Wing Chun is not "attached" fighting

[Ultimatewingchun]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

[k gledhill]

agree, subtle differences in training focus, but HUGE variation in end result ...one being a fighter who has highly mobile, aggressive, tactical assault or Ter's way, "the way of the chortle,chortle, "choking hand" , chortle !":D

[YouKnowWho]

I don't know which way is better:

- Punch on your opponent's face multiple times, or
- Pull your opponent in toward you and punch him once on his face.

Both machine gun and grenade all have their place in battle field.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I wouldn't expect to see too many one punch knockouts as you' re pulling someone into you with the other hand.

A one punch knockout is almost always a big bomb of a punch.

[YouKnowWho]

The head on collosion (3 + 2 = 5) always cause more damage than the rear end collosion (3 - 2 = 1).

[Liddel]

My fighting behaviour depends on my opponent but i will say for an art that spends so much time on contact drills it would be misleading to say that "Wing Chun is NOT attactched fighting" as much as it would be wrong to say that its "ONLY attached fighting"

Sticking/ attatchment/ contact ,however one puts it is only a means to an end.

I see exactly where your comming from with this but your running a fine line.

I chase the body (with punches) contact with the hands just seem to be a natural progression when i do this. If i fight a guy that i can controll only with punches then i dont force sticking actions, but the reality of fighting is that its going to happen 9.9 times out of 10.

The most common occurance in my sparring is i attack the head my opponent covers and retaliates and i have to deal with slipping trapping evading an attack to fire off my own.

Being attatched is just a natural bi product of my VT attacking stlye.

I will also say that i use the running punch as a contact attached method also in that the lowering retreating hand after landing is a means of pressing /clearing/ blocking my opponenets ability to cover and or use his hands to hit me back.

Thats my take Vic. :)

DREW

[Ultimatewingchun]

Alright, Drew...

Now this is where the rubber will probably hit the road on this thread.

Here's what I believe about wing chun: it's about hitting, and not "attachment" (other than momentary)...as I said on the first post.

But you pointed out something very pertinent when you said:

"If i fight a guy that i can controll only with punches then i dont force sticking actions, but the reality of fighting is that its going to happen 9.9 times out of 10.

The most common occurance in my sparring is i attack the head my opponent covers and retaliates and i have to deal with slipping trapping evading an attack to fire off my own.

Being attached is just a natural bi product of my VT attacking stlye."
................................

***AND IN MY OPINION, DREW... what you RIGHTFULLY describe as "the reality of fighting" is where wing chun ENDS and something else begins.

In other words, wing chun - pure and simple - and regardless of lineage...is about hitting, but when the reality of fighting kicks in...

and punching, angling, cutting, checking, etc. meets a skilled fighter who covers well - or perhaps a fighter who goes into an "attached" form of fighting of his own other than wing chun, like wrestling, grappling, etc...

now you MAY have to fight in an "attached" manner...but if so, you're no longer doing wing chun pure and simple...you're engaging in either some form of wrestling/grappling - or some hybrid (crosstrained) mix of wing chun with other arts.

Which is fine, but it's no longer wing chun by itself.

Let's just call it as it is. (As I said on a different thread, for example...a guillotine is a guillotine - and not something that I learned from bil jee).

Sure wing chun will often block, check, parry, redirect...even the occasional simultaneous (or near simultaneous) block and strike (lin sil die dar)...But wing chun, by itself, does not "chase" hands in order to "attach"...like some sort of "striking with grappling" system.

It's about HITTING the opponent until he's either down or out - with multiple punches....and all other limb-to-limb contact is there to serve that end by some sort of very momentary checking, pinning, lop, pak, gum, lan, tan, etc.

BECAUSE WING CHUN IS A STRIKING SYSTEM, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Now I know that there are people around here who may disagree with me about the need to crosstrain - because I believe wing chun is simply very close quarter striking, and very little else...and real fighting will often require more than what's in that tool box...

but as far as wing chun goes - pure and simple...I think that most of those same people and I can easily agree.

IT'S ABOUT HITTING, period.

[Phil Redmond]

The test is fighting against people outside of your comfort zone. :)

[YungChun]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

Good stuff!

And this..



And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Bang on again..

And something T uses to show why *temporary* breaking of structure with striking is insufficient, when in fact the "checking" (actual VT "attachment") unbalance is just as temporary. But there is also the advanced leg work, this can "in theory" "control" as well..

Truly VT does not "attach" with the exception of T's favorite Jong move, perhaps his main tool along with the MMA stuff..



now you MAY have to fight in an "attached" manner...but if so, you're no longer doing wing chun pure and simple...you're engaging in either some form of wrestling/grappling - or some hybrid (crosstrained) mix of wing chun with other arts.


Exactly..

Of course it depends on exactly what is meant by "attached".. Generally moves that lock up, prevent natural (economical) transition to continuous striking is outside the realm of VT.



Let's just call it as it is. (As I said on a different thread, for example...a guillotine is a guillotine - and not something that I learned from bil jee).

Agreed.....



Sure wing chun will often block, check, parry, redirect...even the occasional simultaneous (or near simultaneous) block and strike (lin sil die dar)...But wing chun, by itself, does not "chase" hands in order to "attach"...like some sort of "striking with grappling" system.

Agreed and yet T says he does not chase hands, but by the standard definition it seems unlikely that he doesn't.

Reaching for "attachment" or reaching for a "trap" or reaching for a whatever IF it means you are not using that time to strike or attempt a strike means a lost beat in VT.. Also if the attachment means you have now trapped that hand you have also lost a beat.

The more they get in our way, the more "attachment" there will be..

Now, what the hell does ATTACHED mean? In VT there is precious little sustained sticking or attaching.. There are times when this could happen but then it's because they are/were fighting for the line, interrupting our attack and then still each move only stays for a moment. Sustained energy issuing could result from *hand replacement* but even then it is a string of multiple short controls not a sustained attachment..

If you are attached to their bridge and they leave the line AND you remain attached as they leave the line you are taking that arm/weapon out of the fight.. This is why VT lets them go and instead of chasing fires the weapon.. Not chasing hands is where many chances to use their force against them comes in.. If you need *sustained* control then a smaller person will have even more trouble because sustained control and momentary control are two different animals, sustained requires more energy and power, VT is about less energy, more economy.

In their attempt to interrupt the attack they will leave the line, this offers an opportunity for position and attack to win over strength and speed. Not to say you might not use some move or tactic once inside to hold and hit them but it is the exception rather than the rule. VT wants to move on to the next strike, to the next finishing move, to the next threat..

In most cases the movements of VT are intended to keep the flow of attack landing on their head.. And doing so in most cases will serve nicely to control them as blast after blast lands on their face/head... And of course there are other attacks and controls that can happen down below with the legs while you keep the attack coming upstairs..

IMO T thinks the strikes have little power because he is trying to pin their bridge with his elbow while hitting with that same arm, and/or his mechanics bite..

It's--The attacking hand defends NOT the controlling hand defends..

[k gledhill]

agree again, SLT starts with a striking line made a certain way to further a technique, then we make strikes with either arm along this line made for reference before each form.

drilling starts with learning basic striking methods tan & jum

many start the basic striking drills as an attached rolling , feeling drill , being led into another way of thinking...attachment.

then take this attached idea to double attached arms feeling, rolling, rather than developing the stability of the stances in motion fighting , with lat sao chit chung developed as well as ambidextrous facing ability. We develop ambidextrous timing for strikes and parry in 1 beat strike/deflections, pak da, jut da, gum da, bong jut , bong lop, bong pak, outside pak inside pak....simply using each other for target practice, timing and ambidexterity ....not to use as the 'way' to sparring /fighting. Fighting is not to be attached , facing squarely in the basic stance ....

We want to try to turn the opponent, this can be achieved several ways.

imagine a flowing torrent of water aimed at you as you tried to move out of its way....this is what you should feel like when having vT come at you....not a hands on standing grapple or hands on shoving sumoesque stuff. A lot of this is from simple lack of focus on striking attacks or how to MAINTAIN striking attacks beyond chain punch lead leg bs...

Many grapple/grab simply to try to stop the other guy hitting them :D Ive had guys do that in chi-sao when they couldnt stop me landing hits [controlled] so they do what they have to. They cover up, this is what po-pi shoves are for..to shove with just enough force to put them into your striking range ideally, or down a flight of stairs :)
...

on the flip side having done the attached method too... from another teacher. When you feel the striking attack compared to the 'attached' way. you know which you would prefer to fight :D attached is slow and easily thwarted because you can lead the arms like a donkey to carrot, here donkey donkey ...hand for you to attach to, then its gone, and now the hand is over here...now here...they want to touch your hands first. So naturally will use what ? hands first...
As opposed to developed striking techniques that allow deflection as you strike the head
with out sacrificing the hands as you attack...because you made the forearms be the second set of hands, unseen by the opponent, all developed by controlling the angles and positions of the ELBOWS, SLT is ELBOWS...it looks like we are delivering simple strikes to the onlooker, but the recipient feels overwhelmed and controlled AS THEY are hit...and im not talking about a chain punch attack with lead leg kamikaze style either.

very subtle but has to be felt , words dont convey the idea as well as experiencing it.

[YungChun]

imagine a flowing torrent of water aimed at you as you tried to move out of its way....this is what you should feel like when having vT come at you....


This is a good way of seeing the tactical idea on many levels.. I say like the power of a high pressure fire hose..

I always used this as a "direction" in training and fighting with VT along with the other elements of the art. There's more to it but this gets to the thrust of the idea.. :)

[LSWCTN1]

IMHO

we train to do a higher percentage of fighting attached for a reason.

of course timing, speed and power can all be trained, but in terms of producing a % of people that can perform all three of the effortlessly we still lag a long way behind many other combat arts, especially boxing.

therefore staying attached is our forte, and we use it do receive the attacks from an opponent and to deliver our own.

you dont necessarily always need to be stuck to do so i guess, a bit like this short discussion between T and I
http://martial.securesites.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1006432&postcount=242

for example, 4/6 of class time at my school is sticky, the rest is gor sau.

i dont mean chi sau, i mean learning to receive and retain

[YungChun]

IMHO

we train to do a higher percentage of fighting attached for a reason.

of course timing, speed and power can all be trained, but in terms of producing a % of people that can perform all three of the effortlessly we still lag a long way behind many other combat arts, especially boxing.

therefore staying attached is our forte, and we use it do receive the attacks from an opponent and to deliver our own.

you dont necessarily always need to be stuck to do so i guess, a bit like this short discussion between T and I
http://martial.securesites.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1006432&postcount=242

for example, 4/6 of class time at my school is sticky, the rest is gor sau.

i dont mean chi sau, i mean learning to receive and retain

Hard to know what you are actually addressing, lots of vague generalities here.

Got video? :)

[HumbleWCGuy]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

I believe that attaching as in grappling systems such as Muay Thai, wrestling, and Judo is a logical extension of WC principles especially for larger fighters. I believe that WC is at its best when these techniques are employed.

However, I agree with your general premise that WC isn't attached fighting. I don't think that referring to WC as attached fighting really represents what the art is even with the narrowest definition. I also am uncomfortable with the notion that trapping has come to represent what WC is to a lot of laymen. To me, WC is an art of kicking and punching like any other upright art with a few tweaks that give it a unique flavor.

[t_niehoff]

...it's about hitting the opponent.


Victor, I am sorry that you never learned the WCK method (faat) or kuit.

Of course we want to hit -- but even more important than hitting is NOT BEING HIT. WCK provides us a METHOD (faat) for being able to hit while not being hit. And that is to control the opponent while you strike him.



And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.


