How much of wing chun do you think is used in a fight?

[SAAMAG]

Just like the title says....

Let's say you've learned all three hand forms and the dummy. How much of that do you think is used in a "real" fight? I suppose I'm wording it that way because that's the extent of my wing chun progression, the hand forms and the muk yan jong form...

and the more I analyze my fighting style, I find that I don't really use a lot of what's taught. Just the basic stuff, nothing flowery, just move in and POW. That's it. Tan, bong, pak, biu, lap, lan, chung kuen, side palm, elbows, knees...that's about it. Never found that there was a need for any of the rest more often than not. I've also found that the "wing chun" range only lasts for a few seconds before the scene dynamically changes into a different range.

So I was curious...when fighting OR sparring, how much of your wing chun do you actually tend to use?

[Sihing73]

Hello,

It's funny how even the most effective fighters usually make do with the basics. Look at some of the Great Olympic Judo players and you will notice that they win using a few basic techniques which they have drilled to perfection. Same with boxers, it is invariably those with strong basics who win consistently.

Wing Chun is a conceptual system meaning that the basic shape of the technique is not as important as the understanding of how to apply that "shape" and its variations in relation to anothers energy.

I personally feel that in a fight one is better off trying to utilize the basics, Taun Da, Pak Da, Gaun Da and of course palms, rather than all of the "fancy" or "advanced" motions. When confronted in a real situation you will not know your opponents skill so, IMHO, what I am likely to use in a fight relative to WC, other than the concepts :D are the basics of Taun\Gaun\Pak and perhaps Bong. I also feel that one will be better off angling and attacking off of the line, but that is just me.

Now if there are more than one opponent they I will likely try to demonstrate my old track and field skills, not sure how that relates to my WC though ;)

[Edmund]

I don't think the point is to use as many techniques a possible!

Different people will prefer different techniques but the art is not trying to dictate personal preferences.

[SAAMAG]

Oh no...not saying that at all Edmund. Just was pondering how I only use a fraction of the wing chun relative to what I learned. Just wanted to see if there was anyone out there that used most of what they've learned or if maybe we all just use a little of whatever we prefer.

Personally, I use what is called for at the moment, which in all honesty is usually teh same things over and over, the basics. One can't really have preferences in a fight per say...

[RGVWingChun]

how many techniques you use is usually going to be dependent on how skilled of a fighter you are going against....if you are going up against someone with your equal skill level, then it might be possible that you would cycle through all your techniques and exhaust them, but if against a lesser skilled opponents, it might not be nothing that a pak da with fan sao wouldn't take care of....it all depends on who you are fighting and what they are capable of really....

my thoughts,

Moses

[jesper]

as little as possible

[imperialtaichi]

In my opinion, ALL.

Real fights are based less on techniques, and more on concepts and habbits.

So, whatever you are trained in, be it WC or TC or BJJ, you are conditioned to behave a certain way anyway. You cannot escape it.

Cheers,
John

[UKBBC]

You should just use the principles to fight. All the techniques that you learn follow the principles, but the majority of the time, training techniques teach you to be ambidextrous, independent limb movement and to flow without thinking or pausing with reference to body position in relation to the opponent.

[AmanuJRY]

I use WC concepts....always....

I've noticed the use of Tan, Fook, Jum, Guan, Lan, Gum...I use Yap and Bong Gurk alot...and some kwan sau and Po pai movements.;)

[k gledhill]

I did securty work in central London UK for 10 years as a extra income . I had 30-40 fist fights I can remember, lost count of the grab n exit type encounters, or just face off's that came to nothing outside bar's, nightclubs etc...

Primarily the angling strike . soem call it a twist punch, turning stance punch. I would maneuver to a guy coming at me and strike at angles usually trying for my strong side unless space wouldnt permit it.

I found the connection to training was primarily in timing to movement from an incoming partner in chi-sao. Trying to time my counter strikes just as they came in after me. Aka a tan stepping in with same foot etc...The arm over the tan struck or paked to counter...
Adding a lot of same , angling and hitting a swining /moving in & out to me heavy bag, i would time the heavy bag strikes the same for impact while getting out of the path of the incoming bag, either side.

A lot of wall bag striking for years in my personal regimen , 1000's broken up in 100's then a form or run 2-3 miles hang on a tree in local park hit again for'ms run etc...crazy Sh&t ;)

I used pak sao's if a guy threw a swing at me and he over turned to offer the elbow as a trap...again simple charging trapping /striking and by 2 punches they would change their attitude or altitude, whichever came first....

