The Vertical Punch. [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Lee Chiang Po

07-26-2009, 08:29 PM

When you break them all down, you will see that there is a lot of wasted motion with hooks, crosses and such. Speed, and weight behind the blow is what makes it powerful. You can reach the same speeds in a short 1 foot punch as you can with a hook or cross or roundhouse. With these other strikes you do not have your full weight or root behind the blow. You just have the speed. This is not to say you can not get hammered by one of them. People get knocked out by them all the time. But in speaking of power generated by a punch, the vertical punch can be extremely powerful. You should be able to generate up to a thousand pounds of punch with lots of training and physical conditioning. The very nature of the punch makes it look weak on the heavy bag. There is little to no follow through, and the shock is quickly dispersed into the target on impact. The target might not even be propelled backward at all. Follow through is nothing more than shove added to the punch. And it usually occurs well after the shock is dispersed. Little or nothing is gained by it.
I didn't know what chain punching was until I joined this forum. I thought it was silly when it was explained to me. You can throw several punches in combination, but just firing off a chain of punches does not really make sense. The very nature of WC fighting says you do not stand off and fire shots at an opponent anyway. Most would simply miss, and if you connect it would probably not be real effective. We like to get in and fire shots at targets that are well within the short range of the punch. A shot that hits on target will do far more damage to an opponent then a haphazard shot at them.

AdrianK

07-26-2009, 08:32 PM

have you read Dempsey's book?

Absolutely. I lent my friend my copy about a year ago and he hasn't given it back :mad:

This thread is less to gain knowledge on the subject for myself, I have my own experiences with it, its more to promote discussion of various viewpoints of instructors and students from around the world.

TenTigers

07-26-2009, 08:47 PM

alot of people put the chain punches down, and compare them to the power etc of boxer's punches, thinking they know better. Most of these people really never learned properly, or understood the punch. A sledgehammer is not better than a ballpien hammer,a tack hammer, a framing hammer,etc. it's different. It has different uses, which it is suited for.

RGVWingChun

07-26-2009, 09:44 PM

I think the Wing Chun punch is a powerful punch BUT we don't use it with the same tactics that a boxer uses their jabs, crosses, hooks, etc....

For instance, a jab is often times meant to be a weaker quicker strike to usually lead in something else...often times the jab functions as a "check" or to keep the opponent at a distance. When I spar with people, I sometimes stick out a jab even as a measuring tool of sorts to plant my cross. So its a set up technique....Wing Chun doesn't use a punch as a set up per se. We don't use it to keep our opponent at a distance either. We use it to fill in gaps...where those gaps lead (the sternum, the throat, etc...) is another thing. It could fill a gap as a defensive move to cut off a line and wedge in for a strike even...

The Wing Chun punch is just a different kind of power/energy altogether. The punch I would probably compare it to the most from boxing is the Cross. The cross seeks to have its whole body (including stance) behind it and its meant to be a powerful shot. The Wing Chun punch is supposed to have the whole body behind it and it supposed to be a powerful shot.

Those are just some of my thoughts,

Moses

AdrianK

07-26-2009, 09:55 PM

I think the Wing Chun punch is a powerful punch BUT we don't use it with the same tactics that a boxer uses their jabs, crosses, hooks, etc....

So as a question to you, do you believe it can be used with similar tactics to jabs/crosses/hooks?

Do you believe there are benefits to employing not just those strategies? Application of the vertical punch in wing chun styles alone, varies far and wide. Let alone styles outside of WC. If so, why and also if not, why?

For instance, a jab is often times meant to be a weaker quicker strike to usually lead in something else...often times the jab functions as a "check" or to keep the opponent at a distance.

Well yeah, thats one application of the jab. Back to what TenTigers mentioned about reading dempseys book for instance, it is definitely not the only application of the jab. Boxers vary far and wide with how they utilize their lead hand.

k gledhill

07-26-2009, 09:59 PM

If you concentrate on the 'fists' you will miss all thats going on behind them. There is a reason for the odd elbows in strikes.
The striking is two fold, iow the elbows and the wrists are held in certain alignment to allow a conceptual attacking idea to work.
Without the attacking idea we could just flail away with the same stuff everyone else does....
To be able to attack with abandon and spend little time thinking about your own defense the elbows are held inwards ...like old time bare knuckle boxers. But the similarities end there.
The reasons for the arms being held in is to make the forearms hold acute angles PRIOR
to becoming a full strike whereby the elbows leave their positions to strike, recovering back for the next cycle etc...
The force we can generate is quite surprising, considering we cant chamber or recoil back like a big haymaker :D...reason, we are using our forearms as an alternating line of deflection force, ballistic force, generated by short controlled focused strikes to the target areas and back again. The force being generated in several ways. Primarily from structured delivery from the ground [ etc...] hips [ hips big part] to the movement of each fighter.
Like any fight some punching timing gives more power than others ...we can use timing as well to gain force too.

With a combination of several actions ...we can develop some decent stopping power :D
I can attest to that from an ill spent youth ...ok ill spent mid life...I have hit quite anumber of guys in my past [ I can hear terence warming up his fingers now :D] bar trash they may have been but they could take a punch ;) like any good fighter...but the point being punch power of the vertical punch....

Its vertical because thats the position the fist takes when you squeeze your elbows inward. Its actually more like a upper cut combined with a cross...elbows low forearms curving in, trying to maintain the inward angles so they 'cut' any entry lines , one at a time as they swap out along a flanked arm/position etc...

Only a line of defense , not the be all end all of the striking system.

A basic training exercise in WSL VT is to face a heavy bag in a stance you choose, lead leg for a drill...then keeping your fists so they are like 2 uppercuts , keep your elbows in front of your stomach and alternate blows to the bag while keeping the arms the same positions back and forth 1-2-1-2-1-2 hitting with the elbows in in front of your stomach etc...you can generate force , but the key factor is to develop endurance for striking with elbows inwards ....not to deliver body shots from a clinch face on....the strikes go in directly to the bags center not like an upper cut ...just a drill for elbows while the strikes are in a tan /elbow position moving in and out repeatedly...
The record stands at 40 minutes Desmond Spencer ! 5 minutes and I am crying ... the endurance for keeping the techniques working along with some stamina in general for fighting ...and not collapsing under attacking pressure from a similar partners attempts to make your elbows go out and allow entry easily.
drill not a reality. [Sorry T]

In chi-sao we practice 'when the hand is free strike the partner with sufficient force from heckling to hurt them ' :D not just tag, but move me you big girls blouse, you call that a punch etc... the inch punch can prove the force or no force easily...

You can also show how to 'rob' the opponent of space to generate force by attacking them...an inch forwards will take quite a bit of force from a strike ...we don't block by allowing strikes to hit us in the head , just to show the bad timing on the partners part...ergo to slow, or the elbows came out as the punch landed allowing a counter punch to land as they hit you...they try to close the elbows down and forget to strike you with force etc...you can see the simple idea of the drills ...not sticking ...STRIKING and simultaneous deflecting in smooth single actions that don't involve wrist actions , but inwardly held elbows...which lead to a

vertical fist.

many concentrate on the 'fist' missing all that heavenly gory, er glory I meant, not gory....:D I love that movie !

t_niehoff

07-26-2009, 10:07 PM

What're your thoughts on this punch and how it is applied in Wing Chun?

How powerful do you feel it is in comparison to a jab, cross, uppercut, etc.

And with proper training, do you believe it can be applied as powerfully as any of those punches?

I rarely ever see anyone practicing this punch on a heavy bag, and when they do it is usually very weak in comparison.

I personally feel with proper training, strength and structure, it can be empowered as much as you want it to be. What're your thoughts on it?

The important characteristic of the WCK punch is that the elbow is kept down (sunk). It should be called the elbow-down punch. ;) When you keep your elbows down and in -- as you NEED to do when on the inside and when attached to an opponent -- your fist will align vertically naturally.

And, in my view, the objective of the WCK punch is not the same as boxing's punches. Its objective is to break an opponent's body structure (which is not boxing's objective). The WCK punch is not for finishing.

AdrianK

07-26-2009, 10:13 PM

k gledhill

07-26-2009, 10:31 PM

Drills get confusing , they can be misleading. Like chi-sao, much of it is redundant to fighting, like facing squarely doing rolling up and down with 2 extended arms...;)

dan chi sao starts us on a path of development and is also redundant ...it teaches a 2 stage strike for each striking arm position, tan to strike...jum to strike...in fighting we don't do either in a 1-2 beat any more , just like hitting the bag it develops a certain technical ability, that is guided by other ideas...

add 2 arms in random entry and countering aka chi-sao and we have yet another stage to free fighting , using certain arm techniques with tactical movements etc...

Doing a sticky anything is only for partners in a similar system...you dont give another guy the benfit of sticking to them...sticking only makes you equal...and thats not the idea of the training ...

each arm ALONE is being trained to act as 2 per strike ...if contact is made...

if the striking lead arm is stopped by some form of contact, then a lead/man & rear / vu attacking hand can follow up with plan 'B', by attacking with common attack/deflecting cycles.....jut /strike rear hand...pak lead, strike rear...gaun low >strike high, etc...then back to 2 free hands striking with the added jum/tan training to allow them to strike and cover your attacking entry angles naturally as you face angle s and move to keep the distances and angles as chi-sao ....not sticking rolling..chasing ...like a wrestling match.

-木叶-

07-26-2009, 10:32 PM

The WCK punch is not for finishing.

This, is very true. In my own words, it will not KO, or rather, it is not intended to be.
Unless the sucker punch is brought up.

Wu Wei Wu

07-26-2009, 10:54 PM

The body punches, not the fist. If a person can use their body properly for power, then vertical/horizontal fist doesn't make any difference.

That said, there do seem to be tactical reasons for using a vertical fist in WC e.g. elbow-in position creates a sound structure and elbow can be used to make opponents attack deviate away from its intended path.

Suki

Liddel

07-26-2009, 10:57 PM

The vertical VT punch is sharper than most with good wrist control and IME is a damaging finishing punch. TO say otherwise is limiting yourself and id say you havent trained it enough.

Ive dropped and drawn blood from sparring partners with 16oz gloves on using the punch although i would say personally its not my heaviest action.

And while there was an equal use of straight horizontal and vertical fists, Vetor belfort seemed to be able to finish wandy in rio heroes with them :o

Ive had good results from the vert punch and good palm strikes.

DREW

k gledhill

07-26-2009, 11:00 PM

Ive had some good results with it :D and palm strikes...Ive broken some jaws , noses too... ALL depends on your timing and theirs..if you play 1st come 1st served , you can hit with head on timing = lots of pain to the recipient ...A lot of times you can hit one guy and stop a potential fight with his 3-4 friends :D they see the guy holding up a wall with his face or laying at your feet and suddenly get a hesitation to come too close to me ...

If you hit a guy too quickly , which is a common mistake there is no force...I learned this in the doorway of a nightclub one evening , i was hitting a deserving patron repeatedly in the face, fast while trapping him against a wall by the exit...he just looked at me so I sloooowed down and put more distance and body behind it, it worked ...you can also wait and bide your time and you can catch guys coming after you ..I would draw guys into stepping to me by slightly going back ...as they entered I would hold firm and tag them...depending where they were [heads] available targets I would hit a low head charge with a palm strike inducing some considerable pain to the unfortunate guy, who would be holding his head while moving away from me :D

If I hit a guy as he encroached the 'hard hat area' unwisely I could turn face strike and get head on all at once ...KO or at least , no more trying to ruin my evening at work.:rolleyes:

Other times guys need hitting more than once ...a good elbow ...they recover and come back for more...a good low kick...then a head shot ...with my foot this time KO...

other times Ive hit guys and they stood after , but you could see they didnt want to come close again ....

A good drill to develop a good flanking off body twisting facing strike is to swing a heavy bag laterally in front of you, as it reaches the apex of each swing you stop it momentarily from returning to the other side with a strike , using full torque and hips etc....
I used this in many fights...my movements in fighting where to achieve the positions to throw this strike...blind siding /flanking became the norm..facing 3-4 guys only means which one steps closest to you first and gets 'it'.

never failed me in 25 years of ....delivering the good news ...

A good punch and timing ....

Phil Redmond

07-26-2009, 11:11 PM

Ultimatewingchun

07-26-2009, 11:25 PM

Unless you're Mas Oyama! :eek: :cool:

AdrianK

07-26-2009, 11:34 PM

Boxers used to use the vertical fist when fighting bare knuckle. They also continued to use vertical fists when the gloves were really thin. When gloves got more padding people started using the horizontal fist. Obviously the vertical fist was better when there was little or no padding.

Now is there a scientific explanation for that? :D

The horizontal fist does tend to get by someones guard easier than a vertical fist, when wearing gloves. But is that the only reason? Or are you saying there is a power difference, that the vertical punch is more powerful than horizontal without padding, but less powerful than the horizontal with?

LSWCTN1

07-27-2009, 03:01 AM

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 04:45 AM

Now is there a scientific explanation for that? :D

The horizontal fist does tend to get by someones guard easier than a vertical fist, when wearing gloves. But is that the only reason? Or are you saying there is a power difference, that the vertical punch is more powerful than horizontal without padding, but less powerful than the horizontal with?
An Osteologist once told me that the bones are better aligned in the vertical punch which results in less trauma to the bones in the hand and forearm on impact. We have two MDs at our school and they concur.

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 04:54 AM

. . . . a while ago i was with a few pals mucking about on a punching machine - so i decided to compare my right cross to my vertical punch. My experience was that my right cross was approx 20% more powerful (can t remember the actual figures), but obviously left me with a slightly lower repertoire for the next shot once thrown.
Once I read "mucking about" I thought he's British, then I looked at your location. DOH! My Sifu grew up in HK says that a lot. :)

once your punch gets to a certain power, and you can deliver it correctly it doesnt matter what is being thrown - its all a ko :cool:
I most definitely agree with that one. ;)

LSWCTN1

07-27-2009, 05:05 AM

Once I read "mucking about" I thought he's British, then I looked at your location. DOH! My Sifu who was grew up in HK says that a lot. :)

we actually share a common line at one point - my Dad (my 1st instructor) trained under John Darwen and Alan Lamb, before he went to HK

k gledhill

07-27-2009, 06:01 AM

one thing that doesnt seem to have been brought up yet...

the WC punch also leaves you in a much better position if you dont drop the opponent :o or worse, miss :eek:

a while ago i was with a few pals mucking about on a punching machine - so i decided to compare my right cross to my vertical punch. My experience was that my right cross was approx 20% more powerful (can t remember the actual figures), but obviously left me with a slightly lower repertoire for the next shot once thrown.

once your punch gets to a certain power, and you can deliver it correctly it doesnt matter what is being thrown - its all a ko :cool:

Give that man a cigar.... thats the idea behind the arms positions....

the forearms rotate to occupy the line AS they strike.....each arm is tan/jum,jum/tan
each strike from a tan or jum moves along the centerline back and forth recovering , re-firing , not chasing off the line ...missing and opening up your defense.
It only depends what facing angle you adopt to the opponent across their line of force...aka what side they extend towards you...
Because we are fighting a guy who can feint or throw random lines we strike with our arms in positions to 'unthinking' strike, if they make contact with our striking arm, they [our arms] are positioned to not allow entry and 'exchange' punches if we miss. Missing means we are simply on our lines still firing...
If we miss we are still centered because we never left the centerline to chase or throw big swinging punches ...why we dont bob & weave and move like a ducking boxer .

t_niehoff

07-27-2009, 06:19 AM

So then what, in WCK, is for finishing? :D Elbows are great, but require close range. Boxing has finishing ability on the outside, the mid-range, and the inside.

Do you believe there's any value to adapting a longer-range vertical punch? Whether it be rotating your hips and shoulders with it, or going all-out jkd-style?

Again, just inciting discussion. Not really stating my own beliefs here.

WCK is a close range, inside, attached fighting method, so its finishing tools will be close range tools, like as you say, the elbow.

Yes, you're right, boxing has the ability to finish at all ranges, but our punches aren't like boxing punches. Boxing can finish close since clinching (attached fighting) isn't permitted. Can you do boxing type punches in chi sao?

At longer range, the outsdie, the WCK punch permits us to gain attachment so that we can fight on the inside (the WCK kuit, hand goes out doesnot come back). WCK's power does not come from rotation, like boxing. Whe you are close and attached,and try to rotate, you either give your opponent your flank/back or will find yourself flying.

t_niehoff

07-27-2009, 06:23 AM

An Osteologist once told me that the bones are better aligned in the vertical punch which results in less trauma to the bones in the hand and forearm on impact. We have two MDs at our school and they concur.

That's simply not true. THINK about it. Rotating the fist doesn't in any way change the alignment of any bones except in the forearm (the radius and ulna). So how would their rotation cause less trauma to the hand?

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 06:30 AM

we actually share a common line at one point - my Dad (my 1st instructor) trained under John Darwen and Alan Lamb, before he went to HK
(I wrote "my Sifu who was grew up . . . oops, typo . . . lol)
Wow, small world. I guess you know that I studied with Sifu Lamb when he taught in NYC. When I was in L.A. in 2006 I had lunch with him. He's a great guy and a very good Sifu.

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 06:32 AM

That's simply not true. THINK about it. Rotating the fist doesn't in any way change the alignment of any bones except in the forearm (the radius and ulna). So how would their rotation cause less trauma to the hand?
Wow, Law and Medicine. You're simply amazing. :rolleyes:
I guess the bone doctor has no clue regarding human bone structure.

