You Can't Always Go Forward...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Check this out beginning at about 1:15...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCWkYirewU&playnext_from=TL&videos=cgl1Qf8oSBo&feature=grec


And then, on the same vid, there's the Butterfly Swords, beginning around 2:00 - having really very little to do with the thread topic...but still cool to watch.

Always move forward is a myth.

[JPinAZ]

I am not sure you should 'always move fwd', but I'd say rather you should always strive to have continuous forward energy toward your opponent's center.

To me, it looks to me as if he is running from the attack and giving up space needlessly (and I mean no disrespect to GM Cheung, maybe he had good reason for this). One step back to regain your composer is one thing, but if you back up too much and chance hands as appears to be happening in the clip, you'll end up having to play catch up with the opponent and always be one step behind him (no pun intended).

Vic, if you have another take on this, I would enjoy hearing it.

[YungChun]

I didn't see the part in the clip..

But forward and backward are just ways to move... Folks often ascribe too much import about simply two directions of movement on one line..

It depends on the range, intent and tactic..

VT uses forward energy but this doesn't address *how we move* in general.

On the outside in a duel, like in sparring it's a game, a game played with timing and position. There is no wrong direction in this case so long as you can manage the opponent and the engagement..

On the inside in VT's main range there is forward pressure and/or forward spring energy and projection of power. That force is part of VT's tactic and mechanics.. Still movement is another issue and IMO on the inside VT is at it's best when encircling the opponent, meaning that once closed we seek to "continuously flank" or IOW move behind him, or try to...

[LSWCTN1]

seung ma toi ma, amongst others, is a drill specifically designed to teach you to yeald to too much force by moving back but keeping your intent forward

[YungChun]

seung ma toi ma, amongst others, is a drill specifically designed to teach you to yeald to too much force by moving back but keeping your intent forward

In ToiMa we mainly blow away their balance and structure, they're job to keep putting it back together as possible..

Tactically when there is contact and force, too much--it is the force that moves you "back." So we use the momentum to "move the line", or flank--often done with a "run/Jao."

Essentially from the models of YJKYM/CK where they're force changes our angle--the spring is then loaded (horse) we fire back in like a stretched rubber band firing an arrow.... :D

[LoneTiger108]

I find that this subject keeps popping up, especially among the harder fighters that I've met who insist that Wing Chun never retreats.

I agree with some that it is a good habit to keep our intent pushing forward but there are times when you just have to retreat, even if it's only to make minor adjustments before launching forward again, or drawing-in the opponent.

As it's a common question I normally respond with this question: If you never retreat, how do you leave/exit from the wooden man? :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

Always move forward is a myth.

The kuit doesn't say anything about "always moving forward".

[LSWCTN1]

I find that this subject keeps popping up, especially among the harder fighters that I've met who insist that Wing Chun never retreats.

I agree with some that it is a good habit to keep our intent pushing forward but there are times when you just have to retreat, even if it's only to make minor adjustments before launching forward again, or drawing-in the opponent.

As it's a common question I normally respond with this question: If you never retreat, how do you leave/exit from the wooden man? :rolleyes:

that guy we saw together, regardless of his dubious lineage and whether or not he had high level skills, was a fighter.

he moved back a lot to keep control when the student from Simon Lau pressed

[JPinAZ]

I agree, with you guys to a point - there is a time to move, or step back. Basically this is to regain lost space and/or regain our structures or facing. But in most cases, one step back is all it takes to do this.
If we are in contact and taking too much pressure, or caught off guard, made a mistake, etc, why take 4 or 5 steps backwards when one step will do. WC is about efficiency and economy of motion.

[LoneTiger108]

that guy we saw together, regardless of his dubious lineage and whether or not he had high level skills, was a fighter.

he moved back a lot to keep control when the student from Simon Lau pressed

With all due respect to that fella, he was only trying to suss us all out, but I think he found too many rolling that knew what he was doing. Perfectly healthy and physically powerful lad, but even mini-me shifted him a little!

The thing to look out for if you do retreat is the onslaught of legwork as you fall into that range. Pity that when we rotate with guys for fun we tend to hold the legs back. Too much damage to be had there!! :D

[Pacman]

the idea of never moving backwards comes from the ideas of "loy lau hui sung" (to greet the incoming and to escort the retreating) and that idea comes from the idea of keeping constant pressure.

i think the phrase "never move backwards" is incomplete and thus interpreted incorrectly.

its not that you can never step backwards, but when someone is attacking you, you do not want to retreat and just block/cover up. WC tries to stay one step ahead by doing things like simultaneous blocking and striking. if you just retreat when someone attacks and block/cover then eventually the attacker is going to land a shot, unless you can run away faster than they advance. you cant block every shot forever, its too fast and so they are always going to be one step ahead of you.

it is preferable to move forward into them or sideways and with some action that puts the pressure on them, so that they cannot continue with their attack

this is the reason a lot of demos dont work in real life and the reason that people like niehoff think that only by doing full contact agression sparring will you ever learn something.

demos often have the opponent attacking with one single kick or punch and then the demonstrator does a bunch of techniques on them. in real life it would not work because its not just one attack but multiple. and typically the more aggressive the person the faster he will be attacking.

the thing is, you do not need to fight in a full contact setting to test your skills properly. you and the opponent dont need to be full of aggression and try to take each others heads off. in fact aggression will probably keep you from learning in the early stages.

as long as you go full speed, there is nothing not learned in pulling your punches

[Ultimatewingchun]

seung ma toi ma, amongst others, is a drill specifically designed to teach you to yield to too much force by moving back but keeping your intent forward

***I THINK this post starts to get at it, JP...The intent is always to go forward and pressure the opponent, but sometimes just one step back is not enough.

If the opponent launches a barrage of punches before you can go on offense (in the vid GM William Cheung didn't start to take control until the 3rd punch)...you may have to play catch-up for one or two before you get your bearings.

And here's another way to look at that sequence in the vid: he didn't get a good angle and good centerline/central line control until the 3rd punch...if you notice the third pak was immediately followed by a chuen sao (underneath bil sao)...

and that's what took the attackers arm off the line significantly enough for William Cheung to be able to go on offense.