The systems use of twisting from the heels to the elbow's in and tight , timed with a precise release of our force [ proven by inch punches to partners] is devastating. Guys will end up several feet from you in the direct line your punch met them , so they absorb all your force due to the alignmnet and timing /balance we develop in chi-sao drills.

Another by-product I found was that becasue we do so much ambidextrous work at a fast pace, guys attacking me seemed to be very obvious and gave me time to maeuver even if it was 3-4 guys all coming at me in a crowded bar...first come first served tactics work.

Open hand strikes to guy shooting in works very well, you dont break your knuckles punching the head, no pads either. as they went back holding their heads in pain I could easily kick /finish them of...

kicking with direct forward energy leaves nothing else to be done ...guys move like the last pin on a bowling alley being hit square on POW ! they flyu through the air like a shotgun hit them. or sometimes not :D and I watched them just double over ...eh it worked .

eye jabs if i had to deal with a ot of guys at once, good distance maintenance like a boxers jab...keep off kind of thinking, coupled with first come first served.

bong sao's are by nature low % techniques due to the guys arm having to be over mine , didnt happen alot, but in chi-sao we train so its there always. If sparring more likely to be done a lot for the obvious reasons of raising your % of being x over by a partner.

po pai' using shuffling is great for off balancing pepetually a guy or guys who are trying to fight you and you have lost space to strike, or you dont want to hit them...by keeping elbows inthe thigh muscles do all the work, that many call 'chi' :D..just good structure timing etc...
chisao kicked in here as well to stay with the guy as you drove him into a wall hard or received a charge that grabbed your wrists and felt the force waves coming and timed a turning counter that 'caught ' the guy so I could 'wall slam' him instead of of him slamming me :D

More but , some pieces.

standing like a basic stance doing tan sao punches ..forget it . All things that arent just hitting guys in the same timing and they are ontop of you...flailing like crazy people..
I learned to hit people first after a while ,why wait when you can shut them down ...just needs experience to know when to 'spark off'.

It is then that you see simple & efficient.

fighiting is all the system knives, pole, sltckbj are one not 3 ; ) I can break out of grab using bilgee elbows and strike using slt ck ...we never fight in a basic training stance or perform like a form. We use the THINKING of tactical approach to end a fight asap. This from weapons delivering a one chop/poke stop .

[bennyvt]

deffinatly depends on your opponent. As the first form is mainly when you are facing your opponent, CK when people are coming from the side or multible and BJ when youve stuffed everything up. So unless your opponent can make you have to recover you should only have to use SLT. I know my teachers Sifu and his sifu used to go into fights with the idea of using one technique no matter what to test all the situation it could be used for. Sounds a bit too dangerous for me.
But if you aren't challenged by your opponent then SLT is all you need.:D

[KPM]

Let's say you've learned all three hand forms and the dummy. How much of that do you think is used in a "real" fight?

---All of it! Its not about learning a collection of individual techniques. Its about learning how to move effectively. There may be a move in the dummy form that you would never use "as is" in a fight. But that same move may be educating your body on how to pivot with a certain balance or energy, how to transition from one thing to another, etc. In a real situation you do whatever the situation dictates and whatever comes out. It should feel natural. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of..."OK, now I'm going to do that move from the Chum Kiu form"!



and the more I analyze my fighting style, I find that I don't really use a lot of
what's taught. Just the basic stuff, nothing flowery, just move in and POW. That's it. Tan, bong, pak, biu, lap, lan, chung kuen, side palm, elbows, knees...that's about it.

----So what are you considering "flowery" in your Wing Chun? My Wing Chun doesn't have anything I would call "flowery."

[SAAMAG]

I consider flowery mainly to be chasing hands (doing more than what's necessary for the sake of doing different blocks, checks, and redirections before hitting the opponent); 20 hit combos that wouldn't work in a real fight; extra footwork stepping while doing any of the previous; and so forth.

Long story short, anything that isn't following efficiency.

_______

And yes yes yes, we all use the theories and maxims all the time. I was thinking more in terms of what tends to come out in the most spontaneous of instances while you fight...that sort of thing. Nothing too in depth here, just conversation fodder.

[hunt1]

Haven't been in a fight in almost 20 years.


