The Key

[t_niehoff]

From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves.

And it is the thing I look for in determining how good someone's WCK is (andin, for example, determining how well I am doing).

When we break the opponent's structure, we take away his strength and his speed, we take away his offense and his defense. If you've ever had your structure broken by someone who knows what they are doing, you feel like you are being tossed around like a rag doll. What breaking the opponent's structure provides is control (and safety).

If you don't break an opponent's structure, then he is free to use all his strength, all his speed, free to attack you -- and you have to deal with all of that.

So how can we break an opponent's structure and keep it broken? You can do that through striking him in certain ways. Is striking alone enough? Rarely. But, you can also push, pull, press, lift, jerk, etc. him, using leverage and momentum, to break and keep his structure broken.

What do you need to be able to push, pull, press, jerk,etc., to use leverage and momentum, against your opponent? You need a couple fundamental things. First, you need a solid connection, a good handle. What in WCK we call "a bridge". This isn't a momentary, fleeting connection (like a block) but one that is solid enough (the so-called "iron bridge") and which lasts long enough for you to perform the action, to lift, to press, to pull, etc. In other words, sustained contact in such a way as to provide that connection (bridge).

Second, you also need a certain body structure or way of using your body, one that not only makes it difficult for you to have your structure broken (that withstands being directly pushed, pulled, jerked, etc.) but that can you can use to push,pull, jerk, lift, press, etc. Because you don't do those things with your arm (localized muscle), you do them with your body. The bridge provides the connection, but it is the body that does the action (press with your body, pull with your body, lift with your body, etc.).

And, btw, this strategy of breaking the opponent's structure isn't unique or special to WCK -- you see it in judo (kazushi), you see it in MT clinch, you see it in wrestling, etc. How it is implemented in those various arts differs since their approaches differ.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.
:D

[t_niehoff]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.
:D

Sure it CAN (didn't I say so?).

The issue is whether breaking your opponent's structure is your aim (your objective) or what you hope will be the by-product of your striking. Because when it is your aim, it changes things (how you hit, how you set up your strike, etc.). And, you may come to realize that it is just one tactic among many to accomplish breaking structure -- often, for example, it is much simpler to pull to break structure than to strike to break structure.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.
:D

***YOU said a mouthful, right there...

Breaking the opponent's structure (ie.- unbalancing him, setting him back on his heels, or in retreat) - is all well and good...

but not necessary in order to win a fight.

You can drop a man with several well placed punches, knee strikes, elbow strikes, kicks, etc. - and it's over.

The breaking of structure comes as he hits the floor. :cool:

Simple, direct, efficient. Sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit !!! ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sure it CAN (didn't I say so?).

The issue is whether breaking your opponent's structure is your aim (your objective) or what you hope will be the by-product of your striking. Because when it is your aim, it changes things (how you hit, how you set up your strike, etc.). And, you may come to realize that it is just one tactic among many to accomplish breaking structure -- often, for example, it is much simpler to pull to break structure than to strike to break structure.

Being brought up in a "one hit, one kill" MA - Hung Kuen, then kyokushin- and taking that view into boxing and beyond, I never viewed the "goal" of any strike to be anything other than "to compromise the opponent" ( That was borrowed from my first boxing coach in Portugal), a strike MUST make the opponent "compromise" himself, either by the effect of the hit, or what he must do NOT to get hit.
If you wanna view that as "structural compromise" great.
Now, "one hit,one kills" are rarer than a Virgin after prom night, but the core principle is very valid and, in my view, a bit neglected nowadays.
Hitting in a way that every strike MUST be taken seriously by your opponent, IE: no 10 year old girl slaps.

[chusauli]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.

Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.

Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

I totally disagree.





Just kidding :D
LOL !

I am probably the least "bridge orientated" southern kung fu guy you will find !
Probably all that pesky boxing I did.
;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

And the boxing approach is good. As is breaking the man's structure.

You do whatever it takes, based upon the opportunities he gives you or those you create yourself.

That's THE KEY.

[LoneTiger108]

From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves...

... And, btw, this strategy of breaking the opponent's structure isn't unique or special to WCK -- you see it in judo (kazushi), you see it in MT clinch, you see it in wrestling, etc. How it is implemented in those various arts differs since their approaches differ.

It's all good coining a phrase, but surely this can be explained further. FWIW Within what I have studied there is a key area of training that develops this 'body structure' and it would be cool to compare notes. Also, from what I've seen from Alan Orrs clips we have similar structural tests/tricks too.

So what is the WCK body structure exactly? Where does the practise draw it's origins?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Reducing WC to standing grappling is just missing the boat in my opinion. It is a part of WC but it isn't even close to being the sum of WC. Generally speaking though, a little clinching knowledge goes a long way, but like in MT, you really only want to start clinching when your strikes aren't working for you and/or you are sure that you have the upper hand in the clinch.

[t_niehoff]

***YOU said a mouthful, right there...

Breaking the opponent's structure (ie.- unbalancing him, setting him back on his heels, or in retreat) - is all well and good...

but not necessary in order to win a fight.

You can drop a man with several well placed punches, knee strikes, elbow strikes, kicks, etc. - and it's over.

The breaking of structure comes as he hits the floor. :cool:

Simple, direct, efficient. Sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit !!! ;)

Funny, "sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit"! TWC doesn't have the kuit -- apparently Cheung never learned them or, if he did, never understood their significance.

Of course breaking structure isn't necessary to win a fight. Many arts, the noncontact ones particularly (boxing, kickboxing, etc.), don't focus on breaking structure. But all arts that involve sustained contact while standing, call it clinch or whatever, do. And there is a reason they do. So it makes sense that if you see WCK as some sort of kickboxing, then breaking structure wouldn't be important to you.

It makes me wonder what people are learning since the chum kiu form pertains to the skills for breaking structure (the name of the form tells you that), or that chum is one of the faat mun, or that our signature exercise is an attached one (chi sao) -- which provides the conditions (sustained contact) to permit practice of breaking an opponent's structure . . . . Oh, well.

[t_niehoff]

It's all good coining a phrase, but surely this can be explained further. FWIW Within what I have studied there is a key area of training that develops this 'body structure' and it would be cool to compare notes. Also, from what I've seen from Alan Orrs clips we have similar structural tests/tricks too.

So what is the WCK body structure exactly? Where does the practise draw it's origins?

Robert's structure tests are just a way to help beginners find how to use their body.

The practice draws from function: how can I use my body successfully while attached fighting? In that situation, your opponent will be pressing you, pulling you, jerking you, etc. trying to break your structure. So, you need your body to be able to instantly adjust to those forces and maintain its integrity while at the same time be able to successfully strike, pull, press, push, jerk, lift, etc, him using your body (and not localized muscle). That's WCK body structure in a nutshell.

[t_niehoff]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.


Exactly. The focus of your teaching is breaking the opponent's structure and what you need to do that -- and that's because you recognize it is one of the fundamentals of WCK.

But this isn't just something you came up with, it is a part of YM WCK, it is a part of YKS WCK, it is a part of Gu Lao WCK, etc. What you've done with your curriculum/teaching is IMO to make these things explicit and to teach them in a clear cut way.



Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

Of course not. As I have repeatedly (as I am often reminded) said, WCK is controlling WHILE striking -- it is not, like some knuckleheads keep misrepresenting, standing grappling. It is pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, sinking, etc. WHILE you strike. The striking is continually going on. But the objective is not just to strike, it is to keep hi structure broken so that we can continue to strike in safety.

[bennyvt]

i was always taught ck was seeking the bridge. Meaning instead of slt when the guy is in front and you can control the centre, its when they are at angles and how to block and attack. Bridge meaning a point of reference on your opponent be that a punch or a block. Not grabbing to hit but blocking and facing or blocking and facing with strike or just striking at the angle.

[t_niehoff]

i was always taught ck was seeking the bridge. Meaning instead of slt when the guy is in front and you can control the centre, its when they are at angles and how to block and attack. Bridge meaning a point of reference on your opponent be that a punch or a block. Not grabbing to hit but blocking and facing or blocking and facing with strike or just striking at the angle.

The older terminology is "bridge sinking", or sinking with the bridge (using your bridge to destroy an opponent's structure). Yip changed it to "seeking bridge", or the objective of your bridge (what your bridge is seeking to do), but it doesn't change the meaning -- both are describing the same thing, seeking (your objective) to destroy an opponent's structure with your bridge.

This is why it is important not to be limited to our own little lineage or branch but to look at WCK from a broad perspective (the art).

A punch or a block isn't a "bridge". Momentary touching is not "bridging".

SNT pertains to getting a solid connection to your opponent (so uses longer bridges), and the CK uses shortened bridges to destroy his structure (since they provide better body leverage).

[Wayfaring]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.
:D

You can skip all the WCK and run over them with a Mack truck.

True story. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can skip all the WCK and run over them with a Mack truck.

True story. :D

I am a MACK TRUCK !!!

[Wayfaring]

I am a MACK TRUCK !!!

Yeah, I've got your Mack truck. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

The true key to WC:
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sexy-motivational-6-20.jpg

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay, Paul....since you keep distracting the 5hit out of me with all these hot babes, go to:

mma.tv

...and look for a thread on the forums entitled:

"Can I get a new THE ULTIMATE A55 thread going?"

It's now about 80 pages long with tons of photos...and all I can say is, OMG !!! :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Okay, Paul....since you keep distracting the 5hit of me with all these hot babes, go to:

mma.tv

...and look for a thread on the forums entitled:

"Can I get a new THE ULTIMATE A55 thread going?"

It's now about 20 pages long with dozens of photos...and I can say is, OMG !!! :cool:

Interesting...

[LoneTiger108]

Robert's structure tests are just a way to help beginners find how to use their body.

The practice draws from function: how can I use my body successfully while attached fighting? In that situation, your opponent will be pressing you, pulling you, jerking you, etc. trying to break your structure. So, you need your body to be able to instantly adjust to those forces and maintain its integrity while at the same time be able to successfully strike, pull, press, push, jerk, lift, etc, him using your body (and not localized muscle). That's WCK body structure in a nutshell.

And what you describe illustrates part of interactive practise, but this, imo, isn't the only speciality of Wing Chun.

The attached/unattached argument I find interesting, but fme Wing Chun is definitely both.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The attached/unattached argument I find interesting, but fme Wing Chun is definitely both.
Yes, you do which ever one you are better at.
Crazy isn't it ??

[LoneTiger108]

Yes, you do which ever one you are better at.
Crazy isn't it ??

Yep! Agreed.

Listen, we named our joint venture into coaching The Yum Yeurng (Yin Yang) Academy so this sort of thing does seem wierd to me :rolleyes:

[Wayfaring]

Okay, Paul....since you keep distracting the 5hit out of me with all these hot babes, go to:

mma.tv

...and look for a thread on the forums entitled:

"Can I get a new THE ULTIMATE A55 thread going?"

It's now about 20 pages long with dozens of photos...and all I can say is, OMG !!! :cool:

And people say Eddie Bravo isn't good for anything. He starts up one of those threads over there about every 6 months.

[Wayfaring]

The true key to WC:


Much better than all the other true keys.

[Matrix]

Second, you also need a certain body structure or way of using your body, one that not only makes it difficult for you to have your structure broken (that withstands being directly pushed, pulled, jerked, etc.) but that can you can use to push,pull, jerk, lift, press, etc. Because you don't do those things with your arm (localized muscle), you do them with your body. The bridge provides the connection, but it is the body that does the action (press with your body, pull with your body, lift with your body, etc.). I may be nit picking, but I would say this is first not second. You cannot hope to affect the opponent if you don't have command of yourself first.
Outside of this point I am in agreement.

Thanks...

[Phil Redmond]

Funny, "sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit"! TWC doesn't have the kuit -- apparently Cheung never learned them or, if he did, never understood their significance. . .

What a D**k head statement. I never say anything negative about Hawkins. Also, if you think you have the goods I'd like to see it.

[LSWCTN1]

My Ng Chun Hong lineage practices this in the exact same way as you describe,

the pure WSL i have experienced seemed to do something very similar but by hitting constantly and using very fast footwork - very nice!

i agree with pretty much everything T has written, FWIW

[Niersun]

Every Wing Chun lineage larp sao's an opponents arm, controlling the arm and attacks. This is something most beginners pick up when doing random chi sao.

Breaking an opponents structure is nothing new. TWC teaches this in the BOEC, where you attack your opponents lead elbow and controlling it, therefore controlling his structure.

Reinventing the wheel and trying to come out all wise are you.

[Niersun]

Robert's structure tests are just a way to help beginners find how to use their body.

The practice draws from function: how can I use my body successfully while attached fighting? In that situation, your opponent will be pressing you, pulling you, jerking you, etc. trying to break your structure. So, you need your body to be able to instantly adjust to those forces and maintain its integrity while at the same time be able to successfully strike, pull, press, push, jerk, lift, etc, him using your body (and not localized muscle). That's WCK body structure in a nutshell.

See i was right about your attached fighting/grappling theory. Larping an arm and striking.

Now, i know that we have our differences, but if you take the time to develop your contact relexes and practice exchange steps in your chi sao, you might have an edge over your current WC training partners that try to attach them selves to your arm and take away your structure.

[Matrix]

What a D**k head statement. I never say anything negative about Hawkins. Also, if you think you have the goods I'd like to see it.Phil,
Don't take the bait. Trash talk is just trash. Don't even make the effort to pick it up. It's not worth it.

[Niersun]

Try to do simple chi sao by not looking. You will see that your relexes will start to increase. Your WC training partner will find it more harder to larp you as you simply exchange step and bil sao and do larger huen sao's to attack his elbow, etc, etc.

It appears your blind hatred towards GM William Cheung (for reasons only known to you) has robbed you of some good training methods. Its a shame.

[Niersun]

Of course not. As I have repeatedly (as I am often reminded) said, WCK is controlling WHILE striking -- it is not, like some knuckleheads keep misrepresenting, standing grappling. It is pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, sinking, etc. WHILE you strike. The striking is continually going on. But the objective is not just to strike, it is to keep hi structure broken so that we can continue to strike in safety.

I think someone has multiple personalities.

You say its GRAPPLING, now you say its NOT. Now your using the term CONTROLLING.

[Niersun]

Okay. It appears that i cannot read.

I see the word grappling and i immediately assume, stand up wrestling and dont pay attention to what else is written.

If Terrence initially meant to grab and control an arm and strike simultaneously taking away the opponents balance by pulling him through their own centreline, etc, then yes that is a WC tactic and is used by WC fighters when the opportunity arises.

That tactic wont always work though.

[Knifefighter]

Every Wing Chun lineage larp sao's an opponents arm, controlling the arm and attacks. This is something most beginners pick up when doing random chi sao.

Breaking an opponents structure is nothing new. TWC teaches this in the BOEC, where you attack your opponents lead elbow and controlling it, therefore controlling his structure.

Reinventing the wheel and trying to come out all wise are you.

Too bad lop sao doesn't work against an actual resisting opponent who is halfway skilled.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think someone has multiple personalities.

You say its GRAPPLING, now you say its NOT. Now your using the term CONTROLLING.

***GET USED TO THAT, Niersun. He does it all the time. He puts something out there as "gospel" - and then when the flaws in what he says are exposed - he goes in a very different direction while trying to make believe he never said what in fact he did say previously.

The guy is a fraud.

BUT A CLEVER ONE....for example, his use of the term "attached" fighting...HE CLEARLY meant in his original numerous posts on this that he was talking about clinch fighting/grappling as a big part of his definition...

but now...well...he's just talking CONTROLLING people with things like lop sao and some other wing chun moves.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

BECAUSE: myself and other people kept arguing with him post-after-post that while wing chun uses such "controlling" bridge work as a means to achieve it's main strategey - hitting people - he kept saying nooooooooooooooo...

BUT NOW LOOK WHAT HE'S SAYING.

The guy is a douche bag.

[Vajramusti]

There are major differences among lineages regrading the details in the dynamics of lap sao and its uses. It is not just about controlling arms in usage.
And frequent non wing chun trolling posters know even less about the proper use of lop sao.

joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

What a D**k head statement. I never say anything negative about Hawkins. Also, if you think you have the goods I'd like to see it.

TWC is Cheung's curriculum (that he created) for teaching WCK.

Does TWC -- Cheung's curriculum -- have the kuen kuit?

No.

Is the kuen kuit a part of the WCK core curriculum?

Yes. The same core kuen kuit are in YKS, YM, Gu Lao, etc.

So why does TWC lack the kuen kuit?

Well, either Cheung didn't learn it or if he did, he doesn't think it worthwhile teaching -- which indicates to me that he doesn't appreciate their significance.

Who is Cheung but some guy who teaches WCK for a living -- he's nothing special. Neither is Hawkins, neither are any of these guys. These are just guys who have learned the WCK curriculum or portions of the WCK curriculum.

