with a specific drill then we add a few counters. Finally we train against random attacks staying in the inside or trying to take the blindside. If dealing with a person near your weight/size or smaller then it's all good to attack down the middle. There can be problems with fighting a really big guy down the middle. One is that he can take your punches and still grab you and overpower you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

All boxers call what they do boxing yet they box differently.

Blasphemy !!!

[Phil Redmond]

Blasphemy !!!
I know. It just sucks doesn't it? :D

[bennyvt]

wHEN i WAS LEARNING i WAS TOLD THAT YOUR CENTRE FACES THE TAN IF IT IS REALLY HARD, YOU DIDNT HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE OR YOU didnt have confidence in the lunch. If your centre faced the attack then it would be stronger. So simply which either one were faced would be the stronger. The choice of which you should face came down to many factors, ie size of opponent, strength, ability to step or pivot etc. So I think everyone was right depending on diferent situations.
It was always drumed into me that ving tsun was a set of princibles giving you different options for different circumstances. My teachers teacher used to always say, "ving tsun is like a chair, you need to get off the chair to be able to use it best." So use it diferently but as long as it applies to the princibles of VT then its OK.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . It was always drumed into me that ving tsun was a set of princibles giving you different options for different circumstances. My teachers teacher used to always say, "ving tsun is like a chair, you need to get off the chair to be able to use it best." So use it diferently but as long as it applies to the princibles of VT then its OK.
That's about one of the best ways to describe WC I've seen here. People argue about technique. Techniques will vary with the individual, circumstances, or whatever. If you get the job done as efficiently as possible without violating WC principles there will be many ways to solve the same problem. Everyone's WC shouldn't look the same. Make it yours.

[bennyvt]

I also forgot, it depends which foot is the back leg if you are in stance. As the force of the strike goes through your body and if the opposite side doesnt have the back leg you tend to get pushed over, hence the need to either pivot or better to step if possoble to add the force needed to keep you standing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's a clip of random combos.
Combo drills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolIZIFX-pg
This is a typical class at the NJ school. We start out with a specific drill then we add a few counters. Finally we train against random attacks staying in the inside or trying to take the blindside. If dealing with a person near your weight/size or smaller then it's all good to attack down the middle. There can be problems with fighting a really big guy down the middle. One is that he can take your punches and still grab you and overpower you.


***AND since you don't always have control about fighting on the blindside, therefore making fighting in the middle inevitable and subject to possibly being grabbed...it's time to learn wrestling/grappling. You might need it. :D :cool:

[Phil Redmond]

***AND since you don't always have control about fighting on the blindside, therefore making fighting in the middle inevitable and subject to possibly being grabbed...it's time to learn wrestling/grappling. You might need it. :D :cool:
Or at least learn enough to know how to deal with them. It's good to be familiar with various arts.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
***AND since you don't always have control about fighting on the blindside, therefore making fighting in the middle inevitable and subject to possibly being grabbed...it's time to learn wrestling/grappling. You might need it.

Or at least learn enough to know how to deal with them. It's good to be familiar with various arts.
__________________
Phillip Redmond


Ok now, this is where I get to wondering what is going on. We are talking about WC, and then someone comes up and says something like this. My WC, or Hung Fa or what ever you wish to call it consists of all kinds of grappling and escape techniques. Rolling on the ground was something I had to learn. It was not left to my own devices. It is a common fact that the vast majority of individuals will not go into a Kung Fu stance or a Karate stance when confronted, but will just leap right on you and attempt to take you down. It would be insane to not train for this eventuality. And if you were to put yourself into situations where this could or does occur it would not take you long to figure that out.
Do you not have any ground fighting techniques within your system?

[couch]

Do you not have any ground fighting techniques within your system?

No. Wasn't designed that way.

And if you want to learn ground defenses, you shouldn't be left to your own devices...you'll get clobbered. Go learn from someone who's been doing it a while.

Best,
Kenton

[Phil Redmond]

Ok now, this is where I get to wondering what is going on. We are talking about WC, and then someone comes up and says something like this. My WC, or Hung Fa or what ever you wish to call it consists of all kinds of grappling and escape techniques. Rolling on the ground was something I had to learn. It was not left to my own devices. It is a common fact that the vast majority of individuals will not go into a Kung Fu stance or a Karate stance when confronted, but will just leap right on you and attempt to take you down. It would be insane to not train for this eventuality. And if you were to put yourself into situations where this could or does occur it would not take you long to figure that out.
Do you not have any ground fighting techniques within your system?
Cool, have you ever grappled with a person who specializes in grappling? That was the point made by Victor. If you wanted to learn to defeat a specific discipline wouldn't it be wise to study experts in that discipline? I didn't say "learn" from. I said study. Knowing your enemy is a very basic element of combat whether individual combat or large scale war. It's what's taught to military personnel and in military colleges.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Cool, have you ever grappled with a person who specializes in grappling? That was the point made by Victor. If you wanted to learn to defeat a specific discipline wouldn't it be wise to study experts in that discipline? I didn't say "learn" from. I said study. Knowing your enemy is a very basic element of combat whether individual combat or large scale war. It's what's taught to military personnel and in military colleges.

