The importance of "techniques"... [Archive]

Ultimatewingchun

07-11-2008, 12:46 PM

is often downplayed, overlooked, or outright put down by a whoooole lot of people in the wing chun world. Because wing chun is a "concept-based" art, we're told. It's not about techniques, we hear. It's about concepts and principles. Attacking his center. Simultaneous attack and defense. Returning to the center via bil jee moves when you're off-center. Just covering areas (gates). His hand comes - detain...if it withdraws - follow.

Don't chase hands...just the image. Always move in and penetrate his space.

Etc.

GREAT.

And also bull5hit.

It's great because all of the above principles and concepts are good, solid, points. Bad because the sweeping generalizatons that such concepts cover - all by themselves - do not do....

ENOUGH.

In my experience, and in the experience of many people in other arts, what's been found is that one needs both concepts and techniques.

For example, take a simple headlock. You better have at least two-or-three different headlock escape TECHNIQUES (and their variations) in your arsenal that have been drilled hundreds of times if you want to be taken seriously, ie.- if you make the claim (even if it's in your own head) that you're good at escaping them.

The same with dealing with hook punches, multiple hooks, uppercuts, stiff leads and big rear crosses, hooks off jabs, rear roundhouse kicks to the back of your thigh, when up against the bull rush - or dealing with more sophisticated single and double leg shoots, etc. The same with unarmed self defense moves you might practice against various different types of knife or stick attacks.

Specific TECHNIQUE responses you've drilled countless times.

Can you imagine defending against a knife attack with the "concepts" mindset - and nothing else?

"Yeah, I'll just sweep the area and attack his center."

(No you won't. You'll just go to the nearest hospital emergency room while your loved ones pray to God that you recover).

Now of course you have to be able to adapt, adjust, modify, interrupt, change, abort, etc. some specific "technique" you use if need be. That goes without saying. You have to flow with the circumstances as they change.

You can't have a rigid, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to techniques.

"If he throws a cross - I will always do this or that."

Of course not.

But you still need the specific techniques.

There, and ready to be used and adapted without even thinking.

Sihing73

07-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Hello Victor,

You make a good point, however the danger of being technique based is the same as many other things; you become trapped in the structure and shape of the technique.

Of course one must have techniques, they are the letters of the alphabet for any system. How the techniques are put together form the sentences and paragraphs. How the techniques are applied are the rules of grammer.

Just like in writing though, if one truly understands the concepts behind the system then one can expand beyond the simple technique A versus Technique B and even step outside of the box for exceptional application. Just as many of the litereray greats ignored some of the "rules" of grammer. Did they change the letters of the alphabet? No, they simply went outside of the box and used the same letters as everyone else in a different way.

Techniques are the foundation upon which we build. Understanding the concepts behind application allows us to utilize the same techniques in different ways.

I remember a discussion I once had with someone regarding how many Taun Saus are in the SNT. I have heard different people say different things, 2,3 etc. My response was there was one Taun Sau with slight variations in the energy with which it was applied. Taun is a single technique but it can be applied in dfferent ways, rising, splitting etc. Still, IMHO, at it's core it remains the same Taun just diifers in application.

monji112000

07-11-2008, 01:41 PM

is often downplayed, overlooked, or outright put down by a whoooole lot of people in the wing chun world. Because wing chun is a "concept-based" art, we're told. It's not about techniques, we hear. It's about concepts and principles. Attacking his center. Simultaneous attack and defense. Returning to the center via bil jee moves when you're off-center. Just covering areas (gates). His hand comes - detain...if it withdraws - follow.

...

I think I follow you, but in all honestly your aproach to Wing Chun is different than myn. It is true that we like to say we fight by ideas, concepts.. but what does that mean?
You and I can agree that something logically makes sense, yet can you apply it? can I ? why are all the applications so vastly differnt? Why does all the fancy moves go out the window when pressure comes? what happened to the application?

in my opinion it goes back to learning the theory, and then learning the practicality. A few specific examples(your going to see how different my thoughts are very quick)..

I see allot of people try and cut angles and jam punches in in a attempt to crash, get thier faster ect.. it seems logical all those rules and ideas fit right? wrong.
I have been shown and I have tested, and proved to myself that this approach only works in a small situation. You say always move in, penetrate space..
for me this isn't a real smart idea. Again this is how I learned Wing Chun and what I proved to myself from testing it out.

another basic idea pak da, block and punch same time to the center. great idea.. but how do you apply it? just standing still and trying to jam the punch with a pak doesn't mean you will get it right.

you mentioned not chasing hands. What does that mean? In my school of thought it comes from the idea of covering. the same as I boxer or a grappler is able to anticipate the next move, you must aswell and cover the whole.
great idea but how do you do it?

I have never been introduced to these rigid rules, and cookie cutter mentality that your describing until i talked to other Wing Chun students and schools. For me the idea of fitting to the situation was introduced at day one.

again theory vrs application.

I hate to say it but JKD in many ways has better wing chun than most schools.
JMO

Ultimatewingchun

07-11-2008, 01:55 PM

I wouldn't say that JKD has better wing chun - but I would bet that many JKD schools have more "functional" wing chun in it's arsenal than many wing chun schools...precisely because of the "drill-the-technique" approach taken by JKD - as well as the concepts that they teach.

JPinAZ

07-11-2008, 03:51 PM

Good topic! Not sure I agree with you and will give a more full response when I have more time.
But for now, could you please clarify something for me, as it seems to me that these two quoes somewhat contradict each other:

First:

...You better have at least two-or-three different headlock escape TECHNIQUES (and their variations) in your arsenal that have been drilled hundreds of times if you want to be taken seriously, ie.- if you make the claim (even if it's in your own head) that you're good at escaping them.

The same with dealing with hook punches, multiple hooks, uppercuts, stiff leads and big rear crosses, hooks off jabs, rear roundhouse kicks to the back of your thigh, when up against the bull rush - or dealing with more sophisticated single and double leg shoots, etc. The same with unarmed self defense moves you might practice against various different types of knife or stick attacks.

Specific TECHNIQUE responses you've drilled countless times.

Then:

You can't have a rigid, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to techniques.

"If he throws a cross - I will always do this or that."

Of course not.

How can you have the first thinking but still the second?The first quote seems to come from a technique-only POV yet the second seems to be starting down the 'concepts/principals' road... :)

Or is the second quote simply implying having a bag of techniques to draw from and not just one single technique response?

JPinAZ

07-11-2008, 04:35 PM

Of course, anyone can train a big bag full of various techniques and become a pretty good fighter - no doubt about it! Fast hands, a bunch of A, B, C moves and good timing and you can get a pretty decent fighting skill. But what is the end result? As I see it, it's a guy that fights with the mentality of "He throws punch A, I use block C or D", or "he uses technique F so I use escape A, B or C". Will work of course, and over time, the reactions will come out instinctively if drilled enough, but this is still just a technique-oriented fighter.

After training WC for many years, I would never want to go back to my technique-oriented style of fighting. I never want to lose my "concept fighter" mentality I have today. What makes WC so unique IMO, is the concepts/principals/theories behind it. This is what gives birth to the techniques, or more simply, allow them to exist.

Basically, if one wants to focus on just training the technique responses to various attacks, say Biu Sau vs. hook punch, sure, they will learn the mechanics of the biu sau and how to use it. Sifu can say "put your hand here, put your elbow over there, step like this, face this way etc." and you'll start to get results - but it's still technique oriented fighting with sound mechanics.

But what really drives the 'biu sau' reaction to a hook? It's the principals/concepts behind that one is operating under. It's the gate theory, Center line (or 5-line) theory, etc. What actually gives it its structure? Is it because "Sifu said do it like this?", or is it driven by specific reference points in space and placing your parts in the correct position because of human anatomy and laws of nature tell us so?

Also, why not just punch the guy when he punches me? Why 'biu sau' at all? Or, why not Tan? Because of the concepts again tell guide us to the correct answer. Gate theory, occupying space with strong structure, CL, etc. And, in WC I train, there's also Heaven/human/earth concepts, 1/2 point concept, box theory, Dui Ying/Juie Ying facing concept, etc. So much more than the technique. This is what tells us 'taan sau' vs 'biu sau' vs 'tiu sau'. Not because 'Sifu says' or becuase I prefer 'this over that'.