What do you think your opponent will be doing while you try to strike him multiple times? Just twiddling his thumbs? No, he will be either hitting you back or moving to control you. This is what happens when you fight.



And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.


If you are not controlling an opponent then he is free to move -- and so you will need to deal with his offensive action. If you control him, we will not be free to move, and will need to first get out of your control to make an offensive action.

The method comes from the ancestors -- dap (join/ride) is the first of the method. Our signature drill/exercise is a contact/attached drill. Why have a contact/attached drill to only deal with "momentary" contact?



And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

You are doing what I call WCK kickboxing -- using a kickboxing "structure" to apply your WCK tools. That doesn't work, and it isn't WCK's method or "structure". The method (faat) is basic level WCK, it is the organizing principle of everything in WCK, it is the map of how you put the pieces of the puzzle together. You seem to be missing some very large parts of the WCK curriculum.

[t_niehoff]

The test is fighting against people outside of your comfort zone. :)

Absolutely. In fact, I think you need to get out of your comfort zone regularly. If you are comfortable, that's the cue to move on.

I keep telling people like Victor to go down to Renzo's or Chim Chim's or The Wat -- places that train good fighters -- and see for themselves. But, they never do.

[CFT]

Control/attachment - can it be considered an aspect/expression of "loy lau hui sung"?

[t_niehoff]

Control/attachment - can it be considered an aspect/expression of "loy lau hui sung"?

Actually the other way round (the kuit is an expression of what you need to do to control).

It makes absolutely no sense to "stay/remain" as he comes in noncontact, outside fighting. But when you are attached, you NEED to do that. You can't "escort him" in noncontact, but when attached, you can (by adding on to his movement).

[LSWCTN1]

Hard to know what you are actually addressing, lots of vague generalities here.

Got video? :)

i havent, i doubt that i would be a good representation.

this should be a good representation. i'm at work so cant be sure that its the right one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5QLTLN-NaU

[sanjuro_ronin]

I hate bridges...
;)
Maybe it is too much left over from boxing and judo, but whne I think striking I think taking the guy out before he has a chance to get "attached" and when I think "attached" I think throw and submit.

[HumbleWCGuy]

You are doing what I call WCK kickboxing -- using a kickboxing "structure" to apply your WCK tools. That doesn't work, and it isn't WCK's method or "structure". The method (faat) is basic level WCK, it is the organizing principle of everything in WCK, it is the map of how you put the pieces of the puzzle together. You seem to be missing some very large parts of the WCK curriculum.

Any legitimate WC will have that element to it. By your definition, you accept that WC has no vehicle by which to establish a bridge against a modern fighter. I am sorry, but that is just not the case. If you believe that the whole of WC is attached fighting that can demonstrated chi sao, You should spend some time at other WC schools.

[t_niehoff]

I hate bridges...
;)
Maybe it is too much left over from boxing and judo, but whne I think striking I think taking the guy out before he has a chance to get "attached" and when I think "attached" I think throw and submit.

There are various ways of attaching to an opponent, and they lend themselves to different things. WCK's approach is more like dirty clinch boxing, or standing ground and pound.

A "bridge" is a term describing a solid connection to your opponent. You use that connection to control him.

In boxing it is almost impossible to stop your opponent from clinching with you. That's why refs need to keep breaking boxers apart (the rules don't permit attached striking - holding and hitting). In fact, in one of Tyson's early fights his opponent was DQ'ed because all he did was keep clinching Tyson to stop from getting hit.

Muay thai's method also involves controlling while striking.

[t_niehoff]

Any legitimate WC will have that element to it. By your definition, you accept that WC has no vehicle by which to establish a bridge against a modern fighter. I am sorry, but that is just not the case. If you believe that the whole of WC is attached fighting that can demonstrated chi sao, You should spend some time at other WC schools.

I've seen lots and lots of WCK (schools, etc.) and 99% of it is nonsense. You're right though -- most WCK people never learn the method and so try to stick their WCK tools on to the only structure they know - boxing/kickboxing. That's a mistake. This is why they look like WCK when they do chi sao (which is attached) and then all their WCK movement goes out the window when they "spar" (which they do unattached).

WCK provides the tools (movement, tactics, etc.) to "establish a bridge" -- just that WCK's method isn't like kickboxing/boxing.

You need to have WCK body structure (which is structure that permits you to fight while attached) BEFORE attachment. In that way, when you attach/make contact, you are already prepared. Boxing/kickboxing structure isn't FOR and doesn't work in attached/contact fighting.

The WCK method is in a nutshell to clinch (the WCK clinch), control, all the while striking your opponent. It provides the tools to do that. Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise that permits you to learn and practice those tools -- but not in the way you will really need to use them.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are various ways of attaching to an opponent, and they lend themselves to different things. WCK's approach is more like dirty clinch boxing, or standing ground and pound.

A "bridge" is a term describing a solid connection to your opponent. You use that connection to control him.

In boxing it is almost impossible to stop your opponent from clinching with you. That's why refs need to keep breaking boxers apart (the rules don't permit attached striking - holding and hitting). In fact, in one of Tyson's early fights his opponent was DQ'ed because all he did was keep clinching Tyson to stop from getting hit.

Muay thai's method also involves controlling while striking.

Maybe it's the judo background but, when I clinch, I think throw and follow up, not clinch hitting, at least not that much anyways.
I have used "clinch work" to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always "secondary" to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the "hit in the clinch mode" because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I've seen lots and lots of WCK (schools, etc.) and 99% of it is nonsense. You're right though -- most WCK people never learn the method and so try to stick their WCK tools on to the only structure they know - boxing/kickboxing. That's a mistake. This is why they look like WCK when they do chi sao (which is attached) and then all their WCK movement goes out the window when they "spar" (which they do unattached).

WCK provides the tools (movement, tactics, etc.) to "establish a bridge" -- just that WCK's method isn't like kickboxing/boxing.

You need to have WCK body structure (which is structure that permits you to fight while attached) BEFORE attachment. In that way, when you attach/make contact, you are already prepared. Boxing/kickboxing structure isn't FOR and doesn't work in attached/contact fighting.

The WCK method is in a nutshell to clinch (the WCK clinch), control, all the while striking your opponent. It provides the tools to do that. Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise that permits you to learn and practice those tools -- but not in the way you will really need to use them.

Then explain to us how wing Chun is supposed to work.

[Ultimatewingchun]

“I believe that attaching as in grappling systems such as Muay Thai, wrestling, and Judo is a logical extension of WC principles especially for larger fighters. I believe that WC is at its best when these techniques are employed.

However, I agree with your general premise that WC isn't attached fighting. I don't think that referring to WC as attached fighting really represents what the art is even with the narrowest definition. I also am uncomfortable with the notion that trapping has come to represent what WC is to a lot of laymen. To me, WC is an art of kicking and punching like any other upright art with a few tweaks that give it a unique flavor.” (HumbeWCguy)

***EXACTLY. There is no such thing as a wing chun “clinch”, for example. It’s just not in the system, whatever the lineage. And yes, the Muay Thai clinch, wrestling, and judo are (can easily) be logical extensions of the wing chun idea about close quarter hitting. And the tools are already there for a hybrid marriage, ie.- what’s learned in chi sao.
……………………………………


“I hate bridges...
;)
Maybe it is too much left over from boxing and judo, but when I think striking I think taking the guy out before he has a chance to get ‘attached’ and when I think ‘attached’ I think throw and submit. (sanjuro/Paul)

***SEE the above response to HumbleWCguy, Paul. Some of what one learns in pummeling within wrestling/grappling is not that far away from some of what is learned in chi sao – except that some close quarter striking (vertical fists/ palms, etc.) can be thrown in…along with elbow strikes (and of course Muay Thai uses elbows in close quarters also). As for knee shots from some sort of clinch mode, generally they can only be safely done when you've got some balance/structure control on the guy - otherwise you are open to be thrown/taken down.

So with that said, I can appreciate this other piece you wrote, Paul:

"I have used 'clinch work' to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always 'secondary' to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the 'hit in the clinch mode' because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing."
.........................

***I THINK that YungChun/Jim put it well when he wrote this:

"Of course it depends on exactly what is meant by 'attached'...Generally moves that lock up, prevent natural (economical) transition to continuous striking are outside the realm of VT...

Now, what the hell does ATTACHED mean? In VT there is precious little sustained sticking or attaching.. There are times when this could happen but then it's because they are/were fighting for the line, interrupting our attack and then still each move only stays for a moment. Sustained energy issuing could result from *hand replacement* but even then it is a string of multiple short controls not a sustained attachment."

[t_niehoff]

Then explain to us how wing Chun is supposed to work.

The WCK faat describes what we are trying to do -- which, in a nutshell, is to control the opponent while striking him. That's how WCK is "supposed to work."

[t_niehoff]

Maybe it's the judo background but, when I clinch, I think throw and follow up, not clinch hitting, at least not that much anyways.
I have used "clinch work" to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always "secondary" to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the "hit in the clinch mode" because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing.

When you get on the inside, it invariably leads to a clinch. And when you are in a clinch, you can essentially do two things: put your opponent on the ground (throw/takedown) or control while striking. WCK's method provides an organized strategic approach to dealing with this. There are other approaches, equally valid, equally good.

[SAAMAG]

When you get on the inside, it invariably leads to a clinch. And when you are in a clinch, you can essentially do two things: put your opponent on the ground (throw/takedown) or control while striking. WCK's method provides an organized strategic approach to dealing with this. There are other approaches, equally valid, equally good.

That's a pretty spot on assessment.

[YungChun]

That's a pretty spot on assessment.

So you think that being on the inside invariably leads to the clinch?

If so then VT can't work because you'd be past VT's range and use of tools..

Let's see ANY video from ANYONE of VT "clinch work".. AKA ADF..

It's not that VT doesn't control, it does, but it is not dirty clinch fighting.. Clinching means locking up and trapping your own hands by definition. Anyone who does that is not doing VT IMO.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What do you mean by ADF, Jim?

[YungChun]

What do you mean by ADF, Jim?

I added more there.. Actually I mean ADCF.. "Attached Dirty Clinch Fighting"...

[Knifefighter]

***EXACTLY. There is no such thing as a wing chun “clinch”, for example. It’s just not in the system, whatever the lineage.

Chi sao is like a "retarded" clinch. It's like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren't so effective.

[YungChun]

Chi sao is like a "retarded" clinch. It's like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren't so effective.

ChiSao can be done many different ways.. At some point depending on how you do it, you just have two people trying to get control and release power via taking the line and repeatedly hitting the partner despite his resistance..

This is the idea of the art, not to attach or clinch, but to use whatever bridge to issue force and (unclinch) gain momentary control and do damage. We are the unclinching or anti-clinching art.. :)

Anyone who says VT is a ADCF art, okay, lets see ANY example of this type of VT then show us the VT techniques out of the forms in use.. Very easy to do if this is what VT is...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Chi sao is like a "retarded" clinch. It's like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren't so effective.

***THE CLEAREST PICTURE yet of your almost total lack of understanding and knowledge of what wing chun chi sao is all about, and what it's meant to teach, Dale Frank.

You gotta love this guy; at least he's consistent: always trolling, including about things he "thinks" he knows - but knows very little.

How about a Wing Chun guillotine, Dale? Do you know about that one?

When was the last time you pulled that out of your bil jee hat? :rolleyes::cool::p

[Knifefighter]

ChiSao can be done many different ways.. At some point depending on how you do it, you just have two people trying to get control and release power via taking the line and repeatedly hitting the partner despite his resistance..