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 06:39 AM

That's simply not true. THINK about it. Rotating the fist doesn't in any way change the alignment of any bones except in the forearm (the radius and ulna). So how would their rotation cause less trauma to the hand?
I did THINK about it. And I guess it's not true that boxers way back used the vertical fist. My "opinion" is that in the vertical fist the body is directly behind the elbow whereas the elbow isn't in the horizontal punch.
Notice I said IMO since I'm not a doctor or kinesiologist, etc. ;)

t_niehoff

07-27-2009, 06:50 AM

I did THINK about it. And I guess it's not true that boxers way back used the vertical fist. My "opinion" is that in the vertical fist the body is directly behind the elbow whereas the elbow isn't in the horizontal punch.
Notice I said IMO since I'm not a doctor or kinesiologist, etc. ;)

I've consulted MDs too, Phil (two of my bestfriends are MDs). Use your noodle -- why would that be the case? Why would simply rotating the ulna and radius have any structural effect on the bones in the hand? Tell me if you know.

Some boxers in the past may have used a vertical fist. But I don't think it has anything to do with the structural integrity of the hand. FWIW, the vertical fist isn't a particularly strong way to punch -- you get loads more ballistic striking power (if that is your aim) by letting the elbows go up and outward as you rotate your body like modern boxers. Look at how people throw balls (same sort of mechanics).

k gledhill

07-27-2009, 06:56 AM

stop thinking of the hands , think what elbow actions require the resulting hand formations...

same with the 3 palms ...

vertical palm = same reason for tan sao vertical fist the elbow leaves/spreads off the line but the strike and the vertical palm go forwards. It allows inside gate deflections , ergo we use vertical palm versus jum sao punch in chi-sao... we cycle a tan strike to a jum strike a tan strike to a jum strike...switch hands ...etc...tan strike / jum strike elbow spreads / elbow stays in...elbow spreads...elbow stays in ...switch sides....punch comes over my arm I bong...no thought I just do it from hours of chi-sao ...but with another mind set being developed to a sticking /chasing quagmire of redundancy.

side palm or horizontal palm = jum sao vertical fist , elbow tries to stay inwards on the line to compliment the strike leaving the line in rotation or simply striking from a required response needing elbows in to gain entry from the given side ...

lower palm = all the above for po-pai

take your tan and make a vertical palm strike and watch the elbow leave the line and go back each time.
make your palm horizontal from a vertical and see your elbow go in....

now strike with a left vertical palm followed by a right horizontal palm and you are using the basic strike actions elbow spreads left from tan strike... elbow stays in, with the jum right ...attacking a line with 2 arms in rotation..each holding entry to your own attacking angles , relative to your facing angle. For this example you would be attacking a guys left side...IF his arm comes up or tries to stop your strikes , either one is traveling along your line anyway....so if the arm requires attention and stops your strike you are there ready, not thinking , not wandering around , chasing the arm to stick and control as your primary idea, but to strike through it or jut it so the following jum strike can take over on its own allowing the spent lead strike to now re-chamber to vu and strike.

Now do the exact same striking actions with fists vertical..one elbow leaves , the other stays in ...

face the opposite direction [ as dummy training for alignment ] and the arms dont leave your center but can seamlessly fire with the energy to hold elbows in or out , WHILE STILL AIMING as strikes ...2 fer's x 2 = a lot more than just a fist followed by another fist...think of the heavenly glory behind the pointing finger.

because the opponent can and will move across our centerlines as we engage them we have both arms capable of acting equally from angles ...we fight 1/2 the person rather than face on trying to do a redundant sticking control game ...common misunderstanding of the drill known as chi-sao.

facing in chi-sao is a starting point for vt fighters to develop responses to entry from seung ma / toi ma exchanges along with basic striking skill and bong actions to a bridged strike...lots more of course.

When we do dummy training we step at the facing angles to the dummy with a tan strike [chambered] and a sideplam aka jum elbow position...one for outside against the dummy arm but striking forwards, the other holding center for alignment jum....

not an attacking move to go after a guy with a tan and a sideplam :D hay ya take that ! then what ?....;)

The dummy cycles the tan strike with a jum , then a low gaun and high jum the high jum turns to a bong the low gaun to a tan ...itsnot cycling blocks to block to more blocks...when tan and jum are seen as strikes in training the elbows starting points and directions facing angles etc...the main dummy body also become s redundant as the only target...you should imagine opponents either side of the dummy as if your attacking them along a wall or fence as chum kil....or simply facing your line of fire , with no arm deviations ...
The dummy is elbow training not the hands training or worse the wrists [ bad word wristing]

The whole system is devoted to this thinking from SLT ...wrists x the line in front of the imaginary firing line...the left fist comes to the center, the elbow next...fire ..other hand...
then the energy of the fists is introduced...the tan...the jum ...the fok & vu too..; )

Phil Redmond

07-27-2009, 07:57 AM

I've consulted MDs too, Phil (two of my bestfriends are MDs). Use your noodle -- why would that be the case? Why would simply rotating the ulna and radius have any structural effect on the bones in the hand? Tell me if you know.

Some boxers in the past may have used a vertical fist. But I don't think it has anything to do with the structural integrity of the hand. FWIW, the vertical fist isn't a particularly strong way to punch -- you get loads more ballistic striking power (if that is your aim) by letting the elbows go up and outward as you rotate your body like modern boxers. Look at how people throw balls (same sort of mechanics).
I'd have to ask what type of Doctors were your MD friends? Do they specialize in bones? If they do then there are obviously different opinions on the subject as happens a lot with Doctors.

t_niehoff

07-27-2009, 12:23 PM

I'd have to ask what type of Doctors were your MD friends? Do they specialize in bones? If they do then there are obviously different opinions on the subject as happens a lot with Doctors.

Why don't you want to use YOUR noodle? Can't YOU tell me how simply rotating the radius and ulna would effect the structural integrity of the hand/wrist (whose alignment doesn't change with that rotation)?

RGVWingChun

07-27-2009, 12:27 PM

So as a question to you, do you believe it can be used with similar tactics to jabs/crosses/hooks?

Do you believe there are benefits to employing not just those strategies? Application of the vertical punch in wing chun styles alone, varies far and wide. Let alone styles outside of WC. If so, why and also if not, why?

Well yeah, thats one application of the jab. Back to what TenTigers mentioned about reading dempseys book for instance, it is definitely not the only application of the jab. Boxers vary far and wide with how they utilize their lead hand.

well in my personal use of wing chun I wouldn't want to use it as a jab simply because the wing chun punch does not have the same reach as my jab does. I'll be quite honest and say that I very rarely find myself using the punch in sparring, chi sau or any other hands free training. I have grown quite comfortable with the open hand strikes and I find that it facilitates the trapping and grabbing (lap sau) a lot better. When I actually do use the strike, its mainly off the neck pull or when I use the Ip Man style Chum Kiu punch (uppercut resembling technique) from in close. I will say that I sometimes use a biu hand to reach out and distance, but not a punch as I think a skilled fighter will take advantage of that energy....for me, either a biu or a man sau suffices to keep somebody at bay. As ther the techniques/tactic of the cross and hook....sure, I have used a wing chun punch like a cross....not the same mechanics, but I use the Ip Ching biu jee punch like a sort of cross/hook that comes from the outside gate or when I find my hand out of position I'll use it for recovery...

Now, somebody else might be able to make the WC punch work for them with the tactics of a jab....that is entirely possible =) The only reason I don't work it is because the wing chun punch is typically delivered with squared shoulders facing the target which means the reach is shorter....a jab on the other hand has a turned body with the lead shoulder reaching out with the jab to offer more reach. For my own body, I can reach an extra foot with the jab than with a wing chun punch. If I use a Chum Kiu punch (turn body) I can add about 6 inches to my straight punch, but it is still about 6 inches shorter than my boxing jab

as per the strategies....there are many things that can work...I think its important to be fluid in strategy sometimes and recognize that the same strategy might not work in every fighting situation....I'm glad that I know wing chun but sometimes I do not hesitate to revert back to some basic boxing skills if that is enough to get job done or other martial arts. In my thinking, its the principles of wing chun that make wing chun "Wing Chun" and not merely the techniques....the techniques are themselves expressions of the principles that make them work. Principles like shortest distance to target, nearest weapon nearest target, etc...if that happens to look like a jab, then I'll just use the jab and not be a slave to techniques.

great questions!!!

Moses

RGVWingChun

07-27-2009, 12:30 PM

An Osteologist once told me that the bones are better aligned in the vertical punch which results in less trauma to the bones in the hand and forearm on impact. We have two MDs at our school and they concur.

LOL I totally got an image from "Catch me if you can" where L. DaCapprio is asking those interns if they concur with the assessment!! "I should have concurred!!!"

RGVWingChun

07-27-2009, 12:47 PM

Why don't you want to use YOUR noodle? Can't YOU tell me how simply rotating the radius and ulna would effect the structural integrity of the hand/wrist (whose alignment doesn't change with that rotation)?

I see what your saying but consider.....the first joint that recieves impact is the wrist on a punch(because its the closest joint to the stike)....if damage is going to happen in punching, its going to happen at the wrist first which is why they need to be strong which is why Huen Sao is so emphasized in all the forms of Wing Chun....strenghtening the wrist. I think what Phil's Docs are saying is that the metacarpals in the hand are structurally aligned with the radius and ulna in a natural position vs. the horizontal punch which involves a rotation of the shoulder, putting the ball out of the socket joint(this is the next likely place of damage in a punch), the elbow is always bent on impact adding to less structural integrity and at the end of all this is the hand which is out of line by virtue of the position of elbow and shoulder....the hand becomes the end that is recieving all the impact/trauma.

As an experiment, if you let your arms hang down naturally at your side, notice how their natural structure is if you just lift your arm up without any motion from your hand....lift from the shoulder and you will see that you have the structure for a vertical punch as a natural anatomical position. The reason why there is less trauma for the hand is because the hand is not "alone" in the strike...it has the elbow, shoulder and hence, body mass behind it....without the structure, the hand alone hits and takes all the damage (of course, on a good hook it might not be uncommond for a person to hurt their shoulder ligaments and tendons due to lack of structure in the "swing" motion and the physiology of the shoulder joint and physics of that kind of punch...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ;) )

In short, the vertical punch is just more structurally sound than a horizontal one.....a person can probably generate a huge amount of power with a horizontal fist or a hook of some sort, but you have to consider the consequences of what happens when you do....the vertical fist alignment is a way of being able to generate large amounts of force with structural integrity for the safety of your own body....wouldn't want to ruin a shoulder after one good punch!!

Yes, I have a major in Kinesiology ;)

My humble opinion,

Moses

t_niehoff

07-27-2009, 12:52 PM

I see what your saying but consider.....the first joint that recieves impact is the wrist on a punch(because its the closest joint to the stike)....if damage is going to happen in punching, its going to happen at the wrist first which is why they need to be strong which is why Huen Sao is so emphasized in all the forms of Wing Chun....strenghtening the wrist. I think what Phil's Docs are saying is that the metacarpals in the hand are structurally aligned with the radius and ulna in a natural position vs. the horizontal punch which involves a rotation of the shoulder, putting the ball out of the socket joint(this is the next likely place of damage in a punch), the elbow is always bent on impact adding to less structural integrity and at the end of all this is the hand which is out of line by virtue of the position of elbow and shoulder....the hand becomes the end that is recieving all the impact/trauma.

As an experiment, if you let your arms hang down naturally at your side, notice how their natural structure is if you just lift your arm up without any motion from your hand....lift from the shoulder and you will see that you have the structure for a vertical punch as a natural anatomical position. The reason why there is less trauma for the hand is because the hand is not "alone" in the strike...it has the elbow, shoulder and hence, body mass behind it....without the structure, the hand alone hits and takes all the damage (of course, on a good hook it might not be uncommond for a person to hurt their shoulder ligaments and tendons due to lack of structure in the "swing" motion and the physiology of the shoulder joint and physics of that kind of punch...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ;) )

In short, the vertical punch is just more structurally sound than a horizontal one.....a person can probably generate a huge amount of power with a horizontal fist or a hook of some sort, but you have to consider the consequences of what happens when you do....the vertical fist alignment is a way of being able to generate large amounts of force with structural integrity for the safety of your own body....wouldn't want to ruin a shoulder after one good punch!!

Yes, I have a major in Kinesiology ;)

My humble opinion,

Moses

We're not talking about how the alignment of the vertical fist may effect the shoulder, etc. but the hand/wrist, re hand injuries. The rotation of the ulna/radius doesn't change the alignment of the hand/wrist. You do bring up a good point though: there may be less injury to the hand with a vertical fist alignment since that alignment doesn't permit the body (shoulder rotation, etc.) to generate as much power, so your hand is taking less of an impact.

AdrianK

07-27-2009, 01:02 PM

WCK is a close range, inside, attached fighting method, so its finishing tools will be close range tools, like as you say, the elbow.

Yes, you're right, boxing has the ability to finish at all ranges, but our punches aren't like boxing punches. Boxing can finish close since clinching (attached fighting) isn't permitted. Can you do boxing type punches in chi sao?

At longer range, the outsdie, the WCK punch permits us to gain attachment so that we can fight on the inside (the WCK kuit, hand goes out doesnot come back). WCK's power does not come from rotation, like boxing. Whe you are close and attached,and try to rotate, you either give your opponent your flank/back or will find yourself flying.

Well given my knowledge of boxing, I can use my footwork to move to the outside and jab, jab cross. In the context of chi sao with the roll and all that, I frequently use my uppercut whenever I can get their attention away from one of their hands. The hooks not so much because I'd rather just roll into an elbow.

I see what you're saying though.

Liddel

07-27-2009, 04:00 PM

I will say for a guy that continually says 'dont look to me but to the experts' with regard to fighting practicality it now seems strange your pressing Phil about using his noodle when in fact hes taking a page from your book and going with what experts he knows have told him :eek:

Is that not a universal method T ?

I would say that given your target is not square and the shape of the weapon is generally rounded when striking with either the vert or horizontal punch the alignment with regard to your wrist is the deciding factor more so than the ulna or radius. At least thats my experience in feeling the difference.

Which IMO is a major contributor to the fact my sparring partners who either do MT or Boxing have problems when not wearing wraps and gloves etc.

The vert punch is great im constantly landing it in sparring when a hook or lower leg kick is launched and if i didnt move my body via the horse then i would have need for the horizontal fist to break through the head guard, but my horse makes it work so...

I will say to that alot of VT peeps out there are very true to the vert punch with respect to its orientation. It seems more often than not to be launched quite flat and in always dead center. IME i have made small changes in sparring like keeping the elbows down but opening them up half an inch or more and angling the fist a couple degrees, this gets passed the head guard well also while keeping MOSTLY to a vert punch mechanic, and i will add i see it used more and more by MMA fighters in UFC.

Back to the b i t c h i n g :p

DREW

anerlich

07-27-2009, 10:13 PM

Look at how people throw balls (same sort of mechanics).

Yeah, LOOK at 'em.

I don't think the mechanics of ball throwing and straight punching are similar enough for the comparision to be useful.

The mechanics of throwing a circular hammerfist or shuto strike are much closer to throwing a ball IMO. But of course these are useless because MMA fighters, boxers and BJJ guys don't do 'em.

Unless you are talking about shooting hoops from the free throw line, which IMO is more like the WC vertical fist than the boxing jab, though not overly similar to either.

Shot putting is a bit - a bit - more like a jab, but not for anything useful other than long polemic rantings for their own sake on internet forums.

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 06:17 AM

We're not talking about how the alignment of the vertical fist may effect the shoulder, etc. but the hand/wrist, re hand injuries. The rotation of the ulna/radius doesn't change the alignment of the hand/wrist. You do bring up a good point though: there may be less injury to the hand with a vertical fist alignment since that alignment doesn't permit the body (shoulder rotation, etc.) to generate as much power, so your hand is taking less of an impact.

Bingo... that is the reason right there.

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 06:21 AM

Shot putting is a bit - a bit - more like a jab, but not for anything useful other than long polemic rantings for their own sake on internet forums.

The shot put is the ideal example of how to generate maximum power in a straight line horizontally from the shoulder.

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 06:29 AM

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 06:39 AM

And while there was an equal use of straight horizontal and vertical fists, Vetor belfort seemed to be able to finish wandy in rio heroes with them :o
I believe that was a UFC match and, like most things WC, it was because he had a size/strength advantage at the time.

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 11:56 AM

Can't YOU tell me how simply rotating the radius and ulna would effect the structural integrity of the hand/wrist (whose alignment doesn't change with that rotation)?

OK. There are tendons and ligaments attatched to the radius and ulna. In a relaxed state with no tension a hand in a vertical state tends to align with the arm naturally. When you rotate to palms down it affects these ligaments and tends to pull them out of alignment.

If you don't believe me go watch a beginners TKD class, and see how the vast majority of the punchers have the wrist and knuckles angled down at impact ruining the alignment at the wrist. It takes focused training to be able to hit a target with rotation, snap, and power and to keep the structural integrety of the hand / wrist intact.

AdrianK

07-28-2009, 12:00 PM

Hendrik

07-28-2009, 12:07 PM

how do you generate power for the vertical punch?

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 12:15 PM

how do you generate power for the vertical punch?

Do the wave. When it goes all the way around the stadium and back to you, you're ready

RGVWingChun

07-28-2009, 12:34 PM

You have no degree in kines, otherwise you would know that the reason the wrist (actually it's the metacarpals that usually break) receives the injury is because these are the smallest bones in the power chain and have the least amount of soft tissue for shock absorption.

BTW, I don't disagree about the metacarpals taking damage...thats actually how I understood the initial questioner saying that damage to the hand/metacarpals is not avoided by the alignment of the vertical punch....I think adding structural integrity behind the metacarpals can help reduce that....

