Strongest punch?

[SAAMAG]

I bring this up because tonight I was working the bag and focus mitts, and my girlfriend stated that the wing chun punch didn't seem to feel like it had as much power as my natural cross.

I asked her "in what way do you mean?" She said when I throw a quick and natural cross (from arms being held naturally at my sides) it radiates through her wrist, elbow, shoulder, and body. She said when I throw the wing chun punch it doesn't feel the same, like it doesn't radiate through her arm as much.

So I tested it on something more resiliant--my heavy bag (not swinging, just solid against the wall). It felt and sounded just as powerful as a natural overhand right...but doing it again on the pads it indeed felt like there wasn't as much feedback--yet structurally everything felt right and all was lined up--elbow, hips, wrist--rooted to the ground.

Possible Factors?


Pad holder not giving the same feedback for each punch
The wing chun punch is just weaker by way of design (or you could say the natural punch (cross) is stronger by design)
Perhaps I did not give enough follow through with my wing chun punch as compared to my natural cross (or perhaps I wasn't close enough to the pad to give it enough penetrating power)
I did not have enough chi behind it
My wing chun is terrible and I should just quit now


---

In any case though it got me thinking about puching power...what have you been told your strongest punch was? Doesn't matter if its wing chun or otherwise. I've had my normal partner tell me my overhand right is enough to drop him even with the belly pad on. I've been told by others that the wing chun straight punch is strong, but no where near the same level as the overhand. So while the wing chun punch was considered to be strong by this guy--relatively speaking the boxing punch was simply stronger (in feel through pads)

On a side note do you think that the wing chun punch can be as strong as any other punch in general -- or more specifically the cross? Or do you think that the punch is limited by its design relatively speaking?

Do you depend on li for the power or chi? If its the latter, have you compared the punch with other punches that you learned that might not depend on chi specifically?

[YungChun]

Chi for power? :o:eek:

Anyway, when I want to make power I have over the years developed what I see in essentially the second form, although the structure is also in SLT.. I basically send a short pulse from my 'horse' up through my body with and when I strike... The result is the pulse of the whole body goes out through the strike.. I have found it pretty powerful.. Typically WCK strikes will rely less on momentum and more on body alignment (connected mass) and joint/muscle acceleration.. Of course there is more than one kind of WCK punch/strike and more than one way to do it. I also let my body, depending on the conditions, naturally extend and turn slightly as opposed to keeping my body stiff like a bar of soap...

The most powerful strike I have found over the years is a correctly executed reverse punch... This is not that unlike a cross or similar strike but it is done with a tremendous amount of body projection/rotation whereby you can take up very long distances quickly as you do the punch and often times the lead foot does not quite land until after the punch has begun it's impact.. I don't use this move anymore however.

HTH

[goju]

my strongest was strait lead and hook/ uppercut


i remember when i was i first started martial arts my pad work was inspired by bruce lee pad striking in his jet kune do books

he would always blast the pad with force that would send his partners arms swinging way back from the power of his strike and to this day i see that rarely when i watch guys do pads many of them barely even move the mitt or pad at all

but eventually over time i developed enough power to do it so every time i punch i try to knock my partners arm back far and i try to unbalance him too from the hit



but wc speaking i think the most impressive punches ive ever seen were from a master named wang zhi peng

did not look like it would be fun to be punched by that guy lol

[YungChun]

he would always blast the pad with force that would send his partners arms swinging way back from the power of his strike


The WCK whipping punch is good for that because of the velocity and penetration.. The short power striking is a different animal.

[SAAMAG]

Chi for power? :o:eek:

That was to be inclusive of those that do use chi for the gas tank and jing as the horsepower. There are lines of wing chun that still depend on the internal sides of things as described by others here. So I'm trying to be all-inclusive with my discussion.

The reverse punch was the first punch I learned...ever. So I suppose that could have something to do with the power that I've attained using it and variations of it. Good point you made as well with the conjunctive footwork--when stepping with a punch, it's a good habit in my experience to have the punch land first a fraction before the stepping foot touches down. Great point!

Do you think the design element of wing chun's jik chung choi or chung kuen allows for the full potentional of power that one can generate from the human body given the range it works in? I'm talking about the quintessential--no upper body motion--punch from the chest, driving with the elbow--vertical punch.

[SAAMAG]

but wc speaking i think the most impressive punches ive ever seen were from a master named wang zhi peng

did not look like it would be fun to be punched by that guy lol

Odd that you mentioned him, I actually watched a you tube video of him just today for the very first time! Ironic.

Yea his body punch (Joong lo kuen) looked good...rooted from the ground you see it go through his hip, through the shoulder and down the arm. I'd imagine it didn't feel too good either.

[Vajramusti]

My informed opinion is that when properly developed, a wing chun punch can be as powerful as a boxing punch- while taking less chances of being hit.

The wing chun punch- depends on good wing chun stance and good wing chun body works and integrated motions including the feet. The key is learning and practicing the fundamentals
regularly and well... including coordinated releasing , not "pushing" of the power in the joints.
Unfortunately, many chain punchers do not seem to know what they are doing.

There are lots of good western boxers, few good wing chun folks. Kung fu is less mass produced
historically as well as now. Commerce and related greed , poor instruction and poorer training are
sources of some poor wing chun punching. It is easier to find good boxing, grappling and mma instruction than wing chun instruction depending on where one lives.That is why I suggest to newbies- get the best instructor you can find-that is more important than the name of the style.

joy chaudhuri

[SAAMAG]

My informed opinion is that when properly developed, a wing chun punch can be as powerful as a boxing punch- while taking less chances of being hit.

The wing chun punch- depends on good wing chun stance and good wing chun body works and integrated motions including the feet. The key is learning and practicing the fundamentals
regularly and well... including coordinated releasing , not "pushing" of the power in the joints.
Unfortunately, many chain punchers do not seem to know what they are doing.

There are lots of good western boxers, few good wing chun folks. Kung fu is less mass produced
historically as well as now. Commerce and related greed , poor instruction and poorer training are
sources of some poor wing chun punching. It is easier to find good boxing, grappling and mma instruction than wing chun instruction depending on where one lives.That is why I suggest to newbies- get the best instructor you can find-that is more important than the name of the style.

joy chaudhuri

Thanks for the reply Joy. Though we're not talking about general boxing vs. general wing chun. We're talking Chung Kuen vs. (right) Cross, and whether or not the structural differences can be a factor using "li" as the generator.

The second part was...what is your personal strongest punch?

[k gledhill]

Me persoanlly it's the turning / facing strike ,coupled with the timing of an incoming target = :eek: I could send guys sliding on their butts 6-7 ft after hitting them....I had guys come up to me after seeing this 'event' at clubs and say how good the 'punch' was....:rolleyes:

Power source = the quadriceps are flexed and contracted as we strike in sharp focused extensions of the driving energy into the ground. The basic stance training allows the legs the endurance to maintain a low position as we move, adding CK facing without lifting the hips horizontal plane as we move ...~~~~ hip bad / --------hip good .

Timing = this energy is transmitted through a good structure as the hips are driven into the facing , turn of the action ...shoulders are controlled to move a little but not over turn. The striking arm should be relaxed and bent slightly inwards ...almost like uppercuts in angling. Force can be shown to be taken by 'stealing' space of your strikes distance...iow I can show you its too slow or to wrong timing simply by letting you hit my chest and doing certain things ..it only takes a few inches of movement. Add arm deflection angles and we see that the simple combination of all the actions is coupled into our training regimen...over and over...simple actions combined , for alignment, timing, balance, structure.etc....boring repetitions...no over feeling, trapping etc..

Drills to achieve this goal= Seung Ma ~ Toi Ma drills focus on this action and is repeated 1000's of times to make the structure of the angling moving stance reach its completion together with the angling arm / elbow in strike.

...so the impact force , deflection, timing, balance, physical alignment/structure/hips is all focused into that singularity , makes for a short punch relying on timing.

I have met 90% of VT guys who DONT do this, instead they use the wrist to try and stop the tan....some dont even shift as you come at them...others move backwards in a straight line in front of your attacking line....not a good place to be, even if your 'sifu' bs's about fighting the inside gate ...aka dont know how to shift/angle strike. Some let you step and do a hand gesture as if the strike would have any force...we steal force by attacking their striking space..

The inch punch is a 'test' to prove the ability AND use deflection angles at the same time iow not to open the elbows and trade punches just to give max force. The strike without retraction :rolleyes: [ many can be seen pushing shoulders] is to give the strikes point of impact a 'test' of alignment, stance= feet positions, hips facing, shoulders....isolating a moment in time for our benefit.

During Seung Ma Toi Ma, we do a 1/2 step attacking entry to allow our partners to strike us and angle relative to the sides attacking limb...left or right...making it intuitive , adding space of a face off later for sparring etc... as the entry stops at the 1/2 step all the alignment , hips, strike, elbow angles...are combined into the ONE action ...we keep the wrists floppy so the focus is a relaxed strike but with shoulder girdle muscle groups contracted to maintain the critical forearm/upper arm angles ....after a check the attacker steps again to 'check' or 'prove' the connections by following up with the full attacking entry action.....later not stopping 1/2 step is done in a more flowing random exchange....
Inch punching at the 1/2 step can show force is maxed with perfect timing...or to slow, losing the max / pact position or to early ...over extension, no deflection trade punches etc...or bad feet, wobbly, off balance...you freeze ? dont move at all...move to the wrong side :D it all happens under pressure of the 'here and now' of chi-sao....

If you use short shuffling attacking steps the driving force is being generated from extending into the ground all the legs force in short sharp bursts, meaning any arm action with good structural positioning will harness this force...this can be strikes in cycling deflection, trapping , lan sao's..etc....
With correct 3"x3" shuffling movements we can generate an unbroken line of force, transmitted through the contact point we use, this can be any part of our body. The most critical part and simplest to take advantage of is which foot moves first in a given direction....very simple to attack a person who is simply trying not to fall backwards out of balance...sudden attacks will capitalize on MISTAKES made ...rather than set pieces or 'moves' that allow all kinds of mistakes to be made without ever taking advantage of them....a lot of mistakes will happen without you knowing until you attack them...loss of balance, bad timed strikes, over controlling your ARMS makes it easier to keep attacking their stances, they create bridges for you , we dont look for them...we strike until we are stopped, trying to recover striking again asap....

Not using a lead leg inside gate charge either...seen a lot in you tube with the same results...this is similar to a guy attacking a trench in wartime across a field...he charges right down the center firing..only he doesnt know that the opponent wants this and lets him come , because he has a machine gun in each end of the receiving line.... He is a dead man. Only a matter of time which gun takes him out firing as he goes for one then another...

CK teaches this...easy to do hard to repeat...I have used the incorrect energy 'pulse' from attackers to counter them in bar fights....lots of guys grab 95% first before hitting making it easy to feel their energy pulse...when you click into the 'metronome' of their force you can play them like rag dolls....

Remember facing/turning is only to angle your attack/strike centerline AT the opponent ... so in a fight you will move with the guy and shift pivot angle face etc...to achieve a natural angle on the guy as you hit him...so you free yourself from seeking to control by feeling, instead you become a free moving fighter hitting gaps available rather than thinking to control water first. if you are using actions even at their most basic level that incorporate attack and defense ...you gain an advantage over those who dont know this way and use controlling double hand exchanges for everything....what I was taught in VT before discovering a more efficient method....

Good timing will make any punch powerful...positions & tactics will help to avoid a double punch traded KO

Why we place so much on 'staying with what comes' and adopting a side stance that can pivot and realign quickly along a perimeter , allowing facing a moving target without having lead leg that commits you to back and forth ...if you move away so does your point of impact :D and your not attacking. Use a lead leg stance and your that guy charging into the filed of battle ...better to wait with guns at your sides...see what the guy does, let him show you what action to take. side stances allow quick angling etc...as the dummy we enter from the sides but attack and shift back and forth across its face ...we adopt facing actions for symmetry , like double juts sao's but only for developing the 'jut'....

Many interpret this as hands stick with what comes in chi-sao, leading to over controlling quagmire of hand games in a redundant self deluding ability to fight guys who just wail in on you ; ) iow guys will make you stay with an arm [tan] coming in and then strike as it retreats ...common misunderstanding...the arms are training striking what comes ..hitting the 'glass' head as it comes with simultaneous strike defense arms in rotation, allowing unstoppable attacking actions... a goal we have...not stick to a guys arms endlessly... but to HIT THEM WITH SUFFICIENT FORCE [ loud ] capable of stopping further attacking .

Boxers generate tremendous amounts of force from low elbows too ...they bob and weave / duck so dont require elbow deflection / strikes ....I taught a student who was also training at Gleasons, he said his boxing coach noticed his jab had improved since training in VT.

strong coffee !

[Matrix]

I think Kevin's reply answers your question.

What I find interesting is that you call your cross "natural" in a way that makes me think your WC is unnatural.

[SAAMAG]

I think Kevin's reply answers your question.

What I find interesting is that you call your cross "natural" in a way that makes me think your WC is unnatural.

It's a question for general discussion moreso, spawned by a training occurance.

The reason I call it a "natural" cross because its coming from my hands being held naturally at my sides. I practice in that way on occasion because there may be instances where I don't have time to bring my hands up in a guard position before needing to strike.

Like shooting a gun from immediatly and directly from the holster as opposed to being in proper form and aiming for ten seconds before firing.

[JPinAZ]

Van,

When I first started WC, I had the same feeling - my right cross had WAY more power than I could deliver from my 'WC punch'. And, not to sound ****y, I had a pretty good/strong right.
As my structural alignment (heel, knee, hip,elbow)and range/timing of the WC punch increased, the difference between the two punches felt a lot less, but it was still there. I could see this easier when punching against a fully weighted BOB. I could lay bob out flat with the cross, but not all the way over with the WC punch.

To be honest, today I can't say the same thing. I feel my WC punch has a lot more behind it than my cross now, and sparring partners feel the same way. I've been told that force from the WC punch runs down their spine when I make contact vs. what is felt from the cross. Basically they are 2 different punches, are delivered differently and have a different structure behind them.

Which brings me to my point. When I hit a mitt someone is holding, the cross's energy comes straight at it, at a level height with the mitt. The WC punch's energy originates from the floor through the body, through the elbow with the fist traveling both fwd and upward toward target. It follows a different path than the cross. So, it may always feel a little less powerful on the mitt and to the holder for this reason. Or, maybe (no slight meant here), your mechanics could be off a little with the WC punch.
For me, I have noticed both punches sound different on the mitt as well. The cross has a more higher pitched snap, while the WC punch has more of a lower pitched thud. I believe this has to do with how the punch is structured and how the body supports the punch.

Anyway, it took me some time to see this for myself, but the beauty of the WC punch is that it offers a lot more in the way of efficiency in delivering the energy into our opponent, which I think is really key. Once one has the proper structure and set-up, the WC punch can feel like a freight train to the person on the receiving end of the punch with a lot less effort.

[Matrix]

The reason I call it a "natural" cross because its coming from my hands being held naturally at my sides. I practice in that way on occasion because there may be instances where I don't have time to bring my hands up in a guard position before needing to strike.

Like shooting a gun from immediatly and directly from the holster as opposed to being in proper form and aiming for ten seconds before firing.Interesting. Maybe you should try that with your WC punch. There's no need to start from the guard position.

I believe there is an idiom about not standing on ceremony, or something like that.

[SAAMAG]

Interesting. Maybe you should try that with your WC punch. There's no need to start from the guard position.

I believe there is an idiom about not standing on ceremony, or something like that.

I do actually...but It ends up being more jkd-ish

[Ultimatewingchun]

In my opinion tha strongest punch that can possibly be thrown is the overhand that comes from the rear hand - like what Fedor used recently to knock out Brett Rogers.

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


And with that in mind, imo, the strongest wing chun punch that can ever be thrown is from the rear hand with a half step forward - like throwing a rear cross but with the elbows down and in toward the side of the ribs and with the punching hand either completely vertical or at a 45 degree angle.

[Matrix]

I do actually...but It ends up being more jkd-ishI'm not really sure what you mean by "jkd-ish", but my only concern is that you achieve effective results.

WC does not necessarily need to look a certain way. In otherwords, standing there with your hands sticking out in a guard position does not make something more or less WC, in my opinion. That's what I meant by standing on ceremony. You don't need to adopt some posture like your posing for something, and doing so may compromise your results.

[anerlich]

My first instructor could hit me with a WC punch while I was holding 3 telephone books on my chest and still wind me. He could smash eight roof tiles with a backfist as well.

How powerful does it have to be?

I'd agree the cross is probably easier to generate power with for the untrained, but if you're doing 1000 punches a day for a few years the WC way you may well get better at that.

[SAAMAG]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "jkd-ish", but my only concern is that you achieve effective results.

WC does not necessarily need to look a certain way. In otherwords, standing there with your hands sticking out in a guard position does not make something more or less WC, in my opinion. That's what I meant by standing on ceremony. You don't need to adopt some posture like your posing for something, and doing so may compromise your results.

Meaning that I end up punching not in the wing chun sense but more in the straight blast sense. Not exactly the same punch and feels more like one of my boxing punches.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that my wing chun punches are strong, people tend to not like getting hit by them...its the RELATIVE power compared with my overhand that I'm comparing.

Is the wing chun punch as structurally powerful as the overhand? Right now...for me anyway...it seems it may not be. But then again, hitting the bag gives the same feedback, hitting the focus mitts does not.

[SAAMAG]

My first instructor could hit me with a WC punch while I was holding 3 telephone books on my chest and still wind me. He could smash eight roof tiles with a backfist as well.

How powerful does it have to be?

I'd agree the cross is probably easier to generate power with for the untrained, but if you're doing 1000 punches a day for a few years the WC way you may well get better at that.

So in your opinion is it simply a matter of repitition of the proper form that allows your instructor that power? Or is there something more to it?

[Hardwork108]

IMHO, when discussing Wing Chun punching power one cannot ignore the importance of breathing and its role in power generation....

My most powerful WC punch is the same as that of k gledhill, the turning facing strike. Having said that, the hammer fist strike is also a very powerful weapon but needs to be practiced to make it more "natural".

[YungChun]

But then again, hitting the bag gives the same feedback, hitting the focus mitts does not.


IME that is a function of velocity.. A short range strike, employing short power will never have as much velocity as that Reverse Punch or name your similar technique..

The key is to hit with your whole body... and to maximize the incorporation of your total body mass..and joints.. via body alignment (connected mass) and using all those muscles/joints (esp legs) to make that power (sequential summation of motion). Like Mr Miyagi said, secret of power is 'whole body, (into) one inch'. :) It's all in the forms, you just need to express it in action, but maybe you already are...

I'm sure folks could share some different tools they use to measure and train striking power.. In the old days I used to hang a piece of plywood by some string.. Very tough to break at first..but it can be done.. One of the best ways to get more power when hitting folks is to keep hitting folks.... They will give you plenty of feedback..both verbal and non verbal.. :D

[punchdrunk]

IMO a part of the problem is comparing a "natural" punch to a Wing Chun punch, is comparing a punch with freedom of body movement (stepping, torso twisting, bending or straightening) to a punch with all kinds of limits placed on it. Most Wing Chun punches are stiff and robotic, but they don't need to be.

[Matrix]

So in your opinion is it simply a matter of repitition of the proper form that allows your instructor that power? Or is there something more to it?The saying goes " repetition is the mother of skill". I would say that is true, IF you a repeating correct action. Certainly form and structure are a significant part of correct action. Others have indicated other keys as well.

To me Relaxation, especially in the shoulders, but throughout the body is critical. You may have have all the form and structure you want, but if you are tight, you kill the power. Think of tension as kinks in a hose. A kink in a hose limits or even cuts off the water flow. You can turn the valve up as high as you can to get maximum power from the water source, but the water power is cut down the line by these points of tension.

That's why I mentioned the word "natural" before. If you think something is natural, you tend to let it flow. If you're trying to achieve a certain effect that you see as unnatural then there might be a tendancy to try and force it and create tension that is counter-productive. The harder you try, the less effective power you have.

Just a suggestion.

[SAAMAG]

IMHO, when discussing Wing Chun punching power one cannot ignore the importance of breathing and its role in power generation....

My most powerful WC punch is the same as that of k gledhill, the turning facing strike. Having said that, the hammer fist strike is also a very powerful weapon but needs to be practiced to make it more "natural".

What do you attribute as the primary factor for that punch being your hardest?

[SAAMAG]

IMO a part of the problem is comparing a "natural" punch to a Wing Chun punch, is comparing a punch with freedom of body movement (stepping, torso twisting, bending or straightening) to a punch with all kinds of limits placed on it. Most Wing Chun punches are stiff and robotic, but they don't need to be.

Interesting. I practice both the chung kuen and cross the same way, both "natural" and from guard.

Obviously the more alive version of it feels more right but then I've always felt that was a better way to go.

[SAAMAG]

The saying goes " repetition is the mother of skill". I would say that is true, IF you a repeating correct action. Certainly form and structure are a significant part of correct action. Others have indicated other keys as well.

To me Relaxation, especially in the shoulders, but throughout the body is critical. You may have have all the form and structure you want, but if you are tight, you kill the power. Think of tension as kinks in a hose. A kink in a hose limits or even cuts off the water flow. You can turn the valve up as high as you can to get maximum power from the water source, but the water power is cut down the line by these points of tension.

That's why I mentioned the word "natural" before. If you think something is natural, you tend to let it flow. If you're trying to achieve a certain effect that you see as unnatural then there might be a tendancy to try and force it and create tension that is counter-productive. The harder you try, the less effective power you have.

Just a suggestion.

I think there is much wisdom in this post. Thanks for the elab'

[Wayfaring]

To me Relaxation, especially in the shoulders, but throughout the body is critical. You may have have all the form and structure you want, but if you are tight, you kill the power. Think of tension as kinks in a hose. A kink in a hose limits or even cuts off the water flow. You can turn the valve up as high as you can to get maximum power from the water source, but the water power is cut down the line by these points of tension.

I agree with this, and wanted to bring it up in the context of how punching is trained. If you do not train striking in an alive 100% contact environment, then when you do get into an evironment like that, there is a great deal of tension present due to the situation being different than how you train. I see this with fighters - there is a "first fight" experience they all go through - the tension, the adrenaline dump, the narrowing of focus and skillset. People forget to do things in the ring/cage that they know how to do in practice. If you train in an environment similar to that it minimizes this effect.

[Matrix]

I think there is much wisdom in this post. Thanks for the elab'I don't know about wisdom. I am just offering my thoughts on the topic. It's why we come here. To ask, to listen, to learn. By offering my thoughts to you, I need to articulate them in a way that helps me to clarify my own understanding. I find that whole process interesting.

Thank you

[Matrix]

If you do not train striking in an alive 100% contact environment, then when you do get into an evironment like that, there is a great deal of tension present due to the situation being different than how you train. Yes, and if you can't relax in a more neutral environment, then you haven't got a hope of being achieving results when you really need them.

[Pacman]

it really depends on how you classify a "wing chun punch". i assume you just use your arm

if you throw your punch without turning your hips or shoulder or putting any body weight into it, then you are just using your arms and of course it will not have as much power compared to a punch thrown with hips and shoulders.

not everyone throws a "wing chun punch" like that



I bring this up because tonight I was working the bag and focus mitts, and my girlfriend stated that the wing chun punch didn't seem to feel like it had as much power as my natural cross.

I asked her "in what way do you mean?" She said when I throw a quick and natural cross (from arms being held naturally at my sides) it radiates through her wrist, elbow, shoulder, and body. She said when I throw the wing chun punch it doesn't feel the same, like it doesn't radiate through her arm as much.

So I tested it on something more resiliant--my heavy bag (not swinging, just solid against the wall). It felt and sounded just as powerful as a natural overhand right...but doing it again on the pads it indeed felt like there wasn't as much feedback--yet structurally everything felt right and all was lined up--elbow, hips, wrist--rooted to the ground.

Possible Factors?


Pad holder not giving the same feedback for each punch
The wing chun punch is just weaker by way of design (or you could say the natural punch (cross) is stronger by design)
Perhaps I did not give enough follow through with my wing chun punch as compared to my natural cross (or perhaps I wasn't close enough to the pad to give it enough penetrating power)
I did not have enough chi behind it
My wing chun is terrible and I should just quit now


---

In any case though it got me thinking about puching power...what have you been told your strongest punch was? Doesn't matter if its wing chun or otherwise. I've had my normal partner tell me my overhand right is enough to drop him even with the belly pad on. I've been told by others that the wing chun straight punch is strong, but no where near the same level as the overhand. So while the wing chun punch was considered to be strong by this guy--relatively speaking the boxing punch was simply stronger (in feel through pads)

On a side note do you think that the wing chun punch can be as strong as any other punch in general -- or more specifically the cross? Or do you think that the punch is limited by its design relatively speaking?

Do you depend on li for the power or chi? If its the latter, have you compared the punch with other punches that you learned that might not depend on chi specifically?

[Hardwork108]

What do you attribute as the primary factor for that punch being your hardest?

IMHO, sometimes when one tries to identify primary factors in some kung fu techniques, one will be in danger of missing the wood for the trees.

So to answer your question in another way, the punch will have its power when various factors come together and meet at the point of impact.

So we are talking about aspects that include, forward motion; body unity; relaxedness; borrowed power coming through the bridge(block), transferring through the turning of the (rooted) stance into the fist and of course the correct/well timed breathing.

