Reaching Rules of Thumb

[HumbleWCGuy]

What do you guys tell your students to help them to understand what reaching is.

[weakstudent]

i'm not a teacher just a student, how would you explain it to me

thanks in advance

[t_niehoff]

What do you guys tell your students to help them to understand what reaching is.

From a boxer's perspective, on defense ANYTIME your hands leave your guard (BOTH your hands are up by your chin/head covering you - hence the term "guard": you are guarded from being hit - and whenever they move from that position you create openings) to attempt to engage your opponent's hands/arm to deal with his punches, it is considered reaching -- you reach by moving your hands from guard and moving toward his hand/arm (your reach for it). Sound boxing maintains your hands in close proximity to your head/body when you catch, parry, etc. so that you are always protected -- even if you miss the catch, parry, etc. and even if you are responding to a feint/fake. The hands never extend away from the guard on defense, only on offense.

On offense, reaching is when you over-extend and/or unbalance yourself (come out of your stance) in an attempt to strike something that is out of range.

[bennyvt]

cool, post that on a boxing forum for people that give two 5hits

[HumbleWCGuy]

From a boxer's perspective, on defense ANYTIME your hands leave your guard (BOTH your hands are up by your chin/head covering you - hence the term "guard": you are guarded from being hit - and whenever they move from that position you create openings) to attempt to engage your opponent's hands/arm to deal with his punches, it is considered reaching -- you reach by moving your hands from guard and moving toward his hand/arm (your reach for it). Sound boxing maintains your hands in close proximity to your head/body when you catch, parry, etc. so that you are always protected -- even if you miss the catch, parry, etc. and even if you are responding to a feint/fake. The hands never extend away from the guard on defense, only on offense.

On offense, reaching is when you over-extend and/or unbalance yourself (come out of your stance) in an attempt to strike something that is out of range.

Care to provide the Wing Chun take?

[HumbleWCGuy]

i'm not a teacher just a student, how would you explain it to me

thanks in advance

Happily, on some level I treat each Wing Chun parry as it's own entity. Therefore the precise execution of each block varies. The goal of every WC man is to not be there when the strike comes, the parry is just there as an insurance policy. However, if the footwork goes to plan, you won't actually block anything. My biggest concern with students is that they are trying to block punches that aren't threats. My good students will flash a block but only make contact if the strike is on target. if the strike is on target the goal is to make the strike miss by a small margin of 2-3 inches.
Second, is to obey the box theory which is essentially executing all of your blocks as if you and your opponent. are within a refrigerator box that is no more than 3 inches larger than you.

I teach the defense in layers. Blocks should involve as many layers of defense as possible being the hand/arm, shoulder, and head movement. Every block can't involve every layer but the more layers of defense available the more confidence that a student has to not reach. This idea in conjunction with footwork means that every strike that gets through should have gone through an average of 3 layers of defense.

Specific pak advice: Don't get lazy and push down too much.


Specific bong advice. Don't use it unless the body shots are killing you or to catch kicks.

[Hendrik]

care to share?


However, if the footwork goes to plan, you won't actually block anything.

what is the goal of your footwork?


My biggest concern with students is that they are trying to block punches that aren't threats. My good students will flash a block but only make contact if the strike is on target. if the strike is on target the goal is to make the strike miss by a small margin of 2-3 inches.


how do you generate power for the block?

[t_niehoff]

Care to provide the Wing Chun take?

There isn't a "WCK-take". WCK's method of fighting does not involve blocking, parrying, etc. like boxers or kickboxers (which is why classical WCK terminology doesn't include terms like block or parry) -- it is not for outside fighting.

If someone wants to develop good outside fighting skills then they should go train at a good boxing or MT or kickboxing gym.

Training WCK kickboxing is training to fail.

However, there is something in WCK that pertains to the notion of reaching. There is a training kuit that says "strength must be exacting in position, never overextended." Of course, this pertains to contact.

[HumbleWCGuy]

care to share?


However, if the footwork goes to plan, you won't actually block anything.

what is the goal of your footwork?

In the context of basic WC, I would just say To put me in a position to hit and not be hit. The priority of course is to not get hit. Every strike requires footwork to generate optimal power.



My biggest concern with students is that they are trying to block punches that aren't threats. My good students will flash a block but only make contact if the strike is on target. if the strike is on target the goal is to make the strike miss by a small margin of 2-3 inches.

how do you generate power for the block?
It is somewhat block specific IMO, but generally speaking the idea is to obey the immovable elbow principle, keep the elbows down, and use footwork to minimize the strength needed to "block." In my opinion, it isn't so much that a block is powerful as it is the effectiveness of the block which involves footwork, proper arm mechanics, shoulder mechanics, and the use of the shoulder.

[Hendrik]

Thanks and appreciate for your sharing!



In the context of basic WC, I would just say To put me in a position to hit and not be hit. The priority of course is to not get hit. Every strike requires footwork to generate optimal power.

My biggest concern with students is that they are trying to block punches that aren't threats. My good students will flash a block but only make contact if the strike is on target. if the strike is on target the goal is to make the strike miss by a small margin of 2-3 inches.


It is somewhat block specific IMO, but generally speaking the idea is to obey the immovable elbow principle, keep the elbows down, and use footwork to minimize the strength needed to "block." In my opinion, it isn't so much that a block is powerful as it is the effectiveness of the block which involves footwork, proper arm mechanics, shoulder mechanics, and the use of the shoulder.

[HumbleWCGuy]

There isn't a "WCK-take". WCK's method of fighting does not involve blocking, parrying, etc. like boxers or kickboxers (which is why classical WCK terminology doesn't include terms like block or parry) -- it is not for outside fighting.

If someone wants to develop good outside fighting skills then they should go train at a good boxing or MT or kickboxing gym.

Training WCK kickboxing is training to fail.

However, there is something in WCK that pertains to the notion of reaching. There is a training kuit that says "strength must be exacting in position, never overextended." Of course, this pertains to contact.