I have been preaching that for years, dude, its so common sense that it amazes me that people don't get that.
( Speaking in general, not saying that Lee doesn't get it)

[Lee Chiang Po]

>Originally Posted by Phil Redmond
Cool, have you ever grappled with a person who specializes in grappling? That was the point made by Victor. If you wanted to learn to defeat a specific discipline wouldn't it be wise to study experts in that discipline? I didn't say "learn" from. I said study. Knowing your enemy is a very basic element of combat whether individual combat or large scale war. It's what's taught to military personnel and ?>in military colleges.

By specializes, do you mean a person skilled in Jujitsu or something? If you are talking about the MMA fighters on TV, none of them are skilled as such as far as I am concerned. And to answer your question, yes, I have dealt with a lot of people that were grapplers. I made half my living with my fighting skills and over a 10 year period I worked in jobs where I was accosted almost daily by large and strong men that were determined to take me down and beat me. What I am refering to is reality based fighting, not ring fighting where both parties are fighting by the same set of rules and basic techniques. None of the altercations I have been in involved champions of the ring, but just how many of us here is ever going to fight people of that skill set?



>I have been preaching that for years, dude, its so common sense that it amazes me that people don't get that.
>( Speaking in general, not saying that Lee doesn't get it)

Without seeming confrontational I hope, I will again say that WC already has all the grappling and ground fighting skills needed to fight a grappler. The grappling skills today, when you actually see grappling skills, comes from other forms of combat systems. Developed for sport rather than actual fighting. I trained in Jap jujitsu early in my life, and to my surprise, most of the ground fighting was almost exactly like my earlier WC trained skills. The differences were more about center line and such. Yes, center line. Can't get away from it really. Most of the wrestlers or grapplers are already using my set of fighting skills. So I am able to fight effectively on the ground. What I am asking is why your lineage of WC does not train for ground fighting? Is it not a part of your system? I noticed that you said it was not developed for it. Is that what you were told?

[couch]

I trained in Jap jujitsu early in my life, and to my surprise, most of the ground fighting was almost exactly like my earlier WC trained skills. The differences were more about center line and such. Yes, center line. Can't get away from it really. Most of the wrestlers or grapplers are already using my set of fighting skills. So I am able to fight effectively on the ground. What I am asking is why your lineage of WC does not train for ground fighting? Is it not a part of your system? I noticed that you said it was not developed for it. Is that what you were told?

Everything has elements of other arts in it, but in my opinion, my WC has very little of (if any) grappling. Maybe some Chi Na like a Japanese JJ, but again I don't waste my time trying to extract something from an art that I feel it wasn't designed to do.

My WC is for close-range STRIKING combat. No holds (half-neck tie, though - not really a 'hold'), joint locks or ground grappling. Not saying I can't use my WC to counter a grappling attempt, but if I hit the ground with a BJJ guy, I'm fricked.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Without seeming confrontational I hope, I will again say that WC already has all the grappling and ground fighting skills needed to fight a grappler. The grappling skills today, when you actually see grappling skills, comes from other forms of combat systems. Developed for sport rather than actual fighting. I trained in Jap jujitsu early in my life, and to my surprise, most of the ground fighting was almost exactly like my earlier WC trained skills. The differences were more about center line and such. Yes, center line. Can't get away from it really. Most of the wrestlers or grapplers are already using my set of fighting skills. So I am able to fight effectively on the ground. What I am asking is why your lineage of WC does not train for ground fighting? Is it not a part of your system? I noticed that you said it was not developed for it. Is that what you were told?

I have a Shodan in Judo, having competed in it at a provincial( state) and national level, I have wrestled at the university ( collegiate) level and have had the chance to train in BJJ and MMA for close to 2 years.
My grappling experience as noted above gives me some experience in regards to ground and clinch work.
I do NOT consider myself a grappler.
I think we have different views of what is "ground fighting".

[Ultimatewingchun]

"By specializes, do you mean a person skilled in Jujitsu or something? If you are talking about the MMA fighters on TV, none of them are skilled as such as far as I am concerned." (Lee Chiang Po)


***ULTRA-REVEALING remark. For you to say that means that either you haven't seen much mma fighting at all or that you have but you don't know what you're talking about.