All of this together will result in the power effect of the punch.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The thing that you have to remember is that a strong punch needs to be something that is landable. There are ways to throw a cross that would knock down a door, but that type of cross is almost un-landable. The WC cross is nice and tight and highly landable among other things.

It all works to some extent or another it just depends on your purpose.

[SAAMAG]

it really depends on how you classify a "wing chun punch". i assume you just use your arm

if you throw your punch without turning your hips or shoulder or putting any body weight into it, then you are just using your arms and of course it will not have as much power compared to a punch thrown with hips and shoulders.

not everyone throws a "wing chun punch" like that

You know what they say about assuming. ;)

Though I agree that people will inherently do things differently, in my case everything comes from the ground, through the joints and into the point of impact. I just noticed that there's a distinct difference from one punch to the other.

The key word is "relative".

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The key is to hit with your whole body... and to maximize the incorporation of your total body mass..and joints.. via body alignment (connected mass) and using all those muscles/joints (esp legs) to make that power (sequential summation of motion). Like Mr Miyagi said, secret of power is 'whole body, (into) one inch'. It's all in the forms, you just need to express it in action, but maybe you already are..." (Jim/Yungchun)

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

"To me Relaxation, especially in the shoulders, but throughout the body is critical. You may have have all the form and structure you want, but if you are tight, you kill the power. Think of tension as kinks in a hose. A kink in a hose limits or even cuts off the water flow. You can turn the valve up as high as you can to get maximum power from the water source, but the water power is cut down the line by these points of tension." (Matrix)


***TWO GOOD POSTS right there. Wow! Van is back, Jim is back, Bill is back...and already this forum is starting to look and read like a wing chun forum again! ;)

And when Wayfaring followed Bill/Matrix's remarks with this:

"If you do not train striking in an alive 100% contact environment, then when you do get into an evironment like that, there is a great deal of tension present due to the situation being different than how you train. I see this with fighters - there is a "first fight" experience they all go through - the tension, the adrenaline dump, the narrowing of focus and skillset. People forget to do things in the ring/cage that they know how to do in practice. If you train in an environment similar to that it minimizes this effect...."

****THEN WE GOT TO SEE a serious wing chun punching thread in action once again! Very cool.....:cool:

[SAAMAG]

"The key is to hit with your whole body... and to maximize the incorporation of your total body mass..and joints.. via body alignment (connected mass) and using all those muscles/joints (esp legs) to make that power (sequential summation of motion). Like Mr Miyagi said, secret of power is 'whole body, (into) one inch'. It's all in the forms, you just need to express it in action, but maybe you already are..." (Jim/Yungchun)

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

"To me Relaxation, especially in the shoulders, but throughout the body is critical. You may have have all the form and structure you want, but if you are tight, you kill the power. Think of tension as kinks in a hose. A kink in a hose limits or even cuts off the water flow. You can turn the valve up as high as you can to get maximum power from the water source, but the water power is cut down the line by these points of tension." (Matrix)


***TWO GOOD POSTS right there. Wow! Van is back, Jim is back, Bill is back...and already this forum is starting to look and read like a wing chun forum again! ;)

And when Wayfaring followed Bill/Matrix's remarks with this:

"If you do not train striking in an alive 100% contact environment, then when you do get into an evironment like that, there is a great deal of tension present due to the situation being different than how you train. I see this with fighters - there is a "first fight" experience they all go through - the tension, the adrenaline dump, the narrowing of focus and skillset. People forget to do things in the ring/cage that they know how to do in practice. If you train in an environment similar to that it minimizes this effect...."

****THEN WE GOT TO SEE a serious wing chun punching thread in action once again! Very cool.....:cool:

Agreed. These are the kinds of conversations that should be more prevelent in this forum. Doesn't matter who is better than who, or even if someone does something different. It all is wing chun in some form or fashion, and its the differences that can help us all to see things in a universal way instead of in a narrow-minded way.

;) There's a rhyme and reason for the questions I ask. I like to use them to spur discussions that can help bring to light the details that we all learn about through our individual paths to enlightment.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Who needs a strong punch when you can do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDYyv-iLmRY

[anerlich]

So in your opinion is it simply a matter of repitition of the proper form that allows your instructor that power? Or is there something more to it?


Repetition, yes, I think, but not mindless repetition. He did, and made his students do, a lot of integration of footwork, strike, and breath. Big on relaxation as well.

My instructor, while not a couch potato, wasn't hugely into physical conditioning.

OTOH, he was a nidan in goju ryu back in the sixties before he switched to TCMA, back in the days when they used to break large quantities of building materials...

[SAAMAG]

Repetition, yes, I think, but not mindless repetition. He did, and made his students do, a lot of integration of footwork, strike, and breath. Big on relaxation as well.

My instructor, while not a couch potato, wasn't hugely into physical conditioning.

OTOH, he was a nidan in goju ryu back in the sixties before he switched to TCMA, back in the days when they used to break large quantities of building materials...

:D That might have something to do with it. One of the best ways to develop punching power is by punching things...hard.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I bring this up because tonight I was working the bag and focus mitts, and my girlfriend stated that the wing chun punch didn't seem to feel like it had as much power as my natural cross.

I asked her "in what way do you mean?" She said when I throw a quick and natural cross (from arms being held naturally at my sides) it radiates through her wrist, elbow, shoulder, and body. She said when I throw the wing chun punch it doesn't feel the same, like it doesn't radiate through her arm as much.

So I tested it on something more resiliant--my heavy bag (not swinging, just solid against the wall). It felt and sounded just as powerful as a natural overhand right...but doing it again on the pads it indeed felt like there wasn't as much feedback--yet structurally everything felt right and all was lined up--elbow, hips, wrist--rooted to the ground.

Possible Factors?


Pad holder not giving the same feedback for each punch
The wing chun punch is just weaker by way of design (or you could say the natural punch (cross) is stronger by design)
Perhaps I did not give enough follow through with my wing chun punch as compared to my natural cross (or perhaps I wasn't close enough to the pad to give it enough penetrating power)
I did not have enough chi behind it
My wing chun is terrible and I should just quit now


---

In any case though it got me thinking about puching power...what have you been told your strongest punch was? Doesn't matter if its wing chun or otherwise. I've had my normal partner tell me my overhand right is enough to drop him even with the belly pad on. I've been told by others that the wing chun straight punch is strong, but no where near the same level as the overhand. So while the wing chun punch was considered to be strong by this guy--relatively speaking the boxing punch was simply stronger (in feel through pads)

On a side note do you think that the wing chun punch can be as strong as any other punch in general -- or more specifically the cross? Or do you think that the punch is limited by its design relatively speaking?

Do you depend on li for the power or chi? If its the latter, have you compared the punch with other punches that you learned that might not depend on chi specifically?

There are two types of "power" that one can produce, though they typically work together.
Momentum based impact force - Cross, hook, uppercut, round kick, etc.
Teh impact force of this strikes is based on the momentum generated, as such, the longer the limb, the faster the acceleration, the rigidity of the contact surface and much more, all play into how much impact force will be felt ( what is felt and what is generated are NOT the same thing by the way).
The other type is "impulse" or kinetic energy based impact force- usually called "fa jing" in TCMA.
This force is based on the amount of energy one can "put into" the target and has very little to do with momentum.
Think Jab or backfist to short elbows, snapping front kicks, things of this nature.
The vast majority of pads and bag tend to deprive kinetic energy based strikes from most of their "BAM" because they absorbe the strike and as such, momentum based strikes are more obvious.

[SAAMAG]

There are two types of "power" that one can produce, though they typically work together.
Momentum based impact force - The other type is "impulse" or kinetic energy


That's the way I thought of fa jing [kinetic energy]...at least the way I interpreted it in terms of western science. I'd listen to the chinese theory and think about how it correlated with science to find the western "equivelent".

I thought about this too...in terms of physics.

If we can agree that force = mass x velocity^2...
and we can safely say that the mass is the same...
than the only piece that can affect the amount of force is the velocity.

For the velocity piece, I think that the equation of initial velocity + acceleration x time would be appropriate.

If we're using these equations (generally of course since there's no hard numbers)...I'd say that perhaps the fact that the wing chun punch doesn't travel in as much distance, and hence not able to build up as much acceleration, that perhaps the punch is limited by design relative to the overhand or cross due to that punch's longer pathway and thus higher level of achieved acceleration (assuming that the amount of acceleration isn't maxed within the same distance as the wing chun punch).

Then again...if we're talking impact force then the equation would change a bit to be m x v^2 / time of contact (time of contact being contact area / velocity^2). So the amount of time in contact could be a factor as well.

Either way...kinetic energy is developed through acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy an object has is related to its velocity (x 2). So if we can agree on that, would not the wing chun punch be a disadvantage unless the puncher could accelerate the same amount as the cross in that shorter distance?

Yes-No? I'm not a physics major I just thought it'd be fun to look at it in more structured terms.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995327]There are two types of "power" that one can produce, though they typically work together.

(Can if properly developed).

Momentum based impact force - Cross, hook, uppercut, round kick, etc.
Teh impact force of this strikes is based on the momentum generated, as such, the longer the limb, the faster the acceleration, the rigidity of the contact surface and much more, all play into how much impact force will be felt ( what is felt and what is generated are NOT the same thing by the way).

((Easier to demonstrate on heavy bags and similar things.The distinction you make between what is felt and what is generated is IMO a good one.Sometimes the generated power is not completely delivered))


The other type is "impulse" or kinetic energy based impact force- usually called "fa jing" in TCMA.

(Fa jing is probably Mandarin- in some Cantonese it could be" bau ja geng" or explosive power-easier to be felt by the recipient- not necessarily as evident on a hand held pad. The tacit knowledge of the observer more important in assessment than in the first type of power.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depends on training, skill and context))

Joy Chaudhuri

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's the way I thought of fa jing [kinetic energy]...at least the way I interpreted it in terms of western science. I'd listen to the chinese theory and think about how it correlated with science to find the western "equivelent".

I thought about this too...in terms of physics.

If we can agree that force = mass x velocity^2...
and we can safely say that the mass is the same...
than the only piece that can affect the amount of force is the velocity.

For the velocity piece, I think that the equation of initial velocity + acceleration x time would be appropriate.

If we're using these equations (generally of course since there's no hard numbers)...I'd say that perhaps the fact that the wing chun punch doesn't travel in as much distance, and hence not able to build up as much acceleration, that perhaps the punch is limited by design relative to the overhand or cross due to that punch's longer pathway and thus higher level of achieved acceleration (assuming that the amount of acceleration isn't maxed within the same distance as the wing chun punch).

Then again...if we're talking impact force then the equation would change a bit to be m x v^2 / time of contact (time of contact being contact area / velocity^2). So the amount of time in contact could be a factor as well.

Either way...kinetic energy is developed through acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy an object has is related to its velocity (x 2). So if we can agree on that, would not the wing chun punch be a disadvantage unless the puncher could accelerate the same amount as the cross in that shorter distance?

Yes-No? I'm not a physics major I just thought it'd be fun to look at it in more structured terms.

Vankuen,
The time of contact is VERY crucial and is something that is typically over looked.
The harder the contact and impact surface, the less time the greater the kinetic energy transfer.
This is why, typically, short power ( inch power, fa jing, whatever) is applied to the head.

How much impact we can transfer to a target with our strikes is based on how well we strike ( if all else is equal) because the power we generate is not always All transfered to the target.
There has to be quite a bit of "perfect" conditons for all the energy to be transfered and typically that doesn't happen in a real fight.

So we must, to begin with, generate as much force as possible.
Don't get over "physics" on it because physics has to be tailored to biomechanics.
Suffice to say that, for a "powerful" strike one must:
Apply as much mass as possible.
Accelerate as much as possible.
Decelerate as least as possible.
Follow through enough.
Make contact "just" enough to penetrate the target.

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;995327]There are two types of "power" that one can produce, though they typically work together.

(Can if properly developed).

Momentum based impact force - Cross, hook, uppercut, round kick, etc.
Teh impact force of this strikes is based on the momentum generated, as such, the longer the limb, the faster the acceleration, the rigidity of the contact surface and much more, all play into how much impact force will be felt ( what is felt and what is generated are NOT the same thing by the way).

((Easier to demonstrate on heavy bags and similar things.The distinction you make between what is felt and what is generated is IMO a good one.Sometimes the generated power is not completely delivered))


The other type is "impulse" or kinetic energy based impact force- usually called "fa jing" in TCMA.

(Fa jing is probably Mandarin- in some Cantonese it could be" bau ja geng" or explosive power-easier to be felt by the recipient- not necessarily as evident on a hand held pad. The tacit knowledge of the observer more important in assessment than in the first type of power.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depends on training, skill and context))

Joy Chaudhuri

Agreed on all points.

[SAAMAG]

Vankuen,
The time of contact is VERY crucial and is something that is typically over looked.
The harder the contact and impact surface, the less time the greater the kinetic energy transfer.
This is why, typically, short power ( inch power, fa jing, whatever) is applied to the head.

How much impact we can transfer to a target with our strikes is based on how well we strike ( if all else is equal) because the power we generate is not always All transfered to the target.
There has to be quite a bit of "perfect" conditons for all the energy to be transfered and typically that doesn't happen in a real fight.

So we must, to begin with, generate as much force as possible.
Don't get over "physics" on it because physics has to be tailored to biomechanics.
Suffice to say that, for a "powerful" strike one must:
Apply as much mass as possible.
Accelerate as much as possible.
Decelerate as least as possible.
Follow through enough.
Make contact "just" enough to penetrate the target.

Agreed on everything there, and to look at it another way...do you think that all punches are capable of the same power coming from the same individual? I.E. We can agree that the jab is not equal in power to the cross, hook, or uppercut, in power generation. If that is the case, it establishes the idea that non-boxing punches (E.G. gung fu punches) might also have varying degrees of power as well.

You and Joy were saying...the power effect felt by the focus mitt holder may not be indicitive of the actual transfer of force (like when I hit the heavy bag that was against the wall and it felt equal there as opposed to the mitt). I thought about that when I originally was mulling things over, but then started thinking that there's no reason for it to differ either...force of impact is force of impact. It exists in the same realm of reality and thus is susceptible to the same rules of physics (though you're right its not exactly the same given that we're not simply "objects"). That's when I started thinking that it was the pad holder that could be making things feel different in terms of feedback.

People have been hit with punches that didn't damage the exterior, but the interior. Just like in car accidents or any other type of tremedous blunt trauma. Houdini died of a ruptured liver because he was showing his "iron stomach" and let some young guy punch him in his body a punch of times. No gung fu there, just a good strong punch (or punches). I give you that example to show that it's not gung fu or boxing that really makes the difference, its just force and the person's ability to transfer it.

That's why I look at things from non-style perspective. I put everything on an equal playing field regardless of the origin. Punch to punch...which has more power. If we can determine why, we can also determine how to increase the power within the confines of the human construct.

[YungChun]

Make contact "just" enough to penetrate the target.

Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK...because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target....ok no jokes.. :)

[SAAMAG]

Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK...because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target....ok no jokes.. :)

That reminded me of wedding crashers where the guy talks about playing the game of "just the tip" lol.

Why stop at just the tip when you can get that deep penetrating force!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thought about that when I originally was mulling things over, but then started thinking that there's no reason for it to differ either...force of impact is force of impact. It exists in the same realm of reality and thus is susceptible to the same rules of physics (though you're right its not exactly the same given that we're not simply "objects"). That's when I started thinking that it was the pad holder that could be making things feel different in terms of feedback.

I think that, a person that can "throw" his 15 lbs arm at 35 mph will generate the same amount of force regardless of HOW he generates it, BUT how much of that force will "effect" the target is another matter.
Pulling the arm back to increase impulse, for example, can very easily compromise the amount of force and energy-
Pulling back to soon or the target moving for example will decrease impact.
While using momentum based force MAY allow for less issue as we are driving through the target with very little regard for "pull back".
Of course, ideally, you want to use BOTH methods and that is what WC ( or any system) strike should be done as.
Not a "slappy, tappy" collection of strikes but also not a swinging basebal bat either.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not sure if this is enough penetration for purposes of WCK...because as I see it we are looking to break structure which is aided by this a type of deep penetrating force, aka time on target....ok no jokes.. :)

Just enough typically means about 2-4 inches of depth ( compression), the issue I am referring to is:
Too much = a push
Too little = girlie slap

[SAAMAG]

I think that, a person that can "throw" his 15 lbs arm at 35 mph will generate the same amount of force regardless of HOW he generates it, BUT how much of that force will "effect" the target is another matter.
Pulling the arm back to increase impulse, for example, can very easily compromise the amount of force and energy-
Pulling back to soon or the target moving for example will decrease impact.
While using momentum based force MAY allow for less issue as we are driving through the target with very little regard for "pull back".
Of course, ideally, you want to use BOTH methods and that is what WC ( or any system) strike should be done as.
Not a "slappy, tappy" collection of strikes but also not a swinging basebal bat either.

So in other words...you're talking about maxmimizing the "POP" that we look for when striking? For example on the heavy bag--not tapping the bag and not pushing the bag, but the sweet spot in between. That's something I constantly see in gyms...people pushing the bag and mistaking it for "power".

Very good point.

So if one was to maximize the "pop" with both punches...which do you think would issue more power (in terms of kinetic energy transference)--the chung kuen or the overhand/cross?

[sanjuro_ronin]

So in other words...you're talking about maxmimizing the "POP" that we look for when striking? For example on the heavy bag--not tapping the bag and not pushing the bag, but the sweet spot in between. That's something I constantly see in gyms...people pushing the bag and mistaking it for "power".

Very good point.

So if one was to maximize the "pop" with both punches...which do you think would issue more power (in terms of kinetic energy transference)--the chung kuen or the overhand/cross?

The PC version would be the whichever one is trained the best by the individual.
The facts though, are not PC.
You can look at fight science and see how hard Bas Rutten strikes and WHICH strike he chooses.
We can look at full contact fighting and see which strikes ROUTINELY get the KO's.

I myself was involved in 2 studies at the York University in Toronto in which the force of strikes were measured on both a static target AND a moving one ( a padded suit with force gauges on it) and in that study were MA of various backgrounds - Boxers, KB/MT, Kung fu, etc and the strikes that consistently offered the greatest level of IMPACT force ( pounds of force) AND Kinetic Force (g's) were momentum based strikes.

[SAAMAG]

The PC version would be the whichever one is trained the best by the individual.
The facts though, are not PC.
You can look at fight science and see how hard Bas Rutten strikes and WHICH strike he chooses.
We can look at full contact fighting and see which strikes ROUTINELY get the KO's.

I myself was involved in 2 studies at the York University in Toronto in which the force of strikes were measured on both a static target AND a moving one ( a padded suit with force gauges on it) and in that study were MA of various backgrounds - Boxers, KB/MT, Kung fu, etc and the strikes that consistently offered the greatest level of IMPACT force ( pounds of force) AND Kinetic Force (g's) were momentum based strikes.

Well if that's not proof in the pudding I don't know what is. Studies done with objective and measurable data...doesn't get much better than that. I like that the study was done with MOVING objects as well becuase then you can take into consideration when and how the strike occurred (timing) to aid in making useful information of the data (assuming that it was filmed to coordinate the numbers with the actions).

To make sure that no one misinterpretes this thread though...I know that the chung kuen is a strong punch, but I also know that I have stronger ones available. I figured it'd be good conversation fodder anyway.

BTW...you didn't mention I don't think which punch you have as your strongest?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well if that's not proof in the pudding I don't know what is. Studies done with objective and measurable data...doesn't get much better than that. I like that the study was done with MOVING objects as well becuase then you can take into consideration when and how the strike occurred (timing) to aid in making useful information of the data (assuming that it was filmed to coordinate the numbers with the actions).
The differences between hitting a static target and a moving one weren't that much, typically around a loss of 10-15%.
The padded suit was lightweight and allowed for the "dummy" to move very well, it was a specially modified SPEAR suit from Tony Blauer.
Everything was filmed with high speed digital film used to track speed in a FBS mode ( whatever all that means !).


BTW...you didn't mention I don't think which punch you have as your strongest?
Overhand right to the head and to the body was the left hook, although the stright to the body wasn't that much less powerful.

[SAAMAG]

The differences between hitting a static target and a moving one weren't that much, typically around a loss of 10-15%.
The padded suit was lightweight and allowed for the "dummy" to move very well, it was a specially modified SPEAR suit from Tony Blauer.
Everything was filmed with high speed digital film used to track speed in a FBS mode ( whatever all that means !).


Overhand right to the head and to the body was the left hook, although the stright to the body wasn't that much less powerful.

That's good stuff. Though was anyone there using the wing chun punch? I know you said that there was varying styles being represented.

In addition comparisons from one punch to the other were made against the same individual? Because comparing from one person to the next leaves the argument that certain punches were stronger due to varying sizes, speeds, musculature, etc.

I figure Bas Rutten, having come from Kyokushin, probably didn't have the chung choi in his arsenal either ya?

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's good stuff. Though was anyone there using the wing chun punch? I know you said that there was varying styles being represented.

In addition comparisons from one punch to the other were made against the same individual? Because comparing from one person to the next leaves the argument that certain punches were stronger due to varying sizes, speeds, musculature, etc.

I figure Bas Rutten, having come from Kyokushin, probably didn't have the chung choi in his arsenal either ya?

Their were many people in both studies, the first one ( static), in my group there were 20 and 3 were WC guys from Sunny Tang's ( Moy Yat).
In the dynamic study the groups were smaller because of the time frame ( 5 people per group).
Typically, the biggest factor seemed to be skill level and that was directly related to experience/training time ( the guys that hit the hardest were the ones that trained full contact the longest), they simply knew how to hit hard, better.
Height, limb length and diameter, weight and strenght were all measured to see if they were factors.

[Hendrik]

Strike...

There are hammer type intended to smash.
There are chissel type intended to chip in.
There are boomerang type intended to whilpool retrograde
There are cross bow arrow type intended for penetrate
There are whip type intended to whip cut
There are thin razor blade type intended to paper cut fast.....


What is strongest?

Perhaps it is time to ask what "tools" comes with SLT?
Different strike come with different power generation.....different strike for different purpose..speed ... tactic......size.....

[YungChun]

Just enough typically means about 2-4 inches of depth ( compression), the issue I am referring to is:
Too much = a push
Too little = girlie slap

Yeah, I'm just wondering of for our purposes there might be elements of pushing and blasting.. In certain cases we want to take them out of there base while hitting them so perhaps seeking more full extension.... Even the RP seems to have some element of that depending on how you do it.. Just something I have thought about/wondered in the past..

Anyone train to blast through the opponent?

[SAAMAG]

Strike...

There are hammer type intended to smash.
There are chissel type intended to chip in.
There are boomerang type intended to whilpool retrograde
There are cross bow arrow type intended for penetrate
There are whip type intended to whip cut
There are thin razor blade type intended to paper cut fast.....


What is strongest?

Perhaps it is time to ask what "tools" comes with SLT?
Different strike come with different power generation.....different strike for different purpose..speed ... tactic......size.....

Very good observation Hendrick. There are indeed several types of strikes which serve a variety of purposes. Since you've brought it up, what is the intent of the chung kuen / choi?

[Hendrik]

Very good observation Hendrick. There are indeed several types of strikes which serve a variety of purposes.

Since you've brought it up, what is the intent of the chung kuen / choi?



1, It is not my observation. it is there to see.

2, Chung Kuen/Choi is just a thrusting force to open the gate like a water hose to open up a path into the fire.

Thus, it is not heavy weapon at all by nature.



There are other weapon of penetration and quick draw type which has been taken away from today's WCK.
Those are serious stuff which even can break hard Qigong. But it is no longer here in general.



There are boomerang weapon which is similar to lock in missile once it locks in it retrogrates... those are for real close body/anti grappling weapon, Those too no longer here in general.


There are cross bow penetration weapon which is a much heavier weapon, it too no longer here in general.



Each weapon has its characteristics and its suitable condition. That is the 1850 colorfull WCK. IMHO



Thus, what is strongest punch? that is very misleading. Strongest punch can be the most useless punch because it is not suitable for the situation. IE using the Vertical punch against the grapper is a dead trap while your punch launch in a 30 deg upward trajectory.
and the grapper can come in with 0 deg level and totally out of your punch trajectory space.

[Pacman]

hate to sound like a nerd, but force does not equal mass x velocity ^2

force = mass x acceleration

acceleration is the change in velocity over time (v- v0)/t, or the first derivative dv/dt of velocity

i think you are thinking of

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2

Kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared.

So Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to mass and to velocity.



Sanjuros explanation of "momentum based" impacts have high mass but low velocity. these are more push-like

His other explanation of fa jing are high velocity and low mass impacts

i would recommend high velocity because that is what is going to penetrate your target and hurt more


So to hit hard you really need to maximize velocity and mass AT THE TIME OF IMPACT. Does not matter how far your punch has travelled. Only the time of impact matters. Thats all there is to it.

WC attempts to maximize mass by using throwing the entire body into the strike, using the strongest muscles in the body, the legs, to propel it

WC attempts to maximize velocity by doing what any other style does and thats hitting as fast as possible.

WC attempts to be efficient in terms of energy delivery through body structure, so that as much kinetic energy is transferred into your target and minimal energy is "lost" due to recoil.


That's the way I thought of fa jing [kinetic energy]...at least the way I interpreted it in terms of western science. I'd listen to the chinese theory and think about how it correlated with science to find the western "equivelent".