From last weeks sparring with the folks that teach at the MMA school next door. Some strikes,couple of kicks, 3 throws,couple of sweeps and joint locks. Lop, Pak, Jut, Gum, Wu, Fook and Gaun included within the above. Maybe a tan in there some place too but more likely a fook

[KPM]

I consider flowery mainly to be chasing hands (doing more than what's necessary for the sake of doing different blocks, checks, and redirections before hitting the opponent); 20 hit combos that wouldn't work in a real fight; extra footwork stepping while doing any of the previous; and so forth.

Long story short, anything that isn't following efficiency.

---In other words......bad Wing Chun! :) Then no....I don't use those things in a fighting/sparring situation. I don't do bad Wing Chun. :eek:

[Lee Chiang Po]

I find that I use only a few techniques most of the time. In the past I have been involved in many altercations, and in most all of them I was not dealing with martial arts trained individuals. The average individual. Not to say that an average Joe can not knock the snot out of you. In most cases I would take the inetiative and make the first move. I would try to make it as much a surprise as I could. I would almost always reach out and take hold of the persons wrist and pull him into me for a hard punch to the ribs and solar plexus, then I would pull the arm down and across while punching him on the point of the chin. Done smoothly it works ever time with everyone. The chin punch is a sure knockout. Not more than a few seconds to do this. It is over quickly. I have had to deal with multiple individuals on a few occasions, and that was not as easy. I would have to use a lot of what I had trained for. Tan, pac, and fook are the blocks or parries that I use most. If I were to be confronted by 100 individuals, individually, I would most likely use pretty much the same moves in every case. I use what works. When dealing with a WC trained person it is not so easy. It becomes dangerous for you. I have fought Karate, judo, boxing, jujitsu, and a few other styles of martial art and found them to be difficult, but not greatly so. I have also a background in Jap jujitsu that is also a conceptual style that works off basic techniques. There are maybe 40 or 50 different basic techniques, but I have about 600 actual techniques that are only vatiants of these basics. The same applies for WC. The basic techniques are very few, but the conceptual variations of application of these basics prove to be almost infinite. I would say that for me to change the way I normally do things would be if I were taken by surprise or my victim were on to me before I could make my first move. That is when I vary my approach.
I also use startle techniques. I would see myself in a situation to where I was going to have to make some sort of move rather than allow the other guy to move first. If I moved first it was usually a done deal. I would suddenly make a very shrill sound which would startle the guy and he would freeze for a second. By the time he realized that I was doing it, I was already on him. And if a person were to square off at me I would do this startle technique and run at him only to stop short while he went into a windmill flurry, I would then fire a kick and hammer his hip then run in and grab him and go to work on him. I can still maintain focus and form at a dead run. I run my horse.

[SAAMAG]

Thanks for detailed feedback LCP!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Chain punch is all you need, just ask Emin :D

[t_niehoff]

I think the thread's title says it all:

How much wing chun do you think is used in a fight?

Instead of thinking about it, theorizing about it, guessing about it, find out for yourself. Go fight. See what you can and cannot do. Because what happens in a fight will depend on the individual, not the art. This isn't something you should need to think about, you should know. And if you don't know from experience, no amount of thinking or theorizing will make any difference.

Also, from my perspective, thinking along the lines of "how much wing chun is used" is looking at this entirely wrong. You don't "use wing chun", and what you do cannot be quantified ("how much"). As I see it, WCK is first and foremost an approach to fighting. You either use that approach or you don't. It is your game plan. If you are a GNP fighter, does it make sense to ask "how much GNP do you use in a fight?"

[CFT]

Terence, I think you are right in your assertion, but from my reading of this thread I would say that pretty much everyone (apart from me) has posted from experience.

[t_niehoff]

Terence, I think you are right in your assertion, but from my reading of this thread I would say that pretty much everyone (apart from me) has posted from experience.


Chee, my response was directed at the intitial question (which I referenced in my post) not at the various responses.

The question itself from my perspective is a "wrong question." What I mean by that is that it is based on a number of false assumptions, so the question has no validity. Asking "wrong questions" won't get you right answers or move you in the direction of truth, rather it moves you further along the wrong direction(by, at a minumum, reinforcing those erroneous assumptions and/or poor thinking).

Part of what experience does is help us discern the right/good questions from poor/wrong questions as the feedback from that experience not only informs us but also raises questions (problems).

BTW, most people have some "experience". For me, what is significant is the quality and quantity of that experience.