This is the idea of the art, not to attach or clinch, but to use whatever bridge to issue force and (unclinch) gain momentary control and do damage. We are the unclinching or anti-clinching art.. :)

Anyone who says VT is a ADCF art, okay, lets see ANY example of this type of VT then show us the VT techniques out of the forms in use.. Very easy to do if this is what VT is...

Personally, I think chi sao is the result of taking something that is very effective (fighting in clinch range), and training it in a manner that doesn't resemble fighting. What you end up with is a retarded version of the real thing.

[YungChun]

Personally, I think chi sao is the result of taking something that is very effective (fighting in clinch range), and training it in a manner that doesn't resemble fighting. What you end up with is a retarded version of the real thing.

Great theory...:o But VT doesn't fight from the clinch..... as stated.

[Knifefighter]

***THE CLEAREST PICTURE yet of your almost total lack of understanding and knowledge of what wing chun chi sao is all about, and what it's meant to teach, Dale Frank.

You gotta love this guy; at least he's consistent: always trolling, including about things he "thinks" he knows - but knows very little.

How about a Wing Chun guillotine, Dale? Do you know about that one?

When was the last time you pulled that out of your bil jee hat? :rolleyes::cool::p

I'm not concerned with what chi sao is "supposed" to teach. I'm more interested in the most effective method to develop inside/close distance functional fighting... that would be the clinch, a method common to all functional systems including boxing, Muay Thai, Greco Roman/folkstyle/freestyle wrestling, MMA, sub grappling, etc.

A wing chun guillotine? Yeah, right. That's about as ludicrous as a BJJ spinning back kick.

[Knifefighter]

Great theory...:o But VT doesn't fight from the clinch..... as stated.

Yeah, what it seems to do in the majority of cases, is to ignore the most effective methods for fighting in that range.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I rarely talk about chi sao and I have put classical WC behind me, it is not my cup of tea.
However I will say this:
When I first started WC I had already considerable experience in Boxing, Karate, judo and some in wrestling and Hung Kuen.
When I first started chi sao, my teacher said,"this will be different for you, your judo back ground and wrestling will want you to close in, but I need you to not do that, that is not the range WC fights in, that is for grappling".
I understood that as meaning if I got to close, grappling is better suited and I agreed.
Still do.
See, the typical clinch in wrestling and MT is much closer than chi sao works and trains in, it is a head-to-head range and chi sao is NOT that close so it can't be a "clinch drill".
When I am outside, I use my power from boxing, HK and kyokushin, when I close in, it is the WC and SPM that come out, when I clinch, it is the MY and greco-roman that work, when my body is in contact with my opponent, its the judo that works.

[YungChun]

I'm not concerned with what chi sao is "supposed" to teach. I'm more interested in the most effective method to develop inside/close distance functional fighting... that would be the clinch, a method common to all functional systems including boxing, Muay Thai, Greco Roman/folkstyle/freestyle wrestling, MMA, sub grappling, etc.

So Western Boxing is clinch fighting too... Hmmmm... A sport where you can't even hold and hit.. (what VT does) Hmmm very functional yes..



A wing chun guillotine? Yeah, right. That's about as ludicrous as a BJJ spinning back kick.

Right that's absurd.. BECAUSE VT is not a clinch fighting art...VT does not clinch... VT does not trap it's own hands, thus taking them out of the fight...

Don't like the method? Don't do the art.

[Knifefighter]

So Western Boxing is clinch fighting too... Hmmmm... A sport where you can't even hold and hit.. (what VT does) Hmmm very functional yes..
Boxing has some very functional clinch fighting techniques. Are they limited. Of course they are. Doesn't mean they can't be part of an effective toolbox.




Right that's absurd.. BECAUSE VT is not a clinch fighting art...VT does not clinch... VT does not trap it's own hands, thus taking them out of the fight...

Don't like the method? Don't do the art.

If it was trained more effectively and realistically, it would have become more of a clinch fighting art.

BTW, if I have overhooks, underhooks, or a combo of those, my hands aren't out of the fight, yours are.

[YungChun]

Yeah, what it seems to do in the majority of cases, is to ignore the most effective methods for fighting in that range.

If by "that range" you mean the clinch then yes VT ignores methods that function in a range that IT does not... VT does not train to, or fight from the clinch.. That's because (for the 200th time) it does not want to tie up it's weapons..

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun chi sao is a drill (actually a series of drills) that teaches certain concepts and techniques about fighting in a close quarter range before it could get to clinch mode...

and using certain principles of centerline, straight line hitting, not fighting force with force - but yet finding angles that provide for your own forward pressure...going back to centerline and striking forward if you're taken off; and yes, controlling your opponent's balance and limb(s) momentarily...

so that you can deliver strikes - because wing chun is about hitting.

Without "attaching" into some kind of clinch or semi-clinch.

AND IT WORKS AS FAR AS IT GOES.

But once someone crashes that barrier ("range" is a better word)...then you're no longer doing wing chun...pure and simple...you're doing something else.

Which is fine, as I said earlier.

[Knifefighter]

If by "that range" you mean the clinch then yes VT ignores methods that function in a range that IT does not... VT does not train to, or fight from the clinch.. That's because (for the 200th time) it does not want to tie up it's weapons..

Which is why so many people have trouble fighting with it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Especially if they've never really learned the system...then it's a b i t c h to make it work. :rolleyes::cool::eek::D

[Knifefighter]

Especially if they've never really learned the system...then it's a b i t c h to make it work. :rolleyes::cool::eek::D

Don't you find it ironic that the only people who can provide any evidence of themselves actually making it work are told they are not really doing WC?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Don't you find it ironic that the only people who can provide any evidence of themselves actually making it work are told they are not really doing WC?

***NOW you bring up a good point, and very timely to where this thread has gone. I think (and I'm not the only one with this view) that many people within the wing chun world have turned the chi sao drills into waaaaaay more than what they were ever meant to be...

but as has been said, wing chun is about hitting, first-and-foremost.

However chi sao training has become such a big "sell" that people have gotten fooled into thinking that wing chun is something other than what is it really is when it comes to fighting with it.

And the result has been, for many people, the idea that wing chun actual fighting is not really wing chun at all.

[t_niehoff]

Especially if they've never really learned the system...then it's a b i t c h to make it work. :rolleyes::cool::eek::D

Yet, Alan and his guys fight with WCK in MMA, train with very good fighters, and seem to do OK. This, btw, is the same Alan who said that Dale and I are just about the only guys here who know what they are talking about (and not you Victor).

The faat/method of WCK is the most crucial part of the curriculum. Without it, you are essentially lost, and can't put the pieces of the puzzle together. Even with the faat and the rest of the curriculum, you need to go put in loads of time sparring against good, skilled people to develop your skill.

And that's why you have so little understanding of WCK.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Is this WC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRlMYRu0fw

[Ultimatewingchun]

Now I would say that what's on that vid, Paul...is the worst possible kind of "attached fighting" imaginable. :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Now I would say that what's on that vid, Paul...is the worst possible kind of "attached fighting" imaginable. :cool:

Hey, be nice, they are on skates !
:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Gotta cut them some slack, okay...:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

A better example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdigsG1D4_g&NR=1

[t_niehoff]

Is this WC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRlMYRu0fw

Is this?

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

[Ultimatewingchun]

That was a nice punch out of the clinch, Paul...:)

[t_niehoff]

Especially if they've never really learned the system...then it's a b i t c h to make it work. :rolleyes::cool::eek::D

Yes. it is:

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

[sanjuro_ronin]

Is this?

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

You sir, are evil !!
LMAO !!

[sanjuro_ronin]

That was a nice punch out of the clinch, Paul...:)

Indeed, it was a very chi sao oriented move ;)

[t_niehoff]

You sir, are evil !!
LMAO !!

It's almost as good as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKML3jfwDA

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's almost as good as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKML3jfwDA

Isn't it against the law to teach people things that will get them killed?

[HumbleWCGuy]

The WCK faat describes what we are trying to do -- which, in a nutshell, is to control the opponent while striking him. That's how WCK is "supposed to work."
Your conception of wc is based on your impressions from your early study. You have said over an over again that you do not believe that "good WC work," so you have gone out to learn kickboxing. Yet, you insist that "Wing Chun kickboxing" does not work. I am not sure that this makes sense.

[t_niehoff]

Your conception of wc is based on your impressions from your early study.


I don't have a "conception" of WCK -- the faat/method is part of the curriculum of WCK (just like the forms, the dummy, the kuit, etc.). I can't help it that many people never learned it.



You have said over an over again that you do not believe that "good WC work," so you have gone out to learn kickboxing.


No, no, no. I have never said that WCK won't work. I KNOW it can work -- if you train it like a modern fighter trains. I've Also said that just doing the curriculum itself, the forms, drills/exercises/etc., is the beginner's level and won't develop good fighting skill.

I have not "gone out to learn kickboxing" -- I've gone to train with good fighters to practice making my WCK work.



Yet, you insist that "Wing Chun kickboxing" does not work. I am not sure that this makes sense.

Since you seem to not really read anything I write -- or you simply don't understand it -- I'm not surprised it doesn't make any sense to you.

[Pacman]

Is this WC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRlMYRu0fw

i bet if you showed that to some people on here they would say "that was an excellent example of a _____ sau" and that was "great structure" and "great wing chun aggression"

actually, grabbing behing the guys neck like that was exactly what robert said was an example of a huen sau and "controlling the opponent" and "breaking their structure" (i love how all hawkins guys love to say structure structure structure)

so basically that was about as much wing chun as aaron baum's fight.

[m1k3]

WTF! :confused::eek: That was some of the worst anti-grapple and crappling that I have ever seen. Don't they feel dirty after filming something like that? How can they ever get clean again?

[t_niehoff]

i bet if you showed that to some people on here they would say "that was an excellent example of a _____ sau" and that was "great structure" and "great wing chun aggression"

actually, grabbing behing the guys neck like that was exactly what robert said was an example of a huen sau and "controlling the opponent" and "breaking their structure" (i love how all hawkins guys love to say structure structure structure)

so basically that was about as much wing chun as aaron baum's fight.

The neck pulling hand is in the first section of the Yip dummy (and also in a later section of the YKS dummy) -- and it is a key movement in ALL clinch fighting.

[t_niehoff]

WTF! :confused::eek: That was some of the worst anti-grapple and crappling that I have ever seen. Don't they feel dirty after filming something like that? How can they ever get clean again?

WCK people are for the most part delusional.

[Ultimatewingchun]

...the following is a good example, imo, of chi sao being used as a tool to strike...first and foremost...from close quarters (punches, palm strikes, etc.)...

while always trying to maintain the wing chun preferred range. As you'll see, this kind of striking and movement does not entertain any ideas of "clinch" mode...or of any "attached" fighting - and actually tries to avoid that range.

The motions and dynamics of the chi sao double arm rolling and striking drill is meant to promote opening lines for hitting - and doing it from a specific range (distance) that avoids clinch fighting. (Or just taking advantage of lines that are already open - and go in and hit).

But it (chi sao) is just a drill. Actual wing chun fighting will look different because it doesn't start from contact (or any kind of attachment)...it's about hitting...

which is exactly what you see in this vid: momentary limb/balance control on the way to hitting.

Now if you eliminate the "contact" starting position (used in chi sao)...you would see much more hitting and much less limb-to-limb "attachment" of any kind. Hence, chi sao is just a drill.

But wing chun as a fighting art is all about hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQC3uTDjwA8&feature=related

[Knifefighter]

Now I would say that what's on that vid, Paul...is the worst possible kind of "attached fighting" imaginable. :cool:
Pro hockey players are the best at fighting on ice, nobody beats them in fighting this way. I guarantee the worst pro hockey player would more than likely demolish you on ice.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Of course, it's their home turf: on skates.