Now of course, it also depends what you are hitting....if your aiming to the jaw or the face, then expect hand damage...but if your striking a softer target, say the sternum or into the floating ribs, then it might not be that bad....

Moses

Hendrik

07-28-2009, 01:09 PM

Do the wave. When it goes all the way around the stadium and back to you, you're ready

What do yo mean?

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 01:17 PM

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 01:34 PM

LOL... bull$hit.

Keep your elbow in at your side, make a fist, rotate the fist to palm down. Keep your knuckles pointing at a target in front of you. If you don't see the natural tendency to move the first 2 knuckles out of alignment with the bones in your arm, you're either genetically challenged or an idiot.

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 01:42 PM

What do yo mean?

What do you mean? How do you generate power with a vertical punch?

Knifefighter

07-28-2009, 02:34 PM

Keep your elbow in at your side, make a fist, rotate the fist to palm down. Keep your knuckles pointing at a target in front of you. If you don't see the natural tendency to move the first 2 knuckles out of alignment with the bones in your arm, you're either genetically challenged or an idiot.

You don't punch just rotating the wrist like that. You also rotate at the shoulder joint as the arm is extended, which keeps things aligned.

Methinks the fact that you are trying to demonstrate this with your elbow in your side makes you the idiot.

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 03:04 PM

You don't punch just rotating the wrist like that. You also rotate at the shoulder joint as the arm is extended, which keeps things aligned.

My main point is that with 3 axis of rotation (wrist, shoulder, waist), and elevation change the potential for misaligning the arm down to the first 2 knuckles is a lot greater than faced with a vertical punch. But all that rotation does give you a lot more potential for generating some centrifugal force. Rotation also requires more timing of when to hit - if you hit too early or too late in rotating the punch it has less power.

In fighting application scenarios I don't see a huge amount of difference between WC's vertical punch and a boxer / MT fighter's uppercut to the body.

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2009, 03:46 PM

I don't get this discussion. :confused:

Are the wing chun brethren on this thread trying to say that the horizontally-thrown boxing type straight punches shouldn't be used? That because the hands/knuckles/delivery system are somehow not aligned the same way a vertical punch is - that therefore these punches are dangerous to throw and therefore shouldn't be part of your arsenal?

People have been using non-vertical punches for ages, knocking people out, and not suffering hand/wrist/knuckle injuries for their trouble. What's the point here? That you should be careful about how you throw these punches?

Okay. Take care, practice these punches on various bags, mitts, targets, etc. Learn how to deliver them the right way, and know what adjustments you have to make when fighting/punching bare knuckled.

So?

Liddel

07-28-2009, 03:55 PM

I believe that was a UFC match and, like most things WC, it was because he had a size/strength advantage at the time.

It was actually ultimate brazil, good card. I personlly dont believe he was bigger and stronger than wandy although i see your point. Wandy was very fit then.... Vitor just had sick hands full stop. :p

Do you see more verticle fists in MMA these days Dale compared to years gone by ? Ive noticed more and more and not directly verticle but almost halfway between horizontal and vert, angled straights for specific tasks.

IME it serves a function for getting around head guards and is a useful changeup for guys weathering a peppering when your on the attack.

I ask you because like my sparring partners im only a hobbiest not a consistent competitor... i realise the game changes at the higher levels ?

One thing i will say is that i hear from the ney sayers about the lack of support in the vert fist and the most common retort is 'you will break your knuckles and or little fingers' etc but in 13 years of hitting hard surfaces ive had nothing worse than badly bruised and swollen digits...no more than any other striker :o

DREW

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 03:57 PM

I don't know - it's a stupid conversation on structure, mechanics, etc. Yes absolutely I favor training all the types of punches - rotating as well as vertical.

Hendrik

07-28-2009, 04:16 PM

What do you mean? How do you generate power with a vertical punch?

yup. How do you generate power with a vertical punch?

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 06:23 PM

yup. How do you generate power with a vertical punch?

I generate power for a vertical punch with my body.

And you?

Hendrik

07-28-2009, 08:53 PM

I generate power for a vertical punch with my body.

WE all generate power with our body.

HOw is my questions to all.

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2009, 09:04 PM

By reading a poem?

Wayfaring

07-28-2009, 09:58 PM

WE all generate power with our body.

HOw is my questions to all.

Go ask your sifu or any qualified 10th level monk who is certified in being able to open up the du meridian thus opening up the only true authentic vertical punch power engine.

:eek::eek::eek:

k gledhill

07-29-2009, 06:00 AM

by reading a poem?

....lmfao !!

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 06:26 AM

OK. There are tendons and ligaments attatched to the radius and ulna. In a relaxed state with no tension a hand in a vertical state tends to align with the arm naturally. When you rotate to palms down it affects these ligaments and tends to pull them out of alignment.

If you don't believe me go watch a beginners TKD class, and see how the vast majority of the punchers have the wrist and knuckles angled down at impact ruining the alignment at the wrist. It takes focused training to be able to hit a target with rotation, snap, and power and to keep the structural integrety of the hand / wrist intact.

Uhmm, wrong. The tendons and ligaments don't pull anything "out of alignment" when you rotate your ulna and radius, and certainly not in the hand/wrist. Nor does the rotaion create any "tension" in the hand. Do you just make this stuff up?

With reagrd to your TKD example, yes, if you don't keep your wrist "straight" (if it is bent) regardless whether it is vertical or horizontal and you hit something with power (whether you rotate or not), you will injure your wrist since the "bend" of the wrist creates a structural weakness.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 06:38 AM

I don't know - it's a stupid conversation on structure, mechanics, etc. Yes absolutely I favor training all the types of punches - rotating as well as vertical.

It's not a "stupid conversation" (although some of the opinions might be characterized that way). The question is whether people understand why WCK uses the "vertical fist aligment" as opposed to the horizontal fist alignment that, for example, boxing does. If someone believes that WCK uses the vertical fist simply because it is "more structural sound", then they are mistaken (which suggests that it might be useful to reconsider what the real reason might be). If someone thinks, as apparently you do, that you should train all types of punches, I think that misses the point as well.

The type of punch you NEED depends on what you are trying to do and the circumstances you are in. As I pointed out, when you are in an attached (sustained contact) situation, like for examplein chi sao, so that you NEED to keep your elbows down and in (for bridge control, etc.) then the you naturally end up using a vertical fist alignment since keeping the elbow down and in automatically roates your fist into that alignment. Moreover, that ssrt of alignment is perfect for hitting with body structure so as to break an opponent's body structure. However, that sort of alignment isn't very good for developing higher levels of ballistic striking power, as boxers do. That is accomplished by rotating the shoulder in such a way as to open up the elbows which naturally causes the fist to rotate horizontally.

When seen in this light (the vertical fist is for attached striking) it ties the WCK punch as an integral cog into the WCK fighting method (controlling the opponent while striking him).

monji112000

07-29-2009, 06:59 AM

However, that sort of alignment isn't very good for developing higher levels of ballistic striking power, as boxers do. That is accomplished by rotating the shoulder in such a way as to open up the elbows which naturally causes the fist to rotate horizontally.

so your premise is that the rotation of the fist horizontally will create more "ballistic power". I'm just trying to follow your reasoning. I don't see why rotating your fist will equal power. Sure it works for a bullet, but allot of things are different for a bullet. The way I understand the WC is : you are generating power not via your hand but your whole body. So you are torquing your body in some way. So I see no relevance in if I spin my fist or if I don't.

k gledhill

07-29-2009, 07:13 AM

WE all generate power with our body.

HOw is my questions to all.

Why is more pertinent ...."why voitical and not howizontal master "?
SLAP

don't concentrate on the vertical fist, the fist is like that because of the thinking behind the
ELBOW POSITIONS

In the SLT the tan-sao never leaves the centerline neither does jum sao....ever wonder why you get shown to leave the line to deliver 'chasing ' blocks ? spreading the wrists off the line ...wrists dont block.

The forms start by making a line by x'ing the wrists on the centerline then extending out as if they where hitting x'ed along the line..
Because they intersect the line all along its path, either arm...anything traveling on that line will make contact with your strike....IF....you adopt certain tactical approaches to attack ....
The elbows are held in [ creating the fists to become vertical, not the other way round :D] so that the forearms also create an intersecting line as they rotate
STRIKING
along the strike line.

We fight with 2 free hands ..not one grabbing pulling, blocking , waving hello, tickling, scratching etc...thats only if you cant just hit the guy with 2 free arms like any fighter you see today.

Because you are using the forearms as your 'buffers' they will act as the contact area to deflect or engage anything that makes contact with whichever arm is striking in the lead...there are other attacking entries but for simplicity its just punching...

Because each arm is trained to still deliver a strike AS IT DEFLECTS off the centerline it acts as simultaneous attack/defense with 'each individual strike'.

Also add the idea that we never allow our arms to be trapped by having both extended together on the same line when fighting [ except bil gee] then we also see that we create an unstoppable attacking strike line...like a machine gun, chambering bullets, firing etc...
In war you go into a barracks and open up, or put the gun over a wall and pull the trigger ...its not target practice.
You fire and keep firing , the gun gets jammed you clear the jam without thinking ..why , because you can do it blind folded :D from hours of ...
DRILLS
involving striking with 'bullets', as you seek 'cover' by tactical maneuvering to avoid getting shot back by standing there front and center, trying to chase bullets with your bullets...:D

You dont go to war and fight by doing drills to clear your gun if its jammed ...
you dont try to use the gun to block the guys bullets ...you evade and move and face the target so it cant get a bead on you, while firing back...

the concept is to attack as your defensive response...or counterattack etc...

the fist is formed and held a certain wayby all that thinking behind it....

Many concentrate on the strike [the bullet] , the impact, the fists /wrists etc...while the line the fist travels on and the elbows positions along with positions [ tactical cover ] are not even being trained as the 'idea' , but rather a straight line and a fist thinking
[standing up straight, facing a paper target in a shooting gallery]....it may work on paper :D shortest distance etc...
but the guy is throwing water at you too [firing from all directions]...so you have to have a tactical response to draw that line along...

vertical fist = the pointing finger

if 2 lines intersect you have potential bridge contact that the 'drills' take care of....

you would be surprised how easy it is to miss a bulls eye from 5 ft away , simply because you anticipate the 'bang' [ arm chase] or recoil of the gun [sudden arm contact ] make you go off target suddenly.....if you give clear instruction and add a few [ blanks ] snap caps etc...the fighter[shooter] starts to focus on NOT making simple mistakes when pulling a trigger from 5 ft away....gets accustomed to sudden contact, avoids pulling the trigger off target, adopt isosceles triangles to aim at targets avoid adrenalin altering grips....

add drills that have you facing off to a guy who may draw either side randomly while you do the same to him...and you get instinctive maneuverability to a safe side or % better than the other side thinking :D give the guy a gun in each hand and you see the
further thinking ...one gun leads while the other follows if the first gets taken off line .....

Add the concept of being fired on as you fire back and, hello, you find your standing up without thinking facing directly at someone firing at you like a shooting paper target drill , because thats how you did it in the range...

add a bit of movement and gun control and you see a simple idea taking shape.

I used to be a Shooting instructor and was involved in competitive shooting too....

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 07:28 AM

so your premise is that the rotation of the fist horizontally will create more "ballistic power". I'm just trying to follow your reasoning. I don't see why rotating your fist will equal power. Sure it works for a bullet, but allot of things are different for a bullet. The way I understand the WC is : you are generating power not via your hand but your whole body. So you are torquing your body in some way. So I see no relevance in if I spin my fist or if I don't.

It's not rotating the fist that creates more ballistic striking power, it is when you rotate your upper arm (shoulder) up and outward which correspondingly causes your elbow to go out and up that it automatically tends to rotate your fist horizontally. All these things are connected, right? For example, do a tan sao simply by rotating your eblow in and downward. Your palm automatically goes up, right? Now rotate you elbow outward so that it is parallel to the floor. What happens to your palm?

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 07:29 AM

monji112000

07-29-2009, 07:35 AM

It's not rotating the fist that creates more ballistic striking power, it is when you rotate your upper arm (shoulder) up and outward which correspondingly causes your elbow to go out and up that it automatically tends to rotate your fist horizontally. All these things are connected, right? For example, do a tan sao simply by rotating your eblow in and downward. Your palm automatically goes up, right? Now rotate you elbow outward so that it is parallel to the floor. What happens to your palm?

I follow that you are saying the rotating of the fist is only a side effect.. but again what is the benefit. Are you saying the rotation of the shoulder creates a better structure.. ?? Again I'm just trying to follow your logic, I personally don't claim to understand the human anatomy in that much detail. Again please explain in simple terms what you are saying is the benefit to that style of punching.

What I have heard from boxers (a few golden glove winners and a Olympic trainer) is that the "snap" and turning create power. Granted they may not understand whats going on, many people can do but don't understand what they are doing.

-木叶-

07-29-2009, 07:54 AM

how do you generate power for the vertical punch?

Ground, waist, elbow

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 07:55 AM

I follow that you are saying the rotating of the fist is only a side effect.. but again what is the benefit. Are you saying the rotation of the shoulder creates a better structure.. ?? Again I'm just trying to follow your logic, I personally don't claim to understand the human anatomy in that much detail. Again please explain in simple terms what you are saying is the benefit to that style of punching.

What I have heard from boxers (a few golden glove winners and a Olympic trainer) is that the "snap" and turning create power. Granted they may not understand whats going on, many people can do but don't understand what they are doing.

I'm saying that if your objective is to develop optimum levels of ballistic striking power, then you should do what boxers do, which is rotate the arm up and outward as you rotate your body (which, in turn, will automatically rotate your palm to horizontal). That works great when you are on the outside and not in contact.

However, that way of striking isn't consistent with what we in WCK are doing -- that way doesn't work well in attached (when you are in sustained contact) striking. When you are close and/or attached, you don't typically want to rotate your body or lift your arm up and outward -- this opens you up to all kinds of nastiness. On the inside and when attached (which is where we want to be in WCK), you want to keep your elbows down and in. How can you strike when you keep your elbows down and in? You'll find yourself using a vertical fist since that elbow alignment (down and in) causes your fist to rotate vertically. Follow?

PS, the body mechanics of boxing are different in kind than WCK's body mechanics (due to having different approaches to fighting, outside, noncontact vs. inside, attached). Those different mechanics use different kinetic chains which result in different rotations of the hand.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 07:56 AM

Ground, waist, elbow

Completely wrong.

k gledhill

07-29-2009, 08:04 AM

ground waist elbow.... good simplification

equal and opposite force ..if you time the delivery angle it instinctively and fire with no mind ..it works well ; )

force into ground ...comes back through fist ...the rest involves drills training etc...structure...

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 08:13 AM

ground waist elbow.... good simplification

A great simplification of how to do it wrongly.

Look, like anything, the WCK punch uses a certain, specific body mechanic/kinetic chain. How do you properly throw a fastball? Ground, waist and elbow. Oh, don't I sound profound! But that's meaningless dribble. It won't help you in any way. Everything uses the ground, waist and elbow.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 08:22 AM

CK's body mechanics (due to having different approaches to fighting, outside, noncontact vs. inside, attached). Those different mechanics use different kinetic chains which result in different rotations of the hand.

50% of boxing is inside fighting. And just like the outside strikes, the method of striking inside is the most effective way to generate the most power.

If you want to know how to fight most effectively on the inside with little attachment, do what boxers do. If you want to know how to fight most effectively from an attached inside environment, do what MT fighters, wrestlers and MMA fighters do.

As with anything else, look to the people who are actually doing it at the highest levels.

k gledhill

07-29-2009, 08:26 AM

A great simplification of how to do it wrongly.

Look, like anything, the WCK punch uses a certain, specific body mechanic/kinetic chain. How do you properly throw a fastball? Ground, waist and elbow. Oh, don't I sound profound! But that's meaningless dribble. It won't help you in any way. Everything uses the ground, waist and elbow.

simplification = simple answer.....I expounded on it if you look back....its a forum you cant
write books for every question...

why the neagtivity? ebevrything with you is " I know and you all dont " your ego is rampant sir...;)

monji112000

07-29-2009, 08:30 AM

I'm saying that if your objective is to develop optimum levels of ballistic striking power, then you should do what boxers do, which is rotate the arm up and outward as you rotate your body (which, in turn, will automatically rotate your palm to horizontal). That works great when you are on the outside and not in contact.

so your reasoning is that since Boxers do it and we all know that boxers hit hard, we should just blindly adapt what they do. I agree boxers have amazing power generation, I'm just not convinced it has anything to do with a horizontal punch or turning the arm. I have actually had this conversion with a few boxers.. and in the end they end up agreeing that turning the arm makes little difference.

However, that way of striking isn't consistent with what we in WCK are doing -- that way doesn't work well in attached (when you are in sustained contact) striking. When you are close and/or attached, you don't typically want to rotate your body or lift your arm up and outward -- this opens you up to all kinds of nastiness. On the inside and when attached (which is where we want to be in WCK), you want to keep your elbows down and in. How can you strike when you keep your elbows down and in? You'll find yourself using a vertical fist since that elbow alignment (down and in) causes your fist to rotate vertically. Follow?

I'm not talking about punching off bridging (IE what you find in chi sao). I'm talking about punching someone in a fight. I don't even want to get into a discussion about chi sao punching because we clearly have completely different views on what works and what doesn't in chi sao.