Of course, all of this has to be tested and drilled countless times so we get the proper timing, range, facing, structure etc. And also so we can prove it for ourselves. But are we really drilling just a bunch of technique responses, or are we drilling into our bodies an understanding of the concepts/principles behind them? I'm thinking the second.... without those, all you have is a bunch of 'whats' and maybe 'hows', but you'd be missing the 'whys'. The 'whys' are what sets us apart. The 'whys' are what drives everything we do. Do we need to understand the 'whys' to fight? Nope. But can they greatly increase our chances if we understand then and fight by them? yup!

Without the whys, all I have is what 'Sifu says', or I have to figure it out myself. I'm going to train to understand the whys. It's what gives us our effectiveness and efficiency/economy of motion in the first place, not the technique - that's only just the tool. The technique is just the expression of the proper understanding of the concepts.

One could just enter the fight and start out jabbing my way in, or I could just occupy space with proper structure supported by gate theroy and CL. The second sound much safer to me :)

Jonathan

Mr Punch

07-11-2008, 05:55 PM

... one needs both concepts and techniques.Nuff said.

You make a good point, however the danger of being technique based is the same as many other things; you become trapped in the structure and shape of the technique. ...What's more to the point and more my prob with tech in chun is that you become trapped in the structure and shape of your opponent's attack. If not physically, then certainly in a reactive mindset. You're only as good as your opponent's attack in this way of practising.

Ultimatewingchun

07-11-2008, 07:54 PM

"Or is the second quote simply implying having a bag of techniques to draw from and not just one single technique response?" (JP)

***YES, that's what I meant.

Ultimatewingchun

07-11-2008, 08:15 PM

"Of course, anyone can train a big bag full of various techniques and become a pretty good fighter - no doubt about it! Fast hands, a bunch of A, B, C moves and good timing and you can get a pretty decent fighting skill. But what is the end result? As I see it, it's a guy that fights with the mentality of 'He throws punch A, I use block C or D', or 'he uses technique F so I use escape A, B or C'. Will work of course, and over time, the reactions will come out instinctively if drilled enough, but this is still just a technique-oriented fighter." (JP)

***YES, but he's headed in the right direction.

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

"After training WC for many years, I would never want to go back to my technique-oriented style of fighting." (JP)

***YOU don't have to go back to it - just add to it. Add what?

The concepts - and the drills that fine tune the concepts (like chi sao, kiu sao, bong sao-lop sao, pak sao-pak da, etc.)

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

I never want to lose my "concept fighter" mentality I have today. What makes WC so unique IMO, is the concepts/principals/theories behind it. This is what gives birth to the techniques, or more simply, allow them to exist." (JP)

***AS mentioned, there's nothing to lose and much to gain. As for your other point, guess what?

MANY other fighting styles also emphasize concepts as the birth channel to more refined, new, and better techniques. Take a close look at catch wrestling, BJJ, and sambo, for example. Even boxing and kickboxing use certain principles and concepts that are like a "well" that some people have gone back to to find newer waters (ie.- techniques, footwork, strategies, etc.) to swim in.

Look how guys like Ali, Marciano, Dempsey, and Tyson revolutionized their "art" - yet it was all built upon the basic conceptual foundations of "boxing".

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

"Basically, if one wants to focus on just training the technique responses to various attacks, say Biu Sau vs. hook punch, sure, they will learn the mechanics of the biu sau and how to use it. Sifu can say 'put your hand here, put your elbow over there, step like this, face this way etc.' and you'll start to get results - but it's still technique oriented fighting with sound mechanics." (JP)

***TRUE, but again, when a thorough understanding of the principles behind those techniques and their proper mechanics are introduced into the instruction - the student can take a quantum leap forward.

You've given him a fish - and you've explained how he can also continue fishing for himself.

Wayfaring

07-11-2008, 09:08 PM

Concepts can be in the head. Techniques have to be in the hands.

KPM

07-12-2008, 06:54 AM

I agree with what Victor is saying. The way I see things working....first you learn or teach technique. But right alongside of technique you teach the concept behind the technique and why it is done that way. Then the student learns how to vary the technique and still be within that conceptual framework. For instance...you teach how to do the ideal Tan Sao. You teach that Tan means "to spread" and that the technique works by deflecting and "spreading" outward. Then the student begins to understand than you can do the ideal and spread forward at a 45 degree angle from the basic centerline at approximately throat or chin level....or you can spread while retracting....spread at nipple level...spread at eye level...etc. Then later he comes to understand that you can do the same "spreading" motion with the pole, knives, or a stick. Concepts are good, but you have to have concrete examples or they are pointless.

sobela

07-12-2008, 12:18 PM

I see what you mean. Techniques are important and the concepts with them should be understood. I also think the intermediate between techniques and concepts is structure and power. You can know the technique and been shown concepts by many people, but every wing chun technique has correct structure and power. If someone throws a straight punch and you do a tan sau and it hits you, it just means you don't have structure. You used the correct technique and you had the concept. Something was just missing though. With correct structure then power will naturally come.

k gledhill

07-12-2008, 02:58 PM

tan never leaves the centerline...;) theres one for you :D its a 1/2 punch , as is jum...
techniques to attack with, using a concept to guide us, as we maneuver tactically.
VT techniques all allow this attacking idea in full flow.

btw the ELBOW of the tan spreads off the line while the fist stays on the line ....the tan sao in SLT doesnt chase things by spreading at the wrist, offline.
Tan sao is just a name , nothing to do with the 'hand'.

monji112000

07-12-2008, 09:41 PM

Ultimatewingchun

07-12-2008, 10:30 PM

I agree. In TWC we use five lines:

1) the main centerline
2) the left chest line
3) the left shoulder line
4) the right chest line
5) the right shoulder line

...and TAN could be used on any one of them.
So could pak, or bong, or bil, or jut, or garn, and so on.

monji112000

07-13-2008, 07:29 AM

k gledhill

07-13-2008, 08:04 AM

not many have heard that one , your very right ;)

Basic training positions for our technique, tan / jum
...as a concept we attack with the idea that this will make the opponent defensive. Fight to make a 10 second encounter , 9 seconds of us attacking and the opponent defends for 9....concept.
Techniques to achieve this goal are contained in the system, all the strikes are to incorporate an attacking action/s. At the root level the system teaches us to have an arm that can achieve 2 actions , alone. Strike along the centerline, and defend along the centerline. Simultaneously , lin sil di da in its infancy. The first sections of SLT contain a xing along a line and a simple punch follows along it. Simple so far ? :D
Then we train to isolate the 1st 1/2 of the 'launch area' centerline strikes and defensive perimeters forming an isosceles triangle , the centerline dividing it, the wrists xing this line in and out , seamlessly transferring one strike to the other 'threading' the line with strikes that are also meeting anything along the line with ...our arm.
Now to make this idea function we have to maneuver it . Like any fight we have to angle and shift to the opponent. We look for attacking actions /force , to give us an entry line....stay with what comes is about sticking to your perimeter ...hold the lines !
but avoid the brunt of the force face on...so we adopt TACTICS, guided by concept fulfilled by techniques to achieve this as a complete goal. simple . very simple and very effective if done properly with the required attributes ..