Attachment to lineage only holds you back since then you are not looking at the broader art but only one person's way of teaching it.

[Knifefighter]

There are major differences among lineages regrading the details in the dynamics of lap sao and its uses. It is not just about controlling arms in usage.
And frequent non wing chun trolling posters know even less about the proper use of lop sao.

joy chaudhuri

Methinks self-proclaimed WC "experts" know even less about the mysterious lop sao. Like the believers in the Loc Ness monster, they make lots of claims for it, but have never actually produced any evidence of it working in full-contact settings.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Lop sao is best used as a GUIDING HAND along with a short, quick, slight pull across - rather than as a full blown GRAB and pull across...

the shorter and quicker the movements while using lop - and without ATTACHING yourself to the opponent with a big grabbing motion - the more likely it will succeed as a controlling bridge move - when you're looking to either punch with the other hand or possibly the same hand after quickly releasing the lop.

The only times an actual grab and pull across works is if the opponent is already compromised in some way - and then the lop can further unbalance him and set him up for other things.

And the extent to which (any version of lop sao) can actually be used against a skilled, resisting opponent should not be overestimated. You can get it occasionally - but it is not a primary move like out-and-out punching is, for example.

[t_niehoff]

***GET USED TO THAT, Niersun. He does it all the time. He puts something out there as "gospel" - and then when the flaws in what he says are exposed - he goes in a very different direction while trying to make believe he never said what in fact he did say previously.

The guy is a fraud.


Well, except that I'm not doing that.



BUT A CLEVER ONE....for example, his use of the term "attached" fighting...HE CLEARLY meant in his original numerous posts on this that he was talking about clinch fighting/grappling as a big part of his definition...


And I haven't changed in what I'm saying. WCK's approach to fighting is to control while striking. That control requires an attachment, sustained contact to give us a "handle" from which to push, pull, jerk, etc. so to break your opponent's structure and keep it broken. You can do this through his limbs or his body. It is clinch fighting -- but clinching similar to what you see in dirty boxing or MT, as opposed to the body lock stuff of greco.



but now...well...he's just talking CONTROLLING people with things like lop sao and some other wing chun moves.


I was ALWAYS talking about doing it through WCK movement alone. Lop sao means grabbing hand -- to grab something with your hand. Grabbing is one way of getting an attachment (sot aht you can push, pull, etc. to break his structure).



Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

BECAUSE: myself and other people kept arguing with him post-after-post that while wing chun uses such "controlling" bridge work as a means to achieve it's main strategey - hitting people - he kept saying nooooooooooooooo...

BUT NOW LOOK WHAT HE'S SAYING.


Yes, I'M SAYING WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING -- WCK'S METHOD IS TO CONTROL WHILE STRIKING. GO BACK AND READ MY POSTS. CONTROL WHILE STRIKING. The bridge is our connection to the opponent, it is what gives us a handle to allow us to push, pull,etc.

Hitting someone isn't a "strategy". Strategy is your plan, how you are going to approach the fight. WCK's faat mun provides a strategy that permits us to strike the opponent while being safe, that strategy is to join (daap), close them down (jeet), break their structure (chum), then deliver our weapons (biu), all the while maintaining flexible attachment (chi). While these may appear as sequential, often they overlap -- ideally you want to daap, jeet, chum in one action (to break an opponent's structure on contact).



The guy is a douche bag.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Knifefighter]

Here is a clip of Phil demonstrating a pak/lop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3rOtqnnDk

In the lop sao, he is clearly grabbing the arm an pulling it (this is what I would consider the WC lop soa).

1- Is that the WC lap sao?

2- If so, can anyone please show some evidence of people actually using it in full-contact situations?

[t_niehoff]

Lop sao translates to "grabbing hand" -- any time you grab your opponent, you are performing a lop sao. The drill 'lop sao' uses a grabbing hand but that isn't the only way to use a grabbing hand. If, for example, I grab your lapel and pull you, that is a lop sao. All the grab does is provide an attachment (solid connection). Lop sao is an action, not a technique.

[Ultimatewingchun]

About Phil Redmond's vid:

I know from experience that the lop on the rear cross from the inside will not work against a skilled, resisting opponent (ie.- a good boxer). You can block with that arm/hand if the cross comes - but getting an actual lop is not something to count on against the rear cross.

But the lop work that Phil does in that vid against the lead hand punch that came at him can work...

although more often than not a good fighter will be retracting that arm naturally (or after he realizes he's being countered) - at which point in TWC you're taught to release the lop and pressure his lead elbow with your other hand with gum sao, (ie.- it looks something like pak but is more akin to a straight-arm in football - although without fully locking out the elbow of your gum hand)...

and pressure it by moving in closer as well - while you're doing it...and then almost immediately seek to hit him with the hand that originally did the lop sao.

[Knifefighter]

Lop sao translates to "grabbing hand" -- any time you grab your opponent, you are performing a lop sao. The drill 'lop sao' uses a grabbing hand but that isn't the only way to use a grabbing hand. If, for example, I grab your lapel and pull you, that is a lop sao. All the grab does is provide an attachment (solid connection). Lop sao is an action, not a technique.

Lop sao is taught as a grab on the opponent's arm with the hand pronated into an external rotation. This is the lap sao I am talking about.

I don't think there is anything taught in WC about grabbing clothing, but please point me to the techniques in the system that do that.

[Knifefighter]

although more often than not a good fighter will be retracting that arm naturally (or after he realizes he's being countered) - at which point in TWC you're taught to release the lop and pressure his lead elbow with your other hand with gum sao,

Which means it didn't work.

Thank you.

[t_niehoff]

Lop sao is taught as a grab on the opponent's arm with the hand pronated into an external rotation. This is the lap sao I am talking about.

I don't think there is anything taught in WC about grabbing clothing, but please point me to the techniques in the system that do that.

I know what lop sao you are talking about. And what I am saying is that is an example of a lop (grabbing) hand, not THE lop sao.

In WCK, we use grabbing as a means of getting attachment to the opponent (so that we can break his structure), so we grab the neck, the arm (upper and lower), whatever we can that will give us a handle. There is nothing that prohibits grabbing anything, clothing or whatever.

[Knifefighter]

I know what lop sao you are talking about. And what I am saying is that is an example of a lop (grabbing) hand, not THE lop sao.

In WCK, we use grabbing as a means of getting attachment to the opponent (so that we can break his structure), so we grab the neck, the arm (upper and lower), whatever we can that will give us a handle. There is nothing that prohibits grabbing anything, clothing or whatever.

In that case, somebody developing the system forgot to figure out the fact that some forms of grabbing don't work so well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Grabbing leads to grabbing and grabbing leads to grappling, so unless that is your aim, try to avoid it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Which is why I made the distinction between a short, quick GUIDING lop and a full blown GRAB.

[Knifefighter]

Which is why I made the distinction between a short, quick GUIDING lop and a full blown GRAB.

Please provide some evidence for that type of lop sao working in a full contact environment.

[Ultimatewingchun]

This is not a full contact environment - and it's a different application of lop sao (ie.- it's not against a straight punch in these vids)...

but it is something that has worked for me on occasions while sparring full contact.

And again, it's a very quick but not a committed grab - but rather...

it's a short grabbing and pull across but mostly guiding rather than fully grabbing motion that I'm expecting to have to release and go into something else very soon thereafter.

Part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1d1OyedoDE


Part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7rdDn3uTR8&feature=related

Also notice that in the vid I refer to it as a "block"...because this is actually a combo of bil sao and lop sao together as one whole quick movement.

And also, apologies for the "aspect ratio" being off in the second vid. My partner and I look a bit distorted because of it.

[YungChun]

Please provide some evidence for that type of lop sao working in a full contact environment.

Not all attacks are done by skilled fighters in a contest environment.. Any opponent who leaves an arm out there, reaches to grab, clashes with force, etc, could be lopped...

And the lop can be in combination with a forward chopping parry or attachment attempt.. As you lop you may wish to strike with the other hand as you break their balance or you might want to simply (arm drag?) pull them into a wall..or onto the ground.. Grabbing is basic part of what people do to each other (HAOV) and naturally Chun deals with this aspect of human attacking actions, both by using grabbing and in dealing with incoming limbs..

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not all attacks are done by skilled fighters in a contest environment.. Any opponent who leaves an arm out there, reaches to grab, clashes with force, etc, could be lopped...

And the lop can be in combination with a forward chopping parry or attachment attempt.. Once lopped you may wish to strike with the other hand as you break their balance or you might want to simply (arm drag?) pull them into a wall..or onto the ground.. Grabbing is part of what people do to each other and naturally Chun deals with this aspect of human attacking actions, both by using grabbing and in dealing with incoming limbs..

I think that Dale's issue MAY be using Lop VS a strike.
Vs a grab I can see that, but trying to "grab" a strike is, well, tricky at best.
I mean, Aikido guys drill that ALL the time and rarely pull it off and prefer to do it VS a grab.

[Knifefighter]

Not all attacks are done by skilled fighters in a contest environment.. Any opponent who leaves an arm out there, reaches to grab, clashes with force, etc, could be lopped...

Thats' great... a system that teaches things that only work against scrubs.



And the lop can be in combination with a forward chopping parry or attachment attempt.. As you lop you may wish to strike with the other hand as you break their balance or you might want to simply (arm drag?) pull them into a wall..or onto the ground.. Grabbing is basic part of what people do to each other (HAOV) and naturally Chun deals with this aspect of human attacking actions, both by using grabbing and in dealing with incoming limbs..

Arm drags and lop saos are completely different biomechancally. Arm drags work, lop saos don't. There are sound biomechanical reasons for this.

But, again, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong. Please point to some evidence of lap saos being used against full resisting oppoents.

[YungChun]

I think that Dale's issue MAY be using Lop VS a strike.
Vs a grab I can see that, but trying to "grab" a strike is, well, tricky at best.
I mean, Aikido guys drill that ALL the time and rarely pull it off and prefer to do it VS a grab.

Moving into them helps but I agree it's low%.. If the opponent is firing off quick strikes no you probably won't get the attachment..or the lop..but it depends on both people and exactly what is happening..

The classical inside use is when in the clash they cross the line laterally.. It can set up turning them or clearing the line for the counter and/or as you break their balance--the attachment..

In fighting or sparring decent folks then what I always found was simpler works better.. The cutting punch instead of the lop is higher %.. but doesn't do the same thing a lop can.. Bottom line is either their arm is out there long enough to lop or not, and if not then simply firing your weapon is higher %.

[Knifefighter]

I think that Dale's issue MAY be using Lop VS a strike.
Vs a grab I can see that, but trying to "grab" a strike is, well, tricky at best.
I mean, Aikido guys drill that ALL the time and rarely pull it off and prefer to do it VS a grab.

It doesn't work against grabs either. That's why you never see it in wrestling.

However, you do bring up a good point. If it doesn't work when you are already grabbing someone, it's even less likely to work when the opponent is striking.

[YungChun]

Thats' great... a system that teaches things that only work against scrubs.




Arm drags and lop saos are completely different biomechancally. Arm drags work, lop saos don't. There are sound biomechanical reasons for this.

But, again, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong. Please point to some evidence of lap saos being used against full resisting oppoents.

Black and white makes for a boring rainbow..

So you don't think you can convert to an arm drag from a lop?

The truth is that in human acts of violence folks grab and reach.. Another truth is that violent attacks are not always technically perfect in fight competition terms.. Aside from that and other inside applications arms extend and clash and NOT to include grabbing in Chun wouldn't make any sense.

Any arm that stays out for too long can be lopped.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It doesn't work against grabs either. That's why you never see it in wrestling.

However, you do bring up a good point. If it doesn't work when you are already grabbing someone, it's even less likely to work when the opponent is striking.

Well, I've never tried doing it myself, but I can conceive of it working where a guy tries to grab my beer and I grab his arm and punch him in the face.
:D

[YungChun]

Well, I've never tried doing it myself, but I can conceive of it working where a guy tries to grab my beer and I grab his arm and punch him in the face.
:D

In this case you should always regain control of the beer first.... So IOW lop the beer.. Otherwise it will spill as you lop his arm...

Humans grab... Chun grabs.. It's all in how and when and why.. Grapplers don't grab? :eek:

Hey Paul doesn't SPM grab?

[sanjuro_ronin]

In this case you should always regain control of the beer first.... So IOW lop the beer.. Otherwise it will spill as you lop his arm...

You sound like a man with experience in these matters.
:D

[Knifefighter]

Black and white makes for a boring rainbow..

So you don't think you can convert to an arm drag from a lop?

LOL... of course you can't. They are done with different arms from completely differing angles.

[Knifefighter]

In this case you should always regain control of the beer first.... So IOW lop the beer.. Otherwise it will spill as you lop his arm...

Humans grab... Chun grabs.. It's all in how and when and why.. Grapplers don't grab?

Not with grabs that don't work... again, you will never see a lap sao in grappling.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Please provide some evidence for that type of lop sao working in a full contact environment.

I am about to start billing you for all the free martial arts information that I give you. A pretty standard tacit used in mma is to use an undertook on one side of the opponents body and to pull down the opponent's other hand with a lop sao. From that position a variety of offensive activities can occur. Lop saos occur all the time to move peoples hands out of the way for strikes both in the ground and in the clinch.

[YungChun]

LOL... of course you can't. They are done with different arms from completely differing angles.

There is more than one kind of lop... Nevertheless pulling their arm out can certainly set up an arm drag.. How can it not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

[Knifefighter]

I am about to start billing you for all the free martial arts information that I give you. A pretty standard tacit used in mma is to use an undertook on one side of the opponents body and to pull down the opponent's other hand with a lop sao. From that position a variety of offensive activities can occur. Lop saos occur all the time to move peoples hands out of the way for strikes both in the ground and in the clinch.

LOL... please point to a clip showing this common example of a lop sao.

[YungChun]

Not with grabs that don't work... again, you will never see a lap sao in grappling.

Any time you grab in Chun it is a lop... And as I said, there is more than one kind of grab..

Grapplers I know certainly grab arms... And when your arm is grabbed you can re-grab theirs as a counter..

[Ultimatewingchun]

I am about to start billing you for all the free martial arts information that I give you. A pretty standard tacit used in mma is to use an undertook on one side of the opponents body and to pull down the opponent's other hand with a lop sao. From that position a variety of offensive activities can occur. Lop saos occur all the time to move peoples hands out of the way for strikes both in the ground and in the clinch.

***THIS IS TRUE.

Now if Dale Frank refuses to pay your bill, the least he can do is make a donation to your favorite charity. :)

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL... please point to a clip showing this common example of a lop sao.

Apparently, you don't know what a lop sao. I can't even believe that this is a discussion topic. Define a lop sao for us so that we can get a good chuckle.

[Knifefighter]

There is more than one kind of lop... Nevertheless pulling their arm out can certainly set up an arm drag.. How can it not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

THAT is what you are considering a lap sao? That works fine. However, there's something wrong with a system that has one set of techniques that works and another that doesn't work, meanwhile naming them all the same.

Maybe WC needs to have two sets of naming protocols with different prefixes:
doesn't work technique
and
works technique

[YungChun]

Another case for the lop is when the opponent's strike fires deeply into your arms/guard.. This is a natural conversion to a lop as his force is used to lop him...

[Knifefighter]

Apparently, you don't know what a lop sao. I can't even believe that this is a discussion topic. Define a lop sao for us so that we can get a good chuckle.

Once again, showing what a dumb@ss you are.

Go back and read through the thread to the post where I reference a clip where Phil Redmond demonstrated a lop sao and I made it explicitly clear what I meant by lop sao.

You can't really be this stupid.

[JPinAZ]

Hmmm, here we go again...


Of course not. As I have repeatedly (as I am often reminded) said, WCK is controlling WHILE striking -- it is not, like some knuckleheads keep misrepresenting, standing grappling. It is pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, sinking, etc. WHILE you strike. The striking is continually going on. But the objective is not just to strike, it is to keep hi structure broken so that we can continue to strike in safety.

But then, what about this?


WCK is to control the opponent while striking him.To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.


Oh, and this one:


Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

Of course he'll have another weak, backtracking, lame a55 excuse for this contradiction as well.. :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

About the vid that Dale Frank just posted:

THAT'S one way to enter into an arm drag - by starting with a lop sao. Yes...

And there are other ways to use lop sao.

Even Josh Barnett uses them (and labels them as such) on his vid "ATTACKING THE GUARD"...when on the ground and in someone's guard.

He learned it from Erik Paulson (who also appears in the vid).

And Josh also mentions chi sao as well.

Lop sao can be used in all three phases of fighting:

STAND-UP
CLINCH
GROUND

[YungChun]

Hmmm, here we go again...



But then, what about this?