PS, the body mechanics of boxing are different in kind than WCK's body mechanics (due to having different approaches to fighting, outside, noncontact vs. inside, attached). Those different mechanics use different kinetic chains which result in different rotations of the hand.
Again we come from different worlds. My teacher and his teacher and his teacher did not say/ teach Wing Chun must have contact, be on the inside or outside. So again to be completely stubborn and I'm sure nobody likes me when I am.. please explain in simple term the benefit a horizontal fist vrs a vertical fist. If I am torquing my body, and rotating it in the general method a boxer does (I'm using a boxer because that was the example given) please explain why I would choose one over the other. Again I'm slow, so unless you spell something out to me I don't get it.

The punch I'm talking about in Wing Chun is commonly known as a "straight lead". The punch is explained in the JKD book The Straight Lead: The Core of Bruce Lee's Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do . It called the arrow punch by allot of people.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 08:33 AM

50% of boxing is inside fighting. And just like the outside strikes, the method of striking inside is the most effective way to generate the most power.

Very true. However, boxing doesn't permit attachment or grappling, and when you add those elements, it changes things. With attached fighting, you don't want to use boxing-type mechanics since it leaves you open (permits him to get into your body or legs to grapple, for instance).

If you want to know how to fight most effectively on the inside with little attachment, do what boxers do. If you want to know how to fight most effectively from an attached inside environment, do what MT fighters, wrestlers and MMA fighters do.

I can't argue with that. My view is that WCK is for a certain type of attached fighting (controlling while hitting) and when fighting with WCK it will look very similar to what MT, wrestlers, and MMA fighters do when attached (dirty clinch boxing).

As with anything else, look to the people who are actually doing it at the highest levels.

I completely agree.

k gledhill

07-29-2009, 08:33 AM

50% of boxing is inside fighting. And just like the outside strikes, the method of striking inside is the most effective way to generate the most power.

If you want to know how to fight most effectively on the inside with little attachment, do what boxers do. If you want to know how to fight most effectively from an attached inside environment, do what MT fighters, wrestlers and MMA fighters do.

As with anything else, look to the people who are actually doing it at the highest levels.

we fight like we train at all levels ...2 edged weapons in either hand does not like inside fighting ;) we face an equally armed attack as a good reference 'attack'...

If we fight without thinking tactically ...that carries over to intrinsic movements to an extended arm/weapon etc...bare handed or holding a knife...

We dont stand facing a guy like boxers because we dont want an equally facing exchange of blows ...thats a drill myth from chisao...

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 08:38 AM

If we fight without thinking tactically ...that carries over to intrinsic movements to an extended arm/weapon etc...bare handed or holding a knife....

Barehanded and weapons fighting are completely different... which again shows your purely theoretical background.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 08:43 AM

so your reasoning is that since Boxers do it and we all know that boxers hit hard, we should just blindly adapt what they do. I agree boxers have amazing power generation, I'm just not convinced it has anything to do with a horizontal punch or turning the arm. I have actually had this conversion with a few boxers.. and in the end they end up agreeing that turning the arm makes little difference.

No. I am not saying we should do what boxers do at all. WCK is NOT boxing. Boxing is not an attached form of fighting. WCK is an attached form of fighting. So, the mechanics of the two will differ.

I'm not talking about punching off bridging (IE what you find in chi sao). I'm talking about punching someone in a fight. I don't even want to get into a discussion about chi sao punching because we clearly have completely different views on what works and what doesn't in chi sao.

WCK's method of fighitng is to fight from attachment, not from the outside or from nonattachement. We use the WCK punch on the outside to set up the attachment (the kuit, the hand goes out and does not come back). When we use the WCK punch to set up contact, our elbow is already down and prepared for the attachment.

Again we come from different worlds. My teacher and his teacher and his teacher did not say/ teach Wing Chun must have contact, be on the inside or outside. So again to be completely stubborn and I'm sure nobody likes me when I am.. please explain in simple term the benefit a horizontal fist vrs a vertical fist. If I am torquing my body, and rotating it in the general method a boxer does (I'm using a boxer because that was the example given) please explain why I would choose one over the other. Again I'm slow, so unless you spell something out to me I don't get it.

If you want to fight on the outside and not in contact (like boxers do), then you should strike like boxers do -- using their mechanics which automatically cause you to use a horizontal fist) since their method of striking produces greater ballistic power. The point I'm making is that if this is your goal (the greatest power) then the vertical fist won't develop that. But it does have its use, and that is for attached striking -- or striking to gain attachment.

The punch I'm talking about in Wing Chun is commonly known as a "straight lead". The punch is explained in the JKD book The Straight Lead: The Core of Bruce Lee's Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do . It called the arrow punch by allot of people.

That's not the WCK punch. The WCK punch is the punch that opens and closes the forms. The arrow punch is not the "straight lead".

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 08:44 AM

With attached fighting, you don't want to use boxing-type mechanics since it leaves you open (permits him to get into your body or legs to grapple, for instance)..

Boxing mechanics, when used from an attached strategy and switching into a non-attached tactic, is one of its strongest aspects... one that many more people in the MMA could make good use of.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 09:02 AM

simplification = simple answer.....I expounded on it if you look back....its a forum you cant
write books for every question...

why the neagtivity? ebevrything with you is " I know and you all dont " your ego is rampant sir...;)

Yes, many of my comments are criticisms because there is a lot of things said on this forum that are begging for criticism. And, there is some good information too.

FWIW, I don't think that I "know" it all. I know that I'm not highly skilled (though I do think I'm competent). But I can recognize poor thinking, bullsh1t, nonsense, theory, etc. And unfortunately, there are very few people pointing that stuff out. And when that stuff isn't pointed out, some people may take it as truth.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 09:03 AM

Boxing mechanics, when used from an attached strategy and switching into a non-attached tactic, is one of its strongest aspects... one that many more people in the MMA could make good use of.

Care to expand? Please?

monji112000

07-29-2009, 09:16 AM

No. I am not saying we should do what boxers do at all. WCK is NOT boxing. Boxing is not an attached form of fighting. WCK is an attached form of fighting. So, the mechanics of the two will differ.

WCK's method of fighitng is to fight from attachment, not from the outside or from nonattachement. We use the WCK punch on the outside to set up the attachment (the kuit, the hand goes out and does not come back). When we use the WCK punch to set up contact, our elbow is already down and prepared for the attachment.

That's not the WCK punch. The WCK punch is the punch that opens and closes the forms. The arrow punch is not the "straight lead".
If you want to believe that wing chun is "attached fighting" go ahead. I don't and honestly if you want to fight "attached" then you should study a clinching system. allot of people focus on the shorter distance of the style but it is in no way a clinching system. Again we see things VERY different and I'm sure its because we have been exposed to very different people. So we can agree to disagree (on it seems like everything).

Good luck with attaching to people when you fight. I would suggest looking into dirty boxing and greco roman wrestling. That is some of the best clinching I have ever seen. Also look into Thai clinching methods..

You see in my perspective of Wing Chun the last place I want to be is clinching (attaching) with you. Clinching leads to going to the ground. If I come in short distance to you its not to attach its to try and end the fight. I actually believe very strongly that Lyoto Machida is a great example of Wing Chun fighting strategy. (strategy not technique)

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 09:24 AM

If you want to believe that wing chun is "attached fighting" go ahead. I don't and honestly if you want to fight "attached" then you should study a clinching system. allot of people focus on the shorter distance of the style but it is in no way a clinching system. Again we see things VERY different and I'm sure its because we have been exposed to very different people. So we can agree to disagree (on it seems like everything).

WCK is a "clinching system" -- using a WCK-style clinch. Why do you think chi sao is the main WCK exercise? What are you doing in chi sao? Practicing attached fighting but in an unrealistic (noncombative) environment. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM_KgCSMtMM

Traditionally, the faat (method) begins with dap (joining or riding). Nothing in WCK makes sense except when you look at it from the POV of attached fighting.

Good luck with attaching to people when you fight. I would suggest looking into dirty boxing and greco roman wrestling. That is some of the best clinching I have ever seen. Also look into Thai clinching methods..

WCK is a form of dirty-clinch boxing. What is chi sao but an unrealistic representation of that? Why would a method of fighting have mainly all sustained-contact drills to not fight in contact? Does boxing or kicboxing have mainly contact drills? Of course not.

You see in my perspective of Wing Chun the last place I want to be is clinching (attaching) with you. Clinching leads to going to the ground. If I come in short distance to you its not to attach its to try and end the fight. I actually believe very strongly that Lyoto Machida is a great example of Wing Chun fighting strategy.

When you are in attached fighting, you need to control your opponent. If you control your opponent, you can't be taken to the ground. FWIW, it is actually easier to stop being taken to the ground from attachment than from noncontact.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 09:37 AM

It's not a "stupid conversation" (although some of the opinions might be characterized that way). The question is whether people understand why WCK uses the "vertical fist aligment" as opposed to the horizontal fist alignment that, for example, boxing does. If someone believes that WCK uses the vertical fist simply because it is "more structural sound", then they are mistaken (which suggests that it might be useful to reconsider what the real reason might be). If someone thinks, as apparently you do, that you should train all types of punches, I think that misses the point as well.

The type of punch you NEED depends on what you are trying to do and the circumstances you are in. As I pointed out, when you are in an attached (sustained contact) situation, like for examplein chi sao, so that you NEED to keep your elbows down and in (for bridge control, etc.) then the you naturally end up using a vertical fist alignment since keeping the elbow down and in automatically roates your fist into that alignment. Moreover, that ssrt of alignment is perfect for hitting with body structure so as to break an opponent's body structure. However, that sort of alignment isn't very good for developing higher levels of ballistic striking power, as boxers do. That is accomplished by rotating the shoulder in such a way as to open up the elbows which naturally causes the fist to rotate horizontally.

When seen in this light (the vertical fist is for attached striking) it ties the WCK punch as an integral cog into the WCK fighting method (controlling the opponent while striking him).

While in some of the base concepts you are describing I agree with you, the one area I do not see the difference is where you start to describe opening up the elbows. MT fighters do not have wide open movements with wide open elbows. As a matter of fact, they train to strike from inside and describe a rudimentary box much like WC concepts. The jabs, crosses, hooks all start with tight elbow down fundamentals and do not really "open up". Yet they develop ballistic power. They also work an attached striking method and have the only really developed clinch striking I've seen.

There are only two basic differences I see in the WC vertical punch and a MT body uppercut. They are that the WC punch generates power from a vertical wave type of motion starting from the lower body and moving to hips, elbow, fist. The MT punch generates power also with a twisting motion of the hips because they are moving their head offline with punches to make them harder to hit. The vertical or 45 degree angle of the punch on impact is identical.

monji112000

07-29-2009, 09:42 AM

WCK is a "clinching system" -- using a WCK-style clinch. Why do you think chi sao is the main WCK exercise? What are you doing in chi sao? Practicing attached fighting but in an unrealistic (noncombative) environment. Traditionally, the faat (method) begins with dap (joining or riding). Nothing in WCK makes sense except when you look at it from the POV of attached fighting.

WCK is a form of dirty-clinch boxing. What is chi sao but an unrealistic representation of that? Why would a method of fighting have mainly all sustained-contact drills to not fight in contact? Does boxing or kicboxing have mainly contact drills? Of course not.

When you are in attached fighting, you need to control your opponent. If you control your opponent, you can't be taken to the ground. FWIW, it is actually easier to stop being taken to the ground from attachment than from noncontact.

Anything taken out of context can mean whatever you want it to. Chi sao is a complicated topic. In short every time I touch you we are "bridged" or as you put it attached. The question is does the encounter resemble a game of chi sao were we both attempt to stay bridged? In Chi sao there are many factors that are not present in a real fight. First off when doing chi sao you rarely practice "closing the distance" which is a VERY large amount of the fight. What people call closing the distance is what a boxing and kickboxing focus on ( outside of clinching). This aspect is not ignored in Wing Chun, its there you just don't focus on it.. many people don't in the Wing Chun world.

Wing Chun does not deal with opponents taking us to the ground in a "clinching" sense. I have seen to adapting ideas for example a half sprawl.. but in reality NO CLINCHING. Its about hitting them at a distance, short or long, and not allowing them to clinch/take you down.

The application of Chi sao isn't that fights are exactly like chi sao. In fact you could learn to fight without chi sao. Could you learn to fight with Wing Chun without chi sao??? to some extent... yes.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 09:45 AM

WCK is a "clinching system" -- using a WCK-style clinch. Why do you think chi sao is the main WCK exercise? What are you doing in chi sao? Practicing attached fighting but in an unrealistic (noncombative) environment. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM_KgCSMtMM

Traditionally, the faat (method) begins with dap (joining or riding). Nothing in WCK makes sense except when you look at it from the POV of attached fighting.

Not true. In WCK attached fighting is when you have a bridge. Centerline and forward intent are when you do not have a bridge. WCK handles both.

WCK is a form of dirty-clinch boxing. What is chi sao but an unrealistic representation of that? Why would a method of fighting have mainly all sustained-contact drills to not fight in contact? Does boxing or kicboxing have mainly contact drills? Of course not.

The difference is that clinching is primarily designed to restrict movement. The bridge in WC is primarily for controlling the opponent's center and manipulating it to a position of advantage for finishing. It is not designed to restrict movement. It restricts no movement moving away.

When you are in attached fighting, you need to control your opponent. If you control your opponent, you can't be taken to the ground. FWIW, it is actually easier to stop being taken to the ground from attachment than from noncontact.
With low level grapplers / wrestlers, maybe. With higher level wrestlers who perfect takedowns from the clinch, it is not easier to stop being taken down from attachment. From non-attachment you have a lot more reaction time.

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 09:48 AM

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;950523] Not true. In WCK attached fighting is when you have a bridge. Centerline and forward intent are when you do not have a bridge. WCK handles both.

Too bad you dont practice your own advise

Go ask your sifu or any qualified 10th level monk who is certified in being able to open up the du meridian thus opening up the only true authentic vertical punch power engine.

:eek::eek::eek:

These are EXACTLY why do you got take down. hahaha. :)

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 09:52 AM

While in some of the base concepts you are describing I agree with you, the one area I do not see the difference is where you start to describe opening up the elbows. MT fighters do not have wide open movements with wide open elbows. As a matter of fact, they train to strike from inside and describe a rudimentary box much like WC concepts. The jabs, crosses, hooks all start with tight elbow down fundamentals and do not really "open up". Yet they develop ballistic power. They also work an attached striking method and have the only really developed clinch striking I've seen.

Traditionally, MT did not have strong punching. If you look at the traditional guard of the MT fighter, both hands were held high, elbows out away from the body to guard against kicks and elbows (and that isn't condusive to punching). It was when westerners (trained in boxing) that began fighting MT that things began to change.

There are only two basic differences I see in the WC vertical punch and a MT body uppercut. They are that the WC punch generates power from a vertical wave type of motion starting from the lower body and moving to hips, elbow, fist. The MT punch generates power also with a twisting motion of the hips because they are moving their head offline with punches to make them harder to hit. The vertical or 45 degree angle of the punch on impact is identical.

I agree that WCK doesn't use rotational power in its jik chung choi or as its base method of power generation. I wouldn't characterize the mechanics as a "wave". The best way I can describe how I do it in generic terms is that it is similar to how you close a suitcase that is overstuffed.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 09:56 AM

You see in my perspective of Wing Chun the last place I want to be is clinching (attaching) with you. Clinching leads to going to the ground. If I come in short distance to you its not to attach its to try and end the fight. I actually believe very strongly that Lyoto Machida is a great example of Wing Chun fighting strategy. (strategy not technique)
If you are training close range and you are not clinching, your training is completely unrealistic.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:00 AM

Not true. In WCK attached fighting is when you have a bridge. Centerline and forward intent are when you do not have a bridge. WCK handles both.

Doesn't the kuit tell you "when there is no bridge erect one"? A bridge, btw, isn't necessarily arm to arm contact. It just means you have a connection (bridge) to your opponent. It is through that connection that you can dontrol him.

The difference is that clinching is primarily designed to restrict movement. The bridge in WC is primarily for controlling the opponent's center and manipulating it to a position of advantage for finishing. It is not designed to restrict movement. It restricts no movement moving away.

You seem to be thinking of the "bridge" as arm to arm -- it's not. A bridge is the connection between you. The purpose of that connection if to control your opponent so that you can hit safely. Control means to restrict his productive movement. I don't know about you, but when I engage, and get control over my opponent I don't want him to be able to get away.

With low level grapplers / wrestlers, maybe. With higher level wrestlers who perfect takedowns from the clinch, it is not easier to stop being taken down from attachment. From non-attachment you have a lot more reaction time.]

You may have more reaction time but attachment permits you to stop the takedown. For example, get an underhook on your opponent and have him try to do a double or single leg. Similarly, get a good neck tie (neck pulling hand) and have him try to take you down.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:02 AM

Care to expand? Please?
The tactic is to move from the tie up/clinch to setting up a release, moving into boxing style inside punches and then back to tie up/clinch or moving outside. This works well, as many opponents get too focused on in maintaining the clinch.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:05 AM

You may have more reaction time but attachment permits you to stop the takedown. For example, get an underhook on your opponent and have him try to do a double or single leg. Similarly, get a good neck tie (neck pulling hand) and have him try to take you down.

Attachment also gives the opponent more set up opportunities for takedowns. Non-attachment is the best way to avoid takedowns. In wrestling you are penalized for it.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:08 AM

Anything taken out of context can mean whatever you want it to. Chi sao is a complicated topic. In short every time I touch you we are "bridged" or as you put it attached. The question is does the encounter resemble a game of chi sao were we both attempt to stay bridged? In Chi sao there are many factors that are not present in a real fight. First off when doing chi sao you rarely practice "closing the distance" which is a VERY large amount of the fight. What people call closing the distance is what a boxing and kickboxing focus on ( outside of clinching). This aspect is not ignored in Wing Chun, its there you just don't focus on it.. many people don't in the Wing Chun world.