if we have moved to a side of a person [ tight cutting counter angle] bare handed ...we remove the % of having to face 2 arms flailing at us from the front , as a person would wail on a heavy bag...IF we shift last second to the entry [ combat no fore knowledge of tactics] we can catch opponents and stay with them to prevent them refacing or allow over facing to turn before us as we attack them.
Because we moved to the side we need to strike them ...each arm is delivering trained aligned strikes , with elbow angles held to both defend our own head as we attack the opponent ...each arm has to be able to , at a basic level, infantry of an army....that strike alone then transfer the next strike to the other without stopping the attacking beat[ 9out of 10 seconds ..]..to allow a counter strike or give a chance for the opponent to 'breath' . We train the primary actions of attacking to be done along our centerlines , to a flanked individuals ....this flanking can be a perpetual thing simply allowing them to re x our line in futile attempts to stop our attacking line that simply 'faces' them, but not front and center like chi-sao drills.
So if your on a side striking like a 2 handed fighter , why would you use a tan sao [ 1/2 arm extension] to stand somewhere , tactically & % bad for you ? to do a magic moment :D
Bil gee has arm chasing actions done at full extension and fast to deal with hands coming from either side , it also teaches us how to recover a flank/arm position , a grabbed wrist , preventing us from threading our strikes, an arm raised to stop us using the basic striking ideas of SLT...
MAny , Me included have been introduced to less efficient ways of fighting that are making us fight with less bullets so to speak, than the other guy simply wailing in on us

in a nut shell if you fight with a line that is trained to cut across another line with 2 fast moving arms versus one incapable of being utilized to its full potential, in the first few seconds of a fight ...we see that the main ideas are to develop strong structures , that can shift quickly to deliver this idea, and have strong short punches that both cover and strike using movement , like a boxer , to gain defensive attacking positions , relative to the reality before them...not a preset block in the air adopting position 'stand like a statue' , while you allow the opponent the freedom to try to throw flanking shots at you, like your a heavy bag with a tan sao block ...
If you fight like a heavy bag with an attitude that doesn't like to be hit and hits back...you change the guys raining ways of moving around a stationary object that suddenly shifts , striking into 'space' and only using contact moves because they are required ....not because you stood still and put your arm in the air ...

Don't get me wrong, you can and should do anything , but its good to know more about a tan sao [ tanned sow , love that !] :D

When we attack the sides of the dummy ..the tan & Jum [elbow in side palm] are to align either one [ we don't know which will lead..striking] so we train to deliver either a strike that the elbow spreads off the line [ from one flank] or the other strike that strikes along the line with the elbow NOT leaving ...add the 2 in rotation along a flank and we have 2 strikes in fast rotation capable of doing 2 actions , shutting down the side by delivering force from the forearms leaving and then holding the line , STRIKING....

leaving , holding , leaving , holding [always striking]...threading along the line we attack on...they change sides on us , or overturn we simply strike the same way to shut down counters or attempts to reface ...all the while steaming into them with all hands on deck....straight low kicks if we lose fist striking ability, short powerful shoves [po-pai] to regain striking space if they try to simply cover up before us or turn away to give us no strikes....momentum of the attacking direction is maintained and perpetuated to a swift end...the goal is driven by concept...the techniques we train allow this idea to be delivered without thinking....
any changes to it and bil gee licks in to recover the little idea we started with....
:D

I love this system !

I am following an idea that was proven very successful...:D

I meant 1/2 of a full punch as is jum sao....the 1st critical 1/2 after they leave the line they simply strike and come back to the line is rotation...the later sections of SLT contain the ideas for 2 handed recovery to keep the 9-10 sec idea unbroken.]

Ultimatewingchun

07-13-2008, 09:35 AM

wow so many lines...can you actually remember all that when you are sparring?

***IT'S not a question of remembering. It's simply a question of looking. If I see a straight punch coming in toward the left side of my chest, for example - that's where the tan goes...

assuming I didn't move in time to block it on my centerline.

Which is not necessarily a "mistake" - for all that matters is that the block/parry/redirection stopped his attack and puts me in a position to immediately put him on defense...

regardless of which line I placed the tan on.

Ultimatewingchun

07-13-2008, 09:47 AM

Perhaps that last post could serve as a segway - so here's a list of some wing chun techniques vs. various attacks that I use:

tan on the inside of a straight punch that attacks between the solar plexus and the head...

tan on the outside of a backfist or spinning backfist...

pak on the outside of a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach...

bong from underneath (and to the outside of) a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach...

bil against round/hook punches that attack from the head to the solar plexus...

garn against a low round/hook punch attacking anywhere from the solar plexus on down to the groin area...

pak/jut against a straight punch that attacks from the solar plexus down to the groin...

to name a few.

monji112000

07-13-2008, 04:09 PM

***IT'S not a question of remembering. It's simply a question of looking. If I see a straight punch coming in toward the left side of my chest, for example - that's where the tan goes...

assuming I didn't move in time to block it on my centerline.

wow so you use tan sao in a sparring/free fight for straight punches.. interesting. Although in theory and chi sao its perfectly fine, I wouldn't do that.

Perhaps that last post could serve as a segway - so here's a list of some wing chun techniques vs. various attacks that I use:

tan on the inside of a straight punch that attacks between the solar plexus and the head...

tan on the outside of a backfist or spinning backfist...

pak on the outside of a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach...

bong from underneath (and to the outside of) a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach...

bil against round/hook punches that attack from the head to the solar plexus...

garn against a low round/hook punch attacking anywhere from the solar plexus on down to the groin area...

pak/jut against a straight punch that attacks from the solar plexus down to the groin...

to name a few.

Again this is what I mean about theory and practice. HOnestly I"m not calling you out, but when someone is really punching can you tell were is going that well? If your lucky or have the experience you should be able to tell if its high or low, if its a hook or a straight punch but thats about it. This is from my experience and talking to fighters.

really it depends on the situation. In theory I can pak hooks and body shots, straight punches. In reality I keep things very simple... JMO
pak straight punches only. but I also kick and setup for other things.
hooks I tan da, and I have a high rate of pulling this off. Thats if I see the hook if not I just shell up. (boxing 101) then counter.
body shots in theory I should garn sao and punch.. but I don't really like this it commits you too much. I don't know the name of the technique but I use my elbow to cover and my foot work. (its similar to a boxers shell).
back fist.. thats tricky.. I have used a tan sao, but I have also used a qwan. I like the qwan becouse you can elbow the guy.. but I often don't have the reaction to do that.

again in my experience Its very hard to tell exactly were he will punch and when.. so I just cover the area.

I have had allot of success with gun sao , gua sao, and WC round kick(so gerk) against stright punches.

but everything is in foot work, not just hand movements. Footwork, timing, setup ect..

one thing I'm figuring out is that if your sparring you can't constantly commit, becouse people will use that against you.

JMO your welcome to shoot me for it.

Vajramusti

07-13-2008, 04:46 PM

monji112000

07-13-2008, 05:02 PM

Some opinions- no debate-thanks:

Kicks are ok for practice but often risky in reality- you can land on your rump or head!

joy chaudhuri

This is why fighting isn't easy. when you have someone throwing and kicking , moving clinching ect.. its hard to do allot of fancy things.
Its very hard to jam in and just chain punch.. I'm not saying chain punch isn't practical, but its how you set it up and follow it up.

Vajramusti

07-13-2008, 05:14 PM

monji112000

07-13-2008, 05:20 PM

Missed your point.
Who is talking about chain punching ? Not me!

Repetitive punching for development can be ok. Chain punching mechanically in a fight with someone competent can be asinine.

joy chaudhuri
chain punching was an example only.

you said "But I submit that in real situations "seeing" a hook etc can be problematic. Better -if he moves first get there first- a decent concept and application -if practiced properly.Full identification can come too late."

getting there first is a very unpractical assumption. in a high pressure situation, with multiple variables chances are you maybe one step behind or atleast no getting there first. so I said ..."This is why fighting isn't easy. when you have someone throwing and kicking , moving clinching ect.. its hard to do allot of fancy things. " and used the typical jam in chain punch idea that allot of people use.

until your faced with someone trying to really hurt you and not just following some pattern, you don't really understand what it means to fight. It doesn't matter if we are talking fighting or grappling. When someone is attacking you full force, full intention ... the simplest things become hard.

your trying to get in first.. but he is slipping and moving jabbing kicking, ect..
maybe you will get a clean shot in.. but maybe not. your walking into a clinch of some type.. are you ready for that?

again its easy to say one thing here, but fighting isn't easy. JMO thats why i like k.i.s.s.

Vajramusti

07-13-2008, 05:37 PM

Good luck with your kiss- whatever that is. You dont have to tell me.
BTW I fail to recognize your portrayal of wing chun in action.Possibly my bad.

joy chaudhuri

couch

07-13-2008, 06:54 PM

Missed your point.
Who is talking about chain punching ? Not me!