Oh, and this one:



Of course he'll have another weak, backtracking, lame a55 excuse for this contradiction as well.. :rolleyes:

Completely consistent inconsistency.. LMAO.. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hey Paul doesn't SPM grab?
Yep, throats, biceps, neck, lats, the girl next door with the daisy duke shorts...

[JPinAZ]

***GET USED TO THAT, Niersun. He does it all the time. He puts something out there as "gospel" - and then when the flaws in what he says are exposed - he goes in a very different direction while trying to make believe he never said what in fact he did say previously.

The guy is a fraud.

BUT A CLEVER ONE....for example, his use of the term "attached" fighting...HE CLEARLY meant in his original numerous posts on this that he was talking about clinch fighting/grappling as a big part of his definition...

but now...well...he's just talking CONTROLLING people with things like lop sao and some other wing chun moves.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

BECAUSE: myself and other people kept arguing with him post-after-post that while wing chun uses such "controlling" bridge work as a means to achieve it's main strategey - hitting people - he kept saying nooooooooooooooo...

BUT NOW LOOK WHAT HE'S SAYING.

The guy is a douche bag.

Don't forget the thread a while back where he also argued against al lot of these various forms of 'control' being a joke, but now he is talking out the other side of his mouth on that one too!

[Ultimatewingchun]

As regards your post#74 on the preceding page:

Man, you're getting good at this !!! :D

[YungChun]

Yep, throats, biceps, neck, lats, the girl next door with the daisy duke shorts...

Hmmmm love to see that last app.. ;)

But don't you guys grab the lower arm too or no?

[t_niehoff]

In that case, somebody developing the system forgot to figure out the fact that some forms of grabbing don't work so well.

I think that WCK gives you a method (laid out in strategic steps), some tools (actions/movements) you need to execute it, and some clues to help you work it out, but it is up to the individual to work out how they can best use the tools -- and how to not use the tools -- for himself.

But you're not going to work it out through the classical drills. They only teach you and let you practice the movement/actions themselves, and are not application.

It's up to each of us to learn how to use the tools -- or not use them -- BY trying to use the tools (in fighting).

Don't you think that grabbing your opponent is one way to control him (so that you can pound him)?

[Knifefighter]

Wow... the fact that you guys can't tell that these "grabs" are two completely differing movements, as well as completely differing principles, pretty much proves both your cluelessness about both structural integrity as well as the centerline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3rOtqnnDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

Talk about not knowing basics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hmmmm love to see that last app.. ;)

But don't you guys grab the lower arm too or no?

I tend to fight beyond that point so I don't.
There are some dim mak reasons for grabbing it, but to be honest, I have never been much of a grabber, even though I can close a COC #2 and almost do a 250 ( half way)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Talk about not knowing the basics." (Dale)
.........................

***Talk about trying to pull off the old...

"Who do you believe, me, or your lyin' eyes" routine.

LOL

[YungChun]

Wow... the fact that you guys can't tell that these "grabs" are two completely differing movements, as well as completely differing principles, pretty much proves both your cluelessness about both structural integrity as well as the centerline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3rOtqnnDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

Talk about not knowing basics.

Yes those are different grabs..but both are lops.. One is inside lop the other is outside lop.. I shouldn't have to tell someone with 6 years? experience in Chun that.. Who's clueless?

Moreover, respect to Phil but I don't agree with Phil's example since it depends on the opponent *leaving* the arm out there to be lopped in the second action.. It's hard enough to lop on the outside in the initial action of contact, let alone in the second action..

[t_niehoff]

Hmmm, here we go again...

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
Of course not. As I have repeatedly (as I am often reminded) said, WCK is controlling WHILE striking -- it is not, like some knuckleheads keep misrepresenting, standing grappling. It is pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, sinking, etc. WHILE you strike. The striking is continually going on. But the objective is not just to strike, it is to keep hi structure broken so that we can continue to strike in safety.

But then, what about this?

Originally Posted by t_niehoff V
WCK is to control the opponent while striking him.To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.


Man, you are an idiot, aren't you? Seriously, you don't see what I am saying? It's like some of you have 3rd grade reading levels.

OK, try to follow it then -- WCK's method is to control while striking. Got that so far? OK, good. So what do we need to do to control? Use grappling. Striking ALONE won't control anyone. Grappling involves pushing, pulling, lifting, grabbing, etc. Striking doesn't involve those things. Chi sao is literally sticking arms -- or an exercise for practicing sticking skills. Sticking is grappling.

Why do we practice grappling/sticking skills? To be able to control our opponent so that we can strike him with safety (and not get struck ourselves), to maximize our shots, etc.



Oh, and this one:

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

Of course he'll have another weak, backtracking, lame a55 excuse for this contradiction as well.. :rolleyes:

Tell me, Einstein, what do you think sustained contact, being attached, is if not grappling? Hmmm?

If you wanted to teach someone to control their opponent while striking him -- to stay attached and use pushing, pulling, wedging, sinking, etc. movements to break your opponent's structure while you hit him -- do you think that you might come up with a platform/exercise where you do just that?

I hope this helps you: http://www.marin.edu/~don/study/7read.html

[tigershorty]

chi sao isn't grappling. chi sao if anything prevents grappling by teaching how to flow with energy and natural structure progressions. neither is "sticking".

if you want to go way abstract, then i can see it, but i think you're reaching. there is a common knowledge implied about "grappling" and chi sao is not it. chi sao is an exercise, grappling is not.

of course, if you have to try and debunk jpinaz's intelligence for him calling you out where you were inconsistent, then i think you have far larger problems.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Welcome, tigershorty, to the Terence Niehoff wing chun amateur hour segment of our program.

At this juncture all false notions about the nature of wing chun chi sao, wing chun fighting applications, and an entire general sense as to what wing chun is all about...

get brought to the surface...so that they can be exposed.

Welcome.

[tigershorty]

i think T probably makes some good points here and there, but the context is what always makes me frown.

Taking a good idea like removing your assailant's structure is a good idea. But then adding a bunch of projected ideas to the said idea is a verbose circle jerk of words.

Using other peoples vocabulary to better communicate is a good idea, but you should be careful when using those words because they have a more common meaning to most people. It's easy to be misunderstood and seem flip-floppish if you use such words poorly or out of context. (grapple)



A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can't find that core through all the bullsh1t.

[YungChun]

Don't you think that grabbing your opponent is one way to control him (so that you can pound him)?

From what I can tell Dale agrees with any and all grabbing in fighting so long as the grab has no connection to Wing Chun--the words Lop or sao is not used and there are no references to bridging, sticking or control in any Chun sense.. Also you must not be wearing a Wing Chun T-shirt or other insignia that could be attributed to Wing Chun or say the words Wing or Chun in the same sentence before during or after a grab.

Folks can improve the chances of a grab working in fighting simply by telling the opponent that the grab they are about to do is in no way connected to the art of Wing Chun and will in no way be used in any Wing Chun context...

[taojkd]

Wow... the fact that you guys can't tell that these "grabs" are two completely differing movements, as well as completely differing principles, pretty much proves both your cluelessness about both structural integrity as well as the centerline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3rOtqnnDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

Talk about not knowing basics.

Actually, it pains me to disagree with Dale as he's usually correct in his notion/opinion/expertise that WC and BJJ have nothing to do with each other, but a Lop Sau, by definition, means controlling hand. Pulling is implied, but theres nothing incorrect with an inside lop sau/dar. There doesn't need to be a pull in any one direction. Its a distinction between resting your hand on an opponent (Fook Sau) and grabbing it.

I will, however, state that an "arm drag", as show in the second vid, is not a WC technique as it does not follow any of the (in general with respect to various WC lineages etc.) principles, theories of WC. The initial grab on the inside of the wrist to set up the arm drag is an inside lop sau, but nothing after that even remotely.

[YungChun]

The initial grab on the inside of the wrist to set up the arm drag is an inside lop sau, but nothing after that even remotely.

Which is probably why I wrote the words "set up" when I posted that clip..

[goju]

Who is Cheung but some guy who teaches WCK for a living -- he's nothing special. Neither is Hawkins, neither are any of these guys. These are just guys who have learned the WCK curriculum or portions of the WCK curriculum.

but they are well regarded masters in their art and you are an insignificant pube.

see the difference?:D

[t_niehoff]

chi sao isn't grappling. chi sao if anything prevents grappling by teaching how to flow with energy and natural structure progressions. neither is "sticking".


You are saying what chi sao involves -- and so does grappling involve flowing, natural structure progressions, etc. Both involve the same things because they are the same things.

Sticking is adhering flexibly to your opponent (so that you can change). That adherence is grappling. You counter grappling by grappling (and not anti-grappling!).



if you want to go way abstract, then i can see it, but i think you're reaching. there is a common knowledge implied about "grappling" and chi sao is not it. chi sao is an exercise, grappling is not.


OK, I see your point. You're right, chi sao is an exercise. But what are you doing in the exercise? Grappling while striking (not just stand-up grappling, not just striking).

I agree with you that many people have preconceptions of what grappling is (they think wrestling, which is also grappling).



of course, if you have to try and debunk jpinaz's intelligence for him calling you out where you were inconsistent, then i think you have far larger problems.

Tell me where I was inconsistent.

You may disagree with my position, but my position is consistent. That's why I rightly called Jonathan an idiot -- he posts several quotes (out of context) where I am talking about different aspects of the same thing and then tries to palm that off as inconsistent -- he says an elephant has a trunk, and then -- get this -- he says an elephant has a tail! ha! see I found an inconsistency!. Yup. He's a brilliant guy.

BTW, a very good indicator that you right about something is if Victor thinks you're wrong. And a very good indicator that you are wrong is that Victor thinks you're right.

[t_niehoff]

but they are well regarded masters in their art and you are an insignificant pube.

see the difference?:D

Why are they regarded as masters?

Because they knew the curriculum when hardly anyone else did -- so we had to go to them to learn it.

Here is your well-regarded master:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szdF1nIAfpk

Simply awe-inspiring isn't it?

[JPinAZ]

Which is why I made the distinction between a short, quick GUIDING lop and a full blown GRAB.

I think the issue here is the misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what a 'lop' is. Victor's hit the nail on the head, it's not technically a 'grab'. Grabbing is (or leads directly too) grappling. A lop sau does not hold onto the other person. The thumb should stay with the fingers, and not wrap around the lop'd arm.
Dale doesn't get it because he just doesn't understand WCK, nor lop sau. He's just going from his own understanding of grappling and grabbling, so can't make the comparison.


This is not a full contact environment - and it's a different application of lop sao (ie.- it's not against a straight punch in these vids)...

but it is something that has worked for me on occasions while sparring full contact.

And again, it's a very quick but not a committed grab - but rather...

it's a short grabbing and pull across but mostly guiding rather than fully grabbing motion that I'm expecting to have to release and go into something else very soon thereafter.

[YungChun]

I think the issue here is the misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what a 'lop' is. Victor's hit the nail on the head, it's not technically a 'grab'. Grabbing is (or leads directly too) grappling. A lop sau does not hold onto the other person. The thumb should stay with the fingers, and not wrap around the lop'd arm.
Dale doesn't get it because he just doesn't understand WCK, nor lop sau. He's just going from his own understanding of grappling and grabbling, so can't make the comparison.

A lop can grab/pull or guide/clear..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PL2fYzsmRY

[t_niehoff]

Lop MEANS "to grab".

Whether you grab with the thumb or without it depends on what you are trying to do (the situation) -- btw, they also grab with the thumb next to the fingers in BJJ too (like in a kimura). Whether you guide, clear, etc. depends on the situation.

Generally when you grap (lop) it involves pulling since that is the best handle for pulling. But, you can also use it for other things.

[tigershorty]

Sticking is adhering flexibly to your opponent (so that you can change). That adherence is grappling. You counter grappling by grappling (and not anti-grappling!).

I think grappling is /what can happen after chi sao. I see similarities in chi sao and grappling but all fighting includes flowing and structure to some degree. I can impose those words on to most things whether it's fighting or not. I can't use grappling to counter grappling- because that means we're already grappling. This is an illusion. I can use better grappling to counter an opponent...but we're grappling.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"From what I can tell Dale agrees with any and all grabbing in fighting so long as the grab has no connection to Wing Chun." (Jim/YungChun)

***Ha! Thatt's pretty funny, actually...:cool: ;)

[Knifefighter]

I think the issue here is the misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what a 'lop' is. Victor's hit the nail on the head, it's not technically a 'grab'. Grabbing is (or leads directly too) grappling. A lop sau does not hold onto the other person. The thumb should stay with the fingers, and not wrap around the lop'd arm.
Dale doesn't get it because he just doesn't understand WCK, nor lop sau. He's just going from his own understanding of grappling and grabbling, so can't make the comparison.

LOL... now you guys can't even agree on what is a grab or not.

Talk about inconsistencies.

Oh, and if I don't know what a lop sao is, I guess Phil R doesn't either, since I used his clip as an example of lap sao.

[YungChun]

LOL... now you guys can't even agree on what is a grab or not.

Talk about inconsistencies.

Oh, and if I don't know what a lop sao is, I guess Phil R doesn't either, since I used his clip as an example of lap sao.

No, it means you don't seem to understand that one example of a lop does not represent all examples of lop, which is odd since you are supposed to have spent 6 years learning it.

Forget lop, just think grab.

[Knifefighter]

A lop can grab/pull or guide/clear..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PL2fYzsmRY


LOL... I guess it can work against an opponent who neither punches decently nor knows how to grab.

I don't understand why you'd want to use techniques that only work against crappy attacks.

[Knifefighter]

Forget lop, just think grab.

Which is exactly why you guys have so much trouble making your stuff work. You don't differentiate between the dumba@ss grabs and the effective ones.

BTW, I'm pretty sure lap sao doesn't mean grabbing hand. If I remember correctly, it means pulling hand.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is a grab !
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/11/98%20A%20Game%20of%20GrabAss.jpg

[YungChun]

Which is exactly why you guys have so much trouble making your stuff work. You don't differentiate between the dumba@ss grabs and the effective ones.

BTW, I'm pretty sure lap sao doesn't mean grabbing hand. If I remember correctly, it means pulling hand.

Lap sao sounds more like something that happens in a strip club..

As for Lop I'll leave that to T to edgamacate you..

[goju]

Why are they regarded as masters?

Because they knew the curriculum when hardly anyone else did -- so we had to go to them to learn it.

Here is your well-regarded master:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szdF1nIAfpk

Simply awe-inspiring isn't it?

Well for one because they are actually out there spreading wc isntead of hanging around the internet trying to convince others they arent some decrepid 50 year old larper with little to no training or skill:D


I don't recall you doing the same in fact you dont do anything to benefit your art .

Unless of of course droning on like a petty little girl with posters here to mask your own inferiority complex is some how you keeping the art alive :D

Your recent frequentchildish attacks on Cheung you are doing simply to get under Victor's skin just shows how pathetic you are.

No one is ever going to be convinced you are a martial artist. you merely are a delusional wanna be and thats how its going to be for the rest of your life

good luck with that:D:p

[JPinAZ]

T, you can call me all the names you want, it doesn't change a thing. You contradict yourself repeatedly day in and day out. If you don't like me pointing it out, maybe you should either actually learn some WCK, or STFU. 17 years + 100 hours private lessons and it's clear you still don't have a clue what you're talking about, admittedly not that good, etc :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm not the only one that sees it - look at the responses. As a matter of fact, the only one that doesn't see how f'd up you sound is you.

[JPinAZ]

As regards your post#74 on the preceding page:

Man, you're getting good at this !!! :D

awe shucks, it's nothing really. T did all the work, he should get the credit! :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Once again, showing what a dumb@ss you are.

Go back and read through the thread to the post where I reference a clip where Phil Redmond demonstrated a lop sao and I made it explicitly clear what I meant by lop sao.

You can't really be this stupid.

Phil is demonstrating a single lop sao application. The lop sao itself is nothing but a grab. If the extent of your WC knowledge went beyond your 5 minutes in JKD, this conversation would not be occurring. As Victor suggested, donate some money to a local hospital for children.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wow... the fact that you guys can't tell that these "grabs" are two completely differing movements, as well as completely differing principles, pretty much proves both your cluelessness about both structural integrity as well as the centerline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3rOtqnnDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3o6QjvRQ2U

Talk about not knowing basics.

Once again you underscore your complete cluelessness. Thanks for the laugh.

[Knifefighter]

Phil is demonstrating a single lop sao application. The lop sao itself is nothing but a grab. If the extent of your WC knowledge went beyond your 5 minutes in JKD, this conversation would not be occurring. As Victor suggested, donate some money to a local hospital for children.

Lap sao means pulling hand, not grabbing hand. Grabbing hand is juap sao.

I guess that, combined with the fact that you think all grabs are pretty much the same, once again, shows the extent of your WC knowledge... zero.

But thanks for the laugh... again.