How is it that Alan manages to teach his guys to kickbox with CSL if WC cannot kickbox?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Thanks and appreciate for your sharing!

Turning the body is nice too when possible. Do you have any thoughts to add?

[k gledhill]

There isn't a "WCK-take". WCK's method of fighting does not involve blocking, parrying, etc. like boxers or kickboxers (which is why classical WCK terminology doesn't include terms like block or parry) -- it is not for outside fighting.

If someone wants to develop good outside fighting skills then they should go train at a good boxing or MT or kickboxing gym.

Training WCK kickboxing is training to fail.

However, there is something in WCK that pertains to the notion of reaching. There is a training kuit that says "strength must be exacting in position, never overextended." Of course, this pertains to contact.


you dont know what you are talking about regarding VT.

[Hendrik]

Turning the body is nice too when possible. Do you have any thoughts to add?


What i heard is WCK short Jin Power generation becomes important here;

This is because there are time and often the footwork is not adequate and imperfect;
one will run out of time or space, one will encounter the opponents' changing in his attacked; and one doesnt want to reach out but still could accelerate one's momentum to catch the action.

[k gledhill]

reaching is bad , why ? ask yourself, what is the ck for ? To practice spinning fast :D to practice walking left, right, to turn fast and walk again :D

We have an axis line, so does the opponent. bridges give axis to the axis lines [sorry].

We generate force as we move towards our opponents with our own body mass in motion.
If we step first as we 'reach' we lose the momentum of the body mass available.
A simple way to show this involves offering an arm to a student to remove however they like from their intended strike path. You simply resist their attempts ...if they are using a bad 'idea' , they will step first, then to reach with arms second, THEN hit :D hah ! a strong well trained vt fighter will simply hold their lead arm [man sao] outstretched and laugh at the continuing attempts to remove the arm.:D until he offers help to fix the , dilema.

Maintaining the vertical axis body line is simply aligning your body to deliver its 'weight' in motion , coupled with whatever techniques your using, anything from a simple punch, or po-pai....doesnt matter what the hands do, as long as they do it WITH the body...all together, not step,lean, pak sao, then punch bring rear foot up...:o all done in a 1,2,3,4...etc...

Once the student learns what they have to do to remove an arm using their momentum, they can also be shown that they are overdoing it, by simply removing the same arm you held up rigidly....if they fly past you out of control leaning etc...then they arent moving the axis line as CK , but reaching still and out control.
A good example of this is when you try to evade the attack by side stepping a foot or 2, the person simply turns and faces you , turning on their axis line effortlessly...allowing them to maintain their attack even if you go walk about...controlled movement with ballistic displacment in the hands and body momentum to back it up further....people with small frames, women, etc..can generate tremendous force when timed like this into explosive attacks or counters.


begginers tend to reach as a tentative 'control' hand becasue they are hesitating to enter and attack with gusto ...

More chum kil to avoid leaning back, forward, sideways...

[Hendrik]

if they are using a bad 'idea' , they will step first, then to reach with arms, second THEN hit :D hah ! a strong well trained vt fighter will simply hold their lead arm outstretched and laugh at the continuing attempts to remove the arm.:D




What does this mean? care to explain?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Most arts just have a piece of the story. Boxing is no different. Boxing deficiencies show up real quickly against guys who can kick to the head and when small gloves are used. WC can looks deficient when when when it can't control the range.

Everything looks deficient when T. does it.

[HumbleWCGuy]

What does this mean? care to explain?

I believe that it is a tactic to goad people into engaging in a chi sao like battle.

[k gledhill]

What does this mean? care to explain?

the use of bad timing...VT tries to execute simultaneous actions.

a vt fighter, can hold a lead man sao outstretched and create a 'line' barrier.....part of centerline fighting. Part of fighting drills incorporate line maintenance drills by simply alternating the lead man sao and changing angles,shifting stances without any strikes...helps stop chasing 'offline'. Re-enforces the confidence to simply attack and defend along YOUR lines of engagement, rather than 'fight hands' you attack the face :D

[k gledhill]

I believe that it is a tactic to goad people into engaging in a chi sao like battle.


the opposite, its to rid you of the idea that you want to 'touch' my hands any longer than you have to, to strike me with your punches. Drill stuff, we dont 'battle' in chi-sao :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

the opposite, its to rid you of the idea that you want to 'touch' my hands any longer than you have to, to strike me with your punches. Drill stuff, we dont 'battle' in chi-sao :D

I am not clear on what the hand out is doing. Clarify with a specific scenario so that I can better understand your aim.

[k gledhill]

I am simply offering some 'meat' for the partner, drilling. I place my lead arm rigidly along my centerline. He tries to use a 'technique' to clear a shot to my face , making my arm the 'lever' to my axis line. My stance is also acting as a barrier, due to the stable nature of a vt stance. To create an opening of this line and structure integrity, the partner needs to use a displacing action to clear a small path for their punching attack...iow, their aim is not to over trap, reach and touch my arm for any longer then they have to , to make an attacking punch...once this 'punch' is achieved the hand they removed doesnt need to be 'touched' only my face :D because im to busy attacking face....to worry about touching your arm.

You can also suddenly remove the 'rigid' arm to also address, arm fighting. A very bad habit many VT do ....seeking to over control arms with their own hands, turning into pak sao attacks with no punches. Slap, slap....if you think your student is doing this, quickly remove your hands from their intended contact, suddenly, and watch their hands do everything 'except' hit you in the jaw.

vt punches are capable of simultaneous attack and defense because of the elbow control from SLT.

if you haven't learned the tan / jum striking ideas, then you wont be able to achieve this way of fighting. No jum sao, means your compensating for the lack of a 'partner' strike to tan by using a 'trap' or over controlling hand instead...no balance in your punching attacks, more one hand traps, one hand hits.

kill the brain with punches, dont fight arms, they cant be knocked out with punches :D

Above is a lot of words to describe a series of actions done in a millisecond :D the big bang theory is alive and doing well in VT :D

[t_niehoff]

How is it that Alan manages to teach his guys to kickbox with CSL if WC cannot kickbox?