I thought about this too...in terms of physics.

If we can agree that force = mass x velocity^2...
and we can safely say that the mass is the same...
than the only piece that can affect the amount of force is the velocity.

For the velocity piece, I think that the equation of initial velocity + acceleration x time would be appropriate.

If we're using these equations (generally of course since there's no hard numbers)...I'd say that perhaps the fact that the wing chun punch doesn't travel in as much distance, and hence not able to build up as much acceleration, that perhaps the punch is limited by design relative to the overhand or cross due to that punch's longer pathway and thus higher level of achieved acceleration (assuming that the amount of acceleration isn't maxed within the same distance as the wing chun punch).

Then again...if we're talking impact force then the equation would change a bit to be m x v^2 / time of contact (time of contact being contact area / velocity^2). So the amount of time in contact could be a factor as well.

Either way...kinetic energy is developed through acceleration. The amount of kinetic energy an object has is related to its velocity (x 2). So if we can agree on that, would not the wing chun punch be a disadvantage unless the puncher could accelerate the same amount as the cross in that shorter distance?

Yes-No? I'm not a physics major I just thought it'd be fun to look at it in more structured terms.

[k gledhill]

one thing vt develops over 'momentum' strikes is the technical ability to deliver attacking actions constantly without stopping...iow the VT techniques are what they are due to the goal at hand....
I tell my student the same, I 'could' do a thai kick ..'but' if I miss your thigh im recovering back to starting point or spinning around from the follow through... if i miss etc...I can also deliver a spinning strike etc to follow a missed kick... 'but' i have turned myself...pivoted etc....no attack line.
The attacking idea of vt allows low straight kicks to compliment the forward pressure of the attacking....strikes are direct and cycling constantly for the same reasons....delivering an unbroken attacking line of force....until its over.
If I adopt a circular momentum strike thats fine too ...its just the 'missing the target' part..in vt if i miss im still on my attack line ...still attacking without an opening.
Why you see P Bayer doing a lot of striking ....subtle angling using constant attack/deflection, with moving angles staying with the opponent until penetration/impact.


IOW the system has techniques that allow us to develop the attacking idea....close quarter linear striking with simultaneous ability from angles of arms , controlled by elbows....low straight kicks that allows us to 'walk' forward as we attack kicking ...symmetrical facing strikes that can shift sides of our centerline /strike / attack-line , seamlessly as the person moves across it...before us, side to side, along a cage or back to a wall..if they come we stay and angle as we strike...attacking always.

Everything is developing striking ..we train out tan strike against our own jum strike for the equilibrium of opposite arm strike energy...trained along our lines for alignement...

the unaligned forces we feel are the byproduct we use to our advantage of the untrained arm...:D

Timing the strikes is with staying with an incoming force: head on crashes double the impact force proportionately..... 600lb punch force meets head traveling inwards = :D

I have used this very thing over and over in fights....IT NEVER FAILS.


Seung ma toi ma drills are dedicated to this attack or counter attacking point of impact...too close no force... too far no contact + elbows out & technique falls apart....like a heavy bag I will become the bag for my partner to train his/her timing, using my extended striking arm [tan] as the side of entry to angle offside...making it unthinking action, intuitive....1000's of rep's of a seamingly simple thing.....ko

Seung ma ~ toi ma = point of impact / timing. plus flowing attacking , counter attacking drills....

Somehow this drill has become step in followed by wrist deflection + step back or do a 'move' only possible in chi-sao games, turning away from your attacking line to 'deflect' energy . WRONG...the idea is LOST ..not there anymore....all wrists, chasing, over trapping, over feeling...

timing is critical and easy to show how little movement is needed to steal your impact force...
this applies to the VT strike technique, so it has to be trained to stay in its impact zone, staying with what comes is your impact zone...as it moves away or comes to us..it is a heavy bag swinging at us, away from us, sideways across our lines and back ...so we use pivoting, angling, shifting in small steps for force transfer....drills with timing and impact force as the goals re-enforce the idea of attacking throughout the system...dummy etc...


As seemingly simple drill for impact is to pusha heavy bag way from your self ...enough so it swings back into your space, making it essential you move and angle sideon to it or it will knock you backwards....as it swings back you step back at 45deg, adopting a position as attacking the side of the dummy...lead leg, rear leg, angling offside....
Hit the bag as all the feet hips shoulders align & strike, make contact..the bag is the teacher here :D watch for wrists, alignment is critical and not a drill for beginners ...use a palm strike to avoid injury..vertical palms make the elbow spread as a tan teaches, horizontal palm brings the elbow in as jum strikes, use each to develop both either side....when you have hit the bag well you will stop its motion....
try to time the strikes as you would hit a guy moving in on your position...just a drill.

You will feel your stance so adjust your rear foot to drive energy into your hand>heavy bag...
as all forces... if you TIME them properly you harness all they have to offer and combine them in kinetic chains meeting at the hips
ie strike with extending arm AND extending leg into ground at exactly the same time you make an efficient action with no momentum swing required.

If you get this timing right, you hit a guy with the force an inch punch is capable of driving you away several feet .... WITHOUT RETRACTION from the impact point ...only now you have impact timing of incoming mass + timing adding the force capable of being generated with the inch strike aka no retraction striking....leg + arm+ timing = a whole lot of energy into a point

...accuracy drills help too, tennis balls on stretchy strings etc....

terence your rebuttal please :D and dont hold back i want the whole mantra , no 1/2 measures....the "but you have to fight fighter who can really ...er, fight " hah

[SAAMAG]

hate to sound like a nerd, but force does not equal mass x velocity ^2

force = mass x acceleration

acceleration is the change in velocity over time (v- v0)/t, or the first derivative dv/dt of velocity

i think you are thinking of

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2

Kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared.

So Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to mass and to velocity.


Thanks for the correction NERD :p I was thinking m/s^2, but incorrectly replaced it with V instead of A. Would the impluse equation have worked better in this scenario since we're trying to measure the force at the moment of impact I wonder?

But moving on to what you were saying about Sanjuro's post, you believe in the equation of M x A that pushes are resultant of high M and low A and vice versa for more "piercing" hits? You don't think that someone punching slower could still achieve that "pop"?

[Hendrik]

Thanks for the correction NERD :p I was thinking m/s^2, but incorrectly replaced it with V instead of A. Would the impluse equation have worked better in this scenario since we're trying to measure the force at the moment of impact I wonder?

But moving on to what you were saying about Sanjuro's post, you believe in the equation of M x A that pushes are resultant of high M and low A and vice versa for more "piercing" hits? You don't think that someone punching slower could still achieve that "pop"?



Believe it or not these stuffs doesnt model the strike because the body is a distributive system.

Also, IMHO, I was using this stuffs trying to model the strike for decades.... but at last when I was taught how to generate different type of jin, these physics stuffs are really a wasting of time.

Those who knows knows these type of physics doesnt do much, those who doesnt know how to generate the power will get even confuse.


power generation is not that complex, it is only a matter of globa or localization generation. it is centric or decenterization. how to accelerate, how to make use of momentum, how to use friction.

The issue is whether the body and mind has been condition to do the job.
Qi medirians were us in the training to aid the path of delivery or transmission.
It goes back to the bottom line of does one have a working process and get coach to develop it.


again, if I understood what people mean by pivoting as in other post, that type of pivoting doesnt work in generate heavy power. By pivoting one already is not effective in using the body momentum. and it locked the heck out of one's movement or agility or balance.

Any prove that pivoting is not the it in 1850s?
In the Yik Kam kuen kuit, as I post it in the Kuen kuit post, one of the first 5 stanza says, left leg trip up has an aiding or counter effect, right leg the recoil power is reversely store.
It uses the legs generate and to propell the force vectors to the target in the same instant. Think of it similar to a rotating wheel. it doesnt pivot but rotate. and it is that rotation generate the thrust forward.


It is a very dynamic non preconditioning type of power generation instead of pivoting where one leg needs to be secure.

No pivoting but in fact both legs are used as a couple for power generation in the same instant. It is very scientific even in today's view. Thus, YJKYM is not what most stereo type think it is. It is practically sit on a set of wheels instead of root. if one root , one is nail dead. the flow is stop. there is where the grapper take you down.




There are lots of stuffs which in general we dont think that way, so we missed it.

Some might again, start to attack me here on being secretive.....mystify.....


Well, my bottom line is simple, I am a buddhist, I look at this stuffs as an art which I love to investigating or playing with;

I dont reveal more because if others use what I reveal to hurt others it is my karma. and it is not good to provide heavy weapon to for others to hurt each others.

So, what i can say is there are lots of stuffs we WCner has missed compare with the red boat time. There is no secret or mysterious....etc. It is only about working process and process for different purpose intended. The ancestors got them and they are fading away. modern logical thinking doesnt lead one there because the thinking pattern are different. and also we dont train it anymore.

Just my 2cents.













---------------------------------------


We may never love like this again
Don't stop the flow
We can't let go
We may never love like this again
And touch the sky
Though we may try


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F09VDTRVcYg

[SAAMAG]

Believe it or not these stuffs doesnt model the strike because the body is a distributive system.

Also, IMHO, I was using this stuffs trying to model the strike for decades.... but at last when I was taught how to generate different type of jin, these physics stuffs are really a wasting of time.

Those who knows knows these type of physics doesnt do much, those who doesnt know how to generate the power will get even confuse.


Physics is a science of studying the relationship between matter and energy. There is no mysticism to it and it is quantifiable and measurable. I'd say that it provides better insight into things where older studies could not (i.e. jing).

This was a comparison of relative power generation between two linear (straight) punches that are used for the same reason--to try and disable the opponent. Nothing esoteric about, nothing religious.

But you're right it's not that complicated, I've got my own theories and explainations for it...this thread is to create conversation on the subject to see how other people view it.

BTW...I don't know if you mentioned what you felt your strongest punch was? By that I mean the one that issues the greatest amount of kinetic transfer.

[YungChun]

Thanks for the correction NERD :p I was thinking m/s^2, but incorrectly replaced it with V instead of A. Would the impluse equation have worked better in this scenario since we're trying to measure the force at the moment of impact I wonder?

But moving on to what you were saying about Sanjuro's post, you believe in the equation of M x A that pushes are resultant of high M and low A and vice versa for more "piercing" hits? You don't think that someone punching slower could still achieve that "pop"?

The body is very complex, the interaction of the mind and body, so many variations on use of the muscles, bones, and so on.. Modern Science is great but it may not yet be revealing all the elements in play IMO.

A push accelerates post contact, a strike pre-contact.

Hmmm can the two be merged...?

[SAAMAG]

The body is very complex, the interaction of the mind and body, so many variations on use of the muscles, bones, and so on.. Modern Science is great but it may not yet be revealing all the elements in play IMO.

A push accelerates post contact, a strike pre-contact.

Hmmm can the two be merged...?

The body in my opinion is more a machine than some esoteric being. It's got bones for structure, muscles for movement, and all of it is designed to move in a certain way. There is a defined process that it uses that can be explicitely explained. I mean we know the body down to the chemical level. If there was anything else don't you think there'd be evidence of it? I'd like to believe that we have some sort of unexplained power to harness the energy around us...but the facts simply don't support that yet. Even Chinese explanations are only theory without any hard proof.

But in terms of the combining of the two types of forces...I wouldn't think there'd be a way to combine them. I mean a push is a push. It's not a forceful contact with that sharpness that a strike would have. I alwayS gauge my strikes on the heavy for example by the sound it makes and how the bag folds upon impact. If the bag just swings...I PUSHED it. If the bag folds...I HIT it. Each impact type sounds disctinctly different. Of course the goal is to fold the bag.

[YungChun]

The body in my opinion is more a machine than some esoteric being.

Well for me this is an oversimplification, although I don't know what you mean by 'some esoteric being'..



It's got bones for structure, muscles for movement, and all of it is designed to move in a certain way. There is a defined process that it uses that can be explicitely explained.

I don't know about that. I normally would agree for the most part but there is still more we don't know in science than we do know, especially when you introduce the mental factor, the mind.

A mother lifts a bus up to save her son.. Sure we can explain it, we think, but is there more to be gleaned from such examples than an explanation and a shrug?

I tend to see things more open ended, in some areas we are just scratching the surface, like in quantum physics, and we see the mind playing a huge role in what reality really means..



If there was anything else don't you think there'd be evidence of it? I'd like to believe that we have some sort of unexplained power to harness the energy around us...but the facts simply don't support that yet. Even Chinese explanations are only theory without any hard proof.


I am not about the chi... However the body is not a slingshot.. It's about a billion times more complex.. and while we can scan the body and monitor it's motion and measure impacts, in a certain way I bet that over say the next 5 years we will continue to learn more despite that it may seem we know it all....



But in terms of the combining of the two types of forces...I wouldn't think there'd be a way to combine them. I mean a push is a push.


A strike that keeps going delaying deceleration, would also 'push' ....To me this could be a combination but I am just thinking out loud.

[YungChun]

So is it speed or acceleration?

I can place my hand on someone and then pulse it and it will hurt.. Yet what was the velocity? Was it a strike or a push..?

[HumbleWCGuy]

hate to sound like a nerd, but force does not equal mass x velocity ^2

force = mass x acceleration

acceleration is the change in velocity over time (v- v0)/t, or the first derivative dv/dt of velocity

i think you are thinking of

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2

Kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared.

So Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to mass and to velocity.



Sanjuros explanation of "momentum based" impacts have high mass but low velocity. these are more push-like

His other explanation of fa jing are high velocity and low mass impacts

i would recommend high velocity because that is what is going to penetrate your target and hurt more


So to hit hard you really need to maximize velocity and mass AT THE TIME OF IMPACT. Does not matter how far your punch has travelled. Only the time of impact matters. Thats all there is to it.

WC attempts to maximize mass by using throwing the entire body into the strike, using the strongest muscles in the body, the legs, to propel it

WC attempts to maximize velocity by doing what any other style does and thats hitting as fast as possible.

WC attempts to be efficient in terms of energy delivery through body structure, so that as much kinetic energy is transferred into your target and minimal energy is "lost" due to recoil.

You are correct about the KE fromula. I was about to post the same thing. Anyway, I think that KE is the best way to discribe strikes Force (F=M*A or angular MV^2/R), momentum (P=M*V), or impulse which measures a change in force over time can be represented as a change in momentum.
[/QUOTE]

For the drama I am going to put this in caps.
STRIKING IS ABOUT MASS BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY SPEED. The KE formula KE = 1/2*M*V^2 best represents what is important about striking, SPEED. Bruce Lee is one of the best examples of a guy with not much mass who could generate "power" by generating much more speed than the average fighter. Proper striking is about kinetic linking which increases both the mass and velocity of a strike.

[Pacman]

Thanks for the correction NERD :p I was thinking m/s^2, but incorrectly replaced it with V instead of A. Would the impluse equation have worked better in this scenario since we're trying to measure the force at the moment of impact I wonder?

But moving on to what you were saying about Sanjuro's post, you believe in the equation of M x A that pushes are resultant of high M and low A and vice versa for more "piercing" hits? You don't think that someone punching slower could still achieve that "pop"?

im not looking a mxa

i am actually only looking at 1/2mv^2

a slow punch can theoretically do a lot of damage, but would need a lot more mass behind it than a human body. imagine a large truck moving slowly and running into you.

[SAAMAG]

im not looking a mxa

i am actually only looking at 1/2mv^2

a slow punch can theoretically do a lot of damage, but would need a lot more mass behind it than a human body. imagine a large truck moving slowly and running into you.

I'd rather not imagine that, thank you. ;) But I get what you're trying to say. For a given mass--speed is the factor that we should be trying to work on. For that, one must be relaxed in movement.

So then lets talk about speed! Can it be increased? Is it limited by genetics? What ways are there that are PROVEN to increase one's speed performance? Obviously repition is one thing (muscle memory). Is there anything else?

[YungChun]

Seems to me that time to speed (A) is also key, especially in a short distance.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I'd rather not imagine that, thank you. ;) But I get what you're trying to say. For a given mass--speed is the factor that we should be trying to work on. For that, one must be relaxed in movement.

So then lets talk about speed! Can it be increased? Is it limited by genetics? What ways are there that are PROVEN to increase one's speed performance? Obviously repition is one thing (muscle memory). Is there anything else?

Both mass and velocity are important. I don't know anything about you so I will just say this. If you ever get into tremendous shape to fight or have been, you will notice that correct punches will bring to bear every bit of your mass that you can muster in any given direction with as much velocity as possible at the point of impact. This is accomplished via kinetic linking.

The one caveat that I have to make is that correct punching isn't just about maximum mas and velocity at the point of impact. Correct punching is also about executing punches in a way that gives you a legitimate opportunity to hit. As I said, a strong puncher could knock down a door with a cross but it is nearly impossible to hit someone with a cross that is thrown that hard because the delivery takes too much total time.

[YungChun]

As I said, a strong puncher could knock down a door with a cross but it is nearly impossible to hit someone with a cross that is thrown that hard because the delivery takes too much total time.

If faster is 'harder' then how is 'harder' slower/longer?

[HumbleWCGuy]

If faster is 'harder' then how is 'harder' slower/longer?

A door buster cross is faster and brings more mass to the point of impact, but it has a telegraphed delivery.


Edit:
I believe that physics only tells part of the story as far as what the best blow is. The rest has to come from knowledge of human performance of the striker and the struck along with understanding of what the strike is intended to hit.

[Hendrik]

The body is very complex, the interaction of the mind and body, so many variations on use of the muscles, bones, and so on.. Modern Science is great but it may not yet be revealing all the elements in play IMO.

A push accelerates post contact, a strike pre-contact.

Hmmm can the two be merged...?


1. yes. one doesnt want to oversimplified the issues.

2, the so called over simplified modern science model is an analytical model. anyone knows those type of model is trouble when using it for a systemic issue such as the body which is a distributive system which means every parts has its own "life" and cannot be model in an Average manner as a "dead" rock in the lab.

[Hendrik]

It's got bones for structure, muscles for movement, and all of it is designed to move in a certain way.


That is the limitation set by your habitual and believe based on a rigid Newtonian science.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I am not talking about chi or internal power of any kind but the biggest problem with people and their drive to be "scientific" about figting is that they jump right to physics and ignore the lessons of sparring, the bags, and other fights.

[chusauli]

The strongest punch is the punch that lands and takes out your opponent when you need it. :)

[m1k3]

The strongest punch is the punch that lands and takes out your opponent when you need it. :)

We have a winner.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The strongest punch is the punch that lands and takes out your opponent when you need it. :)

Crazy talk !!!
:D

[Hendrik]

I am not talking about chi or internal power of any kind but the biggest problem with people and their drive to be "scientific" about figting is that they jump right to physics and ignore the lessons of sparring, the bags, and other fights.


You dont need to get to chi or internal power.

Just face the reality that the body is not a piece of rod, not to mention even to model a piece of flying rod dynamically with physic is not a simple matter with all the simulation software and advance math calculation.

Thus, when dealing with an Adaptive body which is consisted of a distribution of small adaptive parts, it get complex with the inter relationship and inter influence.

[SAAMAG]

I am not talking about chi or internal power of any kind but the biggest problem with people and their drive to be "scientific" about figting is that they jump right to physics and ignore the lessons of sparring, the bags, and other fights.

I don't think anyone is negating or forgetting the other stuff, just talking about the single aspect

[HumbleWCGuy]

I don't think anyone is negating or forgetting the other stuff, just talking about the single aspect

I can live with that.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The strongest punch is the punch that lands and takes out your opponent when you need it. :)

To extend that, I would say that it is the punch that you are landing consistently in fighting situations that takes your opponent out.

[t_niehoff]

To extend that, I would say that it is the punch that you are landing consistently in fighting situations that takes your opponent out.

People can land all kinds of punches, that doesn't make them WCK punches. For example, people can throw jabs, crosses, and hooks while kickboxing, but that's not WCK.

As I see it, in considering the WCK punch and developing its power, you need to take several things into consideration. First, is the movement of the punch itself. Are you using the WCK punch as represented in the forms, dummy, drills (fist aligns to center, elbow is down and in, then the arm thrusts out)? Second, are you hitting with body structure as opposed to body momentum (rotation or stepping)? Can you, for instance, hit strongly with your WCK punch from YJKYM (while stationary without rotation) -- again, just like in the WCK forms, dummy, and drills.

Speculating on Newtonian physics and the like won't help you do that. This is not something that can be "figured out" on a chalkboard. It is a physical skill (like riding a bike).

Another aspect is what are you trying to do (your objective/task) with your WCK punch. As I see it, the WCK punch isn't "designed" for KOing someone (although you may get lucky) but to destroy your opponent's body structure so that you can follow up with more powerful and durable weapons. As such, the way you strike with the punch is different in kind than how boxers or kickboxers strike (who have a different objective). I don't see the WCK punch as the primaryfinishing weapon of WCK.

[duende]

People can land all kinds of punches, that doesn't make them WCK punches. For example, people can throw jabs, crosses, and hooks while kickboxing, but that's not WCK.

As I see it, in considering the WCK punch and developing its power, you need to take several things into consideration. First, is the movement of the punch itself. Are you using the WCK punch as represented in the forms, dummy, drills (fist aligns to center, elbow is down and in, then the arm thrusts out)? Second, are you hitting with body structure as opposed to body momentum (rotation or stepping)? Can you, for instance, hit strongly with your WCK punch from YJKYM (while stationary without rotation) -- again, just like in the WCK forms, dummy, and drills.

Speculating on Newtonian physics and the like won't help you do that. This is not something that can be "figured out" on a chalkboard. It is a physical skill (like riding a bike).

Another aspect is what are you trying to do (your objective/task) with your WCK punch. As I see it, the WCK punch isn't "designed" for KOing someone (although you may get lucky) but to destroy your opponent's body structure so that you can follow up with more powerful and durable weapons. As such, the way you strike with the punch is different in kind than how boxers or kickboxers strike (who have a different objective). I don't see the WCK punch as the primaryfinishing weapon of WCK.

Good post T.

The question then is, do you see how some of the WC body mechanics you have defined here can then be employed in various degrees to the "non WCK" jabs, crosses, and hooks you mention?

[Ultimatewingchun]

The wing chun punch is a vertical fist (or sometimes thrown at a 45 degree angle) with the elbows down and in close to the sides of the ribs...and is used from very close range because of the wing chun body alignment - which advocates always having both arms in play for attack and defense - and therefore requires the shoulders to almost always be parallel to each other...

but at slightly longer range there will be more shoulder torgue and less emphasis on short range power coming almost exclusively from the waist, and the driving power coming from the feet up through the legs, locked hips, and out through the down-and-close-in elbows and out through the fists, etc.

But at longer ranges wherein you must take a half step or a little more...than the wing chun "punch", per se...disappears, in the sense that a punch thrown won't have an elbows-down-and-in-close-to-the-sides "look"...and the shoulders won't be that parallel when you punch (perhaps not at all)...

and therefore the debate begins as to whether or not you're "doing wing chun" anymore.

FALSE ARGUMENT.

THE PRINCIPLE OF HITTING ON A LINE THAT YOU COMPLETELY OCCUPY

......and which represents the shortest distance between you and the opponent......

NOW SUPERCEDES the actual position of the punch in the vertical (or near vertical) position...

and this "line" may or may not be the actual "centerline" running down the center of your body and aimed directly at the "centerline" that separates you and him...

it could be traveling on your shoulder line, for example...or your right or left chest (pectoral) line....and doesn't have to be trying to dominate the exact "centerline" that separates you and him.

AND THIS IS AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY GOOD WING CHUN can actually "look" like something else, ie.- boxing....but wing chun PRINCIPLES are still being used.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES...the use of which must always supercede lessor "techniques" (ie.- the actual punch must be vertical with the elbows down and in)...and lessor "principles" (ie.- the punch must ALWAYS dominate the line that represents the exact "center" between the two of you).

As long as he's in no position to hit you because he's too preoccupied with your attack, your angling, pressuring, unbalancing, speed, whatever....you can use ANY open line to hit him. And virtually any kind of punch, ie.- horizontally thrown straight punch, hook, uppercut, etc.

And you're still doing wing chun.

[kfson]

XING YI Beng Quan (0:43-0:59):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQZ3xn-UmjI

[SAAMAG]

The wing chun punch is a vertical fist (or sometimes thrown at a 45 degree angle) with the elbows down and in close to the sides of the ribs...and is used from very close range because of the wing chun body alignment - which advocates always having both arms in play for attack and defense - and therefore requires the shoulders to almost always be parallel to each other...

but at slightly longer range there will be more shoulder torgue and less emphasis on short range power coming almost exclusively from the waist, and the driving power coming from the feet up through the legs, locked hips, and out through the down-and-close-in elbows and out through the fists, etc.

But at longer ranges wherein you must take a half step or a little more...than the wing chun "punch", per se...disappears, in the sense that a punch thrown won't have an elbows-down-and-in-close-to-the-sides "look"...and the shoulders won't be that parallel when you punch (perhaps not at all)...

and therefore the debate begins as to whether or not you're "doing wing chun" anymore.

FALSE ARGUMENT.

THE PRINCIPLE OF HITTING ON A LINE THAT YOU COMPLETELY OCCUPY

......and which represents the shortest distance between you and the opponent......

NOW SUPERCEDES the actual position of the punch in the vertical (or near vertical) position...

and this "line" may or may not be the actual "centerline" running down the center of your body and aimed directly at the "centerline" that separates you and him...

it could be traveling on your shoulder line, for example...or your right or left chest (pectoral) line....and doesn't have to be trying to dominate the exact "centerline" that separates you and him.