Pretty funny that the "WC" guys can't even agree on whether or not lap sao involves grabbing. Even funnier that I have to explain to all the "WC" guys that lap sao doesn't even mean grabbing.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Lap sao means pulling hand, not grabbing hand. Grabbing hand is juap sao.

I guess that, combined with the fact that you think all grabs are pretty much the same, once again, shows the extent of your WC knowledge... zero.

But thanks for the laugh... again.

Pretty funny that the "WC" guys can't even agree on whether or not lap sao involves grabbing. Even funnier that I have to explain to all the "WC" guys that lap sao doesn't even mean grabbing.

Actually, we all pretty much agree. it's your lack of knowledge that prevents you from realizing that.

[YungChun]

Dale Frank: Now the definitive translator of Cantonese Kung-Fu terms.. LOL

http://www.wcarchive.com/html/chinese-names.htm

HANDS:
bong sao 膀手 wing arm
cham (jam) sao 沉手 sinking hand (jumm sao) - sinking elbow
fook sao 伏手 controlling hand
gaun sao 耕手 cultivating hand
jut sao 窒手 choking hand - jerking hand
huen sao 圓手 circling hand
lop sao 拉手 pulling hand - grabbing hand
man sao 問手 asking hand
pak sao 拍手 slapping hand
tan sao 攤手 dispersing hand - palm up hand
wu sao 護手 protecting hand

[chusauli]

Here's something from Zhongwen.com:

http://zhongwen.com/d/169/x212.htm

[Knifefighter]

from wikipedia:

lap sau 拉手 (as simp.) laap6 sau2 lā shǒu pulling hand

from google translation:

Lā 拉 pulling

from the Wing Chun Dictionary

Lap Sau La Shou Lap Sau Lap Sau
(Pulling hand) Found in the fourth section of Siu-Nim-Tou, in the fourth of Cham Kiu, and in the seventh section of Biu Zi.

[YungChun]

Well if Wiki says so it must be true.. LOL

How about some Cantonese speakers weighing in....?


Bottom line is that Lop can pull or guide/clear.. I don't care how it translates..

[Knifefighter]

Well if Wiki says so it must be true.. LOL

How about some Cantonese speakers weighing in....?


Bottom line is that Lop can pull or guide/clear.. I don't care how it translates..

Guide/clear/whaterver.... still waiting to see evidence of it used in real time against a resisting opponent going full force

[chusauli]

This is ridiculous...the translation is not 100% either way. I guess it is a problem with WCK, too.

La (Lop in Cantonese) consists of two characters - Shou and Li - Shou is Hand, and Li is Standing (as in balance). Together, they refer to "pulling" or "dragging".

[YungChun]

Guide/clear/whaterver.... still waiting to see evidence of it used in real time against a resisting opponent going full force

Me too! And I am getting p r e t t y tired of waiting..! :p

[Knifefighter]

Actually, we all pretty much agree. it's your lack of knowledge that prevents you from realizing that.

Apparently you don't agree

From wingchunonline.com:


Lop Sao
http://www.wingchunonline.com/images/Lop_Sao.jpg
This is not a grab. It is a thumbless contact grip used to feel and redirect movement. The elbow should remain relaxed and down

[chusauli]

Looks like a fair lady about to step down from a carriage, or someone offering you their ring to kiss.

[YungChun]

Looks like a fair lady about to step down from a carriage, or someone offering you their ring to kiss.

Well I see a bird of some kind, but to each their own.. :D

[chusauli]

Must be a crane or a flamingo...

[Knifefighter]

Kind of the way most WC hand movements look.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Gina pulls the arm away and drops some big elbows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMmSME9EJYc

You can do the same types of things against a standing opponent.

[anerlich]

A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can't find that core through all the bullsh1t.

Your problem, T, is that you think you're shovelling the bullsh1t away, when actually what you're doing is covering the existing bullsh1t with even greater quantities of denser, stickier, and stinkier bullsh1t.

[Knifefighter]

Gina pulls the arm away and drops some big elbows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMmSME9EJYc

You can do the same types of things against a standing opponent.

LOL... no you can't. There is a reason the only example you could find was on the ground. You can do all kinds of things from the mount that you can't do standing. I can wrap your arm around your head, trap you arm immobile against the ground, slide around and put you into several arm locks, and a variety of other things from the mount that could never be done while standing.

But please, feel free to show what she did, or any other examples of lap saos from a standing position.

And thanks for the laugh and proving, once again, how clueless you are by showing an example from the ground and thinking it translates to standing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Actually, we all pretty much agree. it's your lack of knowledge that prevents you from realizing that.

***AND Humble is quite right about this. There's only two people around here by my count who don't understand that there are basically two kinds of lop sao, ie.- one that is a full blown
grab-and-pull across...and one that is more of a guide-and-pull across....and less of an actual grab.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Looks like a fair lady about to step down from a carriage, or someone offering you their ring to kiss.

***I'M going with the ring.

[Knifefighter]

***AND Humble is quite right about this. There's only two people around here by my count who don't understand that there are basically two kinds of lop sao, ie.- one that is a full blown
grab-and-pull across...and one that is more of a guide-and-pull across....and less of an actual grab.

Maybe the WC "powers that be" should figure out a better way to teach them.

Maybe when they are teaching, they could say, "This is the dumb@ss lap sao that doesn't work and this is the one.... "

Oh, wait a minute! Neither one works.

[Knifefighter]

***AND Humble is quite right about this. There's only two people around here by my count who don't understand that there are basically two kinds of lop sao, ie.- one that is a full blown
grab-and-pull across...and one that is more of a guide-and-pull across....and less of an actual grab.


Ummm... that would make more like four then... the pull across towards the centerline, the pull to the outside, the guide across the centerline, and the guide to the outside.

Then, of course, adding to those, you would have to add all the the other theoretical non-fighter (tm) lap saos... the same matched arms, the unmatched arms, the low line pulls, and the higher pulls.

And then, for all the grabbing guys, we'd need all the various ways you could hold on to something.

Oh, yeah, and let's not forget grabbing clothing... we need to consider those guys also.

I think we've got 25 or 30 now.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well, here's some more info for you - and please, take care of those needy children in the hospital immediately after reading this, okay?

A horizontal line that you could draw in your mind's eye across your chest...that line would intersect a vertical line drawn downwards at the middle of your body which we will refer to as your main centerline.

With me so far? Because I'll slow down if you're getting confused...:rolleyes:

Okay, now let's talk about that HORIZONTAL line...

we refer to that line in TWC as part of your CENTRAL LINE (as opposed to the main centerline)....

and when doing lop - you can go to ANY point on that line - and not JUST to the point that corresponds to your main centerline.

So this is NOT an issue.

The only "issue" being discussed here are the two variations on the lop sao itself.

Now go write a generous check to that hospital !!! :cool:

[Knifefighter]

Well, here's some more info for you - and please, take care of those needy children in the hospital immediately after reading this, okay?

A horizontal line that you could draw in your mind's eye across your chest...that line would intersect a vertical line drawn downwards at the middle of your body which we will refer to as your main centerline.

With me so far? Because I'll slow down if you're getting confused...:rolleyes:

Okay, now let's talk about that HORIZONTAL line...

we refer to that line in TWC as part of your CENTRAL LINE (as opposed to the main centerline)....

and when doing lop - you can go to ANY point on that line - and not JUST to the point that corresponds to your main centerline.

So this is NOT an issue.

The only "issue" being discussed here are the two variations on the lop sao itself.

Now go write a generous check to that hospital !!! :cool:

Oh, well this explains a lot. No wonder you guys have trouble making anything work. If you think just sticking to that horizontal line will make a technique viable, I can see why you get brainwashed into believing the lop sao would work.

What's kind of strange, though, is that, even though you've got all this brainwashing going on, you'd think you would catch a clue when the only evidence you can come up with is from a wrestling arm drag and a fight from the mount position.

[goju]

Your problem, T, is that you think you're shovelling the bullsh1t away, when actually what you're doing is covering the existing bullsh1t with even greater quantities of denser, stickier, and stinkier bullsh1t.
http://67.241.240.185/images/smiley/EmoticonHysterical.gif
http://new.disneyecho.emuck.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rofl2.gif
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif

[Wayfaring]

I think the issue here is the misinformation and/or misunderstanding about what a 'lop' is. Victor's hit the nail on the head, it's not technically a 'grab'. Grabbing is (or leads directly too) grappling. A lop sau does not hold onto the other person. The thumb should stay with the fingers, and not wrap around the lop'd arm.
Dale doesn't get it because he just doesn't understand WCK, nor lop sau. He's just going from his own understanding of grappling and grabbling, so can't make the comparison.

Sure there's misinformation on one side about what a 'lop' is. There is also misinformation on the other side about what 'grappling' is.

A lot of proper grappling grips involve the exact same hand formation as a lop sau. For example, the tricep grip on an arm drag. You don't put your thumb on the other side of the arm, that wouldn't work. When you step through you grab the opposite hip with the exact same hand formation. In fact, in grappling the number of times you actually use your thumb opposite your fingers for a grip is seldom. Maybe for wrist control below the waist, for short periods of time as it's not particularly effective.

People are talking about the vast difference between chi sau and grappling. Actually if you take one sub-section of grappling - called "grip fighting", there's more similarities than you think. In wrestling / grappling, it's used to set up positional dominance for a takedown. In WCK or striking, the chi sau skills are used to set up positional dominance for striking.

This whole discussion is kind of like a bunch of WCK guys talking about grappling when they know nothing about it, and a BJJ black belt who IMO has done more of a JKD style or flavor of WCK than a standard one talking about WCK. And T too who I believe has done a some of both and is pontificating on similarities. But his pontification is not well tolerated around here.

Oh, and everyone has to call each other a big stupidhead too because that really leads to the effective exchange of ideas.

[Knifefighter]

BTW, since you've got all that brainwashing going on and have trouble thinking for yourself, I'll help you out.

If you are trying to pull someone's arm, the further away you go from that vertical centerline, the less effective it's going to be... even if you were able to stick to "guiding" the arm on the horizonal line (which you can't).

I'll give you the WC Brainwashed Thursday Half Price Special. That will be $74.79. Just click below and enter your credit card info.


http://www.tradebit.com/usr/masterkeys/pub/9002/6910519_6513350_untitled.jpg

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL... no you can't. There is a reason the only example you could find was on the ground. You can do all kinds of things from the mount that you can't do standing. I can wrap your arm around your head, trap you arm immobile against the ground, slide around and put you into several arm locks, and a variety of other things from the mount that could never be done while standing.

But please, feel free to show what she did, or any other examples of lap saos from a standing position.

And thanks for the laugh and proving, once again, how clueless you are by showing an example from the ground and thinking it translates to standing.

Classic... You are moving the bar now that I have shown you to be incorrect. Like I said. I am tired of giving you free martial arts advice. Embarrassing you isn't worth my time or trouble.

[Wayfaring]

http://www.tradebit.com/usr/masterkeys/pub/9002/6910519_6513350_untitled.jpg

I clicked on it, but the link was broken. Don't quit your day job to go into eCommerce now.

[Knifefighter]

Classic... You are moving the bar now that I have shown you to be incorrect. Like I said. I am tired of giving you free martial arts advice. Embarrassing you isn't worth my time or trouble.

Bwaaahhhhaaa!!! Moving the bar!!! That's rich!!

The guy shows a technique from the mount and thinks it translates to standing. I'd say that about shows your level of actual understanding of the fight game.

BTW, you are overcharging significantly by giving free martial arts advice. Bwahahaaa!!

[Wayfaring]

Classic... You are moving the bar now that I have shown you to be incorrect. Like I said. I am tired of giving you free martial arts advice. Embarrassing you isn't worth my time or trouble.

And dude, your free martial arts advice to a BJJ black belt is that a video of Gina Carano doing a GNP from the mount illustrates 'lop sau' somehow?

I mean she's hot and all, but step away from the crack pipe.

[Knifefighter]

I clicked on it, but the link was broken. Don't quit your day job to go into eCommerce now.

It's an image. It's not a real link.

Here's some more info for you. Your cursor will change shapes when it hovers over a link.


That will be an extra $19.95. I'll put it on your tab.

[Wayfaring]

Apparently you don't agree

From wingchunonline.com:

The nice little bird hands karate kid crane stance there in that image doesn't really resemble much of a WCK lop sau, at least not one that works. Mostly the wrist is inline. Fuk covers to the inside, not turned to the outside like that.

[Wayfaring]

It's an image. It's not a real link.

Here's some more info for you. Your cursor will change shapes when it hovers over a link.


That will be an extra $19.95. I'll put it on your tab.

Fair enough. You can find my tab here at PayPal (http://www.matbattle.com)

[duende]

People are talking about the vast difference between chi sau and grappling. Actually if you take one sub-section of grappling - called "grip fighting", there's more similarities than you think. In wrestling / grappling, it's used to set up positional dominance for a takedown. In WCK or striking, the chi sau skills are used to set up positional dominance for striking.


Wow... this thread is crazy silly.

Thanks Dave for bringing in some common sense here.

Yes we grip upon contact to control our opponents balance, structure, and ability to deliver weapons by way of restricting movement with Chi Sau. Add to this the occasional grab, and can this be construed as a form of stand-up grappling?

IMO Yes.

Do I think it's the best terminology for describing Chi Sau? Not really, as it could be very easily misunderstood, as it doesn't illustrate the complete picture clearly enough imo.

Really though... What's the big deal? Geez...

Some would say Chi Sau is simply a looping sensitivity exercise drill. Fine.

But imo, that is missing the fundamental focus of Chi Sau... As in knowing where and what timeframe CHI SAU necessary for fighting.

The difference between WC and straight up grappling arts, is the range that WC tools require to maintain proper leverage, as well as the lesser degrees of committed energy and limbs dedicated to the "grapple/grip/grab" (or whatever you want to call it) itself.

[HumbleWCGuy]

And dude, your free martial arts advice to a BJJ black belt is that a video of Gina Carano doing a GNP from the mount illustrates 'lop sau' somehow?

I mean she's hot and all, but step away from the crack pipe.

So how was that not a Lop sao? As far as Dale being a BJJ black belt, the way I heard it he is supposed to be a bit of an underground legend, but his posts on this forum tell a different story. Don't get it twisted son.

[YungChun]

Ummm... that would make more like four then... the pull across towards the centerline, the pull to the outside, the guide across the centerline, and the guide to the outside.

Then, of course, adding to those, you would have to add all the the other theoretical non-fighter (tm) lap saos... the same matched arms, the unmatched arms, the low line pulls, and the higher pulls.

And then, for all the grabbing guys, we'd need all the various ways you could hold on to something.

Oh, yeah, and let's not forget grabbing clothing... we need to consider those guys also.

I think we've got 25 or 30 now.

Actually, everyone seems to have forgotten that there is over and under lop.. So you'd need to add those in too.. :D

[YungChun]

Wow... this thread is crazy silly.


And so this thread is different from the rest of the threads here in what exact way?

[Wayfaring]

And so this thread is different from the rest of the threads here in what exact way?

In the way that HumbleWCGuy thinks I'm his son.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh, well this explains a lot. No wonder you guys have trouble making anything work. If you think just sticking to that horizontal line will make a technique viable, I can see why you get brainwashed into believing the lop sao would work.

What's kind of strange, though, is that, even though you've got all this brainwashing going on, you'd think you would catch a clue when the only evidence you can come up with is from a wrestling arm drag and a fight from the mount position.

***NOW YOU HAVE TO WRITE an even bigger check than the last one, because now I'm going to give you a whole lot of TWC theory to digest.

What I described in my last post is part of the most basic introductory way to describe what is referred to in TWC as the CENTRAL LINE...

but it's deeper than that.

The CENTRAL LINE is actually a GRID in front of you....and all the points (both horizontal and vertical) on that GRID are where your arms are operating on (or could be operating on)...depending upon the circumstances of the engagement with your opponent.

No virtual PAY PAL'S will be sufficient for this information, however; now what I think you need to do is actually GO to the Children's Hospital in person and deliver a certified check. :)

[Knifefighter]

***NOW YOU HAVE TO WRITE an even bigger check than the last one, because now I'm going to give you a whole lot of TWC theory to digest.

What I described in my last post is part of the most basic introductory way to describe what is referred to in TWC as the CENTRAL LINE...

but it's deeper than that.

The CENTRAL LINE is actually a GRID in front of you....and all the points (both horizontal and vertical) on that GRID are where your arms are operating on (or could be operating on)...depending upon the circumstances of the engagement with your opponent.

No virtual PAY PAL'S will be sufficient for this information, however; now what I think you need to do is actually GO to the Children's Hospital in person and deliver a certified check. :)

Oh, now it's a grid, huh? Which, basically means that your arms and the opponent can go anywhere... which pretty much makes the vertical, as well as the horizontal, centerline irrelevant.