Alan and his guys, like all sensible people today, cross train for MMA.

WCK is for fighting in a phone booth.

[t_niehoff]

the use of bad timing...VT tries to execute simultaneous actions.

a vt fighter, can hold a lead man sao outstretched and create a 'line' barrier.....part of centerline fighting. Part of fighting drills incorporate line maintenance drills by simply alternating the lead man sao and changing angles,shifting stances without any strikes...helps stop chasing 'offline'. Re-enforces the confidence to simply attack and defend along YOUR lines of engagement, rather than 'fight hands' you attack the face :D

Training to fail.

If you fight at a distance and "hold a lead man sao outstretched" -- what many people teach as the WCK guard -- you aren't creating any barrier (where do you get such ideas?), you are only exposing yourself. This is precisely what a boxer wants you to do. Shifting stances and changing angles won't help you since boxers hit from all angles, and without needing to shift stances (so they are much faster since they only have to move their hands to change a line). All it takes is a round with a decent boxer to show you this.

The man sao/wu sao "guard" you frequently see WCK people do is a common misapplication -- that is not a "guard" or a posture or a ready position but an ACTION used in establishing contact (as you do in the opening of the dummy). Like most actions/movements in WCK, it is commonly -- and poorly -- taught first as a fixed position (like holding your wu sao in front of your chest). Unfortunately, often people never get past this beginning stage. And since they only do unrealsitic training (they don't go that round with a decent boxer), they develop all kinds of unrealistic "ideas" -- like the above.

[Hendrik]

the use of bad timing...VT tries to execute simultaneous actions.

a vt fighter, can hold a lead man sao outstretched and create a 'line' barrier.....part of centerline fighting. Part of fighting drills incorporate line maintenance drills by simply alternating the lead man sao and changing angles,shifting stances without any strikes...helps stop chasing 'offline'. Re-enforces the confidence to simply attack and defend along YOUR lines of engagement, rather than 'fight hands' you attack the face :D


Thanks !

[k gledhill]

Training to fail.

If you fight at a distance and "hold a lead man sao outstretched" -- what many people teach as the WCK guard -- you aren't creating any barrier (where do you get such ideas?), you are only exposing yourself. This is precisely what a boxer wants you to do. Shifting stances and changing angles won't help you since boxers hit from all angles, and without needing to shift stances (so they are much faster since they only have to move their hands to change a line). All it takes is a round with a decent boxer to show you this.

The man sao/wu sao "guard" you frequently see WCK people do is a common misapplication -- that is not a "guard" or a posture or a ready position but an ACTION used in establishing contact (as you do in the opening of the dummy). Like most actions/movements in WCK, it is commonly -- and poorly -- taught first as a fixed position (like holding your wu sao in front of your chest). Unfortunately, often people never get past this beginning stage. And since they only do unrealsitic training (they don't go that round with a decent boxer), they develop all kinds of unrealistic "ideas" -- like the above.

Again, you don't understand VT. If you think I stand still and present a guard hand to a boxer while standing in a lead leg stance, moving back and forth :D

Its a drilling idea to deal with a guy who just puts an arm in your way , like a jab , a grab , a defensive push, a pointing finger, aka to us a 'line of force'. It is just a training aid to develop a fighter, not the be all end all of our repertoire.
And further to your joke of an understanding, we 'play' people by getting THEM to make the contact with US ...the reason we dont chase hands, think about it....why dont WE chase hands.
Why is it such a cardinal error ?

I know how you would fight me, you would fight my hands , not my face. You would seek contact first, not attacking first and constantly. Subtle but , glaringly obvious.

[t_niehoff]

Again, you don't understand VT. If you think I stand still and present a guard hand to a boxer while standing in a lead leg stance, moving back and forth :D


I understand perfectly what you are talking about -- I've seen it, and its variations, since I began WCK (almost 30 years ago).



Its a drilling idea to deal with a guy who just puts an arm in your way , like a jab , a grab , a defensive push, a pointing finger, aka to us a 'line of force'. It is just a training aid to develop a fighter, not the be all end all of our repertoire.


People don't put and hold some "arm in your way" -- on the outside they throw bombs from all directions, all angles, all ranges, while moving.



And further to your joke of an understanding, we 'play' people by getting THEM to make the contact with US ...the reason we dont chase hands, think about it....why dont WE chase hands.
Why is it such a cardinal error ?


You don't seem to grasp what "chasing hands" means. It doesn't mean to not actively seek contact or maintain contact with an opponent (or his arms) but pertains to what your objective is with contact (what you are doing with your contact). If your objective is only to maintain contact, then you are chasing hands. It is purely defensive sticking.

However, using contact/attachment actively, to try and control your opponent while striking him, is not chasing hands. In that case you are chasing control, and using your attachment to your opponent, regardless of what part of the opponent you are in contact with, to obtain that control.

Letting an opponent initiate contact will put you behind the timing. That's not a good place to be.



I know how you would fight me, you would fight my hands , not my face. You would seek contact first, not attacking first and constantly. Subtle but , glaringly obvious.

No, you have no idea. I'm not going to be fighting your hands or your face. I am going to be controlling you, your whole body. I would be tossing you around like a rag doll while I continually thump you. You don't seem to grasp that my attack is what establishes the contact. And that I will break your structure on contact and keep it broken. That is WCK's method of fighting.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Alan and his guys, like all sensible people today, cross train for MMA.

WCK is for fighting in a phone booth.

He said that all he uses is CSL stand up. I guess he must be lying.

I have pure CSL Wing Chun - that has all the stand up skills I need. Its not mixed with boxing or a mma. It works in MMA thats application of my wing chun. We have chinese Boxing skills - again application of our art. We don't need to mix it, we learn from other arts and see how we would do what we see within our wing chun framework, if its not within our prinicles then we would not use it.