[k gledhill]

Good point , experience can lead people to simple rather than ambiguity like

..."you can do this or that and then this, while they stand there, move behind them and do this , then take their arm, etc....:D "

I like to focus on hitting solid objects, pads, bags , me :D ,I ask everyone to hit me to move me etc... when it starts to get good [ hurts ] I move them onto pads ...its a good lesson to stand and take shots on the shoulder /chest to prove the lack of effective force to a willing recipient. If I add sudden removal of the impact area do they lose balance looking for the impact to support their force etc.......raging bull I'm not but hey if your asked by a guy to "take your best shot" ! :D I know what I can deliver lmao do you ? [oh oh ? mark ] will you punch yourself backwards , lose balance, have upper arm force alone, over swing if you miss yada yada yada. These are questions that chi-sao stages address [ to me ].

will your punch just hurt someone and **** them off more :D ? or put them on the floor 6 ft away ? while you do a 'paul vunak' getaway move and leave the girl in the bar :rolleyes:Always grab the chick when you leave :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

while you do a 'paul vunak' getaway move and leave the girl in the bar Always grab the chick when you leave

That's right mofus !!

[SAAMAG]

I think the thread's title says it all:

How much wing chun do you think is used in a fight?

Instead of thinking about it, theorizing about it, guessing about it, find out for yourself. Go fight. See what you can and cannot do. Because what happens in a fight will depend on the individual, not the art. This isn't something you should need to think about, you should know. And if you don't know from experience, no amount of thinking or theorizing will make any difference.

Also, from my perspective, thinking along the lines of "how much wing chun is used" is looking at this entirely wrong. You don't "use wing chun", and what you do cannot be quantified ("how much"). As I see it, WCK is first and foremost an approach to fighting. You either use that approach or you don't. It is your game plan. If you are a GNP fighter, does it make sense to ask "how much GNP do you use in a fight?"


I think you're reading into it too much. Think about the intent of the message instead of the literal words being used. If you read the actual post and not just the title, you'll notice that I discussed the analyzation of my performance in fighting.

The idea of "how much" is absolutely quantifiable when you pay attention to your reactions. For example, the techniques I used in this sparring match were 20% wing chun based and 80% outside ranged muay thai.

It's not that big of a deal though...just see it for what it is.

[t_niehoff]

I think you're reading into it too much. Think about the intent of the message instead of the literal words being used. If you read the actual post and not just the title, you'll notice that I discussed the analyzation of my performance in fighting.


The words convey the intent of the question (words do express ideas).

I did read your post. As I interpret it, you said that when you fight you don't see much of the WCK technical repertoire coming out. That's not surprising (at one time I experienced the same problem), and I'd wager that if we saw most WCK people fight we'd see the same thing.

The source of this almost universal problem is the traditional training. A person normally won't be able to use in fighting what they haven't practiced in fighting. Or, to put it another way, fighting skills come from fighting. The forms, drills, chi sao, etc. won't transfer (at least as they are practiced) into fighting. That is the curriculum, at it is taught context-free. As WCK is typically taught and "practiced" we are taught the movements, concepts, etc. -- which is the curriculum -- but not skills (which involve the context), which involve applying the curriculum, that is doing WCK. My view is that we are not taught skills since most people in WCK don't have the skills to teach (they don't know how to use the technical repertoire).



The idea of "how much" is absolutely quantifiable when you pay attention to your reactions. For example, the techniques I used in this sparring match were 20% wing chun based and 80% outside ranged muay thai.

It's not that big of a deal though...just see it for what it is.

If you come to see WCK as a specific approach to fighting, then you are either using that approach or you're not. If you use that approach and your approach is valid, you'll find that you will need to use the WCK technical repertoire (just like if you fight on the ground, you'll find you need to use the BJJ or similar technical repetoire): it's there specifically to implement the WCK approach. When people use nonWCK techniques it is because IMO they are not using the WCK approach, for example by fighting at the free-movement range.

[SAAMAG]

The words convey the intent of the question (words do express ideas).

I did read your post. As I interpret it, you said that when you fight you don't see much of the WCK technical repertoire coming out. That's not surprising (at one time I experienced the same problem), and I'd wager that if we saw most WCK people fight we'd see the same thing.

The source of this almost universal problem is the traditional training. A person normally won't be able to use in fighting what they haven't practiced in fighting. Or, to put it another way, fighting skills come from fighting. The forms, drills, chi sao, etc. won't transfer (at least as they are practiced) into fighting. That is the curriculum, at it is taught context-free. As WCK is typically taught and "practiced" we are taught the movements, concepts, etc. -- which is the curriculum -- but not skills (which involve the context), which involve applying the curriculum, that is doing WCK. My view is that we are not taught skills since most people in WCK don't have the skills to teach (they don't know how to use the technical repertoire).