Better let your WC bretheren in on it because I'm not sure they are aware of this.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Don't be so sure.

This....

"all the points (both horizontal and vertical) on that GRID are where your arms are operating on (or could be operating on)...depending upon the circumstances of the engagement with your opponent."

...........is not that difficult to understand once you get past the basics.

Now I realize that you and Niehoff may not fit that category, but there are many people around here who do.

[YungChun]

Mine is an infinite three dimensional grid annotated with different colored numbers and letters, so large and complex that when I try to visualize it my head hurts.. So instead of trying to do that I just punch people.. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So...I just punch people"

You mean, you don't worry about "attaching" to them first?

You just punch them!!! :eek:

You just really confused two of our most distinguished posters. Shame on you. :rolleyes:

[YungChun]

"So...I just punch people"

You mean, you don't worry about "attaching" to them first?

You just punch them!!! :eek:

You just really confused two of our most distinguished posters. Shame on you. :rolleyes:

Well actually (just) after the punch I often "lop" the nose in between my first and second knuckles.........(the hand does not come back) and there's the attachment.. It does wonders to break their structure.. :D

[Knifefighter]

"all the points (both horizontal and vertical) on that GRID are where your arms are operating on (or could be operating on)...depending upon the circumstances of the engagement with your opponent."

Oh, you mean just like the fighting systems that actually work. Why didn't you say so?

[Ultimatewingchun]

But I've been telling you that TWC works for many years now.

Some people just don't listen...:cool:

[shawchemical]

Well, here's some more info for you - and please, take care of those needy children in the hospital immediately after reading this, okay?

A horizontal line that you could draw in your mind's eye across your chest...that line would intersect a vertical line drawn downwards at the middle of your body which we will refer to as your main centerline.

With me so far? Because I'll slow down if you're getting confused...:rolleyes:

Okay, now let's talk about that HORIZONTAL line...

we refer to that line in TWC as part of your CENTRAL LINE (as opposed to the main centerline)....

and when doing lop - you can go to ANY point on that line - and not JUST to the point that corresponds to your main centerline.

So this is NOT an issue.

The only "issue" being discussed here are the two variations on the lop sao itself.

Now go write a generous check to that hospital !!! :cool:

All of these lines confuse the issue of the centre line. Which is simply the axis of the opponents body relative to our own. Punching or striking through it ensures delivery of the kinetic energy of whatever strike we are using.

Excessive use of confounding ideas which do little to enlighten the understanding of the concepts are nothing more than hot air and bull****.

[Knifefighter]

All of these lines confuse the issue of the centre line. Which is simply the axis of the opponents body relative to our own. Punching or striking through it ensures delivery of the kinetic energy of whatever strike we are using.

Excessive use of confounding ideas which do little to enlighten the understanding of the concepts are nothing more than hot air and bull****.

LOL... wait till you get to the grid.

[Liddel]

LOL... wait till you get to the grid.

I think you all HAVE GRID - Gay related infectious disease - nowadays its called AIDS.

Many people post here way to often. If the first post came from another poster people may have engaged in a decent discussion but as usaual its fallen down the well, not really Ts fault IMO.

Didnt read from anyone the most important part of Lop is the clearing of space to allow you to occupy said space with your punch elbow whatever. Push pull - whatever ...for me its both depending on the situation. Ive used it often from your basic head guard when sparring.

It works more often against KB sparring partners than it does against VT guys or grapplers IME and the timing is key to it working effectivley. Not the timing as to when you use it (semi important) but the timing between when you take the space after clearing it. Its no one two action, it WILL fail.

And lending to T's original point it should if done properly, disrupt the opponent long enough to work other elements of control a punch a lock a stomp.

I believe in the original post, controll and one could think of it as grappling a poor choice of words but ok i see your point...

People just love to nit pick and or come here and argue... give it up. Take a net break.

DREW

[YungChun]

Didnt read from anyone the most important part of Lop is the clearing of space to allow you to occupy said space with your punch elbow whatever.

Actually I did say clear somewhere here.. "for the punch" was assumed.. :)

[imperialtaichi]

In Kulo 22, the number one rule of engagement is 破勢, which means "destroying the opponent's momentum and structure", which could be both physical and psychological.

The three main methods are:
以拳破勢 destroying momentum and structure with fist/strike
跟手破勢 destroying by following/containing his hands/legs
取力點破勢 destroying by taking the "power point"

Each of these methods has its own pros and cons, depending on the practitioner's strength, structures and personal preference. It also depend on the type and number of opponents.

The idea is that once the opponent's structure/momentum is compromised, he becomes easier to be defeated.

Cheers,
John

[anerlich]

Of relevance to the recent discussion:

[Xiao3 Meng4]

From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves.

I hope this wasn't news to too many people...

[Ultimatewingchun]

What wing chun revolves around is punching the man until he's down and either out - or on his way out.

Breaking his structure may be part of that process - or it may be not be part of it at all - because you didn't have to bridge much (or possibly not at all) before you landed the shots that put him down.

Either way is good, because either way results in the desired goal: you win the fight.

And yes, sometimes it could be kicks that did the trick, or knee or elbow strikes...and lo and behold, maybe even...just maybe....don't count on it because it's really not high percentage...but just maybe it was an eye poke with bil jee that won the fight...or a phoenix knuckle strike to the throat.

You may be old and gray before you get to see one of those last two possibilities - but, hey...it is possible.

Or maybe you did break his structure and swept him to the ground and he hit his head. That's possible too.

But wing chun is, first-and-foremost...about punching people out. Bridge or no bridge. While using pak or lop...or maybe there was no pak or lop in sight.

It doesn't matter.

AND THAT'S WING CHUN.

[YungChun]

What wing chun revolves around is punching the man until he's down and either out - or on his way out.

Breaking his structure may be part of that process - or it may be not be part of it at all - because you didn't have to bridge much (or possibly not at all) before you landed the shots that put him down.

Either way is good, because either way results in the desired goal: you win the fight.

And yes, sometimes it could be kicks that did the trick, or knee or elbow strikes...and lo and behold, maybe even...just maybe....don't count on it because it's really not high percentage...but just maybe it was an eye poke with bil jee that won the fight...or a phoenix knuckle strike to the throat.

You may be old and gray before you get to see one of those last two possibilities - but, hey...it is possible.

Or maybe you did break his structure and swept him to the ground and he hit his head. That's possible too.

But wing chun is, first-and-foremost...about punching people out. Bridge or no bridge. While using pak or lop...or maybe there was no pak or lop in sight.

It doesn't matter.

AND THAT'S WING CHUN.

And....

As we know the basic striking does break structure..especially when done with a strong horse..

Moreover, staying with the idea of Chun, the legs should come into play, the legs and horse also breaking down their base with leg attacks and placement while you strike..

When and if they loose their footing THIS is the time the single neck grab is useful to hold them up and keep hitting them or to assist a big finish...

If they get in or have been in the way (arms) of the strikes other things can/will happen..

But in the end it's the opponent and his reactions that determine what works and what moves are best used or not used at all.

The core ever-present idea is the attack (striking) to their center, covering our center and most often to the head with powerful straight line blasts from the horse--(often flanking)--the heart and soul of Chun! :)

[bennyvt]

i was taught the neck grab is only when you have missed with a punch or other strike. The idea of using the extended hand. The difference is using when you have stuffed up or looking for it. This comes from looking at vt like karate, all the good moves are in last form. In vt the first form is the best. Ideal vt, punch him in the face. Everything else is to get back to that. The rest is for when that doesn't work. Biu jee is not a grappling form. Its moves to get out of a bad situation, ie grappling.

[couch]

i was taught the neck grab is only when you have missed with a punch or other strike. The idea of using the extended hand. The difference is using when you have stuffed up or looking for it. This comes from looking at vt like karate, all the good moves are in last form. In vt the first form is the best. Ideal vt, punch him in the face. Everything else is to get back to that. The rest is for when that doesn't work. Biu jee is not a grappling form. Its moves to get out of a bad situation, ie grappling.

The idea of grabbing the neck when you have missed a strike

or

The idea of hitting the opponent on the way back after you have missed a strike

...is impossible if you are actually trying to hit them to hurt them. Best to just bring that 'missed hand' back and hit with the other one. It's hard to argue with the momentum of the body and the way it wants to move.

[bennyvt]

it is hard. Thats why we train without control we would lord our facing with every punch. He what you are saying is the case everyone that punches would over extend making it easier to take down. This note is not the magical stop as soon as it misses and grab thats stupid. But instead of just pulling it back you grab and pull into the other punch that is coming. That is why you can use it as a grab or strike. The grab is to block what ever is coming at you and turn the body. Ry its like when yous punch stops without hitting anything and their head is close you pull back and grab while punching with the other hand. I don't nean stop the punch as you have already missed and got to full extension when this is used.

[couch]

it is hard. Thats why we train without control we would lord our facing with every punch. He what you are saying is the case everyone that punches would over extend making it easier to take down. This note is not the magical stop as soon as it misses and grab thats stupid. But instead of just pulling it back you grab and pull into the other punch that is coming. That is why you can use it as a grab or strike. The grab is to block what ever is coming at you and turn the body. Ry its like when yous punch stops without hitting anything and their head is close you pull back and grab while punching with the other hand. I don't nean stop the punch as you have already missed and got to full extension when this is used.

I still believe if I have intent on hurting my opponent and I'm firing as fast and as hard as I can to put them down, it's impossible.

If you can pull it off, all the power to you.

[tigershorty]

There's a reason why wing chun is considered anti-grappling to a lot of people, and chi sao built that reputation up more than anything. Just my last 2 cents. I see lots of similarities, and the cure is usually a dose of the problem...but personally, depending on the intent- chi sao isn't stand up grappling to me. Is it similar? Sure.


of course, my opinion could change as i learn more. not saying it won't or can't.

[duende]

There's a reason why wing chun is considered anti-grappling to a lot of people, and chi sao built that reputation up more than anything. Just my last 2 cents. I see lots of similarities, and the cure is usually a dose of the problem...but personally, depending on the intent- chi sao isn't stand up grappling to me. Is it similar? Sure.


of course, my opinion could change as i learn more. not saying it won't or can't.

True...

But if you boil it down to restricting movement while striking... Then the "differences" can get confused with the intent.

Does one have to wrestle the wrestler? If one gives up space/range/and leverage and falls into their game... Sure.

However Chi Sau IMO teaches us tools that can be used without committing to the same space/range as what is typically considered clinch or body to body wrestling methods.

Of course not everyone's ideas of Chi Sau are the same.

[tigershorty]

actually, i think are points are the same with different perspectives...maybe...my head hurts, long work day. TGIF :)

[t_niehoff]

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves.

I hope this wasn't news to too many people...


You are one of the few who it seems it wasn't news to.

[tigershorty]

over complicating the obvious, no? can you "win" a fight without breaking someones structure? some people just claim to be more economical - or disagree on how.. but in the end, i don't think anyone is going to deny breaking the structure of the opponent is very key.

brings up another side point- it's good to have structure.

[t_niehoff]

And....

As we know the basic striking does break structure..especially when done with a strong horse..


No.

A strike CAN sometimes break an opponent's structure. More often than not, however, it doesn't break his structure. All you have to do is look at fights, including WCK people fighting, to see that FACT (people getting hit can still move, defend, attack, etc.).

Why do we even want to break an opponent's structure? Boxers and kickboxers aren't concerned with it at all. So why is WCK? Because we aren't just trying to hit, like boxers and kickboxers are -- we're trying to get control over them so that we are safe and we can hit them more effectively.



Moreover, staying with the idea of Chun, the legs should come into play, the legs and horse also breaking down their base with leg attacks and placement while you strike..


You can't do this without controlling them first.



When and if they loose their footing THIS is the time the single neck grab is useful to hold them up and keep hitting them or to assist a big finish...


Says who? You? Perhaps that is only when you can pull it off, but that doesn't mean it is the "best" or "only" appropriate time. These are simply tools we can use -- how we use them is up to us.



If they get in or have been in the way (arms) of the strikes other things can/will happen..

But in the end it's the opponent and his reactions that determine what works and what moves are best used or not used at all.


Yes and no. What we can do (or not do) also enters greatly into that equation.



The core ever-present idea is the attack (striking) to their center, covering our center and most often to the head with powerful straight line blasts from the horse--(often flanking)--the heart and soul of Chun! :)

No, this is low level, caveman WCK -- just keep blasting.

[bennyvt]

I don't understand why it is so hard to instead of just bringing the hand back you drop it and bring it into the centre. By your idea once you have thrown a punch you have no control. The neck grab is bringing your hand back but hoping it hits something on the way back.

[YungChun]

A strike CAN sometimes break an opponent's structure. More often than not, however, it doesn't break his structure. All you have to do is look at fights, including WCK people fighting, to see that FACT (people getting hit can still move, defend, attack, etc.).

Yes Chun strikes CAN break structure.. You've really uncovered quite the revelation: No they don't always, and here's another secret, sometimes they even miss... OMFG!

We've all heard you talk about how the strikes and Chun mechanics are designed to break structure and they are.. Does that mean they ALWAYS break structure, no of course not. Means nothing.. The point is that the strikes and mechanics are designed to break structure and yes they can do that, especially when done with good mechanics.

Moreover the opponent may get in the way with their tools, and that can also lead to breaking structure and other Chun techniques that can also break structure..

The other day your big f-ing deal was hitting their arm.. Wow, very impressive and also nebulous.. I maintain hitting them in the face/head will have a higher % chance of breaking their structure than your hand attack--whatever the f-uck that is supposed to mean oh master of nebulous assertions..



Why do we even want to break an opponent's structure? Boxers and kickboxers aren't concerned with it at all. So why is WCK? Because we aren't just trying to hit, like boxers and kickboxers are -- we're trying to get control over them so that we are safe and we can hit them more effectively.

And the best way to initiate an attack is with a genuine attack, not some kind of fairy hand attack... Of course you can prove me wrong and show you or anyone else doing what you are talking about with their Chun... But you won't..

Now if you are talking about using say a cutting punch, fine sounds good to me, did it all the time.. Once I mentioned this and you scoffed, but I understand that's just what you do best.

Beyond all that which may be done, there is nothing wrong, with attacking in Chun however one can or needs to...



Says who? You? Perhaps that is only when you can pull it off, but that doesn't mean it is the "best" or "only" appropriate time. These are simply tools we can use -- how we use them is up to us.

That's exactly right so why not knock off the $hitting on anyone else's use of the tools that doesn't fit in with your "classified", unknown and unverified method..

It is just mind boggling how you can say "how we use them is up to us" and then $hit all over folks when they do just that... What a DB.



You can't do this without controlling them first.


"Says who? You? Perhaps that is only when you can pull it off, but that doesn't mean it is the "best" or "only" appropriate time." -- T. Niehoff

You can't disrupt their legs/base without top control first? More complete and utter nonsensical BS--MT does it all day.

So



These are simply tools we can use -- how we use them is up to us.


But if you don't *appear* to follow the knee hoof way this is null and void because you'll hear:



No, this is low level, caveman WCK -- just keep blasting.


Please show an example of you or anyone else using Chun moves to "initiate control first" successfully in full contact.....

Otherwise your assessment is a big fat load and once again I call Bull$hit on you..

[YungChun]

I don't understand why it is so hard to instead of just bringing the hand back you drop it and bring it into the centre. By your idea once you have thrown a punch you have no control. The neck grab is bringing your hand back but hoping it hits something on the way back.

IMO you don't do this or most any "control" by accident..

That's like saying I went to take a leak and when I reached down to unzip I accidentally put this short guy standing next to me in a head lock..

The very idea you could gain a neck control unintentionally I find rather odd and removed from reality..

In fighting you have to know what you want to do, have trained to do it and then do it intentionally with very few exceptions..

[bennyvt]

not sure what that means, but I was responding to couch. He said you can't do it after the punch has missed. I was meaning that there isn't a major difference between bringing your hand back to centre and using the neck grab. Of course you aim at them I wasn't meaning you just go off in some wierd angle. the only way you can't do it is if you are punching so hard that you can't keep your facing. This is normally a bad thing.

[YungChun]

He said you can't do it after the punch has missed.


Agreed for all practical purposes.

This all goes to intent IMO..

You'll need to intend to apply this control, not focused on striking him because the strike won't be hanging out there UNLESS you intended to apply this.

Huge difference in what the arm is going to do.

Now, if for some reason your arm is extended past their head hanging there well, sure it could happen......

[t_niehoff]

Yes Chun strikes CAN break structure.. You've really uncovered quite the revelation: No they don't always, and here's another secret, sometimes they even miss... OMFG!


No, I'm saying that they CAN but MOST OFTEN they do not, even when they land. Look at fights, even with WCK people and you will see that rarely are people breaking structure with their strikes (especially punches).