Wing Chun does not deal with opponents taking us to the ground in a "clinching" sense. I have seen to adapting ideas for example a half sprawl.. but in reality NO CLINCHING. Its about hitting them at a distance, short or long, and not allowing them to clinch/take you down.

The application of Chi sao isn't that fights are exactly like chi sao. In fact you could learn to fight without chi sao. Could you learn to fight with Wing Chun without chi sao??? to some extent... yes.

You are missing the point. WCK's main exercise, chi sao 9and lop sao, etc.), is to teach you HOW TO PLAY THE GAME. That game is attached fighting. The tools of chi sao, the tools of WCK, are attached fighting tools. I agree, that it is not being done realistically, as things would really occur in fighting since your partner isn't really fighting you and is only using WCK elements. BUT, it is an unrealsitic representation of that. Chi sao is WCK with the training wheels on (like the training wheels on a bike). It allows a beginner to learn the game.

But as I said, this is the beginner level. Once the trainee can comfortably play that game, then you need to take it to the realistic level, to begin fighting/sparring with those things. In other words, getting attachment and fighting.

Did you ever wonder why all the WCK people you see sparring on the outside, in noncontact, never seem to be using any WCK techniques?

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 10:13 AM

These are EXACTLY why do you got take down. hahaha. :)
EXACTLY why I get taken down is because there is a list of people I work with who are better at executing takedowns than I am at defending them. There's another list who aren't. I'm trying to work to move people off the first list to the second. And yet there are about three on the first list who realistically it's unlikely that's going to happen. Best I'm going to do there is up my percentages a little.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:16 AM

Attachment also gives the opponent more set up opportunities for takedowns. Non-attachment is the best way to avoid takedowns. In wrestling you are penalized for it.

Here's my experience. It's very difficult to stop someone from taking a shot on the outside. Sure you can do certain things or move in certain way to make it more difficult but when you add striking, that becomes problematic. Pure wrestlers don't deal with those things. For example, when you throw a punch the opportunity for a shot is there.

Even when I'm able to stop a shot from the outside, I typically find that I either endup in a clinch or the ground (for example, my opponent pulls guard when I sprawl). Of course, this can very well be that I am just not very good. But my experience is that I find it easier to stop takedowns when attached -- maybe this is because I spend much of my time attached and have developed awareness and sensitivity.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:18 AM

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:22 AM

Here's my experience. It's very difficult to stop someone from taking a shot on the outside. Sure you can do certain things or move in certain way to make it more difficult but when you add striking, that becomes problematic. Pure wrestlers don't deal with those things. For example, when you throw a punch the opportunity for a shot is there.

Even when I'm able to stop a shot from the outside, I typically find that I either endup in a clinch or the ground (for example, my opponent pulls guard when I sprawl). Of course, this can very well be that I am just not very good. But my experience is that I find it easier to stop takedowns when attached -- maybe this is because I spend much of my time attached and have developed awareness and sensitivity.

If your goal is purely not to get taken down, non-attached is always best. Of course, this does require you to be in purely defensive mode. In wrestling and MMA you will get penalized for stalling if you do it, precisely because it is so effective at keeping anything from happening.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:26 AM

If your goal is purely not to get taken down, non-attached is always best. Of course, this does require you to be in purely defensive mode. In wrestling and MMA you will get penalized for stalling if you do it, precisely because it is so effective at keeping anything from happening.

Sure, I understand. Similarly, the best way to not get hit is to stay out of range.

I was speaking from a the perspective of how to best stop the takedown while at the same time mounting an offense.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 10:29 AM

Doesn't the kuit tell you "when there is no bridge erect one"? A bridge, btw, isn't necessarily arm to arm contact. It just means you have a connection (bridge) to your opponent. It is through that connection that you can dontrol him.

[/QUOTE]
The one I'm familiar with says when there is a bridge, sink it, when there's not, attack. Those aren't the exact words, but I'm paraphrasing.

You seem to be thinking of the "bridge" as arm to arm -- it's not. A bridge is the connection between you. The purpose of that connection if to control your opponent so that you can hit safely. Control means to restrict his productive movement. I don't know about you, but when I engage, and get control over my opponent I don't want him to be able to get away.

I'm currently re-evaluating what I think a "bridge" is. Is a clinch a bridge? Is having your opponent in a corner a bridge?

You may have more reaction time but attachment permits you to stop the takedown. For example, get an underhook on your opponent and have him try to do a double or single leg. Similarly, get a good neck tie (neck pulling hand) and have him try to take you down.
Again, agree with lower level opponents. High level wrestlers have setups where I'd rather be on the outside sprawling on a shoot.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:29 AM

These are EXACTLY why do you got take down. hahaha. :)
Do you think that developing high levels of WC skill is going to keep someone from getting taken down?

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 10:38 AM

Do you think that developing high levels of WC skill is going to keep someone from getting taken down?

Similar to no one can guarentee to not get Knock down, with a well develop good platform, being taken down or not depend on one's skill.

With a stupid platform similar to " stoping an on coming 60miles per hour trailer truck with a road block " is totally out of reality, and in fact aiding to the destruction or damage by the in coming truck.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 10:39 AM

The one I'm familiar with says when there is a bridge, sink it, when there's not, attack. Those aren't the exact words, but I'm paraphrasing.

Chum kiu (sinking bridge) refers to using the bridge to destroy (sink) an opponent's body structure (thereby enabling us to control him) not to sink your opponent's arm.

Another kuit: The novice fights from across the stream, the master fights from the bridge

I'm currently re-evaluating what I think a "bridge" is. Is a clinch a bridge? Is having your opponent in a corner a bridge?

What does a bridge do in the everyday world? It is a solid structure that links or joins two masses. Constant-reevaluation is a very good thing.

Again, agree with lower level opponents. High level wrestlers have setups where I'd rather be on the outside sprawling on a shoot.

To each thier own.

And as an afterthought -- sprawling won't necessarily stop you from being taken down. All your opponent needs to do is pull guard when you sprawl. (In wrestling, you don't want to end up on your back as that will be a loss so the sprawl works to stop takedowns.) And, if he shoots a low John Smith-type single leg, you won't able able to sprawl.

monji112000

07-29-2009, 10:46 AM

If you are training close range and you are not clinching, your training is completely unrealistic.
I don't chi sao in close range. The most you can do is barely get a collar tie at correct chi sao distance. Granted to can start grappling, and clinching.. but you would need to shorten the distance. I'm not passing judgement on clinching, I practice clinching in that respect (without striking).

You are missing the point. WCK's main exercise, chi sao 9and lop sao, etc.), is to teach you HOW TO PLAY THE GAME.
Did you ever wonder why all the WCK people you see sparring on the outside, in noncontact, never seem to be using any WCK techniques?

The game is just that a game. Its not fighting. It is a good platform to learn how to use Wing Chun techniques and ideas.. but in no way is it fighting or does it alone prepare you to fight someone. I would not even say that it is the only main exercise in Wing Chun. Sparring is also a main exercise. Sparring in a environment were the person is trying to hurt you, and using a none wing chun style.. ie boxer jabs crosses, hooks, upercuts, ect..
You can choose to hit hard or light, but you have to be realistic about whats going on.
Good examples of light and hard sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhWtl_J3TsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkeSlaXJxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfWJ6D5YqBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En4nat3BvCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGM0tsd6Su0&feature=channel_page

Look I'm not saying I'm training this way 100% of the time, or that my **** doesn't stink.. (I have my reasons for my training schedule) but if you want to train Wing chun to fight that's how the environment/Platform I was shown to use. Its the same platform that Pro MMA, Boxing, and Kickboxing fighters use.
anything else and your just wasting your time. JMO:rolleyes:

Actually I only see very few people ever using Wing Chun in sparring on the "inside". Its a much harder method to master.Correction on the web I rarely see any Wing Chun used at all. its mostly just blindly chain puching and driving in. Great way to get takendown or get the fight to go to the ground.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:48 AM

Similar to no one can guarentee to not get Knock down, with a well develop good platform, being taken down or not depend on one's skill.

This true to an extent. However, thinking you can decrease the probability of getting taken down by getting better at WC is the same as thinking you can decrease the probability of getting taken down by getting better at darts.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:53 AM

And as an afterthought -- sprawling won't necessarily stop you from being taken down. All your opponent needs to do is pull guard when you sprawl. (In wrestling, you don't want to end up on your back as that will be a loss so the sprawl works to stop takedowns.) And, if he shoots a low John Smith-type single leg, you won't able able to sprawl.

1- It's hard to pull guard when you end up underneath a good sprawl.
2- You don't have to follow the opponent into his guard.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 10:58 AM

Actually I only see very few people ever using Wing Chun in sparring on the "inside". Its a much harder method to master.Correction on the web I rarely see any Wing Chun used at all. its mostly just blindly chain puching and driving in. Great way to get takendown or get the fight to go to the ground.

Maybe because what you think it is supposed to be like doesn't exist against a halfway skilled, resisting opponent.

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 10:58 AM

This true to an extent.

However, thinking you can decrease the probability of getting taken down by getting better at WC is the same as thinking you can decrease the probability of getting taken down by getting better at darts.

similar the probability of getting taken down, You made an assumption here based on the same logic.

My point is about the platform. if the platform sucks then why even bother to think one might win?

and even with a good platform, being knock down or take down is 50/50 depending on the skill of the person.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 11:04 AM

I don't chi sao in close range. The most you can do is barely get a collar tie at correct chi sao distance. Granted to can start grappling, and clinching.. but you would need to shorten the distance. I'm not passing judgement on clinching, I practice clinching in that respect (without striking).

Chi sao is a game for learning the tools of attached fighting. It isn't attached fighting. Go back and look at the video I used as an example -- do you see that he's using the WCK tools to control the opponent while strikinghim? Do you see that the range changes? Chi sao is dynamic. But it is unrealsitic.

The game is just that a game. Its not fighting. It is a good platform to learn how to use Wing Chun techniques and ideas..

STOP right there. Yes, it is a game to learn to use WCK techniques/ideas -- and you're learning them in an attached mock-fighting situation. Do you see the significance of that? It makes no sense to learn and practice using your tools in an attached situation to then not fight in contact! Similarly, it wouldn't make good sense to learn attached fighting skills in noncontact drills.

but in no way is it fighting or does it alone prepare you to fight someone.

Didn't I say that? I said it is to teach you the game, but then you need to take it to the realsitic level.

I would not even say that it is the only main exercise in Wing Chun. Sparring is also a main exercise. Sparring in a environment were the person is trying to hurt you, and using a none wing chun style.. ie boxer jabs crosses, hooks, upercuts, ect..
You can choose to hit hard or light, but you have to be realistic about whats going on.
Good examples of light and hard sparring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhWtl_J3TsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkeSlaXJxI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfWJ6D5YqBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En4nat3BvCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGM0tsd6Su0&feature=channel_page

That's all great but it's not WCK. Look, let's say I said, for the sake of argument, that WCK was a ground-and-pound method (I know it's not but this is an analogy). Then the WCK sparring would involve ground and pound, right? Well, WCK is a stand-up, control the opponent while striking him method.

Look I'm not saying I'm training this way 100% of the time, or that my **** doesn't stink.. (I have my reasons for my training schedule) but if you want to train Wing chun to fight that's how the environment/Platform I was shown to use. Its the same platform that Pro MMA, Boxing, and Kickboxing fighters use.
anything else and your just wasting your time. JMO:rolleyes:

WCK teaches us an approach to fighitng (control the opponent while striking him) and provides us the tools to do that. Chi sao is the way this is taught-- TAUGHT. It's how we learn to play that game in an unrealistic environment. Yes, it is not fighting. But, it teaches you how to perform the actions, movement, etc. you need to play the game of attached fighting. How to do a lop da, for example. Doing chi sao won't make you a good fighter. But, once you learn the game and the tools, THEN you need to go spar and try to make your approach -- control your opponent while striking him -- work.

Actually I only see very few people ever using Wing Chun in sparring on the "inside". Its a much harder method to master.

To box or kickbox and throw in a few WCK techniques from time to time doesn't make it WCK sparring. If I taught a boxer to pak da would he now be a WCK fighter?

It is difficult to fight on the inside. If it were easy, everyone would be great at it.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 11:11 AM

It is difficult to fight on the inside. If it were easy, everyone would be great at it.
No more difficult than fighting at any other range.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 11:12 AM

similar the probability of getting taken down, You made an assumption here based on the same logic.

My point is about the platform. if the platform sucks then why even bother to think one might win?

and even with a good platform, being knock down or take down is 50/50 depending on the skill of the person.

You are right, the platform is just as important as the skill. With the wrong platform, all the skill in the world is useless. WC is not the platform to learn how to decrease the probability of getting taken down.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 11:20 AM

No more difficult than fighting at any other range.

Never said it was "more difficult". Just that if it were easy, everyone could do it. All fighting is hard, and training to fight is hard too.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 11:23 AM

You are right, the platform is just as important as the skill. With the wrong platform, all the skill in the world is useless. WC is not the platform to learn how to decrease the probability of getting taken down.

You're absolutely right but until a person goes and spends some time with a very good wreslter they won't appreciate that.

monji112000

07-29-2009, 11:33 AM

Chi sao is a game for learning the tools of attached fighting. It isn't attached fighting. Go back and look at the video I used as an example -- do you see that he's using the WCK tools to control the opponent while strikinghim? Do you see that the range changes? Chi sao is dynamic. But it is unrealsitic. Yes I watched the video. first off the people aren't really resisting. I'm not interested in giving my opinion or saying anything negative about the video... I don't know the sifu. I do see some techniques in the video but again against a resisting opponent it doesn't look like that. Secondly I don't think its smart to include the person stopping in the middle of attacking as a method for training. They are clearly doing one crappy technique and stopping.. again I'm not interested in discussing chi sao in detail its a complicated topic..

STOP right there. Yes, it is a game to learn to use WCK techniques/ideas -- and you're learning them in an attached mock-fighting situation. Do you see the significance of that? It makes no sense to learn and practice using your tools in an attached situation to then not fight in contact! Similarly, it wouldn't make good sense to learn attached fighting skills in noncontact drills.

It makes perfect sense, since that in a integral part of fighting. Non contact is were everything begins.Again in a real fight constant "attaching" doesn't always exist and not in the context of the game of Chi sao. Just watch the clip even then its constantly losing the platform of chi sao. so in a sense you are engaging and disengaging allot.

That's all great but it's not WCK.
I said the "platform" is Wing Chun not the techniques. It 100% is and has been used for many generations. Thats how people learn to fight. Maybe today we can use boxing gloves and headgear to help reduce injury, but this form of training has always existed. Its the core foundation of all martial arts. JMO

To box or kickbox and throw in a few WCK techniques from time to time doesn't make it WCK sparring. If I taught a boxer to pak da would he now be a WCK fighter?

It is difficult to fight on the inside. If it were easy, everyone would be great at it.

I don't believe in anything called Wing Chun sparring. We clearly have completely different ideas on what works, what is Wing chun, and what world we live in. As I said lets agree to disagree. I think if you start practising in the method/platform I showed in those clips your fighting ability will improve dramatically. You will also start to figure out what things tend to work more often and what doesn't when someone is REALLY resisting.

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 11:34 AM

You are right, the platform is just as important as the skill. With the wrong platform, all the skill in the world is useless. .

yup. cant cooking a bow of sand to expect for getting rice.

That bring us back to this vertical punch topic, what platform is it in? That is the biggest question we need to face.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 11:54 AM

Non contact is were everything begins..
Actually, real fighting starts in contact range more often than not. That's the single part of chi sao that actually gets things right.

The funny thing is if you guys were really getting into things on the street like so many of you say you are, you would have figured out a much more realistic approach to your chi sao by now.

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 12:14 PM

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by monji112000 View Post
Non contact is were everything begins..

the first intention, the eyes contact.... ect is already contact long before physical contact. And often one has lost even at the contact before the physical one.

t_niehoff

07-29-2009, 12:20 PM

Yes I watched the video. first off the people aren't really resisting. I'm not interested in giving my opinion or saying anything negative about the video... I don't know the sifu. I do see some techniques in the video but again against a resisting opponent it doesn't look like that. Secondly I don't think its smart to include the person stopping in the middle of attacking as a method for training. They are clearly doing one crappy technique and stopping.. again I'm not interested in discussing chi sao in detail its a complicated topic..

Try to understand this -- chi sao is NOT fighting, it is an exercise (a mock fight) to learn and practice WCK's method of attached fighting. So, it is not going to look like a fight, it will not involve genuine resistance, etc.

Chi sao isn't a complicated topic.

It makes perfect sense, since that in a integral part of fighting. Non contact is were everything begins.Again in a real fight constant "attaching" doesn't always exist and not in the context of the game of Chi sao. Just watch the clip even then its constantly losing the platform of chi sao. so in a sense you are engaging and disengaging allot.

As Dale already pointed out, many fights do being very close or with contact. And while I agre that many fights do not, WCK provides the tools to gain contact/attachment. It is like saying WCK is ground-n-pound. Do you need topractice that on the ground? Yes. Is the ground the entire fight? No. But the idea is to get to the ground sso that you can pound as quickly as possible. With regard to WCK being about controlling while striking, yes, you may need to first establish an attachment. That's part of WCK. But it's not a part of chi sao since that exercise is only concered with what to do once you get there.