If you come to see WCK as a specific approach to fighting, then you are either using that approach or you're not. If you use that approach and your approach is valid, you'll find that you will need to use the WCK technical repertoire (just like if you fight on the ground, you'll find you need to use the BJJ or similar technical repetoire): it's there specifically to implement the WCK approach. When people use nonWCK techniques it is because IMO they are not using the WCK approach, for example by fighting at the free-movement range.


I see what you're saying here; and I meant no disrespect in the tone of the last post...I'm just fairly blunt with my typing.

[Liddel]

I see your responce T as being a bit freakin anal bro. The question could have been put better sure but.....

Ive asked similar questions of friends of mine that have experience in many different martial arts and combat systems. (hobbie vs real world use)

They all had basic responces.

I say this because in any art there are higher and lower percentage situations that require the diferent tools of any given art.

A punch is higher percentage than say a knee stomp.
Is Bong Lower percentage than a punch ? sure....but in one fight particular i have used it too great effect.

I personally have a group of habbit actions from VT i use in fights, this comprises of Tan Guarn - elbows punches and knee stomps. fairly straight foward.

Ive found my friends are the same, a few of which train and fight for a living.

I agree with your comment about the art being an approach to fighting and you either use it or you dont but everyone has habbit actions they prefer over others in thier given art, regardless of wether a situation to use it presents itself or not.

DREW

[t_niehoff]

Ive asked similar questions of friends of mine that have experience in many different martial arts and combat systems. (hobbie vs real world use)


That distinction -- "real fighting" or "real world use" -- isn't at all helpful. We develop skill at some task by practicing actually doing the task. Fighting is fighting, whether it takes place in the gym, cage, ring, or street. You're going to need the exact same physical skills in all those situations. Only the tactics, how you choose to use those skills, how you set them up, etc., will vary depending on the situation. Because fighting is fighting, if you practice fighting, you will develop fighting skills. If you don't, you won't. How well you develop the skills will depend on the quality and quantity of your practice (fighting).

The trouble with TMAs including WCK is that it is not taught or trained as a fighting skill. If that were the case, then you'd have a 1 (learning the skill just as you will do it in fighting) to 1 (training it just as you will do it in fighting) to 1 (fighting just as you learned and trained it) correspondence, like you do in the functional martial arts, BJJ, boxing, MT, judo, wrestling, etc.



They all had basic responces.

I say this because in any art there are higher and lower percentage situations that require the diferent tools of any given art.

A punch is higher percentage than say a knee stomp.
Is Bong Lower percentage than a punch ? sure....but in one fight particular i have used it too great effect.

I personally have a group of habbit actions from VT i use in fights, this comprises of Tan Guarn - elbows punches and knee stomps. fairly straight foward.

Ive found my friends are the same, a few of which train and fight for a living.

I agree with your comment about the art being an approach to fighting and you either use it or you dont but everyone has habbit actions they prefer over others in thier given art, regardless of wether a situation to use it presents itself or not.

Of course there are high percentage and low percentage techniques. What that refers to, however, is the liklihood of success of the executed technique. For example, a sprawl is a percentage way of defending the shoot/takedown, a knee strike is a low percentage technique.

I think quite a lot of people use your rationale to explain why they don't see most of the WCK techniques when they spar. For me that never made good sense. If bong sao is a low percentage technique, why do we practice it all the time? Why is the whole second form devoted to it? Why is it one of the "poison hands" of WCK? Etc. Shouldn't my practice represent what I am going to actually do? Why spend most of my time training things that I will likely never do? Wouldn't it make better sense to train the high percentage things?

And the same for fook sao, for tan sao, lan sao, palm strikes, etc. We learn all these techniques in the WCK curriculum and then never do them when sparring?

In my view, all those things, bong, tan, fook, etc., are all high percentage techniques, and if you are doing WCK (fighting with WCK's approach) you will need to do them consistently and regularly because they are common answers to common problems you will encounter in implementing WCK's strategic approach. The reason most people can't do that is two-fold: they are not using WCK's approach even though they are trying to use its techniques and they have never learned or practiced how to really use them in fighting (leanred/trained them as fighting skills).