We've all heard you talk about how the strikes and Chun mechanics are designed to break structure and they are.. Does that mean they ALWAYS break structure, no of course not. Means nothing.. The point is that the strikes and mechanics are designed to break structure and yes they can do that, especially when done with good mechanics.


While the WCK punch (and other strikes) are "designed" to break structure there are other aspects to it -- like the target, timing, etc. Hit the wrong target or at the wrong time and even with good mechanics, it won't break his structure. You can't just throw out punches and expect to break structure. More often than not it needs to be set up. Mo luen da.



Moreover the opponent may get in the way with their tools, and that can also lead to breaking structure and other Chun techniques that can also break structure..


Of course, as I said in the very first post on this thread, everything in WCK revolves around breaking structure.



The other day your big f-ing deal was hitting their arm.. Wow, very impressive and also nebulous.. I maintain hitting them in the face/head will have a higher % chance of breaking their structure than your hand attack--whatever the f-uck that is supposed to mean oh master of nebulous assertions..


Then we were talking about joining, or getting an attachment. The point behind that post was I don't just step in trying to hit my opponent in the face since he can hit me too -- as well as do all kinds of other things. Certainly you can do that, but if you do, you better do what good boxers do. Instead of doing what boxers do, I use the WCK method: I first get attached and close him down so that I don't need to deal with his punches and those other things. If I, for example, hit his arm (pak) then he can't hit me with it. It is a way - one way - to progressively work your way in (and get contact) as opposed to charging into his guns.



And the best way to initiate an attack is with a genuine attack, not some kind of fairy hand attack... Of course you can prove me wrong and show you or anyone else doing what you are talking about with their Chun... But you won't..


Sure I will -- come see me and I'll show you. But you won't. :)

Hitting the arm (pak sao) is just one way, it's not the only way, You can also join via the punch itself. But all this depends on who your opponent is, what he is giving you, etc. For example, if he has a longer reach, and you try to step in and hit him in the nose. you will need to go through his guns. If, on the other hand, you have a longer reach, then striking at his face may be a good set up.

From my perspective, WCK's method is to minimize risk (which is what a smaller, weaker person needs to do). Sure, you can step in and try to hit him in the face but that's risky. That's why the faat mun tells us to join, close him down, break his structure, then deliver our weapons. Of course, there are times when you can do all these things at one time, and others when you need to do them step by step.



Now if you are talking about using say a cutting punch, fine sounds good to me, did it all the time.. Once I mentioned this and you scoffed, but I understand that's just what you do best.


Sure, you can do that if your opponent gives it to you. But they don't always give you a situation where you can use your punch that way.

My point is that our objective in WCK when not in contact is to join and close him down not to just strike him.



Beyond all that which may be done, there is nothing wrong, with attacking in Chun however one can or needs to...


WCK provides us a strategy for fighting. Does that mean you have to use it? No.



That's exactly right so why not knock off the $hitting on anyone else's use of the tools that doesn't fit in with your "classified", unknown and unverified method..

It is just mind boggling how you can say "how we use them is up to us" and then $hit all over folks when they do just that... What a DB.


My objection isn't to how you use a tool, but that you say it is "best". How do you KNOW what is "best"? You don't. That's just your theory -- or, more likely, your teacher's theory.

I'm not saying the WCK faat mun is the "best" -- I'm saying it is the way our ancestors put the art together. And, the central component to the faat mun is chum, destroying the opponent's structure.



You can't disrupt their legs/base without top control first? More complete and utter nonsensical BS--MT does it all day.


Sure, THEY do, but not WCK. MT does it by kicking from the outside (kickboxing). WCK doesn't kick like MT since we aren't kicking from the outside.



Please show an example of you or anyone else using Chun moves to "initiate control first" successfully in full contact.....

Otherwise your assessment is a big fat load and once again I call Bull$hit on you..

If you want to see it, come play with us.

BTW, as WCK's method is essentially a dirty (clinch) boxing method, you can look at MMA fights that involve dirty (clinch) boxing and see WCK-type actions. Fighting, regardless of your style or art, is going to look like MMA

[k gledhill]

No, I'm saying that they CAN but MOST OFTEN they do not, even when they land. Look at fights, even with WCK people and you will see that rarely are people breaking structure with their strikes (especially punches).



While the WCK punch (and other strikes) are "designed" to break structure there are other aspects to it -- like the target, timing, etc. Hit the wrong target or at the wrong time and even with good mechanics, it won't break his structure. You can't just throw out punches and expect to break structure. More often than not it needs to be set up. Mo luen da.



Of course, as I said in the very first post on this thread, everything in WCK revolves around breaking structure.



Then we were talking about joining, or getting an attachment. The point behind that post was I don't just step in trying to hit my opponent in the face since he can hit me too -- as well as do all kinds of other things. Certainly you can do that, but if you do, you better do what good boxers do. Instead of doing what boxers do, I use the WCK method: I first get attached and close him down so that I don't need to deal with his punches and those other things. If I, for example, hit his arm (pak) then he can't hit me with it. It is a way - one way - to progressively work your way in (and get contact) as opposed to charging into his guns.



Sure I will -- come see me and I'll show you. But you won't. :)

Hitting the arm (pak sao) is just one way, it's not the only way, You can also join via the punch itself. But all this depends on who your opponent is, what he is giving you, etc. For example, if he has a longer reach, and you try to step in and hit him in the nose. you will need to go through his guns. If, on the other hand, you have a longer reach, then striking at his face may be a good set up.

From my perspective, WCK's method is to minimize risk (which is what a smaller, weaker person needs to do). Sure, you can step in and try to hit him in the face but that's risky. That's why the faat mun tells us to join, close him down, break his structure, then deliver our weapons. Of course, there are times when you can do all these things at one time, and others when you need to do them step by step.



Sure, you can do that if your opponent gives it to you. But they don't always give you a situation where you can use your punch that way.

My point is that our objective in WCK when not in contact is to join and close him down not to just strike him.



WCK provides us a strategy for fighting. Does that mean you have to use it? No.



My objection isn't to how you use a tool, but that you say it is "best". How do you KNOW what is "best"? You don't. That's just your theory -- or, more likely, your teacher's theory.

I'm not saying the WCK faat mun is the "best" -- I'm saying it is the way our ancestors put the art together. And, the central component to the faat mun is chum, destroying the opponent's structure.



Sure, THEY do, but not WCK. MT does it by kicking from the outside (kickboxing). WCK doesn't kick like MT since we aren't kicking from the outside.



If you want to see it, come play with us.

BTW, as WCK's method is essentially a dirty (clinch) boxing method, you can look at MMA fights that involve dirty (clinch) boxing and see WCK-type actions. Fighting, regardless of your style or art, is going to look like MMA


its not essentially a dirty clinch, never was, never will be.
2 arms extended to train ambidextrous ability standing in an equal stance that later becomes more mobile , leading to mobility drills outside chi-sao, further drills that bridge the gap to fighting. Sounds like your missing those drills.;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yes Chun strikes CAN break structure.. You've really uncovered quite the revelation: No they don't always, and here's another secret, sometimes they even miss... OMFG!

We've all heard you talk about how the strikes and Chun mechanics are designed to break structure and they are.. Does that mean they ALWAYS break structure, no of course not. Means nothing.. The point is that the strikes and mechanics are designed to break structure and yes they can do that, especially when done with good mechanics.

Moreover the opponent may get in the way with their tools, and that can also lead to breaking structure and other Chun techniques that can also break structure..

The other day your big f-ing deal was hitting their arm.. Wow, very impressive and also nebulous.. I maintain hitting them in the face/head will have a higher % chance of breaking their structure than your hand attack--whatever the f-uck that is supposed to mean oh master of nebulous assertions..


And the best way to initiate an attack is with a genuine attack, not some kind of fairy hand attack... Of course you can prove me wrong and show you or anyone else doing what you are talking about with their Chun... But you won't..

Now if you are talking about using say a cutting punch, fine sounds good to me, did it all the time.. Once I mentioned this and you scoffed, but I understand that's just what you do best.

Beyond all that which may be done, there is nothing wrong, with attacking in Chun however one can or needs to...


That's exactly right so why not knock off the $hitting on anyone else's use of the tools that doesn't fit in with your "classified", unknown and unverified method..

It is just mind boggling how you can say "how we use them is up to us" and then $hit all over folks when they do just that... What a DB.



"Says who? You? Perhaps that is only when you can pull it off, but that doesn't mean it is the "best" or "only" appropriate time." -- T. Niehoff

You can't disrupt their legs/base without top control first? More complete and utter nonsensical BS--MT does it all day.

So



But if you don't *appear* to follow the knee hoof way this is null and void because you'll hear:



Please show an example of you or anyone else using Chun moves to "initiate control first" successfully in full contact.....

Otherwise your assessment is a big fat load and once again I call Bull$hit on you..


***NOW, I've got to tell ya, Jim....you've reached a point with this moron that I remember getting to in the past on multiple occasions - wherein you've refuted literally everything he said and pointed out his inconsistencies, reversals in mid-field, and out-and-out douche bag behavior...

and yet he still has the nerve to come back at you. The guy has no real pride...it's all FALSE pride with him. And no sense of dignity. He just wants center stage no matter what.

So why bother continuing to talk to him, I ask you ???!!!

He's a complete f u c k i n g waste of time.

[JPinAZ]

Actually, as hard as it is to type this, for the most part T is actually making some sense in his last few posts. I'm sure it's only a matter time and a few more posts before that is replaced with the norm :(

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm just picking up on Jim's post#178 on the last page. Don't know when Niehoff made the post Jim responded - as I don't read anything he writes unless somebody else quotes it.

And what Jim quoted (and responded to) on post#178...well....what a load of horse manure. :rolleyes:

[YungChun]

I'm just picking up on Jim's post#178 on the last page. Don't know when Niehoff made the post Jim responded - as I don't read anything he writes unless somebody else quotes it.

And what Jim quoted (and responded to) on post#178...well....what a load of horse manure. :rolleyes:

No Victor I'm converted.. I agree T is making a lot of sense. So much so in fact that despite his unwillingness to show even a drop of what he does "all the time" I am going to buy a plane ticket, take off from work and go spend some quality time with him...because clearly he knows the "way"..

And what really helped convince me was the "bomb" he dropped, something we just would never have conceived on our own, the use of (wait for it)..................a single pak sao to enter with..(and that's not chasing hands folks, that's chasing control)

This is going to really put Chun on the map.. It makes so much more sense to simply pak one of those 35 mph fists buzzing by your face from a real boxer--oh the simplicity of it all..

Yes, I'm convinced... :cool::p:o:eek:

[Ultimatewingchun]

I suppose that this is what Tom Kagan meant when he spoke of trying to make a joke out of things?! :p

Personally, I'd prefer a good discussion and get my laughs from funny old sitcoms and movies...:cool:

[Xiao3 Meng4]

From my perspective, WCK's method is to minimize risk (which is what a smaller, weaker person needs to do). Sure, you can step in and try to hit him in the face but that's risky. That's why the faat mun tells us to join, close him down, break his structure, then deliver our weapons. Of course, there are times when you can do all these things at one time, and others when you need to do them step by step.


I'll add that hitting someone in the face is only risky if they have structure. ;)
Also, if they have no structure, they have no offense.

[sanjuro_ronin]

All this begs the question:
If one is actively seeking to make contact to break/control structure and one is NOT doing it via strikes but via grabbing, how does one KEEP from it "degenerating" into a grappling match?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good point, Paul. Wing chun seeks NOT to wrestle/grapple - hence the emphasis on only momentary bridging because striking is the primary objective. In wing chun you're releasing the hand that grabs/contacts/bridges with the opponent constantly.

Furthermore, the notion that you must bridge first in order to be able to hit is nonsense - boxers do it all the time.

[duende]

All this begs the question:
If one is actively seeking to make contact to break/control structure and one is NOT doing it via strikes but via grabbing, how does one KEEP from it "degenerating" into a grappling match?

Chi Sau.

A good WC practioner can break strucutre an strike while maintianing their own guard (structure/range safety belt)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Chi Sau.

A good WC practioner can break strucutre an strike while maintianing their own guard (structure)

It's funny you mention that, when I took up WC I was only a Brown Belt in Judo at the time, just gotten it really and I had some High school wrestling.
We did an experiment once, just for ****s and giggles, and with every single person I did Chi Sao with, using only Judo and the wrestling, I was able to take them down or throw them at will, all of them and yes, they were allowed to strike.
I did this little experiment a few times with always the same results. and at two different schools that trained at, three if you count one I was invited to once by a friend.
If you are going to grapple and think chi sao is enough, you may be in for a rude awakening.

[duende]

It's funny you mention that, when I took up WC I was only a Brown Belt in Judo at the time, just gotten it really and I had some High school wrestling.
We did an experiment once, just for ****s and giggles, and with every single person I did Chi Sao with, using only Judo and the wrestling, I was able to take them down or throw them at will, all of them and yes, they were allowed to strike.
I did this little experiment a few times with always the same results. and at two different schools that trained at, three if you count one I was invited to once by a friend.
If you are going to grapple and think chi sao is enough, you may be in for a rude awakening.

I hear ya. That is because most WC's Chi Sau for the sake of sensitivity and rolling. Not controlling real opposing energy and leverage.

Kiu Sau (a part of Chi Sau) teaches us to bridge with strong full body leverage and positioning that is vital in these circumstances.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I hear ya. That is because most WC's Chi Sau for the sake of sensitivity and rolling. Not controlling real opposing energy and leverage.

Kiu Sau (a part of Chi Sau) teaches us to bridge with strong full body leverage and positioning that is vital in these circumstances.

I had a WC buddy of mine that was also heavy into shuai chiao and he had a saying:
Give me a bridge and I will show you the floor.
More often than not, he was right.

[YungChun]

I had a WC buddy of mine that was also heavy into shuai chiao and he had a saying:
Give me a bridge and I will show you the floor.
More often than not, he was right.

It is right..

I always say--it's easier to close range than to keep it..

Did anyone ever stop the take down even once? Did they ever slow you down? Interrupt your actions even for a moment?

I would think that if you had them work this enough eventually they would get better at stopping the take down/throw... but it is tough to do.

[shawchemical]

The idea of grabbing the neck when you have missed a strike

or

The idea of hitting the opponent on the way back after you have missed a strike

...is impossible if you are actually trying to hit them to hurt them. Best to just bring that 'missed hand' back and hit with the other one. It's hard to argue with the momentum of the body and the way it wants to move.

It's not impossible, its just the opportunities are fleeting. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be trained.

[YungChun]

It's not impossible, its just the opportunities are fleeting. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be trained.

You can't train to change intent in mid action.. A strike that misses will or should snap back virtually by itself and you'll need to focus on the moment.. The idea that you can somehow realize you missed and then change intent before it snaps back in a fraction of a second is absurd.

Now if you punch in such a way that you leave you arm out there after a miss okay but who punches like that?

The exception is if you PLAN to miss and grab.

[k gledhill]

You can't train to change intent in mid action.. A strike that misses will or should snap back virtually by itself and you'll need to focus on the moment.. The idea that you can somehow realize you missed and then change intent before it snaps back in a fraction of a second is absurd.

Now if you punch in such a way that you leave you arm out there after a miss okay but who punches like that?

The exception is if you PLAN to miss and grab.

bil gee has this idea, offline strikes if the head/target shifts out of an extended strike that missed...ways of making an attacking action 'before' facing again. .Its hard to do for the reason you mentioned. It might be a short shot, but it may keep the guy in defensive mode for the fraction it takes to reface with a kick /strike.
We train to apply these actions if a partner moves sideways to our entry. The idea is to deliver a straight punch first, rather than anticipate the movement and not even do the strike first for the off body hit....its done very fast. A break from the 'attack flow' drills to use this.

The withdrawing hand is something else ..:D


Lop sao is this 'changing lines' idea from bg as well. Lop will pivot levers on their axis line if we are given a lever with attachment to the body via the shoulder. Its easy to turn any size guy/weight, due to the leverage and pivot, NOT pulling down back etc...that gives a different effect.

Jut ( slt ) stays on the line of attack ergo its a primary attack hand as pak ( slt ) .

[YouKnowWho]

breaking the opponent's structure.
Is it easier to throw a pile of jello (structure is broken) or a solid object (structure is intact)? Is it easier to flip a soft spaghetti or a hard chopstick?

[bennyvt]

I don't mean when you realise you missed. I mean when the punch is finished. You have already missed, this is the next move. As you other hand is punching you can grab to add power or get control. This move is, your hand is already out and you bring it in. You can do this for any strike or time when your arm is extended. Its the move after the strike not stopping the strike as I totally agree this is impossible.