Repetitive punching for development can be ok. Chain punching mechanically in a fight with someone competent can be asinine.

joy chaudhuri

IMO, Chain Punching is to show how to CHAIN techniques together. The path everything travels. Not the be-all end-all of WC.

Just adding my two cents.

monji112000

07-13-2008, 07:36 PM

Good luck with your kiss- whatever that is. You dont have to tell me.
BTW I fail to recognize your portrayal of wing chun in action.Possibly my bad.

joy chaudhuri
the key to all martial arts... keep it simple stupid .

:rolleyes:

Vajramusti

07-13-2008, 07:42 PM

Good luck in your simplicity.

joy chaudhuri

monji112000

07-13-2008, 07:46 PM

Good luck in your simplicity.

joy chaudhuri

thank you ;)

Ultimatewingchun

07-14-2008, 06:58 AM

sanjuro_ronin

07-14-2008, 07:00 AM

How do you apply concepts and principles without technique?

JPinAZ

07-14-2008, 08:03 AM

JPinAZ

07-14-2008, 08:08 AM

How do you apply concepts and principles without technique?

Really depends on what is driving you actions. Sure, it's 'all techniques', but if your body reacts because of a conditioned set of concepts/principals, then there's really 'no technique' - you're working under a very different set of parameters. I guess you could look at it both ways if you wanted, but it's what's going on behind the scenes when fighting that makes the difference.
Basically, if you have internalized the concepts/principals, the mentality of 'I match this technique vs. that technique' really doesn't mean too much. IMO, that's takes too much time in a fight and leaves more room for error. Stick with the theories and concepts and you lessen the chance for mistakes.

k gledhill

07-14-2008, 10:57 AM

Some opinions- no debate-thanks:
If you are using wing chun:
Concepts and techniques are not mutually exclusive. Thus the concept of a tan sao(or fok or bong)-structure, shape, motion, distance, position , proper energy is developed via good slt (including structure)and repetition--- but the applications and adaptations are many and numerous. And, depending on context, its use for defense, offence can change. Different two person interactions-chi sao, lut sao, lop sao,gor sao, man sao can show the posssibilities...against different kinds of forces...not just wc motions.
But I submit that in real situations "seeing" a hook etc can be problematic. Better -if he moves first get there first- a decent concept and application -if practiced properly.Full identification can come too late.

Kicks are ok for practice but often risky in reality- you can land on your rump or head!

joy chaudhuri

not picking on you , just that you made a good point [bold] This can be due to not having a developing idea from start to end...but rather a disjointed approach from forms to chi-sao to free fighting....

We are developing to deliver the idea with the techniques that allow this to happen, with a concept driven goal. all out actions are trained to able to both attack and defend together...BUT if the root ideas arent known and 2nd line response of 2 of our hands are required for every attack we deal with , then we are never reaching the sharpest edge we can be [sounds like a gillette commercial :D ]...to really sharp we have to have the knowledge of the basic reasons for dan chi-sao..chi-sao...they arent to develop a sticky feeling idea, that is a by product .The reasons we do this are to develop the strikes we use in taking the concept to reality...every action , be it a single leading striking arm, can and will be able to do 2 actions . This can be achieved by acute arm angles relative to the angles of the force they receive . We acustom ourselves to each others lines of strike force doing drills with each other to simple develop our basic strikes. To a 3rd party it would seem that we deliver a chain of punches that are just striking fist to target. Unfortunately many 'teachers' also do this :o
The reality is that the strikes are being delivered along a specific lines with a tactical idea guided by a concept...intent to attack is critical, aggressive entry to strike along lines trained to change and angle /flow in real time with a resisting opponent. The key elements are that we strike with lead and rear hands in constant rotation, while maintaining the sides in motion , also allowing the opponent to X over the imaginary centerline so we dont fight their attempts to make contact with our arms , by simple arm exchange we can take what they chased and replace it with a following strike from the rear hand...or trap to prevent them facing...all the secondary techniques ..pak, jut, bong, are for IF we need them .

The chi sao can be a simple way to develop each others opposites...close enough to develop striking , random enough to ingrain , not set techniques & responses , but fluid instinctive tactical maneuvering to 'incoming' What we give back is our repetoire , all striking attacks with recovery actions to maintain our goals.

When ambiguity enters the chi-sao , the distinct process of developing the 'tools ' is lost to 'chi-sao warriors' who 'think' they can do anything in contact turning this way and that to play hand games...you can do anything , but do you know the root idea.
The simple striking attacks of VT are very hard to stop if you dont 'mirror' them with equally angles attacking responses that are also attacking the attack in the same beat...

We can adopt longe ranges to utilize weapons extra length , attacking limbs quicker than body /head. but the tactical ideas stay the same isolate and decapitate...er I mean dominate heheheh :D

Tan sao isnt meant to be a tan shape block moving laterally offline , its a partner to jum sao. Each is the required strike to attack flanks with in rotataion.. if the arms arent bridges we have simple lines we hold to strike under the arms too...
The actions in the system are to allow striking....tan elbow leaves the line , say left tan strike elbow leaves left but fist goes to guys head, chi-sao trains to keep the natural hinge action of meetig force reduced so we can stalemate if we make contact..the natural forces of one strike push the left arm of the opponent sidways or down as the striking tan fist goes in, the now dominant arm can drop as jut sao , if required, to clear jum sao, jum sao acts to do force to close the line in the direction the preceding tan took the arm....or vice versa... the jum is trained in chi-sao levels to simply push the brideged opponents arm away from your line the tan just attacked.
The primary clearing actions are jut sao because its inherent in the dropping and recycling of our striking attacks...not lop sao [ grabbing holding on stopping striking ] .
The dan chi- can be done so the wrist is used , we dont do this because its redundant to fight a punch with a downward wrist flick ...we use each other to align and fint positions to ingrain muscle memroy for further attacking levels...chi-sao introduces both sides randomly, seung ma toi ma, attacking entry and countering....a disting process.

this can be and does go to delivering the concept as attack to defend...tactics are all you need rather than set piece tan for this gaun for that...we use gates but only to isolate training ideas that become instinctive ...using two free fast moving hands striking while also deflecting or trapping by design of not thinking as they do so....

no thinking attack....

sanjuro_ronin

07-14-2008, 11:36 AM

Really depends on what is driving you actions. Sure, it's 'all techniques', but if your body reacts because of a conditioned set of concepts/principals, then there's really 'no technique' - you're working under a very different set of parameters. I guess you could look at it both ways if you wanted, but it's what's going on behind the scenes when fighting that makes the difference.
Basically, if you have internalized the concepts/principals, the mentality of 'I match this technique vs. that technique' really doesn't mean too much. IMO, that's takes too much time in a fight and leaves more room for error. Stick with the theories and concepts and you lessen the chance for mistakes.

How does your body react and with what?

monji112000

07-14-2008, 11:44 AM

JPinAZ

07-14-2008, 01:28 PM

How does your body react and with what?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Depends on what you mean - react to what? A punch? someone coming in for a takedown? Or a kick? Or, someone just trying to tie up my hands?

Basically, you first just occupy space with strongest structure on Centerline with fwd intent and proper facing, while setting up 2-line defense. If your opponent intiates an attack, depending on the type of attack, I would then operate under proper gate theories, Tin Yan Dei (Heaven/Human/Earth) concepts, box theories, facing concepts, etc.
Yes, of course various 'techniques' will be employed, but they are not the focus. If someone throws a hook, I don't think 'taan sau' or 'biu sau'. I train so my natural reaction is to continue to occupy space with proper gate theories, use correct bridging strategies, align my 'weapons' with proper facing, and set up for the next attack while taking away my opponents structures. See? No real talk of this technique vs. that technique. Sure, it will look like this from 3rd party perspective, but it's not the way I train to fight with my WC.