The same principle you would use in chi sao, for example: once you start to control a line (ie.- the centerline)...now you can go forward and attack. Until then it's risky business.

But why not take control before a 2nd or 3rd punch?

Because if the opponent launches a combo with aggression - it could take easily take until the 2nd or 3rd punch before the wing chun defender gets a good sense of the attackers distance, rhythm, speed, types of punches being thrown at him (ie.- straight, round, etc.)...and the opponent's power...

to be able to effectively counter.

That's how I would interpret that sequence in the vid.

[YungChun]

From in contact...

You can't have forward energy while intentionally moving backward...

You can exert forward energy while being moved back...

You can let their force go (run) and change lines...

You can then store and use that energy against them...(make them lose a beat--to reface)

That is forward intent, pressure, economy and using their power against them--that is VT.

[SAAMAG]

From in contact...

You can't have forward energy while intentionally moving backward...

You can exert forward energy while being moved back...

You can let their force go (run) and change lines...

You can then store and use that energy against them...(make them lose a beat--to reface)

That is forward intent, pressure, economy and using their power against them--that is VT.

WC is WC. It's different for different people. Some people interpret the whole forward intent thing as literally "wc does not step back". Some think of it as "wing chun doesn't ever stop with the intent of forward pressure" (i.e. always working the offense where possible). Some think of it as mentally always staying ahead of the other person.

The principle of always giving forward pressure comes for the idea that once a person attacks you -- you ideally will simultaneously counter or jeet and then continue into them until the fight is over. Again this is the ideal scenario that doesn't happen in real life all the time. It's similar to the karate idea of the one punch one kill. Ideal--but not always realistic. So then what? You have to think about what you're going to do when the pressure is put on you. In wing chun--to me anyway--that's doing what needs to be done to absorb or move around the attack, and hitting where the opportunity arises. To think that you're just going to bulldoze everyone with wing chun is indeed a myth.

In regards to not being able to deliver whilst stepping back...you can throw straights when moving back...that's forward intent while moving backward. In fact that's one of the things I learned in boxing was to jab on the backstep to keep the other guys from continually charging in. You can also use it to setup a strong counter punch.

Same goes for wing chun or any other pugilistic art I would think.

[k gledhill]

sideways :D

[YungChun]

WC is WC. It's different for different people. Some people interpret the whole forward intent thing as literally "wc does not step back". Some think of it as "wing chun doesn't ever stop with the intent of forward pressure" (i.e. always working the offense where possible). Some think of it as mentally always staying ahead of the other person.

Right.. But they'd be wrong.. LOL



The principle of always giving forward pressure comes for the idea that once a person attacks you -- you ideally will simultaneously counter or jeet and then continue into them until the fight is over. Again this is the ideal scenario that doesn't happen in real life all the time. It's similar to the karate idea of the one punch one kill. Ideal--but not always realistic. So then what? You have to think about what you're going to do when the pressure is put on you. In wing chun--to me anyway--that's doing what needs to be done to absorb or move around the attack, and hitting where the opportunity arises. To think that you're just going to bulldoze everyone with wing chun is indeed a myth.


Okay, not what I said though..

The idea of using forward power continuously is valid from in contact.. However there are exceptions and changes that facilitate this tactic, which I already addressed here in part.



In regards to not being able to deliver whilst stepping back...you can throw straights when moving back...that's forward intent while moving backward.

Most folks will set first... As in step back set fire..

If VT meets resistance the VT idea is to USE THAT....Not just get out of town.

Firing off shots while in rearward motion isn't the VT idea of forward power release or forward energy IMO..

[t_niehoff]

the idea of never moving backwards comes from the ideas of "loy lau hui sung" (to greet the incoming and to escort the retreating)


Agreed. Although the kuit translates to "stay/remain" as he comes, not "greet".



and that idea comes from the idea of keeping constant pressure.


When you are attached fighting, "pressure" is necessary for many reasons -- to keep the attachment, to limit what he can do, to permit you to feel changes, to set him up, etc.



i think the phrase "never move backwards" is incomplete and thus interpreted incorrectly.


Agreed.



its not that you can never step backwards, but when someone is attacking you, you do not want to retreat and just block/cover up. WC tries to stay one step ahead by doing things like simultaneous blocking and striking. if you just retreat when someone attacks and block/cover then eventually the attacker is going to land a shot, unless you can run away faster than they advance. you cant block every shot forever, its too fast and so they are always going to be one step ahead of you.


Uh, no. When fighting on the outside, movement is the name of the game - and that includes stepping backward. The kuit (loy lao hoi soong . . . ) pertains to contact/attached fighting.



it is preferable to move forward into them or sideways and with some action that puts the pressure on them, so that they cannot continue with their attack


WCK's approach is to control the opponent while striking (attached fighting). You can't control by stepping away from your opponent.



this is the reason a lot of demos dont work in real life and the reason that people like niehoff think that only by doing full contact agression sparring will you ever learn something.


By "people like Niehoff" you mean all good fighters and fight trainers? Because my views are shared by them. Look, you can LEARN a skill/technique/movement/etc. outside of sparring but you can't develop that into a fighting skill without fighting.

The reason most WCK demonstrated is utter nonsense is that what is demo'ed isn't taken from sparring -- people aren't showing what they really do in fighting. They are demo'ing fantasy.



demos often have the opponent attacking with one single kick or punch and then the demonstrator does a bunch of techniques on them. in real life it would not work because its not just one attack but multiple. and typically the more aggressive the person the faster he will be attacking.


WCK demo's are pure fantasy.



the thing is, you do not need to fight in a full contact setting to test your skills properly. you and the opponent dont need to be full of aggression and try to take each others heads off. in fact aggression will probably keep you from learning in the early stages.


But boxers, MT fighters, etc. who do spar from the earliest stages have gone on to develop into world class fighters while NO WCK practitioner ever has.

You can't test your fighting skills outside of fighting -- what you are saying is nonsense, it's like saying you don't need to get in the pool to test your swimming!



as long as you go full speed, there is nothing not learned in pulling your punches

Oh, there is a great deal, but you can't know what it is without doing it.

[k gledhill]

Terence [aka ocd dude] is trying to twist the kuit to suit his needs...and make vt dirty clinch fighting. VT isnt dirty clinch fighting. Thats a drill modification, many do it. It can and will be taken apart by a proficient vt FIGHTER ,only takes less than 2 minutes sparring to convince people :D.