Yes, in that video they stop, start, disengage but this is just "phrases" of the overall approach -- once you break the opponent's structure and are controlling and striking them, in chi sao you stop and begin again. You don't, as you would in a fight, finish the guy.

I said the "platform" is Wing Chun not the techniques. It 100% is and has been used for many generations. Thats how people learn to fight. Maybe today we can use boxing gloves and headgear to help reduce injury, but this form of training has always existed. Its the core foundation of all martial arts. JMO

If you are saying that sparring is a platform of MA training, then I will agree. However, it is not the core of all martial arts but only the functional martial arts and is a recent development.

I don't believe in anything called Wing Chun sparring. We clearly have completely different ideas on what works, what is Wing chun, and what world we live in. As I said lets agree to disagree. I think if you start practising in the method/platform I showed in those clips your fighting ability will improve dramatically. You will also start to figure out what things tend to work more often and what doesn't when someone is REALLY resisting.

"Wing Chun sparring" is sparring with your WCK method and skills. If you are a WCK fighter, you are going to use the WCK method and tools, right? WCK isn't just doing whatever you want and calling it WCK. You are only doing WCK when you are using its tools. Just like you aren't boxing if you aren't using boxing's tools or BJJ if you aren't using BJJ tools. When do we use WCK tools? When we are in certain (but not all) attached situations.

Knifefighter

07-29-2009, 12:24 PM

So, similar to lots of Chinese art, there is one conclusion, the proper platform has been missing due to the evolution. what we see today is no longer what it is.

Bingo!! Take away the constant real-world testing and, within a few years, you end up with a completely different platform that bears little resemblance to the original.

monji112000

07-29-2009, 12:37 PM

Actually, real fighting starts in contact range more often than not. That's the single part of chi sao that actually gets things right.

The funny thing is if you guys were really getting into things on the street like so many of you say you are, you would have figured out a much more realistic approach to your chi sao by now.

You show me were I ever said I was "getting into things on the street". I avoid fights on the street. I have been mugged, and I gave him my wallet (it was a throw away wallet), and I ran away. I'm proud of doing the smart thing. I personally have been in allot of fights in my younger years. All of wich starting without any "clinching", attaching. They all started two ways, sucker punches or my trying to back up and avoid a fight.. they swing. So Did they start in "Striking range" yes, did they start bridged NO. So again I feel strongly you must be able to handle people more often then not striking you not constantly bridging. I train BOTH. I'm not the best nor do I claim to be. What you read is what you get.

Try to understand this -- chi sao is NOT fighting, it is an exercise (a mock fight) to learn and practice WCK's method of attached fighting. So, it is not going to look like a fight, it will not involve genuine resistance, etc.

Chi sao isn't a complicated topic.

As Dale already pointed out, many fights do being very close or with contact. And while I agre that many fights do not, WCK provides the tools to gain contact/attachment. It is like saying WCK is ground-n-pound. Do you need topractice that on the ground? Yes. Is the ground the entire fight? No. But the idea is to get to the ground sso that you can pound as quickly as possible. With regard to WCK being about controlling while striking, yes, you may need to first establish an attachment. That's part of WCK. But it's not a part of chi sao since that exercise is only concered with what to do once you get there.

Yes, in that video they stop, start, disengage but this is just "phrases" of the overall approach -- once you break the opponent's structure and are controlling and striking them, in chi sao you stop and begin again. You don't, as you would in a fight, finish the guy.

If you are saying that sparring is a platform of MA training, then I will agree. However, it is not the core of all martial arts but only the functional martial arts and is a recent development.

I'll stand by what I said. I don't believe in Wing Chun Sparring. Sparring as a general Platform is a core "platform" used in all martial arts at one time or another. Fighting doesn't resemble a CHi sao match. Again chi sao is complicated topic. I'm sure if we surveyed everyone who posts in the WC area you would find allot of different ideas of what exactly it is. If your chi sao doesn't involve real resistance that fine, I pass no judgement. I don't find that useful at all. at some point you have to have real resistance.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 12:56 PM

The tactic is to move from the tie up/clinch to setting up a release, moving into boxing style inside punches and then back to tie up/clinch or moving outside. This works well, as many opponents get too focused on in maintaining the clinch.

This is pretty common in MT drills I'm familiar with. Punch your way in, reach behind head, pull into a knee, establish the MT neck ties, hang weight on neck, sling opponent to one side, when their foot hits the ground, knee strike, then punch your way out with opposite hand to striking knee.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 01:11 PM

Chum kiu (sinking bridge) refers to using the bridge to destroy (sink) an opponent's body structure (thereby enabling us to control him) not to sink your opponent's arm.

Another kuit: The novice fights from across the stream, the master fights from the bridge.

The kuit's I've been exposed to are oral HFY sayings. They are probably different than some of the mainstream WC written kuits - I've only had slight exposure to those through Moy Yat lines.

I've never heard anything like erect a bridge if one doesn't exist. That kind of sounds like let your opponent back in the fight when you have the opportunity to finish him.

Hendrik

07-29-2009, 01:20 PM

Bingo!! Take away the constant real-world testing and, within a few years, you end up with a completely different platform that bears little resemblance to the original.

Totally screw up and living in a fantasy land too.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 01:24 PM

1- It's hard to pull guard when you end up underneath a good sprawl.
2- You don't have to follow the opponent into his guard.

This is all true - also it depends on how committed the shoot was. If people are doing uncommitted shots, you don't need to sprawl, but can shut it down with a low hand and facing. That's where you don't have to follow them into the guard but can maintain posture and pass.

If it's more committed and you need to drop your weight / hip, then it pretty much leads directly into a front headlock position with a sprawl or to a wrestlers side ride.

I guess if people are throwing really wide open right hands with no setup that might expose them to shots of this nature more, but I've not had a real problem with people turning a shoot into pulling guard. If they're committed enough to make the shoot a threat for a single/double leg takedown, they don't have space to pull guard when you sprawl and put a good hip into it. If they are not committed enough, no need to sprawl.

Wayfaring

07-29-2009, 01:29 PM

The funny thing is if you guys were really getting into things on the street like so many of you say you are, you would have figured out a much more realistic approach to your chi sao by now.

No way. I can't afford to get into it on the street, with lawsuits and criminal charges. I can only afford that kind of activity in a gym or training facility where people have signed waivers.

Liddel

07-29-2009, 05:32 PM

WCK is a "clinching system" -- using a WCK-style clinch. Why do you think chi sao is the main WCK exercise? What are you doing in chi sao? Practicing attached fighting but in an unrealistic (noncombative) environment.

This implies you still have the training wheels on with regard to VT, theres no need to force attatchment or look to clinch, VT isn a clinch system IME.

Trainging wheels on a bike force one to go straight ahead insted of tipping to one side. Chi sau makes us 'stick' only as training wheels during discovery and application.
Once the training wheels are off and your in Gor Sau all the way through sparring to fighting, you are chasing the body and sticking is a bi-product of the opponent trying to nuetralise that. Its a give in many people get stuck on the sticking rather than striking and combining phase.

This is one way i force my game on my sparring partners.

Any skilled VT pratitioner who actually mixes it up knows - DONT chase the hands, CHASE the body, the rest will follow.

This is quite a shift from the verticle punch topic , but i guess we need something to preech about LOL :rolleyes: :p

DREW

LSWCTN1

07-30-2009, 03:02 AM

You are missing the point. WCK's main exercise, chi sao 9and lop sao, etc.), is to teach you HOW TO PLAY THE GAME. That game is attached fighting. The tools of chi sao, the tools of WCK, are attached fighting tools. I

this was why i raised the question oin my why chi sau? thread

not everyone sees chi sau in this way - we certainly dont

chi sau in itself is to open to interpretation

also the kuen kuit...

they are very good, but they are one persons/lineages interpretation of how wck should be performed - one practitioner originally came up with an idea, then passed that particular idea/ideal onto their student(s)

you can say chi sau is attached and pass that message on to your students. i can say its not and pass tat onto my students - within time our 'kuen kuits' will be different between our lineages. it is just an interpretation

Museumtech

07-30-2009, 03:34 AM

the first intention, the eyes contact.... ect is already contact long before physical contact. And often one has lost even at the contact before the physical one.

Fortunately I have never had to defend my self in this sort of situation. And if I die never fully testing WC in a real life and death situation I will die happy. But from what I read, from what I hear, from what I see on the news. Those cowardly *******s will have kicked the sh1t out of you with out bothering to make eye contact. If eye contact is made, I have the option of walking away.

Peter Lillywhite

Ultimatewingchun

07-30-2009, 05:03 AM

t_niehoff

07-30-2009, 07:18 AM

This implies you still have the training wheels on with regard to VT, theres no need to force attatchment or look to clinch, VT isn a clinch system IME.

Trainging wheels on a bike force one to go straight ahead insted of tipping to one side. Chi sau makes us 'stick' only as training wheels during discovery and application.
Once the training wheels are off and your in Gor Sau all the way through sparring to fighting, you are chasing the body and sticking is a bi-product of the opponent trying to nuetralise that. Its a give in many people get stuck on the sticking rather than striking and combining phase.

This is one way i force my game on my sparring partners.

Any skilled VT pratitioner who actually mixes it up knows - DONT chase the hands, CHASE the body, the rest will follow.

This is quite a shift from the verticle punch topic , but i guess we need something to preech about LOL :rolleyes: :p

DREW

I think you don't understand what I am saying. Chi sao teaches us attached fighting skills. To do what? To fight in noncontact?

I am not saying that in fighting you will "stick" -- the objective in chi sao btw isn't to "stick" either, it is to learn the WCK tools so that you can control the opponent while striking him (nor is it to develop sensitivity or contact reflexes -- yes, you develop those, but for what purpose? To control the opponent whike striking him). If you fight on the inside you'll immediately see the importance of that (because if you don't control him, he will move to control you). You can't control the opponent by "chasing hands". And if you looked at the video clip of chi sao I posted somewhere above, you'd see that guy wasn't chasing hands -- he was trying to control his partner. Contact (a bridge) is needed to control, but that doesn't need to be with his hands.

This ties into the vertical punch since that punch (the vertical fist aligment) only makes sense for inside, attached fighting -- or for gaining an attachment. And that's because when you are on the inside and attached, your elbows will NEED to be down and in, which causes your fist to align vertically naturally.

k gledhill

07-30-2009, 07:35 AM

No, no no on so many levels :D

liddels on the mark, Terence there is an obvious gap of information your missing, I was missing it too. I Used to have your view...

If you adopt a different mind set to the development in chi-sao stages
dan chi..[redundant 2 step striking stage] nothing to do with sticking and controlling
chi-sao..[ a lot of it is redundant , we dont face with 2 arms equally extended when we fight]

many 'games' get developed in chi-sao , guys start to block with wrists, use wrist force etc...sticking , controlling to avoid getting tagged while feeling at the wrist...all wrong thinking. Add the common
mistake of adopting the same distances of dan chi training for chi-sao [lok sao] and your too far away in the 2 arm drill...involves impacting your partner with no step in ....we will step in doing seung ma toi ma drills...attack & counter attacking...
clearing the line , not trying to control it...
trying to turn the opponent or reduce their ability to face us squarely....like our drill with a partner ...who is developing the same techniques.

man+vu =attack

tan sao is the 1st 1/2 of an extending strike
jum saao " ""

Nothing to do with turning and sticking in front of a guy doing chi-sao....or trying to 'control' them...

think of trying to develop an attack like water not a mud wrestle at your local saloon :D

we dont use the wrists in the developmental stages....

tactical positioning

the seung ma toi ma drills of chi-sao are very important to the exercise...

chusauli

07-30-2009, 09:57 AM

k gledhill

07-30-2009, 10:25 AM

The key element missing in chi-sao that focuses on sticky wristing..is that the idea as Robert mentions
is striking diagonally across POTENTIAL lines of intersection..this potential is not looked for [chase] it is taken care of by having trained the arms [dan chi gor] to strike and hold alignment from outside & inside and under [jut] while they rotate striking...

IF contact is made the ballistic force of the 2 energies of the trained strikes can and will allow simultaneous individual arms to cycle quickly while still aiming to strike the targets in an un-ending flow...never 2 defensive moves following the other ..attack deflection/parry
strike etc....

as soon as w engage the single arm with a grab laterally [lop from bil gee] we go off line ...tan sao leaves the line as a block...off line ...etc off the cycle off the idea...not water flowing anymore, you allow the guys arm to create a dam to your flow...

sticky hands /wristing over controlling defense to pak to gum to strikelop to pak to chop...all leads to a completely different outcome of development

compared to ..

elbow alignment drills coupled with angling to line of randomly delivered force , not allowing a person to face you head on , not fighting them lead leg down the center....
the whole system is this elbow attack alignment angling flanking shifting being elusive ...being a 2 handed freefighter...not a stick fest clinch lopchop

sihing

07-30-2009, 11:03 AM

WCK is all about control the center of gravity and striking at will, setting up for continuous strikes, all the while keeping your opponent off balance.

It is not having him stand comfortably while you enter. He is falling and having to regain his balance. That is your job. Smother him, don't let his style or system show, and you can land as many vertical punches as you want. (Which, to me, is actually "diagonal" punches.)

All this chat about sticking hands is out of place. You are raining punches on your opponent and each punch that lands is screwing with the opponent's balance. I think many WCK people pull their hand back when they punch - you should be always entering behind it. You can do everything else when he's punched out - high kicks, joint locks, throws, submissions, etc.

Just my opinion.

Been following this thread, actually a good one for a change....

I think Robert has hit the nail on the head. Both elements of control and striking are present in the WC I know. Strict and basic WSL VT doesn't have as much of the control aspect, but I believe later in the development it is there (Gary Lam VT is allot about this). The first thing to develop is an accurate/powerful strike, using the whole body, if you don't have this all the control in the world will do you no good, as you can't finish the fight.

We fight in close, as Robert mentioned, to shut down the other guys engine or ability to use his tools. Controlling centerline is present in all the movements if one is shown where it exists, the problem is in the training it may be over emphasized, which leads practitioners to do the same in application. Most everything in WC training is isolated practice, not to be done so in application but needed in training to bring about a certain awareness and body mechanic. In my experience most believe WC is a style, teaching you "how to fight", making you a mechanical robot (Wu sau guard, side stances, ridgid thinking and action). Rather IMO, WC enhances your natural fighting ability, it streamlines your actions, makes everything smaller, tighter, more precise, while on autopilot in a fight. There's no time for fixed positions, fixed thinking, ridgid action, rather one must have finely tuned tools, with a single intent, and that is too attack, attack and attack some more without the need to be thinking about your own actions and body mechanics, where your left toe is pointed and if your guard is in the right gate or not.

James

Yoshiyahu

07-30-2009, 05:32 PM

-木叶-

07-30-2009, 05:47 PM

Redirecting his energy, force and attacks. Turn is attacking line away from you so you can attack him when he can't counter.
An never stop striking even when you defend strike at the same time. This is my opinion of course.

Hi, i think the above is excellent.

sihing

07-30-2009, 05:55 PM

Excellent point Sihing...

How does on develop accuracy with one striking? Please share?

To add to what Sihing said about rigidness.

I personally believe ones WC should be continously Flowing-Fast-Relentless in attacks-Sensitive to change of force. This is the key to me. Endless flow around your opponent energy and feel for openings and strike deep into his vitals to shut him down while redirecting his energy, force and attacks. Turn is attacking line away from you so you can attack him when he can't counter. An never stop striking even when you defend strike at the same time. This is my opinion of course.

Part of the SNT training teaches aim of your tools, chi sau as well. You do the form square on, your tan and fok come straight out from your centerline, this is easy to do when in this static position, but when you are moving, and in more of a forward facing position, you have to be able to instinctively project yourself and your tools towards your opponents center axis(not always down the middle of his torso, depends on the angle you are facing), rather than criss crossing his body and center, essentially missing your target. Basically if you can master your facing, you should be fine when projecting towards center axis. You can implement this idea as well in your bag work using a skinny bag, if you hit it offline you either make it spin or miss it all together (me here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgqtMiuwK9o), or while using pads.

Sifu Lam has 3 basic follow ups, 1) KO the guy, 2) Take his facing away, either by moving him or you moving, 3) Push him out(po pai training) and follow up. I guess you could add takedowns to this list as well, what he calls Closing.

James

Hendrik

07-30-2009, 06:01 PM

Hi, i think the above is excellent.

sure, if one have the power generation capability.

Without the platform which can support it, it becomes a fantasy.

Yoshiyahu

07-30-2009, 06:02 PM

Hi, i think the above is excellent.

Thankyou very much

Part of the SNT training teaches aim of your tools, chi sau as well. You do the form square on, your tan and fok come straight out from your centerline, this is easy to do when in this static position, but when you are moving, and in more of a forward facing position, you have to be able to instinctively project yourself and your tools towards your opponents center axis(not always down the middle of his torso, depends on the angle you are facing), rather than criss crossing his body and center, essentially missing your target. Basically if you can master your facing, you should be fine when projecting towards center axis. You can implement this idea as well in your bag work using a skinny bag, if you hit it offline you either make it spin or miss it all together (me here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgqtMiuwK9o), or while using pads.

Sifu Lam has 3 basic follow ups, 1) KO the guy, 2) Take his facing away, either by moving him or you moving, 3) Push him out(po pai training) and follow up. I guess you could add takedowns to this list as well, what he calls Closing.

James

Excellent post...thanks for adding some useful information...GReat info

-木叶-

07-30-2009, 07:39 PM

sure, if one have the power generation capability.

Without the platform which can support it, it becomes a fantasy.