[shawchemical]

I don't mean when you realise you missed. I mean when the punch is finished. You have already missed, this is the next move. As you other hand is punching you can grab to add power or get control. This move is, your hand is already out and you bring it in. You can do this for any strike or time when your arm is extended. Its the move after the strike not stopping the strike as I totally agree this is impossible.

Wish I could have explained it like this....

Thanks benny.

[YungChun]

These two cases are the same exact thing.



I don't mean when you realise you missed.




I mean when the punch is finished. You have already missed, this is the next move.


How can you know you missed unless the "punch is finished"?????

Did you plan to strike and then apply the move miss or not? Otherwise it is contingent on your missing, then realizing it and then implementing a change-up. This isn't complicated.

Couch knows this isn't possible because he's done some sparring..

A strike that has missed is already gone... The moment is GONE...and you have to be focused on what is happening now, you have to be ahead of the timing not behind it..

In order to convert a punch into something else when it is extended you would have to:

1. Fire a strike

2. Miss

3. Realize you missed

4. Change the tool

5. Apply the new tool

And you'd have to do that before the punch comes back.. Does that really make sense?

By the time you do that I would already be 3+ moves ahead of the last one..

Try it and see...

Again, unless you are firing strikes and leaving them out there and assessing the outcome all before the next move it can't be done in real-time, unless you planned it, which I assume you don't mean..

The only accidental application or conversion to this tool might be possible IF you happen to find an arm extended, but it's still silly.

In fighting or when targeting your opponent and tracking him, his movement and firing off shots, being attacked, constantly pressured, etc, you must have intent in each action and be moving ahead in the timing not behind.

Intent comes with planning to do a certain action...nothing in fighting happens by accident in terms of what you do..



As you other hand is punching you can grab to add power or get control. This move is, your hand is already out and you bring it in. You can do this for any strike or time when your arm is extended. Its the move after the strike not stopping the strike as I totally agree this is impossible.

No one said stopping the strike... Where are you getting these ideas?

The point as stated is change.. A strike comes back as fast as it went out.. You cannot change tactics in mid punch (mid meaning extension).. A strike fires (and comes back) in the blink of an eye--how can you think there is time to EVALUATE and CHANGE in the blink of an eye?

Complete theoretical silliness..

[YungChun]

Is it easier to throw a pile of jello (structure is broken) or a solid object (structure is intact)? Is it easier to flip a soft spaghetti or a hard chopstick?

This goes to how you use the muscles... Structure means using the body in an optimal way for a certain task and the body is always in a state of constant change--motion.

It does NOT mean being tense and frozen like a block of spinach you take out of the freezer.

[shawchemical]

These two cases are the same exact thing.


Complete theoretical silliness..

YOu have just defined everything you said quite aptly.

It's more than possible to realise that you have missed before the punch has finished. It's just not possible to do anything about it until its finished.

If you're bringing the punch back every single time without fail, it will be a problem when you need to occupy space and control the bridge.

[YungChun]

YOu have just defined everything you said quite aptly.

It's more than possible to realise that you have missed before the punch has finished. It's just not possible to do anything about it until its finished.

If you're bringing the punch back every single time without fail, it will be a problem when you need to occupy space and control the bridge.

Sorry but..

Complete idiotic theoretical non fighting BS... LOL

And what does "can't do anything about it until it's over" supposed to mean? It sounds like you are making my point.

A single punch fires and comes back in about 2 tenths of a second.. For anyone to suggest that some kind of assessment is going to be made in order to implement some contingency in that time is to all but give away one's non-experience.

Bridging with a tool is done with intent, there is no contingent change of tool required in 2 tenths of a second.. If I fire a strike and it meets resistance it happened before full extension, it slows down and stops the strike and I can feel that happen.. I need not then change the tool, I need only to stick to it and continue to issue force--totally different..

Missing happens much faster and there is no stopping of the tool.. No one with any skill leaves a missed punch hanging in the air....in order to assess and change.. The idea is simply absurd.

Again, planning to do the move is a different animal.

I won't waste my time debating such a silly non issue..

Say whatever you like--those who spar know better.

[shawchemical]

Sorry but..

Complete idiotic theoretical non fighting BS... LOL

And what does can't do anything about it until it's over supposed to mean?

A single punch fires and comes back in about 2 tenths of a second.. For anyone to suggest that some kind of assessment is going to be made in order to implement some contingency in that time is to all but give away one's non-experience.

Bridging with a tool is done with intent, there is no contingent change of tool required in 2 tenths of a second.. If I fire a strike and it meets resistance it happened before full extension, it slows down and stops the strike and I can feel that happen.. I need not then change the tool, I need only to stick to it and continue to issue force--totally different..

Missing happens much faster and there is no stopping of the tool.. No one with any skill leaves a missed punch hanging in the air....in order to assess and change.. The idea is simply absurd.

Again, planning to do the move is a different animal.

I won't waste my time debating such a silly non issue..

Say whatever you like--those who spar know better.

The bridge is the effect of something stopping the strike. It is possible to realise that something has missed as you fire it off. Although you can't do a thing about it fast enough to stop it, this doesn't mean that you have to come back to some state of readiness if you are already engaged.

The mistake is not connecting with the punch, or glancing off the side of the face and not connecting solidly enough. Pulling you hand back at this point will take it past the head of the man you missed. Why waste time with bringing your hand all the way back and then going forward again?? This is simply, as benny pointed out, a recovery from a mistake, and not something that would be the ultimate goal.



Nothing theoretical about it. Plenty of times a clinch will be set up by a punch that misses in MT, the situation is not very different to that.

[shawchemical]

Sorry but..

Complete idiotic theoretical non fighting BS... LOL

And what does "can't do anything about it until it's over" supposed to mean? It sounds like you are making my point.

A single punch fires and comes back in about 2 tenths of a second.. For anyone to suggest that some kind of assessment is going to be made in order to implement some contingency in that time is to all but give away one's non-experience.

Bridging with a tool is done with intent, there is no contingent change of tool required in 2 tenths of a second.. If I fire a strike and it meets resistance it happened before full extension, it slows down and stops the strike and I can feel that happen.. I need not then change the tool, I need only to stick to it and continue to issue force--totally different..

Missing happens much faster and there is no stopping of the tool.. No one with any skill leaves a missed punch hanging in the air....in order to assess and change.. The idea is simply absurd.

Again, planning to do the move is a different animal.

I won't waste my time debating such a silly non issue..

Say whatever you like--those who spar know better.

All you've done is jump up and down and create an argument where there was not really any disagreement. It sounded like the point that was being made, because we were not disagreeing on that issue. COngratulations on passing comprehension 1010.

[YungChun]

It is possible to realise that something has missed as you fire it off.


This isn't the issue.. I will know I missed before I miss.



Although you can't do a thing about it fast enough to stop it, this doesn't mean that you have to come back to some state of readiness if you are already engaged.

There is no state of readiness.. There is fighting--you continue fighting.. If I miss my next strike is already half way there.



The mistake is not connecting with the punch, or glancing off the side of the face and not connecting solidly enough.


A (missed) Chun punch involves extension and retraction.. There is no delay in between during a miss. No delay means no assessment time, no assessment time means no change potential.. I can't make it any clearer.




Pulling you hand back at this point will take it past the head of the man you missed. Why waste time with bringing your hand all the way back and then going forward again??


Point or no point is irrelevant.. You yourself said it's too late to do anything about it and that was correct.

A punch is not a two part process with time in the middle left over for a cognitive process.. That is more like a push... A strike fires and returns in TENTHS of a second.. It's like saying that you are going to blink and in the middle of the blink (when your eye is closed) you will make some kind of assessment and then decide not to complete the blink.. Can't you see the problem there? The whole **** blink is long over!

Sure the hand that misses going out will miss going back... Unless you train to punch and every time make a hook to catch things on the way back (also goofy) it's a pipe dream..

I'm done with this goofy sub-topic.. Don't believe me: Use your own experience (not theory) to judge.

[shawchemical]

This isn't the issue.. I will know I missed before I miss.


There is no state of readiness.. There is fighting--you continue fighting..


A (missed) Chun punch involves extension and retraction.. There is no delay in between during a miss. No delay means no assessment time, no assessment time means no change potential.. I can't make it any clearer.

You were the one who described bringing the hand back as the punch in its entirety. It only comes back when the next one comes out. You are wrong.



Point or no point is irrelevant.. You yourself said it's too late to do anything about it and that was correct.

A punch is not a two part process with time in the middle left over for a cognitive process.. That is more like a push... A strike fires and returns in TENTHS of a second.. It's like saying that you are going to blink and in the middle of the blink if you will make some kind of assessment and then decide not to compete the blink.. Can't you see the problem there?

Sure the hand that misses going out will miss going back... Unless you train to punch and every time make a hook to catch things on the way back (also goofy) it's a pipe dream..


Talking with you is like banging my head on a brick wall. The punch is the punch. The retraction is the retraction which happens when the next punch goes out.
Your technical description of a boxing jab is 100% accurate, but this is not western boxing.
coming back through the centre will mean that you can drag the body of the man with elbow position. It is recovery from an error.

[YungChun]

Talking with you is like banging my head on a brick wall. The punch is the punch. The retraction is the retraction which happens when the next punch goes out.

Tell me about it.. I think this is one of the most inane sub topics I have ever seen here.

This sounds like a Robot doing Chun punches in slow motion.. Totally unrealistic.



Your technical description of a boxing jab is 100% accurate, but this is not western boxing.

A chun punch has much more in common with a jab than most other punches, they snap, like the blink of an eye.... You think they hang out there in the air for a moment fine, I think that's rather odd.



coming back through the centre will mean that you can drag the body of the man with elbow position. It is recovery from an error.

If you missed you weren't in the center to start with.. What you are talking about is a contigent change of tool in mid snap of the punch...

And as I said I have no problem with the idea IF you intend to do it from the beginning, but NO you can't "decide" to do it in mid punch.. it's nuts.

But great! Good luck with that theory..!

[bennyvt]

ok, so i don't spar and you are the one thats thinks if you missed you weren't in the centre? Ever spar anyone not doing vt. See they bob and weave, change levels when going for low shots and even take you down among other things. Any of these times they move off the centre meaning if you punch down the centre you will miss. I have used this when my punch skips over a jab when my mate jabs and drops to go for a shoot. And with a jab it depends on what sort of jab as to he it hangs in the air a millisecond, one is the feeler jab thrown with no power to judge distance and the move never stops. The other is a strong jab that is powerful and due to this the arm snaps out. The arm must unlock to move back. While this take microseconds there is a pause. By your example you are never stopping meaning every punch is just a tap. Its the snap that gives its power. Even in the chain punching dabi punch should be seperate not just wind milling in the air. And if you couldn't change the punch before it comes back that would mean you wouldn't have time to readjust the next punch so you would be punching in the same spot that you just missed him.

[CFT]

I like this clip of Alan Orr's demoing the use of pak sao: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFdKq867y8

I think it contains everything that Terence talks about as "The Key", not surprising since they both learned WCK from Robert Chu. At 1:39 Alan "joins" with his student's punch. Followed by a "leading/sinking" motion which will off-balance the attacker if there is some momentum to work with. Finish with pak sao.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is right..

I always say--it's easier to close range than to keep it..

Did anyone ever stop the take down even once? Did they ever slow you down? Interrupt your actions even for a moment?

I would think that if you had them work this enough eventually they would get better at stopping the take down/throw... but it is tough to do.

Eventually they either figure it out or I tell them how, but then it isn't "chi sao" anymore.

[YungChun]

I like this clip of Alan Orr's demoing the use of pak sao: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFdKq867y8

I think it contains everything that Terence talks about as "The Key", not surprising since they both learned WCK from Robert Chu. At 1:39 Alan "joins" with his student's punch. Followed by a "leading/sinking" motion which will off-balance the attacker if there is some momentum to work with. Finish with pak sao.

That's quite a leap away from the idea of entering by "hitting them with pak"..

He already has contact before he does the pak.. And it of course requires that the opponent punches past his target (lots of momentum)... Etc..

I personally have my doubts that's what T meant.. But he's not being specific intentionally so almost anything could fit..

[Ultimatewingchun]

I personally have my doubts that's what T meant...But he's not being specific intentionally so almost anything could fit." (Jim)
.....................................

***It's good to see how many people have caught onto this guy's ways. ;)

[k gledhill]

not how we do it :D but interesting anyway. We would attack the punch and strike in the extension of the opponents arm coming, to attack the opening it creates as it jab.s/grabs/ leading action.....At the same time.

On a "what hand to use when" point. When you X wrists like Alan does several times with the leading same arms , ie left meets left, right meets right, we Jut sao, in a back and forth striking action as we strike with the other arm....
We would pak sao the opposites, ie my extended right paks his left or inside forearm jum strike, since it has the same energy pak/jum sao.

Also the pak sao will open a small space so the cycling strike following will use the outside forearm energy [tan] to take over from the paks displacing energy. iow NO NEED FOR 2 HANDS to fight ONE...if you know this way.

I see a lot of 2 hands fighting one arm..no need if you use the elbow control ideas of the sytem. it will free up your ability to manipulate opponents without using one hand to control the guys arm/bridge while the other strikes...

Jut is the same, the jut hand would release and cycle back immediately because the the following strike would have jum energy [inside forearm] to take over the attack line on its own WAY MORE EFFICIENT and much faster.

To pak sao the elbow hand like that is too slow after youve already made the jutsao contact, you lose the attacking action. We would use the striking arm they extend to get as a lever and release it from contact immediately then control /flank the arm ...lan, po-pai, lop...

Simple stuff no major biggee. the strike would lead into po-pai aka shoves to break structure but only to regain a striking distance if we lost it by them covering up and not moving backwards.

There is also lateral lop sao so we would simply use the stance and momentum coupled in the same timing with jut or lop to take the guys leading arm/hand and make it cross infront of him...using the axis line to pivot him on....then whatever floats your boat to keep attacking him.

Using the lateral motion of CK will allow this turning of opponents who give you their flanks as they move in with momentum, instead of trying to 'jam' them with force forwards.

[chusauli]

Alan is not attacking the elbow of the opponent, but the opponent's center of gravity. It is not using two hands against one hand, it is covering and striking, while breaking the center of gravity and slowing the opponent's reaction time. And this is just a drill.

[SAAMAG]

Fuggin hell guys just go train and be done with it! I mean christ if people trained like they imply they wouldn't be having these asinine conversations anyway! You'd be talking about improving training methods, or how a technique you were using needs improvement because of your performance in a sparring session, or how you got taken down by someone and are looking for ways to deal with it from a wing chun perspective.

Instead of arguing to no end just go and friggin spar!!! Go test your theories versus someone else's theory. Go and see what works first hand. Then get back on here and talk about THAT.

In my experiences, wing chun absolutely works in fighting, and you'll find in using it ACTUALLY FIGHTING that it has disadvantages as well. You'll find out what works best for you, and you'll find out that certain things are fairy tale and certain things are not and just need tweaking.

But really...if you are actually fighting and practicing...you'd see that a lot of what Terence says is true. Same goes for what Alan and Robert say. It comes from actually fighting. So get in there with different guys, different weights, different skill levels and see what happens. When you do, trust me, you'll find these "conversations" on this forum less and less enticing because with all these debates you guys are having, you could easily be practicing.

[YungChun]

I see a lot of 2 hands fighting one arm..no need if you use the elbow control ideas of the sytem. it will free up your ability to manipulate opponents without using one hand to control the guys arm/bridge while the other strikes...


What I found is that this method is faster... depending on the conditions.. Leaving out some of the other moves as Kevin has mentioned is often quicker.. And in actual sparring "decent fighters" things that take longer are generally harder to do.

Still I have used pak as Robert mentions to pin their arm to their center moving them (and always taught this app), what works best and what you need all depend on the conditions.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Still I have used pak as Robert mentions to pin their arm to their center moving them (and always taught this app), what works best and what you need all depend on the conditions.

I don't think that's quite what Robert meant...?

The potential for issuing energy through the long bones of an opponent's arm and into their spine/centre is highest at the elbow. The wrist allows for easy pulling off centre, but difficult pushing off centre. The shoulder allows for easy pushing, but risky pulling. The elbow is the sweet spot - it allows for pulling or pushing off centre, either across (such as pinning the arm to the centre) or along (such as playing pool with someone's head where their shoulder is the tip of the pool cue and the elbow is the handle) the length of the bones. Likewise, control of the centre via the elbow minimizes the risk of both strikes and grabs, and if someone's on the ball they can control through an elbow, disrupt their opponent's structure, and lay a big one one them. :)

Officially, it's the same idea w/ controlling the legs/knees, but technically I've not trained that to any kind of competency yet.

[k gledhill]

What I found is that this method is faster... depending on the conditions.. Leaving out some of the other moves as Kevin has mentioned is often quicker.. And in actual sparring "decent fighters" things that take longer are generally harder to do.