AND THIS IS AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY GOOD WING CHUN can actually "look" like something else, ie.- boxing....but wing chun PRINCIPLES are still being used.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES...the use of which must always supercede lessor "techniques" (ie.- the actual punch must be vertical with the elbows down and in)...and lessor "principles" (ie.- the punch must ALWAYS dominate the line that represents the exact "center" between the two of you).

As long as he's in no postion to hit you because he's too preoccupied with your attack, your angling, pressuring, unbalancing, speed, whatever....you can use ANY open line to hit him.

And you're still doing wing chun.

Good Point Vic. As well as the other's beforehand.

I don't view WC as a whole to be defined by techniques, but rather how you use the techniques. Granted, the techniques that comprise the wing chun system were developed to compliment the guidelines--but no one should be slave to them.

The WC punch, the chung choi, is not designed I think to be a knock-out punch. By design it's meant to overwhelm and through successive punches achieve the end of the knockout. Singularly, it doesn't surpass the standard straight punches of systems that capitalize on momentum.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Very good points, Van.

[Pacman]

i take issue with this.

you should say a Yip Man WCK punch and not generalize all WC punches

because in my WC punches still come from the center, elbow down, but we rotate the body, the hips, turn the shoulders

these punches can be knockout punches.

also when we work on the dummy forms we hit with rotation and movement of the body


i thought you were well versed in sum nung wing chun as well as all WC lineages from reading Robert Chu's book.

"if you trained with competent people you would know this."




As I see it, in considering the WCK punch and developing its power, you need to take several things into consideration. First, is the movement of the punch itself. Are you using the WCK punch as represented in the forms, dummy, drills (fist aligns to center, elbow is down and in, then the arm thrusts out)? Second, are you hitting with body structure as opposed to body momentum (rotation or stepping)? Can you, for instance, hit strongly with your WCK punch from YJKYM (while stationary without rotation) -- again, just like in the WCK forms, dummy, and drills.

Speculating on Newtonian physics and the like won't help you do that. This is not something that can be "figured out" on a chalkboard. It is a physical skill (like riding a bike).

Another aspect is what are you trying to do (your objective/task) with your WCK punch. As I see it, the WCK punch isn't "designed" for KOing someone (although you may get lucky) but to destroy your opponent's body structure so that you can follow up with more powerful and durable weapons. As such, the way you strike with the punch is different in kind than how boxers or kickboxers strike (who have a different objective). I don't see the WCK punch as the primaryfinishing weapon of WCK.

[JPinAZ]

XING YI Beng Quan (0:43-0:59):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQZ3xn-UmjI

I'm assuming that you are showing this as an example of what a WC punch isn't. (based on seeing the overall body mechanics)

[kfson]

I'm assuming that you are showing this as an example of what a WC punch isn't. (based on seeing the overall body mechanics)

No disrespect intended. Just showing a powerful centered punch as opposed to a sweeping punch.

[Hardwork108]

No disrespect intended. Just showing a powerful centered punch as opposed to a sweeping punch.

IMHO, Hsing I uses different body unity concepts for power generation to that of Wing Chun, at least generally speaking, as no doubt they may be overlaps.

As far as I am aware they do not shift stances to generate power. Their stomping is also not present in the WC that I have seen.

[Pacman]

we have stomping


IMHO, Hsing I uses different body unity concepts for power generation to that of Wing Chun, at least generally speaking, as no doubt they may be overlaps.

As far as I am aware they do not shift stances to generate power. Their stomping is also not present in the WC that I have seen.

[Hardwork108]

we have stomping

That is very interesting. Perhaps I will be introduced to it further on down the WC path or perhaps it is not in all lineages.:)

[SAAMAG]

we have stomping

Are you talking about stomping as in smashing down on someone's toes? ;)

The EBMAS guys I worked with stomp when they shuffle-step forward with a punch. I don't know if that was something exclusive to that teacher or if it was something that was within all of EBMAS, of more broadly the LT line.

But yep...its present alright. Their stance has the weight 99% on the rear leg, and the front leg is very lightly touching the ground. The front leg stomps forward, and the rear foot gets pulled / dragged into place again using the legs' inner muscles. The initial punch makes contact just as the front foot stomps down--and this is also how that punch is aided in its power delivery...through the coordination with the stepping motion.

[LSWCTN1]

we have stomping

check :)

think it can also be called rat stepping? could be wrong

its for an opponent you have bowled through, rather than knocked out.

[LSWCTN1]

i take issue with this.

you should say a Yip Man WCK punch and not generalize all WC punches

because in my WC punches still come from the center, elbow down, but we rotate the body, the hips, turn the shoulders

these punches can be knockout punches.

also when we work on the dummy forms we hit with rotation and movement of the body


i thought you were well versed in sum nung wing chun as well as all WC lineages from reading Robert Chu's book.

"if you trained with competent people you would know this."

with all due respect, i think a lot of wck does.

however i saw, IMO, an excellent YKS Jong on youtube - very stable and straight posture (perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are saying)

cannot post the link but the title was; YKSJong

[k gledhill]

People can land all kinds of punches, that doesn't make them WCK punches. For example, people can throw jabs, crosses, and hooks while kickboxing, but that's not WCK.

As I see it, in considering the WCK punch and developing its power, you need to take several things into consideration. First, is the movement of the punch itself. Are you using the WCK punch as represented in the forms, dummy, drills (fist aligns to center, elbow is down and in, then the arm thrusts out)? Second, are you hitting with body structure as opposed to body momentum (rotation or stepping)? Can you, for instance, hit strongly with your WCK punch from YJKYM (while stationary without rotation) -- again, just like in the WCK forms, dummy, and drills.

Speculating on Newtonian physics and the like won't help you do that. This is not something that can be "figured out" on a chalkboard. It is a physical skill (like riding a bike).

Another aspect is what are you trying to do (your objective/task) with your WCK punch. As I see it, the WCK punch isn't "designed" for KOing someone (although you may get lucky) but to destroy your opponent's body structure so that you can follow up with more powerful and durable weapons. As such, the way you strike with the punch is different in kind than how boxers or kickboxers strike (who have a different objective). I don't see the WCK punch as the primaryfinishing weapon of WCK.

who's specualting ? hmmm... when you say "as I see it" ... you are in a deep well...

different objective...there is the problem.

the vt puncch easily ko's people...timing. simple

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that, typically, the WC punch is applied ( and taught) as a "KO by combination" rather than a "KO punch".
I remember my first class in WC and my Sifu said ( I am paraphrasing):
" The WC punch is not like the punches you have been using in Boxing and Karate, it is not a "one punch one kill" nor is it's goal to KO with one shot, it is a "machine gun" approach to striking".
I agree.

[m1k3]

I think that, typically, the WC punch is applied ( and taught) as a "KO by combination" rather than a "KO punch".
I remember my first class in WC and my Sifu said ( I am paraphrasing):
" The WC punch is not like the punches you have been using in Boxing and Karate, it is not a "one punch one kill" nor is it's goal to KO with one shot, it is a "machine gun" approach to striking".
I agree.

Good post. I look at punching as a way to score points, even from a self defense pov. You don't always have to ko someone. Unless you are in a fight with serious intentions most people taking a couple of quick snappy shots to the face will reassess their commitment to fighting. That pause can often give you the chance to disengage. People who aren’t used to at least occasional hard sparring are often shocked at the pain of being punched even if it is not thrown with ko intentions.

[YungChun]

I think that, typically, the WC punch is applied ( and taught) as a "KO by combination" rather than a "KO punch".
I remember my first class in WC and my Sifu said ( I am paraphrasing):
" The WC punch is not like the punches you have been using in Boxing and Karate, it is not a "one punch one kill" nor is it's goal to KO with one shot, it is a "machine gun" approach to striking".
I agree.

I disagree in the broad sense.. In the sense of the proper timing..

IOW without going to to great detail with timing.. The punch, as with all strikes in WCK is not intended to fire off only with bursts eg as attack by combination.. (always with multiple strikes like a machine gun firing constantly regardless of the conditions) .

"Strike when you should, don't when you shouldn't.." (KK)

It's a timing thing.. When you just blast away repeatedly (not sure if that is what you meant) then you fall into the cave man WCK mentality..instead of using correct timing and fitting in with the opportunity of the moment and how the opponent resists.

That's not to say WCK only wants to hit once (no we do want to keep hitting--fan sao) but when and how you hit is critical...

Also the power of one strike should still be quite formidable.

[m1k3]

I don't see it as caveman wc but more as a quick surgical strike to discourage future aggression on the part of your attacker.

[t_niehoff]

who's specualting ? hmmm... when you say "as I see it" ... you are in a deep well...

different objective...there is the problem.

the vt puncch easily ko's people...timing. simple

No, it doesn't. You can keep saying that it does -- but, we NEVER SEE IT. You can say that you kill people with your deadly finger strikes, you can say that you're able to do anything. But, when we don't see it, we know it's bullsh1t. All the timing in the world with a fly swatter won't knock you out.

[YungChun]

I don't see it as caveman wc but more as a quick surgical strike to discourage future aggression on the part of your attacker.

What is a 'quick surgical strike'?

You don't see what as caveman wc?

I was addressing using multiple strikes for their own sake, almost regardless of what the defense does. ABC (just keep hitting no matter what--is not good WCK)..

The best way to discourage the attacker is to knock them out.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think that, typically, the WC punch is applied ( and taught) as a "KO by combination" rather than a "KO punch".
I remember my first class in WC and my Sifu said ( I am paraphrasing):
" The WC punch is not like the punches you have been using in Boxing and Karate, it is not a "one punch one kill" nor is it's goal to KO with one shot, it is a "machine gun" approach to striking".
I agree.

***YES...This is the classic way to use wing chun punches.

But I think a vertical fist, elbows-held-down-and-in-close-to-the-sides punch coming from the rear hand...with a boxing-like half step forward...makes the wing chun punch similar to a rear cross in power. In other words, the punch is not started from a position wherein the shoulders are parallel to each other.

Just another way to throw it - but from a slightly longer distance than what's needed to do the machine gun attack.

[kfson]

IMHO, Hsing I uses different body unity concepts for power generation to that of Wing Chun, at least generally speaking, as no doubt they may be overlaps.

As far as I am aware they do not shift stances to generate power. Their stomping is also not present in the WC that I have seen.

Yes, I should have added text saying a punch that is generated from center chest ala Xing Yi Beng Quan and much of WC appears to be a more powerful/efficient punch than a wide swinging arced punch... even without the chicken step.

If not, I am very interested in the mechanics, if you please.

[m1k3]

What is a 'quick surgical strike'?

You don't see what as caveman wc?

I was addressing using multiple strikes for their own sake, almost regardless of what the defense does. ABC (just keep hitting no matter what--is not good WCK)..



Ok, I think we were talking about different things. I thought sanjuro_ronin's post was about using controlled multiple strikes not caveman wc.



The best way to discourage the attacker is to knock them out.

Here I disagree and that was the second point I was making. There are too many variables involved in a altercation including legal and an initial response of pound him unconscious may be the wrong response from moral and legal persepectives.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are no "caveman" Strikes in WC, nor are there haymakers, these violate the core principles of WC.

EX:
You are stuck in a room and have to break down the wooden door and can only use ONE strike, what would it be?
A classical WC vertical punch from the centerline?
A full on right cross/overhand right with full body momentum?

[YungChun]

There are no "caveman" Strikes in WC, nor are there haymakers, these violate the core principles of WC.

EX:
You are stuck in a room and have to break down the wooden door and can only use ONE strike, what would it be?
A classical WC vertical punch from the centerline?
A full on right cross/overhand right with full body momentum?

Not a caveman strike, caveman striking...

Which means essentially turning on the eggbeater and leaving it on regardless of what the defense does.. That's the garbage you see all over the net.

A good WCK man will adapt and change in the moment, not just eggbeater (chain punch until the cows come home)..

I'd kick it in.. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not a caveman strike, caveman striking...

Which means essentially turning on the eggbeater and leaving it on regardless of what the defense does.. That's the garbage you see all over the net.

A good WCK man will adapt and change in the moment, not just eggbeater (chain punch until the cows come home)..

Eggbeater, LOL !
Nice one, gotta remember that one.

[t_niehoff]

I think that, typically, the WC punch is applied ( and taught) as a "KO by combination" rather than a "KO punch".
I remember my first class in WC and my Sifu said ( I am paraphrasing):
" The WC punch is not like the punches you have been using in Boxing and Karate, it is not a "one punch one kill" nor is it's goal to KO with one shot, it is a "machine gun" approach to striking".
I agree.

I don't agree.

In my view, WCK doesn't use a "machine gun approach" to striking -- that is what the low level guys (teenagers) from Yip's Hong Kong group did when they fought (other teenagers). That's a low level "interpretation" of lien wan choi (linked chain punches). And, it didn't KO anyone then! They weren't KOing people in their rooftop fights. For me, the fast chain punching is an indicator of poor WCK.

Nor can lots of weak strikes "combine" to knock you out.

The WCK punch doesn't deliver the KIND of power (transfer) that will typically result in a KO. The WCK punch is a thrusting-type punch. It produces a different TYPE of power (transfer). It's great for off-setting, for destroying structure, etc. but not for KOing people.

[YungChun]

I don't agree.

In my view, WCK doesn't use a "machine gun approach" to striking -- that is what the low level guys (teenagers) from Yip's Hong Kong group did when they fought (other teenagers). That's a low level "interpretation" of lien wan choi (linked chain punches). And, it didn't KO anyone then! They weren't KOing people in their rooftop fights. For me, the fast chain punching is an indicator of poor WCK.

Nor can lots of weak strikes "combine" to knock you out.

The WCK punch doesn't deliver the KIND of power (transfer) that will typically result in a KO. The WCK punch is a thrusting-type punch. It produces a different TYPE of power (transfer). It's great for off-setting, for destroying structure, etc. but not for KOing people.

I agree (and that's what I said) up until the end part..

WCK punches can, will and do KO..

If you are familiar with how folks get KO'd...often on the second hit of a 1-2 combo.. This is because the first strike moves the brain close to the skull wall, so there is minimal fluid acting as a cushion.. Then the second one hits and the brain now up against the skull get's shut down due to the higher transfer of energy, that was setup by the first shot..

But they (the strikes) have to be close together.. Something WCK strikes are quite good at doing. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

...on my last post, you can use a rear hand wing chun vertical punch like a rear cross, as I said, and then follow it with 2 or 3 machine gun like punches for a knockout.

Or the reverse...2 or 3 machine type wing chun strikes can set up a big finishing punch like a cross, uppercut, hook, etc.

A hook followed by a rear cross (or an overhand) after several machine-gun type punches can also be a big finish.

In other words, from close range 2-3 wing chun vertical punches in succession are do-able and useful at times.

But the big mistake is thinking that the machine gun chain punch attack is a main weapon - it's not. It's a useful tool as a finisher or as a set up - but only at very close range, so it definitely has its limitations, in terms of both when it can be used, and the power that the attack generates.

It's a supporting actor in the cast - not the star of the movie.

[SAAMAG]

I agree (and that's what I said) up until the end part..

WCK punches can, will and do KO..

If you are familiar with how folks get KO'd...often on the second hit of a 1-2 combo.. This is because the first strike moves the brain close to the skull wall, so there is minimal fluid acting as a cushion.. Then the second one hits and the brain now up against the skull get's shut down due to the higher transfer of energy, that was setup by the first shot..

But they (the strikes) have to be close together.. Something WCK strikes are quite good at doing. :)

Did you just read that in the WSL biography?

[LSWCTN1]

i think one reason why wck punches where probably not designed to KO is that the populations of SE Asia (in general) are smaller in statute than many other races around the world.

it means they have to adapt their fighting styles accordingly.

Dave Courtney says in his book that a 9 stone guy hitting you is still a 9 stone guy.

for a true to life example look at Money Mayweather sucker punching Steve Austin? the best boxer around (arguably) just made his nose bleed a little...

[SAAMAG]

I don't agree.

In my view, WCK doesn't use a "machine gun approach" to striking -- that is what the low level guys (teenagers) from Yip's Hong Kong group did when they fought (other teenagers). That's a low level "interpretation" of lien wan choi (linked chain punches). And, it didn't KO anyone then! They weren't KOing people in their rooftop fights. For me, the fast chain punching is an indicator of poor WCK.

Nor can lots of weak strikes "combine" to knock you out.

The WCK punch doesn't deliver the KIND of power (transfer) that will typically result in a KO. The WCK punch is a thrusting-type punch. It produces a different TYPE of power (transfer). It's great for off-setting, for destroying structure, etc. but not for KOing people.

I think one of the reasons that might be proliferated is because of the fact the individual punch doesn't have that KO power as you said, and like WSL said...the punches get the ko by successive hits (he apparently would get knockouts in his rooftop fights within 2-3 punches).

So for him, that type of punch either did have individual knockout power (via the second hit) or the punches do indeed get KO's by successive hitting, all based on his experience in fighting.

That said...there are other variables to be sure. The knockout doesn't just come from the punching power (because I've seen guys get knocked out with well placed jabs) it also comes from placement of the punch and the other person's ability to withstand that punch. One of the key componments on whether or not someone has an "iron chin" for example has to do with the strength of the neck muscles believe it or not.

This thread wasn't to say that the WC vert punch didn't have KO POWER, but that it simple didn't produce the same amount of force as other punches (like the cross). Though the landing of both punches have resulted in KO's for many people.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My point was, and I though the question in the post helped to illustrate it, that the WC punch is NOT viewed as a KO punch (typically) and as such, should NOT be compared to one.

[YungChun]

Did you just read that in the WSL biography?

Which part? And no.

[Vajramusti]

The wing chun punch can be a very powerful punch if developed correctly.It's often mistaught. The chain punching is for development primarily and often not done right and misused for silly mutliple punching.
A single wing chun punch can be a knockout punch-I know for a fact.
Proper structure, proper chain of joint motions and proper structural motion including feet- all need appropriate development. And it can work against more than one opponent.

In the case of one person who learned some wing chun from me---a couple of years ago,he and a friend were walking downtown past a bar. Four guys on the sidewalk started making fun of the accents of the two.Words were exchanged. The four guys advanced on the two in an attack. My student stepped a little- with one short wing chun punch at one person on his right- who got knocked out. My student turned- chor ma- another short punch to the guy on his immediate left- the second guy got knocked out... the other two who were part of the four man circle began to take off.Square bodied two handed wing chun. The police came when someone called,they have patrols downtown-fortunately the police made a judgment call- self defense by my student- and rounded up all four guys(the two knocked out and the two who were moving away- and hauled them off to jail,. My student's friend didn't have to do anything.

There are other cases that I know of regarding the effectiveness of wing chun-I don't sit and watch You tube-except to hear Brian Stokes Mitchell, Norah Jones, and some old timers like Hank Williams, Sarah Vaughan, Louis Armstrong and Paul Robeson... because I don't know how to sing ( big regret- but one handles the cards that are given). I don't go to You tube for things that I can do...like punching properly or dealing with an unwanted touch.

joy chaudhuri

[YungChun]

My point was, and I though the question in the post helped to illustrate it, that the WC punch is NOT viewed as a KO punch (typically) and as such, should NOT be compared to one.

I agree that "the wck punch" which is not really a punch, could be any kind of strike, is not as powerful as some other power strikes, eg the cross.. However, it was not intended to be..and also is often seen as an arm punch which simply is not using the punch to its potential.

Now let's say you get inside, hit the guy once or twice, he's stunned.. Well wck has finishing blows as well.. One for example the whipping punch, or use your favorite name, is much like the regular punch but with full body torque (twisting)... Quite a bit of power there..and you could for example pull with one hand/arm and strike through with the other using this same turning, pulling him into the strike..........for more power.

And of course we have at least two kinds of elbows.. The hacking elbow is great for example, when they use deep cover.....etc...plus we have kicks, etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I agree that "the wck punch" which is not really a punch, could be any kind of strike, is not as powerful as some other power strikes, eg the cross.. However, it was not intended to be..and also is often seen as an arm punch which simply is not using the punch to its potential.

Now let's say you get inside, hit the guy once or twice, he's stunned.. Well wck has finishing blows as well.. One for example the whipping punch, or use your favorite name, is much like the regular punch but with full body torque (twisting)... Quite a bit of power there..and you could for example pull with one hand/arm and strike through with the other using this same turning, pulling him into the strike..........for more power.

And of course we have at least two kinds of elbows.. The hacking elbow is great for example, when they use deep cover.....etc...plus we have kicks, etc.

Also another example, if I may:
Say that you are stuck in a phone booth or a coffin (:D) and you have to punch your way out, which punch would you use?

[SAAMAG]

My point was, and I though the question in the post helped to illustrate it, that the WC punch is NOT viewed as a KO punch (typically) and as such, should NOT be compared to one.

But then what is a KO punch?

Is it a punch that lands KO's 100% of the time? Is it a punch that lands KO's 75% of the time? With all the variables involved (some of them being controllable and some uncontrollable) I'd say that no punch can truly be considered a KO punch in type. There are some people that can throw just about any punch and land a KO [Mike Tyson]

Even the same punches thrown within the same fight won't end with a KO. That's why I don't like using that term.

[SAAMAG]

Also another example, if I may:
Say that you are stuck in a phone booth or a coffin (:D) and you have to punch your way out, which punch would you use?

The one Uma Thurman did in Kill Bill.

[YungChun]

Also another example, if I may:
Say that you are stuck in a phone booth or a coffin (:D) and you have to punch your way out, which punch would you use?

The only one I could.......... The God I hope I can make enough power in this short space before they bury me punch...

[sanjuro_ronin]

But then what is a KO punch?

Is it a punch that lands KO's 100% of the time? Is it a punch that lands KO's 75% of the time? With all the variables involved (some of them being controllable and some uncontrollable) I'd say that no punch can truly be considered a KO punch in type. There are some people that can throw just about any punch and land a KO [Mike Tyson]

Even the same punches thrown within the same fight won't end with a KO. That's why I don't like using that term.

Fair point.
Since you brought up physics earlier:
The punch the produces the HIGHEST amount of impact force is, typically, the oen with the best chance to KO someone.
:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

The one Uma Thurman did in Kill Bill.

:D
http://www.danheller.com/Movies/KillBill2/thurman-punch.jpg

[YungChun]

And of course how you hit them...

WCK strikes often come in with a rising angle, under the chin, using the jaw as a lever.......... I think of it as an off switch.. :)

Re Uma.. Sorry I never saw the movie...

[t_niehoff]

But then what is a KO punch?

Is it a punch that lands KO's 100% of the time? Is it a punch that lands KO's 75% of the time? With all the variables involved (some of them being controllable and some uncontrollable) I'd say that no punch can truly be considered a KO punch in type. There are some people that can throw just about any punch and land a KO [Mike Tyson]

Even the same punches thrown within the same fight won't end with a KO. That's why I don't like using that term.

It's easy to know -- just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Look at fights, see KOs, and then look at the sort of punches that produce them. You don't need to speculate.

When you do that you see that a KO-type punch is a punch that has the ability to generate the amount and type of power necessary to knock someone out. For instance, a jab typically won't KO someone. Neither will a thrusting-type punch. A cross or a overhand or hook or uppercut are good examples of punches that can -- and they all involve mechanics that are quite different than WCK mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luckl7mkxgw

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5P3HMednWk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuDUDNw_6U

[YungChun]

Hi power thrusts...

Strikes that cause the head to twist turn abruptly..

Strikes that cause the head to snap back (whiplash effect)..

1-2 strikes that thrust/have the same vector...

Strikes that land on the chin from varying angles...


WCK or not will all cause KOs to varying degrees..

It's not the power IMO (though you need enough) as much as the conditions/placement and how much energy and when is transferred to the brain.

[HumbleWCGuy]

It's easy to know -- just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Look at fights, see KOs, and then look at the sort of punches that produce them. You don't need to speculate.

When you do that you see that a KO-type punch is a punch that has the ability to generate the amount and type of power necessary to knock someone out. For instance, a jab typically won't KO someone. Neither will a thrusting-type punch. A cross or a overhand or hook or uppercut are good examples of punches that can -- and they all involve mechanics that are quite different than WCK mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luckl7mkxgw

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5P3HMednWk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uuDUDNw_6U
I think that you are probably correct from a classical perspective. I think that guys like myself and UltimateWingChun operate from a more modern perspective where we consider the rear Wing Chun straight punch, from long range, to essentially be good tight boxing cross. The classical punch is more the style of punch that one would use during trapping which isn't a knockout blow.

I think that WC has to evolve so to say that Wing Chun punches can't have power is to kill the art. You would prefer that you say that the classical punches had a different purpose than the modern punches but not that WC punches simply do not have power.


Edit:
Also, I though that the video showed a lot of crisp tight punches causing KOs. To me that just demonstrates to me that extending the WC principles to a modern format is the way to go.

[Hardwork108]

It's easy to know -- just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Look at fights, see KOs, and then look at the sort of punches that produce them. You don't need to speculate.

When you do that you see that a KO-type punch is a punch that has the ability to generate the amount and type of power necessary to knock someone out. For instance, a jab typically won't KO someone. Neither will a thrusting-type punch. A cross or a overhand or hook or uppercut are good examples of punches that can -- and they all involve mechanics that are quite different than WCK mechanics.
You are using the sports perspective again!