[t_niehoff]

Pro hockey players are the best at fighting on ice, nobody beats them in fighting this way. I guarantee the worst pro hockey player would more than likely demolish you on ice.

Didn't I just say that WCK people are for the most part delusional?

[Knifefighter]

...the following is a good example, imo, of chi sao being used as a tool to strike...first and foremost...from close quarters (punches, palm strikes, etc.)...

while always trying to maintain the wing chun preferred range. As you'll see, this kind of striking and movement does not entertain any ideas of "clinch" mode...or of any "attached" fighting - and actually tries to avoid that range.

That link doesn't work, but, if it's like 99.9% of chi sao out there, it SHOULD include clinch range and would have if it had been developed with more realistic methods.

Why do think every single functional style that works their stuff against fully resisting opponents has developed an attached clinch method specific to that style? Maybe because that is a necessary component of fighting?

The more realistic the fighting, the more important the clinch range becomes.

[SAAMAG]

Yet, Alan and his guys fight with WCK in MMA, train with very good fighters, and seem to do OK. This, btw, is the same Alan who said that Dale and I are just about the only guys here who know what they are talking about (and not you Victor).

That's such a childish remark...and go figure someone from your own camp would think that...why that's almost unheard of! :rolleyes:

Yeaaa so you got an endorsement from someone who many argue doesn't do wing chun at all...but merely MMA with wing chun labels.

I can see where you guys are coming from, just don't agree that your enlightenment is the only way because my experience in using wing chun in application has been different. Therein lies the problem...you think that your path is the only path and that your application of wing chun is the "proper" way.

[Knifefighter]

That's such a childish remark...and go figure someone from your own camp would think that...why that's almost unheard of! :rolleyes:

Yeaaa so you got an endorsement from someone who many argue doesn't do wing chun at all...but merely MMA with wing chun labels.

I can see where you guys are coming from, just don't agree that your enlightenment is the only way because my experience in using wing chun in application has been different. Therein lies the problem...you think that your path is the only path and that your application of wing chun is the "proper" way.

No, simply show some evidence for the other path working.

[anerlich]

Didn't I just say that WCK people are for the most part delusional?


This, btw, is the same Alan who said that Dale and I are just about the only guys here who know what they are talking about

Sounds like Alan is delusional where you are concerned.

[Frost]

That link doesn't work, but, if it's like 99.9% of chi sao out there, it SHOULD include clinch range and would have if it had been developed with more realistic methods.

Why do think every single functional style that works their stuff against fully resisting opponents has developed an attached clinch method specific to that style? Maybe because that is a necessary component of fighting?

The more realistic the fighting, the more important the clinch range becomes.

this is a very good point, there is no range inbetween nonattached hitting and the clinch, no one hangs out inbetween these ranges you are either on the outside hitting or on the inside clinch fighting , whether you choice to throw or hit once in contact you are clinching. Now if you come from a culture that has a distain for clinching and throwing i can understand that the shorthand stuff might work an be useful, but trying it in a culture where wrestling in particular and grabbing in general are encouraged just seems silly

[Dragonzbane76]

this is a very good point, there is no range inbetween nonattached hitting and the clinch, no one hangs out inbetween these ranges you are either on the outside hitting or on the inside clinch fighting , whether you choice to throw or hit once in contact you are clinching. Now if you come from a culture that has a distain for clinching and throwing i can understand that the shorthand stuff might work an be useful, but trying it in a culture where wrestling in particular and grabbing in general are encouraged just seems silly

have to agree. clinch is a major part of fighting and if you are apt to think it's not then you are making a big mistake. don't understand your "inbetween" range, i've always been to the assumption that you are either clinching or striking or grappling don't understand this "inbetween". I couldn't see the space right outside of the clinch as being a place to "hang" out with fists and kicks coming in and out.

[goju]

Sounds like Alan is delusional where you are concerned.

oh god ghes gonna be running around on here for weeks saying orrs comment give his posts credibility:rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

this is a very good point, there is no range inbetween nonattached hitting and the clinch, no one hangs out inbetween these ranges you are either on the outside hitting or on the inside clinch fighting , whether you choice to throw or hit once in contact you are clinching. Now if you come from a culture that has a distain for clinching and throwing i can understand that the shorthand stuff might work an be useful, but trying it in a culture where wrestling in particular and grabbing in general are encouraged just seems silly

This is exactly the point I keep trying to make -- thank you.

When you fight, you are either on the outside (boxing/kickboxing range) or clinched, in some sort of attachment. That's the nature of fighting.

[t_niehoff]

oh god ghes gonna be running around on here for weeks saying orrs comment give his posts credibility:rolleyes:

No, that was just a jibe at Victor to point out the irony of his post.

I don't need credibility -- I don't ask anyone to believe me BECAUSE I say something is true. In fact, I think the whole credibility/authority issue is precisely the problem. One of my favorite blogs put it very well:

http://caneprevost.wordpress.com/tag/bullsh1t-meter/ (change bullsh1t to the proper spelling to get the link to work).

[Ultimatewingchun]

(I changed the link on post#68 on page 5)...

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQC3uTDjwA8&feature=related

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

BUT JUST TO REITERATE THE CONTEXT OF THE VID:

The following is a good example, imo, of chi sao being used as a tool to strike...first and foremost...from close quarters (punches, palm strikes, etc.)...

while always trying to maintain the wing chun preferred range. As you'll see, this kind of striking and movement does not entertain any ideas of "clinch" mode...or of any "attached" fighting - and actually tries to avoid that range.

The motions and dynamics of the chi sao double arm rolling and striking drill is meant to promote opening lines for hitting - and doing it from a specific range (distance) that avoids clinch fighting. (Or just taking advantage of lines that are already open - and go in and hit).

But it (chi sao) is just a drill. Actual wing chun fighting will look different because it doesn't start from contact (or any kind of attachment)...it's about hitting...

which is exactly what you see in this vid: momentary limb/balance control on the way to hitting.

Now if you eliminate the "contact" starting position (used in chi sao)...you would see much more hitting and much less limb-to-limb "attachment" of any kind. Hence, chi sao is just a drill.

But wing chun as a fighting art is all about hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQC3u...eature=related

[t_niehoff]

But it (chi sao) is just a drill. Actual wing chun fighting will look different because it doesn't start from contact (or any kind of attachment)...it's about hitting...

which is exactly what you see in this vid: momentary limb/balance control on the way to hitting.

Now if you eliminate the "contact" starting position (used in chi sao)...you would see much more hitting and much less limb-to-limb "attachment" of any kind. Hence, chi sao is just a drill.

But wing chun as a fighting art is all about hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQC3u...eature=related

Ah, yes, all about hitting:

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

Too bad it's not about controlling your opponent in the clinch.

[YungChun]

this is a very good point, there is no range inbetween nonattached hitting and the clinch, no one hangs out inbetween these ranges you are either on the outside hitting or on the inside clinch fighting , whether you choice to throw or hit once in contact you are clinching. Now if you come from a culture that has a distain for clinching and throwing i can understand that the shorthand stuff might work an be useful, but trying it in a culture where wrestling in particular and grabbing in general are encouraged just seems silly

So a LopSao or a PakDa is done from "the clinch"?????????

[Knifefighter]

So a LopSao or a PakDa is done from "the clinch"?????????

Lop sao generally doesn't work, so it's not done from any range.

[YungChun]

Lop sao generally doesn't work, so it's not done from any range.

"Generally" no VT is going to work for you because you know nothing about VT..

See the problem..........?

LopSao, which has more than one variation, is a very common move in VT sparring.. To the layman, grabbing with one hand and striking with the other, a very natural fighting expression.

But this isn't the issue.. (please troll someplace else)

What is at issue is IF two clear (to some) examples of VT are part of what others are calling "the clinch"...

[Knifefighter]

"Generally" no VT is going to work for you because you know nothing about VT..

See the problem..........?

LopSao, which has more than one variation, is a very common move in VT sparring.. To the layman, grabbing with one hand and striking with the other, a very natural fighting expression.

Please post a clip of Lap Sao being done in full contact sparring.

[YungChun]

Please post a clip of Lap Sao being done in full contact sparring.

Are you saying that you have never seen or used this *kind* of move?? Grabbing with one hand and hitting with the other? Ever? From in contact?

Am sure T will say it is possible..and that he does it in FC sparring..

[m1k3]

Please post a clip of Lap Sao being done in full contact sparring.

Ok, here ya go, lop sao, grabbing and hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRlMYRu0fw

[goju]

Are you saying that you have never seen or used this *kind* of move?? Grabbing with one hand and hitting with the other? Ever? From in contact?

Am sure T will say it is possible..and that he does it in FC sparring..

no no listen to the experts here guys

IT DOESNT WORK!! AGAINST A RESISITNG OPPONENT WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING!


well except here for example LOL

http://ftp.georgetek.com/George/Sigs/Machida_vs_Hoger.gif

[Knifefighter]

Ok, here ya go, lop sao, grabbing and hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRlMYRu0fw

Would you WC guys consider this an example of lap sao?

[Knifefighter]

no no listen to the experts here guys

IT DOESNT WORK!! AGAINST A RESISITNG OPPONENT WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING!


well except here for example LOL

http://ftp.georgetek.com/George/Sigs/Machida_vs_Hoger.gif

Or how about that? Would you consider that lop sao?

[YungChun]

Or how about that? Would you consider that lop sao?

Closest move might be a jut/da or pak/da.. Still off though.. But the IDEA is similar to parts of VT and you can see it there. Had that guy continued like any VT guy would his opponent would have been done like a potato..

See one of your problems Dale is you are always thinking from the entry or outside use of this stuff.. Now it can happen, but it's lower %.

On the other hand when you are *trying* to do VT and you do get contact this is when different moves may become useful.. But it all depends on what happens during the encounter.. (how he resists/attacks).

Our primary objective is to attack (strike/land) down the line, often while angling with a fast timing (attacks close together)on the shortest line to their core intended to maintain an unbalancing of the opponent... initially via linear force, and then, depending on how they resist with other moves (and don't forget the legs) It is what it is.. The lop has to be there..

But we digress.. Does anyone think pak or lop is done from "the clinch" can anyone show that in or out of sparring?

[k gledhill]

Yet, Alan and his guys fight with WCK in MMA, train with very good fighters, and seem to do OK. This, btw, is the same Alan who said that Dale and I are just about the only guys here who know what they are talking about (and not you Victor).

The faat/method of WCK is the most crucial part of the curriculum. Without it, you are essentially lost, and can't put the pieces of the puzzle together. Even with the faat and the rest of the curriculum, you need to go put in loads of time sparring against good, skilled people to develop your skill.

And that's why you have so little understanding of WCK.


Thats a good thing for Victor :D
Terence I cant even begin to write how wrong your thinking is. your deluded.

[Knifefighter]

Closest move might be a jut/da or pak/da.. Still off though.. But the IDEA is similar to parts of VT and you can see it there. Had that guy continued like any VT guy would his opponent would have been done like a potato..

So, once again, we have some people claiming to show the tech, and now you are saying that is not the tech. So which is it?

Then, on top of that, now you are saying that a "real" WC guy would have made his opponent into a potato, something one of the top fighters in the world wasn't able to do. And you wonder why I think you guys are full of sh!t.

[Knifefighter]

See one of your problems Dale is you are always thinking from the entry or outside use of this stuff.. Now it can happen, but it's lower %.

On the other hand when you are *trying* to do VT and you do get contact this is when different moves may become useful.. But it all depends on what happens during the encounter.. (how he resists/attacks).