The question could also be asked: What if you are cught off guard in a bar? Still the same - Concepts/Principles: occupy space, with proper structure, etc. It's all you really can do, right? Sure, I could just 'taan' against whatever wild punch is thrown at me when caught off guard.... but what if I misread the attack and it blows through the taan, well, now it's on to the next technique, then the next. Doesn't seem to have the same safety factor to me.. Just looping with techniques. Not saying it can't work either, but not as efficient IMO

Ultimatewingchun

07-14-2008, 07:40 PM

"Again this is what I mean about theory and practice. Honestly I"m not calling you out, but when someone is really punching can you tell were is going that well? If you're lucky or have the experience you should be able to tell if its high or low, if its a hook or a straight punch but thats about it. This is from my experience and talking to fighters." (monji)

****GO BACK and look at the opening post of a thread entitled: "Willliam Cheung's TWC" - and follow the link to my article - and then read the part about watching elbows and knees.

And then consider the following: in TWC training you do countless drills wherein you don't know in advance what type of punch he's going to throw - and all of it starting from a distance - and not starting from contact range: straight, round, uppercut, overhand, backfist, high, low, mid level, and so on.

The drill is really about your ability to CONCENTRATE (focus) upon watching his elbows...followed by more drills wherein, in addition to punches, kicks are added to the mix - so that you now have to account for his knees and his elbows:

it could be from either leg, straight, roundhouse, spin, axekick, high, mid level, low, etc.

Some of the best training drills I've ever experienced.

canglong

07-14-2008, 07:44 PM

How do you apply concepts and principles without technique?
Actually it works opposite to this. The term technique implies learned skill. If a person uses a technique then the action itself has passed the stage of theory and concept. All that the practice of wing chun subscribes to is a more thorough knowledge of the how what when where and why your technique either worked or did not work by understanding the concepts and theories driving each technique.

Ultimatewingchun

07-14-2008, 07:51 PM

"wow so you use tan sao in a sparring/free fight for straight punches.. interesting. Although in theory and chi sao its perfectly fine, I wouldn't do that." (monji)

***ACTUALLY, a 45 degree angle tan to the inside of a rear cross thrown at your head when in the parallel arm/parallel leg position - and of course with a slight half step to the right (if his cross has been thrown with his right hand)...

can work very well." (Ultimatewingchun/Victor)

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

"No offense, but this sounds a little too much like giving up your space/center and running from the attack..
Or, why not use the front right lead hand and just sweep the gate?" (JP)

***NOT running from the attack at all. What I neglected to mention when I said that the tan against the rear cross (when in parallel position) is accompanied by a half step to the right...

is this...

(and let's say that he's in a left leading front stance and throws the cross at my head with his right hand as I stand in a right neutral side stance with my right arm in the lead):

As I take the half step to my right and block/parry his cross with my left hand 45 degree angle tan sao...my right leg is stepping to the right (east) and also north - and into his space while turning my body (and therefore my main centerline) so as to face the point of contact (the line that my tan is blocking on)...

so that my right hand/arm is NOW within striking distance to targets on the left side of his body - because in addition to blocking/redirecting his cross I've now also moved into his space on the other side of the action.

Btw, my left foot doesn't just step directly to the right (east)...but it also goes slightly south (back) as well - as my body and right side is stepping to the right (northeast) while turning my body slightly left in order to get the proper deui ying (facing).

Furthermore, sweeping the gate with my right hand against his cross (as you suggest) means that I've just opened up my right side to an instantaneous followup attack after the rear cross by his left hand - probably a hook punch to the right side of my face or head - because I've now abandoned that line on my right side.

(The "proverbial" deadly left hook) :eek:

No thanks...:D

Phil Redmond

07-14-2008, 09:31 PM

tan never leaves the centerline...;) theres one for you :D . . . .
That's not true in Central line WC. The Tan can be in the centerline or along the central line.

k gledhill

07-14-2008, 10:52 PM

Howdy Phil,
We use tan as a training aid to develop striking from....along the centerline along with its partner Jum...one elbow goes off line , one stays on the line , both striking ...the guy shifts in front of me the same arms do the opposites a split second earlier , i never stop attacking , just turn to face the strike path ...all relative to movement of the fight and my line...

The stages of chi-sao align this dual ability of the arms , not to stick but to integrate the body to the strike along with alignment of the striking tan and jum. Process ...SLT angles taken to a dan chi-sao stage of training the 1st 1/2 of a punch -> 1/2 tan 1st 1/2 ->strike -> tan elbow leaves the line as the fist strikes out straight, recoil tan back to elbow in to recieve the jum strike...testing and proving alignment for free fighting later...jum is the counter to the 1/2 tan, using 1/2 a strike [training] to align the jum as it strikes directly , using the tans attempts to take it off line as the equalization ..training...each other to strike strikes and do 2 actions.. The bong sao trains to shift force it meets sideways relative to the centerline ...the rear vu sao always ready to fire from the opening ...in dan chi-sao the deflected jum-strike recovers the levered strike by doing neutral elbow position recovery,,,aka fok sao. check , repeat....important stage of development , that usually is done by wrist deflections downwards , and a sticky upward rolling of bong back to a another block idea , bong block to tan block...we never do 2 blocks in succession.

Lok sao introduces ambidextrous ability to fight flanks as they present themselves during the attack...adding further 'modules' into the drills to learn the strike the strike ideas, ingraining natural deflecting strikes coupled with actions that ingrain block elbow back down to strike bong /tan... as bong drops the other arm does a jumming strike...structure and alignment...

This is what WSL used to fight guys :D I used to follow a mainstream way of thinking until I was shown this way....now I would never change. Its a really subtle shift on the standard thinking of arm positions and changes the view from a tan asa arm moving around to interrupt [ I used to do this] to become a simple training aid for a striking assault.
The keys are the 1st actions of the forms , not high /low gaun sao's...but double bil saos along a line and back X'ing our chest. The rear hands Xing are double vusao's...
later in the SLT the 'shaving hands ' are this idea in rotation along our line one out one back always...if one is laterally tanned the rea strikes the space the tan makes , we train not to deliver levers from early dan chi training of 'lever' recovery' aka fok sao, to replace a blocked strike with another , or to trap overturned elbows trying to do a 'body bong sao ' turning the the upper body to attempt to re-direct the strike...wont work.

Many dont hear this way or see it because its isolated to few students of WSL who 1 understood it, 2 could explain it as a constant theme of the system...rather than disjointed FORM..ok now chi-sao to be sticky and feel your opponents intentions ...did that too ...not any more :D I know the guys intentions without feeling the arm to tell me ...I'll be busy attacking him to want to stop and chase ...unless I need bil gee.
Bil gee contains all the chasing /recovery elements we need .These flipping arm actions traverse the line horizontally and vertically allowing one handed parries to fast hands , ducking with hands leading to recover positions...
If a guy lifts our arms [creating a lever out of it] we have the same shaving hand idea , but under the arms , again a key element in re-flanking an arm that has taken yours off the strike idea for a brief second.

because many haven't heard this thinking that it sounds confusing...actually very simple. And very functional.
Concepts guide its goals , tactical delivery with combat survival % in mind , with techniques that allow a non thinking perpetual assault of another individual. Art of Attack we say simultaneous strike and deflect and think a tan in one arm and a strike in the other ....there is another way , it will make you more aggressive and faster , because your spending less time over trapping and sticking redundantly....more like water crashing on rocks.

JPinAZ

07-14-2008, 11:32 PM

Vic,

I pretty much understood what you were saying in the first post.

If I understand corectly, he punches, you step to the right (off line of the attack) and 'block' it with a tan on your CL, while also stepping into the range to hit (or be hit) on your central line. I've seen Phil do something similar in some of his clips. The one where he uses kwan sau against the cross or hook to the inside of the arm where he faces his center to the attack comes to mind.

It still sounds like you are stepping away/to the side of the intial attack. You even said, slight step to the right, and back with the left foot. To me, it sounds like he threw a punch, and you stepped out of the way, even if you are launching an attack of your own. It sounds like you still haven't effected his COG.
I see your point of attacking with your right while blocking with the left, but aren't you also risking stepping into his left follow up punch, or giving him the chance to jam your right hand?