I can only speak about my training as I don't know how other lineages train this but during punching exercises all angled punches were aimed at the side of the neck. Straight twisting "upper cut" type punches were aimed at the throat/adam's apple area. That was the mindset!

Of course, things have to be adapted for contact sparring but then you can sometimes make a controlled strike to a vital points.

The fact is that in a street confrontation if I "angle" and have an opening, then if faced with the choice of hitting side of the head/Face/jaw or the side of the neck, I will go for the neck!

[Hardwork108]

Hi power thrusts...

Strikes that cause the head to twist turn abruptly..

Strikes that cause the head to snap back (whiplash effect)..

1-2 strikes that thrust/have the same vector...

Strikes that land on the chin from varying angles...


WCK or not will all cause KOs to varying degrees..

It's not the power IMO (though you need enough) as much as the conditions/placement and how much energy and when is transferred to the brain.

IMHO, Wing Chun provides us with more than one way of "knocking" people out. The upper targets can include the throat, neck, back of the head, the ears, the eyes and even the nose.

[IMHO (this is for those who are of the MMA/sports persuasion), we need to be careful and not confuse the goals and aims of wing chun with those of sports martial arts such as boxing, etc., Otherwise we are in danger of loosing the essence of this art's martial core.]

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys need to take a look at the name of this thread...

[YungChun]

IMHO, Wing Chun provides us with more than one way of "knocking" people out. The upper targets can include the throat, neck, back of the head, the ears, the eyes and even the nose.

[IMHO (this is for those who are of the MMA/sports persuasion), we need to be careful and not confuse the goals and aims of wing chun with those of sports martial arts such as boxing, etc., Otherwise we are in danger of loosing the essence of this art's martial core.]

Not sure what this has to do with my post which you quoted.

[t_niehoff]

I think that you are probably correct from a classical perspective. I think that guys like myself and UltimateWingChun operate from a more modern perspective where we consider the rear Wing Chun straight punch, from long range, to essentially be good tight boxing cross.


That's not a "modern perspective". If A=B, then B=A. So, ask a good boxer if their cross is really nothing more than a WCK straight punch (maybe they should o WCK to develop their punching!).

Certainly if you want to throw a rear punch from long distance (noncontact), I will concede that you will end up using boxing mechanics to do that because that is how our body moves optimally at that range. But it is incorrect to call that the WCK punch. It isn't the WCK punch.

The tools (movements, action, etc.) of WCK are in the forms, drills, dummy. Where is the rear cross? It's not there.



The classical punch is more the style of punch that one would use during trapping which isn't a knockout blow.


Exactly.

But that isn't "the classical punch": t is the WCK punch -- that's how you learn it in the forms, how you perform it in the drills, how you do it on the dummy, etc. It's the tool you use for close range, in-fighting, attached fighting, etc.

As WCK's method is to control while striking -- which means we are attached while hitting, and boxing's method is to strike while not in contact, we should expect their respective method's tools to differ.



I think that WC has to evolve so to say that Wing Chun punches can't have power is to kill the art. You would prefer that you say that the classical punches had a different purpose than the modern punches but not that WC punches simply do not have power.


I am saying that the WCK punch isn't a KO punch; I am not saying it doesn't have power. It can have a lot of power -- but that power isn't the kind that KOs, it is the kind that off-sets, breaks structure, etc. Boxing strikes, for example, aren't "designed" to do that. It's apples and oranges. Two different ways of striking for two different methods of fighting (one unattached, one attached).

When people try to use their WCK tools at noncontact, they find they don't work well (surprise, surprise -- that's what happens when you try to use tools for the inside on the outside), so they begin using different mechanics, mechanics that work on the outside, like boxing mechanics. The next step is to call that "a modern perspective."



Edit:
Also, I though that the video showed a lot of crisp tight punches causing KOs. To me that just demonstrates to me that extending the WC principles to a modern format is the way to go.

You can't see WCK principles outside of WCK movement, it's two sides of the same coin.

[Hardwork108]

Not sure what this has to do with my post which you quoted.

Perhaps I should have not quoted anyone but the point in the first paragraph was that we should not be solely focusing on knocking people out in the sports sense of the word as Wing Chun provides other options in that regard.:)

[t_niehoff]

Also another example, if I may:
Say that you are stuck in a phone booth or a coffin (:D) and you have to punch your way out, which punch would you use?

Exactly!

The WCK punch is for fighting in a phonebooth -- because that's our method, fighting in a phonebooth. Our tools work there, on the inside, when attached.

[t_niehoff]

You are using the sports perspective again!


It is not a sport-perspective, it is an evidence-based perspective. Look at the evidence, and draw conclusions from that.



I can only speak about my training as I don't know how other lineages train this but during punching exercises all angled punches were aimed at the side of the neck. Straight twisting "upper cut" type punches were aimed at the throat/adam's apple area. That was the mindset!


You can have any mindset or fantasy you want. But you guys aren't KOing each other.



Of course, things have to be adapted for contact sparring but then you can sometimes make a controlled strike to a vital points.


Fighters get hit all the time (by accident) to "vital points" and nothing happens. I've taken full power shots (accidentally) to my throat with MMA gloves and while it hurt, it didn't slow me down. I got thumbed in the eye (accidentally) so badly that it detached my retina and I had to have surgery -- but it didn't slow me down. And, believe me, I'm nothing special.

The reality of this stuff is very different than your fantasies.



The fact is that in a street confrontation if I "angle" and have an opening, then if faced with the choice of hitting side of the head/Face/jaw or the side of the neck, I will go for the neck!

And what is your plan for when you hit him and it does nothing?

[HumbleWCGuy]

That's not a "modern perspective". If A=B, then B=A. So, ask a good boxer if their cross is really nothing more than a WCK straight punch (maybe they should o WCK to develop their punching!).

Certainly if you want to throw a rear punch from long distance (noncontact), I will concede that you will end up using boxing mechanics to do that because that is how our body moves optimally at that range. But it is incorrect to call that the WCK punch. It isn't the WCK punch.
.
Ultimately, this is the type of post that will lead to your eventual ban from this forum. There is no sense in you beating everyone over the head with your own shortcoming.

[t_niehoff]

Ultimately, this is the type of post that will lead to your eventual ban from this forum. There is no sense in you beating everyone over the head with your own shortcoming.

You made the point that the rear cross from boxing is essentially the WCK punch, and I pointed out that this isn't the case. WCK isn't whatever you want it to be. I know people often try to do that, and that mentality leads to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y2ZPpeBuQ

[YungChun]

I've taken full power shots (accidentally) to my throat with MMA gloves and while it hurt, it didn't slow me down.

Ahem.

Anyone care to lookup how much force is needed to crush a windpipe..(trachea)

Keep in mind that the focus (force per square inch) is quite different with any kind of padding and this is exactly the kind of force that can damage the trachea..

I've seen at least twice folks talking shots in the throat in MMA fights and got flattened.



I got thumbed in the eye (accidentally) so badly that it detached my retina and I had to have surgery -- but it didn't slow me down. And, believe me, I'm nothing special.


God you sound like a bloody terror.. :eek::cool::D

That is not a fun injury and neither is eye surgery..

Some folks do get stopped cold when hit in the eye, others less so. How was the vision in the other eye at the time of the impact?



And what is your plan for when you hit him and it does nothing?


No one in this style is going for the one punch kill.. So the plan remains: Keep going.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ahem.

Anyone care to lookup how much force is needed to crush a windpipe..(trachea)

Keep in mind that the focus (force per square inch) is quite different with any kind of padding and this is exactly the kind of force that can damage the trachea..

I've seen at least twice folks talking shots in the throat in MMA fights and got flattened.



God you sound like a bloody terror.. :eek::cool::D



No one in this style is going for the one punch kill.. So the plan remains: Keep going.

A couple of things, it doesn't take much to crush a trachea or the larynx, nevertheless the amount of deaths VIA crushed "throat" is virtually NIL and that includes accidents of all sorts.
The optimum angle for a throat strike is one that if applied would mean that opponent wasn't in much condition to fight anyways.
Getting to the throat of a decent fighter ( they are taught to keep the chin down and shoulders "up") is hard to say the least, that is why there are only a few cases of fighters getting taken out by a throat/neck strike.
Is the neck a valid target? Yes.
Is the throat? Yes.
Are they anymore than say the chin or temple?
Nope, not in the case of typical fighting ( outside the realm of coup-de grace).

[t_niehoff]

Ahem.

Anyone care to lookup how much force is needed to crush a windpipe..(trachea)

Keep in mind that the focus (force per square inch) is quite different with any kind of padding and this is exactly the kind of force that can damage the trachea..

I've seen at least twice folks talking shots in the throat in MMA fights and got flattened.


You're not going to crush anyone's windpipe. Give up those fantasies. If you're not already doing it in your training, you're not going to be able to do it when someone is trying to beat in your skull.



God you sound like a bloody terror.. :eek::cool::D


Hardly.



No one in this style is going for the one punch kill.. So the plan remains: Keep going.

And what do you think your opponent is doing while you waste time trying to crush his windpipe?

[HumbleWCGuy]

You made the point that the rear cross from boxing is essentially the WCK punch, and I pointed out that this isn't the case. WCK isn't whatever you want it to be. I know people often try to do that, and that mentality leads to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y2ZPpeBuQ

From your perspective classical wing chun leads to that anyway so what is your point?

Also, I never said that the WC cross is the same as ANY boxing cross. I said that it was essentially the same as a tight boxing cross which is the preferable cross to be thrown IMO.


Edit:
Also, I take sort of a Darwinian view to WC pressing forward. If it stays classical... it is dead. If it presses forward... there will be some slop and there will be some strong new systems that develop. That is the way of things.

[YungChun]

I'm not a 'vital points guy'...

But IME WCK often sets up the throat with say a side palm under the chin....

I can't tell you the effects as I have never hit anyone full power in the throat, hence the difficulty evaluating these kinds of strikes.

[YungChun]

And what do you think your opponent is doing while you waste time trying to crush his windpipe?

Me?

I am not trying to crush a windpipe..

However, as we know, there are strikes that lend themselves to this location and one might land there.. I am not concerned about any single action taking him out. I simply keep attacking.

[t_niehoff]

From your perspective classical wing chun leads to that anyway so what is your point?


No.

My point is that when you try to use WCK outside of "the phonebooth", it ends up leads to that.



Also, I never said that the WC cross is the same as ANY boxing cross. I said that it was essentially the same as a tight boxing cross which is the preferable cross to be thrown IMO.

There is no such thing as "the WC cross". It doesn't exist. Just like the "WC jab" and the "WC hook" don't exist. WCK doesn't have corresponding punches to boxing.

[t_niehoff]

I'm not a 'vital points guy'...

But IME WCK often sets up the throat with say a side palm under the chin....

I can't tell you the effects as I have never hit anyone full power in the throat, hence the difficulty evaluating these kinds of strikes.

The "side palm under the chin" is not a throat strike but uses the jaw (strikes it then presses) as a handle/lever to break the opponent's structure. We do it all the time in sparring.

[YungChun]

There is no such thing as "the WC cross". It doesn't exist. Just like the "WC jab" and the "WC hook" don't exist. WCK doesn't have corresponding punches to boxing.
I agree and yet some of the core mechanics are very close.. I don't think someone who has good wck mechanics would have any trouble extending those to other kinds of strikes..

What about an uppercut? Inside use of certain strikes, at very close range look very close...

[YungChun]

The "side palm under the chin" is not a throat strike but uses the jaw (strikes it then presses) as a handle/lever to break the opponent's structure. We do it all the time in sparring.

I never said that, you are lying..

Just kidding.. ;)

I said that strike, since it is under the chin can setup the throat..

[t_niehoff]

I agree and yet some of the core mechanics are very close.. I don't think someone who has good wck mechanics would have any trouble extending those to other kinds of strikes..

What about an uppercut? Inside use of certain strikes, at very close range look very close...

I don't see the mechanics as close at all. The WCK mechanics have "built in" bridge suppression, for example, that isn't in boxing. The "uppercut" is a good example. Press and hold your opponent's left forearm into his torso with your right hand, pinning it. Now, perform the WCK "uppercut" with that right hand by releasing your pin, dropping your elbow as your fist goes up, while your forearm moves in to press his arm to his torso to keep the pin (controlling while striking). Taht's a very different mechanic than a boxer's uppercut.

[YungChun]

Anyone remember that guy who does ChiSao on the box? With the baseball cap..?

He came very close if not actually KOing his students, esp with close range under the chin shots.. And not using much power at all...........

[YungChun]

I don't see the mechanics as close at all. The WCK mechanics have "built in" bridge suppression, for example, that isn't in boxing. The "uppercut" is a good example. Press and hold your opponent's left forearm into his torso with your right hand, pinning it. Now, perform the WCK "uppercut" with that right hand by releasing your pin, dropping your elbow as your fist goes up, while your forearm moves in to press his arm to his torso to keep the pin (controlling while striking). Taht's a very different mechanic than a boxer's uppercut.
I would not release the pin and hit him with the other hand, but fan sao, okay...

Very different? From inside? The final position, on the inside, is close, no?

Lot/little different is subjective.

Let's see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMVOTZ2bpk

With small adjustments good wck mechanics can adapt.. Not wck? Perhaps no.

[t_niehoff]

Anyone remember that guy who does ChiSao on the box? With the baseball cap..?

He came very close if not actually KOing his students, esp with close range under the chin shots.. And not using much power at all...........

If you don't see it in fighting . . .

You can do all kinds of things when people aren't really fighting with you.

[t_niehoff]

I would not release the pin and hit him with the other hand.

Very different? From inside? The final position, on the inside, is close, no?

Let's see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMVOTZ2bpk

He's not supressing any bridge -- the mechancis of your punch will need to take that into account. In fact, much of the power of the WCK "uppercut" is in the forearm (since it suppresses the bridge and hits the body/arm to break structure), so most of the power isn't even in the fist (the strike with the fist is simply icing on the cake).

[YungChun]

He's not supressing any bridge

True.



In fact, much of the power of the WCK "uppercut" is in the forearm (since it suppresses the bridge and hits the body/arm to break structure), so most of the power isn't even in the fist (the strike with the fist is simply icing on the cake).

Well depends on how you do it--the body can be behind that too. I think that move is pretty powerful.. Remember (Dave?), i think, who used this with scary results on his students.?

[YungChun]

If you don't see it in fighting . . .

You can do all kinds of things when people aren't really fighting with you.

KOing is objective..

The power and dynamic was there.

You do see that in fighting (same vector, same target--under the chin--that is a KO zone).

[SAAMAG]

You are using the sports perspective again!

I can only speak about my training as I don't know how other lineages train this but during punching exercises all angled punches were aimed at the side of the neck. Straight twisting "upper cut" type punches were aimed at the throat/adam's apple area. That was the mindset!

Of course, things have to be adapted for contact sparring but then you can sometimes make a controlled strike to a vital points.

The fact is that in a street confrontation if I "angle" and have an opening, then if faced with the choice of hitting side of the head/Face/jaw or the side of the neck, I will go for the neck!

Very good point! Often times I'll aim for someone's "jaw" with a hook and just hit the side of their neck as they tilt their head away from the blow. Yet another reason why I don't like the term "KO punches"--you don't always have to KO someone to incapacitate them.

Again, great point.

[HumbleWCGuy]

No.

My point is that when you try to use WCK outside of "the phonebooth", it ends up leads to that.



There is no such thing as "the WC cross". It doesn't exist. Just like the "WC jab" and the "WC hook" don't exist. WCK doesn't have corresponding punches to boxing.
Irrespective of what WC calls something that does not mean that it does not have an analog or a technique that serves as such to a jab or a cross.

It's like I have said for a while now. There are people who play WC and there are people who build it into a credible fighting system. You can decide what you want to be for yourself.

[Hardwork108]

It is not a sport-perspective, it is an evidence-based perspective. Look at the evidence, and draw conclusions from that.
Your "evidence" is based on sports competitions! LOL


You can have any mindset or fantasy you want. But you guys aren't KOing each other.
A strong strike to your neck area will KO you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sTYz91y0mg


Fighters get hit all the time (by accident) to "vital points" and nothing happens.
I have been hit on the jaw by accident during none free sparring training as well and I was not effected.

The problem is when you are hit in any area by somebody who is trained to hit you there and has the right energy/power and the INTENTION!


I've taken full power shots (accidentally) to my throat with MMA gloves and while it hurt, it didn't slow me down.

The key word there is "gloves". Wing Chun was never designed for "gloves fighting".


I got thumbed in the eye (accidentally) so badly that it detached my retina and I had to have surgery -- but it didn't slow me down.
I would humbly suggest that your opponents' "quality" does not reach the heights that you generally want us to believe. LOL


And, believe me, I'm nothing special.
That is just about all I can believe when reading you clueless posts on Wing Chun.


The reality of this stuff is very different than your fantasies.
You know, you could be talking to yourself there.....LOL


And what is your plan for when you hit him and it does nothing?
Well, my plan is to avoid fighting Clark Kent or anyone related to him.;)

Having said that in Wing chun you are meant to keep hitting until the opponent stops being a threat. So, to answer your question, if he is still standing when I give him a full blast in the throat, then I might poke his eyes:D...If he is still standing, then I will double slap his ears:D....If he is still standing then I will give him hard kick in his groin with a force to lift him off the ground:D

.....if he is still standing, I will run to my local MMA gym and pay someone to come over and finish him with wrestling submission...:rolleyes:

[HumbleWCGuy]

It is worth noting that a good WC man should be well trained at striking the throat, neck, and eyes which do not require a lot of power, but this thread really is about the WC punch compared to other styles, boxing in particular.

[SAAMAG]

One thing I've noticed about the conversation as of late, is that there are a lot of absolute statements. "Wing chun isn't a KO punch, people aren't going to KO anybody, hitting vital points doesn't slow people down."

The problem with absolute statements such as these are that they are proven wrong time and again. Joy talked about a student who knocked a person out twice in a row...in "real life". I believe that Redmond has a video up before of one of his students in a competition who knocked someone out with a wing chun straight punch (with padding). There are others here who have implied that they have found first hand the effectiveness of the punch as well.

Though that shows that KO's can happen, saying that a particular punch is a KO punch is a misnomer, because it takes more than a good punch to ko someone. You have to hit the right target at the right time, and the condition and body type of the person your hitting also can help or hinder the punch's ability to create a knockout.

[SAAMAG]

I would humbly suggest that your opponents' "quality" does not reach the heights that you generally want us to believe. LOL


That is just about all I can believe when reading you clueless posts on Wing Chun.


You know, you could be talking to yourself there.....LOL


Well, my plan is to avoid fighting Clark Kent or anyone related to him.;)


.....if he is still standing, I will run to my local MMA gym and pay someone to come over and finish him with wrestling submission...:rolleyes:

Lets keep the little kid B.S. retorts to a minimum. Respond with adult comments please and only to comments that lend themselves to the conversation.

[Hardwork108]

Lets keep the little kid B.S. retorts to a minimum.
Considering the intellectual value of the post I was responding to, I believe that I did keep the "little kid BS" to the minimum.


Respond with adult comments please and only to comments that lend themselves to the conversation.
Most of my post did "lend" to the conversation. Mainly the last part was "dedicated" to Terrence specifically.:D

Let's continue on....

[HumbleWCGuy]

One thing I've noticed about the conversation as of late, is that there are a lot of absolute statements. "Wing chun isn't a KO punch, people aren't going to KO anybody, hitting vital points doesn't slow people down."

The problem with absolute statements such as these are that they are proven wrong time and again. Joy talked about a student who knocked a person out twice in a row...in "real life". I believe that Redmond has a video up before of one of his students in a competition who knocked someone out with a wing chun straight punch (with padding). There are others here who have implied that they have found first hand the effectiveness of the punch as well.

Though that shows that KO's can happen, saying that a particular punch is a KO punch is a misnomer, because it takes more than a good punch to ko someone. You have to hit the right target at the right time, and the condition and body type of the person your hitting also can help or hinder the punch's ability to create a knockout.

Everthing that you just said is 100% correct. The problem with T. in particular is that he can't separate his own limitations from the limitations of WC.


By T.'s own admission, WC principles can be extended into other arts but for some reason techniques from other arts cannot be absorbed by WC if they fit the principles. WC will be destroyed with that type of thinking.

[m1k3]

I think the focus on KOs is out of place. Using HW108's WC is a more complete system than boxing means that the WC man has a larger toolbox of things he will spend time training.

A boxer has a jab, a cross, 2 hooks, 2 upper cuts and 2 shovel hooks as his weapons. He spends more time training how to hit and hit hard than any other sports fighter or martial artist due to his tool box.

Now, for you boxing fans out there, how many 1 punch KOs (1st or 2nd punch of a round) do you see. Almost none.

Most KOs come from an accumulation of damage of many hard and not so hard shots.

Looking for quick KOs is a bad trap to get into. It leads to overcommiting on punches, wasted energy and lots of frustration when your expected KO doesn't come.

To me a nice solid punch to the face that busts up someone's lips, bloodies their nose or closes an eye is usually more than enough.

[SAAMAG]

Considering the intellectual value of the post I was responding to, I believe that I did keep the "little kid BS" to the minimum.


Most of my post did "lend" to the conversation. Mainly the last part was "dedicated" to Terrence specifically.:D

Let's continue on....

That's why I only quoted some of your post. Just the parts that could have been left out. But I appreciate your understanding :D

[SAAMAG]

I think the focus on KOs is out of place. Using HW108's WC is a more complete system than boxing means that the WC man has a larger toolbox of things he will spend time training.

A boxer has a jab, a cross, 2 hooks, 2 upper cuts and 2 shovel hooks as his weapons. He spends more time training how to hit and hit hard than any other sports fighter or martial artist due to his tool box.

Now, for you boxing fans out there, how many 1 punch KOs (1st or 2nd punch of a round) do you see. Almost none.

Most KOs come from an accumulation of damage of many hard and not so hard shots.

Looking for quick KOs is a bad trap to get into. It leads to overcommiting on punches, wasted energy and lots of frustration when your expected KO doesn't come.

To me a nice solid punch to the face that busts up someone's lips, bloodies their nose or closes an eye is usually more than enough.

Good thoughts. I think it was Chuck Liddell (one of the best KO'ers in MMA) that said he never looks for the KO. He just punches, and they happen. He doesn't punch with the thought "this one is gonna KO him if it hits!" I agree as well and think there's definitely some merit to this line of thinking.

As for the boxing...Tyson. Enough said. ;) I know he's a weirdo...but man that guy could punch.

[YungChun]

Looking for quick KOs is a bad trap to get into. It leads to overcommiting on punches, wasted energy and lots of frustration when your expected KO doesn't come.

To me a nice solid punch to the face that busts up someone's lips, bloodies their nose or closes an eye is usually more than enough.

I don't see anyone chasing a KO or advocating same. Rather some commentary on what folks have observed and what makes for a KO.

I also don't see folks calling a certain strike a KO strike just what is and what is not likely to happen based on people's experience and observations.

IME when you really nail folks in the head hard with wck strikes you will see some KOs, many of the strikes IMO are a natural for this ...

However, if you want to take out someone there isn't a faster way to do it...

I don't even target, per se, just what's there get's hit..

[SAAMAG]

I don't even target, per se, just what's there get's hit..

Not even the "liver shot"?!

[YungChun]

Not even the "liver shot"?!


Sometimes you sound more like a boxer...

Not really.. I mean to some extent some shots are naturally targeted more to certain areas.. However, I just follow the line and the space that is there or that I make.. I use an unbroken line of force...like a water hose....favoring the higher line, generally... When I fight I am not 'thinking' about anything, in fact trying not to.... I am focused on my general target, the line and doi-ying..the blob in front of me..

[JPinAZ]

Actually, I would have to agree with a lot of what T is saying in the last three pages. What happened to him, did he get abducted by aliens and replaced with one that isn't a broken record AND talk from a WC perspective?!? :eek: ;) :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually, I would have to agree with a lot of what T is saying in the last three pages. What happened to him, did he get abducted by aliens and replaced with one that isn't a broken record AND talk from a WC perspective?!? :eek: ;) :D

All he has really said is that WC sucks and doesn't work. If anyone suggests anything that is functional, that isn't WC. That's my interpretation anyway.

[SAAMAG]

Sometimes you sound more like a boxer...

Not really.. I mean to some extent some shots are naturally targeted more to certain areas.. However, I just follow the line and the space that is there or that I make.. I use an unbroken line of force...like a water hose....favoring the higher line, generally... When I fight I am not 'thinking' about anything, in fact trying not to.... I am focused on my general target, the line and doi-ying..the blob in front of me..

That was a joke, the liver shot thing was a joke

[t_niehoff]

All he has really said is that WC sucks and doesn't work. If anyone suggests anything that is functional, that isn't WC. That's my interpretation anyway.

If that is your interpretation, then you apparently have really poor reading comprehension.

I am saying that WCK is a close-range, inside, attached fighting method. So, its strategy and tools (like the punch) are "designed" to work in that context. Outside of that context, the WCK tools don't work very well, if at all.

Now, if you take the WCK punch, for instance, and try to make it work in outside, unattached fighting, then you will need to modify its mechanics, and it will begin to take on boxing's mechanics (so you are no longer doing WCK -- you are not using WCK's method or tools) since those mechanics work in that context. When you do that, you aren't "evolving" your WCK, you are simply doing poor boxing.