Hey, all I'm asking for is some evidence that it works. If everyone wants to come to an agreement that those two things shown were lap sao, I will agree that they (holding an opponent's clothes with one hand while hitting with the other in the first example; directing an opponent's strike downwards with one hand while hitting with the other in the second) are examples of lap sao working (if you want to label those two techs as lap sao).

So, what's the deal, are those lap sao or not? And if they aren't can you please post an example of a "real" lap sao being done in a full contact setting so at least we can all be on the same page as to exactly how lap sao is executed in a live situation?

[YungChun]

So, once again, we have some people claiming to show the tech, and now you are saying that is not the tech. So which is it?

The idea or part of the idea of VT is there.. Even you can see that.. Who gives a flying #!@# what name it is?

And so, having seen the idea in action.. I ask why not actually train to do it.?



Then, on top of that, now you are saying that a "real" WC guy would have made his opponent into a potato, something one of the top fighters in the world wasn't able to do. And you wonder why I think you guys are full of sh!t.

You think that if he had continued the attack as VT always does (VT almost never does a single move) In any case HAD he continued with the other hand and actually (crazy I know) stepped in and landed a few more, in that vein, you don't think he would have toasted the guy?

Full of $hit? You are the one who posted a MMA clip of a "VT concept" (or part of one) in action.......yet dismiss the art every chance you get.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Lop sao generally doesn't work, so it's not done from any range.

***AGAIN, the words of someone who is basically clueless about what can be done with wing chun - regardless of his skills in other arts. Of course pak sao works, and often.

Perhaps not the IGNORE list, but posts like this from Dale Frank (and the inevitable rebuttal to my present post) - really should be ignored. The guy doesn't get it, and he probably never will.

So what's the point in riposting endlessly with him?

No point.

[Knifefighter]

***AGAIN, the words of someone who is basically clueless about what can be done with wing chun - regardless of his skills in other arts. Of course pak sao works, and often.

Perhaps not the IGNORE list, but posts like this from Dale Frank (and the inevitable rebuttal to my present post) - really should be ignored. The guy doesn't get it, and he probably never will.

So what's the point in riposting endlessly with him?

No point.

Speaking of clueless, you should learn to read more and post less. I said lap sao doesn't work. I didn't say anything about pak sao. Dumb@ss.

Pak sao, while still relatively low percentage, does work occasionally. I know because I once caved someone's nose in with it.

Again, I'm waiting for an example of lap sao being shown in a full contact setting.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So, once again, we have some people claiming to show the tech, and now you are saying that is not the tech. So which is it?"

***TECHNICALLY, from a wing chun point of view, what Machida did in that clip is jut da (and YungChun/Jim inferred that)...but it is a very close move to what lop looks like...(kind of like a "reverse lop")...perhaps a term that a not-so-knowledgable-in-wing-chun guy like you, Dale, might understand.

[k gledhill]

Its a close example of a leading parry and a strike pak or jut and a strike, swapping lead for rear is a VT trait....staying in a striking zone, attempting to turn the opponent so he cant maintain a square on stance to you, mobility is key, moving to gain our fighting timing and space. Then picking the moment , or better to react instinctively from 1000's of hours doing simple entry strikes as the clip shows...

looking for perfection in chaos is futile. except seeing perfect chaos, perhaps.
We strive to develop perfection, but hey if I just ko a guy with 50 % of what I can do in the gym I am happy.
Thats why we train so hard in the ideal situations, we strive for perfection knowing when we have little time and an opponent who is determined to not let us have breathing room we can only hope for 75% at least to come out in the chaos of a fight . if my elbows out, pak saos sloppy, I am leaning forwards a little, BUT I drop the guy like a sack 'o' ****e ...Im not going to ask him " can we do that again, I can do better ?" :D

[Knifefighter]

The idea or part of the idea of VT is there.. Even you can see that.. Who gives a flying #!@# what name it is?

And so, having seen the idea in action.. I ask why not actually train to do it.?

You know as well as I do, that is not the way lap sao is taught. Please show any instructional clip of lap sao being performed that way.



You think that if he had continued the attack as VT always does (VT almost never does a single move) In any case HAD he continued with the other hand and actually (crazy I know) stepped in and landed a few more, in that vein, you don't think he would have toasted the guy?

If I remember correctly, Machida did make toast of him. What is funny to me is the fact that you think a WC guy somehow would have done better that one of the top guys in the world.


Full of $hit? You are the one who posted a MMA clip of a "VT concept" (or part of one) in action.......yet dismiss the art every chance you get.
Where did I post that? Or are you lacking in reading comprehension like Victor?

[k gledhill]

Speaking of clueless, you should learn to read more and post less. I said lap sao doesn't work. I didn't say anything about pak sao. Dumb@ss.

Pak sao, while still relatively low percentage, does work occasionally. I know because I once caved someone's nose in with it.

Again, I'm waiting for an example of lap sao being shown in a full contact setting.

lop sao is a low % technique we use if our preceeding techniques have failed..ie a bong should displace alone with its lateral force , like a grenade going off , using the forearms to move strikes sideways like a pak sao , infact bongs elbow to forearm is exactly a pak saos energy, just used when the hand would be slow to use or the guys arms over yours..it works to also turn the guy as you apply it, so it feeds opportunities to you...

IF the bongs energy is crap, and hey in a chaotic situation anything happens :D we have to use the lop [grabbing hand] to literally pull the guys arm/lever like opening a gateway spinning him on his axis line head to floor, then getting back to striking.

Jut is a primary attacking action along with Pak sao ...jut and pak the 2 main attacks.
depends what hand is leading at the given moment relative to the strikes coming at us and what side as we move around.

Jut is used if you X forearms/wrists etc...making contact with strikes meeting strikes respond with a jerking hand [ terence will like that one ; ) ]

if you miss with jut you still strike on the same path you missed on ..if you miss with lop you open yourself up to counters ..jut stays on the line back and forth. lop turns with our body so we can regain a flank they stopped us getting .

follow ? :D

[YungChun]

"So, once again, we have some people claiming to show the tech, and now you are saying that is not the tech. So which is it?"

***TECHNICALLY, from a wing chun point of view, what Machida did in that clip is jut da (and YungChun/Jim inferred that)...but it is a very close move to what lop looks like...(kind of like a "reverse lop")...perhaps a term that a not-so-knowledgable-in-wing-chun guy like you, Dale, might understand.

Okay, we agree, so Dale you got your label..

So does "JutDa" work in real sparring/fighting???:confused:

Point is that using the hands like that whatever the name can work, but is best used with contact, and FanSao, closing and continuity..

C'mon Dale you know you want to do VT... Just get out there and train baby!!

[Knifefighter]

"So, once again, we have some people claiming to show the tech, and now you are saying that is not the tech. So which is it?"

***TECHNICALLY, from a wing chun point of view, what Machida did in that clip is jut da (and YungChun/Jim inferred that)...but it is a very close move to what lop looks like...(kind of like a "reverse lop")...perhaps a term that a not-so-knowledgable-in-wing-chun guy like you, Dale, might understand.

Apparently, I know more about WC than most of the "WC" guys do. That was my point exactly. Lop Sao is done with an outside grab (the opposite of what was done in that tech). That's exactly what I am saying doesn't work. The mechanics of lap sao pretty much ensure its ineffectiveness.

What's funny is that I said a specific technique does not work, then you guys give examples of "similar" or "related concept" techniques working (or in Victor's case, make up one that has no relation to what I said). If you tell me a low jab does not work, it would be pretty stupid of me to then point to an example of a high jab working and then tell you you don't understand the technique.

Apparently, it seems to be the WC guys don't know the difference between the various techniques in WC, not me.

[YungChun]

You know as well as I do, that is not the way lap sao is taught. Please show any instructional clip of lap sao being performed that way.


I refuse to believe you are this clueless.. The idea or tactic of using the hands together one to clear and one to hit is in play.. It doesn't matter which variation is used so long as the goal is the same.



If I remember correctly, Machida did make toast of him. What is funny to me is the fact that you think a WC guy somehow would have done better that one of the top guys in the world.

Strawman..

I didn't say a VT guy I said that guy fighting LIKE a VT guy would..using not just a single clear hit, but also following up as VT mechanics/tactics do... Mmmmm k?

[k gledhill]

Apparently, I know more about WC than most of the "WC" guys do. That was my point exactly. Lop Sao is done with an outside grab (the opposite of what was done in that tech). That's exactly what I am saying doesn't work. The mechanics of lap sao pretty much ensure its ineffectiveness.

What's funny is that I said a specific technique does not work, then you guys give examples of "similar" or "related concept" techniques working. If you tell me a low jab does not work, it would be pretty stupid of me to then point to an example of a high jab working and then tell you you don't understand the technique.

Apparently, it seems to be the WC guys don't know the difference between the various techniques in WC, not me.

okay smarty pants , what are the mechanics of lop sao ?

[YungChun]

Apparently, I know more about WC than most of the "WC" guys do. That was my point exactly. Lop Sao is done with an outside grab


Wow you are really knowledgeable on VT.. Will you teach me?

Yes it's true that Outside Lop is done on the Outside.. It's also true that Inside Lop is done on the Inside..(line)

Learn something new every day!

But no one said it was a Lop or did you forget your reading glasses?




What's funny is that I said a specific technique does not work, then you guys give examples of "similar" or "related concept" techniques working.

Because if a fighter can use the hands together in this way, the only difference between techniques is the reference point/position and force.

It's a timing issue not a "technique name" issue.. I shouldn't have to draw a picture for you..




Apparently, it seems to be the WC guys don't know the difference between the various techniques in WC, not me.

Things often seem one way when they are actually the opposite, especially to neophytes/trolls.

[Ultimatewingchun]

He's a great troll, isn't he? You gotta give him that.

But you see, wing chun is about HITTING...not "attaching".

:D;):p

[Knifefighter]

I refuse to believe you are this clueless.. The idea or tactic of using the hands together one to clear and one to hit is in play.. It doesn't matter which variation is used so long as the goal is the same.

Ummm... how is that an example of lap sao being used? Oh, that's right it isn't. It's just a smoke screen to avoid the fact that it doesn't work. Yeah, we'll just use another technique because the idea is the same.

Speaking of being clueless about WC.

Each WC technique is taught to do specific things. You don't use a tan sao in place of a tie sao. Pak sao is used for specific energy and lap sao (even though it doesn't work) is supposed to be used for a differing energy. Fut sao is specific to certain conditions just as is bong sao. You don't just interchange everything.

[YungChun]

He's a great troll, isn't he? You gotta give him that.

But you see, wing chun is about HITTING...not "attaching".

:D;):p

Indeed it is!

But folks can prove me wrong.. :) Post any clip of VT Clinch work and it doesn't even have to be in sparring!!!!

[k gledhill]

doesnt know his lop from his jut !...:cool:

[goju]

Apparently, I know more about WC than most of the "WC" guys do.

dude i know you suffer form little mans syndrome but **** tone your ego down:rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

doesnt know his lop from his jut !...:cool:

SO JUST HIT HIM...

***End of thread !!! ;):p:cool:

[YungChun]

Ummm... how is that an example of lap sao being used? Oh, that's right it isn't. It's just a smoke screen to avoid the fact that it doesn't work. Yeah, we'll just use another technique because the idea is the same.

Speaking of being clueless about WC.

Each WC technique is taught to do specific things. You don't use a tan sao in place of a tie sao. Pak sao is used for specific energy and lap sao (even though it doesn't work) is supposed to be used for a differing energy. Fut sao is specific to certain conditions just as is bong sao. You don't just interchange everything.

As I said.. (well I guess I do have to draw a picture)..

These techniques do the same thing from different reference points.. The "challenge" of using ANY of these moves from the outside is NOT dependent on which reference point (inside/outside/left/right) (determines which technique is used) it is tough to apply these (on the outside) because of the problem of timing movements, hands and body with the incoming...