Think...if you train to control my arms but I train to circumvent attempts to control my arms and hit simultaneously constantly , relentlessly , who theoretically would have a better % favor in a fight..the guy hitting constantly attacking, or the guy seeking to control and feel before striking, control meaning seeking to stop my arms first. ?

[Pacman]

Uh, no. When fighting on the outside, movement is the name of the game - and that includes stepping backward. The kuit (loy lao hoi soong . . . ) pertains to contact/attached fighting.

loy lau hui sung refers to every aspect of the fight. its a principle to be carried throughout whatever you do. "if you fought competent fighters" and applied this principle you would know what i am talking about



WCK's approach is to control the opponent while striking (attached fighting). You can't control by stepping away from your opponent.

this shows how much you know. i assume you are referring to me comment about moving sideways. i am talking to wing chun's outside game and tactics on how to eventually enter into a closer range




You can't test your fighting skills outside of fighting -- what you are saying is nonsense, it's like saying you don't need to get in the pool to test your swimming!


you are really an idiot. i dont need to lay into a guy 100% or get hammered in the face to train or practice a technique. practicing hitting hard is what the bag is for. just like a jiujitsu guy doesn't need to finish the break to learn something, there is no reason for me to hurt or get hurt by my training partner.

you can still spar with the same speed and intensity as in a real situation, but pull your punches

if you get a hard on because you want the intensity to give you a big adrenaline rush and just go ape sh1t on your training partner, you most likely aren't going to be using any technique at that point.

[YungChun]

Terence [aka ocd dude] is trying to twist the kuit to suit his needs...and make vt dirty clinch fighting. VT isnt dirty clinch fighting. Thats a drill modification, many do it. It can and will be taken apart by a proficient vt FIGHTER ,only takes less than 2 minutes sparring to convince people :D.

Think...if you train to control my arms but I train to circumvent attempts to control my arms and hit simultaneously constantly , relentlessly , who theoretically would have a better % favor in a fight..the guy hitting constantly attacking, or the guy seeking to control and feel before striking, control meaning seeking to stop my arms first. ?

He actually thinks the opposite there Kev..

He actually thinks you have to control first and hit later.. Ironically this is what you see beginners doing too..

On the other hand I have always found that a beat lost to a chase results in being behind the timing and often getting clocked.. Go figure..

"And what do you think he will be doing while you are hitting him?" Will be T's response.. Care to discuss Kev? ;)

[duende]

Actually, we practice contact control too. This is because often against an experienced fighter... trying to hit without having a solid bridge to cross first, typically will not work.

Your energy will get bounced back as you haven't broken your opponents structure and established a real bridge yet.

Sure, you can try to sneak in a fast shot, but that is quite a gamble against a seasoned fighter. And when it doesn't work.. Where are you then...? What structure or safety belt guard are you left with? What kind of compromised range situation are you in???

No offence to anyone here, but we see this constantly when practitioners from other schools come for a visit.

Lots of fast fancy hands, that look impressive, but when tested against real force... Very quickly fall apart.

Any meathead with a sense of balance is going to crash through that technique and bring on the hurt.

Just my .02

[Ultimatewingchun]

Actually, we practice contact control too. This is because often against an experienced fighter... trying to hit without having a solid bridge to cross first, typically will not work.

Your energy will get bounced back as you haven't broken your opponents structure and established a real bridge yet.

Sure, you can try to sneak in a fast shot, but that is quite a gamble against a seasoned fighter. And when it doesn't work.. Where are you then...? What structure or safety belt guard are you left with? What kind of compromised range situation are you in???

No offence to anyone here, but we see this constantly when practitioners from other schools come for a visit.

Lots of fast fancy hands, that look impressive, but when tested against real force... Very quickly fall apart.

Any meathead with a sense of balance is going to crash through that technique and bring on the hurt.

Just my .02


***I AGREE with the first 4 sentences completely.

As for what follows about the dangers of trying to "sneak in a fast shot"........
when in close quarter wing chun mode - this is why I have incorporated some boxing into what I do.

I will often box my way in; either to hit, pure and simple...or to use the boxing as a means of going into wing chun punch mode (because I've attained a good position to do so)...or as a means to get to wing chun bridge/control mode - on my way into hitting.

With boxing dynamics you don't necessarily have to break his structure first in order to score some good hits.

[t_niehoff]

He actually thinks the opposite there Kev..

He actually thinks you have to control first and hit later.. Ironically this is what you see beginners doing too..

On the other hand I have always found that a beat lost to a chase results in being behind the timing and often getting clocked.. Go figure..

"And what do you think he will be doing while you are hitting him?" Will be T's response.. Care to discuss Kev? ;)

You and "Kev" have no clue as to what I am talking about since apparently neither of you have ever learned the WCK method.

I am not talking about "control first and hit later", I'm talking about just what I say -- WCK's method is to control WHILE striking. This involves breaking the opponent's structure on contact. So, you won't be hitting anyone (with a broken structure) -- you'll be trying to regain structure as you get yanked around while being hit. And it doesn't involve"chasing hands."

[t_niehoff]

***I AGREE with the first 4 sentences completely.


From what you say below, it appears you don't understand what he is saying.



As for what follows about the dangers of trying to "sneak in a fast shot"........
when in close quarter wing chun mode - this is why I have incorporated some boxing into what I do.


What? That makes no sense.



I will often box my way in; either to hit, pure and simple...or to use the boxing as a means of going into wing chun punch mode (because I've attained a good position to do so)...or as a means to get to wing chun bridge/control mode - on my way into hitting.


WTF is "wing chun punch mode"? Nor can you get into WCK bridge control "mode" (?) using boxing -- boxing body structure won't support WCK's method.



With boxing dynamics you don't necessarily have to break his structure first in order to score some good hits.

"Breaking structure" is a grappling tactic (like kazushi in judo or breaking posture in BJJ), not a striking art tactic. Without contact you can't control an opponent, and breaking structure is part of the process of controlling the opponent. Boxing isn't concerned with that.

[YungChun]

You and "Kev" have no clue as to what I am talking about since apparently neither of you have ever learned the WCK method.