If you want to learn how to throw punches to KO your opponent while in free-movement, stand-up, then go train in an art that specializes in that -- boxing. Does it make sense to take boxing, and try to make its tools fit into a WCK structure (close-range, attached fighting)?

[t_niehoff]

By T.'s own admission, WC principles can be extended into other arts but for some reason techniques from other arts cannot be absorbed by WC if they fit the principles. WC will be destroyed with that type of thinking.

I have never said anything of the kind.

There is NO SUCH THING AS WCK PRINCIPLES. There are only the ideas of various people that pertain to WCK. People try to give some gravitas to THEIR ideas by calling them WCK principles or concepts.

WCK is a method of fighting. That method is for close-range, inside, attached fighting. WCK is comprised of the basic strategy (faat) and tools (actions/techniques/movement and tactics) for implementing that strategy. Those tools -- the WCK toolbox -- are represented in the forms, the drills, the dummy.

Trying to "extend" WCK into kickboxing is what destroys WCK -- since you no longer are using the method that is WCK.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I have never said anything of the kind.

There is NO SUCH THING AS WCK PRINCIPLES. There are only the ideas of various people that pertain to WCK. People try to give some gravitas to THEIR ideas by calling them WCK principles or concepts.

WCK is a method of fighting. That method is for close-range, inside, attached fighting. WCK is comprised of the basic strategy (faat) and tools (actions/techniques/movement and tactics) for implementing that strategy. Those tools -- the WCK toolbox -- are represented in the forms, the drills, the dummy.

Trying to "extend" WCK into kickboxing is what destroys WCK -- since you no longer are using the method that is WCK.

Right... Wing Chun is the opposite of what anyone else says it is right? This smacks of your opinions on Chi Sao. I love how you drone on endlessly about Wing Chun doesn't work and how you have had to move on to other arts to improve it. You can claim that it was just the training method, but why would you continue to study kickboxing if the training where the only problem in your eyes?

If the extent of your WC is attached fighting then it is no wonder that you have such a ambivalent relationship with WC. You can't let it go because of all the time that you have invested in it and you can't embrace it as a complete art because the results that you have gotten from it speak for themselves. You are describing WC as nothing more than combat "Chi Sao." If that's what you think that it is, then it will never work.

[t_niehoff]

Right... Wing Chun is the opposite of what anyone else says it is right?


No. The method of WCK comes from our ancestors -- it tells us that WCK's approach to fighting is to dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi. The kuit tells us Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu (if there is not bridge, erect one), that our fighting resembles Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma (short bridge, close body, carraige wheels) and that "The novice fights from across the stream, the master fights from the bridge." On top of that, our signature drills/exercises, chi sao and lop sao, are attached cdrills/exercises. It's all there, plain as day.

I can't help it if you never learned the method or that many in WCK never learned it. That's one of the big problems in WCK -- the blind leading the blind. Oh, and btw, appeals to popularity (that's not what the majority think) is specious reasoning and a well-known logical fallacy.



This smacks of your opinions on Chi Sao.


Why do you think chi sao is WCK' signature drill/exercise? It's an attached drill. Doesn't it make sense to do an attached drill to learn attached fighting skills? Why don't kickboxers and boxers do attached drills like chi sao? Because they don't fight from attachment/contact.

It's right before your eyes, but if you won't open them . . . .



I love how you drone on endlessly about Wing Chun doesn't work and how you have had to move on to other arts to improve it.


I have never said that. I have never said that WCK doesn't work. First of all, that very statement isn't even valid. The issue is whether or not we can make OUR WCK work. And, what I've said is that most people can't make their WCK work. There are several reasons for that. One of them is that they are trying to use their WCK tools in the wrong context (in kickboxing, for example). Another is in how they learn and train to develop skills.

I didn't move on to other arts to "improve it". I spar with good people in other arts (boxing ,MT, MAA) so that I can practice using my WCK skills against good people. And, yes, I do cross-train in other arts but that isn't to improvemy WCK, that is to make me a more well-rounded fighter. WCK isn't going to help me on the ground, for example. My BJJ doesn't "improve" my WCK -- any more than it would improve my boxing.



You can claim that it was just the training method, but why would you continue to study kickboxing if the training where the only problem in your eyes?


I don't "study kickboxing". I've trained muay thai to provide me with skills that are outside of WCK, and that training permits me to use my WCK in sparring with good MT people.



If the extent of your WC is attached fighting then it is no wonder that you have such a ambivalent relationship with WC. You can't let it go because of all the time that you have invested in it and you can't embrace it as a complete art because the results that you have gotten from it speak for themselves. You are describing WC as nothing more than combat "Chi Sao." If that's what you think that it is, then it will never work.

WCK isn't a "complete art." That's bullsh1t. Boxing and muay thai and BJJ aren't complete arts either. Different arts specialize, they are very good at developing certain aspects of fighting. Boxing is great but it won't help you deal with takedowns or in a clinch. WCK is great but it won't help you on the ground or if you try to stay out in free-movement/stand-up.

WCK isn't "combat chi sao" but rather chi sao is an unrealsitic exercise to learn attached fighting skills.

[HumbleWCGuy]

IMO, the hallmark of Chinese martial arts are about rich and varied striking tactics. Southern Chinese Martial Arts is a collection of these rich striking tactics done from practical structures. If your Wing Chun has become nothing but a half-a$$ed system of standing grappling, then you need to rethink your position about martial arts and possibly your life in general.

[t_niehoff]

IMO, the hallmark of Chinese martial arts are about rich and varied striking tactics. Southern Chinese Martial Arts is a collection of these rich striking tactics done from practical structures. If your Wing Chun has become nothing but a half-a$$ed system of standing grappling, then you need to rethink your position about martial arts and possibly your life in general.

Dude, we are talking about WCK, not all/general Southrn Fist or CMA in general. CMAs have many rich and varied things, but they aren't all in WCK. Southern Fist has many rich and varied things too, but they all arean't in WCK. WCK is WCK.

Just as the forms (movements/actions) have come from the ancestors, the drills have come from the ancestors, the faat has come from the ancestors, and the kuit has come from the ancestors. That "defines" what is WCK.

The signature drills/exercises of WCK are contact/attached exercises (to learn contact/attached skills), the forms contain the movements/action to perform those exercises, the faat gives us the strategy, the kuit provides direction. It's all integrated.

PS - BTW, there are two existing photos sequences (that I know about) which show Yip Man demo'ing WCK "application". I don't ahve url's handy, but you can probably find them easily enough. Take a look at them. Do you see that Yip is holding (controlling) and hitting in each sequence? He is attached to his opponent? It's right before your eyes.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Dude, we are talking about WCK, not all/general Southrn Fist or CMA in general. CMAs have many rich and varied things, but they aren't all in WCK. Southern Fist has many rich and varied things too, but they all arean't in WCK. WCK is WCK.

Just as the forms (movements/actions) have come from the ancestors, the drills have come from the ancestors, the faat has come from the ancestors, and the kuit has come from the ancestors. That "defines" what is WCK.

The signature drills/exercises of WCK are contact/attached exercises (to learn contact/attached skills), the forms contain the movements/action to perform those exercises, the faat gives us the strategy, the kuit provides direction. It's all integrated.

PS - BTW, there are two existing photos sequences (that I know about) which show Yip Man demo'ing WCK "application". I don't ahve url's handy, but you can probably find them easily enough. Take a look at them. Do you see that Yip is holding (controlling) and hitting in each sequence? He is attached to his opponent? It's right before your eyes.


You think that all grandmasters are a joke so why are you drawing upon Yip's "expertise" or understanding? To be honest, I don't care anything about Yip man. My Wing Chun is not descended from his.

[HumbleWCGuy]

T. in my opinion, the only way to teach WC in a limited fashion as you recommend is to teach some sort of basic southern kung fu, kickboxing, or practical upright fighting and then to add on the very limited WC curriculum to it. That is how I was taught and I believe that is how the WC museum guys do it too. Is that WC proper? IDK, but what I do know is that the formula for teaching credible Wing Chun is not in the series of Yip Man pictures that you describe.

The other solid approach is to teach an expanded WC curriculum which should teach one some "boxing-like" punching, footwork and strategies. Either way, the "extras" have to be included or students are being duped. The "extras," or I guess the lack of should be largely what gives a lineage it's stamp and not the bickering over terminology or the precise application of a tan sao.

[SAAMAG]

There is NO SUCH THING AS WCK PRINCIPLES. There are only the ideas of various people that pertain to WCK. People try to give some gravitas to THEIR ideas by calling them WCK principles or concepts.

So WSL was completely incorrect in his methods then? Because that's precisely what he thought was the important part of teaching WC, the concepts.

The tools were less important because you could use a technique that isn't in the classical curriculum and still be doing wing chun to him so long as you're following the core concepts.

This...from someone who tested his wing chun, fought far more matches in bare-knuckle form than any of us here.

So who are we to believe knows more about the system and functionality of WCK...Terence or Wong Shun Leung?

[t_niehoff]

You think that all grandmasters are a joke so why are you drawing upon Yip's "expertise" or understanding? To be honest, I don't care anything about Yip man. My Wing Chun is not descended from his.

What "grandmasters"? That's a made-up term that is meaningless.

Yip's teachings are consistent with Sum Nung's which is consistent with Gu Lao (Leung Jan). WCK is WCK. They are all just slightly different curriculums that pertain to the same subject (different textbooks on the same subject).

The curriculum of WCK is the forms, the drills/exercises, the dummy, the kuit, and the faat (method).

[t_niehoff]

So WSL was completely incorrect in his methods then? Because that's precisely what he thought was the important part of teaching WC, the concepts.


If that is what he "thought" (I don't know if that is true or not), then he was wrong. You don't fight with concepts (ideas), you fight with skills.

Do YOU think that the most important point in teaching someone to ride a bike is the concepts? Or that the most important point in teaching someone to play basketball is the concepts? It's no different with WCK. What is important is learning the skill(s).



The tools were less important because you could use a technique that isn't in the classical curriculum and still be doing wing chun to him so long as you're following the core concepts.


WCK is a method of fighting, an approach to fighting (controlling your opponent while striking him) and the tools necessary for doing that. So, yes, you could argue that you can use some technique in implementing the method that isn't a part of the classical toolbox and in doing that you'd still be doing WCK. That's how arts grow and evolve -- people find new and better ways of doing things (new techniques). BJJ is a great example of that. Boxing has done it too. But that has nothing to do with "core concepts".



This...from someone who tested his wing chun, fought far more matches in bare-knuckle form than any of us here.


Yes, he did. Just like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4

If he did that 40 times, does that make him good?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vtvweTNUw

Why don't you name some proven good fighters that Wong fought with? Did Wong spar with good MMA fighters? With good boxers? With good muay thai fighters?

Don't believe it because Wong thought so or because Wong said so. These guys weren't giants. They were just there before us.



So who are we to believe knows more about the system and functionality of WCK...Terence or Wong Shun Leung?

Don't put your trust in ANYONE. This is precisely the problem -- do you believe Cheung or Wong? Wong or Sum? X or Y?

Don't believe Wong and don't believe me -- if you believe anyone, you are lost. Find out for yourself. Do the work.

[HumbleWCGuy]

What "grandmasters"? That's a made-up term that is meaningless.

Yip's teachings are consistent with Sum Nung's which is consistent with Gu Lao (Leung Jan). WCK is WCK. They are all just slightly different curriculums that pertain to the same subject (different textbooks on the same subject).

The curriculum of WCK is the forms, the drills/exercises, the dummy, the kuit, and the faat (method).

Maybe, I didn't realize that you were old enough to have trained with Leug Jan or Yip Man. Most of the curriculum that you speak of is just some McKwoon training to keep the doors open and should rightfully be greatly deemphasized. I don't think that it has any bearing on people who actually use their Wing Chun to fight.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Every system has concepts, they serve a purpose but they are not more important than the action and skill of the system.
WSL summed up the WC concepts as:
Simple, Direct, Effective.
Beyond that is fighting experience.

I am, of course, simplifing.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Every system has concepts, they serve a purpose but they are not more important than the action and skill of the system.
WSL summed up the WC concepts as:
Simple, Direct, Effective.
Beyond that is fighting experience.

I am, of course, simplifing.

You mean it isn't hairsplitting over terminology, unrealistic drilling, and inferior strategy? I think that we need to investigate this further.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You mean it isn't hairsplitting over terminology, unrealistic drilling, and inferior strategy? I think that we need to investigate this further.

As you know, we can grab ANYTHING and nitpick the crap out of it, argue semantics and what not.
Doesn't change anything.

[t_niehoff]

Maybe, I didn't realize that you were old enough to have trained with Leug Jan or Yip Man. Most of the curriculum that you speak of is just some McKwoon training to keep the doors open and should rightfully be greatly deemphasized. I don't think that it has any bearing on people who actually use their Wing Chun to fight.

If you do the work, you can determine what things Yip taught, what Sum taught, what Leung Jan taught . . . all you need to do is compare curriculums. You can even see how their teaching changed over the years doing this.

[t_niehoff]

Every system has concepts, they serve a purpose but they are not more important than the action and skill of the system.
WSL summed up the WC concepts as:
Simple, Direct, Effective.
Beyond that is fighting experience.

I am, of course, simplifing.

Simple, direct, effective. Those aren't WCK concepts, they are Wong's ideals. And, you could use the same ideals for any martial art. All that says is "perform skillfully."

The problem is these "coccepts" don't tell you anything MEANINGFUL -- they don't tell you, for instance, how to be simple, how to be direct, how to be effective? It's like saying "the concept is to knock your opponent out". Well, great. And?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Simple, direct, effective. Those aren't WCK concepts, they are Wong's ideals. And, you could use the same ideals for any martial art. All that says is "perform skillfully."

The problem is these "coccepts" don't tell you anything MEANINGFUL -- they don't tell you, for instance, how to be simple, how to be direct, how to be effective? It's like saying "the concept is to knock your opponent out". Well, great. And?

WSL called them his concepts, I will give him the benefit of the doubt ;)

[t_niehoff]

WSL called them his concepts, I will give him the benefit of the doubt ;)

I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

A fine attitude to have and one I agree with, to an extent.
Have you read The WSL Book ?

[t_niehoff]

A fine attitude to have and one I agree with, to an extent.
Have you read The WSL Book ?

No. Did Wong Shueng Leung write a book?

[sanjuro_ronin]

No. Did Wong Shueng Leung write a book?

Nope, David Peterson wrote one about WSL and it has a few articles that WSL wrote in them, quite a few actually.

[t_niehoff]

Nope, David Peterson wrote one about WSL and it has a few articles that WSL wrote in them, quite a few actually.

I have in the past read a few of Peterson's articles. And some of Wong's articles. I haven't read Peterson's book.

To be honest (and when aren't I?), I'm not interested in Wong's "Way"; my interest is in finding my own way. You learn to box by boxing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have in the past read a few of Peterson's articles. And some of Wong's articles. I haven't read Peterson's book.

To be honest (and when aren't I?), I'm not interested in Wong's "Way"; my interest is in finding my own way. You learn to box by boxing.

I'd think you;d like it, he echos what you just said.

[t_niehoff]

I'd think you;d like it, he echos what you just said.

Then apparently I don't need to read it. :)

[SAAMAG]

Then apparently I don't need to read it. :)

He also talks about things you might learn something from.

Your attitude is much like that of a teenager who thinks he knows more than his parents do about life. No matter how much you believe that, it simply isn't true.

To think that you couldn't learn something from WSL or anyone else for that matter that's had more successful experience than you is simply arrogant. At the very least, you learn about other people's viewpoints on things, and whether or not you agree it still helps build insight into the subject matter.

Do you always have to be right? Is that what you learned in law school? Bring it down a notch man. You're an intelligent guy...but you're like the energizer bunny who keeps going and going even when you're proven wrong.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then apparently I don't need to read it. :)

LOL! smartass.

[Wayfaring]

Then apparently I don't need to read it. :)

That's because you're driving one way down a Wong way street. :cool:

[Pacman]

perhaps yips MAIN theoretical ideas are consistent with sum nung's (centerline, etc), but they do things very very differently. some might even say that the way some lineages do things dont even stick to the WC principles they profess

i hate it when you echo robert chu and say "WCK is WCK". that is so totally ignorant

sure, if you look at some pictures it might be the same. maybe a few hand positions are slightly different. to a person who does not know better he might think its not important. but these small differences greatly influence how and what you train as well as the overall fighting style.

these differences are vast and there are so many. it is WAY BEYOND a curriculum difference.

it didnt take me long to find some video

http://www.arizonakungfu.com/

if you look at the bottom left where you can view "Grandmaster Ip Ching" teaching sticky hands. Look to around 33 seconds. He hits with his left hand and does a pak sau with the right, leaving a huge opening and basically pulling the other guys hand into his chest.

this is a good example of why you probably think sticky hands is pathetic and a cooperative excercise because if that were a real situation the guy on the left could have moved in so easily...and this is a grandmaster doing and teaching this!


What "grandmasters"? That's a made-up term that is meaningless.

Yip's teachings are consistent with Sum Nung's which is consistent with Gu Lao (Leung Jan). WCK is WCK. They are all just slightly different curriculums that pertain to the same subject (different textbooks on the same subject).

The curriculum of WCK is the forms, the drills/exercises, the dummy, the kuit, and the faat (method).

[Pacman]

i finally met someone the other day who studied for 5 years in YM WC

we did some light sparring and he got into his flat footed weight on the back leg stance with his how do you do handshake arm posture

this is how he was taught. he was also taught not to turn his body. EVER. he was also taught a lot of other weird stuff that blew my mind

i dont know what terrence learned but if this is similar then i can totally see why he would say something like the below



I am saying that WCK is a close-range, inside, attached fighting method. So, its strategy and tools (like the punch) are "designed" to work in that context. Outside of that context, the WCK tools don't work very well, if at all.


i dont know how that lineage WC became this way, but obviously it developed from people who didn't fight and developed their own theories.

theories that sound great and might have some benefits, but if they ever fought someone remotely serious they wuold realize that what they were doing didnt work and that the drawbacks outweighed the benefits. **** i sound like terrence.

that arm posture and some of the other stuff that guy told me makes sense for sticky hands, however it doesnt make sense when on the outside in the long/open range.



i would recommend to you terrence that you visit a real Sum Nung wing chun teacher. from our past conversations i guarantee you that what you learned about Sum Nung WC is either incomplete or incorrect

for one, the 12 san sik are all about fighting from the outside and getting to the inside.

of course i am biased in thinking that SN WC is a great school, but what i am saying about the 12 san sik is pure fact. i think you would realize what traditional WC is and how it is not just a closed in fighting system.

why would anyone develop a style where the only place you could apply it is if you are fighting in a phone booth? most fights do not start or take place in a confined space. and no one say any crap about this style being invented to fight on a junk boat

[HumbleWCGuy]

i finally met someone the other day who studied for 5 years in YM WC

we did some light sparring and he got into his flat footed weight on the back leg stance with his how do you do handshake arm posture

this is how he was taught. he was also taught not to turn his body. EVER. he was also taught a lot of other weird stuff that blew my mind



Please elaborate. I find this interesting. Was he actively studying? Sometimes when people get out of for a while they get confused about the detail. There are some lineages that fight pretty square, but they all typically turn the body to initiate traps.

[chusauli]

i hate it when you echo robert chu and say "WCK is WCK". that is so totally ignorant





WCK is WCK!

And the context I say it in is the the Chinese saying of "Dai Tung Siu Yee" ("The Big things are the same, the small things have some minor differences").

WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK!

LOL!

Perhaps the Western mind wants to make it so different? Why so nitpicky? Or have I already answered that?

[k gledhill]

If that is your interpretation, then you apparently have really poor reading comprehension.

I am saying that WCK is a close-range, inside, attached fighting method. So, its strategy and tools (like the punch) are "designed" to work in that context. Outside of that context, the WCK tools don't work very well, if at all.

Now, if you take the WCK punch, for instance, and try to make it work in outside, unattached fighting, then you will need to modify its mechanics, and it will begin to take on boxing's mechanics (so you are no longer doing WCK -- you are not using WCK's method or tools) since those mechanics work in that context. When you do that, you aren't "evolving" your WCK, you are simply doing poor boxing.

If you want to learn how to throw punches to KO your opponent while in free-movement, stand-up, then go train in an art that specializes in that -- boxing. Does it make sense to take boxing, and try to make its tools fit into a WCK structure (close-range, attached fighting)?

If you want to learn how to throw punches to KO your opponent while in free-movement, stand-up, then go train in an art that specializes in that -- VT. ;)

[k gledhill]

I have in the past read a few of Peterson's articles. And some of Wong's articles. I haven't read Peterson's book.

To be honest (and when aren't I?), I'm not interested in Wong's "Way"; my interest is in finding my own way. You learn to box by boxing.

you learn to dribble and slur your speach too...helps to have a coach. Your so full of yourself it hurts :D

[Pacman]

WCK is WCK!

And the context I say it in is the the Chinese saying of "Dai Tung Siu Yee" ("The Big things are the same, the small things have some minor differences").

WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK!

LOL!

Perhaps the Western mind wants to make it so different? Why so nitpicky? Or have I already answered that?

actually there are major differences. that was the whole point.

btw, im chinese

[Pacman]

Please elaborate. I find this interesting. Was he actively studying? Sometimes when people get out of for a while they get confused about the detail. There are some lineages that fight pretty square, but they all typically turn the body to initiate traps.

yes he was actively studying. he was a friend of a friend and we met and started talking. eventually he suggested we put on some gear and do light sparring

i dont know if he was confused, but it coincides with things that i have seen online.

when he punches he doesnt turn his shoulders. they remain square. the reasoning was something about structure,but you have to realize the context of where you are in a situation.

it definitely does not make sense when you are in the open range and you need reach and need to generate power.

he wanted to stay flat footed and his upper body is fully straight because he wants to be "rooted". again, perhaps makes sense when you are about to do something but in the open range you need to be mobile and agile and quick.

he fights in a straight line, just like i see in many youtube clips. almost like karate and taekwondo tournaments. attack in a straight line...back and forth back and forth.

he tried to come at me straight on and all i had to do was step laterally and attack. wide open shot. he never expected that because im sure everyone else he spars iwth only fights in a straight line.

there are other things he does liek when he punches his whole body is so stiff that he doesnt even fully extend his arm. he said that they were taught not to fully extend the arm.

tons of other things he told me, but too numerous to explain here

[Pacman]

There is no such thing as "the WC cross". It doesn't exist. Just like the "WC jab" and the "WC hook" don't exist. WCK doesn't have corresponding punches to boxing.

a wc cross is just as he said, it comes across the body but starts from the center of the body and is tight

a wc jab is a vertical fisted punch. no commitment

agree, dont know about a hook

these might not ring a bell because you didnt learn them and maybe the way you were taught you never turn your body or shoulders so a cross wouldnt make sense.

but in other WC schools this is done

[Pacman]

im so glad you said this. then why the heck do you congratulate alan orr and his fighters for great WC? that aint wing chun



You made the point that the rear cross from boxing is essentially the WCK punch, and I pointed out that this isn't the case. WCK isn't whatever you want it to be. I know people often try to do that, and that mentality leads to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y2ZPpeBuQ

[SAAMAG]

actually there are major differences. that was the whole point.

btw, im chinese

It really just depends on what u consider to be major differences. Have you researched all of the different wc lineages as chu and Ritchie have?

Having a western mind doesn't mean you have to be of western descent, I'm Chinese too and don't think like people from that culture genrally do.

[YungChun]

WCK is WCK!

And the context I say it in is the the Chinese saying of "Dai Tung Siu Yee" ("The Big things are the same, the small things have some minor differences").

WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK! WCK is WCK!

LOL!


From what I've seen that wouldn't apply to CSL.. Your "centerline theory", just going by what is written and what is seen does not appear to be one of the "big things" in your WCK like in most other versions nor the same interpretation. Neither is the (CSL?) idea of being "always attached" true in most other lineages...

Am I wrong?

[YungChun]

why would anyone develop a style where the only place you could apply it is if you are fighting in a phone booth? most fights do not start or take place in a confined space. and no one say any crap about this style being invented to fight on a junk boat

All styles/arts have their preferred range.. WCK is a close range art, meaning the goal of the WCK fighter is to get into and exploit close range tactics... Yes, there are longer range elements, but mainly they are intended for helping you to get into close range.

[YungChun]

You're an intelligent guy...but you're like the energizer bunny who keeps going and going even when you're proven wrong.

You can't prove him wrong without a ruling..and you'd need a judge for that.. :)

[YungChun]

If you want to learn how to throw punches to KO your opponent while in free-movement, stand-up, then go train in an art that specializes in that -- VT. ;)

I agree with this and it's not IMO a range issue... I don't know if this is T or CSL but they seem to have another idea of what WCK is...in terms of keeping attached all the time.

Any other folks out there that emphasize always being attached to the opponent?

As I see it, this is dependent on the opponent I forget the KK for this, something like, 'use of chun will vary depending on the opponent'...

But IMO those of old in China who used to always *hold centerline* and play bridge fighting is not going to elucidate the same expression as a western boxer.

IOW if they have no desire to hold center space and stick, or suddenly give up their center space then in that moment we may not need to stick or attach, the correct WCK action then not to *chase hands* and instead simply *let them go* and blast them into next week, unless and until they try to retake that space..

So we have both, the no hand chasing as well as controlling elements.. Mickey Chan used to say for ex regarding the possible use of 'takedowns' in WCK, "We don't want to 'take them down', we want to keep/hold them up so we can keep hitting them.."