One hand clearing and the other hitting.. (what most VT techniques do) + more

It's not that complicated just think really hard and it may come to you...

You say something doesn't work.. Fine don't use it..

[Knifefighter]

Indeed it is!

But folks can prove me wrong.. :) Post any clip of VT Clinch work and it doesn't even have to be in sparring!!!!

I already posted it in the beginning. He makes good use of the clinch. Here ya go again if you missed it the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gR3beL5CWo

But, please, prove ME wrong. Post any clip of WC techniques being done in a full-contact setting in the manner you think they are supposed to be done.

[Knifefighter]

You say something doesn't work.. Fine don't use it..

I don't, obviously. You were the one who said it worked, but can supply no evidence of this.

[YungChun]

I already posted it in the beginning. He makes good use of the clinch. Here ya go again if you missed it the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gR3beL5CWo

But, please, prove ME wrong. Post any clip of WC techniques being done in a full-contact setting in the manner you think they are supposed to be done.

Please identify any and all VT techniques used in that clip by time reference ... Thx!

[Knifefighter]

Please identify any and all VT techniques used in that clip by time reference ... Thx!

There really aren't that many "WC techniques" because most of them are bs and the bs stuff gets thrown out when you have to start using it full-force against other skilled fighters. Like I said, most of the stuff doesn't work... at least the way you think it is supposed to.

What is shown in this clip is the way WC looks when it is trained effectively... notice the LACK of what most of the theoretical, fantasy, non-fighter guys think of as WC techniques.

[YungChun]

There really aren't that many "WC techniques" because most of them are bs and the bs stuff gets thrown out when you have to start using it full-force against other skilled fighters. Like I said, most of the stuff doesn't work... at least the way you think it is supposed to.

What is shown in this clip is the way WC looks when it is trained effectively... notice the LACK of what most of the theoretical, fantasy, non-fighter guys think of as WC techniques.

Ahhhh..

So we are seeing VT without VT moves which is still VT because................Um.............They said so!!!!!!

Nice try!!! Stick a fork in yourself!

There are in fact other VT in FC if memory serves... And while they may not be great examples at least there is something VT about them.. (besides the secret RNC move from Chum Kiu)

[Pacman]

so when WC is effectively trained, then you dont see any WC techniques?

and thats why this clip is a great example of WC?


There really aren't that many "WC techniques" because most of them are bs and the bs stuff gets thrown out when you have to start using it full-force against other skilled fighters. Like I said, most of the stuff doesn't work... at least the way you think it is supposed to.

What is shown in this clip is the way WC looks when it is trained effectively... notice the LACK of what most of the theoretical, fantasy, non-fighter guys think of as WC techniques.

[Ultimatewingchun]

IGNORE...IGNORE...ignore...ignore...ignore....igno re....ignore...ignore....ignore....

Why?

Because in the case of Dale Frank (and his understanding of wing chun)...

I G N O R A N C E ....is bliss. :cool:

[Knifefighter]

.perhaps a term that a not-so-knowledgable-in-wing-chun guy like you, Dale, might understand.

Because in the case of Dale Frank (and his understanding of wing chun)...

I G N O R A N C E ....is bliss.

Victor, since you keep telling me I'm a "clueless" WC guy with "no real" background in the art over and over and over again, I think it's about time for you to re-post those clips of you sparring full contact. You know, the ones in which you were criticized for not showing any WC?

Or would you rather that I put the ones I have saved from back then up for you? The ones that, out of courtesy, I have not posted despite your comments that I am clueless.

Let me know which you prefer. You put them up, or me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Knifefighter]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

OK, I'll do it!

[anerlich]

I don't need credibility

Just as well, because you don't have any.

[shawchemical]

Lop sao generally doesn't work, so it's not done from any range.

You're utterly clueless.

[Knifefighter]

You're utterly clueless.

OK, so clue me in. Show some evidence of it actually working in a full contact situation. Or are you another one of the theoretical fantasy non-fighters who makes claims about things but has not evidence to support the claim?

[shawchemical]

OK, so clue me in. Show some evidence of it actually working in a full contact situation. Or are you another one of the theoretical fantasy non-fighters who makes claims about things but has not evidence to support the claim?

Who the **** takes a video camera around with them just in case there is a fight?? If there is a fight, surely your time would be better spent demolishing the man in front of you rather than making sure the camera is in focus.

I can tell you that not only is that a ridiculously stupid move, but also then posting those confrontations onto the intahwebz is even more retarded.

Is your belief that something only works when people have posted it on youtube?

I'm definitely not a fantasy non-fighter, but I'm definitely not a wanker on the other end of the scale whose belief that you need others approval of things which work for such things to be valid. Real fights tell us where we need to make improvements in our own training, and honest evaluation of our own performance of things we did well, and how things can be done better.

[Knifefighter]

Who the **** takes a video camera around with them just in case there is a fight?? If there is a fight, surely your time would be better spent demolishing the man in front of you rather than making sure the camera is in focus.

I can tell you that not only is that a ridiculously stupid move, but also then posting those confrontations onto the intahwebz is even more retarded.

Is your belief that something only works when people have posted it on youtube?

I'm definitely not a fantasy non-fighter, but I'm definitely not a wanker on the other end of the scale whose belief that you need others approval of things which work for such things to be valid. Real fights tell us where we need to make improvements in our own training, and honest evaluation of our own performance of things we did well, and how things can be done better.

Last time I checked almost everyone had a video recorder on their cell phone. Maybe you didn't notice, but we do live in the age of ubiquitous technology.

But you are right. Not everyone can record a real fight.

But, hey, I'm only asking for some kind of evidence. If it works, you should easily be able to post a clip of you using the technique in some full-contact sparring, right?

How about it? Just make a quick clip of your next full-contact sparring session, OK?

[shawchemical]

Last time I checked almost everyone had a video recorder on their cell phone. Maybe you didn't notice, but we do live in the age of ubiquitous technology.

But you are right. Not everyone can record a real fight.

But, hey, I'm only asking for some kind of evidence. If it works, you should easily be able to post a clip of you using the technique in some full-contact sparring, right?

How about it? Just make a quick clip of your next full-contact sparring session, OK?

The point about recording and then posting videos of oneself involved in illegal conduct for all and sundry to view remains.

Have you tried making things work in your own training rather than just telling people it doesn't work??

Truly, what you're showing is that you have no idea how to apply it, and have no desire to make it work.

I don't need your approval, nor do i seek it. I don't train because I want to be seen in a positive light or worshipped by others, but because I like the challenge. Videos do nothing beneficial.

A fight is a contest between men, not their respective schools or systems.

[Knifefighter]

I don't need your approval, nor do i seek it. I don't train because I want to be seen in a positive light or worshipped by others, but because I like the challenge. Videos do nothing beneficial.

If you are going to tell someone he are clueless when he says something won't work, the onus is on you to provide some kind of evidence of it working.

Your comment above pretty much puts you in the camp of the theoretical, fantasy, non-fighters.

[shawchemical]

If you are going to tell someone he are clueless when he says something won't work, the onus is on you to provide some kind of evidence of it working.

Your comment above pretty much puts you in the camp of the theoretical, fantasy, non-fighters.

No it's not. I could care less about your opinion, and thus have to do little regarding providing evidence of something working in order to change that which I care little for.

I am saying that you're clueless because you quite clearly are.

You sound like the idiots who get frustrated at things when they don't work and decide to blame their tools, rather than themselves for their failure.

Similarly, just because YOU have been unable to make something work and have decided to give up on it, doesn't mean that fundamentally, the thing cannot be made to work.

Why do you even bother coming here if you think it's crap?

[Knifefighter]

No it's not. I could care less about your opinion, and thus have to do little regarding providing evidence of something working in order to change that which I care little for.

You'd think you could come up with just one piece of evidence showing it works. I can show you examples of all of the techniques I say work- double leg takedowns, suplexes, triangles, arm bars, heel hooks, jabs, crosses, hip throws, clinch techniques, etc, etc, etc... all working in live full contact environments. But you can't point to one single bit of evidence for your theoretical fantasy technique working on a live resisting opponent. That makes you the clueless one.

[shawchemical]

You'd think you could come up with just one piece of evidence showing it works. I can show you examples of all of the techniques I say work- double leg takedowns, suplexes, triangles, arm bars, heel hooks, jabs, crosses, hip throws, clinch techniques, etc, etc, etc... all working in live full contact environments. But you can't point to one single bit of evidence for your theoretical fantasy technique working on a live resisting opponent. That makes you the clueless one.

?? The techniques are essentially the same moron.
1. Punch the man.
-does this make him fall down? - yes technique works, NO, rinse and repeat until the answer is yes.

I'm not making ridiculous claims anywhere, other than the core of Ving Tsun, which is demolish the man as quickly and as brutally as possible, using the shortest distance between your weapon and your target works.

Lots of other things work too, I'm not making comment on those. But interestingly, the targets for quickly and brutally ending a fight are frowned upon in professional combat sports. These being strikes to the back of the head/neck, groin, throat, eyes, knee. Do you claim that because there are few videos of these targets being hit that they are invalid targets?

DUCY your argument is invalid?

[Knifefighter]

Lots of other things work too, I'm not making comment on those. But interestingly, the targets for quickly and brutally ending a fight are frowned upon in professional combat sports. These being strikes to the back of the head/neck, groin, throat, eyes, knee. Do you claim that because there are few videos of these targets being hit that they are invalid targets?

DUCY your argument is invalid?

Thanks, you just proved my point. Another clueless, theoretical nonfighter who thinks he will rely on th3 d3@dly vital point strikes to win his theoretical fights that he might be in one day.

[bennyvt]

i don't think the throat is a death strike but i don't like getting hit there and i an pretty sure you can choke but not strike the neck in comps.

[Frost]

so when WC is effectively trained, then you dont see any WC techniques?

and thats why this clip is a great example of WC?

well to be fair its the only clip of wing chun being used in full contact that we can find...oh wait if i remember rightly someone put up clips of danish or german WT guys full contact sparring years ago..that too was put down as not being wing chun by guys on here

i guess Dale is asking to see what wing chun should look like as everyone seems to know what it should look like but can't find a video to show it in action (apart from a karate guy from brazil that is:rolleyes: )

[Frost]

?? The techniques are essentially the same moron.
1. Punch the man.
-does this make him fall down? - yes technique works, NO, rinse and repeat until the answer is yes.

I'm not making ridiculous claims anywhere, other than the core of Ving Tsun, which is demolish the man as quickly and as brutally as possible, using the shortest distance between your weapon and your target works.

Lots of other things work too, I'm not making comment on those. But interestingly, the targets for quickly and brutally ending a fight are frowned upon in professional combat sports. These being strikes to the back of the head/neck, groin, throat, eyes, knee. Do you claim that because there are few videos of these targets being hit that they are invalid targets?

DUCY your argument is invalid?

you know you have been on this site too long when you can feel the deadly strike arguement coming from as soon as someone starts posting:)

[Frost]

i don't think the throat is a death strike but i don't like getting hit there and i an pretty sure you can choke but not strike the neck in comps.

early comps allowed groin strikes, attacks to the joints (ie kicks to the knees) and strikes to the back of the head and the spine....non of these as far as i remember ended any fights (apart from the early ufc when that guy pinned his opponent in side control and unloaded a doezn punches on the floor to the groin:) ) you could not hit the throat with strikes or the eyes, although some allowed throat grabbing and squeezing.