-Alan Orr


http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1025129&postcount=663



Stand up - we have CSL Wing Chun.
-Alan Orr
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1025316&postcount=680

There are a number of other posts that say the same thing referring to "I" Alan or "we' he and his students. I think that it would be accurate to say that we also refers to CSL as I am sure that he considers himself a representative of it.

[Dave McKinnon]

The goal of every WC man is to not be there when the strike comes.

The goal of every Wing Chun Man should be to hit the other guy... Everything else facilitates that.

[Dave McKinnon]

In the context of basic WC, I would just say To put me in a position to hit and not be hit. The priority of course is to not get hit. Every strike requires footwork to generate optimal power.

At the risk of seeming like I am picking on anyone... If my focus is on not getting hit, I will get hit. If my focus is on striking and I use good WC principles I should not get hit.

[k gledhill]

I understand perfectly what you are talking about -- I've seen it, and its variations, since I began WCK (almost 30 years ago).



People don't put and hold some "arm in your way" -- on the outside they throw bombs from all directions, all angles, all ranges, while moving.


You don't seem to grasp what "chasing hands" means. It doesn't mean to not actively seek contact or maintain contact with an opponent (or his arms) but pertains to what your objective is with contact (what you are doing with your contact). If your objective is only to maintain contact, then you are chasing hands. It is purely defensive sticking.

However, using contact/attachment actively, to try and control your opponent while striking him, is not chasing hands. In that case you are chasing control, and using your attachment to your opponent, regardless of what part of the opponent you are in contact with, to obtain that control.

Letting an opponent initiate contact will put you behind the timing. That's not a good place to be.


No, you have no idea. I'm not going to be fighting your hands or your face. I am going to be controlling you, your whole body. I would be tossing you around like a rag doll while I continually thump you. You don't seem to grasp that my attack is what establishes the contact. And that I will break your structure on contact and keep it broken. That is WCK's method of fighting.

30 years means little, quality not quantity.

if you understand what I'm talking about why do you answer like you have no clue ?

You really dont understand. Saying you do understand, wont change the fact that what you write, contradicts this.

you will fight my hands....:D

[HumbleWCGuy]

At the risk of seeming like I am picking on anyone... If my focus is on not getting hit, I will get hit. If my focus is on striking and I use good WC principles I should not get hit.

Certainly, strong offense is a part of good defense, but at the same time WC isn't toughman fighting either. Also, if the best advice that you can give is, "the best defense is a good offense," you might be lacking something in your defense. Also, I am not really willing to summarize defense is such a cliche manner. Spar with some good boxers under their rule set and you will see that nearly every boxer within a weight class hits the same and the only difference in each is the defense.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I think that anyone with a clue would realize that Man Sau is an effective tool which can be used to occupy the line and force the opponenet to remove it in order to strike to center. Having said that, Man Sau does not "reach" for the opponent, rather it occupies the line and forces him to deal with it. In order to effectively use Man Sau you must be able to coordinate your facing, without proper facing the opponent will simply avoid the Man and attack from another angle.

Man Sau should have subtle forward energy, imho. One should not extend the Man Sau else it becomes something else, which sometimes is what is needed.

My point is anyone who thinks that Man Sau is ineffective or not useful for fighting really does not, imo, understand Man Sau.

Also, while talk of range is all well and good, keep in mind that once the opponent enters the range where they can hit me, in most cases they are also in the range where I can hit them. ;)

[k gledhill]

Hello,

I think that anyone with a clue would realize that Man Sau is an effective tool which can be used to occupy the line and force the opponenet to remove it in order to strike to center. Having said that, Man Sau does not "reach" for the opponent, rather it occupies the line and forces him to deal with it. In order to effectively use Man Sau you must be able to coordinate your facing, without proper facing the opponent will simply avoid the Man and attack from another angle.

Man Sau should have subtle forward energy, imho. One should not extend the Man Sau else it becomes something else, which sometimes is what is needed.

My point is anyone who thinks that Man Sau is ineffective or not useful for fighting really does not, imo, understand Man Sau.

Also, while talk of range is all well and good, keep in mind that once the opponent enters the range where they can hit me, in most cases they are also in the range where I can hit them. ;)

agreed , movement is required to angle strategically ...the tan sao's role in seung ma toi ma drills is the 'leading' entry 'line of force' delivered in a regular drill... it makes us react to counter 'that' particular flank/angle correctly with the correct distance to also make a punch with our jum sao ...or pak sao etc.... iow not to simply put an arm in the center and rigidly stay there :D drills and fighting. Sometimes the abstract methods can be misleading to the uninformed.

If we aren't stopped, we are punching with man sao ~ wu sao...in continuous cycles.

And yes if man sao moves forwards it becomes something else, a punch, usually ...unless something stops it.

[shawchemical]

Alan and his guys, like all sensible people today, cross train for MMA.

WCK is for fighting in a phone booth.

No. VTK without any footwork is for fighting in a phone booth. Add footwork and you become mobile.

[CFT]

No. VTK without any footwork is for fighting in a phone booth. Add footwork and you become mobile.He's talking about the operating range. The footwork helps you maintain the most effective (for VTK) range, i.e. the space encompassed by a phone booth.

[Sihing73]

He's talking about the operating range. The footwork helps you maintain the most effective (for VTK) range, i.e. the space encompassed by a phone booth.

I hope WC/VT is for more than fighting in a Phone Booth. It is hard to find a Phone Booth in the US let alone get my opponent inside of one for us to fight :D

[t_niehoff]

He's talking about the operating range. The footwork helps you maintain the most effective (for VTK) range, i.e. the space encompassed by a phone booth.

Exactly.

WCK teaches a strategic approach and the tools necessary to implement that approach for getting safely in the phone booth (entering/bridging the gap), staying in the phone booth, and being able to fight effectively in that operating range.