I am not talking about "control first and hit later", I'm talking about just what I say -- WCK's method is to control WHILE striking. This involves breaking the opponent's structure on contact. So, you won't be hitting anyone (with a broken structure) -- you'll be trying to regain structure as you get yanked around while being hit. And it doesn't involve"chasing hands."



Wrong, you ARE a hand chasing, reacher with both arms extended like a sleep walking MMA Frankenstein Monster lumbering around in a fixed training stance...

http://www.clipartpal.com/_thumbs/pd/holiday/halloween/Frankenstein_4.png


Landing TRUMPS "attaching" which most VT techniques don't do anyway.

Landing VT strikes breaks the living crap out of structure..

There are times when you need to clear/hit.

There are times when you need to issue "contact" force/hit.

There are times when you need to "trap"/hit.

There are times when you need only hit.

The default is hit..we see hit in all cases..

If the guy is open and unable to offer resistance (say his parry fails) there is no need to "attach" until and unless the attack is interrupted.. THAT'S VT.

He cannot control us while his structure is busted and should he recover he must interrupt our attack... When our attack is interrupted he is in our space... THAT is the flow..

Attack--Interrupt--Change--Attack

See it's not just fighting good people with you, it's you have to do it my way.. Otherwise you're doing it wrong.. NOT! YOU got it wrong brother.

You think you can whip everyone's else's butt who doesn't use your interpretation? Good luck with that.. You'd be desperately trying to get a take down and praying.

Anyone can see that the majority of the techniques in VT do not "attach" in the conventional sense, in the sense of what grappler's do.. The techniques you see in VT are methods of removing obstructions; going around obstructions; and clearing away obstructions...

In none of the above do we see "attachment" in the sense of grappling because all those moves/techniques are all changes, meaning they don't stay for more than a moment and they only assist the striking. When there is no need to clear a path, when there is no need to open a path, IOW a path exists we simply use that path..

Moreover, the strikes which you admit do break structure also don't attach which you say you must do to break structure.. (see how your half pregnant on this one?) This is yet another major brain f art on your part which tells me you need more shock therapy..

Your theory is flawed and conflicted..

You also dismiss and deny other core system tactics.. However since you can only tell the theory and not show it there is nothing of any substance, there is no evidence that you do VT.. For the most part you and your group are the only ones who think you're doing VT to be honest..

You could prove it by simply showing it.. But I know you can't do that because then your theory and your colorful interpretation of the "faat" with MMA moves built into it would be seen for what it ISN'T----VT.

[t_niehoff]

Wrong, you ARE a hand chasing, reacher with both arms extended like a sleep walking MMA Frankenstein Monster lumbering around in a fixed training stance...


Dude, you haven't a clue.

You can't do whatever you want on the inside -- just like you can't do whatever you want on the ground. The very first thing you NEED to deal with is what your opponent is doing. And, on the inside, just like on the ground, your opponent -- unless he is a complete scrub -- will be move to control you. You're not going to punch your way out of that, you're not going to be able to simply counter it (since he will then counter your counter), you've will NEED to control him first. Or, if he gets control, fight to regain control. Control is the name of the game on the inside (just like on the ground).

You believe in your fantasy view of fighting that you will on the insde and just be hitting. Wrong. Just like on the ground, the person in control will be hitting. The one not in control won't be in a position to hit.

ALL fighters recognize this. MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. When on the inside, you either get out (of the inside) or move to control.

WCK's method recognizes this and provides us with a general game plan, a step-by-step strategy, for dealing with this.



Landing TRUMPS "attaching" which most VT techniques don't do anyway.

Landing VT strikes breaks the living crap out of structure..

There are times when you need to clear/hit.

There are times when you need to issue "contact" force/hit.

There are times when you need to "trap"/hit.

There are times when you need only hit.

The default is hit..we see hit in all cases..


No, the default method of WCK is to control in all cases. If you can hit and he can hit you, how is this to your advantage? If I control him, I can hit him and he can't hit me. That is to my advantage. Not only that, but if I control him he can't take me down, he can't shoot, etc. Control is what takes away his offense.



If the guy is open and unable to offer resistance (say his parry fails) there is no need to "attach" until and unless the attack is interrupted.. THAT'S VT.


You are oversimplifying in your imagination. There is more to it. Do you want to hit, even if you can, if it leaves you open to a counter? Do you want to hit, even if you can, if it puts you at risk?



He cannot control us while his structure is busted and should he recover he must interrupt our attack... When our attack is interrupted he is in our space... THAT is the flow..

Attack--Interrupt--Change--Attack


You are not going to break anyone's structure and keep it broken (unless it is a complete scrub) without attachment. That is simply very, very unlikely. Strikes alone simply won't do it in the great majority of cases.



See it's not just fighting good people with you, it's you have to do it my way.. Otherwise you're doing it wrong.. NOT! YOU got it wrong brother.


Your way is a fantasy. Go down to a MMA or MT gym and try what you are talking about -- I KNOW you haven't done. Because if you had, you'd know that you won't be able to break their structure and keep it broken by hitting, you'd know that you NEED to control on the inside, etc. That you haven't learned these lessons tells me you haven't done the work.

But, you can prove me wrong by just showing the world you can do what all fighters, including world-class MMA and MT fighters, can't do. You can show the world that while they are busy fighting for control on the inside, that you, Jim, know a better way. Go show them how they have it wrong.



You think you can whip everyone's else's butt who doesn't use your interpretation? Good luck with that.. You'd be desperately trying to get a take down and praying.


It's not MY interpretation -- this is the nature of fighting. You can see it in MMA, MT,etc. fights. On the inside, the name of the game is control. They have an approach to getting and using that control, WCK has a variation on that method, that's all.

Fighting is going to look like MMA.



Anyone can see that the majority of the techniques in VT do not "attach" in the conventional sense, in the sense of what grappler's do.. The techniques you see in VT are methods of removing obstructions; going around obstructions; and clearing away obstructions...


No, without control you won't have time to do that. WCK's tools are to control the opponent while striking him. They don't work, for the most part, when not in contact/attached.



In none of the above do we see "attachment" in the sense of grappling because all those moves/techniques are all changes, meaning they don't stay for more than a moment and they only assist the striking. When there is no need to clear a path, when there is no need to open a path, IOW a path exists we simply use that path..