[LSWCTN1]

think of a throat strike as similar to any bjj strangle hold.

the faster you put it on correctly the faster they cant breath and tap or nap...

all (to me) a throat strike is, is a compression of some delicate spot. its the same outcome, just a different method.

when i started bjj i quickly realised just how 'universal' or 'scientific' wing chun is. there are many, many things that have a similar basis. i think doing bjj has increased my wing chun capability and taught me how to detect bs that little bit better.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Look, IF WC is a concept based system then the LOOK of a technique is irrelevant, it is the concept and principle behind it that matters.

A parry is a parry, the principle is to guide the attacking limb away from its target with minimal effort, while positioning yourself in best position to counter.
What a parry looks like is irrelevant.
If the rpincipels are there , whether it is done with a open hand, close hand, elbow, forearm, shoudl or HEAD , is irrelevant.

[CFT]

Or for those of the classical disposition ... formlessness-ess-ess.

[Knifefighter]

Look, IF WC is a concept based system then the LOOK of a technique is irrelevant, it is the concept and principle behind it that matters.

A parry is a parry, the principle is to guide the attacking limb away from its target with minimal effort, while positioning yourself in best position to counter.
What a parry looks like is irrelevant.
If the rpincipels are there , whether it is done with a open hand, close hand, elbow, forearm, shoudl or HEAD , is irrelevant.

The principle behind a submission is to isolate the opponent's limb and apply force in a direction that compromises the joint. The principle behind a takedown is to get close enough into the opponent to be able to control and unbalance him. The principle of a boxing strike is to rotate your body, extend your arm and hit your opponent.

That doesn't mean you can use an arm bar when you need to use a heel hook. It doesn't mean you should use a jab when you need to use a hook. It doesn't mean you should be using a single leg when you should be using a double leg.

And it sure doesn't mean you should be using a triangle with both of the opponents arms outside, or just rushing in with your head down to get a takedown, or flailing your arms wildly in an attempt to land a blow... all of which are the equivalent of trying to use a lap soa. Some things just don't work (or at least work so rarely as to not even be a consideration).

Knowing the principle is only a small part of the equation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Knowing the principle is only a small part of the equation.

Granted, but knowing the principle of the basic arm bar allows you to do variations that may not look like a text book arm bar, right?
And as long as the arm is straight and the thumb up and the pressure is on the elbow, then, regardless of what the techniques looks like, it is still an arm bar, correct?

[Knifefighter]

Granted, but knowing the principle of the basic arm bar allows you to do variations that may not look like a text book arm bar, right?
And as long as the arm is straight and the thumb up and the pressure is on the elbow, then, regardless of what the techniques looks like, it is still an arm bar, correct?

Yes, but, basically, the mechanics are the same. Not so with the lap sao. Trying to say a lap sao is just a variation on the principle is like saying trying to do a heel hook with the opponent's leg outside yours is just a variation on doing it with the leg inside... it just doesn't work.

But, again, I am open to be shown differently. So far, I haven't seen any examples of lap sao being done in full contact situations. If it's a valid technique, it shouldn't be that hard for someone to post a clip of themselves using it in at least a sparring situation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, but, basically, the mechanics are the same. Not so with the lap sao. Trying to say a lap sao is just a variation on the principle is like saying trying to do a heel hook with the opponent's leg outside yours is just a variation on doing it with the leg inside... it just doesn't work.

I was speaking in general terms about WC not about a specific technique.
To me, many of the "traps" of WC are aimed at "defending" attempt to grab.

[Knifefighter]

I was speaking in general terms about WC not about a specific technique.
To me, many of the "traps" of WC are aimed at "defending" attempt to grab.

Bingo! Somebody gets it! That's exactly how "trapping" (which would more accurately be called "fending off") works.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Bingo! Somebody gets it! That's exactly how "trapping" (which would more accurately be called "fending off") works.

Well thank you, LOL !

It has always been my personal opinion that, generally, blocks ( hard and forceful ones) and trapping has been "designed" to deal with attempted grabs, since that would be what, typically, was a typical first attack during the development stages of many TMA.
Morio Higaonna, in a seminar I was at years ago, agreed with me.

[m1k3]

Well thank you, LOL !

It has always been my personal opinion that, generally, blocks ( hard and forceful ones) and trapping has been "designed" to deal with attempted grabs, since that would be what, typically, was a typical first attack during the development stages of many TMA.
Morio Higaonna, in a seminar I was at years ago, agreed with me.

Does this mean hockey is on its way to becoming a TMA? :eek:

[Knifefighter]

Well thank you, LOL !

It has always been my personal opinion that, generally, blocks ( hard and forceful ones) and trapping has been "designed" to deal with attempted grabs, since that would be what, typically, was a typical first attack during the development stages of many TMA.
Morio Higaonna, in a seminar I was at years ago, agreed with me.

Yep, as a matter of fact, take pretty much the whole WC arsenal and use it to defend and take pressure off of yourself instead of attacking and trying to put pressure on the opponent, and you've taken something that doesn't work so well and turned it into something that is very formidable for the purpose of keeping someone off.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Does this mean hockey is on its way to becoming a TMA? :eek:

Well, hockey fighting is older than most TMA , LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yep, as a matter of fact, take pretty much the whole WC arsenal and use it to defend and take pressure off of yourself instead of attacking and trying to put pressure on the opponent, and you've taken something that doesn't work so well and turned it into something that is very formidable for the purpose of keeping someone off.

I agree, as I mentioned before, what I got out of WC was how to break that ATTEMPTED clinch of grab and counter it well.
Of course, once the clinch set in, I didn't fell it addressed that part as well as what I stated above.

[Knifefighter]

I agree, as I mentioned before, what I got out of WC was how to break that ATTEMPTED clinch of grab and counter it well.
Of course, once the clinch set in, I didn't fell it addressed that part as well as what I stated above.

Yeah, it's funny how few WC guys ever actually figure this out and keep trying to use it for something in which other things work better.

[m1k3]

These last several posts have been very interesting. I never thought of the WC tools as "anti-grab" weapons but it makes a lot of sense.

[Ultimatewingchun]

This is an interesting turn on the thread. I've always believed that wing chun defenses are very good, against both punching attacks that are coming at you and the attempt to clinch/grab you (at the upper body/limb level) - but the outright wing chun offensive punching attacks in just about all wing chun systems are limited - because you need to be in close range in order to make them work.

So attacking from longer ranges is a problem, no matter who says differently, imo. There's some good moves from outside of close quarters, but not enough, ime.

So I've added some boxing/kickboxing moves to get there.

And the whole concept of "trapping" has been blown waaaaay out of proportion. You block, check, deflect, or avoid the limbs (via strikes and attempts to grab you) that are coming in at you...and you do so by focusing upon hitting as the attacks are coming (hence close quarters)...

and lop sao, btw...is best used in this context. As part of a counter (and counter punch) to the attack coming in at you (be they strikes or attempts to grab) - and not as an outright attack of your own. It's the latter that will rarely work against any kind of a skilled fighter.

Wing Chun is about hitting from close quarters - and all of its defenses and "checking/trapping" moves are subordinate to this.

[Knifefighter]

.and you do so by focusing upon hitting as the attacks are coming (hence close quarters)...

and lop sao, btw...is best used in this context. As part of a counter (and counter punch) to the attack coming in at you - and not as an outright attack of your own. It's the latter that will rarely work against any kind of a skilled fighter.

Wing Chun is about hitting from close quarters - .

Those are the parts that don't work so well and would be better suited using something else.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maybe it was all the boxing I did, but when I think fists coming at me at 40 mph, I think evade, deflect, parry.
I think block to the body shots (harder to move the body out of the way) and I think "stop hitting" and such, but I don't think trapping or even touching the punching arm, if I can avoid it, know what I mean?

[Ultimatewingchun]

And that's part of where wing chun has something unique to offer, Paul, imo.

[Frost]

Maybe it was all the boxing I did, but when I think fists coming at me at 40 mph, I think evade, deflect, parry.
I think block to the body shots (harder to move the body out of the way) and I think "stop hitting" and such, but I don't think trapping or even touching the punching arm, if I can avoid it, know what I mean?

i agree i never like my hands leaving my face...unless its to make contact with the opponents lol, especially against a good boxer... those combinations are just too fast and powerful, you try to block and you are always playing ctach up which is not something to do in a fight

[CFT]

These last several posts have been very interesting. I never thought of the WC tools as "anti-grab" weapons but it makes a lot of sense.Rene Ritchie posted some comments ages ago (on his old forum I think) about Wing Chun being very good for faan kam na (anti chin na), rather than kam na itself.

[anerlich]

Originally Posted by Knifefighter
Yep, as a matter of fact, take pretty much the whole WC arsenal and use it to defend and take pressure off of yourself instead of attacking and trying to put pressure on the opponent, and you've taken something that doesn't work so well and turned it into something that is very formidable for the purpose of keeping someone off.

I agree this is definitely food for thought.

There have been a couple of times in BJJ class or seminars where a specific escape technique makes use of hand and arm shapes that resemble WC hands, and the instructor has said to me specifically, knowing my background, that "all that sticky hands stuff can help you here".

These comments came from 2nd and 4th degree BB's both of whom had considerable TMA experience before converting to BJJ.

I hasten to add that these were only in a couple of VERY specific situations. There's nothing hidden in WC that's going to revolutionize BJJ.

[duende]

I agree this is definitely food for thought.

There have been a couple of times in BJJ class or seminars where a specific escape technique makes use of hand and arm shapes that resemble WC hands, and the instructor has said to me specifically, knowing my background, that "all that sticky hands stuff can help you here".

These comments came from 2nd and 4th degree BB's both of whom had considerable TMA experience before converting to BJJ.

I hasten to add that these were only in a couple of VERY specific situations. There's nothing hidden in WC that's going to revolutionize BJJ.

This has been my experience too. My BJJ friends were really into the Kiu Sau bridging I showed them. Certain techniqes like Guillotine escapes etc look almost identical if you look at them from a leverage/body mechanic viewpoint.

Knifefighters point is an excellent one. The main problem IMO that you see in much WC is unrealistic attacks. Unrealistic striking scenarios. And unrealistic footwork and earthgate safety concerns.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"...take pretty much the whole WC arsenal and use it to defend and take pressure off of yourself instead of attacking and trying to put pressure on the opponent, and you've taken something that doesn't work so well and turned it into something that is very formidable for the purpose of keeping someone off." (Dale Frank)
...........................

***YES, wing chun defenses can be very good at keeping someone off you...

which suggests that they're trying to come in. So you are usually going to be at closer quarters when the wing chun defenses start to kick in - and given the fact that wing chun is always trying to use both hands pretty much simultaneously (and therefore you're more squared up with your shoulders) - then wing chun attacks (and counter attacks) are best utilized at close quarters also.

Which for the most part is true; the other part being that when the wing chun arms are extended somewhat - then you can have a somewhat longer range defensive shield (like what Rahsun was using against Dale Franks when they met up). It's harder to attack with effective punches in this mode because your arms are more extended - but in certain circumstances it can be a better defensive shield.

But everything is relative, and Rahsun being 5'11" to Dale's about what? 5'6"...it should be clear why Dale came away with the following single impression about wing chun: it's good at longer range for keeping people off you.

But I submit that it's defenses - depending upon the extension you use for your jong sao (basic on-guard position)...can be effective at both longer and (most definitely) shorter ranges.

But what Dale says in the above quotes about attacking with wing chun does merit some serious thought.

As was said, the shoulders in wing chun striking attacks are usually more squared up than other striking systems, and so therefore the reach is shorter than, say boxing leads, jabs, crosses, and overhands...and so wing chun attacks can often be problematical to pull off - even if you're the same size as your opponent (ie.- he doesn't have a longer reach - than you, but he has some good boxing skills and footwork, for example).