Still I have used pak as Robert mentions to pin their arm to their center moving them (and always taught this app), what works best and what you need all depend on the conditions.


Ive used the same in streetfights in London, one of the most common techniques to use. A guy swings at your head, misses, over-swings and leaves himself easily trapped, and countered...pak sao.

[duende]

Alan is not attacking the elbow of the opponent, but the opponent's center of gravity. It is not using two hands against one hand, it is covering and striking, while breaking the center of gravity and slowing the opponent's reaction time. And this is just a drill.

Taking an opponents COG also negates much of the power from their weapons as well.

Often, it is critical and sometimes more important than simply attacking an opponents centerline.

Funny enough, I use the term snowplowing with our students as well. It is very accurate in describing the way one uses their full body to uproot an opponent.

Of course there are variations on a theme, and we may not all express this concept in the exact same way. But here is nice example of techniques proving a concept.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I often digress into meaningless debates with fools, but I have to say that this thread is starting to spiral into la la land.

[YungChun]

I don't think that's quite what Robert meant...?


I think what he said was pretty clear, as was the action shown--not paking the arm per se but the COM via the arm as it is pinned to the body..



Alan is not attacking the elbow of the opponent, but the opponent's center of gravity.

[YungChun]

Fuggin hell guys just go train and be done with it! I mean christ if people trained like they imply they wouldn't be having these asinine conversations anyway!


Don't read them..

If you don't want to argue then what are you doing on a MA forum..? I mean really.. LOL



You'd be talking about improving training methods, or how a technique you were using needs improvement because of your performance in a sparring session, or how you got taken down by someone and are looking for ways to deal with it from a wing chun perspective.

The only thing worse than arguing is lecturing a board on what you think they would/should be discussing if they weren't arguing..



Instead of arguing to no end just go and friggin spar!!! Go test your theories versus someone else's theory. Go and see what works first hand. Then get back on here and talk about THAT.

I am talking about that..



In my experiences, wing chun absolutely works in fighting, and you'll find in using it ACTUALLY FIGHTING that it has disadvantages as well. You'll find out what works best for you, and you'll find out that certain things are fairy tale and certain things are not and just need tweaking.

But really...if you are actually fighting and practicing...you'd see that a lot of what Terence says is true. Same goes for what Alan and Robert say. It comes from actually fighting. So get in there with different guys, different weights, different skill levels and see what happens. When you do, trust me, you'll find these "conversations" on this forum less and less enticing because with all these debates you guys are having, you could easily be practicing.

Terence makes vague generic statements that can mean all kinds of things, while at the same time insulting virtually everyone.. And you expect no one to respond? Right.

Some folks would like more specifics..and are interested in discussing..

Lecturing and condescending to the group about how we should be training instead of posting is one of the oldest, silliest and most hypocritical of the "high and mighty" rants..

This is a MA board where, as on all such boards folks will argue, discuss, learn and yes at times be obnoxious, pedantic and rude.. Attempting to admonish the entire group for acting like a MA group is nonsense.

It is what it is, if folks can't take the heat then turn in your Internet card (sound familiar?) because it's all part of the territory..

Folks train and folks post, the latter is what the board is for and wouldn't exist without posts of all kinds..

This thread is about breaking structure..and it's still on topic after 16 pages.. Works for me.. :)

[YungChun]

Taking an opponents COG also negates much of the power from their weapons as well.

Often, it is critical and sometimes more important than simply attacking an opponents centerline.


Essentially the same thing... Energizing their core causing a shift of their actual center...

[YungChun]

not how we do it :D but interesting anyway. We would attack the punch and strike in the extension of the opponents arm coming, to attack the opening it creates as it jab.s/grabs/ leading action.....At the same time.

On a "what hand to use when" point. When you X wrists like Alan does several times with the leading same arms , ie left meets left, right meets right, we Jut sao, in a back and forth striking action as we strike with the other arm....
We would pak sao the opposites, ie my extended right paks his left or inside forearm jum strike, since it has the same energy pak/jum sao.
{snip}
There is also lateral lop sao so we would simply use the stance and momentum coupled in the same timing with jut or lop to take the guys leading arm/hand and make it cross infront of him...using the axis line to pivot him on....then whatever floats your boat to keep attacking him.

Using the lateral motion of CK will allow this turning of opponents who give you their flanks as they move in with momentum, instead of trying to 'jam' them with force forwards.

Kevin-------

In 60,000 words or more: ;)

I get parts of what you are talking about but words make it tough..

I have always found striking into their attacks helpful and more realistic, but folks often use non linear attacks..

So how are you applying similar moves when dealing with more circular attacks and rear hand curved attacks?

Lead arm to arm examples are great but don't always exist in actual fighting..

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I have always found striking into their attacks helpful and more realistic, but folks often use non linear attacks..

So how are you applying similar moves when dealing with more circular attacks and rear hand curved attacks?

Lead arm to arm examples are great but don't always exist in actual fighting." (Jim)
.................................

***NOW you're talking about something close to my heart, my friend. And one of the biggest reasons why I started to incorporate some boxing moves (especially straight leads and rear crosses) into my game.

You HAVE to account for circular attacks - and wing chun "cut" punches, angling, bridging, blindside strategy, etc...will only take you so far in this regard.

And one of the things that I work on constantly is striking into their attacks (and attacking on my own blatantly) with a bit more rounded punches of my own...ie.- horizontal (not vertical with the elbows down and in) leads and crosses with some shoulder torgue (and with more of an elbows up type posturing as the punches are delivered)...

covers more area...

and makes it harder for them to throw curved punches around you.

Until I'm close enough (and/or with some control over the guy) so that a more conventional vertical, elbows down and in type striking makes more sense because he no longer has the space to hook around you successfully.

[k gledhill]

Kevin-------

In 60,000 words or more: ;)

I get parts of what you are talking about but words make it tough..

I have always found striking into their attacks helpful and more realistic, but folks often use non linear attacks..

So how are you applying similar moves when dealing with more circular attacks and rear hand curved attacks?

Lead arm to arm examples are great but don't always exist in actual fighting..


movement mainly :D our way requires angling, facing, etc... so we are very mobile

[YungChun]

movement mainly :D our way requires angling, facing, etc... so we are very mobile

All Wing Chun uses angling and facing..............

But those curvy shots and circular shots ain't gonna X the line, displacing elbow need not apply, etc, in these cases.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Which is why a wider width between one's arms - and punches thrown the way I described them earlier...helps to take away the real estate needed to get around the "typical" wing chun arm positioning and punching attacks.

The further away you are - the more area are you need to account for and guard....the closer you are - the less area you need to worry about....and therefore straight line attacks and tight, elbows-down-and-in-close-to-the-side defenses will work better when close.

Wing Chun is meant to be a close range striking system.

[k gledhill]

All Wing Chun uses angling and facing..............

But those curvy shots and circular shots ain't gonna X the line, displacing elbow need not apply, etc, in these cases.

exactly....ergo we can avoid by movement relative to tactical ideas. with seung ma toi ma we also drill a tactical idea. Making it intuitive , rather than tan goes to gate high outside while pivoting etcc...bs.
sometimes we just hit full force in the face at the right time. : )
like a lot of fighting systems .blocking is a way to avoid damage if we are caught in their range....
we drill to maintain ours. if they give a entry we have centerline principals that are faultless .

its not all intersecting for contact but rather 'allowing' moves by the opponent to take what they give by over turning, over stepping..etc..ergo the control freaks we are about motion...stepping with axis upright etc....we don't want to offer the same mistakes as we attack...

[YungChun]

sometimes we just hit full force in the face at the right time. : )


That's pretty much what I did.. If their center is open I want to fill that space, and many of Chun's tools and methods can still apply to curvy stuff..

In general if you can get inside on them; then I focus on my attack not theirs.

[k gledhill]

The system is "ATTACK AS DEFENSE" based, VT gives us the tools, tactics to do this.

[imperialtaichi]

Some of the Kulo principles about breaking structure. Courtesy of my garage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxtNtdOci8

Cheers,
John

[chusauli]

Thank you for the footage John!

[k gledhill]

breaking structure isn't something we 'look' for, thats up to the opponents training. We dont seek to 'test' them, simply attacking will reveal the weaknesses, strengths....
We use chi-sao drilling to test structures, but we dont 'fight' like this, common misunderstanding of the drill/fight relationship. One ends up thinking the 'testing' in chi-sao is how you will approach the fight....not :D


too much structure breaking drills leads one to 'jam' oneself too, meaning that your overusing a bong to jam a position and making your bong stay longer as it is, rather than recover in a fraction of time and carry on attacking, putting defensive actions into the mind of the recipient ...or over using lan sao and other hand to trap too...it becomes 'over trapping' too much. Hand chasing as well, seeking to jam by controlling hands with your own hands, rather than developing simultaneous ability to strike and deflect etc...

[Liddel]

too much structure breaking drills leads one to 'jam' oneself too

Id agree, I didnt realise others had actual Structure breaking drills.... to me its integral in what your doing...the techs or your art.

Structure breaking if thats what you want to call it, IMO is a bi product of your own dynamic structure....

As one example, i see guys using pak sau or pak da where the direction of the Pak is outside either parties body width.( similar to a left to right or vice versa boxing parry) This disrupts the weapon being parried but not the body.

A Pak Sau that has a path in line with the opponents center sucessful or not :eek: will disrupt the opponents weapon and disrupt thier balance IME.

Its just bad unsupported actions vs sound technique.

DREW

[imperialtaichi]

Another important issue on learning how to control the opponent's structure/momentum is that, if you are fighting multiple opponents, even if you can destroy one of your opponents within 1 sec, it would mean the back of your head is exposed for 1 sec for all his other friends to attack. It is important to move around (to safer spots/angles) or be able to move an opponent around to obstruct attacks from others.

Of course, if you are a very powerful striker, it would work too by striking off opponents in front of you and running forward as quickly as possible. But you still have to move forward faster than the others chasing the back of your head.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

Cheers,
John

[k gledhill]

turning the opponent is part of this thinking, ...many will make strong lines of force connecting at the shoulder , this tension along the arm to the shoulder/body , allows the arm to make the lever and all we do is move with it in directions relative to tactical pursuits....flank the arm, turn the opponent on their axis lines...doesnt matter if they are 280lbs they all spin on the axis line if you use the arm like a farm gate on a hinge....pak can do this if the arm tension allows it to transfer into the shoulder/body>axis line...

Our cycling man sao wu sao attacking wont allow this type of idea to work on us IF we relax and cycle striking/attacking, simply becasue we remove the levers as they are attacked....recyclying them faster than they can be used against us ..makes them chase our leading lever for control....opening themselves up or moving etc...so we keep the pressure on and stay with them as they move around.

Because we have attacking techniques that can do dual roles as they swap out 'threading' the line they can maintain a 2 handed attacking idea that most would use 2 hands to achieve...only we have trained the arms to do it it individually in cycles ...tan/jum.

We have attacking drills that are simply dealing with parrying lines relative to our attacklines...iow guys parry with pak, but what pak energy ? too much crossing the line opening the strike line easily, paking so the strike line is closed to xing over but okay to go inside with the following strike....more intuitive , distancing , positioning in dynamic exchanges ..like fighting.

Beginners to the drills will tend to make the tension in their arms connect to the shoulder more, making them easier to turn etc...with simple pak/bong/jum energy....they also tend to use more force in uncontrolled lines of direction stepping, allowing movement to their line easier to take advantage of....

the better you get the less you offer as mistakes...

the beginning drill dan chi sao, teaches the beginner to lose the shoulder / arm tension connection, allowing the arm to be deflected offline , knowing the rear wu sao will take over the line management....iow the striking arm of jum will recover its elbow back and centered , relaxed, not extended rigid , waiting for the bong to drop. the tan sao will retract slightly after striking for the jum to work off, and prepare for the bong sao....strike , relax, strike, relax...not strike feel, strike feel...

[imperialtaichi]

If the opponent's arm resists, we use it as a lever.

If the opponent's arm is loose, we go in for the strike, and continue to control him through the contact points.

If the opponent is more agile and control forces better than I can, it is only fair that he wins.

Cheers,
John

[imperialtaichi]

Another important issue, is to control the opponent's 2nd or 3rd gate (elbows and shoulders). Controlling the hands/wrists of the opponent does next to nothing, as it is too easy for the opponent the counter. In the 5th move of the Kulo 22, "Dragon Chasing Pearl 龍掙珠" is to practice "chasing" and controlling elbows; most of the other moves are also targeting elbows, knees and shoulders.

There is also a system of anatomical spots, that are like "blind spots" of the body which makes it hard for the opponent to get out of once you control these points. Most of them are just common sense, with a few sneaky ones. The 19 partner practice drills are designed to train "habits", so the students instinctively go for these targets quickly without having to think or look, and how to get out of when one is being controlled by someone else.

Controlling the opponent is not ad-hoc.

[LoneTiger108]

Some of the Kulo principles about breaking structure. Courtesy of my garage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxtNtdOci8

Cheers,
John

Sorry I didn't see any structure breaking, just entry sansau tech.

Your site doesn't promote Kulo WCK, I'm intrigued to know why you're sharing such unique info on Youtube via your garage?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Concerning the OP, as long as we are talking about structure like it is a house we won't get anywhere. Structure is about a fighters preferred mode of combat along with fighting shell and so on. If a WCer believes that the key to breaking structure is, tossing people around then I will show you an a$$ kicking waiting to happen. Wing Chun is a striking art first and foremost.

[Ultimatewingchun]

concerning the op, as long as we are talking about structure like it is a house we won't get anywhere. Structure is about a fighters preferred mode of combat along with fighting shell and so on. If a wcer believes that the key to breaking structure is, tossing people around then i will show you an a$$ kicking waiting to happen. Wing chun is a striking art first and foremost.

***well said.

[chusauli]

Concerning the OP, as long as we are talking about structure like it is a house we won't get anywhere. Structure is about a fighters preferred mode of combat along with fighting shell and so on. If a WCer believes that the key to breaking structure is, tossing people around then I will show you an a$$ kicking waiting to happen. Wing Chun is a striking art first and foremost.

If you can toss them around like they are nothing, what do you think will happen when you strike them?

Of course, WCK's tools are mainly for striking, but the delivery system is needed for those tools.

If you are trying to launch a bazooka, there has to be stability in order to launch it.

Even guns will have recoil.

Structure is the recoil dampening system. Then you use it to cut down the opponent's impact.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If you can toss them around like they are nothing, what do you think will happen when you strike them?

Of course, WCK's tools are mainly for striking, but the delivery system is needed for those tools.

If you are trying to launch a bazooka, there has to be stability in order to launch it.

Even guns will have recoil.

Structure is the recoil dampening system. Then you use it to cut down the opponent's impact.

In my mind, it isn't a question of whether standing grappling is an important component of sound WC. The problem lies in the fact that it is the not a sound first option against strong, balanced opponents. Standing grappling is a cheap way to win a lot of fights against strict strikers and street fighters. It is what you do when your strikes are not working or you have an obvious opportunity.

The idea that we can just toss people around assumes that our opponent is clueless about grappling. Trying WC [standing] grappling on a real grappler will amount to a WC loss.

IMO, the WC formula is tight mistake free striking, setting up the hands with the feet, using range and angles to counter and attack (footwork), looking for opportunities to attack and defend simultaneously, and lastly, standing grappling. "True" standing grappling is what we do to be opportunistic, to cover our mistakes, or to defeat better strikers.

[chusauli]

In my mind, it isn't a question of whether standing grappling is an important component of sound WC. The problem lies in the fact that it is the not a sound first option against strong, balanced opponents. Standing grappling is a cheap way to win a lot of fights against strict strikers and street fighters. It is what you do when your strikes are not working or you have an obvious opportunity.

The idea that we can just toss people around assumes that our opponent is clueless about grappling. Trying WC grappling on a real grappler will amount to a WC loss.

IMO, the WC formula is tight mistake free striking, setting up the hands with the feet, using range and angles to counter and attack (footwork), looking for opportunities to attack and defend simultaneously, and lastly, standing grappling. "True" standing grappling is what we do to be opportunistic, to cover our mistakes, or to defeat better strikers.

I may be missing something here, but what is standing grappling? WC grappling?

In WCK we are not doing Kum Na (Joint locking, seizing, controlling) or entering to throwing, primarily. That is incidental. We are strikers. But, we are looking to control the opponent's balance and strike them, so there is little trading of shots.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I may be missing something here, but what is standing grappling? WC grappling?


When I say standing grappling I mean prolonged contact with with an opponent in the upright position that involves jockeying for position, hitting, and takedowns. In that sentence, I meant, "WC Grappling" to mean WC standing grappling. Like I said, it is fine situationally, but I can't buy it as the blanket first option. The momentary holding and hitting would not fit into that definition of standing grappling.