Your focus is on getting a path to hit and you don't get that hitting can -- and often is -- the wrong thing to do on the inside. Hitting will leave you exposed to all kinds of nastiness. You seem to think that your hands are made of granite and that one hit will dispatch your opponent. That won't happen. Hitting on the inside NEEDS to be very, very judicious and linked to your control. This is what the kuit talks about with mo kuen da (no random hitting).



Moreover, the strikes which you admit do break structure also don't attach which you say you must do to break structure.. (see how your half pregnant on this one?) This is yet another major brain f art on your part which tells me you need more shock therapy..

Your theory is flawed and conflicted..


Strikes do attach. The kuit tells us Chut Kuen Mo Fan Lai - When the fist goes out, it does not return. Moreover, the "original" forms closed each section not with a huen sao (a Ng Chung So-Yip Man signature) but with a lop sao (grabbing hand). So, for example, you would punch then lop.



You also dismiss and deny other core system tactics.. However since you can only tell the theory and not show it there is nothing of any substance, there is no evidence that you do VT.. For the most part you and your group are the only ones who think you're doing VT to be honest..


Your "core tactics" are VT's core fantasy. The method comes from our ancestors -- I didn't make it up. The method (faat), the kuit, etc. all directly illustrate it. The general sequence of the method itself is in the forms. WCK's signature drill/exercise is an attached drill for Christ's sake. Only a blind man couldn't see it when it is pointed out.



You could prove it by simply showing it.. But I know you can't do that because then your theory and your colorful interpretation of the "faat" with MMA moves built into it would be seen for what it ISN'T----VT.

You can look at any good fight (MMA or MT) and see what happens on the inside, and you'll see that control is the name of the game.

Do you even know what the WCK faat is? Do you know why "dap" (ride/join) is the first of the faat, why jeet(cut-off the opponent's offense) is the second? Do you know why the kuit tells us Yau Kiu Gor Kiu - If there is a bridge, then cross it, and Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one? Would you like to tell us why it makes sense to have as your signature drill one where you are attached to your opponent to learn how to fight at noncontact, when not attached? How about explaining why the WCK movements, tan, bong, fook, etc. are labeled by our ancestors as bridgehands (tan kiu sao, bong kiu sao, etc.) and not blocks or parries? I could go on and on.

You should have taken Robert up on his offer. You might learn something.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Anyone can see that the majority of the techniques in VT do not 'attach' in the conventional sense, in the sense of what grappler's do.. The techniques you see in VT are methods of removing obstructions; going around obstructions; and clearing away obstructions...

In none of the above do we see 'attachment' in the sense of grappling because all those moves/techniques are all changes, meaning they don't stay for more than a moment and they only assist the striking. When there is no need to clear a path, when there is no need to open a path, when a path exists we simply use that path..."

***CORRECT, YungChun....

And that should be the end of the debate about this. You should IGNORE any further attempts by someone who admittedly can't make basically every art he's ever studied work well...he's not expert on anything....and as your post indicates, this is yet another wing chun/ving tsun issue he just doesn't understand.

We're gonna have pages-and-pages of banter with the fool's lawyer once again?

What for?

[k gledhill]

I see you rational now...you would be led to think that because your strike goes out and doesnt come back it would then lop/control .

do you know the difference between using a jut sao or lop sao in a fight ?

the dynamics of each ?


and if you have done a lop sao action what then ?

[YungChun]

"Anyone can see that the majority of the techniques in VT do not 'attach' in the conventional sense, in the sense of what grappler's do.. The techniques you see in VT are methods of removing obstructions; going around obstructions; and clearing away obstructions...

In none of the above do we see 'attachment' in the sense of grappling because all those moves/techniques are all changes, meaning they don't stay for more than a moment and they only assist the striking. When there is no need to clear a path, when there is no need to open a path, when a path exists we simply use that path..."

***CORRECT, YungChun....

And that should be the end of the debate about this. You should IGNORE any further attempts by someone who admittedly can't make basically every art he's ever studied work well...he's not expert on anything....and as your post indicates, this is yet another wing chun/ving tsun issue he just doesn't understand.

We're gonna have page-and-pages of banter with the fool's lawyer once again?

What for?

I'm beginning to agree.. There is no point and he clearly doesn't get it, can't debate the specifics, except to make false statements and hold up what non VT does, and he can't show his MMA version of VT cause it isn't VT, says he's the only one who says he isn't good while at the same time essentially saying he is the best VT fighter here.. No point in continuing..

[LSWCTN1]

From in contact...

You can't have forward energy while intentionally moving backward...



b0llocks!

Chuck Liddel...

[t_niehoff]

I see you rational now...you would be led to think that because your strike goes out and doesnt come back it would then lop/control .

do you know the difference between using a jut sao or lop sao in a fight ?

the dynamics of each ?


and if you have done a lop sao action what then ?

Control doesn't necessarily involve grabbing (lop) -- but it does require an attachment, some solid contact from which to push, pull, etc.

Jut sao is "choking hand"; lop sao is "grabbing hand."

If I perform a lop sao or a jut sao it is to destroy my opponent's structure; what I do afterwards depends on what he does.

[t_niehoff]

I'm beginning to agree.. There is no point and he clearly doesn't get it, can't debate the specifics, except to make false statements and hold up what non VT does, and he can't show his MMA version of VT cause it isn't VT, says he's the only one who says he isn't good while at the same time essentially saying he is the best VT fighter here.. No point in continuing..

Oh, I get it . . . I was doing the same nonsense as you for years.

You have an "idea" -- a fantasy -- of how WCK should work. Go visit a good MMA or MT school and see if you can make your "idea" work. It won't. Will you do that, will you go and see? No. And THAT says it all. You're right -- there is no point continuing if you won't go see. Because you'll remain stuck in your fantasy bubble.

[YungChun]

Oh, I get it . . . I was doing the same nonsense as you for years.

You have an "idea" -- a fantasy -- of how WCK should work. Go visit a good MMA or MT school and see if you can make your "idea" work. It won't. Will you do that, will you go and see? No. And THAT says it all. You're right -- there is no point continuing if you won't go see. Because you'll remain stuck in your fantasy bubble.