But if he does have a longer reach (ie.- see the guy sparring with me in my vids) - then your challenges in attacking with wing chun are magnified.

And so my contention - from an mma point of view (and yes, from an all-around street point of view) - is to use longer range (boxing type) punching attacks (and longer range kicking attacks)...to penetrate defenses into the shorter ranges....

when necessary.

[YungChun]

But if he does have a longer reach (ie.- see the guy sparring with me in my vids) - then your challenges in attacking with wing chun are magnified.


This is true for all striking arts.. The guy with less reach is always range challenged.. And so his game has to reflect that..

In the end it's not about reach and "how long" a strike is... It's about how you move..or not..and when... It's better to move the body to land than to reach to land no matter what the art or the tools.

The smaller guys always have this issue, the taller guys rarely have to deal with it...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Of course the smaller guys always have this issue.

But if you're saying, Jim, that in order to make up for the shorter-than-usual reach a wing chun fighter has because he stands and strikes with his shoulders more squared than most other stylists....in order to do that we simply have to move the body better...

then I'd really like to see what this means. Move how? Angle better? Cut better? Use better timing? Angle, cut, and time better how? And most importantly: BETTER THAN WHO???

I've heard this explanation numerous times, but what exactly does this mean?

Here's another one I've heard many times by people trying to circumvent the wing-chun-is-a-short-range-system argument: "If someone is close enough to hit me (let's say, with their boxing) - then I'm close enough to hit them." (with my wing chun).

Sounds ideal, doesn't it?

So where's the vids of someone using this "method" (wing chun pure-and-simple) against a really skilled boxer?

Or this one: "Good wing chun will work against a good boxer" (The inference being that if you can't make it work then all that means is that your wing chun is not good enough).

Well I'll tell ya this:

I've yet to see ANYONE go up against a really skilled boxer (even if he's just the same height and weight) - and successfully use his wing chun in a serious full contact match/fight - without his "wing chun" looking quite suspiciously like boxing to a significant degree - especially as the wing chun fighter tries to attack.

(Although I have seen some vids of people trying to tell us not to believe our lyin' eyes - and just take their word for it: what we saw was JUST wing chun....eh....well...it's the new, super-duper "version/interpretation" of wing chun that they came up with after years and years of wing chun investigation and training).

And you know what I call that: MARKETING.

And as for just trying to play a counter game - with no blatant attacks from the outside longer ranges when up against a really skilled boxer type: forget it.

[YungChun]

But if you're saying, Jim, that in order to make up for the shorter-than-usual reach

Firstly, I don't feel the tools are "shorter than X".. I am comfortable using my body however I need to move.. A bladed (name your VT tool) is just as long as a bladed (name your non Vt tool)...Etc..

There is a ubiquitous penalty for reaching in all arts..

But... VT's use of the line and forward parries should be helpful in this regard as well...not a problem to overcome.


a wing chun fighter has because he stands and strikes with his shoulders more squared than most other stylists....in order to do that we simply have to move the body better...

See above..

None the less, we do have to move the body better.. IMO, this is something that is missing from most VT training along with everything else that's missing from it.. :D

I was thinking more and more about my sparring days.. What was one of the key lessons that I came away with from a lot of the early sessions? Well it was how to move... Sounds so simple...just move.. But there is a real art and there is a lot to outside movement.. In my opinion the fighter that has superior outside control of position/timing, has already won at least half the fight.



then I'd really like to see what this means. Move how? Angle better? Cut better? Angle and cut better how? And better than what?


It's an elaborate game.. Because of the time=space via reaction delay there are all kinds of tactics one can use and should use.. HALF the "game" of sparring/dueling in fighting is "space management" IMO..

How does your opponent move?

How does your opponent *think* you move?

Is your movement predictable?

Where does he want you to be?

When does he want you to be there?

Etc..

You can tell a story to your opponent by how you move in the start of the fight..

Do you tell the same short story all the time? Pretty boring and very predictable..

Tell a story then once he has heard the story (more than once) you suddenly change it and read from another book.. ;)

I always liked the way Bruce broke down some of this stuff in his book. But you have to focus on this just like anything else in training and sparring..



I've heard this explanation numerous times, but what exactly does this mean?

Here's another one I've heard many times by people trying to circumvent the "wing chun is a short range system" argument: "If someone is close enough to hit me (let's say, with their boxing)...than I'm close enough to hit them." (With my wing chun).

Sounds ideal, doesn't it?

It all comes down to timing... There is no way around it.. The fight for position and timing runs all through the entire engagement, even before the fight starts (street)..



So where's the vids of someone using this "method" (ie.- wing chun pure-and-simple) against a really skilled boxer?

Or this one: "Good wing chun will work against a good boxer"...


This is all relative.. A good this or a bad that.. There are plenty of bad boxers, plenty of good ones too.. IMO if you are good at whatever then you are good.. Bad at whatever then you are bad, so so is so so, it is what it is.. Of course more boxers can fight than VT folks because most VT folks don't fight...hell some don't even use hard contact in training.........

The reason there are so few VT fighters is largely cultural..and you already can list a hundred reasons why that is... I don't need to tell you the deal with these problems, you've seen them for longer than myself in this art.

[t_niehoff]

Rene Ritchie posted some comments ages ago (on his old forum I think) about Wing Chun being very good for faan kam na (anti chin na), rather than kam na itself.

As WCK's method is to control while striking, it follows that there will be a fight for control on the inside, hence the NEED for tools to prevent/escape control by your opponent (why does BJJ have escapes, because it is NOT grappling?).

[duende]

These last several posts have been very interesting. I never thought of the WC tools as "anti-grab" weapons but it makes a lot of sense.

Finally!

This is what we've been saying!

One main focus of our Kiu Sau program is exactly this. Breaking the clinch, learning how to control range and keep safe positioning through the leverage of a strong bridge.

Typical Chi Sau body mechanics will fall apart under these stress conditions. Kiu Sau does not, as it imcorporates full body alignment and structual awareness. What we call Tin Yan Dei body.

This is the essence of anti-grappling. Using momentery control bridging to break "fully-committed" control.

This is the key.

Not immediately going into a counter wrestling struggle and falling into their game (which they will beat you at). And instead learning how to deal realistically with the oncoming energy and focus on the art of falling.

Learning how to work with this timeframe and and not simply dive directly from stand-up to full groundwork mode.

WC has these tools. One simply has to stop focusing on all the silly slapping hands, and unrealistic strikes that WILL NOT work against a real opponent... Especially when they're in your compromised range and trying to take you down.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system...WC is not a body to body system" (Duende)

***CORRECT.
..........................................

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good wing chun. (HumbleWCGuy)

***THANKS. And one of the most important things about keeping range is to help prevent "attachment". Some limb-to-limb contact and manipulation (and some body balance manipulation) does exist in wing chun, per se...but wing chun is first and foremost about hitting - and having both arms free to do that at all times.

[chusauli]

Victor,

Could you please define what you mean by "structure"? Also, how do you use this structure?

I think that would settle the issue of "attached" vs. "not-attached" fighting.

I am trying to get my head around what this discussion is all about.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Robert,

Certainly "structure" is part of the equation in this conversation/debate...but calling wing chun "attached" fighting goes beyond any ideas of wing chun structure, in my view.

Attached means simply that: you're in some variation of clinch mode with the opponent, and hence, the two of you are "attached".

And while it is true that fighting with wing chun will very often mean some version of limb-to-limb contact...due to all the parrying, checking, blocking, deflecting, and redirecting of the opponent's force that wing chun uses...

this nonetheless does not change the most basic concept in wing chun, again...imo...

which is HITTING your opponent constantly, and having both arms free to do so at virtually all times.

And the only time one arm might not be "free" to do this is simply because that arm is already engaged in doing something already mentioned, ie.- blocking, parrying, redirecting, etc.

And things like unbalancing or perhaps even sweeping an opponent, in strictly wing chun terms...are byproducts, in my view, of all of the above.

The main idea, first-and-foremost is to HIT the opponent multiple times until he is either knocked out or knocked down.

Now as to the role that structure plays in this equation, and again strictly from a wing chun perspective...clearly we are talking about a balanced, rooted-yet-mobile base, bent kneed and somewhat pressed inward, hips locked forward, head and chest up, shoulders back, elbows protecting the center, and moving this "structure" as one whole piece that stays aligned, and with forward intent and pressure...whenever the opening is there to persue one's attack...and of course, used at times to create such openings for attack.

A far cry from being "attached" to the opponent; which again, connotes some variation of clinch fighting.

Now if you want to discuss the merits of using a clinch when it is to your advantage, or in being able to fight in the clnch when the clinch occurs, or the merits of takedown skills, ground skills, etc..

that's fine. I'm a complete believer in crosstraining.

But trying to redefine the meaning of "attached" so as to make it something other than what it is...to me...is absurd.

[t_niehoff]

Victor,

Could you please define what you mean by "structure"? Also, how do you use this structure?

I think that would settle the issue of "attached" vs. "not-attached" fighting.

I am trying to get my head around what this discussion is all about.

I'll answer your question too:

For me, WCK body structure (or structure) is using your body in a way that permits you to control your opponent while striking him.

[mun hung]

I would like to start by saying that there are many different thoughts on a variety of different things and by many different people on this board. Most people who are on this discussion group have been training in kung fu for at least a little while. It is my opinion that all good martial artists should always prepare to empty their cups and open their minds to different frames of thinking. Sometimes with things they feel quite familiar with. Wing Chun is an art that was created by many and it took many open minds who had to check their arrogance and personal beliefs "at the door" to create this fighting style which was relatively new in comparison to most. An open mind.

Attached fighting - unattached fighting. What are the differences? What are the ranges?

Wing Chun has short and long bridges. Both can be used for different things and for diferent ranges.

There is a time, place/space and distance for both. Some people believe that they can fight solely with short bridge/Chi Sau tecniques and this could be true - but at what range? And at what expense? What does it take to safely get into short bridge fighting distance when someone is running up to you and throwing hard multiple punches at you? How about a someone using boxing hands to set you up for the big punch? In and out. How about a good kicker? Maybe solely using short bridge in a bar when someone is close enough to put their hands on you or even a couple of feet away where you can actually close the distance quickly, but how about out in the parking lot squaring off at about 5 or 6 feet away? It's a completely different game. Different power, distancing, timing, trapping, coverage and footwork. It's what Victor had to deal with in his sparring. How to deal with disconnected force and then close the gap and control the opponent. Not much luck.

How do you control an opponent that is diconnected? Long bridge. Long bridge is what is used for sparring. It gives one the ability to deal with a great diconnected force or fast repetitive attacks, and opens up some of your "short bridge hands" to work differently at this range. Story is the same in long bridge - to safely gain control of your opponent. Some of the same hands are applied differently now. Trapping is still there - but It also enables you to bridge the 5-6 foot gap in that parking lot fight. Whether you you use short bridge/chi sau tecniques to control your opponent once you've bridged that gap through long bridge is up to you.

Some people think that we do not do any short bridge in our school, since we don't have a ton of pictures demonstrating chi sau on our website, but this is incorrect. Our school teaches both short and long bridge, but really focuses on the long bridge aspect of fighting. This is the course that my SiFu Allan Lee and my SiBak Duncan Leung have chosen. Not as much fun as chi sau and more difficult because you're dealing with disconnected force. More movement, more commitment, more work, more sweat.

This is my take on this topic. I can only hope that it is accepted with the same open mind that it took me to understand it.

If anyone is curious or thinks I'm out of my mind - I am in N.Y. and available to meet/explain/demonstrate what I believe in at any time. Maybe lunch. Just please don't ask me to sparr with you or your students. No real time for that.