[k gledhill]

That distinction -- "real fighting" or "real world use" -- isn't at all helpful. We develop skill at some task by practicing actually doing the task. Fighting is fighting, whether it takes place in the gym, cage, ring, or street. You're going to need the exact same physical skills in all those situations. Only the tactics, how you choose to use those skills, how you set them up, etc., will vary depending on the situation. Because fighting is fighting, if you practice fighting, you will develop fighting skills. If you don't, you won't. How well you develop the skills will depend on the quality and quantity of your practice (fighting).

The trouble with TMAs including WCK is that it is not taught or trained as a fighting skill. If that were the case, then you'd have a 1 (learning the skill just as you will do it in fighting) to 1 (training it just as you will do it in fighting) to 1 (fighting just as you learned and trained it) correspondence, like you do in the functional martial arts, BJJ, boxing, MT, judo, wrestling, etc.



Of course there are high percentage and low percentage techniques. What that refers to, however, is the liklihood of success of the executed technique. For example, a sprawl is a percentage way of defending the shoot/takedown, a knee strike is a low percentage technique.

I think quite a lot of people use your rationale to explain why they don't see most of the WCK techniques when they spar. For me that never made good sense. If bong sao is a low percentage technique, why do we practice it all the time? Why is the whole second form devoted to it? Why is it one of the "poison hands" of WCK? Etc. Shouldn't my practice represent what I am going to actually do? Why spend most of my time training things that I will likely never do? Wouldn't it make better sense to train the high percentage things?

We develop the unity of recovering the attack with CK ...bong sao on its own is worthless unless utilized as a lateral deflection followed by a strike from vu sao...ergo the repetition in ck is to instill the unity of attacking by recovery by BONG sao & VU sao together ..not borrowing anything in terms of energy and flowing with the opponent...more like get that f^%$ng arm out of my way so I can hit you with my other hand :D...
the misinterpreted arm break in CK is simple a jut sao on top of a tan sao...tan is a strike in 1/2 delivery from our line , in CK its simply an inward elbow pre=strike position used to develop the idea of interruption and recovery by using jut sao to remove an arm from our strike path /attacking line ....we do these with body movement to avoid being shot as we shoot ..the 2 low bongs are done so we can attack either side and use a bong to remove an interupting as we face going IN at an angle..we adopt both low so we don't mess up our neck with constant upper trapezius contractions , the focus is sharp inward >-< deflection xing our line [individually when fighting on a side required ] higher up and using the 'swap to strike' idea of bong [tu sao/shaving hands]...dropping elbow back to tan [ striking position] and striking with the rear vusao as we drop the bong elbow...we do it without requiring any lead leg to change as we use either bong / vu side to attack inward ..not defensive form at all the opposite , its 'take it to you' not avoid your force etc...in a chi-sao redundant mind.

low percentage but a relatively complicated exchange at high speed with your nose at risk :D CK is primarily for ways to face to shooter given the lines of force/entry they present. Our entry comes froma face of with no lead leg , side stances and shifting to gain entry or feint intent by ourselves...to gain entry


And the same for fook sao, for tan sao, lan sao, palm strikes, etc. We learn all these techniques in the WCK curriculum and then never do them when sparring?

they should not see a tan or a jum or a fook these are simple 1/2 measures of an idea that is being developed for striking and elbow recovery , using simple ideas.for freefightign..lan sao is a bar arm /fence trap, Ive used palm strikes to good effect against leg shooters ;)


In my view, all those things, bong, tan, fook, etc., are all high percentage techniques, and if you are doing WCK (fighting with WCK's approach) you will need to do them consistently and regularly because they are common answers to common problems you will encounter in implementing WCK's strategic approach. The reason most people can't do that is two-fold: they are not using WCK's approach even though they are trying to use its techniques and they have never learned or practiced how to really use them in fighting (leanred/trained them as fighting skills).


agreed ..if you had two factories producing fighters using the elbow development and another the wrist you get 2 completely different fighters at the end of the conveyor belt...I know Im a product of both and I prefer the elbow fighter aka WSL thinking:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: High and low percentage moves.

How well and how many times and with WHOM you drill any given moves will be the deciding factor of how high or low a percentage move it is.

[SAAMAG]

Repition of the movement in it's atmosphere builds instinctual movement - spontaneous reaction - if you will. That's where the most common place movements would come from I think.