Here's the deal..

There is no preponderance of evidence that proves your theory by any standard.. If it did then everyone would be heading out to either you or Robert for the "real VT"....

See with you T it's not just about training intensity, realistic training... it's about a particular interpretation of what VT is.. I say as do others that your interpretation is not what others call VT. Moreover you offer no proof that supports this claim.

Many here have sparred full contact..and in competition, including me. There are examples of VT in full contact on the web.. Most of them are not your version of VT.. Your version does not stand out..as the winning VT interpretation.. If it did then everyone and their brother would be doing it.

It's up to each person to find his own interpretation.. Your way is fine for you, but this business of saying anyone with real experience must see it your way is complete BS. Plus what you do, your interpretation of the art is described in negatives..you don't attempt to show different use of tools or techniques..

You just say what everyone else does is wrong (because they can't show it working) -- but your way is right, even though you can not offer any more substantive evidence that your interpretation is superior--let's see the video tape .

So since you can't meet your own standards of showing what does work, consistently working better I say you are FOS.:D:p

[duende]

See with you T it's not just about training intensity, realistic training... it's about a particular interpretation of what VT is.. I say as do others that your interpretation is not what others call VT. Moreover you offer no proof that supports this claim.

Many here have sparred full contact..and in competition, including me. There are examples of VT in full contact on the web.. Most of them are not your version of VT.. Your version does not stand out..as the winning VT interpretation.. If it did then everyone and their brother would be doing it.


Not trying to take sides here... And though I'm well aware of the redundancy of T's rants, I must say I disagree with the notion that the ideas and concepts T expressed in his prior post are particular to his version of VT. Of course his delivery method could be improved.. ;)


see below...




You can't do whatever you want on the inside -- just like you can't do whatever you want on the ground. The very first thing you NEED to deal with is what your opponent is doing. And, on the inside, just like on the ground, your opponent -- unless he is a complete scrub -- will be move to control you. You're not going to punch your way out of that, you're not going to be able to simply counter it (since he will then counter your counter), you've will NEED to control him first. Or, if he gets control, fight to regain control. Control is the name of the game on the inside (just like on the ground).

You believe in your fantasy view of fighting that you will on the insde and just be hitting. Wrong. Just like on the ground, the person in control will be hitting. The one not in control won't be in a position to hit.

ALL fighters recognize this. MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. When on the inside, you either get out (of the inside) or move to control.

WCK's method recognizes this and provides us with a general game plan, a step-by-step strategy, for dealing with this.


Agreed.

In regards to strategy, this is the expression of Chum Kiu (sinking/destroying the bridge).



No, the default method of WCK is to control in all cases. If you can hit and he can hit you, how is this to your advantage? If I control him, I can hit him and he can't hit me. That is to my advantage. Not only that, but if I control him he can't take me down, he can't shoot, etc. Control is what takes away his offense.

You are oversimplifying in your imagination. There is more to it. Do you want to hit, even if you can, if it leaves you open to a counter? Do you want to hit, even if you can, if it puts you at risk?


Agreed. Without control it often becomes LOOPING with no leverage or positional advantage. A characteristic unfortunately emphasized in much of the Chi Sau you see now a days.




You are not going to break anyone's structure and keep it broken (unless it is a complete scrub) without attachment. That is simply very, very unlikely. Strikes alone simply won't do it in the great majority of cases.

Your way is a fantasy. Go down to a MMA or MT gym and try what you are talking about -- I KNOW you haven't done. Because if you had, you'd know that you won't be able to break their structure and keep it broken by hitting, you'd know that you NEED to control on the inside, etc. That you haven't learned these lessons tells me you haven't done the work.

But, you can prove me wrong by just showing the world you can do what all fighters, including world-class MMA and MT fighters, can't do. You can show the world that while they are busy fighting for control on the inside, that you, Jim, know a better way. Go show them how they have it wrong.


This is exactly why it's so important to develop WC core body mechanics. So that one has effective structure, leverage, and power generation capabilities under pressure.

Without it, you are going to be tossed aside or worse. Especially if your inside attack also has footwork that steps into your opponent's earth gate.

WC teaches us to control the moment. And thereby keeping our hands fluid and free to strike. Not completely committed and locked up. This is the knowledge of WC's bridging hand. Practicing variations of this concept is one of the purposes Chi Sau is for.




It's not MY interpretation -- this is the nature of fighting. You can see it in MMA, MT,etc. fights. On the inside, the name of the game is control. They have an approach to getting and using that control, WCK has a variation on that method, that's all.

Fighting is going to look like MMA.

No, without control you won't have time to do that. WCK's tools are to control the opponent while striking him. They don't work, for the most part, when not in contact/attached.

Your focus is on getting a path to hit and you don't get that hitting can -- and often is -- the wrong thing to do on the inside. Hitting will leave you exposed to all kinds of nastiness. You seem to think that your hands are made of granite and that one hit will dispatch your opponent. That won't happen. Hitting on the inside NEEDS to be very, very judicious and linked to your control. This is what the kuit talks about with mo kuen da (no random hitting).


Translation: If you hit when it's the wrong time to hit, you are going to get hit.



Strikes do attach. The kuit tells us Chut Kuen Mo Fan Lai - When the fist goes out, it does not return. Moreover, the "original" forms closed each section not with a huen sao (a Ng Chung So-Yip Man signature) but with a lop sao (grabbing hand). So, for example, you would punch then lop.


Interesting. Not to get into a debate about "orginal" this or that. That's not my interest here. But the first section of our SLT emphasizes exactly this. When the fist goes out, it does not return empty handed. And btw, the punch in our SLT does not finish with a Huen Sau.




The method comes from our ancestors -- I didn't make it up. The method (faat), the kuit, etc. all directly illustrate it. The general sequence of the method itself is in the forms. WCK's signature drill/exercise is an attached drill for Christ's sake. Only a blind man couldn't see it when it is pointed out.

You can look at any good fight (MMA or MT) and see what happens on the inside, and you'll see that control is the name of the game.