One way I've trained this scenario (and to keep to the nature of the post) is this:
Same start & facing. When he throws the right cross, I could use something called Tien Yan Dei (Heaven/Human/Earth) kiu sau to cover the space at my upper reference (Also using gate thoeries) and stretch the arm out to full extention and off the orignal line with my right hand and a slight adjustment to my left. Basically, taking away any structure or energy he has while setting up my own structures w/proper facing concepts while angling slightly off line & out of reach of his possible left. Now he has to shift his COG (which I have connected with through my kiu) to throw the left and reach me, putting time on my side. Now he's always a step behind and trying to play catch up. Makes taking him out much safer, and easier.
And no talk of technique at all :) This, IMO, is concept fighting.

sanjuro_ronin

07-15-2008, 04:08 AM

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Depends on what you mean - react to what? A punch? someone coming in for a takedown? Or a kick? Or, someone just trying to tie up my hands?

Basically, you first just occupy space with strongest structure on Centerline with fwd intent and proper facing, while setting up 2-line defense. If your opponent intiates an attack, depending on the type of attack, I would then operate under proper gate theories, Tin Yan Dei (Heaven/Human/Earth) concepts, box theories, facing concepts, etc.
Yes, of course various 'techniques' will be employed, but they are not the focus. If someone throws a hook, I don't think 'taan sau' or 'biu sau'. I train so my natural reaction is to continue to occupy space with proper gate theories, use correct bridging strategies, align my 'weapons' with proper facing, and set up for the next attack while taking away my opponents structures. See? No real talk of this technique vs. that technique. Sure, it will look like this from 3rd party perspective, but it's not the way I train to fight with my WC.

The question could also be asked: What if you are cught off guard in a bar? Still the same - Concepts/Principles: occupy space, with proper structure, etc. It's all you really can do, right? Sure, I could just 'taan' against whatever wild punch is thrown at me when caught off guard.... but what if I misread the attack and it blows through the taan, well, now it's on to the next technique, then the next. Doesn't seem to have the same safety factor to me.. Just looping with techniques. Not saying it can't work either, but not as efficient IMO

The question was asked to show that you can't separate technqiue from concept, you need one to "validate" the other, or at least to make it effect.

There is too much either / or in MA, when there is no need for it.

Ultimatewingchun

07-15-2008, 06:21 AM

"It still sounds like you are stepping away/to the side of the intial attack. You even said, slight step to the right, and back with the left foot. To me, it sounds like he threw a punch, and you stepped out of the way, even if you are launching an attack of your own. It sounds like you still haven't effected his COG. (JP)

***IF you were expecting that I actually move in towards his cross with my tan to jam it up - and therefore affect his COG - that would be too dangerous given the fact that I'm assuming the cross was thrown with enough space between us to begin with so that I don't have time to simply jam it before he can extend his punching arm.

I'm not assuming that he doesn't have boxing skills - and therefore actually makes the mistake of launching the cross from so close that I could easily take his space, his balance, and his power away with one simple move.

JPinAZ

07-15-2008, 08:28 AM

The question was asked to show that you can't separate technqiue from concept, you need one to "validate" the other, or at least to make it effect.

There is too much either / or in MA, when there is no need for it.

I hear what you're saying. Yes, I feel you can separate just the techniques and train those without any focus or understanding of concepts/principals, but it doesn't work the other way. And IMO one is much more effective/efficient than the other.

So what is your thoughts? should you focus mainly on technique responses as the original post implies, and keep a big bag of techniques from which to draw from when the going gets tough? Or, are the concepts/principals more important as the driving force behind your actions?
What drives the way you train/fight?

sanjuro_ronin

07-15-2008, 08:33 AM

Ok, then what is your take on the whole thing? should you focus mainly on technique responses as the original post implies, and keep a big bag of techniques from which to draw from when the going gets tough? Or, are the concepts/principals more important as the driving force behind your actions? What drives the way you train/fight?

I don't see concepts and techniques are something "different" or "opposites".
I don't see you having one without the other, techniques without the concepts to guide them are useless, as much as concepts without the techniques to apply them.
How do you apply the concept of "chain punching" without being able to chain punch?
Or how can you apply chain punching without understanding the concepts behind it and when and when not to apply it?
And why would you learn them independantly of each other?

sanjuro_ronin

07-15-2008, 08:36 AM

I hear what you're saying. Yes, I feel you can separate just the techniques and train those without any focus or understanding of concepts/principals, but it doesn't work the other way. And IMO one is much more effective/efficient than the other.

You must have posted this when I was replying before...
Everyone is familar with boxing, yes?
Lets look at striking in boxing - 4 strikes (basically) - Jab, cross, hook, uppercut ( and all the variations thereof).
Boxing coaches don't go on about the concept of a left hook, nor do they go on about the "technique" of a left hook, simply put:
This is the left hook, this is how you do it, this is when you do it, this is when NOT to do it, this is how you defend it.
Simple, effective.

JPinAZ

07-15-2008, 08:44 AM

***IF you were expecting that I actually move in towards his cross with my tan to jam it up - and therefore affect his COG - that would be too dangerous given the fact that I'm assuming the cross was thrown with enough space between us to begin with so that I don't have time to simply jam it before he can extend his punching arm.

No, wasn't implying that at all. And I agree, that would be too dangerous! I was describing a response I train in some of the Kiu Sau modules I've been focusing on, no tan even in kiu sau :)

I'm not assuming that he doesn't have boxing skills....
Good, it's always safe not too assume anything!

- and therefore actually makes the mistake of launching the cross from so close that I could easily take his space, his balance, and his power away with one simple move.

But wouldn't that be nice if you could? ;)
(BTW, nothing is 'simple' in fighting someone with skill)

Now, it still sounds like when fighting a boxer you do move right into his second possible incoming weapon (the left) while somewhat running from the first. Maybe I am missing something, or we just do things very differently in our WC. And, I'm not saying you can't make it work either. I just wouldn't feel as comfortable with that type of response, it goes against some very important concepts as I understand them.
Maybe a video would help clear things up. Can you point to something phil's put out that shows what you are describing?
Also, what concepts/principals drive this action? Or is it more of a technique response to an attack?

JPinAZ

07-15-2008, 08:55 AM

You must have posted this when I was replying before...
Everyone is familar with boxing, yes?
Lets look at striking in boxing - 4 strikes (basically) - Jab, cross, hook, uppercut ( and all the variations thereof).
Boxing coaches don't go on about the concept of a left hook, nor do they go on about the "technique" of a left hook, simply put:
This is the left hook, this is how you do it, this is when you do it, this is when NOT to do it, this is how you defend it.
Simple, effective.

And that's why I don't box anymore :)

Sure, boxing can be effective in making a very good fighter, no doubt, but how efficient is this training? There is a reason I identify more with WC than boxing now. Boxing was a lot of fun, and you could build some great skill boxing. And, while boxing does have some sound strategies, I found the concepts/principals behind WC to offer much more in the way of efficiency and economy of energy/motion that boxing did. I'm not getting any younger..

Boxing still is a sport, so you are limited to the constraints of rules. In Boxing you relied more on attributes for your victory. Sure, all fighting requires good attributes, but I find what you learn training WC gives us much more than that. Techniques are techniques, every MA has them. But it's what is behind them (if anything more) that makes the difference. I tend not to focus too much on 'just the techniques' as much, so much more to WC than that!
Maybe we just train differently.

** Edit, after seeing your other post - I don't view chain punching as a concept. It's just a flurry because after your first punch, there is still an opening, it's more of an 'event' to me. Now it's the answer of 'why' someone can flurry at any given moment, that's where you find the concept/principal *

Jonathan

PS and yeah, I changed my post after putting it up.

sanjuro_ronin

07-15-2008, 09:45 AM

Sure, boxing can be effective in making a very good fighter, no doubt, but how efficient is this training?

You know a more efficient way to BOX than BOXING?
Please share.

Boxing still is a sport, so you are limited to the constraints of rules. In Boxing you relied more on attributes for your victory. Sure, all fighting requires good attributes, but I find what you learn training WC gives us much more than that. Techniques are techniques, every MA has them. But it's what is behind them (if anything more) that makes the difference. I tend not to focus too much on 'just the techniques' as much, so much more to WC than that!
Maybe we just train differently.