WCK's signature drills, chi sao, lop sao, etc. are unrealistic drills in that operating range.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I hope WC/VT is for more than fighting in a Phone Booth. It is hard to find a Phone Booth in the US let alone get my opponent inside of one for us to fight :D

I carry one with me everywhere I go :D

Reaching is BAD anytime you over -extend yourself beyond what you need to do.
In other words, if you don't need to reach ( the strike is coming to you) and you reach for it, that is a bad thing.
If you need to reach 6" and you reach 8", that is bad.

Context is everything as always.

You do only as much as you have to, you need to do, beyond that, it can be counter-productive.

[k gledhill]

Centerline fighting encompasses our bodyweight behind the arm actions. The elbow positions trained by the SLT ensure the body is behind the 'elbow in' actions, ergo one reason why we maintain the elbows behind the wrists.
If you reach, lean forwards, etc...you lose the total of the sum of the parts in motion as you attack .
Economy of motion , all in a 'grenade' attack with a belt load of grenades . Using the hips in the actions, ensures the legs are being 'shocked' into the action of the arms simultaneously.
Everything we do should be in a flowing moving attack. When we do the dummy we are using the arms as the explosion point , timing 3 actions into a flowing assault while cycling the man sao / wu sao with punches or lead jut/pak/bong etc...
When we do a bong/wu on the dummy we use the rotation of the hips to generate force, coupled with fast rotation of the arms..in one beat. BANG !, creating openings with displacing force, like the dan gwan of the pole before striking .displace , strike, only the hands can do it in one beat.

[shawchemical]

Exactly.

WCK teaches a strategic approach and the tools necessary to implement that approach for getting safely in the phone booth (entering/bridging the gap), staying in the phone booth, and being able to fight effectively in that operating range.

WCK's signature drills, chi sao, lop sao, etc. are unrealistic drills in that operating range.

NO they're not, but it is clear that your flawed understanding of them makes them, as you believe, unrealistic. However, given that it has been established time after time that you don't know what you're talking about, saying that the drills themselves are unrealistic is fallacious.

[HumbleWCGuy]

On a basic level getting in and staying in is what we want to do, but depending on one's attributes versus the opponent it is often necessary to move in and out of that phone booth. WC can also stay on the outside kick and use some of the various hand tactics to get off outside counters. Where WC is weak is inside "boxing" hands, like most traditional arts. Similar to traditional MT, and other arts with standing grappling, WC stifles inside boxing with the clinching/attaching tactics.

[t_niehoff]

NO they're not, but it is clear that your flawed understanding of them makes them, as you believe, unrealistic. However, given that it has been established time after time that you don't know what you're talking about, saying that the drills themselves are unrealistic is fallacious.

It doesn't matter what my "understanding" of the drills are -- anyone, even someone with no WCK training, can look at the classical WCK drills and see that they are not realistic. What makes training realistic is that your opponent is behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc. In other words, realistic drills are snippets of fighting/sparring.

That people come to believe the WCK classical drills are realistic only underscores how unrealistic training brainwashes people.

[k gledhill]

It doesn't matter what my "understanding" of the drills are -- anyone, even someone with no WCK training, can look at the classical WCK drills and see that they are not realistic. What makes training realistic is that your opponent is behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc. In other words, realistic drills are snippets of fighting/sparring.

That people come to believe the WCK classical drills are realistic only underscores how unrealistic training brainwashes people.

If you see the drills as the vt 'fight' then your looking at the abstract 'parts' , nobody has shown you the whole picture yet. T comes to mind :D
The drills simply serve to give us a modular approach to developmental stages, involving mutual force exchanges with partners using the opposite partner as a knife sharpens on a stone before it gets used for real....the sharper the blade the easier it cuts.

If you are not developing a blade, then you will become a clinching,controlling, over trapping , chasing feeler :eek: :D

We strive to start students sparring from day one they walk in. Under strict control with advanced students, who will encourage them to attack with basic levels to simply get them used to the goal, fighting , not the 'way to get there', with drills lacking any resemblance to the fighting they do every class.

Understanding the intention of chi-sao as a way to get to sparring is required early or you tend to think you fight with 2 extended rolling arms , like the drill.

fighting with VT is fast explosive and aggressive , aiming to be relflexive rather than stand roll clinch lop/chop repeat 234...

speed, momentum, timing, force alignment, balance...

[shawchemical]

It doesn't matter what my "understanding" of the drills are -- anyone, even someone with no WCK training, can look at the classical WCK drills and see that they are not realistic. What makes training realistic is that your opponent is behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc. In other words, realistic drills are snippets of fighting/sparring.

That people come to believe the WCK classical drills are realistic only underscores how unrealistic training brainwashes people.

Unless of course, you perform those drills by building up the techniques to the point where the opponent is "behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc" However, if your opponent is specifically resisting you, they are probably not trying to hit you. Thus, they become your plaything and you can do with them what you will.

It definitely matters what your understanding of the drills is. Because you clearly lack the fundamental level of understanding what the drills are for, but also how the drills should be performed.

[t_niehoff]

Unless of course, you perform those drills by building up the techniques to the point where the opponent is "behaving realistically, genuinely resisting you (like he does in fighting) -- and that means realistic levels of force (like you have in fighting), realistic action (as opposed to limited, proscribed ones), etc" However, if your opponent is specifically resisting you, they are probably not trying to hit you. Thus, they become your plaything and you can do with them what you will.


You misunderstand. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill no matter how you do it. If you "built it up" to the point it was realistic, you'd be doing full power, attached fighting/sparring. Then it would no longer be the drill chi sao -- it would be sparring/fighting.

Chi sao is WCK with the training wheels on. If you take the training wheels off, then you are really trying to ride the bike.



It definitely matters what your understanding of the drills is. Because you clearly lack the fundamental level of understanding what the drills are for, but also how the drills should be performed.

Again, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that it isn't important -- critical, actually -- to know what the drills are for (to "understand" them). My point is that a person need not understand a drill to know whether or not it is a realistic drill.