Do you even know what the WCK faat is? Do you know why "dap" (ride/join) is the first of the faat, why jeet(cut-off the opponent's offense) is the second? Do you know why the kuit tells us Yau Kiu Gor Kiu - If there is a bridge, then cross it, and Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one? Would you like to tell us why it makes sense to have as your signature drill one where you are attached to your opponent to learn how to fight at noncontact, when not attached? How about explaining why the WCK movements, tan, bong, fook, etc. are labeled by our ancestors as bridgehands (tan kiu sao, bong kiu sao, etc.) and not blocks or parries? I could go on and on.


Nice post T.

Without a bridge, you are essentially in what we call a "Lucky Strike timeframe" it will only work against an inexperienced fighter, or an experienced fighter if you are "Lucky".

All of the core knowledge in WC is to bridge and use that bridge to control and influence your opponent. This done via positioning, occupation/
domination of space, and neutralization or crashing of energy.

[YungChun]

Not trying to take sides here... And though I'm well aware of the redundancy of T's rants, I must say I disagree with the notion that the ideas and concepts T expressed in his prior post are particular to his version of VT. .

You're agreeing with generic points (ideas that mean different things to different people) and a mis-characterization of my position..

If you understand the actual differences between, for example what Gary Lam does, what Kevin does and what I do Vs what T advocates then you understand the point.

Note--they are drastically different..or at least seem to be since we cannot see what T actually does...



WC teaches us to control the moment. And thereby keeping our hands fluid and free to strike. Not completely committed and locked up. This is the knowledge of WC's bridging hand. Practicing variations of this concept is one of the purposes Chi Sau is for.


This is exactly where T gets off the boat...and the main point of contention. You seem to agree first and then disagree on this point.

[duende]

You're agreeing with generic points (ideas that mean different things to different people) and a mis-characterization of my position..

If you understand the actual differences between, for example what Gary Lam does, what Kevin does and what I do Vs what T advocates then you understand the point.

Note--they are drastically different..or at least seem to be since we cannot see what T actually does...



Hey Jim,

I believe in controlling the bridge upon contact. To often, I see "examples" of controlling the bridge, when in fact it is actually, running away from the energy, or compromising one's own space and range/positioning safety belt.

This is MY pov, based on my own experiences. It has nothing to do with supporting one's opinion over another's.



This is exactly where T gets off the boat...and the main point of contention. You seem to agree first and then disagree on this point.

This is my experience based on what I've learned in WC, placed in the context of outside interaction with other MA's.

I'm not concerned with points of contention or boats for that matter. I'm actually trying my best to avoid that.

I'm only sharing what I've learned as an individual. If by some chance T and I agree, or at least appear to agree as far as the context of writing on a forum is concerned... then so be it.

We all will agree sooner or later in certain areas. Heck, we all are practicing WC aren't we. :eek: :)

Best to you, and good training to all.

[YungChun]

Hey Jim,

I believe in controlling the bridge upon contact. To often, I see "examples" of controlling the bridge, when in fact it is actually, running away from the energy, or compromising one's own space and range/positioning safety belt.


If their energy leaves the line then to follow is an error..

No idea which way you go because you agreed with both POV..



Agreed. Without control it often becomes LOOPING with no leverage or positional advantage. A characteristic unfortunately emphasized in much of the Chi Sau you see now a days.


V



WC teaches us to control the moment. And thereby keeping our hands fluid and free to strike. Not completely committed and locked up. This is the knowledge of WC's bridging hand. Practicing variations of this concept is one of the purposes Chi Sau is for.


You're all over the map. Have you read the posts leading up to this point here and elsewhere???

VT does not "attach" as grapplers do.. All contact and energy issuing is transitional.

VT does not "clinch"... VT is not "dirty clinch fighting"...

[duende]

If their energy leaves the line then to follow is an error..



This is too simplistic of a statement imo. If there energy leaves the line, then of course you strike the most direct and shortest distance between two spaces.

But if time is not on your side. Meaning that you are not in a structural and position place of advantage.. meaning that the energy of the bridge has not been destroyed or neutralized... then just rushing in could get you in deep trouble. And in fact you might be just trading punches.

I'm not advocating chasing hands.. but one has to be aware of your opponents COG and energy intent. Hand's are only one part of that equation.



No idea which way you go because you agreed with both POV..


What I wrote may seem in conflict due to your interpretation based on your own experiences, when actually it is not. This is the shortcomings of trying to communicate solely with the written word.



You're all over the map. Have you read the posts leading up to this point here and elsewhere???

VT does not "attach" as grapplers do.. All contact and energy issuing is transitional.

VT does not "clinch"... VT is not "dirty clinch fighting"...



Now you are just trying to put words in my mouth. Read my posts again. Just because I know the importance of controlling the bridge, does not mean I support clinching or locking up.

[YungChun]

This is too simplistic of a statement imo. If there energy leaves the line, then of course you strike the most direct and shortest distance between two spaces.


Great, fine... T does not appear to agree here..


Again..

If you think VT clinches and is some kind of dirty clinch fighting then you agree with T..

I do not agree that this is the method of the art.

But I don't care what anyone does, or wants to do btw..

However, to say that his way is the only legitimate way (because if you fought you'd know better) is a load of BS...

And THAT is the point!

[YungChun]

Now you are just trying to put words in my mouth. Read my posts again. Just because I know the importance of controlling the bridge, does not mean I support clinching or locking up.


No, I am showing you the words that come out of T's mouth..

[duende]

Great, fine... T does not appear to agree here..


Again..

If you think VT clinches and is some kind of dirty clinch fighting then you agree with T..

I do not agree that this is the method of the art.

But I don't care what anyone does, or wants to do btw..

However, to say that his way is the only legitimate way (because if you fought you'd know better) is a load of BS...

And THAT is the point!

Hey.. just because I agreed with some of the WC concepts T pointed out does not mean that I agree that his way is the only legitimate way.

Controlling/destroying the bridge does NOT only translate into "dirty clinch fighting".

This is why we train Kiu Sau (structure bridging) for in our system. There is also striking point control/destruction etc.. etc... And God forbid... yes... we even have a few grapples in our system too. :eek:

But they are all used to control the bridge, not lock-up.

[JPinAZ]

I believe in controlling the bridge upon contact. To often, I see "examples" of controlling the bridge, when in fact it is actually, running away from the energy, or compromising one's own space and range/positioning safety belt.