Both are core concepts for my WCK, don't know about other folk's views..

[t_niehoff]

im so glad you said this. then why the heck do you congratulate alan orr and his fighters for great WC? that aint wing chun

I've never said anyone has "great" WCK. Anyone's WCK is only as good as the opponent's they can hang with. Same as boxing, same as BJJ.

Alan and his guys train WCK and make what they do work in fighting. And, they are continually improving.

I am not surprised that you don't "see" WCK in what they do -- because you have a fantasy idea of what WCK "should" be.

[k gledhill]

I agree with this and it's not IMO a range issue... I don't know if this is T or CSL but they seem to have another idea of what WCK is...in terms of keeping attached all the time.

Any other folks out there that emphasize always being attached to the opponent?

As I see it, this is dependent on the opponent I forget the KK for this, something like, 'use of chun will vary depending on the opponent'...

But IMO those of old in China who used to always *hold centerline* and play bridge fighting is not going to elucidate the same expression as a western boxer.

IOW if they have no desire to hold center space and stick, or suddenly give up their center space then in that moment we may not need to stick or attach, the correct WCK action then not to *chase hands* and instead simply *let them go* and blast them into next week, unless and until they try to retake that space..

So we have both, the no hand chasing as well as controlling elements.. Mickey Chan used to say for ex regarding the possible use of 'takedowns' in WCK, "We don't want to 'take them down', we want to keep/hold them up so we can keep hitting them.."

Both are core concepts for my WCK, don't know about other folk's views..

I was going throuh my old scrap articles I collected over the last 25 years on vt...before I followed WSL >PB ...WSL wrote in an article that the by-products of chi-sao training are that it developed an acute awareness of 'incorrect lines of energy' relative to your centered strike alignment along the centerline as you strike with one hand at a time.
We only adopt the facing for EACH OTHER while aligning in drills...later adopting angling of seung ma toi ma as a way to attack or counter....BUT when fighting we use one lead arm and one rear hand.

Meaning the leading striking hand is acting as the man sao or asking what the opponent is doing , energy wise to that hand...if there is nothing stopping us from striking we simple strike into available space ...making the natural reaction be that of chasing our hands to stop them from landing...
Because we cycle with intent , instead of blind speed , we use the movements of the untrained responses to our strikes to take advantage of 'mistakes'.
Under sudden attack or continued relentless attacking , mistakes are made....

Its simple genius...

Attacking in every action is also utilizing the forearms as we strike, adopting the outside edge of the forearm [tan ELBOW SPREADS OFF as the striking hand goes along the line], or the inside [jum ELBOW STAY INWARD as the strike goes forwards along the line , ], but the strike still remains a strike along the line, only the facing angles change randomly, so we have the drills to make our strikes strike each others to test alignment , elbows, stances, then add entry and evasive counters ...
Each strike is tan energy or jum energy only the facing angle will dictate what you use as you flow into attacks ....iow if the guy throws strikes that intersect your centerline you simply keep striking and using the energy in the arm control to maintain integrity of the defensive line the forearm angles make as they hit....allowing us to always have a strike going in with the lead hand , cycling if stopped by having a protected rear hand wu ready to strike into the space made from the preceding move... WSL was reputed to have beaten many guys within 3 moves , if you understand the idea you can see why easily. we attack... they respond.... we attack....
...
We become fluid striking attackers , with techniques developed to deliver unstoppable , mindless ability [chi-sao] to sense what the lead strike has felt in efforts to stop it...because we ALWAYS use the rear wu sao as the way to recreate an attacking action ..it simply fires into the space created by the opponent, or by our partner attacking action, like a jut & strike etc....

When the hand is free we hit unless stopped by an outside force

we stay with what comes so we can ko it at the critical point in timing

we follow it as it tries to recover from its mistakes

attack with relentless abandon, using little thought .

Attacking suddenly will help create sudden mistakes



Think of the untrained persons responses to sudden attacking arms ...they go defensive.. they chase, try to control ours first, evade, lose balance, try to move away from us....and more :D


All the training is for developing a fluid free moving fighter.....

in chi-sao we repeat the tan elbow spreading off the line everytime we strike , we use the jum strike incorporating the inward energy to maintain a defensive inside gate...

we strike strikes with striking attacks for each others alignment, we hit into gaps rather than force entry , we don't use our wrists or palms because it wont allow development of a simultaneous striking arm in the drills....

This can be seen in the dan chi-sao drills...if you are using a wrist to stop a tan strike , then you arent using the jum sao elbow in alignment thinking idea.

the idea is that we use the opposite striking energy along the line to help align the other ...we do this in chi-sao a 1,000,000 times...tan versus jum iow

our elbow moves out as we do a vertical palm and the fok[neutral drill arm] turns to a jum strike
using inwards energy....if either persons elbows deviate or open we show mistakes to correct by striking each other or correcting outward 'wedging' elbows that have gone too far out to allow the 'snaking' strike to thread its way in using elbow control...ie dropping a bong elbow as you strike in with the same arm... many examples.

The dummy side on attacking pose using tan strike and jum [side-palm makes elbow go in] is alignment ..NOT an application or move....re-enforcing the little idea of SLT...all the way through the system...

the drills re-enforce the striking alignment, not suddenly do a feely clinging wrist thing...big mistake , I did it and I know many, many, more still do it....wrists moving up and down along the line mean your not striking in the same beat. We use a wrist flipping action in Bil Gee side to side and up and down for a reason..as a last resort , if you cant fight with 2 cycling attacking arms, you HAVE to resort to hand chasing if you cant attack first.....by adopting the wrist flipping you can avoid injuiries but lose the attack idea....We can use the flipping of the hands edge to strike too if a guy ducks etc... to the neck.

The BG also deals with someone grabbing your lead man sao [ lowering elbow frees the wrist], lifting it [ under arm tut sao , same as SLT shaving tut sao recovering the wu sao but underneath] etc....


In Chi-sao we cycle from tan strike to jum strike and repeat...the fok sao is simply a neutral arm when not using energy of the jum strike inwards.... tan is in prep mode before the elbow moves out as it strikes, fok stay loose until it strikes into jum energy ....either strike is met by the opposite energy...aligned and facing so we can hit with each arm as it cycles across angled tactical positions....

many drills we do are redundant to actual tactical use..simply for alignment , facing , using each arm equally ...

If you see the critical idea being facing alignment, then you also see the idea of trapping elbows to stop re facing if over turning, or letting the guy make moves that will end up with them overturned..

knife use teaches the % idea of avoiding the 2 arms facing equally....not chasing blades either.

Yip Man said that we allow the opponent to move and let them show us what to do....he didnt say control them first...he said LET THEM MOVE ..allow them to show us what to do..

[t_niehoff]

I agree with this and it's not IMO a range issue... I don't know if this is T or CSL but they seem to have another idea of what WCK is...in terms of keeping attached all the time.


When you fight in free-movement, stand-up, you need tools that are very different than what is in the WCK toolbox. You need boxing. That's why boxers RULE at that range.



Any other folks out there that emphasize always being attached to the opponent?


Why do you think the WCK signature drills/exercises, like chi sao and lop sao, are attached drills/exercises? To learn unattached fighting skills?



As I see it, this is dependent on the opponent I forget the KK for this, something like, 'use of chun will vary depending on the opponent'...


Yoke doh fa ging wan yoang choy joang - Upon receiving the highest level of proficiency, the application of techniques will vary according to the opponent.



But IMO those of old in China who used to always *hold centerline* and play bridge fighting is not going to elucidate the same expression as a western boxer.

IOW if they have no desire to hold center space and stick, or suddenly give up their center space then in that moment we may not need to stick or attach, the correct WCK action then not to *chase hands* and instead simply *let them go* and blast them into next week, unless and until they try to retake that space..


The WCK method is to control while stiking. The "correct" WCK action is that which does that.

The point of this method is IME safety (which is why it is a good one for smaller, weaker people). Controlling your opponent limits and restricts what he can do, AND it sets up your striking opportunities.

Sure, you can blast. But what is your opponent doing when you don't have control? Do you think he's just going to sit idly by? He can do all kinds of things, and you will need to deal with them (if you can) or take it. By controlling, him your opponent can't do those things, and what he will need to do is try to get out of the control BEFORE he can do anything else.

It's not about "chasing hands" -- to control an opponent I may not even be touching his hands. It is about chasing control. When you lose control, you lose your safety-factor, and it can become a trading game. Tactically, there may be situations where you elect to do that. But, that's not the "default".

Ask yourself, if you had the choice, would you rather have control over your opponent or not?



So we have both, the no hand chasing as well as controlling elements.. Mickey Chan used to say for ex regarding the possible use of 'takedowns' in WCK, "We don't want to 'take them down', we want to keep/hold them up so we can keep hitting them.."

Both are core concepts for my WCK, don't know about other folk's views..

You can't "hold them up" from noncontact or while unattached. And if you are holding them while hitting them, as Mickey said, then you're using WCK's method -- attached fighting.

[Vajramusti]

perhaps yips MAIN theoretical ideas are consistent with sum nung's (centerline, etc), but they do things very very differently. some might even say that the way some lineages do things dont even stick to the WC principles they profess(Pacman)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appear to be vast differences between those who claim descent from Ip man's wing chun.
Sometimes the differences seem to be overwhelm the similarities.

joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

I would add that YM wouldnt keep repeating ideas if they werent picked up by the student....WSL was around him for along time. Many did a little or learned 2-3 hand...all seeking proximity for 'face' rather than technique, meaning more $'s for being a direct student..not better techniques, sadly....

Keep searching , touching hands, if you dont believe me...:D I said that ...so did another guy...wonder who ?

The same students of one teacher doesnt guarantee they understood the same way...subtle shifts in emphasis from sticking to alignment drills, striking to over controlling, wrist use rather than elbow control strikes....

I have done both ...I follow one now totally and dropped the other as complete waste of time....many guys who have seen this in action and felt it 1st hand have done similarly..

wrist v tan wrong idea.

Anyone can do a clingy feely way..its called touching another arm and rolling around ....arms go all over .....then doing a move.....sad.

try alignment striking drills and you see a system to develop...nobody can just do alignment drills proficiently..it takes coaching of natural actions 'away' from the student...natural is tring to control an arm by grabbing using the hand/wrists ...how many use elbow angled arms as they strike at the same time ?.......answer ?

[k gledhill]

When you fight in free-movement, stand-up, you need tools that are very different than what is in the WCK toolbox. You need boxing. That's why boxers RULE at that range.



Why do you think the WCK signature drills/exercises, like chi sao and lop sao, are attached drills/exercises? To learn unattached fighting skills?



Yoke doh fa ging wan yoang choy joang - Upon receiving the highest level of proficiency, the application of techniques will vary according to the opponent.



The WCK method is to control while stiking. The "correct" WCK action is that which does that.

The point of this method is IME safety (which is why it is a good one for smaller, weaker people). Controlling your opponent limits and restricts what he can do, AND it sets up your striking opportunities.

Sure, you can blast. But what is your opponent doing when you don't have control? Do you think he's just going to sit idly by? He can do all kinds of things, and you will need to deal with them (if you can) or take it. By controlling, him your opponent can't do those things, and what he will need to do is try to get out of the control BEFORE he can do anything else.

It's not about "chasing hands" -- to control an opponent I may not even be touching his hands. It is about chasing control. When you lose control, you lose your safety-factor, and it can become a trading game. Tactically, there may be situations where you elect to do that. But, that's not the "default".

Ask yourself, if you had the choice, would you rather have control over your opponent or not?



You can't "hold them up" from noncontact or while unattached. And if you are holding them while hitting them, as Mickey said, then you're using WCK's method -- attached fighting.

you are confused....

striking and being tactically positioned is akin to firing a gun as you avoid being a target ...but stay on target and shift ...not trying to control the gun with your gun ...follow ?

you take a shot I move and shoot back , but not while standing in front of you with both arms extended...

police train alignment in a firing range [dan chisao/lok sao] ...but move to practical pistol ranges to train use of cover [seung ma -toi ma chisao drill] ...iow dont stand upright firing at someone firing back...like a firing range....alignment first , then movement and angles...while firing back...good target aquisition under pressure, stress...while also adding movement ...not freezing up. Not wrestling gun for gun using the barrel of the gun offline to control the other barrel...

some wck methods seem to confuse the process and want to stay in front of the firing line while seeking to stop shots , as they stand there.

it doesn't take a lot of brains to see which has better % for longevity of tactical use....stand in front of a guy with 2 guns trying to control each one with yours before you take a shot..or...move and shoot with 2 cycling incase the lead shot is stopped....always being off target to their two shots...

we arent talking tennis T ... in tennis they dont try to hit you with the ball... if they did you would adopt a different method...tactically. got it...you would prepare to shift suddenly from your position relative to the arm they took a swing at you with...trying to make a follow up from the other arm more difficult, requiring they face you ..as they do your already moving hitting the ball at them before they can ....% your not hitting the bal they hit at you either, you just let it go past you...dont chase it..keep your mind focused on hitting with your own ball at the same time...as you shift.

we trap to prevent them from taking a facing shot....from each hand.

[YungChun]

When you fight in free-movement, stand-up, you need tools that are very different than what is in the WCK toolbox. You need boxing. That's why boxers RULE at that range.

That's just it.. WCK can be free movement.. WCK striking uses bridge suppression as you call it..while striking in close range.. Is this not a form of control? Is this not free movement? We move according to our needs.



Why do you think the WCK signature drills/exercises, like chi sao and lop sao, are attached drills/exercises? To learn unattached fighting skills?

No it's clear to me and most folks that you are learning energy and positional elements, kinisthetic awareness of angles, lines and openings..

In the old days your opponents using other Southern methods would be hanging on your bridges... WCK idea is more dynamic, we only worry about their bridges when we need to and don't when we needn't..

Don't you guys train JaoSao or JaoDa? When he leaves the line I strike him...????

This is a key part of our toi-ma..along with a host of other elements..

We say, we let him go when he leaves the line.. We also say, we run (jao) away from great force.. And.... Come back to the line to STRIKE!!!! (da)



Yoke doh fa ging wan yoang choy joang - Upon receiving the highest level of proficiency, the application of techniques will vary according to the opponent.

But apparently you don't see this as meaning or in part meaning that we need not always control.. Apparently that does not vary eh?

Control when you need to and strike whenever the opportunity is there.



The WCK method is to control while stiking. The "correct" WCK action is that which does that.

The point of this method is IME safety (which is why it is a good one for smaller, weaker people). Controlling your opponent limits and restricts what he can do, AND it sets up your striking opportunities.

And I agree that sometimes control is needed.. See, I see both ways as valid and a dynamic part of the fight.. Sometimes you control, sometimes you strike.. The strikes as you said break structure, well that is a form of control (safety).. If not then what the hell is it for?



Sure, you can blast. But what is your opponent doing when you don't have control? Do you think he's just going to sit idly by?


What happened to the breaking of his structure? So it accomplished nothing?

What is my opponent going to be doing as I'm striking him? Bleeding...crying, calling me names.. :p



It's not about "chasing hands" -- to control an opponent I may not even be touching his hands. It is about chasing control. When you lose control, you lose your safety-factor, and it can become a trading game. Tactically, there may be situations where you elect to do that. But, that's not the "default".

Control when you need to strike whenever you can.. The ending of the fight is a result of the striking...

And as I said, control is fine but it is not the default IME.. In fact the whole point is that in a case where my hand is freed and I have a "choice" in that next nanosecond to either control or strike I choose strike every time based on my experience because otherwise there is a lost beat and I am behind the timing (chasing control) instead of ahead of it (attacking). This is the way I have always trained....

Again, extended control, uses more energy, it uses more time, is less efficient in the moment than striking in that same moment..it is not the ideal of WCK IMO.. Not to say, you won't need to 'control' again in a moment, but you may not and if not, we simply maintain the attack and do damage.

Do we see attaching/controlling all the way through the dummy? Is TanDa what you mean by attached control?? Or are you using some other non WCK tools to "attach and control"?



Ask yourself, if you had the choice, would you rather have control over your opponent or not?

Sure sounds good.. But I would rather hurt him than control him... Both? Okay but the WCK I know does not have "control" in the sense of grappling, extended control.. We do not seek to attach, we seek to destroy..like a series of missiles..

The default, for me, is attacking via striking..in close range and sometimes with the aid of "additional control" and sometimes (depending) sometimes not..other than control meaning breaking their structure with strikes and the bridge suppression, leg traps, etc..which can aid in control as well while you strike.. More advanced..

It depends on what you mean by control..

What do you mean by control?

Is a PakDa a control and hit?

Is a LopDa?

Well after you lopda and strike him, lets say he is stunned.. My response is going to be to fan sao. and hit him again.. I can use hand replacement to maintain control (is this what you mean?) or I can simply keep hitting him...

In the standard Lop do you wrap the thumb? Why? Why not?

If he regains his senses and tries to take back center space then sure I will begin removing those obstructions.... And Alan has used this term as well--removing obstructions.. THIS is the default.. Is that "attached control"? Not to me, I don't call it that, I call it removing obstructions. If and when he attempts to reenter 'the corridor' then we "control" via energy/force/position to remove those obstructions.

WCK does not clinch in the classical sense. So, "unsticking" -- removing obstructions and favoring doing damage over hand chasing aids in efficiency and avoiding a clinch lockup..


For ex.. If a threat gets in my face I might just attack..

He may never get his hands up.

Now in the moment I can either hit him.. Or control him... If I choose control then that is one less movement time (beat) that could have been an attack. So IOW I would rather have hit him twice for your once and control. If conditions permit no loss of timing then I would go for the control and the strike. :)



You can't "hold them up" from noncontact or while unattached. And if you are holding them while hitting them, as Mickey said, then you're using WCK's method -- attached fighting.

And Mickey was very good at this.. But even Mickey when applying FanSao would at times control and finish and at times simply issue strikes to finish using the (T)"Bridge suppression"/(K) "elbow displacement".. Both are correct IMO depending on the opponent and conditions, etc..

[YungChun]

I've never said anyone has "great" WCK. Anyone's WCK is only as good as the opponent's they can hang with. Same as boxing, same as BJJ.

Alan and his guys train WCK and make what they do work in fighting. And, they are continually improving.

I am not surprised that you don't "see" WCK in what they do -- because you have a fantasy idea of what WCK "should" be.

Well it's easy to tell if they are doing WCK right? You have said so... Using the tools and moves found in the classical training..

The problem may be that if application is your teacher it may teach you something that isn't WCK..

You can't have it both ways..

If it's WCK then we can easily tell as you have pointed out with other people's clips..

[t_niehoff]

Well it's easy to tell if they are doing WCK right? You have said so... Using the tools and moves found in the classical training..

The problem may be that if application is your teacher it may teach you something that isn't WCK..

You can't have it both ways..

If it's WCK then we can easily tell as you have pointed out with other people's clips..

I don't know what you are taklking about.

WCK is fighting using the WCK tools. Letting application be your teacher means finding out for yourself, working it out for yourself, by doing it -- by fighting. It means you learn to box by boxing. You learn to apply your WCK (fight with your WCK tools) by applying your WCK (by fighting with your WCK tools).

Charging in with lien wan choi's is WCK -- it's very low-level WCK, but it is WCK since the person is using WCK tools. Kickboxing, on the other hand, doesn't use WCK tools.

People who haven't personally done that WORK often have instead some "idea" - fantasy - of how things should work. For example, they believe that you "should" be using simul blocking and striking or it isn't WCK-- that kind of thing. If they actually did the work, they'd see that simul blocking and striking is a very low percentage/high risk move except in a few situations (that's what actually doing it teaches you).

[t_niehoff]

That's just it.. WCK can be free movement.. WCK striking uses bridge suppression as you call it..while striking in close range.. Is this not a form of control? Is this not free movement? We move according to our needs.


No, that's not free-movement. Free movement has no control elements (boxing occurs in free-movement range or stage) -- since a fighter has no control over his opponent, that opponent can move freely. If he has control over his opponent, it limits or restricts his movement.



No it's clear to me and most folks that you are learning energy and positional elements, kinisthetic awareness of angles, lines and openings..


For contact, attached fighting. It makes absolutely no sense to think that by training these various things in contact, while attached that they would "transfer" to a noncontact, free-movement situation. Similarly, you don't train at non-contact to develop contact skills.



Don't you guys train JaoSao or JaoDa? When he leaves the line I strike him...????


OK, and what do you think he is going to do? He is going to strike you. So you will trade. Is that what you want to do?



This is a key part of our toi-ma..along with a host of other elements..

We say, we let him go when he leaves the line.. We also say, we run (jao) away from great force.. And.... Come back to the line to STRIKE!!!! (da)


Most of the time you can't run FROM pressure. If you do, you will be run over. This is why one ofthe main kuit in WCK tells us to "stay/remain as he comes . . . "



But apparently you don't see this as meaning or in part meaning that we need not always control.. Apparently that does not vary eh?

Control when you need to and strike whenever the opportunity is there.


The kuit doesn't say that -- it refers to HOW we go about implementing WCK's method (control while striking) will vary with what our opponent does.

We always want control. That is the mthod's first priority -- getting and maintaining control. That provides safety, and it sets up our offfense. When you strike, you strike to set up or maintain control, not just to hit. When control is your priority, it changes how, where, when, etc. you do strike. The kuit also tellsus mo luen da (no random striking). In other words, you don't jsut strike whenever or whereever you can, but there is an organized plan to your striking.



And I agree that sometimes control is needed.. See, I see both ways as valid and a dynamic part of the fight.. Sometimes you control, sometimes you strike.. The strikes as you said break structure, well that is a form of control (safety).. If not then what the hell is it for?


Yes, the striking is part of the overall method of getting and maintaining control. Are you hitting to just hit or are you hitting to maintain control? If you hit to just hit with no consideration for control (so you lose control) then your opponent can act freely, and you will now have to deal with his actions (instead of him having to deal with your's). At closerange, on the inside, when you lose control over your opponent, bad things happen.



What happened to the breaking of his structure? So it accomplished nothing?

What is my opponent going to be doing as I'm striking him? Bleeding...crying, calling me names.. :p


Breaking structure by striking is momentary. You want to break his structure and lock that in, keep him there.

What pussies are you sparring with? I'll tell you what the guys I train with do -- they hit back, they drop and shoot in, they grab and clinch, etc. In other words, they actively fight.



Control when you need to strike whenever you can.. The ending of the fight is a result of the striking...

And as I said, control is fine but it is not the default IME.. In fact the whole point is that in a case where my hand is freed and I have a "choice" in that next nanosecond to either control or strike I choose strike every time based on my experience because otherwise there is a lost beat and I am behind the timing (chasing control) instead of ahead of it (attacking). This is the way I have always trained....


Control is attacking, it is offensive, because it KEEPS your opponent on the defensvie (he will need to first break your control to do anything offensive). So, he will need two moves to attack you (break control, then attack) instead of one (just throw the attack).

FWIW, I was first taught and practiced the same things you are talking about. I did that for 17 years. So I understand your perspective. But it is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. We are taught these things by people who can't do them (in fighting) and we accept them as true. Then we do drills/exercises that are set up to validate what we have been taught (one of the big problems with unrealsitic training methods).

When you fight in contact and/or at close-range, and you don't concern yourself with control first, instead doing what you talk about (hit first, ask questions later), you will find yourself on the receving end of a beating. I am telling you this from experience. But don't take my word for it, instead see for yourself -- get some training partners and spend some significant time fighting in the phonebooth and you'll see that I am telling you the absolute truth.



Again, extended control, uses more energy, it uses more time, is less efficient in the moment than striking in that same moment..it is not the ideal of WCK IMO.. Not to say, you won't need to 'control' again in a moment, but you may not and if not, we simply maintain the attack and do damage.


This is a great example of a theoretical perspective. You can't fight based on using minimum energy or less movement or whatever -- you need to do what you need to do. It's not a question of how you want the fight to be, but what you NEED to do to be successful.



Do we see attaching/controlling all the way through the dummy? Is TanDa what you mean by attached control?? Or are you using some other non WCK tools to "attach and control"?


There are various ways to be attached. Attached just means "sustained contact" (as opposed to momentary contact). When you eprform the dummy, do you maintain contact with the dummy (even if you change contact points)?



Sure sounds good.. But I would rather hurt him than control him... Both? Okay but the WCK I know does not have "control" in the sense of grappling, extended control.. We do not seek to attach, we seek to destroy..like a series of missiles..


You keep talking about what you'd like to do to your opponent. Great. But he's not going to just stand there and let you do it. You need to also consider what are you going to be doing to deal with what he will be trying to do. Boxing, for example, isn't about just hitting your opponent, but MORE IMPORTANTY, not getting hit.

From my perspective, WCK's method combines striking and grappling. You see, it depends on how you "define" grappling. Isn't pushing, pulling, twisting, jerking, pressing, etc. grappling? It's not striking. Is lop da, for example, just striking or a combo or grappling and striking? What is the neck pulling hand in the dummy? Striking?



What do you mean by control?


Control is characterized by a limited or restricted ability of your opponent to move (and/or your ability to move him). There are obviously various levels of control.



Is a PakDa a control and hit?


It can be. Or not. That's the point -- if you are not actively trying to control your opponent, then when you practice a pak da it won't control your opponent. So, you're training not to control your opponent.



Is a LopDa?


Same thing.