Actually, we probably do train differently, having fought many fighters from different systems, not just WC or TCMA but from western and other eastern systems also, I have understood that "****genized" concepts leave too narrow a bandwidth to be effective across the board.
Even concepts tend to be made "style specific" and in that, they are just as bad as "techniques" that are "style specific".
To me, you can't really separate concepts from techniques or vice-versa and I don't see why you would want to.

JPinAZ

07-15-2008, 10:20 AM

You know a more efficient way to BOX than BOXING?
Please share.

That's not what I said. I was talking of a more efficient way to fight (which is why I used the word 'fight'). IMO, it's called Wing Chun.

To me, you can't really separate concepts from techniques or vice-versa and I don't see why you would want to.

Actually, you can seperate out the techniques and just drill them without the concepts. A jab is a technique, you can train it with proper mechanics and nothing else behind it (no theory) and it will always be a technique. Jab is just a label to the shape/technique anyway.
But I would agree, I don't see why you would want to seperate them and just focus on the technique. Well, unless you are just focusing on mechanics. But it seemed the OP thinks it's a sound way to train and that techniques are more important than the concepts, which is why I jumped into the discussion.

sanjuro_ronin

07-15-2008, 10:25 AM

That's not what I said. I was talking of a more efficient way to fight (which is why I used the word 'fight'). IMO, it's called Wing Chun.

But I was talking about boxing, ;) LOL !

It can be debated as to which is a "better way to fight", but that has nothing to do with this thread, so.

Actually, you can seperate out the techniques and just drill them without the concepts. A jab is a technique, you can train it with proper mechanics and nothing else behind it (no theory) and it will always be a technique. Jab is just a label to the shape/technique anyway.
I don't know any boxer that does that.

But I would agree, I don't see why you would want to seperate them and just focus on the technique. Well, unless you are just focusing on mechanics. But it seemed the OP thinks it's a sound way to train and that techniques are more important than the concepts, which is why I jumped into the discussion.

I know we are more-or-less on the same page, I like discussing this stuff too, not here to change anyone's POV at all, just like talking about all things MA related.
Strange eh?

Ultimatewingchun

07-15-2008, 02:19 PM

"Now, it still sounds like when fighting a boxer you do move right into his second possible incoming weapon (the left) while somewhat running from the first. Maybe I am missing something, or we just do things very differently in our WC. And, I'm not saying you can't make it work either. I just wouldn't feel as comfortable with that type of response, it goes against some very important concepts as I understand them.
Maybe a video would help clear things up. Can you point to something phil's put out that shows what you are describing?
Also, what concepts/principles drive this action? Or is it more of a technique response to an attack?" (JP)

***NOT running from his first strike - simply utlizing the principle of not fighting force-with-force...so I'm cutting into the line he's punching on with a very agressive tan slicing in from a slight angle...and because I actually moved into his territory on the other side of the action simultaneously with my other hand as a strike - I'm confident I will beat him to the punch if he tries to come back with his other (left) hand.

Not to mention that my (first) strike will almost always be at his shoulder - just to reinforce the idea of making sure he can't strike with that hand.

In other words, I'm jamming up the line he'd need to strike on before he could actually launch.

As for the principles involved: as said, not fighting force head on, simultaneous attack and defense, protection of the centerline, economy of movement by utilizing straight line punching.

No vids available of this at the present time.

canglong

07-15-2008, 06:02 PM

Victor,
Jonathan said he would neutralize the right with his right effect the center of gravity by extending the arm and set up out of reach of the left. His continued right hand contact would ensure he was aware of what the intent of the opponents next move would most likely be. That is just applying sensible wing chun concepts with logical hand-to-hand combat tactics and strategies.

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
***NOT running from his first strike - simply utlizing the principle of not fighting force-with-force...so I'm cutting into the line he's punching on with a very agressive tan slicing in from a slight angle...and because I actually moved into his territory on the other side of the action simultaneously with my other hand as a strike - I'm confident I will beat him to the punch if he tries to come back with his other (left) hand.When you say "I'm confident I will beat him to the punch" what theory, concept, tactic or strategy are you using to reach your conclusion?

Ultimatewingchun

07-15-2008, 06:22 PM

"Jonathan said he would neutralize the right with his right effect the center of gravity by extending the arm and set up out of reach of the left. His continued right hand contact would ensure he was aware of what the intent of the opponents next move would most likely be." (canglong)

***CAN you please explain exactly how he could neutralize the right with his right without immediately getting hit with the opponent's left - since JP's way of dealing with the cross nows exposes his own right chest (nipple) and shoulder lines? He's abandoned the defense of those lines - because he's decided to defend against the cross WITH THE WRONG ARM...:eek:

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

"When you say 'beat him to the punch' what theory, concept, tactic or strategy are you using to reach your conclusion?" (canglong)

***VERY SIMPLE... I'm throwing my strike on his left side almost exactly at the very same instant as when his rear cross was going into it's final extension on his right side - but with an extra added attraction...I'm now closer to him than when this interchange started on his left side (due to the slight half step I took as he launched the cross) - but his left hand has been pulled back in order to supply the torgue and reach needed for his rear cross to be executed...

and my right arm/hand has stayed in place (it hasn't been pulled back).

And that's the ticket. He gets hit and I don't.

What's the theory or concept involved?

In TWC we're taught a very important principle/concept:

You almost always defend against his right arm with your left arm and you defend against his left arm with your right arm...because it's the most efficient ECONOMY OF MOTION - WHEN DEFENDING THE GATES...

until if and when you can manipulate the situation wherein you have a two-on-one on the outside of his lead arm...then you can reverse the sequence SAFELY...since you've now positioned your body away from his rear hand/arm.

A major part of TWC's overall principles, concepts, and strategies.

canglong

07-15-2008, 06:44 PM

Question

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
***CAN you please explain exactly how he could neutralize the right with his right without immediately getting hit with the opponent's left - since JP's way of dealing with the cross nows exposes his own left chest (nipple) and shoulder lines? He's abandoned the defense of those lines - because he's decided to defend against the cross WITH THE WRONG ARM...
Answer

Originally posted by JPinAZ
One way I've trained this scenario (and to keep to the nature of the post) is this:
Same start & facing. When he throws the right cross, I could use something called Tien Yan Dei (Heaven/Human/Earth) kiu sau to cover the space at my upper reference (Also using gate thoeries) and stretch the arm out to full extention and off the orignal line with my right hand and a slight adjustment to my left. Basically, taking away any structure or energy he has while setting up my own structures w/proper facing concepts while angling slightly off line & out of reach of his possible left. Now he has to shift his COG (which I have connected with through my kiu) to throw the left and reach me, putting time on my side. Now he's always a step behind and trying to play catch up. Makes taking him out much safer, and easier.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
but his left hand has been pulled back in order to supply the torgue and reach needed for his rear cross to be executed...People that train using a wu sau would be in position to block your punch which is precisely why wu sau is trained.

Ultimatewingchun

07-16-2008, 05:57 AM

sanjuro_ronin

07-16-2008, 06:02 AM

There are much better techniques to "block" a hook than Wu Sao....

JPinAZ

07-16-2008, 09:09 AM

Wu sao against the left hook that's sure to come is not going to work. Even if you manage to block the hook (which I doubt very highly) - you will now get blasted with something else because you'd be so out of position - since a serious left hook against your left wu sao is clearly going to move you back and away.

Again: it's like a chess game wherein you initially moved the wrong piece (ie.- the wrong arm) and now you're going down a slippery slope.

I think what tony is getting at is you have wu sau as second line of defense, it's from our 2-line concept.

CAN you please explain exactly how he could neutralize the right with his right without immediately getting hit with the opponent's left - since JP's way of dealing with the cross nows exposes his own right chest (nipple) and shoulder lines? He's abandoned the defense of those lines - because he's decided to defend against the cross WITH THE WRONG ARM...

I already did this, I explained it in my previous post Tony quoted.