That is absolutely correct, Thanks for the info

LSWCTN1

07-31-2009, 12:58 AM

Strict and basic WSL VT doesn't have as much of the control aspect, but I believe later in the development it is there (Gary Lam VT is allot about this). The first thing to develop is an accurate/powerful strike, using the whole body, if you don't have this all the control in the world will do you no good, as you can't finish the fight.

. Turn is attacking line away from you so you can attack him when he can't counter. An never stop striking even when you defend strike at the same time. This is my opinion of course.

both great posts,

my only experience with wslvt is through Ng Chun Hong and Nino Bernado lineages combined, but for me and the wslvt that i know is all about control (although i know that Ng Chun Hong isnt sonsidered strictly wsl)

but, again just IMHO, control doesnt have to be 1 arm makes 2 cross in a 'trap' - it can be (and almost always is) as Yoshiyahu describes above. you dont have to turn him necessarily, but you should be able to angle yourself against him

exceptional point made. if you cant deliver power to knock him out, you can have all the other skills in the world, but you are f*cked

Pacman

07-31-2009, 03:38 AM

I am not saying that in fighting you will "stick" -- the objective in chi sao btw isn't to "stick" either, it is to learn the WCK tools so that you can control the opponent while striking him (nor is it to develop sensitivity or contact reflexes -- yes, you develop those, but for what purpose? To control the opponent whike striking him).

from what i learned, the point of chi sau is to stop the fight from being an open exchange of strikes.

this is done by sticking, i.e. attaching to an opponent like a squid, slowing down his movements, stifling his ability to strike you effectively.

it is not just a drill it is a technique, a skill, a style, and an actual method of fighting.

i know some may disagree.

this, is a complete example of what chi sau is not

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

you see them attached in the rolling position and then completely detach and both just throw punches. to me this is missing the entire point of chi sau.

i know many teach this way and many learn this is what chi sau is. for this reason, i dont blame people for thinking that type of "chi sau" it is a waste of time.

t_niehoff

07-31-2009, 07:01 AM

from what i learned, the point of chi sau is to stop the fight from being an open exchange of strikes.

Alright, let's go with that. How can you stop your opponent from striking you while you strike him when in contact?

this is done by sticking, i.e. attaching to an opponent like a squid, slowing down his movements, stifling his ability to strike you effectively.

That's a part of it. But you can't always stick to his arms, nor do you always want to. In chi sao we are able to stick to the opponent's arms/bridges for the most part because he is letting us by trying to strick to our arms/bridges. Sticking is one element of control. There are many other elements (grasping, pressing, pulling, position, breaking his structure, jamming, etc.). Chi sao is an exercise that permits us to learn and practice those elements (so that we can develop the ability to do them) in an unrealistic, nonfighting environment. It allows us to practice controlling the opponent while striking him.

it is not just a drill it is a technique, a skill, a style, and an actual method of fighting.

Chi sao is not fighting and can't develop fighting skill. As I said, it is WCK with the training wheels on. Riding your bike with the training wheels on won't develop bike riding skill to any significant degree, but it will help you learn some of the things you'll need when you go to actually ride the bike. Only actually riding the bike, however, really develops bike-riding skill. Chi sao permits us to learn how to use the WCK tools (movements, tactics, etc.) to control the opponent while striking him. Once you have learned those things, then you need to take the training wheels off and begin trying to make those things work under fighting conditions.

t_niehoff

07-31-2009, 07:31 AM

I think Robert has hit the nail on the head. Both elements of control and striking are present in the WC I know. Strict and basic WSL VT doesn't have as much of the control aspect, but I believe later in the development it is there (Gary Lam VT is allot about this). The first thing to develop is an accurate/powerful strike, using the whole body, if you don't have this all the control in the world will do you no good, as you can't finish the fight.

Very good.

I think the control aspect of WCK often isn't emphasized for several reasons. Firstly, I think many people simply don't know WCK's fighting approach or faat (control while striking). Secondly, many people don't have the necessary WCK fundamentals to actually control their opponent. Thirdly, it is easier to learn the striking aspect than the control aspect.

My view of WCK is that the punch isn't the "main" weapon of WCK and is not the finishing weapon. I think it makes sense to teach the WCK punch first since it is powered by a certain body-structure (body mechanics) and so in learning the punch, you are really developing that body structure. And this body structure will be used to control your opponent.

We fight in close, as Robert mentioned, to shut down the other guys engine or ability to use his tools. Controlling centerline is present in all the movements if one is shown where it exists, the problem is in the training it may be over emphasized, which leads practitioners to do the same in application. Most everything in WC training is isolated practice, not to be done so in application but needed in training to bring about a certain awareness and body mechanic. In my experience most believe WC is a style, teaching you "how to fight", making you a mechanical robot (Wu sau guard, side stances, ridgid thinking and action). Rather IMO, WC enhances your natural fighting ability, it streamlines your actions, makes everything smaller, tighter, more precise, while on autopilot in a fight. There's no time for fixed positions, fixed thinking, ridgid action, rather one must have finely tuned tools, with a single intent, and that is too attack, attack and attack some more without the need to be thinking about your own actions and body mechanics, where your left toe is pointed and if your guard is in the right gate or not.

James

I agree with you to an extent. However, I do see WCK as a certain specific approach to fighting. Trying to implement that approach doesn't make one mechanical or fixed or robotic. Rather, that approach provides a strategic framework that brings some order to chaos, both in terms of training and application.

t_niehoff

07-31-2009, 07:43 AM

k gledhill

07-31-2009, 09:02 AM

Its a hands on explanation encompassing fighting as the guide...no sticky fighting a guy in front of you as you both move relative to each other..no seeking to control the guy.
VT is a striking art

SLT begins by making the strike line xing wrists and extending back and forth man - vu
[its pointed low so the beginner doesnt raise the elbows up and down as they learn the ..'idea' ]

We do a left punch , wrist x's line as it extend out , elbow touches line ...punch do right side.

Train the energy and alignment of a strike either side that doesnt leave the line :
tan sao...jum sao...with vu sao and fok using the shoulder girdle muscle group...pecs , lats etc...not wrist energy, wrist is relaxed.

dan chi sao....use the inward elbow action from a neutral fok starting point to move elbow inwards prior to punching from jum ...a 1-2 action for beginners.
Tan tries to strike while elbow leaves , trying to move jums opposite energy off line....as you progress each partner develops the focus of the strikes but follows through for the benefit of each other...try to avoid sticking at the wrists, use elbows , while pointng fingers like a gun barrel at head. Let the arms begin to develop .....
add a strike x'ing [bridging] the other and bong s lateral displacement is added..fok is introduced to recover the elbow back [ neutrally from extension, after striking]

explain that each strike tan strike and jum strike will no longer be done in a 1-2 beat while fighting ...show some sparring and its relationship to angling /facing ..moving back and forth forwards etc...like a live fight.

chi-sao learn lat sao chit cheung.....free hand hits, [doesnt seek control] each others tan & jum is still there for the benefit of each other...dont expect a guy to fight you like this :D
Add random entry from either partner and the drill adds spontaneous reactions to the side trying to enter...role playing ...tan step is the line of force from a given side/attack
Avoiding being in center to bothe arms as the attack comes we toi ma angling side step off the center to strike [strike the strike] not control or stick , but use the line of tan sao to train the jums integrity to the possibility of meeteing contact and not collapsing etc...go off strike line...the toi ma partner [ angling side] should be close enough to both deflect and contact with a strike to the tan steppers off side. the tan stepper does a 1/2
step to allw the PARTNER to check the above..correct angle stance facing [yes or no] balance ? can he move balanced if the tan stepper streps again to check the whole package ?

in fighting the arms will be one leading one behind , each capable [tan /jum or jum tan ] to strike while maintining a closed line [in fast rotation] that wont be seen by anyone , because its an energy of the arm and elbow coupled with body facing ...when you meet this in a fight you will know.

repeat randomly , adding simple impact drills, hand arm removal drills , avoid turning to apply techniques , other than to face the line of fire...

add lateral shifting and shadowing of movement...
The initial face off of chi-sao can be over done, with no seung ma toi ma , rather two guys just rolling doing the wristing controlling thing , no real idea whats being developed beyond a feeling smothering clinch thing.

The latter sections of SLT simply cover the 'line clearing techniques of the simple punches of the 1st section...jut...bong...tut...gaun [from bg] lowering huen sao arm [mid section parry] ...ends with the arms striking again...strike interuption back to strking again.

controlling sticking to much and you make the opponent equal again...hes not getting hit, rather your fighting his arms.

t_niehoff

07-31-2009, 09:31 AM

Its a hands on explanation encompassing fighting as the guide...no sticky fighting a guy in front of you as you both move relative to each other..no seeking to control the guy.
VT is a striking art

It's only a striking art to those who can't control their opponents. WCK's method is to control WHILE striking.

Chi sao is an attached (sustained contact) drill or exercise, right? If all you want to teach is striking (like in boxing or kickboxing) you don't need to nor does it make sense to have as your main "training" an attached drill. We are learning contact skills for contact fighting. Why contact? The contact/attachment provides us with the opportunity to control. If we don't care about control, we might as well just box.

When you get on the inside (in the phonebooth), you need to be concerned with not only what you can do (strike) but what your opponent can do. He can strike too, and he can try to control you. What prevents this? That you control him. That control is not only your safety (your defense) it sets up your offense. And your offense (striking) sets up your control.

k gledhill

07-31-2009, 09:42 AM

t_niehoff

07-31-2009, 10:01 AM

Terence your only further showing your lack of understanding...you can try to contact me all you want ..my tactic is to not allow you to and use that against you...guys fight square on , we dont , by design..we train either arm to occupy the strike line and shut your entry into us down...with one arm at a time ...striking and acting as a defensive barrier simultaneoulsy...while striking your attempts to gain 'control'....you dont see it do you ?

5 minutes is all it takes :D

if I stand with my arms before me and you attack ..your mind set is on what ? my arms ...so what happens if I put them behind my back and just move away from you..sideways..come at you suddenly...do you know how to move with me to maintain your attack ? do you watch me move away ? do you get in a facing clinch as come forwards head on ...arm to arm ?

if I feint your hand actions ...do you chase to control them with the hand /wrist ?

??

what are you developing ?

You are imagining that I am trying to do chi sao when I fight -- I'm not. Chi sao is to teach certain contact skills.

Entering into contact (attached fighting) is a different skill set than what chi sao teaches (the contact skills). It involves either seizing opportunities to enter or setting them up. BTW, enter into what? Striking range? No. Do boxers talk about entering? No. Entering into attached fighting, into the inside.

Nor do you seem to grasp what control is. It doesn't involve only arm to arm contact. Do you have the neck pulling hand in your dummy? Why, if WCK is only a striking art would you have it? The neck pulling hand is a "bridge" to control the opponent, and it doesn't involve the opponent's arm.

My objective is to get some contact and then use that to progressively get more and more control all the while striking you.

grasshopper 2.0

07-31-2009, 11:12 AM

Ultimatewingchun

07-31-2009, 01:29 PM

The problem here is that Terence, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen a very poor way of decribing wing chun, ie.- as "an attached fighting method". Which says volumes about his real knowledge and skill in wing chun, but that is another matter.

What is pertinent is what k gledhill and others have been saying: chi sao teaches you bridging, but the object of wing chun is not to bridge - the object of wing chun is to hit the opponent often and hard.

Will this require some bridging? Quite often. In order to control his balance (and his body in general). But punching on the most important lines, as k gledhill points out - that is the goal. You could conceivably see a wing chun fight/sparring match without hardly any bridging at all, because the opponent was bombarded with punches that finished him off quickly.

Pacman

07-31-2009, 06:12 PM

Alright, let's go with that. How can you stop your opponent from striking you while you strike him when in contact?

the complete answer to this is more complicated, but the short answer is that you have two arms for his two arms and that you can simultaneously strike and redirect his attacks with the same arm. if you want specific how to's, i cant instruct you over a web forum

But you can't always stick to his arms, nor do you always want to.

in my learnings, you do always want to.

In chi sao we are able to stick to the opponent's arms/bridges for the most part because he is letting us by trying to strick to our arms/bridges.

you bring up a good point. you are correct when you say the "chi sau drill" is not completely realistic. in the drill, both partners are attempting to stick to each other, therefore it may be easier to not break contact and to stick.

but like many other fighting drills where the situation is not 100% realistic, it does not render the drill useless in learning. if you are learning the basics, you do not want to throw that person into a live situation because he will probably never be able to apply what he just learned.

Sticking is one element of control. There are many other elements (grasping, pressing, pulling, position, breaking his structure, jamming, etc.).

when i say sticking, it performing all these elements of controlling the opponent while striking without breaking contact

Chi sao is an exercise that permits us to learn and practice those elements (so that we can develop the ability to do them) in an unrealistic, nonfighting environment. It allows us to practice controlling the opponent while striking him.

Chi sao is not fighting and can't develop fighting skill.

"chi sau" is the ability to stick to and control an opponent. this needs to be practiced in the form of a drill (also simply called "chi sau" by people so there is some confusion). then it also needs to be practiced in a live environment with a resisting opponent.

this is no different than any other technique of any other style. you first do some technique in the air and then with a partner slowly or in some way to make it easier for you and then in a live environment. you need to learn how to make techniques work for you given your height and weight and style against opponents of different height or weight or fighting style.

goju

07-31-2009, 06:27 PM

generaly the practice of sticky hands in all asian martila arts that have them is to stay stuck to your opponent

what if they try to get away from your bridge hands?
thats what the low leg kicks in southern kung fu are designed for
if an opponent moves around alot or dosnt want to engage in bridging then lowlkicks are apllied to their skins thighs knee caps etc etc to controll him

k gledhill

07-31-2009, 06:40 PM

You are imagining that I am trying to do chi sao when I fight -- I'm not. Chi sao is to teach certain contact skills.

Entering into contact (attached fighting) is a different skill set than what chi sao teaches (the contact skills). It involves either seizing opportunities to enter or setting them up. BTW, enter into what? Striking range? No. Do boxers talk about entering? No. Entering into attached fighting, into the inside.

Nor do you seem to grasp what control is. It doesn't involve only arm to arm contact. Do you have the neck pulling hand in your dummy? Why, if WCK is only a striking art would you have it? The neck pulling hand is a "bridge" to control the opponent, and it doesn't involve the opponent's arm.

My objective is to get some contact and then use that to progressively get more and more control all the while striking you.

you cant argue what you dont know....;)

k gledhill

07-31-2009, 07:05 PM

I'm gonna have to agree with terence on this one - yes its a striking art, but I think its designed to strike and control (if/when possible) the axis, limbs, or whatever u can for that moment.

Without the control, you're pratically exchanging blows, giving up distance,and open to more opportunities of attacks. Perhaps our definition of control is different and really, we agree with the same things?

I guess it's possible to control with punching, but it'd be hard to do (for me/imo) as the attacker can get away from you and/or strike u with a blind haymaker...that's happened a lot - wc guy chain punches away, opponent eats those punches and swings wildly hoping one punch connects as he gets it. And when it does, it's pretty effective!

"I guess it's possible to control with punching,.....never truer words ;) knowing how is
the systems forte' . The ability to make each arm , alone , capable of delivering strikes that also allow you to have control of your own entry line...no exchanging of blows ...only if your untrained in VT ;)

this is why the genral vt population feels compelled to lop and ? pak and trap and ?
we use 2 hands to fight 1 :D thats not a skill thats easy we can ALL do that..turning here turning there :D

Its not so obvious to the uninitiated , but like a picture you stare at long enough the image appears clearly before you and from that point on , you know all the surface crap
is redundant to the actual image you see...or goal.

simple stuff...but pure genius.

Liddel

07-31-2009, 07:25 PM

I prefer 'attatched fighting method' over calling it a 'clinch method' which is heavily misleading IMO. Each to thier own if you want to call it that T, who am i to argue :o

Even then labels are limiting but IMO 'striking art' is adequate, why f--k with that :p

My objective is to get some contact and then use that to progressively get more and more control all the while striking you.

My objective is to contact your face with any of my weapons first and foremost which is where we differ. When the opponent inevitably tries to nuetralise that by trying to control me or strike back then that dictates what controls i then try to achieve through striking and simultaneously stiking.

Its now at this stage where i try to implement what Dale had mentioned (In an MMA context) ealier about blending/transitioning between contact and no contact close in....

Which getting back on topic is best achived with the verticle fist, but that in no way means i dont or cant use the vert fist from longer ranges.

I see your points but FWIW dont think its a case of right or wrong just a preference of stratigies :o

DREW

grasshopper 2.0

08-01-2009, 10:57 AM

t_niehoff

08-01-2009, 12:37 PM

the complete answer to this is more complicated, but the short answer is that you have two arms for his two arms and that you can simultaneously strike and redirect his attacks with the same arm. if you want specific how to's, i cant instruct you over a web forum

You won't be able to do that in fighting -- his punches are too fast, caome at all kinds of angles, etc. to be able to block and/or "redirect" when on the inside. The fact that you don't KNOW this tells me you don't have much, if any, experience fighting on the inside.

Just do this experiment: get geared up, get a friend and have him stand two feet in front of you. Have a timer set to go off. When it goes off he is to pummel you with his fists in any way he can, as fast and powerfully as he can. NOt play with you, just try to knock your head off. You try to "block and strike" at the same time or "redirect" his punches. See how that works for you. Because that's what it is going to be like -- if you don't control him, you will just get overwhelmed.