[shawchemical]

You misunderstand. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill no matter how you do it. If you "built it up" to the point it was realistic, you'd be doing full power, attached fighting/sparring. Then it would no longer be the drill chi sao -- it would be sparring/fighting.

Chi sao is WCK with the training wheels on. If you take the training wheels off, then you are really trying to ride the bike.



Again, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that it isn't important -- critical, actually -- to know what the drills are for (to "understand" them). My point is that a person need not understand a drill to know whether or not it is a realistic drill.

No one misunderstands you terrence, we all understand what you're trying to say perfectly. Unfortunately, you're wrong so it matters little what you think about these drills. Chi Sao is NOT an unrealistic drill, and is an integral part of VTK. It is not the be all and end all, but without it we'd all be doing the **** that you think you understand. You actually DO need to understand a drill and how it fits in the context of what it teaches to be able to make the determination of its realism.

Back into your hole T, you have nothing of value to add.

[t_niehoff]

No one misunderstands you terrence, we all understand what you're trying to say perfectly. Unfortunately, you're wrong so it matters little what you think about these drills. Chi Sao is NOT an unrealistic drill, and is an integral part of VTK. It is not the be all and end all, but without it we'd all be doing the **** that you think you understand. You actually DO need to understand a drill and how it fits in the context of what it teaches to be able to make the determination of its realism.

Back into your hole T, you have nothing of value to add.

To determine whether something, including a drill, is realistic or not, all you have to do is look at the fight. Does what you are doing "look" like what you see in fighting? Not what you IMAGINE will happen or IMAGINE you will be able to do, but does it correspond to what happens in fighting?

Realisitic means corresponds to reality, right? So by looking at reality, we can know whether something is realistic or not. In terms of fighting, the fight itself is the reality.

BTW, I never said chi sao wasn't an integral part of the WCK curriculum. I said it wasn't realistic. Riding a bike with the training wheels on may be an integral part of learning to ride a bike. But it isn't realistic.

[Yoshiyahu]

To determine whether something, including a drill, is realistic or not, all you have to do is look at the fight. Does what you are doing "look" like what you see in fighting? Not what you IMAGINE will happen or IMAGINE you will be able to do, but does it correspond to what happens in fighting?

Realisitic means corresponds to reality, right? So by looking at reality, we can know whether something is realistic or not. In terms of fighting, the fight itself is the reality.

BTW, I never said chi sao wasn't an integral part of the WCK curriculum. I said it wasn't realistic. Riding a bike with the training wheels on may be an integral part of learning to ride a bike. But it isn't realistic.

So after one learns how to fight with wing chun? does that mean they can just forget about ci sao and never do it again?

[t_niehoff]

So after one learns how to fight with wing chun? does that mean they can just forget about ci sao and never do it again?

To borrow the old saying, it is a boat to take you across the river.

Or, to use my metaphor, after you learned how to ride a bike, did you go back and continue to ride with the training wheels on? Will that make you a better bike rider?

Chi sao will only get you to a certain point in your training.

[HumbleWCGuy]

We don't even really use chi sao. Every once in a while we make up an ad hoc drill to teach some thing that the students are struggling with, but it is a minuscule percentage of the training. As T. pointed out, If you can ride a bike then why put the training wheels back on.

That last time I made up a drill, I was showing how to slip the jab and hit. Seriously, if everyone is on the same page and good with doing something live, why go back to it in that unrealistic format?

Edit:
My instructor has actually been teaching more animal systems lately and he has been using more chi sao than he ever did for us in WC because the hand movements are more complex. And probably, his current crop of students isn't as dedicated.


Appropriately in this thread on reaching. Chi Sao, can turn into an exercise in chasing hands. IMO, you can't chase after every gut shot. Moreover, chi sao does not lend itself to using the appropriate blocks to stop most body shots. Also, it isn't sound fighting to attempt to block every single body shot.

[k gledhill]

the low shots are simply to develop low elbow striking, in fighting we dont aim for the low shot. All the drills are giving us good fighting habits of VT.

the low tan, low fok, etc...of SLT , all to develop the elbows to stay in a pendulum action rather than a lifting hinge action.

its only chasing hands if you use your hands to chase off line....learning to use forearms as the alternate striking can change how you fight.

[YungChun]

Same BS arguments from all levels, the no chisao folks, the chisao is unrealistic but integral folks, the chisao is critical folks, centerline folks, etc...

I agree with Kevin in general.. Reaching (hand chasing) is about leaving the line, wasted movement and motion.. sticking to a hand when you could have buried your fist in their face.. Reaching past your effective range distance-wise (body power) is also reaching..

Wasted motion equals wasted time, which means wasted opportunity and more opportunity for the opponent.

"It doesn't look like how you really fight" Is so telling because people don't all fight the same it's a cultural thing.. This shows how we all create our own reality, how we also limit ourselves.. Chun did not come to be among western boxers... The founders IMO would have said simply use it as you can given the conditions and your abilities and continue to explore. The conditions that exist today, here, are not the same as they were then (when and where chun was founded) and chun will not look the same or use the same % of this or that given these changes.

Chun is not western boxing... A Chun sidekick (and other kicks) can't be used in a phone booth--most fights don't start in a phone booth.. There isn't a 'wrong way' to win a fight using chun tools and actions.

Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.

There are many tools and actions in chun.. The fact that we don't see X,Y or Z has more to do with who we fight, how we train and our own belief systems than anything else.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.


That's what kills me. People are on him about posting videos. To be honest, I would like for him to post just a few reasonable anecdotes about how to use WC effectively.

Although, I think that he is starting to realize that that is understanding of WC is a convoluted mess. His opinions are slowly evolving.

[t_niehoff]

Same BS arguments from all levels, the no chisao folks, the chisao is unrealistic but integral folks, the chisao is critical folks, centerline folks, etc...