I remember when I had visited the EBMAS school for a while before my wrist gave out. They mentioned that I used my elbows a lot more in my wing chun than they were used to--which I think is odd considering that all the EBMAS vids have guys going crazy with elbows. But perhaps in THAT class they hadn't used elbows that much (yet). I remember the chain punching coming at me, using lan sao to take the brunt of them, laping around to the side and coming around with a neck control and elbow once, catching the guy by accident over his eye.

To me, elbows are a significant part of my overall fighting, both from wing chun as well as muay thai. I guess that means I spend a lot of time in that range...or perhaps when I'm in that range I spend a lot of times using elbows...or perhaps I spend a lot of time with both...or perhaps I just like typing the word "elbows"....

[t_niehoff]

RE: High and low percentage moves.

How well and how many times and with WHOM you drill any given moves will be the deciding factor of how high or low a percentage move it is.

No. You are talking apples and oranges.

If you look at very good fighters, even world class fighters, you will see certain techniques/tactics/strategies that generally (across the population) they can execute successfully more often than other things in the same situation/context. That doesn't have to do with who they train with or how long they "drill" something. Low percentage strategies/tactics/techniques no matter how well you train them will "work" only a small percentage of the time.

One aspect of this is that you can't really say from theory what is or is not a low percentage move. You can only see that from experience.

[SAAMAG]

No. You are talking apples and oranges.

If you look at very good fighters, even world class fighters, you will see certain techniques/tactics/strategies that generally (across the population) they can execute successfully more often than other things in the same situation/context. That doesn't have to do with who they train with or how long they "drill" something. Low percentage strategies/tactics/techniques no matter how well you train them will "work" only a small percentage of the time.

One aspect of this is that you can't really say from theory what is or is not a low percentage move. You can only see that from experience.

You also have to remember T' that not all strategies/tactics/techniques will work with the same percentage on every person. So there's always that variance there.

I think a person can build up a common repoitoire of moves, just like a boxer who perfers jabbing 60% of the time to control distance and waits with the cross or overhand to act as a counter-punch. This strategy/tactic may be employed most of the time, but it doesn't work, the boxer will have to change it up, and could have change it a number of times in the fight.

[t_niehoff]

Repition of the movement in it's atmosphere builds instinctual movement - spontaneous reaction - if you will. That's where the most common place movements would come from I think.

I remember when I had visited the EBMAS school for a while before my wrist gave out. They mentioned that I used my elbows a lot more in my wing chun than they were used to--which I think is odd considering that all the EBMAS vids have guys going crazy with elbows. But perhaps in THAT class they hadn't used elbows that much (yet). I remember the chain punching coming at me, using lan sao to take the brunt of them, laping around to the side and coming around with a neck control and elbow once, catching the guy by accident over his eye.

To me, elbows are a significant part of my overall fighting, both from wing chun as well as muay thai. I guess that means I spend a lot of time in that range...or perhaps when I'm in that range I spend a lot of times using elbows...or perhaps I spend a lot of time with both...or perhaps I just like typing the word "elbows"....

Repetition of movement develops coordination, not fighting skill. Fighting skill is the ability to successfully perform some task in fighting.

FWIW, I think the jik chung choi is commonly "misunderstood". Most people use it as along range weapon, with the arm fully outstretched. For me, the punch generally is a close range fist strike, with vertical fist aligned to keep the elbows down (something critical in the clinch, not at long distance). Since WCK for me is an attached (clinch) fighting approach, and so to do that you will need to be in close (why it's called in-fighting), I find that the fist and elbow get about equal play.

[SAAMAG]

Repetition of movement develops coordination, not fighting skill. Fighting skill is the ability to successfully perform some task in fighting.
From my understanding T', repitition of movement builds muscle memory of that said movement, thereby improving the mechanics of the muscles's ability to perform the said movement in addition to diminishing the amount of time it takes for the synaptic processes to implement that said movement. Coordination could very well be the same thing depending on how one uses the definition.

And I agree that in and of itself doesn't build fighting skill; then again I don't think that anyone said it was a fighting skill--only that it assisted on determining the spontaneous reactions of certain movements. Those reactions, if drilled correctly in live environments will aid in being successful in the act of fighting (in addition to building up the attributes necessary to be successful in fighting).