This is precisely the kind of thing I've been talking about -- it's pure fantasy, pure theory based on what you believe fighting is like. It's not based on actually doing it. All you need to do is fight and you'll see that your theory is utter nonsense. But, YOU WON"T DO THAT WORK.

t_niehoff

08-01-2009, 12:38 PM

Ahh I see - i agree with this too. I bet you that if you guys were to all meet up one day, you'll find that you agree on more things than not. The problem comes in our writing and our own interpretations of what been written...

No, we wouldn't. I view WCK and how to train in fundamentally different ways than Victor.

-木叶-

08-01-2009, 12:56 PM

NOt play with you, just try to knock your head off. You try to "block and strike" at the same time or "redirect" his punches. See how that works for you. Because that's what it is going to be like -- if you don't control him, you will just get overwhelmed.

This is precisely the kind of thing I've been talking about -- it's pure fantasy, pure theory based on what you believe fighting is like. It's not based on actually doing it. All you need to do is fight and you'll see that your theory is utter nonsense. But, YOU WON"T DO THAT WORK.

No, based on your experience only.

I have been in this situation and i have been able to block and strike at the same
time, although most of the time with my kicking. The look on the opponent's face is priceless.

When we believe that our WC is utter nonsense then it WILL BE. Perserverence
is the key, along the correct route though. I agree this can only be achieved through actual fighting, questioning, which is what Si Jo Yip Man actually asks all of us to DO.

But your putting down of almost everything crucial to the art, including block/strike and redirecting of force even, is amazing.

Redirection of force not only occurs during exchanging of blows, it also occurs during pushing situations, which you should know in your plentiful fighting experience.

Ultimatewingchun

08-01-2009, 02:42 PM

Liddel

08-01-2009, 04:58 PM

While the delivery is not the best T has a point based on his own experience and i have experienced what he mentions in a way.... its just quite a narrow view IMO but that doesnt mean its not valid in some sence..... Generally ive guarded up in these situations and found adequate timing between the flurry im recieving to take the opponents space enough for me to turn the tables.

Alot of times when ive sparred guys with much better hands than me, faster powerful, sharper skills - i do find it hard to control the center etc through what i call the base habbit actions. Your Tan Bong Guarns.....sure youll block one and catch the target but the opponents speed can nuetralise any further attack and it can lead to chasing hands etc or make you revert to a defencive scamble.
i generally step and move using Sip, Wu or small/tight Paks to scramble out and reset, hands up is a must :o

But getting back on topic - what IME i found is the best control attribute of mine in a situation like this is use of a basic fundamental function of VT's straight line verticle punch.

Many people focus on the punch itself and what it achieves in the way of hitting and attacking, but IME the action of the forearm and elbow if used with proper body movement can serve just as much as a controlling action as Tan Bong or Guarn.

The minor lowering of the forearm after a spent punch can control bridges in lower gates and the pop (for lack of a better word) in the elbow when firing a punch for certain angled punches can serve as a control for the upper gates while attacking the opponent.

VT has many tools for controlling through striking.

NOt play with you, just try to knock your head off. You try to "block and strike" at the same time or "redirect" his punches. See how that works for you.

Ive tried a similar test with a KB buddy of mine. Actually he was so intent on 'knocking my head off' he overcommited and rushed me and i was able to stifle his foward momentum with a little check kick to the knee (ala Pat smith :p) and a Pak to his cross and a elbow to his face.... and the melee was over :o

I see a lot of people using inadequate timting for simultaneous actions. A Pak Da should have the right tempo so that the opponent cant retrieve the pak'd bridge before your punch has caught the target through that previously occupied space... a one two timing aint going to cut it - IME its generally about half a second.

The other point id make T is that we see MMA guys holding a head guard and launching punches with one side so while they launching an attack the other side remnains in the guarded position, how is this vastly different than say a Tan. Im not raising my hand from a lower Wu like in the forms to Tan and punching... im moving it a few inches out fomr my guard and punching, so its very very similar in timing even though the mechanic is different.

Personlly i find opponents easier to deal with when they just charge into a flurry rather than like a sport fight and use range and bridge in strategically...

We did it again and i got smacked in the head and had to back pedal so take it for whats its worth....i need more training LOL :p But to act like its a lost cause is silly.

DREW

t_niehoff

08-02-2009, 07:46 AM

"You won't be able to do that in fighting -- his punches are too fast, come at all kinds of angles, etc. to be able to block and/or "redirect" when on the inside. The fact that you don't KNOW this tells me you don't have much, if any, experience fighting on the inside." (Terence Niehoff)
.......................................

***AND the very fact that you wrote this tells me that you are not at the wing chun knowledge and skill level TO BE ABLE to block when on the inside; and quite frankly, if your skill levels at blocking when very close to an opponent are low - then either you were never instructed in how to do this - or you just have no real skills sets to speak of.

No one can consistently (high percentage) block and strike simultaneously on the inside. Sure, a peson may be able to occassionally get away with one, but they are low percentage tactics except in very limited circumstances.

When you are in range of an opponent -- which is the case when you are inside -- he doesn't need to step to hit you. He can just fire his shot at you full power and full speed and then you need to react. React. Which means you are moving after he does. Now, it takes at least 0.20 seconds to react since this is our 'refractory period' of our nevervous system. If he is a competent fighter, if he is any good, his punch will move fast -- it may hit you before the 0.20 seconds or by the time you begin to act it will be too late. In boxing they say the punch is faster than the eye. Why?

You may get away with simul blocking and punching when working with poorly skilled people or when you are not going 100%, but go to a boxing gym and see.

But there are a number of skill sets that are required in order to be able to fight effectively on the inside, including just the ability to punch short range (without blocking)...clinch skills for wrestling/grappling....clinch skills for tie ups, elbow and knee strikes...and yes, if you claim to be a wing chun man:

Considering that you don't do it with proven, competent fighters, how would you know what skills you need? Is this your theory or is it something you have learned working with your unskilled students?

the ability to block all by itself, and the ability to block and strike (virtually simultaneously).

Those are two different things, using two different motor programs and having entirely different timing considerations.

Very revealing post, Terence.

Yes, it is. It shows that I have gone and done the work of sparring with skilled people and observed how things really work, and that you haven't. But all it will take for you to see what I am saying is true is for you to go spar with some good, proven boxers or MMA fighters. So, when will you do that? When will you go to Renzo's or Chim Chim's,for example, and see?

And yeah, grasshopper, Terence and I do go about things very differently.

Yes, we do. I go and train/spar with good, skilled people. I get out of my little comfort-bubble and my little pond. I don't try to learn grappling, boxing, wrestling, etc. off of videos and practice them with my unskilled students-- I find proven, skilled people and go train with them. My views are informed by that. Whereas Victor's views are informed by God knows what.

Ultimatewingchun

08-02-2009, 11:48 AM

COMPLETE STONEWALL BY TERENCE.

He has very little skill in blocking when very close, and doesn't understand (and can't perform) the simultaneous (OR NEAR SIMULTANEOUS) block and strike when on the inside.

Because your arms don't have to extend that much when very close (since your opponent is right there)....and since your punch doesn't have to travel very far (for the same reason)...it's actually often easier to block (or block and strike) when close.

But this requires a certain kind of training and skill sets - which Terence obviously doesn't have. Drills that need to be worked on constantly, and that will help with this in actual fighting/sparring.

For example, in the following vid, you can expand this drill to include countering an uppercut, a hook/uppercut combo, a hook and then a shoot to the legs, etc. This vid is about first a hook, and then possibly two...coming at you....but it's not hard to envision using a garn sao and punch against a low punch from close range, for example, and the combos that I've already mentioned.

Now of course someone like Dale or Terence will say (by way of attempted derailment) - who is the guy in the vid, what are his credentials, yadda, yadda....but just look at the techniques/scenario involved....and then work with it yourself before pooh-poohing it. For example, what you might find is that "simultaneous" block and strike is done actually with a beat-and-a-half rhythm in actual combat, and not the all-on-one-beat that you see at the beginning of this vid against the single hook punch.

In reality, what usually happens is that the block is done on the beat, and the strike is on the half. (In-between two actual beats).

Take into account (in the vid) that he's right there throwing a punch at my head from a very close distance with a simple rhythm and I know what's coming - so the response looks almost picture perfect. But in real sparring/fighting it will never come out that perfect. Real (ACTUAL) "simul" block and strike is more often than not a beat-and-a-half.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7rdDn3uTR8

AND AGAIN, I apologize for the narrowness of the vid, as the "aspect ratio" used when posting it was incorrect.

goju

08-02-2009, 12:38 PM

bas rutten used a vertical punch on a dummy used to measure striking force on "fight science" and his punch weighed hundreds of pounds more than randy couture and tito oriz
so yeah its safe to say its a good punch

goju

08-02-2009, 12:44 PM

You won't be able to do that in fighting -- his punches are too fast, caome at all kinds of angles, etc. to be able to block and/or "redirect" when on the inside. The fact that you don't KNOW this tells me you don't have much, if any, experience fighting on the inside.

Just do this experiment: get geared up, get a friend and have him stand two feet in front of you. Have a timer set to go off. When it goes off he is to pummel you with his fists in any way he can, as fast and powerfully as he can. NOt play with you, just try to knock your head off. You try to "block and strike" at the same time or "redirect" his punches. See how that works for you. Because that's what it is going to be like -- if you don't control him, you will just get overwhelmed.

This is precisely the kind of thing I've been talking about -- it's pure fantasy, pure theory based on what you believe fighting is like. It's not based on actually doing it. All you need to do is fight and you'll see that your theory is utter nonsense. But, YOU WON"T DO THAT WORK.

thats a rediculous scenario because a wing chun like all the styles that have trapping are designed to get in quickly and end the fight as soon as possible not stand there an do paddy cake paddy cake and block all these punches after the first attack your supposed to ge inside so they cant flurry on you lol
not to mention the fact that either a experienced boxer or a wc fighter would stand toe to toe like your given "test" of skill

k gledhill

08-02-2009, 05:02 PM

Terence and the "skill test" Im having a hard time with that :D:D:D not laughing

goju

08-02-2009, 06:19 PM

your not the only one lol

Knifefighter

08-02-2009, 07:00 PM

Now of course someone like Dale or Terence will say (by way of attempted derailment) - who is the guy in the vid, what are his credentials, yadda, yadda....but just look at the techniques/scenario involved....and then work with it yourself before pooh-poohing it.
No, what I would say is "why don't you show it sparring full contact?" Because showing it the way you did doesn't show anything. You can do pretty much anything in a demo situation with a compliant opponent.

I find it very telling that you have a variety of demos there but not a single sparring clip. Why are you "technologically challenged" when it comes to sparring clips, but quite prolific when it comes to demo clips?

Knifefighter

08-02-2009, 07:02 PM

thats a rediculous scenario because a wing chun like all the styles that have trapping are designed to get in quickly and end the fight as soon as possible not stand there an do paddy cake paddy cake and block all these punches after the first attack your supposed to ge inside so they cant flurry on you lol
not to mention the fact that either a experienced boxer or a wc fighter would stand toe to toe like your given "test" of skill

Too bad nobody can do that without a huge size/strength advantage.

goju

08-02-2009, 07:22 PM

Too bad nobody can do that without a huge size/strength advantage.
what? inact a rediculous scenario thats is not based in the principles of wing chun or any martial art for that matter
lol okay

Edmund

08-02-2009, 07:23 PM

Im not raising my hand from a lower Wu like in the forms to Tan and punching... im moving it a few inches out fomr my guard and punching, so its very very similar in timing even though the mechanic is different.

Very good point. Without a correct guard, you won't be able to defend or attack in time.

thats a rediculous scenario because a wing chun like all the styles that have trapping are designed to get in quickly and end the fight as soon as possible not stand there an do paddy cake paddy cake and block all these punches after the first attack your supposed to ge inside so they cant flurry on you lol
not to mention the fact that either a experienced boxer or a wc fighter would stand toe to toe like your given "test" of skill

It's not a test. You guys make it sound like it's impossible.
In fact, that is the exact drill that trains your defence. You stand there, they try strike you. How can you get good if you can't manage to defend yourself from there? You have to put yourself in those positions to train them. It's more of a game of paddy cake when you're avoiding those close in situations.

Close-in is actually where the smaller fighter with less reach has a better chance. Because reach is less of an advantage.

goju

08-02-2009, 07:27 PM

not its not realistic just to stand there like rock em sock em robots and attack that gos against the principles of wing chun amd pretty much every martial art there is
only a fool would stand still and let some one attack
being that wing chun evolved from the crane system the number one principle of crane is to evade, not stand still like an idiot while some one flurries
in fact standing still is one of the worst things you can do

Edmund

08-02-2009, 07:37 PM

It's a training exercise to improve your skills. Seriously, you can't always evade. You need the skills to handle that. It's more unrealistic to never train for a close in toe-to-toe situation. (Reminds me of the roundhouse kick defence thread.)

goju

08-02-2009, 07:39 PM

well it makes no sense unless you wind up in a box six foot by six foot box with some one then you would stand that close
and if you were that close the whole point of wing chun is to move and smother the attack not stay put and deflect the attacks its a waste of time you move in with the first punch and stick

Edmund

08-02-2009, 07:48 PM

It's sounding like the roundhouse kick thread.

No matter what the optimum response is, you still have to train for the other scenarios. A good opponent isn't going to let you just smother them are they? Then you'll have to DEFEND.

goju

08-02-2009, 08:23 PM

smothering their attack is a defense lol
simply standing there deflecting punches is dumb the fight will come down t whoever has the most endurance and again this gos against the principle of wing chun
remember a female created wing chun and beinga female she wouldnt just stand there and deflect punches like that

Edmund

08-02-2009, 08:53 PM

simply standing there deflecting punches is dumb the fight will come down t whoever has the most endurance

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to act dense or what.
I SAID IT WAS A TRAINING EXERCISE.

Ultimatewingchun

08-02-2009, 10:17 PM

So I'm "not showing anything" with that vid? Riiiight, Dale. :rolleyes:

It doesn't show some important body positioning in order to do a simultaneous block and strike from short range, using wing chun. No. So that you're in a position to deal with a punch he might follow with - with his other hand. No. It doesn't go into how to do the block, where to do the block, what kind of punch and what kind of angle to use in your counter strike. No.

Okey, dokey :cool:
.........................................

And then there's this from the man trying to run interference for Terence:

"I find it very telling that you have a variety of demos there but not a single sparring clip. Why are you 'technologically challenged' when it comes to sparring clips, but quite prolific when it comes to demo clips?" (Dale Franks, aka, knifefighter)
...............................................

***AND I FIND IT quite telling how much selective memory you have, Dale. About a lot of things. Perhaps you're getting old? Memory starting to go? Let me refresh it for you. I posted a bunch of sparring vids several years ago, in addition to the vids I have up now on youtube.

Whereas Terence, your boy, has posted, ah, wait, let me see - oh yeah, I remember:

He has posted ZERO VIDS in all these years of his alleged, ah, cough, cough....COMPETENT TRAINING.

goju

08-02-2009, 10:33 PM

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to act dense or what.
I SAID IT WAS A TRAINING EXERCISE.
i wouldnt call me dense when your arguing for a training excercise that isnt based in the principles of wing chun nor any martial art for that matter
nor is it a logical means of defending oneself

Edmund

08-02-2009, 11:12 PM

I said clearly, "No matter what the optimum response is, you still have to train for the other scenarios." It's BS to say you will never allow that to happen.

Plenty of martial arts claim all sorts of principles that go out the window because they never train for when things go wrong.

Addendum:
Look just learn to actually guard yourself. It's not going to seem so impossible. Sure, a punch can take 0.2 sec. It can take 0.01 sec if you like. You want to have your guard actually covering your vulnerable face. Elbows down protecting the ribs. They can throw the punch any time. You're already covering yourself and keeping your targets hidden.

It's not a case of having your hands protecting nothing and THEN trying to block a punch. Anyone who's done any proper boxing works on defence. We don't hang on. And we don't dodge all the time.

goju

08-03-2009, 12:20 AM

its stillan urealistic form of self defense training
the whole point of training is to protect yourself ina fight and no fight i have ever seen has happened where two people just stand right bleedin in front of each other and swing
if someines going to flurry at you they wont be standing still they will be moving in at you therefore th drill is pointless and it will give you a false sense of technique when you face a real opponent who l will punch in rapid combination

Knifefighter

08-03-2009, 10:21 AM

So I'm "not showing anything" with that vid? Riiiight, Dale. :rolleyes:

It doesn't show some important body positioning in order to do a simultaneous block and strike from short range, using wing chun. No. So that you're in a position to deal with a punch he might follow with - with his other hand. No. It doesn't go into how to do the block, where to do the block, what kind of punch and what kind of angle to use in your counter strike. No.
Anybody can show anything with a willing compliant partner. I could post an demo clip of how to do an arm bar with my pinkie finger, but that wouldn't mean it would actually work.

***AND I FIND IT quite telling how much selective memory you have, Dale. About a lot of things. Perhaps you're getting old? Memory starting to go? Let me refresh it for you. I posted a bunch of sparring vids several years ago, in addition to the vids I have up now on youtube.

Whereas Terence, your boy, has posted, ah, wait, let me see - oh yeah, I remember:

He has posted ZERO VIDS in all these years of his alleged, ah, cough, cough....COMPETENT TRAINING.

Yeah, it would be nice to see what he's doing, but at least he's not posting a bunch of demo clips. It's very telling when the guys who post all the demo clips, but no sparring clips... that's always indicative of the ratio of pretend, theoretical technique training and actual application.

If you've got the video camera rolling for the all kinds of demos, but not any sparring to go along with it, it means one of two things:
1- You aren't sparring hard.
2- If you are, it sucks to badly to display.