This is a very good point.

Here is another video clip I think illustrates this point (see opening first couple engagements):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWYQxEDNIx8&feature=email

IMO, this clip shows someone that isn't 'controlling the bridge' and is essentially running away from the energy and compromising one's space and range, and I would venture to add facing as well.

[LoneTiger108]

This is a very good point.

Here is another video clip I think illustrates this point (see opening first couple engagements):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWYQxEDNIx8&feature=email

IMO, this clip shows someone that isn't 'controlling the bridge' and is essentially running away from the energy and compromising one's space and range, and I would venture to add facing as well.

IMHO This clip isn't 'trying' to show bridge control, but more bride positioning using mun sau while moving to joy yin and making sure the contact point is on or behind the elbow (he even demos what would happen if he contacted the forearm instead)

FME Sifu Kwok has always come across as a very eager practitioner and humble towards his elders and Ip family. He has done more for the promotion of Wing Chun in the UK than many can claim.

[duende]

IMHO This clip isn't 'trying' to show bridge control, but more bride positioning using mun sau while moving to joy yin and making sure the contact point is on or behind the elbow (he even demos what would happen if he contacted the forearm instead)

FME Sifu Kwok has always come across as a very eager practitioner and humble towards his elders and Ip family. He has done more for the promotion of Wing Chun in the UK than many can claim.

It's easy to take video's out of context and tear them apart... so I didn't watch the vid.

However, I will say that in my experience... if you don't have bridge control or destruction... there is no Jeui Ying.

[JPinAZ]

The first sentence I quoted from Duende said "I believe in controlling the bridge upon contact. " I do as well, or at least directly after immediate contact. This was part of what I thought was a 'very good point'.


IMHO This clip isn't 'trying' to show bridge control, but more bride positioning using mun sau while moving to joy yin and making sure the contact point is on or behind the elbow (he even demos what would happen if he contacted the forearm instead)

If this clip isn't intending to show bridge control, then IMO, my analysis still stands. Why create a bridge if you don't intend to do anything with it? IMO, the point of contact doesn't mean much if you aren't effecting your opponent. (fwiw, I did see some other clips of GM Kwoks where he does a better job of this)

If you are stepping out of the line of fire before you even have bridge contact, you are running away from the energy as well as giving up space and compromising your range and facing. You give your opponent space and timing to further his attack. I think our ideas of jeui ying may be different, because ideas of facing, range and contact control are key to this concept.


FME Sifu Kwok has always come across as a very eager practitioner and humble towards his elders and Ip family. He has done more for the promotion of Wing Chun in the UK than many can claim.

I don't doubt that Sifu Kwok has done a lot for promotion of WC. And I mean no slight on his character. He's probably a great guy and I wasn't passing any judgement on him. Was just using the clip to clarify a point.

[YungChun]

If you are stepping out of the line of fire before you even have bridge contact, you are running away from the energy as well as giving up space and compromising your range and facing. You give your opponent space and timing to further his attack. I think our ideas of jeui ying may be different, because ideas of facing, range and contact control are key to this concept.


That is on the outside and not what was addressed.. In any case the example in the video is unrealistic. Good old Sam ain't gonna pull that one off in fighting..

Moreover, if on the outside you are saying that one shouldn't "move the line" by angling and instead just hold ground then I am not going to agree.. It is far better to make a small flank (angle) and attack the line. Then, depending on what happens you may well have a bridge then, a real one.

Anyone thinking they are going to "block (passive) first" stick or grab (pluck) that hand out of the air, etc, is thinking behind the timing and shows IMO a lack of free form contact work.

[k gledhill]

Control doesn't necessarily involve grabbing (lop) -- but it does require an attachment, some solid contact from which to push, pull, etc.

Jut sao is "choking hand"; lop sao is "grabbing hand."

If I perform a lop sao or a jut sao it is to destroy my opponent's structure; what I do afterwards depends on what he does.

choking hand ? please you've got to elaborate for us , what are you choking ?

[YungChun]

choking hand ? please you've got to elaborate for us , what are you choking ?

LOL... Are you sure you want to know??? :D

[chusauli]

Chickens? Monkeys?

[duende]

LOL... Are you sure you want to know??? :D

Especially with all this talk about "sticky hands"!

[k gledhill]

LOL... Are you sure you want to know??? :D

we'll know if he owns up to using a braille keyboard :D too funny Terence and his choking hand :D:D:D

[shawchemical]

Oh, I get it . . . I was doing the same nonsense as you for years.

You have an "idea" -- a fantasy -- of how WCK should work. Go visit a good MMA or MT school and see if you can make your "idea" work. It won't. Will you do that, will you go and see? No. And THAT says it all. You're right -- there is no point continuing if you won't go see. Because you'll remain stuck in your fantasy bubble.

The fact that <b>YOU</b> didn't make it work doesn't mean that it doesn't work. It simply means you didn't understand it properly, or you weren't dedicated enough to the idea to play with it to make it work. It's not an idea, it's reality. Sad that you can't see that the problem lies with you, and not the system.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You shouldn't always try to go forward...

Sometimes it's better to let them think they've got you on the run...

Yeah, baby...............;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IFFqs051ro&playnext_from=TL&videos=MfZBGEbZo0Y&feature=grec

[Niersun]

Check this out beginning at about 1:15...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCWkYirewU&playnext_from=TL&videos=cgl1Qf8oSBo&feature=grec


And then, on the same vid, there's the Butterfly Swords, beginning around 2:00 - having really very little to do with the thread topic...but still cool to watch.

Always move forward is a myth.

The vid is ONLY a demonstration for starters.

But the best way not to get hit, is to be out of your opponents range, so retreating isnt that bad, especially if you have good footwork to get back in and bride the gap.

Though we are taught to side step in TWC, sometimes there isnt enough time, because of the distance, therefore a few rear steps and then a side step.

Most NON TWC guys emphasize continue moving forward because this is a theory of fighting for smaller sized people, hog the centre and keep the pressure forward on your opponent, thus matching and reducing their power. E.g. The power of a strike is at its end not it the middle.

TWC can move backwards because we have the footwork to move forward quickly, though it isnt taught that way. I think everyone should train their own footwork, because its is only you who knows your distance.