I think the forms and drills, like chi sao, are unrealistic AND don't develop fighting skills. But, they do provide us with a textbook/reference of the movement/skills that our ancestors called WCK.



I agree with Kevin in general.. Reaching (hand chasing) is about leaving the line, wasted movement and motion.. sticking to a hand when you could have buried your fist in their face.. Reaching past your effective range distance-wise (body power) is also reaching..

Wasted motion equals wasted time, which means wasted opportunity and more opportunity for the opponent.


This is oversimplisitic.

To strike ONLY because you can strike (there is an opening so I must take it -- your "it is a mistake to stick when you can hit) is stupid, and that will easily be exploited by a good fighter (who can then easily bait you, can easily read you, etc.). Not only that, but it can leave you exposed to trading punches (yes, you can hit him but he can also hit you).

What I want to do is to hit my opponent only when he can't hit me, to keep his offense closed down while I hit him. That means to control him as I hit him. And to use that control to create opportunities to hit him while he is closed down.

What you and Kevin don't seem to appreciate is that the closing down of the opponent is MORE important than the striking as it is what sets up the striking and keeps you safe. That is lien siu die da: linking our defense (closing him down) to bring in hitting.



"It doesn't look like how you really fight" Is so telling because people don't all fight the same it's a cultural thing.. This shows how we all create our own reality, how we also limit ourselves.. Chun did not come to be among western boxers... The founders IMO would have said simply use it as you can given the conditions and your abilities and continue to explore. The conditions that exist today, here, are not the same as they were then (when and where chun was founded) and chun will not look the same or use the same % of this or that given these changes.


Yes, people do all fight the same way -- just like they all run the same way. It's natural.

If you train to move in a way you don't fight, then you are training to fail. You are practicing X to do Y.



Chun is not western boxing... A Chun sidekick (and other kicks) can't be used in a phone booth--most fights don't start in a phone booth..


Actually, many fights DO start very close. But just fights don't necessarily start on the ground doesn't mean that you can't take it there. And just as fights may not start in a phone booth doesn't mean you can't take it there.

A WCK sidekick does work in a phone booth, and in fact, that's how we learn and practice it (in the chum kiu form, in chi sao, in the dummy). WCK kicks are "meant" to be used while in contact.



There isn't a 'wrong way' to win a fight using chun tools and actions.


I agree. If -- IF -- you can use WCK movement/actions consistently and successfully, then no one can say that you are doing it wrong. Unfortunately, many people are not using WCK movement/actions but calling it WCK.



Terence maintains that no one applies chun correctly in fighting (except him).. Yet over the years I have yet to see one (1) single example of what he terms correct expression.. And as I said before if you can't show even one example (really there should be many) of actual chun being expressed "correctly" with clear examples (no squinting required) of chun tools and actions then this "correct" expression exists only in the mind of the person making the assertion.


Whether I can do it or not is immaterial. What is WCK movement, what is the WCK method (the faat mun), etc. is easily established and does not depend on me or my skill.

The test is very simple: can you consistently and successfully do in fighting (100%) what you train to do (use WCK movement) as you train to do it?




There are many tools and actions in chun.. The fact that we don't see X,Y or Z has more to do with who we fight, how we train and our own belief systems than anything else.

You make excuses for why you never see in fighting what you train to do. Yes, it is about "how we train." If you train to do X but can't make it work in fighting, and so do Y which is not what you train to do, this is very poor training (you are wasting your time practicing X).

Let me give you an example. Many WCK "instructors" teach using tan da, guan da, pak da, biu da, etc. with various footwork -- the so-called simultaneous blocks and punches -- on the outside. Right? Yet, it doesn't work (or, more accurately, is extremely low-percentage, high risk). In fighting, you can only pull that sort of thing off very rarely on the outside and only in certain situations (like against a very slow, telegraphed punch). So, why teach people to do that? Why practice doing that? Why train to fail? Why not instead train to use WCK movement that you can do on the outside, that you can consistently do, that works under high pressure, and is low-risk?

Next question -- why do people teach that crap? It doesn't work, so why do they teach it? Yes, it is WCK movement but it doesn't work IN THAT CONTEXT. So why teach it in that context? And not teach it in the context in which it does work?

The answer is -- because they don't know better, and they routinely teach nonsense (teach people to fail). And that gets passed on as WCK dogma. It's never questioned, never examined, but cited mindlessly by WCK sheeple (I will not chase hands, I will not chase hands, I will not . . . ).

Then when someone like me points this out, all the dogma followers get their noses out of joint. Then when I point out that you never see anyone making this work, they want me to show them what to do -- what really does work -- on the outside. "You say blocking and striking won't work but you won't show us what does work." Right. I won't.

Because: You have to do THE WORK yourself. You want the answers but don't want to do the work. It doesn't work that way. If you do the work, you'll see. If you don't, you never will.

[Knifefighter]

I think the forms and drills, like chi sao, are unrealistic AND don't develop fighting skills.

If anything, chi sao interferes with the ability to develop fighting skills. People who fight well after having done chi sao training fight well despite the training not because of it.

[t_niehoff]

If anything, chi sao interferes with the ability to develop fighting skills. People who fight well after having done chi sao training fight well despite the training not because of it.

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

[Knifefighter]

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

And sumbrada is almost as bad for teaching beginners to learn unrealistic skills that then have to be unlearned.

[k gledhill]

IMO chi sao is FOR BEGINNERS to learn and practice the movements/actions of WCK (contact actions) in a non-threatening, unrealistic manner. While I don't think you need to learn them that way, and that the sport-model of training is loads better (and what you must do to develop significant skill), I think it's fine AS LONG as you recognize it for what it is.

It's like sumbrada.