FWIW, I think the jik chung choi is commonly "misunderstood". Most people use it as along range weapon, with the arm fully outstretched. For me, the punch generally is a close range fist strike, with vertical fist aligned to keep the elbows down (something critical in the clinch, not at long distance). Since WCK for me is an attached (clinch) fighting approach, and so to do that you will need to be in close (why it's called in-fighting), I find that the fist and elbow get about equal play.
I ABSOLUTELY agree! I was never fond of the lin wan kuen tactics that some people employed from afar. It didn't make sense to me since there were much better ways to attack from that distance. As you've said, wing chun is a close range combat system, when I'm in too close for the longer range hand attacks, thats when the shorter ones come into play. They were fundamentally designed to work within a specified range in my opinion.

And this crosses over to other arts as well. In MT, the jab, cross, long hook and overhand are used in their specified range. When in a standard clinch (like a wrestlers clinch w/ one hand on neck and the other hand on the forearm/elbow) shorter punches like hooks and uppercuts are employed. This is the same range that a chung kuen could also be employed. A tad closer and it's elbow city for me.

Again, great point!

[sanjuro_ronin]

No. You are talking apples and oranges.

If you look at very good fighters, even world class fighters, you will see certain techniques/tactics/strategies that generally (across the population) they can execute successfully more often than other things in the same situation/context. That doesn't have to do with who they train with or how long they "drill" something. Low percentage strategies/tactics/techniques no matter how well you train them will "work" only a small percentage of the time.

One aspect of this is that you can't really say from theory what is or is not a low percentage move. You can only see that from experience.

Yep, apples and oranges, both are fruits, both have seeds, both have peel, both make some nice juice and both grow on trees.
:p

[Liddel]

That distinction -- "real fighting" or "real world use" -- isn't at all helpful.

You may not see the distinction as helpful.....but i fully realise my effort and approach in a fighting sence and so should others IMO.

What i was trying to imply - was even between someone like myself who trains for self defence and falls into the category of what i would consider a hobbie VS someone who trains for a living being either a proffessional fighter or a close protection officer (a few friends of mine).. there are actions we are taught that serve purposes for specific fighting senarios that dont present themselves in every fight you may be involved in....thats all.

On top of people having preferences with regard to actions in an art.

IME its the same for me with VT (the hobbiest) and for my friends (Close protection officers/ proffessionals)

To further my point -
For any given punch i recieve i have several responces VT has taught me i can use. Generally speaking i have my prefered way, the action/s that ive grasped the most, the action i can make work great (not ok) and am comfortable with. Its NOT the art rather its me.

This is the POV from which i have recieved the question, so it has validity to me if you get my drift.



I think quite a lot of people use your rationale to explain why they don't see most of the WCK techniques when they spar. For me that never made good sense.


I get what your saying and agree in a general sence, ive seen many vids that can fit your statement and i also dont see it as a valid excuse for not seeing VT when one spars....

However if you see me spar wether i get my ass handed to me or i dish out some punishment you WILL see basic VT habbit actions...Pak Tan Bong Guarn punches elbows and stomps.

There are several actions i know ill never use because i choose not to, for whatever reason.......positive and negitive.

and again this was my postion in terms of answering the OP's question all be it a little off base as previously mentioned. :D

Your points while being valid IMO are a little removed from a harmless question about "how much of your VT is used in a fight"

You see it as your VT should all be used in a fight if its worth its salt as a fighting art (agreed)... i see it as what are your prefered actions or what do you rely on most from VT in a fight.....

Perhaps its my bad, but thats my point :)

DREW

[deejaye72]

when i spar or fight it always seems like just basic stuff really works.
i use chain punches pak da,lop da and this really tight hook punch from when i kickboxed.i know it's not wing chun but,it just come out i can't help it.there's some other stuff like basic kicks but,thats about it.
all the advanced techniques are just variations of the basic's.undefeated middle weight kickboxing champ bill "superfoot" wallace said his method consists of three
kicks and two punches,left jab,right hook,sidekick,roundhouse kick and hook kick
but,they come at you from 178 angles! how much more do you need!!!

[sanjuro_ronin]

when i spar or fight it always seems like just basic stuff really works.
i use chain punches pak da,lop da and this really tight hook punch from when i kickboxed.i know it's not wing chun but,it just come out i can't help it.there's some other stuff like basic kicks but,thats about it.
all the advanced techniques are just variations of the basic's.undefeated middle weight kickboxing champ bill "superfoot" wallace said his method consists of three
kicks and two punches,left jab,right hook,sidekick,roundhouse kick and hook kick
but,they come at you from 178 angles! how much more do you need!!!

A six demon bag !!
:D