Well after you lopda and strike him, lets say he is stunned.. My response is going to be to fan sao. and hit him again.. I can use hand replacement to maintain control (is this what you mean?) or I can simply keep hitting him...


The point of control is safety, and setting up your offense. If he is "stunned" you may tactically decide to forego controlling and just throw the kitchen sink at him -- you may take that risk, foregoing concern for safety (and you don't need to sethim up since he is defenseless). But, your example isn't a "default"situation -- your opponent isn't typically "stunned" -- so you don't need the "default" method.



And Alan has used this term as well--removing obstructions.. THIS is the default.. Is that "attached control"? Not to me, I don't call it that, I call it removing obstructions.


If you maintain contact with your opponent, then you are attached.



WCK does not clinch in the classical sense. So, "unsticking" -- removing obstructions and favoring doing damage over hand chasing aids in efficiency and avoiding a clinch lockup..


WCK uses a WCK-style clinch -- it is "holding and hitting", where you generally have two-hand contact with your opponent (both your hands are touching him). That's what the kuit refers to in Chut Kuen Mo Fan Lai - When the fist goes out, it does not return. That's why we practice facing squarely (so we can use two hands at the same time because we are going to use two hands at the same time!). That's why our signature drill/exercise Chi sao) involves two hand attachment. That's why when you lok at those photo sequences of Yip showing "application" both is hands are in contact with his opponent (holding and hitting).

[YungChun]

No, that's not free-movement. Free movement has no control elements (boxing occurs in free-movement range or stage) -- since a fighter has no control over his opponent, that opponent can move freely. If he has control over his opponent, it limits or restricts his movement.

We change lines/angles, we can control with the hit.. (attacking hand defends)



For contact, attached fighting. It makes absolutely no sense to think that by training these various things in contact, while attached that they would "transfer" to a noncontact, free-movement situation. Similarly, you don't train at non-contact to develop contact skills.

If you mean no contact by free movement then okay WCK is not a non contact art.



OK, and what do you think he is going to do? He is going to strike you. So you will trade. Is that what you want to do?

The attacking energy, structure destruction in this case is in play..driving into his weak angle we break his structure with our power. WCK does not chase hands, at least not mine.



Most of the time you can't run FROM pressure. If you do, you will be run over. This is why one ofthe main kuit in WCK tells us to "stay/remain as he comes . ".

Ducks and Dogs..

I am so surprised you don't get this.

'Take him when he comes follow when he goes,' has nothing to do with this.

The entire core of the art is based on his force leaving the line and trying to go around our power... (position and timing over speed and strength)

That is really WCK in a nutshell...

And I'll tell you, I respect what you have written but I have to say. folks who don't 'get that' are not doing WCK as I know it, train it and use it...it is, some other variant of something.



Yes, the striking is part of the overall method of getting and maintaining control. Are you hitting to just hit or are you hitting to maintain control?

The bridge suppression combined with power projected into their weak angle is all the control you need under the right conditions..

When his hand is moving away from the 'corridor' this is the time that corridor is used to break him down, eg blast him.

It is not tactically sound to chase his hand, nor is that the basis on which WCK operates...



If you hit to just hit with no consideration for control (so you lose control) then your opponent can act freely, and you will now have to deal with his actions (instead of him having to deal with your's). At closerange, on the inside, when you lose control over your opponent, bad things happen.


At close range you either have control of that space or not. If you are fighting for control of that space (removing obstructions) then that's what you're doing..

If they 'leave the tunnel' we fill that tunnel, not go chasing them..

I have no problem if your WCK is slightly more control heavy, but there are some finer points that you seem to miss.



Breaking structure by striking is momentary. You want to break his structure and lock that in, keep him there.

Everything is momentary..

You keep energizing and changing to adapt. Sure one strike is just a drop in a bucket that's why we economically keep it going...

If I am driving shots into my opponent's or partner's head--esp on his weak angle, then I assure you he is not a threat and would only have been more so if I had chased his circular attempt to get around my power--the WCK setup that you missed in class..

We don't chase that which is outside the 'corridor'...you can't...if that is what you are saying..it's completely false.



FWIW, I was first taught and practiced the same things you are talking about. I did that for 17 years. So I understand your perspective. But it is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.


Not from here it's not.. These basics IME are at the very core of what makes WCK useful..AND what the folks who are having trouble getting their WCK to function DO NOT DO..

Yes we issue energy.. via "controls" and strikes via bridge suppression and energy release into their weak angle.

Yes we hit and control..

Yes sometimes we can simply strike using WCK's specialized tools..because of open space and poor position on the part of the opponent. (didn't you say you liked what Grados did? He does this kind of thing all the time albeit with minimal power)

There are other variables: The reach of the opponent, his speed, his tactics...

The point is that you are de-emphasizing core and critical components of WCK.

We do not chase hands..

The attacking hand defends does not mean the controlling hand defends..

The freed hand does not seek control..(first)

We do run away from great force (that leaves the line)..and strike back to the line (if you can't do that you missed something) it's one of the most important and uniquely WCK parts of the art.

The centerline IS integral to true WCK..

Terence don't you ever come to New York? I am sure all us New Yorkers would be happy to show you the town.. And of course I am sure many would love a little WCK exchange..

C'mon we don't bite (unless you try to take it to the ground.. ;) )

[SAAMAG]

If they actually did the work, they'd see that simul blocking and striking is a very low percentage/high risk move except in a few situations (that's what actually doing it teaches you).

You seem to be a victim of self projection.

My personal experience in fighting is that the simultaneous block and strike works very well under pressure, with and without gloves. I've used it against my personal training partners at home, I've even used it at the MMA gym. Generally it is pak-da most of the time and tan-da on occasion. It really just depends on the fight and the person I'm fighting. THEY dictate what moves I use--I don't force the moves that I WANT to do.

Would you concede to the fact that other people might be able to pull things off that you cannot? I mean I can't kick as fast as Bruce Lee did, but it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. I can't double leg my big ass 250 lb buddy to take him down, but it doesn't mean someone else couldn't. Do you see where I'm going?

Terence's experiences in "fighting" do not = everyone else's experience in "fighting".
Nor does [place name here] experiences in fighting equal everyone else's experience in "fighting".

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't read Niehoff's posts anymore (IGNORE LIST)....but YungChun quoted this on post#226 and then proceeded to try and rebut it:

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
"When you fight in free-movement, stand-up, you need tools that are very different than what is in the WCK toolbox. You need boxing. That's why boxers RULE at that range."
...............................


***I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS for years now. You do need some boxing at the non contact (ie.- no bridge) range when up against a skilled boxer type, a skilled karate, Thai, or kickboxer type, imo....but especially when up against good boxers. (And needless to say, made doubly so if he's bigger and with a longer reach).

Because of the mechanics of wing chun, you need to be very close, and longer range boxing/kickboxing moves can keep you on the outside and in danger of being picked off, especially by overhands, round punches, hooks off the jab, rear crosses, etc.

I use some boxing as part of a "delivery system" for my close range wing chun; and quite frankly, when sparring a skilled guy (and again, especially if he has a longer reach)...I might use boxing from the outside to score a big blow, and not simply as a means of entry...since he might be that good at keeping me in the longer range.

But I also use TWC centraline/shoulder line principles from this range as a working guideline - even when throwing longer range (boxing type) punches to score a big blow.

It will often look just like boxing - but I'm always thinking of my right arm/shoulder area vertical line running down my body and how that line projects out toward the opponent as a "line" that I'm fighting for control of against his left arm....and my left arm/shoulder area vertical line running down my body and how that line projects out toward the opponent as a "line" that I'm fighting for control of against his right arm.

Call it using two extra longer range "centerlines" if you will.

Furthermore, using straight leads and crosses to close the gap and then dropping the elbows down-and-in to continue with a more conventional wing chun attack can work quite well as you get closer to your man, whether you're also using bridging techniques (ie.- pak, lop, bong, lan, gum, etc.) at that point or not.

As for simultaneous block-and-strike: again remember, the wing chun mechanics of this require you to be at close range and with very sharp reflexes and eyes. And we should not get caught up in the idea that this (simultaneous b&s) must always (or almost always) occur.

The idea, first-and-foremost is to hit this guy. Period.

[SAAMAG]

So let's talk a bit more about the straight punch, but in regards to weighting this time. How do you guys weight your stance when you punch? Do you put all the weight on the rear leg (sit on the rear) as you punch? Or do you transfer weight to the front foot as your punch lands? This questions illustrates a dichotomy in punching methods between wc as I have experienced and seen it and other methods and yet plays a significant role in power transfer.

So how do you do it?

[t_niehoff]

***I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS for years now. You do need some boxing at the non contact (ie.- no bridge) range when up against a skilled boxer type, a skilled karate, Thai, or kickboxer type, imo....but especially when up against good boxers. (And needless to say, made doubly so if he's bigger and with a longer reach).

Because of the mechanics of wing chun, you need to be very close, and longer range boxing/kickboxing moves can keep you on the outside and in danger of being picked off, especially by overhands, round punches, hooks off the jab, rear crosses, etc.

I use some boxing as part of a "delivery system" for my close range wing chun; and quite frankly, when sparring a skilled guy (and again, especially if he has a longer reach)...I might use boxing from the outside to score a big blow, and not simply as a means of entry...since he might be that good at keeping me in the longer range.


WCK's method and tools are mainly for the inside, so if you want to fight from the outside, then you need an art that specialzes in the outside. And, if you want to learn and art that specializes on the outside, you need to seek out good, personal instruction from persons skilled in that method.



But I also use TWC centraline/shoulder line principles from this range as a working guideline - even when throwing longer range (boxing type) punches to score a big blow.

It will often look just like boxing - but I'm always thinking of my right arm/shoulder area vertical line running down my body and how that line projects out toward the opponent as a "line" that I'm fighting for control of against his left arm....and my left arm/shoulder area vertical line running down my body and how that line projects out toward the opponent as a "line" that I'm fighting for control of against his right arm.

Call it using two extra longer range "centerlines" if you will.

Furthermore, using straight leads and crosses to close the gap and then dropping the elbows down-and-in to continue with a more conventional wing chun attack can work quite well as you get closer to your man, whether you're also using bridging techniques (ie.- pak, lop, bong, lan, gum, etc.) at that point or not.


The problem with that is that in fighting (when going at high intensity) the "gap" can close too quickly for you to "drop the elbows down" and go into WCK structure.The "elbows" down keeps your opponent from getting to your body - elbows up creates the opportunity.

"Bridging techniques"? The main "bridging technique" in WCK is the punch.



As for simultaneous block-and-strike: again remember, the wing chun mechanics of this require you to be at close range and with very sharp reflexes and eyes. And we should not get caught up in the idea that this (simultaneous b&s) must always (or almost always) occur.

The idea, first-and-foremost is to hit this guy. Period.

It's really not difficult to hit the oher guy. The difficult part is in not getting hit yourself. Simul block and hitting really doesn't exist as simul block and hitting -- rather you are in contact already (attached), using both hands, while one is manipulating the opponent and the other is striking. This acts to stop any attack he may issue, but it isn't "reactive" (he strikes, then you block -- that is too slow on the inside and won't work) put "proactive" -- I'm doing it before he strikes./attacks. To someone watching it from the sidelines it may appear that I have parried his hand, but what's really going on is he is unsuccessfully trying to hit through my superior structure.

[t_niehoff]

You seem to be a victim of self projection.

My personal experience in fighting is that the simultaneous block and strike works very well under pressure, with and without gloves. I've used it against my personal training partners at home, I've even used it at the MMA gym. Generally it is pak-da most of the time and tan-da on occasion. It really just depends on the fight and the person I'm fighting. THEY dictate what moves I use--I don't force the moves that I WANT to do.

Would you concede to the fact that other people might be able to pull things off that you cannot? I mean I can't kick as fast as Bruce Lee did, but it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. I can't double leg my big ass 250 lb buddy to take him down, but it doesn't mean someone else couldn't. Do you see where I'm going?

Terence's experiences in "fighting" do not = everyone else's experience in "fighting".
Nor does [place name here] experiences in fighting equal everyone else's experience in "fighting".

I hear people say this all the time -- why is it we NEVER see it? Lots of people can pull off things that I can't; hell, I see that everyday at the gym. But the point is that we can SEE that -- I can see them actually do it.. Simul blocking and striking is in MMA, boxng, MT, etc. It's a well-known tactic, hardly unique to WCK. Yet, we rearely see it in action. Why? Because it is, except in a few situations, a low-percentage, high risk move. World class fighters rarely can pull it off -- but you do it all the time, right? Sure.

[t_niehoff]

We change lines/angles, we can control with the hit.. (attacking hand defends)

If you mean no contact by free movement then okay WCK is not a non contact art.


Great, we agree!



The attacking energy, structure destruction in this case is in play..driving into his weak angle we break his structure with our power. WCK does not chase hands, at least not mine.


Why do you think I'm talking about chasing hands?



Ducks and Dogs..

I am so surprised you don't get this.

'Take him when he comes follow when he goes,' has nothing to do with this.

The entire core of the art is based on his force leaving the line and trying to go around our power... (position and timing over speed and strength)

That is really WCK in a nutshell...


WCK in a nutshell is to control your opponent while striking him. Yes, that entails making him come through our structure. Position and structure slow your opponent down and give you superior leverage (functional strength/power). You are controlling him via leverage and momentum.



And I'll tell you, I respect what you have written but I have to say. folks who don't 'get that' are not doing WCK as I know it, train it and use it...it is, some other variant of something.


WCK is WCK.



The bridge suppression combined with power projected into their weak angle is all the control you need under the right conditions..

When his hand is moving away from the 'corridor' this is the time that corridor is used to break him down, eg blast him.

It is not tactically sound to chase his hand, nor is that the basis on which WCK operates...


This is YOUR theory, or more likely what you've been told. But it isn't true. Often, his hand is moving away from the corridor to hit you, and if you hit him, he hits you. The method tells us to dap, jeet, chum BEFORE delivering our weapons -- in other words, to seek control first. Then I can strike him from relative safety and not need to be concerned about trading.



At close range you either have control of that space or not. If you are fighting for control of that space (removing obstructions) then that's what you're doing..


It's NOT about controlling space, it is about controlling the opponent.



If they 'leave the tunnel' we fill that tunnel, not go chasing them..

I have no problem if your WCK is slightly more control heavy, but there are some finer points that you seem to miss.


All that needs to happen to you is to do a bit of fighting at contact -- and have your opponent just disengage his arm from you and throw a hook at your head as hard as he possibly can, trying to knock that sucker off. It won't take you long to appreciate that when he disengages you don't just want to try to hit him with your free hand.



Everything is momentary..

You keep energizing and changing to adapt. Sure one strike is just a drop in a bucket that's why we economically keep it going...


No, it's not - at least you don't want it to be. You want to break his structure and lock it in. For example, if I pull your head down with the neck pulling hand, I will keep it there to keep you broken while I pound you.



If I am driving shots into my opponent's or partner's head--esp on his weak angle, then I assure you he is not a threat and would only have been more so if I had chased his circular attempt to get around my power--the WCK setup that you missed in class..


You're dreamin'. Are you DOING that against nonWCK people who are fighting with you? No.



Not from here it's not.. These basics IME are at the very core of what makes WCK useful..AND what the folks who are having trouble getting their WCK to function DO NOT DO..

Yes we issue energy.. via "controls" and strikes via bridge suppression and energy release into their weak angle.

Yes we hit and control..

Yes sometimes we can simply strike using WCK's specialized tools..because of open space and poor position on the part of the opponent. (didn't you say you liked what Grados did? He does this kind of thing all the time albeit with minimal power)

There are other variables: The reach of the opponent, his speed, his tactics...

The point is that you are de-emphasizing core and critical components of WCK.

We do not chase hands..

The attacking hand defends does not mean the controlling hand defends..

The freed hand does not seek control..(first)

We do run away from great force (that leaves the line)..and strike back to the line (if you can't do that you missed something) it's one of the most important and uniquely WCK parts of the art.

The centerline IS integral to true WCK..


The difference between us is that I learned the same things you are saying, but through experience, I came to see that things really don't work like that. It may work like that with your WCK partners who are programmed to move in certain prescribed ways or in chi sao, but it doesn't work like that when fighting.

What I realized from spending significant time sparring with MMA and MT fighters is that the people who were telling me these things didn't really know what they were talking about-- they were just repeating theory, theory that their unrealistic training validated but didn't hold up under fighting conditions.



Terence don't you ever come to New York? I am sure all us New Yorkers would be happy to show you the town.. And of course I am sure many would love a little WCK exchange..

C'mon we don't bite (unless you try to take it to the ground.. ;) )

I'll put you on the LONG list of people who want a shot at me. And when I next get to NYC, I'll be glad to meet with you.

But, in the meantime, why not just go visit a good MMA or MT school and do a bit of sparring and see how those theories work out for you?

[k gledhill]

if your in nyc drop by and see me ...open door policy even for frogs ;)

[t_niehoff]

if your in nyc drop by and see me ...open door policy even for frogs ;)

I think that I'll just rent a hall. ;)

[CFT]

I think that I'll just rent a hall. ;)I think there'll be people queueing up to take a swing and maybe even more to watch!

[SAAMAG]

I hear people say this all the time -- why is it we NEVER see it? Lots of people can pull off things that I can't; hell, I see that everyday at the gym. But the point is that we can SEE that -- I can see them actually do it.. Simul blocking and striking is in MMA, boxng, MT, etc. It's a well-known tactic, hardly unique to WCK. Yet, we rearely see it in action. Why? Because it is, except in a few situations, a low-percentage, high risk move. World class fighters rarely can pull it off -- but you do it all the time, right? Sure.

We do see it. You see guys constantly doing a "cover-punch" in MMA. They don't a tan sao and punch because they're not doing wing chun. The majority of MMA'ers use the muay thai styled "grab the back of the head" cover, and I've seen pak-da's here and there as well--though I can't tell you what fights those were because I don't memorize them.

Here's the thing though: Boxing, Muay Thai, MMA -- those sports don't teach the simultaneous attack and defense in the same way that wing chun does. Why? They work in a different range using different tactics.

The "rules of thumb" for these examples you gave that drive the tactics are different as well. In muay thai they will often times punch or kick immediately after a strike (on the same side) to follow in the opponents blocked attack. That's their "thing". Boxers don't particularly care about the goal of the simultanous block and punch because it evolved in a way where they use evasive manuvers with their punches to get the simultaneous attack and defense, e.g. the bob-n-weave w/ the body punch. They generally will move first, using footwork or upper body movement, and cover. Not the same as blocking. MMA striking will typically come from one of the above two examples.

If the arts that are being used didn't evolve using the idea of simultaneous block and strike, why would they use them now in the MMA environment? They all three do different things...yet none of them is wrong persay...just different. The cover and follow up works for the most part for muay thai, the evading and punching works for boxing.

Wing chun evolved differently and has been adjusted to meet its needs. If someone wanted to make wing chun more MMA friendly, I'm sure the tactics may change further and you may not see as much of the simultaneous attack and defense, because MMA fighters adapt to the environment very quickly if they want to be succesful in their careers. Countering someone who constantly tries to do an tan da, pak da, biu da, gaan da, or whatever will be easy to do after just a little while of reading them.

Like in any fighting arena, things have to be varied, and the techniques being used in those types of fights are based on capitalizing on your strengths and the opponents weaknesses. A luxury one doesn't have in real life.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Back to the original topic... I think that the vertical fist is more powerful throughout its range of motion which is a nice quality that hasn't been brought up.

[SAAMAG]

Back to the original topic... I think that the vertical fist is more powerful throughout its range of motion which is a nice quality that hasn't been brought up.

I'd say so. For the task at hand and the range it works in, there's really no other straight punch that does better. Then again I don't think there's any other kind of straight punch for that range. Then you have to remember the tight hooks and uppercuts that can be done in that same range that produce far more power, and combined with the straight punch--one can be veeeery effective in that range.

------------------

But I was asking about something earlier....in regards to weighting. How do you guys weight your stance when you punch? Do you put all the weight on the rear leg (sit on the rear) as you punch as many YM methods do? Or do you transfer weight to the front foot as your punch lands as many other systems do (JKD, Boxing, many other gung fu styles, and etc)? I think that this plays a significant role in power transfer. Could the wing chun straight punch improve in power with just a slight refocusing of the weight distribution as everything else works together (hips, joints, etc) like normal?

What do you all think of the theory that wing chun punch's are rooted in the ground and other punches (like Boxing) are not? I personally don't agree because all punches require rooting in the ground to be effective...but hey that's just me.

[HumbleWCGuy]

As a matter of course your weight should be 50/50 on each leg when you start punching and when you finish. There will be subtle shifts in weight distribution that occur when punches are executed, but there are too many subtle variations of punches to discuss on the internet. The heavy bag, reasonable instruction, and common sense can guide you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are "leaning" punches and there are "stepping" punches but all strikes need weight displacement or weight is NOT behind the strike ( besides the arm of course).
Biomechanics 101.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Combining what I said with what SR said, figure out a way to be balanced before striking and after and during striking make sure that you figure out how to pivot, step, and "lean," so that the strike has weight behind it assuming that power striking is the aim.

[k gledhill]

I don't know what you are taklking about.

WCK is fighting using the WCK tools. Letting application be your teacher means finding out for yourself, working it out for yourself, by doing it -- by fighting. It means you learn to box by boxing. You learn to apply your WCK (fight with your WCK tools) by applying your WCK (by fighting with your WCK tools).

Charging in with lien wan choi's is WCK -- it's very low-level WCK, but it is WCK since the person is using WCK tools. Kickboxing, on the other hand, doesn't use WCK tools.

People who haven't personally done that WORK often have instead some "idea" - fantasy - of how things should work. For example, they believe that you "should" be using simul blocking and striking or it isn't WCK-- that kind of thing. If they actually did the work, they'd see that simul blocking and striking is a very low percentage/high risk move except in a few situations (that's what actually doing it teaches you).


problem being most THINK simultaneous strike/ blocking means using 2 hands versus 1 always...

[SAAMAG]

problem being most THINK simultaneous strike/ blocking means using 2 hands versus 1 always...

Annnnnd game-set-match! The chung choi in and of itself is a simultaneous block and strike!

[SAAMAG]

As a matter of course your weight should be 50/50 on each leg when you start punching and when you finish. There will be subtle shifts in weight distribution that occur when punches are executed, but there are too many subtle variations of punches to discuss on the internet. The heavy bag, reasonable instruction, and common sense can guide you.


There are "leaning" punches and there are "stepping" punches but all strikes need weight displacement or weight is NOT behind the strike ( besides the arm of course).
Biomechanics 101.


Combining what I said with what SR said, figure out a way to be balanced before striking and after and during striking make sure that you figure out how to pivot, step, and "lean," so that the strike has weight behind it assuming that power striking is the aim.

In my experience, I prefer all fighting stances to have a 50/50 weight distribution as a general rule. When I initiate any movements, be it stepping, leaning, offensive, or defensive...weights will be varied on one foot more than another. This is of course an obvious given.

So when I punch with no style in mind, the punches are always rooted to the ground. On the straight or cross the rear leg is what is being "dug in", with weight being transferred to the front leg and the rear on the ball of the foot with the heel raised up. The lead hook, weight transfers to the the rear leg and the front leg is turning on the ball (heel raised) while "digging in" so to speak.

On the contrary, with Wing Chun, I've learned varying methods for the chung choi. Originally it was indeed a 50/50 split in general, with weighting for the most part staying nuetral. When I got with a couple of other guys through the years, their's varied. Some stayed 50/50 no matter what punch was being used, and some had only a rear leg weighted...even during the punch execution. The idea behind it was that the back leg was the "root" and that is where the power came from and thus the weight stayed on that rear foot while the front stepped, of course body square and hips forward still.

Today, my chung kuen is such that it is like a ball and chain. The hand is imagined as a weight, the arm as a rope. Punches are thrown in a whip-like movement with the only tensing of the muscle happening at impact, and even that is only just enough. My weighting starts 50/50, as the punch happens my body stays upright with the COG slightly to the front but for the most part even between the legs, my front leg is flat with probably 60% of the weight, and my rear leg is probably about 40%, and the "dig" is on the rear foot (mostly the ball of the foot with the heel still on the ground). My body stays in a lead/rear shoulder configuration, with squaring happening on an as needed basis.

I've found this to be the ideal setup for me, and it works consistently well. Is it as strong as my cross? Heck no. But for what the punch is...its the best for its given task I think. A nice, tight straight punch that can be used deep inside someone's guard / bridge.

[k gledhill]

Annnnnd game-set-match! The chung choi in and of itself is a simultaneous block and strike!

each strike is capable of using either side as it travels along the line forwards to displace force it meets or from low elbows establish bridge attacks from the rear...THEN we can use 2 hands but cycling..iow the rear takes over for the lead as another simultaneous action, using the forearm, and retracting the lead hand to make an attack again..NOT stay fighting the arm...ie over trap meaning stay touching an arm that can be done by 1arm alone...

give Vankuen a cigar ! :D or 3

[sanjuro_ronin]

A jab is an example of the use of the simultaneous block and strike.
My old coach:
You are short and stubby (LOL) and using the jab for distance and space will get you killed, use it to stop-hit or to block-hit.
Me: Block-hit?
Him: Yeah, Jab on the angle so that as you stike with the Jab, your jabbing arm blocks his counter or, if you are "countering", it blocks his strike while hitting him.

Sometimes its the intention that makes a move a "block-hit/hit-block" and not so much the execution.