It's first grade stuff. But when you never leave the first grade . . .

or leave school like you and make up cr ap

chi-sao is directly involved with developing punching attacks with inbuilt defense angles. The problem , imo, is that many guys teaching are copying the 'external' side of the system. Meaning they dont see the energy of a jum sao elbow in doing chi-sao. They see a wrsits turning to a wu sao etc...so everyone uses a wu sao/jut sao to do dan chi-sao...and from that point on all is a mess...
Leading to sticking hands useless cr ap for fighting. Leadig to fighting like the drills with 2 hands in constant controlling strike/grab exchanges with over trapping being done, leading to chasing hands when making a entry attack, rather than striking with trained punches. And not egg beater from hell either :D

the drills simply offer a place to train the required co-ordination of the arms , the timing with distance etc...balance , moving the axis line as it shifts turns , creating force with hips and elbows unified in a facing tactical execution of the opponent.

You wont get this from sticky wrist feeling clinching ideas....ever ! simply because your training yourself to CREATE levers as they seek out a place to rest their 'sticky' feely energy all the way out at the wrists.
If you learn to fight the lever using the centerline as the reference point you begin to understand why people of small size can fight larger opponents...they are fighting levers and axis lines in motion, creating distances by staying with the opponents in a constant distance that allows us to work the scientific ideas...one finger can move the earth if the lever is long enough...

Further to that if the OPPONENT is chasing OUR hands to seek a place to rest their controlling energy WE can simply remove our arms from their intended path and strike into the space they make by letting them simply move and we fight in an opportunistic manner, no pre programmed actions .

the elbow creates a strong point to fight from because its controlled by the shoulder muscle girdle [lats/pecs] attached to you structure , trained in chi-sao etc..you also remove the urge to use the wrists to deflect or place your force on anothers bridge with, when they will simply deflect the lever with sharp displacing force..ie pak/jut/ bong .....we on the other hand fight the natural 'untrained' idea of using levers and wrists force...we fight beginners, every guy on the street is a virtual beginner. Why a skilled fighter wont deliver levers , boxers dont deliver levers, and we cant chase their arms seeking to make levers...SOOOooo we attack at the right timing and tactical idea along a centerline with strategic intent and only fight what stops us punching the guys head in.

You can train 30 + years and never see this way of using the drills....leaving you with a childs view of a seriously effective way of destroying an opponent in a few seconds.

Guys try to make a $ off us and we train with them thinking they know their stuff, only to find out they dont, so we blame the system , like some guys here.

[kung fu fighter]

There isn't a "WCK-take".
Sure there is, reaching in wck is basically when one sacrifices his own posture/alignment and body structure by leaning to make contact with something that is out of range/bountry of that specific technique instead of using his footwork and body unity.

[t_niehoff]

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1032026]There isn't a "WCK-take". [QUOTE]

sure there is, reaching in wck is basically when one sacrifices his own posture/alignment and body structure to make contact with something that is out of range for that specific technique instead of using his footwork and body unity.

This is what I described as offensive reaching in boxing.

What people do is take things -- movement, terms, etc. -- from other arts and incorporate them into their WCK, and then insist it is WCK, has always been WCK, etc. Sorry, but that just isn't how it works. "Reaching" is a term for a (kick)boxing mistake.

The mistake you describe above in WCK terms would be not hitting (making contact) with structure -- which, btw, you can do even when in range.

FWIW, most WCK that I see makes this elementary mistake routinely.

[kung fu fighter]

This is what I described as offensive reaching in boxing.

What people do is take things -- movement, terms, etc. -- from other arts and incorporate them into their WCK, and then insist it is WCK, has always been WCK, etc. Sorry, but that just isn't how it works. "Reaching" is a term for a (kick)boxing mistake.

The mistake you describe above in WCK terms would be not hitting (making contact) with structure -- which, btw, you can do even when in range.

FWIW, most WCK that I see makes this elementary mistake routinely.

Hey T,
Overextending in WCK does not always necessarily mean striking at long range, it can also mean trying to over power the opponent at close range by using incorrect body mechanics/usage and muscle instead of structure to deal with the opponent.

[t_niehoff]

Hey T,
Overextending in WCK does not always necessarily mean striking at long range, it can also mean trying to over power the opponent at close range by using incorrect body mechanics/usage and muscle instead of structure to deal with the opponent.

So now it is overextending instead of "reaching"?

I didn't use either term.

[SAAMAG]

What do you guys tell your students to help them to understand what reaching is.

"Reaching" will mean difference things to different people...though most will agree that in the context of fighting it denotes an over-extension on striking--common in young strikers.

Within the WC context, I would look at it as that, as well as with the phenomena of folks chasing the hands. Reaching for a grab would be more prevalent I think in WC then an overextension of a punch, at least in my experience.

I tell them to keep things tight, no matter whether it's boxing, muay thai, or wing chun. Your body is what you're trying to protect, and your body is what generates the power. If you're not close enough to hit with normal extension, use your feet to get closer.

[YungChun]

To strike ONLY because you can strike (there is an opening so I must take it -- your "it is a mistake to stick when you can hit) is stupid, and that will easily be exploited by a good fighter (who can then easily bait you, can easily read you, etc.). Not only that, but it can leave you exposed to trading punches (yes, you can hit him but he can also hit you).


Bull$hit..

From in contact, he leaves the line I must take the line and then land on him..



What you and Kevin don't seem to appreciate is that the closing down of the opponent is MORE important than the striking as it is what sets up the striking and keeps you safe. That is lien siu die da: linking our defense (closing him down) to bring in hitting.

What you don't appreciate is anything outside your little black and white box..



Yes, people do all fight the same way -- just like they all run the same way. It's natural.


You're delusional.. The example is not running it's something more like dancing.. You say people all fight the same way yet you criticize people for fighting the wrong way... That alone is enough to show your likely a schizophrenic.. There are many different ways to fight and if you ever fought someone doing another Southern Chinese style then you'd see how Chun adapts to that verses say WB..

Everything you say is a load of BS because there is no example you can site, you tell everyone from every lineage they are doing it wrong and you can't stand up, didn't stand up, didn't man up and show the right way after insulting and crapping all over those who did.. You're a cowardly little douche.