And wrong hand?!? What good is your lead hand doing you if you can't use it? Are you saying that you can't defend against an attack with your lead jong hand, but instead have to wait until he is close enough that you have to use the rear hand? Maybe we have very different views of timing and range? Perhaps this is why you step away from the attack and into his space to begin with, because he is already close enough to you that you have to defend from the rear wu sau hand with a taan? (again, not saying you can't make it work, but Kiu Sau covers this sort of longer range quit completely)

Besides, I wasn't implying defending the right cross with my right lead hand while still staying in direct range of his left. I would agree with you, that would be a mistake for sure! Nor did I imply I would turn my facing in a way that my right side would be exposed to direct contact from his left.
That's why I used words like 'proper facing', and talked about a 'slight adjustment to my left' and said 'setting up my own structures w/proper facing concepts while angling slightly off line & out of reach of his possible left'. Didn't you read my posts?

Maybe you don't really understand what I was talking about when describing the kiu sau engagement, which is cool. No offense, but for someone that claims to fully understand kiu sau, I am thinking you are talking about something totally different that what I am :) But, feel free to ask more questions, I will try to give you a better understanding of what I am talking about.

Jonathan

Vajramusti

07-16-2008, 10:07 AM

There are much better techniques to "block" a hook than Wu Sao....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((A good hooker<g> should not be underestimated- there are many variations in hooks- inside?
Can be xxxxxxx in various ways.outside? Single? Double? Triple? Varying speeds and tempos? By itself? Off a jab? aftera cross?
Can the defender move out of the way or inside the power line?
But-One size doesnt fit all.
Lots of "techniques" and defenses possible- but even variations of wu can do- depending on skill and timing- learned (gasp) through good chi sao. IMO FWIW I find that many people dont even understand the structure of a good wu and its variations. Same for other "saos" and footwork.Goes back to whether someone has absorbed and learned and practiced the fundamentals well and spent time on the proper development. Sometimes you can beat a hook with a straighter kuen.

joy chaudhuri

sanjuro_ronin

07-16-2008, 10:17 AM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((A good hooker<g> should not be underestimated- there are many variations in hooks- inside?
Can be xxxxxxx in various ways.outside? Single? Double? Triple? Varying speeds and tempos? By itself? Off a jab? aftera cross?
Can the defender move out of the way or inside the power line?
But-One size doesnt fit all.
Lots of "techniques" and defenses possible- but even variations of wu can do- depending on skill and timing- learned (gasp) through good chi sao. IMO FWIW I find that many people dont even understand the structure of a good wu and its variations. Same for other "saos" and footwork.Goes back to whether someone has absorbed and learned and practiced the fundamentals well and spent time on the proper development. Sometimes you can beat a hook with a straighter kuen.

joy chaudhuri

Good points, I tend to see people trying a Wu sao from the outside tying to "flow" with the hook, not good and I see some try it from the inside into the inner part of the hooking arm, not much better.

sanjuro_ronin

07-16-2008, 10:25 AM

So that there is no confusion, this is the wu sao I am referring to:

Ultimatewingchun

07-16-2008, 02:30 PM

"What good is your lead hand doing you if you can't use it? Are you saying that you can't defend against an attack with your lead jong hand, but instead have to wait until he is close enough that you have to use the rear hand? Maybe we have very different views of timing and range?" (JP)

***AND THEN, of course, we also have your remarks questioning whether or not I fully understand the dynamics of kiu sao.

But I'm not going to follow down the slippery slope with you (or Tony)...

since it's you two guys who clearly don't get it.

And I've got much better things to do than to continue to debate this with the two of you - particularly so since this should be so obvious.

So I'll just say it one more time and then I'm moving on to some other topic within the context of this thread.

IF YOU TRY TO STOP A RIGHT REAR CROSS WITH YOUR LEADING RIGHT ARM/HAND - and assuming that he didn't throw it from a half a mile away - so that you might possibly put a right leg straight front kick into his gut before he could get anything else off...

YOU'VE OPENED A BIG CAN OF WORMS THAT COULD EASILY GET YOU KNOCKED OUT IN THE END....since you've used the wrong hand. I guess your training has never covered the concepts I gave earlier about what gates need to be covered by what hand - which usually corresponds to using your right against his left and your left against his right when boxing punches are being thrown at you.

(AND precisely because you haven't learned that - you're now dependent upon your rear left hand, second-line-of-defense, wu sao to save your a55 from his followup left hook).

LOL.....:rolleyes: :eek: :cool:

Morale of the story: You can use your lead jong hand to defend things, alright - but not in this instance. :o

canglong

07-16-2008, 02:46 PM

There are much better techniques to "block" a hook than Wu Sao...sanjuro_ronin,
The wu sau may not be considered a technique by all practitioners. The point in that reference was that short power strikes are not necessarily driven by long range mechanics like drawing your arm back.
Furthermore, the point that JPinAZ illustrated was that some wing chun techniques are concept driven and in that way neither is more important than the other. The example given by JPinAZ made reference on how to engage an opponent using gate theory, the concepts of Tien Yan Dei, kiu sau,center line,facing and spacing without specifics of techniques. Point being a person only need little experience and practice to understand the ideas behind them to apply them to different techniques as they see fit as long as the theory and concepts are applied correctly. Ultimatewingchun's scenario was driven by the specifics of the technique the right cross JPinAZ described a method of self defense based on the most efficient use of time covering the most essential points of space rather than the use of any particular technique.

Ultimatewingchun

07-16-2008, 02:49 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ;):D:p

Vajramusti

07-16-2008, 05:07 PM

just in time. Gotta go do some wing chun ---otherwise its zzzzzz too-another thread grinds down.

joy chaudhuri

couch

07-16-2008, 05:38 PM

just in time. Gotta go do some wing chun ---otherwise its zzzzzz too-another thread grinds down.

joy chaudhuri

Once a thread goes more than a few pages long, I usually don't check in on it. Sometimes I do...depends on who's posting.

Some people's 2 cents are worth more than others. :)

JPinAZ

07-16-2008, 07:30 PM

Vic,

I thought we were discussing the topic of the thread for the most part. I thought we were talking about the differences between technique-based responses and concept-based responses to a scenario you intitally gave. If you don't want to discuss it further, that's your call.

FWIW, I never questioned "whether or not you fully understand the dynamics of kiu sao.". Really, I don't have a clue about what you know. I only said maybe we are talking 2 different things.

In case you forgot:
"Basically, I think you don't really understand what I was talking about anyway when describing the kiu sau engagement. For someone that claims to fully understand kiu sau, I am thinking you are talking about something totally different that what I am :)"

Sorry to wake you, you can go back to your nap now :cool:

Ultimatewingchun

07-16-2008, 09:21 PM

Regardless of what fighting system (or systems) you employ - you need to have numerous "techniques" in your arsenal (your muscle memory) to use in various different situations and fighting applications - with certain principles, concepts, and fighting strategies to back them up and add to them as the need arises.

It's got to be a yin/yang constant flow back-and-forth between the two - both in your head and in terms of what comes out of your body.

You drill the techniques to the point where you basically try not to think anymore (or as little as possible) about what you'll do if this or that happens...and then refer back to the principles and concepts when there's a bump in the road somewhere - for answers about what the next "technique" you use shall (or should) be.

I'll give a for-instance that's non wing chun - but part of my muscle memory "arsenal" :

Most conventional grappling wisdom usually says that the way to survive a rear naked choke (if you survive at all) is to lower your chin (so as to hide your neck, throat, and carotids)...and turn your head in the direction of his shoulder (as opposed to turning towards the hand of the arm he has wrapped - or is trying to wrap - around your throat).

I've found that the opposite is in fact the best course of action...turn your head, your face, and your whole body toward his hand - and not toward his shoulder.

Why?

Because the connection between his two arms is the only real "door" (or opening) through which you can escape. If you can have all of your force, energy, facing and direction going to that spot - while now using your arms and hands to try and separate his two arms/hands that are applying the squeeze...

you have a better shot of escaping (through the door).

But there's no door to escape through if you turn toward his shoulder - since his arm is naturally attached to his shoulder.

AND I HAVE NOW COME TO LOOK UPON THIS AS A "PRINCIPLE" (or a concept) to be considered (thrown into the mix and judged for it's possible overall efficiency)....when working various different kinds of wrestling/grappling escapes.

And the actual "techniques" will flow out of that concept as the need arises.